There is this never ending dance that revolves around the matter of the Law. (A dance in the way that Capoeira, the Brazilian martial art, is a dance). The first thrust is the suggestion that we no longer need the Law, that Jesus’ sacrifice has taken care of that. This is quickly parried, followed by a riposte from scripture in which Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it. (Matthew 5:17) A split decision.
We require a ruling, so we turn to our foremost referee, St. Paul, who speaks eloquently (if at times obtusely) on the subject. Variously he chastises those who fall into legalism, like the Galatians, while other times he creates new laws for us to worry about, as he does for the Corinthians.
But rather than listening exclusively to what Paul has to say about the Law I think we can learn more by focusing on his personal testimony. Even prior to his spectacular conversion on the Damascus Road he was a very devout and religious man. He rigidly adhered to the Mosaic Law and firmly believed that he was demonstrating loyal obedience to God. During this same time he also religiously pursued the persecution and murder of his fellow Jews.
After being exposed to the love and forgiveness of Jesus, Paul cast off his hateful nature like a badly stained yet expensive suit of clothes. He was able to do this not by following an old, abridged or new set of rules. It was done by identifying with the Messiah, putting his entire hope and trust in him. He expressed terrible remorse for the horrible things that he had done while under the Law just as he expressed grateful amazement at his salvation. Ironically, this salvation was made possible by the sacrifice of the only person to ever obey that Law, a sinless carpenter’s son from Nazareth.
Throughout the Bible we hear the stories of great men that God has chosen to lead his people. They diligently strived to be obedient and they likely did well at holding to the letter of the Law. Even so, they committed horrible crimes and practiced customs that stood in opposition to the Spirit of the Law. (Genesis 20: 1-13, 2 Samuel 11:14, 1 Kings 11: 1-10).
If Solomon is, in fact, the author of Ecclesiastes, he realizes too late that even a tremendously full and rich life serving God could still ring hollow at the end of the day. Unlike Saul of Tarsus, there was no conversion experience, no point early in their lives in which these men ‘repented’ of their ways and turned back to God, at least not in the way that we have been blessed through Christ Jesus.
For my yoke is easy and my burden is light
Matthew 11:30He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthian 3:6
Was Paul’s coversion a metaphysical change–a change in nature–or was it a change of ethics?
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 12, 2007
at 9:54 pm
I think Paul said it well in Romans 3:30-32,
“There is only one God, and he makes people right with himself only by faith, whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Well then, if we emphasize faith, does this mean that we can forget about the law? Of course not! In fact, only when we have faith do we truly fulfill the law”
We cannot fullfill the law we will fail. Jesus came to fullfill it as you have mentioned. By faith we come to Him and He fullfills the law in us by His death and resurection(He paid the price..the sacrifice for all). He makws us right and oure and holy. I love that! Know, our lives become lives that are lived to please Him. Our failures are secure in knowing that He has forgiven. But our lives are not lived to sin or to fail, they are lived to profess what God has done for us. They are lived out for His glory.
ambrosia – Yes to all three. In the metaphysical sense, his conversion was spiritual. God came into His life and filled him with the Holy Spirit. Because of this, his life was transformed, lead by a renewed mind. Renewed by God’s Word and His Spirit. This renewed mind meant that Paul’s ethics and standards radically changed. He was driven, as Christian said, by Love. A love he was given and he experienced was now lived out, to and for others.
By: inWorship on September 13, 2007
at 12:19 am
Sorry I havent been around in a while, but I was in the middle of a big move. I went back and read several of your last post, but I wont try to comment on them all.
I think perhaps that what it means that Jesus came to fulfill the law is that He was everything the law was pointing to. He was the one that the Jews and the gentiles as well would find their way to God. That is what the Jews expected from the law, at least in part. If they kept it then they were righteous, in their own eyes. Jesus however in fulfiliing the law proclaimed that it was only through his righteousness, through following him and imitating Him that we could experience the fulness of God.
By: rogueminister on September 13, 2007
at 8:59 am
I have to say that I am aware of all of the Christian doctrine one needs to know for a lifetime–but how is a metaphysical change effected?
I would argue that conversion is a change in ethics, and a change in loyalty. If human nature actually changes, then Paul would have left out what became Romans chapter 7.
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 13, 2007
at 10:13 am
Ambrosia, it seems that it has to run deeper than just a change in Ethics, that is essentially what the Pharisees wanted from people, but Paul writes that it is a circumcision of the heart that matters, meaning a change of the core of someone not just their actions. Paul like all of us was made a new creature, meaning all of him was new, but like us, he too was stuck in this delima of the now but not yet Kingdom and therefore experienced the paradox of being in but not of the world.
By: rogueminister on September 13, 2007
at 11:05 am
Ambrosia, to assert that Christian conversion is merely ethical is to reduce Christianity, I think, to something severely less than it in reality is. Although I agree that it is fabulously ethical, it is so much more. In the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, there is a great deal of moral and ethical teaching, but his primary emphasis is on the kingdom. Now, to be sure, this kingdom does have a unique ethic, it also, and this is the crux of the matter entirely, its own reality.
There is a spiritual reality that transcends this one. To use the word metaphysical is not to miss the point, but I think it minimizes (in common usage anyway) the reality of the kingdom of heaven.
So, it is ethical, but not merely ethical. And it is metaphysical, but not merely metaphysical. It is at the same time beyond our comprehension, but within our grasp (by God’s Spirit through Christ).
By: Rob on September 13, 2007
at 3:07 pm
It struck me when going through the Sermon on the Mount that Matthew 5:17ff is deeply eschatological. Jesus went around preaching the good news of the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:17 is his (right) claim that the promised kingdom had come in him.
It surely addresses the pharisaical abuses and misuses of the Law and the Prophets, and went beyond that to demonstrate (as I commented before) the reality of the kingdom as transcending conventional understanding.
By: Rob on September 13, 2007
at 3:35 pm
Well put. For those folks who don’t have access to a bible here is that passage. I like the way Eugene Perterson translates this.
Matthew 5:17-18 (The Message)
By: Christian Beyer on September 13, 2007
at 3:45 pm
1. How is that passage “Eschatological”?
2. How is there a literal change in one’s heart? Maybe Paul is speaking on metahor when he says “circumcised in heart.”
3. As I said, I attended (and still attend) churches of every evangelical, pentacostal, fundementalist and charasmatic stripe. I’ve sat (for hours) with Chuck Smith, in person and on tape (believe me–hours). I’ve also listened to countless sermons by Swindoll, David Jeremiah, and J. Vernon McGee.
I’ve had courses in NT survey, NT theology, systematic theology, etc.
You well-meaning (and condescending) words are acknowledged, but I still insist that conversion is an issue of ethics as much as a change in human ontology.
Bruce, not Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 13, 2007
at 5:51 pm
Bruce,
“Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God’s Law will be alive and working.” – sounds pretty eschatological to me.
Of course Paul is speaking metaphorically when he refers to circumcision but he paints a pretty powerful picture. I think that the ‘metaphysical’ change (something more than just a change in the way one thinks) is accurate if we believe that the body has more than just a physical element to its make up.
What condescending remarks did you hear? A little prickly, are we? (Now that was condescending – sorry.
)
By: Christian Beyer on September 13, 2007
at 6:14 pm
I don’t know if I can answer all of Bruce’s questions, but I keep coming back to a “renewed mind”. Paul both says we are “new creations” and that our process of transformation is through a “renewed mind”. They seem to oppose each other, but I think they speak of the same thing.
Being renewed is “to restore to a former state; make new”. Here I think is the key. Bruce you talk of a “literal change of the heart”. This makes it sound like your talking physically, but reading the past comments, I don’t think that is what you are saying. So, I will go with, you are saying a literal change of ” our human nature”. If so than I think the Bible is clear in saying that we are a new creation and our mind(which is actually our heart…at least the way we are speaking to nature) is renewed(made new) as we surrender to Jesus. When we surrender the Bible says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 2 Corinthians 5:17″. Jesus in our lives requires a spiritual change. This change is what takes us from what we were to what we are. This change is made complete because Jesus is the fulfillment of the law in us. We are in Christ, we are new creatures, we no longer live to conform to the wordl, but we live as transformed people.
Now to take your side in this. None of this is done by our power. There isn’t an actual physical change except to prove what the Spirit is doing in our lives. This is all done spiritually. Because of our spiritual change though, out physical nature, ethics and values are all changed to match our spiritual commitment.
By: inWorship on September 13, 2007
at 6:50 pm
I am really enjoying your blog and the coversations in your comments! (((((HUGS))))) sandi
By: titus2woman on September 13, 2007
at 6:55 pm
Bruce,
By eschatological I mean that what the creation had been awaiting (and certainly God’s people had been awaiting) was the coming of the Christ. In Matthew 5:17ff (and certainly elsewhere) Jesus says, “I’m here.” It is the coming of that One who would put things to rights. In Christ (his life, his criminal’s death, and his resurrection) what needed to happen for all to be restored happened.
We typically think of eschatology in terms of what is yet to be, and it certainly applies there. But we often forget that what was necessary for the world to be reconciled to God happened on Calvary’s cross. When Jesus said, “It is finished,” it was indeed finished.
There is still the “not yet,” the working out of all the implications, but the eschaton (in the most profound sense) came in Christ.
(Also, please do not read condescension in my words. I mean nothing of the sort. If my tone was less than gracious, I do sincerely regret that and hope you will overlook it. My wife tells me I could be softer with my words. But please know that it is far from my intention to be a know-it-all or condescending. I do tend to get more involved with the idea than the person, particularly in this medium. I am sorry if I have not communicated well and with humility.)
Rob
By: Rob on September 13, 2007
at 8:48 pm
Rob,
Of course you are aware that many ideas about eschatology are out there. I once did a study on Parousia that included the works of Schweitzer, Russell, and others.
I am looking at the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary–which is not to be mistaken as good scholarship, but it is adequate. The WBD says that Eschatology is the study of “last things.”
There are those who believe that there is no “not yet” element–such as C. H. Dodd and J. S. Russell (author of The Parousia, which I just found out is available in full text on line).
These Preterists (and semi-preterists, such as R. C. Sproul)
believe that most, of not all, of the end stuff was wrapped up in the New Testament.
I must say one thing–the folks such as Dodd, Russel, and someone named Joachim Jeremias (pronounced Yeremias) make more sense to me than anyone who claims to have the order of events in end times events.
These folks, such as pre-tribbers David Jeremiah, Tim LaHaye,
and others create schemes that just don’t play out. A lot of what they say is based on the ideas of John Darby and someone named Sir Robert Anderson. I have also read that LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins take material from Ernest Angely.
So, what’s Ambrosia’s point? The point is that Christians ought to be more concerend about mitigating the current troubles than about thinking about some future change in the Meta-Government of planet earth.
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 13, 2007
at 9:42 pm
To inworship,
I have heard all of the answers you are giving. I don’t like to brag but I am well along the highway of scholarship. My car used to have “Theology/Christian Philosophy” as its banner, but now I proudly display the banner of “Language.”
What does all of this pomposity mean?
It means that I hear the voices of certain sages–including Plato, Erasmus, and Immanual Kant.
It is not that I have left standard Christianity–quite the contrary–I define my faith in terms of the Apostle’s Creed as well as the New Testament.
My problem is that many Christians use a great deal of elastic when stating their doctrine–and then shrink the field when it comes to those who question such a stretch.
I have on my meager shelves books by many evangalical scholars–Geisler, Sproul, Walvoord–and right next to them are works by Plato, Augustine, Locke and Aquinas.
I attent a Church of God of Findlay church, and have attended churches of other conservative stripes since 1979.
The bottom line is that I have not heard it all–but that I have heard plenty.
As to Christian’s condescending topoi–Ambrosia believes you need to have a stronger grasp of what is going on between his ears.
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 13, 2007
at 9:54 pm
I agree that the dispensational eschatologies of LaHaye, Jeremiah and others (all drawn in some sense from Darby) are unsatisfying. In fact, I struggle with all of the off-the-shelf eschatological schemes. What I am pointing out is that Christ is that for which (whom) the world waits to secure reconciliation with God. To wait for a rapture (or a heaven-on-earth government) to be the fulfillment is to, in some sense anyway, say that Christ’s death and resurrection were not “all” that was necessary.
There is much that is not yet, but there is more that is already. (That is where I am at the moment, at any rate.)
By: Rob on September 13, 2007
at 10:01 pm
Every year, after we have strung the lights on our Christmas tree, Bev will ask, “Well, does it pass the squint test?”
I think that might be good advice for biblical exegesis. Step back a bit and try to see what scripture is trying to say as a whole. As with a decorated Christmas tree, someone may be looking at completely different lights and ornaments than the person on the other side of the tree. Both, however, should be able to make out the same shape.
By: Christian Beyer on September 13, 2007
at 10:26 pm
Ambrosia – I am a pretty mellow dude. I don’t claim to be anything special. I say what is on my heart. I want to challenge you to do the same. You have brought up a lot of questions, but I am sensing that responses here are not going to be enough. Biblical responses(from anyone’s perspective here) are not going to be enough.
I don’t say this to be rude so don’t take it this way. You just said something in your response to Rob. You said “we need to be more concerned about mitigating the current troubles”. I completely agree. Since we are on the subject of law in this post, God’s law is to love him and love others. So, your statement is right on.
Here is my point. You say, “you are well along the highway of scholarship”. How does this knowledge of yours feed the poor or clothe the naked or bring justice to the wronged? You are extremely intelligent, I am not. But, I think in God’s eyes, we can both work together to mitigate current troubles in our world and we both can learn from each other.
By: inWorship on September 13, 2007
at 10:50 pm
Is the Squint Test part of your Howard County dialect?
If the world waits reconciliation, how effective is the Cross?
Maybe God wants Christians to be the leaders among those who use what we have already been given?
Here’s a thought: Imagine how much better the world would be if we had spent the past 60 years developing better methods of growing food in drought stricken areas, building hurricane proof housing, and vehicles that don’t depend on dead dinosaurs (and if Ambrosia had not killed an alliteration).
Instead, we’ve taken the resources, intellectual and natural, and brought the earth to the brink of destruction.
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 13, 2007
at 10:53 pm
Let’s not forget about putting a map of the world in every student’s hand.
How do the mistakes we have made over the past 60 years address this particular discussion of the Law?
By: Christian Beyer on September 13, 2007
at 11:18 pm
By the way, no offense Christian, but I am not sure I really want to “get between you ears”.
By: inWorship on September 13, 2007
at 11:22 pm
Paul was one of the greatest persecutors of Christians before his conversion, that’s part of what makes his story great.
By: edtajchman on September 13, 2007
at 11:50 pm
1. The Eschatology thing came up, so comments on how we’ve wasted resources came up also.
2. Why are you so concerned about the Law? Are you a legalist?
3. What is the Squint Test? Is that part of an eye exam?
Mayberry RFD
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 14, 2007
at 12:00 am
To inWorship–
I apply my abilities to students who need in need.
For the past 17 months, I worked at a school for emotionally distrurbed students, mostly from inner-city areas of Baltimore and Washington, D. C. I helped break up some of the ignorance in their lives and help them on the road of education.
I am currently a special educator at a comprehensive high school in a suburb of Baltimore. I see my role mainly as an advocate–to provide support and a voice–to those who may be overlooked (or overly criticized) by their regular teachers.
I see literacy as the key, and where I can best help people.
I also try and encourage “regular” students to think critically about history and government, and not simply accept what the school curriculum is feeding.
Ambrosia
By: Ambrosia de Milano on September 14, 2007
at 1:45 am
Ambrosia – I appreciate your response and Yes I am up late as well.
I love to hear about your work. I bet there are some interesting things about our current educational system that you could share. Maybe you have seeing as I am newer to Christian’s site.
Again, I want to say there is a lot I could learn from you and I will look forward to doing that here.
Brent
By: inWorship on September 14, 2007
at 1:52 am
(Bruce and I worked at the same school. I’m still there. Like the coward he is, he jumped ship for a shiny ‘new’ school with things like ‘resources’
)
Anyway, Bruce knows that I am no legalist but perhaps thinks that I am too concerned with the Law. I do think that legalism is one of the greatest threats to the Gospel message being shared. But I think that there are more than a few ways to fall into legalism (I was was once tangled up by its many strands of “shoulds” and “shouldn’ts”). One way is through very simplistic yet rigorous application of what we read in the Bible. Another is through exhaustive attempts to parse the verses down to the point where we have ‘logically’ determined what it really means.
I think the ’squint test’ works best. It is like an eye exam in some ways, at least that part where they make your vision blurry.
You may be able to read each individual line on the board right down to the bottom. But even if you can only clearly read the top line, you can still see that the letters make up a pyramid.
That over all shape is what we need to see when we read scriptures. I think that shape should be one of God’s love for us. It is all well and good to try and understand what God is saying on one particular line, but if our interpretation of this line suggest that the shape is a ’square’ and not a ‘triangle’ then we may need to step a little farther back, for a better view.
“Between my ears?”, huh?
By: Christian Beyer on September 14, 2007
at 6:24 am
I’ll be honest here and say I haven’t read every word of these responses, though I learned quite a bit from the ones I read. My thought doesn’t reference tons of verses, but comes form my heart after my own readings of the Bible.
My conversion came when I realized that God’s laws were put into place for my own good. When I saw Him as a father figure rather than dictator and punisher.
No I don’t HAVE to follow His laws because of what Jesus gave. I don’t have to follow them (and cannot do so perfectly) to even be called a Christian.
But when I realize that God’s laws are not arbitrary thrusts of power, but rather Him telling me how He intended things to be, I realize, why would I not want to follow them? If God is telling me, this is the best way to live, who am I to argue differently–particularly when I or other people get burned or are left unsatisfied by my own decisions that go against what He already told me was a better way to do things.
So no we don’t HAVE to follow the law. But when the One who knows our hearts more than anyone lends us a hand in figuring out this crazy world, why would we WANT to be lawless Christians?
We’re stubborn, so learning these lessons often takes our whole lives–but that’s what growing in our faith is all about.
By: dana on September 14, 2007
at 11:34 am
No, I think we DO have to follow the Law. But we can do this by letting the Spirit of the Law (love , compassion and forgiveness) lead us, and I think that is done by ‘putting on the mind of Christ’.
If we look at the law, adding it up, seeing what it says here and what it says there, we are doomed to fail. But if we look towards Jesus as our teacher, weighing our difficult decisions against his example, then we will have a much better chance of remaining in the Law.
I think Micah pretty much sums it all up.
“He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
By: Christian Beyer on September 14, 2007
at 12:06 pm
Rah for Dana!!
It sure is simple isn’t it!
Tim
By: Tim on September 14, 2007
at 12:08 pm
Dana,
Good observations. I am finishing a series on the Sermon on the Mount and have been reflecting on how Jesus clarifies the scope and intent of the Law. It never was a set of, as you so very well said, “arbitrary thrusts of power.” It has always and forever been God expressing who he is and what his image bearers should look like (expressed in the way we live, etc.). The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus’ teaching on the reality of the character of God, the reality of what it looks like to be his image bearers.
By: Rob on September 14, 2007
at 12:10 pm
True Christian: I think it is clear following the spirit of the law is not optional. But I say we don’t have to follow the law, because such a statement sets us up for certain failure. If we HAD too, we’d all be toast where we stand because we’ve already failed. Even the bare bones statement of Micah. I’m often not just or humble, and I like mercy more when it applies to me than others — not always of course, but once is enough to be considered a law-breaker.
But I’m forgiven even for that — breaking even the most simple and basic of requirements.
To carry further the father analogy. I HAVE to obey my dad, true. But why? For my own well being and the safety of myself and others. But if I break my curfew, he’s not going to disown me. If I say something nasty to my sister, I still get to come back home that night. The prize of God’s love doesn’t rest in our obedience any more than our dad’s love. (though admittedly in a broken world this is sometimes untrue, but you see my point).
And eventually as we grow up, we find ourselves giving our kids the same rules our dads gave us because we learn that all along, they really were for our own good, not just things our dad made us do for kicks.
By: dana on September 14, 2007
at 2:10 pm
OK, Dana I think we are both in agreement (not too surprising, that). I understand that the Law is good (of course it is, it is from God). But I don’t think that, as followers of Jesus, that we should be devoting too much time in attempting to obey the law. To use your analogy, as children we needed rules and regulations because we did not know any better. When we become adults we understand the reason for these laws. In maturity, we may appear to be obedient but in actuality we are not, even though we are within the law. Because, for whom are we obeying? Our own consciences.
In society the laws that we have are most often directed at the least common denominator. There are laws on the books against rape, theft, and murder but I need not be concerned about them. If they rescinded those laws tomorrow I doubt if I would commit any of those actions.
If I am close to Christ (and no one can get close enough) then I am free of the law because those things that they proscribe are no longer in my nature. If I remain unduly aware of the Law, where I am falling short and where i am succeeding, then I risk feeding (negatively or positively) my ego and taking my focus off of Christ.
By: Christian on September 14, 2007
at 3:34 pm
Christian Your thoughts make me think of Paul in Romans 7 in which he speaks of doing what he doesn’t want to do and not doing what he knows he should(vs15). He blames the law, not because the law is bad, but because the law proves his sin(vs 91-10). I can see how Paul, maybe because of his past(his deep commitment to the law), struggles with letting go of the law in his life and living completely in the Spirit(maybe an option for his “thorn”). He speaks so heavily in all his writings of this struggle. I grew up denominationally and I can see Paul’s perspective of maybe being trapped by the law and learning to live not under it and maybe not even for it, but by the Spirit.
“If I remain unduly aware of the Law, where I am falling short and where i am succeeding, then I risk feeding (negatively or positively) my ego and taking my focus off of Christ.”
I wish I could read that statement and say that I have much to be proud of, but I am definitely more in a negative place.
By: inWorship on September 14, 2007
at 6:41 pm