Jack wrote:
Malcolm - now you've got me thinking! It is a good challenge to think through the whole business of Law of Moses and what that means to us as Christians. Even among observant Jews, there is widespread diversity in faith and practice, as you know - from Hasidic Orthodox to other Orthodox Jews, to Conservative, to Reform. Much of Jewish life is devoted to discussion, argment, etc. about the Torah. Of course, the Talmud is what is more often studied and argued over. Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, has had to make some decisions about his observance in his public life. You've probably read the Chaim Potok novels about all this (The Chosen, etc.). Herman Wouk wrote a book about being observant and working in the theatre (Caine Mutiny) Can't recall the name of the book, I read it a long time ago. Among Christians, Seventh-Day Adventists take the Torah to mean they observe the sabbath on the 7th day (Christians can still keep that sabbath, but the celebration day for worship is Sunday because of resurrection, pentecost and lst day of creation) Seventh-Day Adventists, however, would never claim that salvation is through keeping the Law. Your contact is a Messianic Jew I understand from Duncan, and I must say I've never known of Messianic Jews holding to the keeping of the Torah/Talmud in the way described. Most of them do keep the 7th day as sabbath, but certainly not because it is a matter of salvation. The book of Romans clearly details all of this, plus tons of references through the letter of Paul, in ACTS, especially the Council of Jerusalem (ch. 15) and the whole of church history, creeds, doctrine. The whole point of the Christian faith is salvation through grace, not works, and to claim that works are required is not part of the Christian faith. Jesus specifically ended the food laws, as did the story of Peter's instructions from God in ACTS. Even devout Jews continuously debate the interpretation of the Law, as you well know, and it is very much part of being a Jew! You might want to consult with the Jews for Jesus mission organization and other Messianic rabbis to get other understandings of all this. The temple rituals and rules are done, because there is no Temple in Jerusalem and Jesus is the new Temple anyway. That leaves the moral law - do good, be kind, don't kill, steal, etc. etc. It is a lively discussion to discern whether laws related to tatoos (for example) are related to idolatry (what the pagans do) or to a moral law. I don't think that is how you spell tatoo by the way. You are probably going to write a book about this, and this is why you are working it through! Blessings on you! Jack
Jack,
Hi, thanks for the comments, I'm sorry for intruding on your time with Duncan.
First and foremost, I'm committed to the Truth that it is only by the Grace of Christ's Sacrifice for us that we are saved; period, end of discussion there. No works, obedience to the Law or anything else (except believing in Christ) is going to save us.
What I've been struggling with (as you know) has been the whole issue of the Law (as presented by Steve Berkowitz indirectly) and more important, the META issue of "why are you putting this question in my life, Lord?"
I struggled with it at length, and find it one of those interesting "coincidences" that we're called to watch for, that my visit with Steve et. al. was the day before I went to Dallas. Is it just interesting timing? He mentioned Yom Kippur as the reason he hunted me down and met with me, but outside of that, I am called to relegate the purpose to the Lord.
So then I had to sit down hard, with my little kindergarten understanding of the Spirit, and stare at the question of why the Lord had laid the ENTIRE LAW right down in front of me.
One of the things that came from the midrash with the Messianics (btw, they argue that it's possible to lose your salvation [not!], which is a "game over" statement in my book, so if your primary concern is pastoral, I'm pretty confident that this little lamb isn't going to stray anywhere anytime soon :)
One of the things that came from the midrash was the idea that obeying the Law is not a requirement for salvation, but it is a gift from God in response to the sense of complete uselessness we feel when faced with wanting to give something "back" to God. He gives us something to do in order to show our love for Him as His beloved children. I thought that was a nice idea... not necessarily doctrine, but a nice idea anyway.
So back to giant crate that appeared on my spiritual doorstep containing one full, unadultered copy of the Law. Do I sign the receipt? It's from God... ummm... what now? God?
Insert your standard period of knowing and loving silence from the Father :)
Meanwhile, off to Plano. Shouts of "it's not about being gay, it's about the Scripture!" (which is the truth, right on!)
Well, what's Scripture?
*ahem* -- mister, are you gonna sign for this crate or not?
Ok, so now I'm faced with a STRONG personal conviction that those who stray from Scripture are bad news (still convicted of such, thank you very much), but also facing the real question from God, "Are you going to obey my Law?"
Oh... wow... so now it's clear that I need to make a choice, should I follow the Law, get all strange in my dress and diet, "go native"?
I download a (long) list of the 613 laws of Torah as articulated by Maimonides. Oy
Ok, so I'm able to muddle through enough to know that I'm not going to be doing some of these ever. Some I'd like to do, but not quite there yet. Some (like only marry a Jewish wife) I refuse to pursue out of clear and definite love.
So then I begin to turn to my brethren about the Law.
So... what of it? I talk to some friends, I get the standard pot pourri:
1 - Jesus abolished all the Law with the New Covenant
FALSE: Christ clearly states that the Law and the Prophets hang on the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule, implying that they're still there. He also makes his famous "jot and tittle" comment about the Law, indicating that it's still around until the end of time.
2 - The Law is only for Jews
FALSE: If that were the case, we would not be grafted to the True Vine, we'd be sharing the vinyard... also, only the true heretic believes that NONE of the Law applies
3 - The Law was only there to prove to us that we are faulty
MAYBE: since we are not called to fulfill the Law for salvation, and the Lord didn't abolish ALL of the Law (or potentially any?), then was it just for fun and games, or to educate us to the nature of our fall so we could turn to God for salvation and accept Christ as our Savior?
Those three themes popped up a lot, but the most common statement was:
4 - Christ abolished PART of the Law with the New Covenant, and don't forget, it's only by Grace that we are saved.
VERY TRUE on the Grace part -- but do we TRULY see the abolition of the Law in Christ's statement regarding diet? Does He say, "The law regarding diet doesn't apply any more", or does He say something more like, "you don't understand the Law about diet and how it pertains to repentance".
So... now I'm faced with the big crate on my doorstep, the ambivalent answers (and some frustration on the part of my friends that I'm driving so hard into clearly "gray" areas), and the question: "If we are only to obey part of the Law, which part, and by what authority was that designation made?"
So first, thank you very much for the reference in the BCP, that helped!
But even that led to the "who designated the MORAL section of the Law?"
So I finally got on my knees and asked God to help me understand.
First and foremost, I signed the receipt for the entire Law.
But why? Am I know going to show up at church with fringe and funny hair? Of course not (am I going to divorce my wife to find a Jewish one, no :)
Here's what the Lord put in my mind ... He's made it perfectly clear to me that I don't have the whole picture, so bear with me.
The Law is the Law.
It is written by God and is unchanging. That which the Lord has done, let no man put asunder.
Neither the Pharisees, Maimonides nor even Paul has the authority to change the Law, though Paul does a good job of presenting Gospel regarding the Law (no heresy here, thank you :)
Christ is the Law. When God the Father gave Israel the Law to obey, they failed miserably, as do we all. They added to it, they confused it, they probably missed parts of it also. The Lord Christ arrived AS the Law to present the Truth to us all, and in so doing also pay the price we could not pay through His Almighty Grace. The Law does not die, the Law is the Law. Ergo, what happens when you try to "kill" the Law? He is eternal and comes back, just like the Law; because He is the Law.
What was the crime that Moses committed, the one unforgivable crime? David committed adultery and murder, Peter denied the Law, but God loved them. But Moses "shattered" the Law, and was refused entry into the Promised Land.
The Pharisees added to the Law and were reviled by Christ.
And here we stand ... holding our special subsection of the Law and waving it at our neighbor in accusation (justifiably).
So, where I am thus far is:
Yes, the Law is still alive in its complete entirity, and we have NEVER been expected to fulfill it completely, because God knows that we are fallen. In fact, the Law is there as a spiritual measuring device to show us our fallen nature, not to make us strive to be "two inches taller for the Lord".
By seeing our COMPLETE failure to God, our inability to walk as complete grafted members of Israel, even for one second, we only practice partial repentance. We repent of our sins, yes, but even under the all encompassing "sins we don't know" we confess only for those things that we call sins. If you don't believe eating shellfish is a sin, then repentance for unknown sin won't include accidental crab broth. (Otherwise, wouldn't the general confession cover the Bishop's unrepentant heart? Surely, his failure to repent is not resolved under the General Confession if he is unrepentant about the sin. If we are the same about the "silly laws", and find that in fact God's Law IS unchanging and eternal, are we any less unrepentant?)
This whole thing I'm getting from God is NOT a message to give up shellfish (in fact, right after my little conversation with poor Duncan, I went off to Central Market and grabbed me a pre-cooked Dungey ... mmmm... good lunch :)
It's a message that to TRULY see the nature and depth of our fallen-ness, we need to recognize that every jot and tittle stands, and that every single thing we do that is against the Law IS against the Law, and to kneel down before God and just say "If that's the case, Lord, I'm sorry, I really am. And now I understand just how far away I am from being perfect, so I'm ready to give in and live by YOUR Grace, Lord, since I will NEVER be enough of a goody-two-shoes to make it happen."
Paul discusses in Romans the issue of bringing your brother to heartache, or yourself. Christ speaks of what is in your heart. Neither state that the Law no longer stands, but (perhaps) are stating that it is about being AT PEACE with your incapability to adhere to the absolute Law. I mean, come ON, weren't some of these Laws made only to show how hard it is to follow them in an imperfect state? But is a freedom to do the thing the same as a freedom from repentance for the same act?
Paul admonishes us against using Christ's salvation as a "free pass" to just go sin, sin, sin; but in his explanation, he outlines that it is our love FOR Christ that should limit our exploration of sin, not the Law. Implicit in that statement is the idea that the Law is still present, and by virtue of the Law's presence, our sins still exist. Without the Law, where is sin? If we attempt to decrease the scope of the Law are we not attempting to remove certain sins? The message is NOT "it is now legal to jaywalk", but rather, "Don't jaywalk, but if you do, don't expect a ticket. Unless you're jaywalking on purpose."
So what's a jaywalker to do? Obey the law for fear? No. Tell people that a new rule applies and you're allowed to jaywalk? No. Explain that those who jaywalk in defiance are probably going to face consequences, because they will be seen, but those that jaywalk and repent, even every day, will be forgiven. Because it's virtually impossible to get through town without a jaywalk unless you're perfect.
So, like I said, I'm still putting it together... but, what He put in my heart and mind is this:
To embrace the entire Law is to embrace the Truth of God's message that we are to truly recognize our incapacity to ever go a moment without violating the Law until Christ returns and once again IS the Law on Earth. But our salvation is secured by Christ's sacrifice. Being the Law, His death rescinded the Law, which simultaneously removed all the sins that were accused by the Law at that moment... ALL SINS were forgiven at His death. But the Law is eternal and beyond time, so even after His death, He rose again, because the Law still applies completely - through Christ.
And the Law is coming back again, to Judge everyone ... living and dead ... and once that's done, His Kingdom will have no end -- because the Law is eternal.
So, for safe keeping, I got on my knees and made the following prayer (paraphrase :), "Lord, I'm a simple man in the face of questions like this, and I'm not certain. So if I am under the entire Law, I repent that I am so bad at fulfilling it and that I know I will continue to fail to obey it completely. Please forgive me ALL of my transgressions even those I don't feel are in my ability to fulfill. In Christ Jesus's Name, Amen."
Is your faith in the interpretations of men so complete that you would avoid such an "If" prayer outright? Should the Church?
That's basically what I'm grappling with today. Like I said, I'm not going anywhere, and thank you for giving me a pat on the back for thinking :) I know I "ski off-trail" alot, and I appreciate you taking the time.
God Bless.
Malcolm
PS - I hope you realize that these conflicts in my life are at the hand of the Father, and are lessons. I don't go looking for trouble. Personally, I'd much rather sit around smoking cigars, playing video games and being completely self-indulgent. God has other plans :)
