It's interesting seeing the different ways the New Testament treats the 'law':
In one place, Jesus referred to the 'law', then proceeded to quote from the Psalms. So 'law' can refer to the entire Tenakh, the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures.
In another place, it refers to the Pentateuch, Moses, the first five books. The first five books weren't all commandments - a lot of it was history, even promise (prophecy). So by referring to the 'law', someone could be referring to a promise in Genesis, for example.
Then in another place, the 'law' refers to all of the commandments, statutes and ordinances which God gave to Israel through Moses.
In another place, it's narrowed down even further to just what was written on stone, the Ten Commandments.
Then in another place, it mentions the Gentiles having the 'law' written in their hearts even though they didn't have 'the law'. This wasn't precisely the same as Moses' law in every detail, yet it is referred to as 'the law' nonetheless.
Then in another place it mentions the 'uncircumcision' 'keeping the law'. Hang on a minute - circumcision was required by the 'law' - yet here it describes a people as 'keeping' 'the law' even without them becoming circumcised. So that's a different definition of the 'law' and of what it means to 'keep' the law again.
Then it mentions not being under the 'law', yet not being entirely without 'law', but under 'the law' to Christ.
One place says the 'law' won't pass away 'til it's all fulfilled...
Yet another place mentions a change of the 'law' - an annulment of the 'commandment' - of the 'that which was written on stone' being done away with - even 'abolished' - it describes the covenant as 'old'...
...yet at the same time it still says we don't make the 'law' void, but we uphold it and fulfil it.
It discusses a 'new covenant' - and yet it's still God's 'laws' which the new covenant writes into new hearts.
Sometimes the New Testament even uses the same term in a way which means one thing in one place, but something slightly differently in another.
What does this all mean? How do we unpack all this? Can it all be answered with simple either/or yes/no this/that categories. Or does it require a slightly wider view of the unfolding picture, the whole New Testament considered. How did the Apostles apply what Jesus said? That's an important study-exercise to do.
But here's the thing. For all our differences in how we think the 'law' applies to us today, it all boils down to really only two differences, in the way true believers in Jesus behave: diet, and days. And interestingly, those are two things which the New Testament says are not the essence of the kingdom of God; those are two things about which we can live and let live.
In one place, Jesus referred to the 'law', then proceeded to quote from the Psalms. So 'law' can refer to the entire Tenakh, the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures.
In another place, it refers to the Pentateuch, Moses, the first five books. The first five books weren't all commandments - a lot of it was history, even promise (prophecy). So by referring to the 'law', someone could be referring to a promise in Genesis, for example.
Then in another place, the 'law' refers to all of the commandments, statutes and ordinances which God gave to Israel through Moses.
In another place, it's narrowed down even further to just what was written on stone, the Ten Commandments.
Then in another place, it mentions the Gentiles having the 'law' written in their hearts even though they didn't have 'the law'. This wasn't precisely the same as Moses' law in every detail, yet it is referred to as 'the law' nonetheless.
Then in another place it mentions the 'uncircumcision' 'keeping the law'. Hang on a minute - circumcision was required by the 'law' - yet here it describes a people as 'keeping' 'the law' even without them becoming circumcised. So that's a different definition of the 'law' and of what it means to 'keep' the law again.
Then it mentions not being under the 'law', yet not being entirely without 'law', but under 'the law' to Christ.
One place says the 'law' won't pass away 'til it's all fulfilled...
Yet another place mentions a change of the 'law' - an annulment of the 'commandment' - of the 'that which was written on stone' being done away with - even 'abolished' - it describes the covenant as 'old'...
...yet at the same time it still says we don't make the 'law' void, but we uphold it and fulfil it.
It discusses a 'new covenant' - and yet it's still God's 'laws' which the new covenant writes into new hearts.
Sometimes the New Testament even uses the same term in a way which means one thing in one place, but something slightly differently in another.
What does this all mean? How do we unpack all this? Can it all be answered with simple either/or yes/no this/that categories. Or does it require a slightly wider view of the unfolding picture, the whole New Testament considered. How did the Apostles apply what Jesus said? That's an important study-exercise to do.
But here's the thing. For all our differences in how we think the 'law' applies to us today, it all boils down to really only two differences, in the way true believers in Jesus behave: diet, and days. And interestingly, those are two things which the New Testament says are not the essence of the kingdom of God; those are two things about which we can live and let live.
No comments:
Post a Comment