Skip to main content

Judgment and Justification Part 4

In our last post we looked extensively at the land as the sphere in which God's people experienced God's blessing for living God's way. In this post we want to start fleshing out a very broad picture of how living God's way relates to the theme of judgment,. In this post we will focusing particularly on the law in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament, living God's way is clearly spelled out. The middle of Exodus through Deuteronomy provides us with God's law, the rules that were supposed to govern life in the land. As we looked at in our last post, keeping the law meant reward in the land. A pattern of breaking the law brought on judgment and could ultimately result in expulsion from the land and thus from God's presence.

I believe, though, that that is an incomplete explanation. When looking at the Law we need to consider the wider narrative framework in which the law is situated. First, we must keep in mind that the covenant came first, both with Abraham and then again at Sinai. This means that we have to understand the law as functioning within the covenant. It was the means God used to tell his people how to relate to him, to one another, and to creation (both to the land and to animals). The second element of the narrative framework that we must remember is that the law was given to God's people, to a people whom God had already acted to liberate and save. Thus following the law was meant to be a response to the grace God had given them (this is clear when you read the ten commandments). Finally, we need to look at the purpose of the law. I believe (following Christopher Wright), that the law was given with the intention of Israel being a model to the nations. They were supposed to live in a distinctive manner that showed that their God was different from the gods the neighboring nations worshiped.

All of this should make at least one thing crystal clear. The law was not intended to bring people into relationship with God. It was given to a redeemed people. While it was supposed to regulate relationships within the covenant, the goal of the law was not for individuals to try to curry favor with God by their own effort. Rather than opposing grace, I would claim that the law was a form of grace because it revealed God's will.

In our next post we will look a bit more at understandings of the function of the law that the New Testament opposes. A discussion of the New Perspective on Paul is inevitable at this juncture.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

More Calvinist than Calvin?

I'm working on a paper on the topic of divine sovereignty and human freedom. Occasionally on this topic (or the subtopic of election) you will hear people through out the barb at strong Calvinists that they're 'being more Calvinist than Calvin.' After having read Calvin carefully on the issue I don't think that there's any validity to that charge. I don't see a material difference here between Calvin and say John Piper. Here are several quotes from the Institutes to prove my point. 'All events are governed by God's secret plan.' I.xvi.2 'Governing heaven and earth by his providence, he also so regulates all things that nothing takes place without his deliberation.' I.xvi.3 'Nothing happens except what is knowingly and willingly decreed by him.' I.xvi.3 Calvin explicitly rejects a limited providence, 'one that by a general motion revolves and drives the system of the universe, with its several parts, but which does not specifc

Galatians 2:11-14: The circumcision group

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (TNIV) There's an important issue that we need to wrestle with in this passage, and it's the question of whether or not the people from James and the circumcision group are the same group. I am not inclined to think that they are. The ensuing discussion is drawn from Longenecker's commentary pp 73-5

Dating Galatians and Harmonization with Acts

We've gotten to the point where how we date Galatians and where we fit it into the narrative of Acts will affect our interpretation in a significant manner. The first question that we have to address is, which visit to Jerusalem is Paul recounting in Galatians 2:1-10 ? Is it the famine relief visit of Acts 11:27-30 or the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 ? First, I think it's worthwhile to point out that it's not all that obvious. Scholars are divided on this issue (even Evangelical scholars). In favor of the theory of Galatians 2:1-10 referring to the Acts 11 visit are the following: This visit clearly is prompted by a revelation by the Holy Spirit. The Acts 15 gathering seems to be a public gathering, where the one described in Galatians is private. Paul never alludes to a letter sent to the diaspora churches which could have definitively won the case for him. The issue of food laws was already decided by James. Why would men coming from him in Galatians 2:11-14 be advocat