I'm sure this has been covered many times, but I couldn't find a similar thread with a quick search, so will start another.
What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.
Here are some of the meanings I can think of:
Examples of this:
What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?
Best wishes,
Kevin
What is meant by the term "Law" in the Bible? I propose that like the word "love", it has many different meanings in the mouth of different people, and in different contexts.
Here are some of the meanings I can think of:
- The general, overall law of Moses. This involves everything given by Moses, which encompasses concepts of civil matters, religious/ceremonial matters, and also moral matters.
- The law as an upholding of a contract. I.e. God said that He would have the Jewish people as His special **IF** they obeyed His laws. So a Pharisee in the time of Jesus could point to their paying a tithe of the herbs in their garden, and assert that this (along with all their other points of obedience) was a complete fulfillment of their duty to uphold their part of the contract. All they had to do was meet the letter of the law and they felt they had done their duty.
- The law as a form of instruction. God imparts wisdom about how a successful society will operate, and it people will follow these instructions, they will naturally prosper. Before the Israelites crossed the Jordan, Moses told them how all the other nations would marvel at how wise their laws that God had given them were. Thus it would not be seen as arbitrary, but rather as something that makes sense and all could see the benefit of them.
Examples of this:
- Paul was the apostle sent to the Gentiles. He was following God's direction to gather His sheep from other pastures. But many Jews felt that they needed to follow "the Law", and especially the part of the law regarding circumcision. I feel this was the "contract" interpretation of the law.
- At the counsel in Jerusalem, there was discussion of what rules the Gentiles should be recommended to follow. They set up a very limited set of recommended actions (avoid sexual immorality, the blood of strangled animals and food offered to idols), with an additional mention that all the other elements of the law Moses are continually taught. I interpret this to mean that they were considering the law in its "instruction" aspect. The limited set was a bare minimum of what they felt was needed to keep new converts out of trouble, with the idea that they could learn further concepts over time.
- Paul writes extensively against the law (I feel in its "contract" aspect), but then when a church member marries his father's wife, he rails against the man as acting in a manner that not even the heathen would do. This is a direct application of one command from the Mosaic law (Lev 20:11) against having sex with a father's wife. Most people today understand that it is also a bad practice due to societal issues even aside from religious considerations. Thus Paul is writing this in the "instruction" aspect of the law.
- Paul, after extensively dismissing the "law" and those that felt self-righteous by their rule-keeping, sets out many many rules about how a Christian should live. He essentially gives a new set of rules such that one might even consider all that the Law of Paul. He describes how husbands should treat wives, how wives should behave, how masters should treat slaves etc etc. I'm not exactly sure how to categorize this set of rules. It seems similar to my first bullet point above, as an "overall" rule. And Paul recommended that the man who fell outside it (the one having sex with his mother or step-mother) be "handed over to Satan." Sure sounds Mosaic to me.
- At the death of Jesus, the curtain that separated the Most Holy Place from the Holy Place was miraculously torn by invisible hands. I interpret this to mean that God was doing away with the sacrificial system involving the death of lambs etc, which had always pointed forward to Christ. But a change in the ceremonial aspect of the law wouldn't change the fact that we should, for example, still honor our parents.
- The law is a reflection of God's perfection. As imperfect humans, we can never match up with God's perfect mandates. Therefore Jesus stands in the gap, and the blood of His sacrifice "takes away" our sins in the same way that the sacrificial lamb was sufficient to remove the legal status of "sinfulness" from an errant Israelite. In this framework, sin is a legal debt and Jesus is able to pay off this debt with His blood.
- Or, that any attempt to go back to law keeping is backsliding away from the grace of Jesus. And example of this was when Paul chastised Peter for not eating with the gentiles for reasons related to Jewish law. And if anyone were to speak against eating unclean meat, for example, it would be seen as trying to keep the "contract" aspect of the law, rather than the "instruction" aspect of the law. Mark 7 explicitly states that Jesus declared all foods "clean". So if a piece of meat falls into a sewer, then when retrieved it would still be "clean" in the contractual sense Jesus states. But I think all will agree that it would not be clean in a sanitary or health-wise manner -- and anyone who eats it may still suffer the health consequences with throwing up and diarrhea etc.
- Others seem to make a distinction between written regulations vs Spirit-led actions. The idea here is that any regulation that is written down can be worked around in a manner that obeys the letter of the law but not the original intention. So the argument goes that a Christian will be lead by the Holy Spirit and they don't need regulations. If it seems OK, and they don't have any guidance otherwise from the Spirit, then it must be OK.
- Certain actions in life have bad outcomes. God wants to help us to avoid these pitfalls, and thus gives us instructions to avoid certain behaviors. Failure to follow wise instructions is erroneous (sinful), and consequences have to be dealt with.
- God's ways are infinitely better than our ways, and we will always have something more to learn from Him. Even after the 2nd coming of Christ and the establishment of God's new kingdom on earth, we will still be improving and learning through the life-giving instruction from the Father, the Son, and the Holy spirit.
- Something that is wrong for one person, who has been taught an advanced concept by God, may not yet be wrong for a person just starting out their journey in Christ. Just like a child is not held to the same standards as an adult, so God meets us sinful humans where we are and does His best to guide us in a good direction. And this is the problem with writing down regulations. They can be discouraging to those not yet reached a level of understanding to incorporate them into their life. And they can be restrictive to others. For example, imaging a regulation of "you must exercise 60 minutes every day." Those just starting can't tolerate this level of intensity, and others my wonder why they are limited to just 1 hr. Thus we should constantly seek God's guidance to help us, while still paying attention to what has been written. So I might try to "exercise 60 minutes", but only succeed to 5 minutes. I pray to God for mercy and keep trying, and with time He helps me succeed.
- There is a very fine line between legalism and "cheap grace" that has to be avoided.
What do you all think? Have I missed something? Are some of my thoughts above off base?
Best wishes,
Kevin