6/30
2001
Jesus calls us to be saved by GRACE
.
| as of 6/30 2001 |
|
|
| |
||
|
Comments on Law and Grace by Tom Woody |
Subject: Re: The Law of the Lord is perfect
From: (Thomas W Woody)
Date sent: Mon, 16 Mar 1998Dear Fellow Christian(s), -- Thank you, to one who wrote, for a good defense of your position affirming that Christians should keep the Old Testament laws, particularly the "ten commandments." And thank you for having the right attitude as well; "with all lowliness and meekness, forbearing one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." This is one of the basic lessons we learn from Jesus when we take His yoke upon us and learn of Him. "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
With the same noble spirit, I submit the following comments regarding your letter: On the plus side, you have emphasized why we cannot just dismiss the Old Testament Scriptures but must learn to "handle them aright." You make a very good case for paying more attention to the law than some brethren do.
But this is the very point where I begin to have difficulty with your position. You wrote: "Jesus said, if you love me keep my commandments. What commands are these? Those which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them -- the ten commandments and all that they encompass. Now, I am not saying that keeping the Law saves you."
What was "before ordained that we should walk in them" was "good works." Doesn't your reasoning lead us to the conclusion that Jesus wants us to keep the [entire O.T.] law? If you say he was referring to the ten commandments, why not say he was referring to the whole law? Binding the ten commandments means that we must keep the Sabbath Day. On sabbath-keeping, Paul writes,
Col. 2:13) And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, has he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14) Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15) [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16) Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17) Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.
Because I am buried with Christ and raised with him, I am FREE from the law, not obligated to keep it. Your position places you in opposition to Paul, doesn't it? If I am bound by the law to keep the Sabbath Day, then the Law wasn't really nailed to the cross and I HAVE to judge others in respect of the sabbath, contrary to what Paul just said. Would you bind the shadow on the Body of Christ?
When Jesus told us in the sermon on the mount how the law of Moses would be fulfilled, He wasn't teaching us that we would have to keep the law until the end of time, He was emphasizing that His purpose was in harmony with the Law and that He would fulfill it. Being in Christ means we are in the One Who fulfilled the Law. That is how we are righteous apart from the law. So how does keeping the Law add to that when we are already "complete in Him"? (See Colossians 2).
You are correct about the spiritual side to the law and how God expected His people to have the law in their hearts and learn more than just an outward observance. His explanations of "ye have heard that it hath been said" may refer more to the traditional interpretations of the Law rather than to what the Law actually meant, and Jesus clarified what God had always expected of us. But it is not keeping the Law that will save us today, it is through faith in Christ that we will be equipped to find grace in His sight and not hate our brother or lust after women or be dishonest or get revenge on our enemies (the subjects He dealt with in Matthew 5). I believe what he had in mind when he talked about breaking and teaching the law was the righteous requirements God has for His people.
Fulfilling the Law and nailing it to His cross doesn't mean that we can now establish our own morality and keep being weak and sinful and everything will just be fine. No, we must have a righteousness that exceeds that of the Pharisees (or that of the rich young ruler who said he "kept all these from his youth"). That righteousness is living in Christ and Christ living in us. Having Christ in us means we will live in harmony with much of what the Law expected morally, but it is not because we "keep the law."
Romans 13 describes us as living up to many of the ten commandments because we keep the more fundamental commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself" -- which was not one of the ten commandments, though it was the foundation upon which Moses' law was built.
Paul said in Romans 7 that our relationship to God is like marriage. 4) Wherefore, my brethren, you also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. We were married to the law in respect to its righteous and holy requirements. We could not divorce and remarry without committing adultery. So the solution was that we had to die (the law didn't, in this analogy) so we could be remarried to Christ. We serve in the newness of the spirit, not in the oldness of the letter -- (Paul's description). Do you expect us to have two husbands? Is one husband not enough?
We read in Acts 15 about the circumcision and the great stir they caused when they began teaching that brethren needed to be circumcised to be saved. Is it your belief that we need to keep the law of Moses, or any part of it, to be saved? Do we need to be circumcised to be saved? Do you think they make us "better" Christians if we keep the Mosaic commandments?
The decision of the brethren in Acts 15:9-21 was, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood. 2)1 For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
This "yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear," as Peter called it in verse 10, was not to be bound upon the disciples with the exception of the things mentioned in verse 20. I believe this would have been the time to clear up the question of what is binding on us and they could have bound the "dietary laws" upon the Gentiles.
It would have been a good time to do the opposite of what they did - bind circumcision on Gentiles - since it is a good practice in and of itself. Or at least bind it on newborn babies from that point forward. But what really happened was that they didn't bind the law or talk about how it was better if you kept the law.
We once had an activity at a church meeting where we divided into three groups and had a debate based on Acts 15. One group represented the apostles and elders (the correct position on circumcision) another group judged the debate, and the third group (led by me) represented the circumcision. Guess who won our debate? WE DID!!! We had so many arguments on our side like, "we have always done it this way" "it is safe to keep the law" and we had a mother and daughter who got emotional and cried at the thought of no longer needing to keep the law. And what did the Apostles have? Just the simple "boring" truth and no one could get too excited about their position.
There is indeed a great appeal to the flesh to "keep the law" (even when we admit we cannot do it perfectly), but it frustrates the grace of God, for if righteousness comes by the law, then Christ died in vain.
Galatians 2:16) "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, [is] therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." [Are you building again that which has been done away with?] 19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [came/comes] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
Paul continues -- 3:3) Are you so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are you now made perfect by the flesh? [Does keeping the law make us perfect? Keeping the law is different from being filled with the Spirit and having Christ in us. The former is our effort while the latter is God working in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure.]
5) He therefore that ministers to you the Spirit, and works miracles among you, [does he it] by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? [This verse makes the works of the law irrelevant and highlights the "hearing of faith."]
10) For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one who continues not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. 11) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12) And the law is not of faith: but, The man that does them shall live in them. 13) Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangs on a tree: 14) That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
To bind the law is to place us under a curse, for the law obligates us to keep every point, which we failed to do. Keep in mind that circumcision is one of the key elements under consideration here, and it came before "the law." Yet it is considered right along with the law. (The Sabbath, it could be argued, came along before the law also).
He goes on in this chapter to contrast "faith" and "law." If we are of "faith" we are of Abraham. The law, Paul says, came along 400 years after the promise to Abraham. And it didn't make void the original covenant.
Yes, Paul says, if there had been a law that could have given righteousness, righteousness SHOULD have been by law (3:21). (Again we see the appeal of the Law.) But we have all (v.22) been concluded under sin -- by the Law -- so that our righteousness can come by faith in Christ.
Your position seems to mix law and faith. Isn't this like Abraham trying to have both Sarah and Hagar? (Chapter 4) Sarah was rightfully his, while Hagar was a work of the flesh. Sarah typified the promise of faith, while Hagar typified man doing things by his own power. Do you want us to have two wives? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son" is the Biblical admonition.
I do not like contention either, so I hope you don't think I am being that way. I am looking forward to your reply. Thank you for your patience. God bless you richly as you live for Him each day. In brotherly love, Tom
Submitted humbly for your consideration by Thomas W. Woody, by the grace of God.