How do we obey the moral law without being moralistic?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- How do we avoid falling into legalism? From one of our live Ask Ligonier events, Sinclair Ferguson looks at the true purpose of God’s law. To get real-time answers to your biblical and theological questions, just ask Ligonier. Visit ask.ligonier.org/
For more information on this topic:
www.ligonier.o...
www.ligonier.o...
#AskLigonier
What I do not feel was addressed well are those interpretations of the commandments that we are told to observe. Legalism oversteps when one only sees those laws observed “their way” of understanding it.
Bcos of sin we have to try to carry out the commandments. Adam and eve prefall would have obeyed the moral law automatically ad there is was no such thing as a spiritual battle
Legalism is hardly a problem. Being accused of being legalistic is a far greater problem. I think Sinclair hints at this. A "legalist", by definition, is anybody more observant than I am. At least that's my working definition.
Christians need to rethink the Law. These are God's commandments. One of the most common phrases in the Torah is: "And the LORD said unto Moses, 'Speak unto the children of Israel, saying..." The entire book of Leviticus should be in red ink.
And Christians need to rethink the artificial designation of moral/civil/ceremonial. While it's true that there are some commandments that cannot - and should not - be kept, they are not kept because the Torah specifically forbids their keeping except when certain conditions are present. The entire sacrificial system, for instance, cannot be performed unless the "place the LORD chose to place His Name" is capable of supporting that system (i.e. Jerusalem, Temple Mount) and unless a functioning Levitical priesthood is in place. To "keep" the sacrificial laws on our own would be *transgressing* the Torah. But there are others that could be kept, but are not, simply because of erroneous Christian theology that teaches against it (e.g. the Sabbath - one of the 10; the food laws; the holy days and festivals). There is no viable biblical reason for not observing these commandments. Jesus kept them; His disciples kept them and continued keeping them after his ascension. And there is every thematic reason to keep them - the holidays speak not only to Jesus's redemptive work, but to his coming work at his return. Christian holidays are a cheap substitute for God's appointed times, commanded by His Own mouth to be observed by His people.
I don't think this is a matter of legalism. We do the commandments to love God, and for no other reason (except for our own good, but that's a given)
@ZoneFighter1 That's the standard theological answer, but it's unsatisfying from a Scriptural perspective, and one that Christians would do well to reconsider. Firstly, Scripture itself never hints at the categories you mention. And it also never hints that some are done away with while others remain. Are you able to place each commandment found in the Torah cleanly in one of these categories? What is the law of the Sabbath? Civil or ceremonial? (Presumably you've already ruled out "moral"). It's based on something God did at the time of creation, setting apart ("making holy") a period of time - specifically the 7th day - and he "blessed it". That God later commands his people to keep it would naturally follow. But why does this get classified as "civil"? Simply because it was later commanded to Israel? ALL of the commandments were given to Israel; they weren't given to any other people. But God blessed the Sabbath day at Creation; and it was a transaction made of Himself - with time - completely independent of man. God blessed *TIME*. And later He asked His people - who He set apart - to recognize the day that He had already blessed and set apart. And why wouldn't He? Why would He withhold from the people He's chosen the things that are valuable and "blessed" to Him? Is it your belief that the 7th day is no longer blessed? When did it lose its blessing, and why? I can point to the time and place in Scripture where God blessed the 7th day. I can also point in Scripture to the many places He commanded His people to acknowledge that same day. I cannot point to any place in Scripture where this was rescinded, and cannot point to a place in Scripture that would explain why it would need to be rescinded. I CAN point to places in the antisemitic early church fathers where they instructed the church to not have anything to do with nasty Jews and their nasty laws. But I do not consider that Scripture. I consider that blasphemy.
The same type of argument could be made for virtually every other commandment. Homosexuals rightly bash Christians over the head with their hypocrisy over the fact that God calls eating pork an abomination, the same word He uses with respect to homosexual relations. Christians condemn homosexual acts, but weirdly eat pork on Easter (go figure!), with no pang of conscience. Was eating pork and shellfish just an "abomination" to God if Israel did it? Does a "civil" law ever rise to the level of "abomination"? An "abomination" implies an affront to one's sense of inherent rightness; it's a breach in the natural order of things. Few people are ever "abominated" over someone driving over the speed limit (a civil law). An "abomination" is *inherently* a moral issue. Did God change His mind on this one? Why would He need to do that? Why would something unfit to eat suddenly become fit to eat?
Standard Christian theology allows Christians to check out mentally while agreeing to believe things that either aren't Scriptural or that simply don't make consistent sense. Christians believe that God doesn't change; but they DO believe He apparently changed His mind on a great many things, or that it's possible to be "abominated" if one group of people does something during a certain period of time, while no longer being abominated if that same group - or any group - does that very same thing at a later period of time. Homosexuals have a perfectly valid argument here. And Christians won't see that because of their theologies, which preserve the nonsensical logic of the early church fathers on these subjects.
And saying that "the New Testament mentions that homosexuality is bad also" while apparently no mention of "eating pork as bad" exists - I've heard this line of argumentation too. That's gotta be the shakiest hermeneutic ever ("I follow only what's repeated in the NT - thus I keep the 9 commandments, not the 10 commandments"). Whatever the case, Acts 10:14 seems to be in favor of an "eating unclean as a negative in the New Testament" viewpoint. “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” Bear in mind, this is after the resurrection, after Jesus appears specifically to Peter, after the ascension, after the empowering of the Holy Spirit, and of course, after sharing probably over 1,000 meals with Jesus over a multi-year period. Is it really reasonable to think that Peter would have misunderstood Jesus's take on this subject? That he would've kept eating kosher while Jesus snacked on ham sandwiches? That in itself is a shaky hermeneutic and would seriously call into question everything Peter did AND said (i.e. rip those two epistles out, because this guy is flaky). But I don't think so... Peter knew how Jesus ate - he was a disciple who ate many meals with Jesus - and he knew what Scripture said and what God had commanded. And the tension of the vision itself would be completely destroyed if he already believed he could eat anything. No, Peter knew the truth. And the chapter is not about "getting to eat whatever you want." Peter himself gives the meaning of the vision in the next chapter (hint: It has to do with gentiles, NOT with food). The only thing that Peter *didn't* know about this subject is where Christian theology would go in the next 100 years and how it would turn Scripture on its head... THAT is the difference.
A similar difficulty appears with the sacrificial system - Acts 24:17. Paul is coming up to Jerusalem "to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings." "Offerings" is not a parallel here for bringing alms, and it does not mean "chucking a fiver into the offering plate." Offerings = greek "prosphora" = sacrifices. Strong's says "concretely an oblation or sacrifice." He was also renewing a nazarite vow, which involves a number of sacrifices per Numbers 6. This is likely decades after the resurrection. Again, to posit that Paul was just confused is the shakiest of hermeneutics. That would call into question his credibility and therefore all of his epistles. I wouldn't recommend coming up with a goofy hermeneutic (e.g. "listen to what he says, not what he does") in order to preserve Christian theology. Paul believed in the sacrificial system because the sacrificial system was of God, commanded in Scripture. And it isn't in antagonism to Christ's sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice is an eternal sacrifice made in a heavenly venue. The levitical system consists of temporary sacrifices made in an earthly venue for earthly, temporary beings and situations. The two venues are not at cross-purposes. Yes, the earthly reflects the heavenly, but it was ALWAYS so. Exodus 25:9: "Exactly as I show you concerning the pattern of the tabernacle, and of all its furniture, so you shall make it." Exodus 25:40 - "And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain"
ALL of the laws are moral, and ALL of the laws reflect God's character. To pretend that only some of them are a reflection of God's character when ALL of them were spoken by the mouth of God is something pretty close to blasphemy.
I'll repeat my opinion: Christians should re-think the subject of the Law. That is: Re-Think. Not Re-Gurgitate. Think again. Try thinking from a different perspective. Ask some hard questions of your theological constructs and demand answers that satisfy. Civil/Ceremonial/Moral is an artificial, unscriptural distinction imposed on the scriptures from outside of it in order to justify antipathy toward the Jews. But it has no correspondence to anything that David might have said in Psalm 19 or 119.
And I should clarify all of this by saying: The law was never given for "earning" something with God. The law was given by God to God's people for their good! We keep the commandments of God for a handful of purposes, such as: 1) because He's instructed us to, 2) to show our love for Him, 3) for growth in sanctification (our good)
The idea that it was given to us as a means of "earning salvation" (an unscriptural idea) or simply to condemn us so we'd run in faith to Christ (no law can exist only in a negative sense; there is always both a positive and negative side to it) - both of these ideas are false.
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome". I John 5:3
Christianity has wrongly called God's law burdensome from the very beginning. Christians need to re-think their stance.
@@brondenafanning9544 - Hi Brondena. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I don't disagree with anything you say above, and it's in line with my last comment above that the *reason* we should desire to keep the commandments is because we love God - I John 5:3
When Jesus says that the Law and Prophets are summed up in two commandments (1. Love God, 2. Love Neighbor), a couple of things can be said. First, details are never lost in a "summary". It's fine to summarize, but the detail remains. It's absolutely true that all of God's commandments fall in those two categories. But how do we know HOW to properly love God? Do we just make up "whatever works for us"? How do we know HOW to properly love our neighbor? God's law - the details - tell us. You mention several commandments that you keep, and then give the reason for your keeping as "love". That's good. That should be the reason. But there are many more people who feel themselves NOT bound by those same commandments, but just free to "love" in whatever way strikes them as best. Most Christians do not think it's inappropriate to get a tattoo, for instance. Large numbers do not think homosexuality is wrong. And virtually no Christians feel that they need to pay attention to all of God's commandments as given to Moses. Following a vague "love" concept, that just means whatever it means to ME - in my opinion, that is not loving our neighbor the way God envisioned, and it's not loving God either by ignoring what He said and commanded. The summary of a topic does not eliminate the details included in that summary. Jesus never "got rid of the law", nor did he reduce it's scope by "just giving us two to keep."
Second, when Jesus quotes those two laws, he's quoting directly from the Torah itself. So he's not coming up with a new idea there - that idea was given in the Torah itself.
Third, as you demonstrated above - if "love you neighbor" can be counted by us as a "moral law", the "how" behind that - that you mentioned above - often falls along the lines of "civil" law. Not moving property stones is typically classified as a civil law. So is the "civil" actually "moral"? I think so. And you have kept the "civil" laws out of love? Good - I'm glad. That's the way it should be. And I think that's what Paul is saying when he instructs his assemblies to love. "Love each other - like the Torah and our master Yeshua teaches us. Because all of God's instructions are about love, as our teacher Yeshua taught us when he said to love God and love our neighbor."
But trying to "love" without having that love moored to the commandments of God leaves us adrift as to what it MEANS to love. Again, a summary doesn't negate the detail behind that summary. Jesus didn't unmoor the act of love from the specific commandments; he said the commandments were ABOUT love - summarized as loving God and neighbor. But when WE just focus on "love", it leads to all kinds of craziness. Surely you're aware that this is how homosexuality is "embraced" in our churches. The argument is always about "love" - a modern, accept-everybody type of detail-less "love" concept. That's not the kind of "love" that God approves of, and the Torah makes that clear. By focusing on a vague concept of "love", instead of focusing on the commandments that teach us how to love and what love is, we end up making up "what it means to us" and running with that.
As for "saying a lot" when Paul "said a little", I have a few comments. First, a lot has been said - far more than I have said - negatively about the law of God over Christianity's history, typically using Paul as justification for this negative stance. If those of us who feel that those conclusions are wrong - and I do - want to combat that, then a lot needs to be said to expose the fallacious twisting of the apostles words over the centuries. I simply said a lot above to answer common arguments that are unscriptural. Secondly, all that I said is simply in direct response to Christian misunderstandings of the subject of the law. I happen to believe "Loving God" means paying close attention to what He says. I don't think "Loving God" means we are free to ignore Him. And I feel Christianity has institutionalized "ignoring God" by virtue of their theologies and vague self-defined concepts of "love". It takes a lot of commenting to do one's part in overturning the way Christianity has always thought about this subject. And finally - we can talk around the subject of "love" and what "love" means, and do we need God's commandments in order to love. Of course they should be done in love. But they should also be done because God gave them to us and desires that we keep them. To obey is better than sacrifice. To obey is better than our own assessments of our own "love". Maybe my love is perfect or maybe my love is imperfect. But I can still do what God told me to do. Even if the "love" in me is cold. And doing so is likely to change my heart for good. David loved the law of God. Why do Christians think they don't need to pay attention to it? It's a question that I think should be answered.
And one more question related to your reply: You said the following:
"He says in Galatians 5, that the only thing that matters is faith working through love, because love fulfills our LORD GOD'S Holy Law. And, he says in Romans 13, that we should owe no one anything but to love them; for he who loves another has fulfilled The Law, because love causes no harm to its neighbor".
When you say "love fulfills the law", what do you think that means? Do you think it means to "fulfill" as if it's a prophecy, and therefore the "law ceases to exist" and only "love" remains?
The word "fulfill" can have multiple meanings in Greek just as it does in English. It can mean to "complete, as in a prophecy". Usually this is indicated in Scripture with a preface such as: "And thus it happened in order to fulfill what we said by the prophet so-and-so". "Fulfill" can also mean "to do." And the greek word for fulfill, in Matthew, can also mean to "fill full."
I do not think Paul is saying "if you love, then the Torah is done away with for you." That hardly seems to make any sense... how could a law code be done away with by being loving? And for that matter, how can a law code be "prophetically completed"? It's not a prophecy; it's instruction on how to live.
I understand Paul to be saying the same thing as Jesus. "If you love each other, then you're DOING what the law requires (IF you're doing it the way the law requests)". Or: "The law is all about love; if you love each other and love God, you're KEEPING the Torah" (if you're loving in alignment with the commandments). "Love" can only summarize the Torah if it's using the included details in order to build the summary. One can not summarize financial statements without DEPENDING UPON the detail within those same statements. In the same way, it's not sufficient to define for ourselves what "love" means whether it agrees or doesn't agree with God's law. But loving each other ACCORDING TO God's law is "fulfilling" (doing, keeping) God's law.
@@brondenafanning9544 - I understand that sentiment, and want to encourage you in your walk with God.
I have no desire to debate. I have a concern for the truth. And it bugs me that people won't ask hard questions of their own positions on things.
Ultimately, this subject comes to down to a very simple point.
- God said "A".
- The Christian church has said that God may have said "A" at one point, but he no longer means that or cares about it. And maybe He never really cared about it at all.
That is a fairly accurate representation of the church's attitude toward the law of God given to Moses.
I think several things about the above situation:
1. I think God does not change, his character and his rules do not change, and Christianity's position is in error (but has become familiar with much time and use). I think God changes people, not His commandments
2. I think the idea that God seemed to care about something at one time, but supposedly (so says Christianity) no longer does - I think this idea is a dicey proposition and should at least be given a fair and vigorous critique.
3. I think to not critique the above position is, in fact, to NOT love God, but to rather love one's own positions irrespective of what God said.
I asked a number of questions in what I wrote in the comments above. My experience is that Christians usually have no desire to even attempt to answer them. I find that problematic. To me, that smacks of pride.
I used to believe the standard Christian line on the subject of the Torah. But I changed my mind in the face of what I consider to be overwhelming evidence to the contrary, both from Scripture and from history. I find it difficult to accept that people can walk in humility when they won't even *consider* the possibility that they might be wrong about something and be willing to change when the evidence demands it. That starts with asking hard questions. Which most Christians will choose not to do. That bugs me.
May The LORD bless you and lead you in His truth.
The 10 commandments were given to Israelites...zero laws were given to non-israelites.
Matthew 28:19-20
Go therefore and make disciples *of all the nations,* baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, *teaching them to observe all that I commanded you;* and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
The Book of Romans says that the law of God is written on the Gentile's hearts
Jews and Gentiles are one in Christ and we inherit the same blessings that God bestowed on Abraham when we come to Christ...
You didn’t watch this 3 minute video did you ?..
lol