Why Preach the Law? Part Four
4. The Law is Good for Us!
So many people regard the Law as a burden. It is not surprising in one sense because the Pharisees used the Law to burden people. This clearly was not the purpose of the Law and indeed contrary to the Law burdening people, it was seen by many who received it as freeing. In Deuteronomy The Law is repeatedly said to be given "for your own good".
Chris Wright points out that the Psalms are filled with ecstatic praise for God's Law:
The Law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the Lord are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
(19:7)
And then of course in Psalm 119 the Psalmist is constantly expressing his love for the Law:
Oh how I love your Law
I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches (14)
I love your commands
more than gold, more than pure gold (127)
You see the Law is here valued even more than winning the lottery!
It is so highly valued because it leads to all truth:
I have chosen the way of truth
I have set my heart on your laws. (30)
Do not snatch the word of truth from my mouth
for I have put my hope in your laws. (43)
and is the source of grace:
be gracious to me through your Law. (29)
From these words we see that the Law is freeing, there is no sense of legalism here, "the Law is for our own good, it was constantly looking for what would benefit people as distinct to what would limit and oppress them."
As Jesus said about the Law regarding the Sabbath. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." (Mark 2:27)
Comments
Well much has been written on this subject and I am not really qualified to add to the discussion. I will say that some of the Law is beautiful (i.e. the snippets you have chosen) and displays just tribal government (and you must remember that the God of the Old Testament was not the omniscient, omnipresent God of today, but a tribal deity – and would have been regarded as such by the Israelites) and the ontological significance in a personal God (though I doubt if any of the quotes you use are addressed to the individual as we understand the word). On other occasions the Law appears at best bizarre (not wearing cloth of wool and linen mix for example) and sometimes just cruel. The notion that The Law needed to be fulfilled to bring about world salvation is a much a later addition to Biblical belief (as was the related notion of resurrection, the idea of a soul which could survive death (a Greek idea) and the notion of dualism – a good and evil divide (there is no Devil or demon possession in the Old Testament – the figure of Satan, found only in Job, where he plays the part of a ‘Counsel for the Prosecution’, is of a very different character to the Satan of the New Testament who appears more related to Zoroastrianism personifications of Evil than anything from ancient Judaism – and the more sensible Biblical scholars and theologians openly admit later Judaism and especially Christianity (and later in Islam) are fusions of many different belief systems evident around the Mediterranean and Middle-East 2,000 years ago)). Hence what to do about The Law?
The fundamental problem of basing one’s faith on Scripture is that if you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, then you have to accept it all. You can’t pick and choose the bits you like and the bits you don’t like – as it is all ‘God’s word’ and therefore of equal value. Of course this doesn’t happen; people DO pick and choose – as you have done in the post, pushing the Mk 7 theme. Theologians spend many hours and reams of paper trying to say what is applicable nowadays and what is not – what is cultural and what is eternal; what is relevant and what is not. Few Christians would have a tussle of conscience about whether they should be circumcised (if they’re men) or eat a bacon butty or whether or not they should place a mezuzah on the front doorframe of their home. Can one reject these things if one is really a BBC (Bible Believing Christian)?
As I’ve said elsewhere religion serves humanity as much as humanity serves religion. An essay I wrote on Islamic reform (which was/is not unlike the Christian reformation of the 16th century and its developments) in my own blog (http://jp-uk.livejournal.com/37792.html#cutid1) illustrates this point very well. How we understand or apply religion, particularly ‘Scriptural’ religion is motivated by contingent social and political needs as much of those of individual piety. The Law does, as you note have some very edifying passages, yet it is also the part of the Bible often used as ammunition in ideological wars. For someone like myself, someone who long ago gave up on literal belief in the Bible, the Bible cannot be seen as anything more than a book with some edifying passages in it (I mean come on, as a Spirit filled Evangelical, can you remember, verbatim, the words of last Sunday’s sermon? Hence are the ‘Spirit filled’ authors of the books of the Bible going to do any better at writing events down that took place months, years, decades and even centuries after the events – the earliest dates for the Gospels give their authorship as at least 30 years AFTER the events they portray!). I can, because of my rejection of a literal belief in the Bible, pick and choose. For the BBC this is not so simple – it is all or nothing. The fact that it is more often a carefully chosen pick and mix suggests something else is going on. As to what that is, well let’s just say it is not just about God – but then religion rarely is!
Jesus knew what the Law was after. And like a savant, or a gifted person that can take a car apart and put it back together again (blindfolded) with no directions (the law), Jesus just moves out into life and does what is right, for the sake of God and humanity (without slavishly having to follow any law)He does not commit sin. His heart is always in the right place.
The law, however, must be followed and perfectly for righteousness sake, for those of us (sinners) whose hearts are not in the right place.
When Jesus re-presents to us (the hearers) in His sermon on the mount, He shows us the true, unmitigated, perfect demand of the law. "If you even look at a woman..." "Your righteousness must EXCEED that of the scribes and Pharisees." "If you hate your brother then you might as well have committed murder."
Jesus leaves us no wiggle room...at all..."Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect." What do you do with that one?
So, as Paul points out, and as Luther rediscovered from reading Paul, the job of the law (theologically) is to kill us off...to the self. To the self righteousness, or religious project.
Jesus wanted (and still wants) the people to not rely on ANY of their performance for ANY of their righteousness. But instead, rely totally on Himself for ALL the righteousness that is demanded by God.
The law is good in that it does show us how to get along with each other and not run afoul of community. (that's the civil use)
But the theological use is definitely to kill us off. And as someone else already mentioned...then the gospel can go to work and raise us again to new life.
That's my 2 cents.
Thanks!
- Steve Martin