I think I learnt to explain this more clearly this week...
On one hand, Paul clearly sees the obligation to obey the Law as having been abolished in Jesus (e.g Galatians 4:21-31). On the other hand, he clearly sees the Law as undergirding a lot of his arguments and his ideas about what is moral.
I think Colin Kruse summarises the situation well.
The Mosaic law was not their law, any more than the Mosaic covenant was their covenant. However, the OT in its entirety, including the law, was their Scripture, and that meant that it was useful for ‘teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness’ (2 Tim. 3:16 NIV), as long as it was read paradigmatically and not applied literally.
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
So the Law in the Old Testament isn't our Law, but it is still our Scripture. It can still tell us what sin is, for example, and what God is like and what people are like, but it isn't a Law that we have to obey. Paul's description of what Christians are to do to the Law isn't obedience - it's fulfilment.
1 Corinthians 10 is a great example of this. Paul can say all of the following things to a group of (largely) Gentiles:
- The ancient Israelites are "our forefathers" v1
- They drank from Christ v4
- They are (counter-)examples for us v6, 11
- The Bible was written for the Church v11
- The fulfilment of the ages has come upon us v11.
We are not under the Law. But the Law is still our Scripture, and it still tells us what sin is, and we should not sin. It still tells us what God is like, and we should not disregard that.
8 comments:
Can you just clarify, please, what you mean by `it isn't a Law that we have to obey'? Do you mean that we don't have to obey it to get saved, or do you mean we are under no moral obligation whatever to obey it? And do you mean that there is no command recorded in the OT that we are under obligation to obey, even commands to worship God, or just that we are not under obligation to obey some subset of the commands, e.g. the ceremonial law?
No moral obligation whatsoever to obey it.
But please note - I'm writing about the Old Testament Law, not commands in the Old Testament. The Old Testament Law was the covenant obligation (treated as a single whole) placed on the nation of Israel at Sinai.
As I've said, that Law is still our Scripture. The Christian life can be described as fulfilling the Law rather than obeying it.
Sorry, Custard, I'm not a theologian, so I cannot keep up with you here:
what was the covenant obligation placed on the nation of Israel at Sinai?
what is the difference between fulfilling the Law and obeying it?
The covenant obligation placed on Israel at Sinai was to do Exodus 20 - Leviticus 27 (essentially) in response to God having saved them and as a condition for further blessing.
Or even more explicitly, Deuteronomy is essentially a written covenant (McConville argues that it's an additional one to the Sinai covenant, but with similar provisions), with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. That is the context in which all the commands in the Old Testament are framed - they are part of a covenant between God and Israel.
When the prophets come on the scene, they are essentially performing a covenant lawsuit - they are demonstrating from God's point of view that Israel have failed to keep the covenant and therefore pronouncing God's judgement on Israel, to the point where they renounce the covenant (e.g. Amos 9:7).
The 10 Commandments or the dietary requirements aren't to be understood as an arbitrary collection of laws, but as part of that covenant. In the case of the 10 Commandments, they're essentially the abstract or headline, giving the outline of the covenant obligations. Love for God and love for neighbour is another summary.
I'll get back later on the difference between obedience and fulfilment.
Thanks, Custard.
You say:
`the covenant obligation placed on Israel at Sinai was to do Exodus 20 - Leviticus 27 (essentially) in response to God having saved them and as a condition for further blessing.' [emphasis added]
But then it seems that you are saying that we don't have to obey the law in order to receive further blessing. This is a far cry, however, from saying that we have `no moral obligation whatsoever to obey' the commands embodied in the covenant. In other words,just because we aren't under that covenant doesn't mean that its commands don't apply to us.
The Old Testament Law is part of a covenant between God and the historic nation of Israel, which covenant does not apply to us.
On one level, there is no more reason we should obey it than Hammurabi's law code or German road laws.
On another level, of course, it is still our Scripture. We don't have to obey God's commands to Gideon or Ezekiel or Hosea (for example), but we should still learn from them.
I think we're talking at cross purposes. What I am saying is this: just because we're not under a certain covenant doesn't mean that we don't have to obey certain elements of that covenant. For example, the covenant with Israel contained the command to worship God -- and we certainly still have to obey that.
I think that you are saying: it's not the case that we have to obey the elements of the covenant with Israel just because they are elements of the covenant with Israel.
Of course, you are right that `we don't have to obey [some of] God's commands to Gideon or Ezekiel or Hosea (for example), but we should still learn from them'. But this goes for the New Testament too -- we don't necessarily have to obey all the commands to the rich young ruler or the 12 apostles, and, in any event, it's not the case that we have to obey them because they were commands to the rich young ruler/apostles.
Yes - I agree.
With the epistles, however, the situation of the addressees is often very close to ours.
Post a Comment