Galatians is not the place to go to if you want to get a full-orbed understanding of Paul's view of the Law of Moses. It is, I think, an angular book, with lots of sharp edges. Any attempt to fit it into a systematic framework seems to fail - I have taught through it five or six times now, and every time I think I have it sorted I notice another corner poking out through a tear in my systematic theology. Over time, I've decided I'm okay with it. The purpose of Galatians is not, I think, to teach systematically about the relationship between Law and Gospel, but to burst through all our thinking and disrupt it - just as the Gospel itself bursts through all our human activity and disrupts it.
I think Galatians is primarily about cutting through one particular understanding of the relationship between human and divine activity. The link that the Apostle wants to sever is the one leading from human action to righteousness in the sight of God - where that righteousness is understood to include not only legal justification, but also the right relationship with God and with his covenant community that such justification entails. In Paul's world, the most obvious and most aggressively supported form of this link from human action to righteousness is the Law of Moses. The Gentile Galatians are being urged to accept it. Paul, I think, advances two arguments to explain why Gentile Christians should not adopt the Law of Moses:
1. An argument about the function the Law always served. The issue in Galatia seems to be that the Christians are being tempted to believe that they must pursue the Law of Moses in order to be righteous. This expresses itself in table fellowship - incidentally showing how corporate and communal the concept of righteousness in the NT, against our individualistic understanding. Elsewhere, Paul makes it clear that observance or non-observance of the Law of Moses is irrelevant - he is indifferent as to whether you observe or not. Only you must not make the Law a matter of righteousness, because to do so is to confuse the Law with the Gospel. Righteousness comes by faith in Christ - Christ as promised, for those who lived before his advent; Christ as present for those of us who live after his incarnation. The Law never was meant to bring this righteousness.
2. An eschatological argument. To adopt the Law now is particularly perverse, because the Law of Moses had a time-limited role. It was about keeping Israel looking forward to the Messiah, to bind them closely to the promise. Paul's argument here is complex, and there are parts which I think no-one understands, but the basic point is simple - the role of the Law was to keep the heir looking forward to the inheritance, which is now given in Christ. The Law is therefore passe. It will not do, incidentally, to try to find some part of the Law which is not subject to this argument - either by dividing it into ceremonial, civil, and moral or by any other means. The Law is in the past; Christ is the present and the future.
All well and good, and this seems to suit the Lutheran positioning of the Law very well - the Law comes first and prepares the way for the Gospel. Except for two things. The first is Paul's insistence that the Gospel came first in time. This is clearly very significant for Paul's argument, because it shows that the Gospel was always the point of the Law - the former did not replace the latter, because it came before it and always underpinned it. (One is reminded of John the Baptist - he is before me (in rank) because he was before me (in time) - Paul's argument is formally similar).
The other thing is that when it comes to positive instruction about the shape of the Christian life, Paul is happy to quote the Law of Moses. Is he saying that Christians are, in fact, bound to keep the law of Moses? Absolutely not. But he is pointing to the fact that the Christian life is not one of shapeless freedom. It is one of fulfilling the Law of Christ.
I submit, then - with the reservations that must follow from my first paragraph - that Galatians breaks the link that moves from human activity (according to the Law) to righteousness in order to forge a link that moves from righteousness to human activity (according to the Law, although not that of Moses). And this, I contend, is the pattern of all Scripture.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Under the law of Christ
When Paul describes his evangelistic strategy in 1 Corinthians 9, one of the things he is keen to point out is his flexibility with regard to the Jewish Law. He is content to keep it, if doing so will win a wider audience for the gospel; and he is content to ignore it, if that is the best way to get a hearing for the good news. However, he is very clear that he is essentially free from the Law of Moses - "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the Law I became as one under the Law (though not being myself under the Law) that I might win those under the Law". I take it that the second sentence is just an amplification and explanation of the first - to win Jews, who are or at least regard themselves as being under the Law, Paul, who is not under that Law, acts as if he were under it.
This is remarkable enough in itself, given the faultless legal obedience of which the apostle feels able to speak elsewhere. It shows how completely Paul's outlook has changed with his conversion.
But to understand the direction in which it has changed, we need to read on. "To those outside the Law, I became as one outside the Law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)..." Paul has not become lawless in his conversion. Rather, he has moved from the domain of the Law of Moses into the domain of the Law of Christ. The latter is, of course, different in many ways - it is not codified but based on the gospel, it is not a burden but based on the completed work of Christ - but still, it absolutely claims Paul. In fact, his very chameleon like quality as an evangelist is an outworking of that Law of Christ - he must serve as Christ served, and he must take the gospel out to all because that is simply the logic of the good news.
This is remarkable enough in itself, given the faultless legal obedience of which the apostle feels able to speak elsewhere. It shows how completely Paul's outlook has changed with his conversion.
But to understand the direction in which it has changed, we need to read on. "To those outside the Law, I became as one outside the Law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)..." Paul has not become lawless in his conversion. Rather, he has moved from the domain of the Law of Moses into the domain of the Law of Christ. The latter is, of course, different in many ways - it is not codified but based on the gospel, it is not a burden but based on the completed work of Christ - but still, it absolutely claims Paul. In fact, his very chameleon like quality as an evangelist is an outworking of that Law of Christ - he must serve as Christ served, and he must take the gospel out to all because that is simply the logic of the good news.
Friday, July 08, 2011
Law in Deuteronomy
Not long after I was baptised, my Pastor at the time advised me to get stuck in to the book of Deuteronomy, on the grounds that this book is the key to the OT. Great advice. Since then I've spent a lot of time in this foundational charter of the life of Israel. This covenant document explains the history of Israel and underpins the prophetic critiques and warnings of Israel's national life. So what does Deuteronomy have to say about the Law?
1. The relationship between Yahweh and Israel is not fundamentally based on Law. The historical preamble to the covenant (chapters 1 to 3) makes it clear that if this were the case Israel would be doomed - it is a sorry history of rebellion, focussed on the idolatry committed at the very foot of Horeb. That Israel's entry into covenant with Yahweh is in fact based on a unilateral elective action of God is made clear in, for example, Deut 7:6-11 and Deut 9:4-12. This is good news for Israel, because it extends hope for restoration after the prophesied exile which will follow their neglect of the Law - Deut 30:1-10.
2. The Law which is given to Israel is good for them. In Deut 8:1-10, for example, a description of the blessing which Yahweh has showered on Israel in the wilderness, and which he will multiply to them in the land, is intermingled with the a description of the Law. The Law will be the foundation of Israel's reputation for greatness and wisdom amongst the nations - Deut 4:6-8. Moreover, the keeping of the Law is repeatedly associated with rejoicing, for example the giving of the tithe.
3. Israel can keep the Law. When Moses says 'What does Yahweh require of you..?' and proceeds to list a series of things including keeping all the statutes and commandments of the Law (Deut 10:12-13), it is clear from the context that we are meant to think that this is only the minimum which ought to follow from the goodness of God which has been recounted in previous chapters. By the time we get to chapter 30, Moses is able to say "this commandment is not too hard for you". Nothing too difficult has been asked of Israel. They can keep this Law, and moreover it makes no sense for them not to do so - it flows logically from the grace they have been shown in the past, and carries with it promises of future blessing.
4. Israel will not keep the Law. Moses' last recorded words are a blessing on the tribes of Israel; but before this he has seen into their future, and given them a song which predicts their future apostasy. Indeed, Moses knows that after his death Israel "will do what is evil in the sight of Yahweh" (Deut 31:24-29). Why? Not because the Law is too hard for them, but because their hearts are not right - they have not yet been given a heart to obey (Deut 29:4). This is a promise for the future (Deut 30:6), after the exile. A time is envisaged when Israel will be changed and will keep the Law.
As well as helping us to understand the OT, isn't this important for our understanding of the NT?
1. The relationship between Yahweh and Israel is not fundamentally based on Law. The historical preamble to the covenant (chapters 1 to 3) makes it clear that if this were the case Israel would be doomed - it is a sorry history of rebellion, focussed on the idolatry committed at the very foot of Horeb. That Israel's entry into covenant with Yahweh is in fact based on a unilateral elective action of God is made clear in, for example, Deut 7:6-11 and Deut 9:4-12. This is good news for Israel, because it extends hope for restoration after the prophesied exile which will follow their neglect of the Law - Deut 30:1-10.
2. The Law which is given to Israel is good for them. In Deut 8:1-10, for example, a description of the blessing which Yahweh has showered on Israel in the wilderness, and which he will multiply to them in the land, is intermingled with the a description of the Law. The Law will be the foundation of Israel's reputation for greatness and wisdom amongst the nations - Deut 4:6-8. Moreover, the keeping of the Law is repeatedly associated with rejoicing, for example the giving of the tithe.
3. Israel can keep the Law. When Moses says 'What does Yahweh require of you..?' and proceeds to list a series of things including keeping all the statutes and commandments of the Law (Deut 10:12-13), it is clear from the context that we are meant to think that this is only the minimum which ought to follow from the goodness of God which has been recounted in previous chapters. By the time we get to chapter 30, Moses is able to say "this commandment is not too hard for you". Nothing too difficult has been asked of Israel. They can keep this Law, and moreover it makes no sense for them not to do so - it flows logically from the grace they have been shown in the past, and carries with it promises of future blessing.
4. Israel will not keep the Law. Moses' last recorded words are a blessing on the tribes of Israel; but before this he has seen into their future, and given them a song which predicts their future apostasy. Indeed, Moses knows that after his death Israel "will do what is evil in the sight of Yahweh" (Deut 31:24-29). Why? Not because the Law is too hard for them, but because their hearts are not right - they have not yet been given a heart to obey (Deut 29:4). This is a promise for the future (Deut 30:6), after the exile. A time is envisaged when Israel will be changed and will keep the Law.
As well as helping us to understand the OT, isn't this important for our understanding of the NT?
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Gospel, Law and the structure of Biblical narrative
I think we sometimes (often?) get the relationship between the Biblical narrative and our systematic theology quite badly wrong. I suspect that our forebears were even worse at it than us. We often assume that systematic theology must embody 'timeless truth'; narrative by definition is not timeless. We also often assume that systematic theology takes priority over Biblical narrative; that means that we read the latter through the former more often than not. I think something like this is going on when people say that the Law takes priority over the Gospel - whether they mean that temporally, logically, or evangelistically.
I would argue that close attention to the Biblical storyline indicates that Gospel always comes first.
Let's take as our main exhibit the foundational narrative of the OT, the Exodus from Egypt and the journey to Canaan. It seems pretty clear from the narrative that there is no Law involved in the initial Exodus. The people cry to Yahweh, who hears and rescues. There is no record that they have to do anything to secure their rescue. As they head out of Egypt (and my mind goes to the rather dramatic scene in The Ten Commandments) all they can do is rejoice that God has delivered them. However, it is equally clear that their rescue was not without a purpose. Israel was being delivered from slavery in Egypt in order to serve Yahweh (thus Exodus 3:12, 7:16 etc). So Sinai is the logical destination, the place to go after the Exodus. Once you get there, of course you get the Law - Israel was not being set free in order to wander aimlessly, but in order to receive a new and infinitely better Master.
The point is, structure-wise, it is Gospel, then Law.
That basic structure is repeated throughout Scripture. I think the first example is creation itself, which is certainly presented as a Gospel, and certainly has a Law which follows it. And I am sure it is significant that when you step out of the realm of narrative, into, for example, the Pauline epistles, you so regularly have a structure of Gospel first, followed by instruction. (I will argue at some point that Biblically this instruction is Law - but not in this post). Not only is this clear structurally, but it makes sense of the relationship between Gospel and Law which is described in the OT - but more on this at a later date.
If at this point you're thinking either 'I'm not sure you can make this sort of doctrinal point from the shape of narrative' or 'but in the grand scheme of things, doesn't the Law of Moses come before the Gospel of Christ in the Bible?' - let me just point you to Paul's argument in Romans 4:9-12 and Galatians 3:15-18. Paul makes a great deal of the order of events, and argues explicitly that the Gospel was preached to Abraham centuries before the Law of Moses was promulgated.
The storyline of the Bible is Gospel first, then Law. What impact should that have on our doctrine?
I would argue that close attention to the Biblical storyline indicates that Gospel always comes first.
Let's take as our main exhibit the foundational narrative of the OT, the Exodus from Egypt and the journey to Canaan. It seems pretty clear from the narrative that there is no Law involved in the initial Exodus. The people cry to Yahweh, who hears and rescues. There is no record that they have to do anything to secure their rescue. As they head out of Egypt (and my mind goes to the rather dramatic scene in The Ten Commandments) all they can do is rejoice that God has delivered them. However, it is equally clear that their rescue was not without a purpose. Israel was being delivered from slavery in Egypt in order to serve Yahweh (thus Exodus 3:12, 7:16 etc). So Sinai is the logical destination, the place to go after the Exodus. Once you get there, of course you get the Law - Israel was not being set free in order to wander aimlessly, but in order to receive a new and infinitely better Master.
The point is, structure-wise, it is Gospel, then Law.
That basic structure is repeated throughout Scripture. I think the first example is creation itself, which is certainly presented as a Gospel, and certainly has a Law which follows it. And I am sure it is significant that when you step out of the realm of narrative, into, for example, the Pauline epistles, you so regularly have a structure of Gospel first, followed by instruction. (I will argue at some point that Biblically this instruction is Law - but not in this post). Not only is this clear structurally, but it makes sense of the relationship between Gospel and Law which is described in the OT - but more on this at a later date.
If at this point you're thinking either 'I'm not sure you can make this sort of doctrinal point from the shape of narrative' or 'but in the grand scheme of things, doesn't the Law of Moses come before the Gospel of Christ in the Bible?' - let me just point you to Paul's argument in Romans 4:9-12 and Galatians 3:15-18. Paul makes a great deal of the order of events, and argues explicitly that the Gospel was preached to Abraham centuries before the Law of Moses was promulgated.
The storyline of the Bible is Gospel first, then Law. What impact should that have on our doctrine?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Gospel and Law
In response to a few comments on an earlier post, I've been seeking to clarify my own thinking on the subject of the relationship between the law and the gospel - a subject which has seen much ink spilt over the years, and which sits on one of the major faultlines of historic Protestantism (the divide between Lutherans and the Reformed). As I've thought about it, I've found that I have surprisingly strong opinions on the subject, which I think can be summarised under four headings:
1. Gospel always comes logically before Law.
2. The essence of Law is God's claim of a human being for his service.
3. The NT uses 'Law' equivocally, that is, to describe different though related things.
4. Law understood properly is Gospel.
I intend to write a little about each of those things over the next few days (or weeks, depending on how busy I am). Let me just say something here about why it matters.
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our view of Christian obedience. What does it mean to live the Christian life? This is true not only in the small points (how does the detail of the Law of Moses apply to us today?) but in the big points (what does obedience look like? To what extent are God's demands codified and objective - and to what extent individual and subjective? What is to be my motivation?).
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our view of evangelism. Does the Law, by laying out God's standard and highlighting our imperfection, prepare the way for the Gospel? Should we therefore preach Law in our evangelism? When we offer the Gospel, how freely can we offer it? Does it entail the Law following on, and must we tell people so in advance?
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our reading of the OT. What is the OT about? Is it primarily a record of a legal covenant, pointing forward to the Gospel? Or is there more to it? How should we expound and apply it, in detail and in the big picture? To what extent does the OT/NT distinction mirror the Law/Gospel distinction?
Finally, and to my mind most importantly, our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects the way in which we understand the heart of theology. There is a central question: has God revealed himself in one way, or two ways? If the latter, which is the real God? If the former, how are we to understand the distinctions within that one revelation? What, ultimately, is the relation of the concepts 'Gospel' and 'Law' to the person Jesus Christ?
Meandering thoughts on all the above to follow shortly...
1. Gospel always comes logically before Law.
2. The essence of Law is God's claim of a human being for his service.
3. The NT uses 'Law' equivocally, that is, to describe different though related things.
4. Law understood properly is Gospel.
I intend to write a little about each of those things over the next few days (or weeks, depending on how busy I am). Let me just say something here about why it matters.
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our view of Christian obedience. What does it mean to live the Christian life? This is true not only in the small points (how does the detail of the Law of Moses apply to us today?) but in the big points (what does obedience look like? To what extent are God's demands codified and objective - and to what extent individual and subjective? What is to be my motivation?).
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our view of evangelism. Does the Law, by laying out God's standard and highlighting our imperfection, prepare the way for the Gospel? Should we therefore preach Law in our evangelism? When we offer the Gospel, how freely can we offer it? Does it entail the Law following on, and must we tell people so in advance?
Our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects our reading of the OT. What is the OT about? Is it primarily a record of a legal covenant, pointing forward to the Gospel? Or is there more to it? How should we expound and apply it, in detail and in the big picture? To what extent does the OT/NT distinction mirror the Law/Gospel distinction?
Finally, and to my mind most importantly, our view of the relation between Gospel and Law affects the way in which we understand the heart of theology. There is a central question: has God revealed himself in one way, or two ways? If the latter, which is the real God? If the former, how are we to understand the distinctions within that one revelation? What, ultimately, is the relation of the concepts 'Gospel' and 'Law' to the person Jesus Christ?
Meandering thoughts on all the above to follow shortly...
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Not left as orphans
Sometimes my mind wanders, and I start to wonder exactly what it must have been like on the Saturday after Jesus was crucified. Some pretty weird stuff had accompanied his death. I imagine many people in the vicinity of Jerusalem were a bit shaken up. But for Jesus' disciples, there must have been devastating sadness: their Master has been taken away (as had been predicted of him, if only they could have seen it). No wonder that when Jesus appeared on the Sunday they disbelieved for joy. But again, this is only what he had told them. His resurrection showed that he had gone victoriously through death and had returned to proclaim his triumph - first of all to the disciples, but through them to the whole world.
Jesus came back to us.
I also sometimes wonder what it must have been like after Jesus ascended into heaven. I wonder whether some of the disciples weren't tempted to question whether perhaps everything would just go back to being the way it was. Perhaps the death and resurrection of Jesus were important events, but not world changing events. Maybe they had some sort of deep significance, but they were ultimately one off things that could not be expected to have an effect on the whole of their own lives, let alone the lives of people who were geographically and historically distant. Then Pentecost came. The Spirit was poured out. The resurrection of Jesus was not a distant event; it was here, now, changing everything. We are still essentially in that situation - in need of the Spirit to come to us, to make it all not only true but real. And as we wait, he comes, and we rise up.
Jesus comes back to us.
And of course, the story is running on towards it conclusion. There is a slow train coming, up and round the bend. Even as the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us now, we feel all the more acutely his absence. As we gather in his name to worship, we see more clearly all the opposing names that are still raised against him. As we rejoice in what he has done to liberate us, we experience more deeply the grief of the ongoing slavery in the world. As we are thankful for our salvation, we acknowledge again and again our ongoing sin. But we know that it will come to an end.
Jesus will come back to us.
Jesus came back to us.
I also sometimes wonder what it must have been like after Jesus ascended into heaven. I wonder whether some of the disciples weren't tempted to question whether perhaps everything would just go back to being the way it was. Perhaps the death and resurrection of Jesus were important events, but not world changing events. Maybe they had some sort of deep significance, but they were ultimately one off things that could not be expected to have an effect on the whole of their own lives, let alone the lives of people who were geographically and historically distant. Then Pentecost came. The Spirit was poured out. The resurrection of Jesus was not a distant event; it was here, now, changing everything. We are still essentially in that situation - in need of the Spirit to come to us, to make it all not only true but real. And as we wait, he comes, and we rise up.
Jesus comes back to us.
And of course, the story is running on towards it conclusion. There is a slow train coming, up and round the bend. Even as the Holy Spirit makes Jesus present to us now, we feel all the more acutely his absence. As we gather in his name to worship, we see more clearly all the opposing names that are still raised against him. As we rejoice in what he has done to liberate us, we experience more deeply the grief of the ongoing slavery in the world. As we are thankful for our salvation, we acknowledge again and again our ongoing sin. But we know that it will come to an end.
Jesus will come back to us.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Linkage
Just a few snippets from other people's thoughts that I think you ought to see...
Chris has some intriguing analysis of humanism here. He and I are looking at things from very different perspectives in lots of ways, but I think this is spot on. In particular, "there are fantastically hard - but interesting - dialogues that need to be pursued - our relationship to a web of deterministic natural causes, our relationship to the drives of our own bodies, and our relationship to the ecosystem around us, to name but three. Yet, these dialogues occur, or can only be driven forward through tension. Humanism, I would argue, whether it turns us into little gods or capacious animals, erases this tension. It pretends the questions have been answered." Have a read.
Krish Kandiah reviews Wayne Grudem's book Politics According to the Bible. With a title like that it was always going to be controversial. I think Krish goes to the heart of the issue, which is Grudem's hermeneutic. Proof-texting and a naive understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture can get you into all sorts of trouble. Perhaps we only see how much trouble when we move into an immediately and obviously controversial area like politics, where our cultural bias starts to really show through. Krish concludes on one section of the book "there is very little theology here, just a prooftext and some statistics." I wonder how often that could be said of evangelical theological writing.
Oh, and British Universities are a breeding ground for extremism. So watch out.
Chris has some intriguing analysis of humanism here. He and I are looking at things from very different perspectives in lots of ways, but I think this is spot on. In particular, "there are fantastically hard - but interesting - dialogues that need to be pursued - our relationship to a web of deterministic natural causes, our relationship to the drives of our own bodies, and our relationship to the ecosystem around us, to name but three. Yet, these dialogues occur, or can only be driven forward through tension. Humanism, I would argue, whether it turns us into little gods or capacious animals, erases this tension. It pretends the questions have been answered." Have a read.
Krish Kandiah reviews Wayne Grudem's book Politics According to the Bible. With a title like that it was always going to be controversial. I think Krish goes to the heart of the issue, which is Grudem's hermeneutic. Proof-texting and a naive understanding of the perspicuity of Scripture can get you into all sorts of trouble. Perhaps we only see how much trouble when we move into an immediately and obviously controversial area like politics, where our cultural bias starts to really show through. Krish concludes on one section of the book "there is very little theology here, just a prooftext and some statistics." I wonder how often that could be said of evangelical theological writing.
Oh, and British Universities are a breeding ground for extremism. So watch out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)