Thoughts on God’s Law, Part II
I wonder what categories you use when you think of Scripture. Our minds tend to want to filter information into different categories, so when we think about the Bible, it is natural that we divide it into different categories. I have been noticing recently that many people talk about the Bible according to the categories of doctrine or practice. They say that everything in Scripture is either doctrinal or practical; every passage contains either something we should believe or something we should do. In our culture of the pragmatic-driven church, the natural tendency is then to value the practical over the doctrinal. People need to be told what to do, not what to believe, apparently. In light of this, it was apparently quite an epiphany for a certain well known pastor when, after careful study, he discovered that the Book of Romans, often regarded as a very doctrinal book, was actually evenly split between doctrinal and practical matters. Reflecting his preference for dividing Scripture this way, this pastor recently said
“I’m looking for a second reformation. The first reformation of the church 500 years ago was about beliefs. This one is going to be about behavior. The first one was about creeds. This one is going to be about deeds. It is not going to be about what does the church believe, but about what is the church doing.”
I want to call this entire distinction into question. The distinction between practice and belief is a distinction that is foreign to Scripture. That’s not to say that we can’t point to some passages as being doctrinal and others as being practical; it is to say, rather, that dividing scripture into doctrine and practice is an artificial division. To say otherwise is to say that what one believes does not affect how one behaves. Some of the most profound doctrinal passages in the Bible, however, are occasioned by practical concerns. Psalm 139’s discussion of divine omnipresence, the humiliation of Christ discussed in Philippians 2, and the vicarious sacrifice of Christ addressed in 2 Corinthians 8 are all occasioned by what are primarily practical concerns. Quite often in his epistles Paul commends a particular way of living to his readers (practice), and then motivates them to obey it by pointing to the greatness of the gospel (doctrine). If we try to divide Scripture along the lines of doctrine and practice, we are cutting against the grain of the Bible.
What categories, then, are legitimate ones by which to understand Scripture? The answer is pretty simple, and therefore may seem pretty dull at first: the Law and the Gospel. The terms “Law” and “Gospel” are familiar to Christians. But many Christians have never considered the themes of Law and Gospel as categories through which to understand the Bible. We tend to think of the Law as the ‘dos and don’ts’ of the Bible—the moral standards—which are summed up in the Ten Commandments, and occasionally pop up elsewhere in the Old Testament. We generally think of the Gospel as the message we use when speaking with non-Christians—the basics of Christianity that, if believed, secures our salvation. But this narrow view of the Law and the Gospel leaves us with a narrow view of the Bible and Christianity as a whole, because the whole of the Bible is either Law or Gospel.
In its fullness, the Law of God is nothing short of God’s holy standard to which all people are held accountable. The Law tells us what God requires of us, and condemns us for failing to obey it. The law threatens us and burdens us and makes no promise of leniency. The intention of the many ‘Law’ passages of the Bible is to expose human need. By showing what is required of us, the Law holds before us a mirror in which we see how far we fall short of God’s holy standard. The Law comes to those who feel confident in their own effort and shows them just how much they are lacking. The Law causes us to despair of our sinfulness and drive us to Christ.
Once the Law has driven the Bible reader to Christ, the Gospel can truly set him free from sin. The Gospel is the message of God’s gracious provision in Jesus Christ. The Gospel comforts the afflicted and brings rest to the weary. It removes the curse that has been placed on us by the Law. The Gospel is the message that God who, having found human beings woefully deficient in regards to the Law, sent his Son Jesus Christ to pay for their sin. In his death Jesus paid for the sin—the failure to keep the Law—of God’s people. Through his death Jesus bears the curse of the Law and then gives us his perfect record of righteousness. The Law of God condemns us and points us to Christ, and the Gospel of God saves us from God’s wrath and preserves us throughout the whole of the Christian life. By understanding the Bible according to the categories of Law and Gospel we cannot help but see how every passage of Scripture points us to Jesus Christ.
For more on this, check out Michael Horton’s article on Knowing What You’re Looking for in the Bible
December 5th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
I am inspired by the clarity of your writing and thinking. Great post!
Carolyn
December 6th, 2005 at 3:27 am
I am very encouraged to read your comments on the fundamental “Law and Gospel” distinction. I am an “orthodox” Episcopalian who was distressed to read the quote you mention from the pastor you don’t mention, who spoke at a recent gathering of theologically conservative Anglicans in Pittsburg. The real beauty of the Anglican worship, rightly done, is that it slays us each week with the reading of the Law, in order to resurrect us with the Gospel. In the “General Thanksgiving”, prayed in the service of Morning Prayer (Rite I) we pray “give us that due sense of all thy mercies, that our hearts may be unfeignedly thankful, and that we may show forth thy praise, not only with our lips, but in our lives, by giving up ourselves to thy service and by walking before thee in holiness and righteousness all our days…” This is the profound and continuing effect of God’s grace to us in Christ: service in joy and freedom that grows from the “good ground” of a continually contrite and thankful heart.
December 6th, 2005 at 1:47 pm
Good thoughts (followed the link from Intellectuelles). I wonder if we could think of Law and Gospel less as “categories” and more as “aspects” in order to reduce the chance of slipping off into either the Thomistic/Lutheran “Law/Grace” dichotomy, on the one hand, or the “believe/do” split, on the other. Scripture is throughout engaged in proclaiming both Law and Grace, and nowhere more so than in the very words of Christ. I’ll check back to hear more of you on this. Best wishes as you continue your studies.
——-also, because I’m having difficulty posting at Intellectuelles (some sort of delay that doesn’t seem to have a limit???)——
A quick response to a comment-reply over there, with a link to a post that responds to hers:
I’m not sure we should wish to “live as if we were under duress.” I don’t see much Biblical direction to seek trouble, even less to pretend to trouble we don’t find. I do see “let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him.” The married weren’t to seek singleness, freemen to be enslaved, nor slaves to be freed–but to seek the Lord, first and foremost.
I do think your cri de coeur about the complacency of the church is wise and timely. I do hope we’ll be seeing more of local churches training and sending people from church to church and place to place, cooperating across all the boundaries our modern world can help us cross, and engaging the realities our modern world tempts us to defer endlessly.
Speaking of endless deferrals, I took up your Derrida musings, and would be happy to hear your further thoughts, if you (or any of your colleagues) have any you wish to share.
Cheers,
PGE
December 6th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
PGE, I’ll let Bryce respond to your queries about the Law/Gospel distinction. Thanks for the Intellectuelle post; you should trackback to it on your site. I will soon get around to responding further!
I would, however, disagree with you that we are not to seek trouble. I do of course agree that generally we are not to find it out in a sort of ‘holier than thou’ attitude (”Look how much sin I have around me in my context” attitude). However, I think that living as we do in the West, that unless you’re in (for instance) an inner city context, you simply won’t encounter difficulties to the extent that you would in an area filled with poverty. That’s not to say that we should all up and move to the inner city. What I intended with the comment of “living as though we were under duress” is that our attitude and our actions need to be refined by the process whereby it looks as though we were under duress, even if we really aren’t. And I honestly don’t think that it’s wrong to seek to live a lifestyle that makes one slightly uncomfortable. For how else are we to be reminded daily that we are strangers in a strange land? I think because we are so fickle we need tangible signs of our spiritual condition (hence a weekly celebration of the sacrament) and thus, choosing to live in the city centre versus the comfortable suburbs might be one way in which we make ourselves more uncomfortable and so learn to live out the fullness of the gospel a little better.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
pgepps, while I’m not terribly concerned with the precise wording here, I don’t see how the wording you suggest changes much. The believe/do dichotomy I mentioned in this post is a long way from Law/Grace, and I don’t thing there’s much chance of slipping from one into the other. I have to confess I’m pretty ignorant concerning Thomism on this subject, but I wouldn’t want to distance myself entirely from Luther (depending on exactly what you mean, I guess). It may clear things up for you when I post my next entry on this subject (hoepfully in a day or so, but these pesky finals are getting in the way).
December 9th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Probably no very very large difference. I’m a bit nervous about dichotomizing Scripture too strongly, but you may well not have done so. Hypersensitivity to semantics is an occupational hazard for me (though the blunder I made above, where I should have said Nature/Grace instead of Law/Grace, was not CV material).
Ashley, I’m not entirely persuaded–may I say I think “opportunity to serve” would be a better category than “duress”? and perhaps we’ll agree, or nearly–but I think your heading is sound, only do think of 1 Cor 7. Last word’s yours (whether that was it or you have more) on this one.
I did trackback, and will be posting more on Derrida in days to come. I welcome further interaction!
Cheers,
PGE
December 9th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
I, too, am uncomfortable with the separating of doctrine and practice. I believe it to be a false dichotomy and as you said Bryce is foreign to Scripture. Machen himself said that ‘theology determines mission – mission never trumps theology’. Using theological categories Paul never separates the ‘indicatives’ (who I am in Christ – my union) from the ‘imperatives’. So any instructions in holy living are always grounded in who I am in Christ. In fact, gospel living is not possible outside of my union with Christ.
I believe the law / gospel contrast to be a defining view of Scripture, thus important to maintain. Paul does not view the Law and Gospel as a continuum but a contrast. The Law and the Gospel are founded on antithetical principles. In Romans 4, he uses an analogy from every day life. The Law is like earning a wage that one deserves. The Gospel, on the other hand, is like receiving a gift that one does not deserve
Paul was a Christ-intoxicated teacher of grace. Paul was often accused of preaching grace as a license for sin – (see his anticipation of that argument in Romans 6), but he was actually very concerned to promote holy living. But he believed that holy living is not promoted by placing believers under the Law but by leading them to Christ in whose death they have died and in whose resurrection they have been raised to walk in the new life of the Spirit.
In fact, if you go to the New Testament writings and all of their exhortations to holy living – the writers never instruct or point to church to the law as the motivating factor for holy living or keeping from sin. I Cor 6 and the immoral brother is a classic example. The church is not instructed to flee immorality because the 7th commandment says so or because bad consequences will come to your marriage or life. No we don’t commit adultery because we should never desire to join Christ to a prostitute. Try a study on the books of the New Testament and see if the writers point us back to the law or do they point us to our union with Christ (gospel)?
As to thoughts on ‘living under duress’ – I can go there. One of the ways I like to speak of my growth in sanctification is to see if I’m growing in my desperation. Am I growing in my desperation and daily need of Christ? Do I understand more and more that NOTHING can satisfy me, but Jesus. See II Corinthians for an Apostle who ‘lived under duress’ and rejoiced because it put him at the feet of Christ.
Enough ramblings – good thoughts Bryce they are illuminating – In our current reformed climate –I take heart when it is suggested I’m sounding Lutheran :-).
December 11th, 2005 at 3:43 am
I’ve been thinking about the comments on doctrine and practice / law and grace (and BTW Brad, I’ve only read a few of your posts, but they’ve always been excellent).
Anyway, when I first read the posts on the topic, I could see how beliefs/faith should drive practice/works - 1 Th 1:3, 2 Th 1:11, Mt 23:26. Putting a distinction between the two therefore seemed illogical. But I do like to challenge my own views, so I tried thinking about the other side of the coin.
I have to say, I don’t think it’s a one way flow from beliefs/faith into practice/works. Crucially, in Jas 2:22, the Bible says that Abraham’s faith “was made complete by what he did”. So faith begets works, but works complete faith (not my line, I read it somewhere). I think somehow, when we put things into practice, it cements our beliefs; God’s Word becomes more permanent in us - Jas 1:22-25. Otherwise, I suppose it might be like the seed falling on stony ground - received with joy but without root (Mt 13:20-21).
So I don’t disagree with what’s been said here, but I guess I’ve fine-tuned my own view.
As to law / gospel… Well, that’s another matter, huh? Lunch is calling.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Joey, thanks for your comment. My point was not that beliefs fuel works; it was rather that beliefs and works are intertwined, and separating them is unhelpful (at best). Scripture doesn’t recognise this faith/works dichotomy that is so popular in churches today. Instead, a more biblical way to interpret Scripture is along the lines of law and grace.
December 13th, 2005 at 2:30 am
OK, thanks Bryce - I misunderstood the issue. But is it about interpreting Scripture or just classifying/distinguishing different types of Scripture? (and what is the end goal, if it’s the latter?) It seems to me that if it’s to do with interpreting/using Scripture, then doctrine and practice may not be a terrible way of looking at Scripture - 2 Tim 3:16 specifically identifies both doctrine and instruction/training in righteousness (which I take to be similar to “practice”), along with rebuke and correction, as uses for all Scripture. Do you have an issue with the use of hermeneutics and exegesis in preaching? Not visiting many churches, and being in Australia, I’m not familiar with exactly it is that’s so popular in other churches.
As to Brad’s comments about law and grace, and exhortations to holy living(and I think this is somewhat of a different topic, so apologies if I’m a bit off tangent), I was thinking about that last night. Clearly, the motivations for holy living should always be based on God’s grace and love - 1 Cor 13:1-3. But taking up Brad’s challenge to look at NT writings on holy living, quite often there are other motivations cited. Eg. Lk 6:38 (give, and it will be given back with a good measure), Eph 6:2-3 (honor parents so we can enjoy a long life), and 1 Th 4:6-7 (the threat of punishment for wronging a brother, which seems quite legalistic). They’re hardly great motivations for righteous living, certainly not compared to that of love for God and others, a response to God’s grace. In fact, they sound quite lawful (excuse the pun) - do this, and this will (or won’t) happen. Giving so I can get back sounds a bit like a bank “giving” a loan.
But I think God put these in because he knows that, for people like me, my grasp of his grace is not quite that firm, and my love for him is not quite perfect (OK, a bit of an understatement…!). So in his grace, I think he gives us stepping stones; if I do things partly out of love, and partly because I want his blessings, then at least it’s a start. If I avoid sin because I know the consequences, then that’s a start too. Yes, I’d like to live entirely from love and my understanding of his grace, but I’m not there yet and God knows it.
I suppose it’s a bit like the fear of God being a good thing, even though perfect love casts out all fear. But that really is a tangent!
December 13th, 2005 at 7:33 am
I should say that I just had some jaw surgery last week and have a couple of weeks off work, and so have a fair bit of time on my hands. Hence my musings on this cool website which I’ve followed previously while surfing the net.
Bryce, thinking about what you said in part I of God’s Law, and about the preaching in various churches, I found what you said really interesting (in a good way). Today, I was trying to test what you said a good sermon should be like against how Jesus preached. Using the sermon on the mount as an example, I find that Jesus at various points seems to be preaching a bit like the preachers you mentioned. (Good thing I’m in Australia; it makes it harder to stone me from over there!) Eg. In regard to murder and anger (Mt 5:21-26), he talks about resolving differences with people but doesn’t point to an underlying sin or how the gospel helps me avoid anger against my brother. In regard to adultery (Mt 5:27-30), he recommends gouging out the eye. There is no appeal to God’s grace and goodness in helping us to avoid the sin. The same applies for other topics covered, like divorce, oaths, treasures, etc. Not to say that the gospel not applicable, just that sometimes not everything is preached on a given topic in a given sermon. Certainly, Jesus also does point to God’s grace in the sermon, eg. in regard to loving our enemies (Mt 5:44-45), worrying (Mt 6:25-30) and asking (Mt 7:11).
Also, in the parable of the sower (Mt 13:3-9, 18-23), Jesus doesn’t explain to his disciples how the gospel helps us have good soil to receive his Word. He’s essentially explaining spritual mechanics, it seems.
While all this preaching was done before his death and resurrection, a similar style is used when Jesus addresses the churches in Revelations. Eg. In his message to the church in Ephesus(Rev 2:1-7), Jesus says to “Remember the height from which you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first…” (Rev 2:5, NIV). In his message to the church in Thyatira, (Rev 2:18-29) he admonishes them, even saying he “will repay each of you according to your deeds.” (Rev 2:23, NIV). He doesn’t go through the gospel again, or even the applicable part of the gospel, that I can tell, in addressing the issues. He sounds a bit like a fire and brimstone preacher. (BTW, I heard someone say recently that it’s fine to preach about hell and damnation, as long as you can do it with tears in your eyes, which I thought was very insightful).
I don’t want to diminish the value of the gospel at all, and I think your suggestion of a sermon structure (and Brad’s opinion on how to judge whether a sermon is good or not - ie one that makes us more in love with God) is great. But I’m just a bit hesitant about strictly applying a formula to all sermons / messages. A bit like the Lord’s prayer - I’m sure it provides a great structure for our prayers, but when Jesus prays in the garden of Gethsemane, his prayer is structured somewhat differently.
OK, I’m braced for the stones now.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
Joey, thanks for all your comments. Don’t worry, my rocks are reserved for people with bigger issues :). Unfortunately I don’t have the time at the moment to respond to your comments more thoroughly (exams are calling). However, it sounds to me like you are looking for a nice clean formula, and I’m not advocating anything like that. Interpreting the Bible is something that you have to get a feel for, and while it can be useful to follow certain steps, I think ultimately the process is much less rigid than we would often like. Let me ask you two questions that will maybe help make sure we’re on the same page: 1) what is “the gospel”, and 2) what is the place of the gospel in the Christian life?
I think it’s great that your using the extra time you have to think about these things. Here are a couple articles that you might enjoy reading:
Tim Keller on The Centrality of the Gospel
Tim Keller on Preaching in a Post-Modern City
Mike Horton on Preaching Christ Alone
December 15th, 2005 at 5:03 am
Joey – no throwing stones – that is the law – you get grace :-).
I’ve not had jaw surgery and I’ve got Sunday, Christmas Eve, and Christmas day messages lurking, so I really do not have time to engage this discussion, but a couple of quick thoughts on a couple of the texts you mentioned I just did not have time to engage all of them.
Ephesians 6 (don’t have time to exegete it thoroughly) – I will just say you cannot ignore the phrase ‘in the lord’ and also ask is it true that all obedient children are in fact given long life and prosperity in the land? Was that true of Abel was it true of the perfectly obedient Christ? Or dare we ask that ‘in the lord’ is tied to the true land and in the lord has everything to do with being in the land. Also each of the relationships in the immediate context is marked by language that establishes the duties contemplated on the ground of union with Christ: “wives be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (5:22); “slaves, be obedient to your masters … as slaves of Christ”
Lk 6:38 – no where in the context is this stated as motivation – it is a general principle on how the world Works. Context of text: Loving our enemies. Warning of judging others by a standard we can’t even meet. The context is verse 36 which is to be merciful as the Father is merciful (How do we know the Father’s mercy – gospel) Mercy must always moderate – yes the mercy that has already been given us – gospel. The text is saying if you use the law as your standard you are in trouble – you can’t meet the standard of the law. The text actually supports the gospel as the motivation and is actually warning us of what befalls those who wish to be judged by the standard and measurement of the law. No one really wants personally to me measured by the standard of justice. We want mercy. A mercy that is rooted in Christ’s love for us.
The danger of our day is we tend to have a pragmatic view of life. I’m concerned you may be saying the cross is not enough. You mention you can’t understand the cross or grace enough so God gave you the law with some quid pro quo. I can’t go there nor does any biblical preaching go there because if I give you the law then I give you to yourself. That is why it is imperative that every pulpit that says it stands for the gospel must preach Christ. Jesus is my congregation’s only hope not some pragmatic ethic for changing personal behavior. We cry out for something practical so we can get from point A to point B – work it out for me. Make it programmable so we can run it on the computer. I passionately believe I have nothing to give my people but Christ because Scripture gives me nothing but Christ! (all the promised of God are yes in Christ!) Where do I point my congregation to get and find the strength to measure and judge rightly? Where do children get the strength to obey their parents? Is it in them? Romans 1:16 – tells us the power is in the gospel. The good news is The One with no specks in his eyes has taken all of my specks so that I may see more clearly.
I also would tell you that if you are a child of God you already have every possible spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph). You don’t need to earn or get more of God’s blessing. You have it all in Christ in whom you are hidden and are all the treasures of wisdom – the truth truly has set us free.
I again urge you to read the suggestion’s bryce has listed knowing that discussion is a paradigm discussion that will not be resolved by proof texting. Also answering his questions related to the gospel may be helpful.
With much grace!
brad
December 15th, 2005 at 12:58 pm
Well said, Brad.