"For as many as have sinned without the law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified: for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2: 12-16)
The wife of a police officer can not help but to become extra cognizant of casual conversations concerning tickets, annoying neighbors and city crime. Critique and criticism of the sheriff's office often are the result of an individual ill-informed of what purpose the law serves and how law is applied. True, one will not always walk away with a sense of rectitude, as sometimes the law assaults what seems in our nature to recognize as fair play. People in general feel that police officers are there to serve them...in some areas, officers are liberally lumped in with what we call "public servants." however, their true and valuable position is to protect the law. It is in the law that we, the people, can operate and function as one. It is what binds us together. While operating within the law is no guarantee of safety, long life or happiness, operating within the law (both the spirit and letter) will increase not only the individual's pursuit of those things, but also serves the greater good of the people as a whole. Those operating outside of the law, or who justify their "tweak" of either the spirit or letter cause damage...sometimes only to themselves, very often to others, and always to the purpose of the law. We live in a day and age where so much tweaking (abuse/misuse) has handicapped or changed the ability of the law itself; that the spirit and the letter are no longer what people as a whole understand, hold in common, operate by, or recognize. The same accusations and damage, the same mindset and evolution has been placed by man towards the Law of God as found in scripture.
Grace, in today's world, seems to be something an individual expects as if it were their right. To not be given mercy for breaking a known law, rather than a preparedness to shoulder responsibility for one's actions, has become something of an offensive thing. Grace and mercy are now expected to be the norm, not the exception. Even the most "law abiding" tend to gamble even having to face judgment for personal actions...and when caught, although outwardly contrite, are offended that there are much worse offenders of the law who have not yet faced judgment. How often have I heard complaints pertaining to the unfairness of a speeding ticket from those whom I know regularly speed? More times than not, I hear the line (supposedly from the conversation with the police officer), "Why don't you go out and catch a real criminal?" The police officer did not take a look at them in one lane and an escaped convict in the other and choose to take the speeder. A real law had been broken and the real standard highlighted a real law breaker, who is now receiving a real ticket. The law condemns the driver, not the officer. Police are instructed to decide (based on law) if a ticket should be given before they even arrive at the driver's side window. However, the officer is also trained not to be legalistic about the situation, understanding that awareness, opportunity and situations are all at play. In those cases, he's likely to show mercy - and perhaps even grace to some that he could not, would not and should not show to others. An individual's demand for "true" justice, however, such as quoted above, will often find the driver facing very detailed and heavier fines. (When hearing such impertinence, my husband will tally every incidental violation the person is also guilty of...just so they know how much of the weight of the law they were actually, initially, being excused of in grace.) There isn't among us one innocent person when it comes to violating the laws of man. There doesn't exist among us a grayness or a level of good versus bad...just a sense of heinousness by the individual and society. Merely the difference seems to be which laws we transgress and how many by which we choose to abide. Either way, the label remains the same for anyone who transgresses the law of the land...guilty.
Obedience to the law binds both the citizen and the police officer. Both the spirit and the letter of the law must be present in order for obedience to exist without being legalistic or ineffectual. There are many, by way of our country's court system, who have been injured by the adherence of the letter only. Just as real are the many who, by way of our country's court system, have been denied justice (if not protection) because the spirit of the law was taken out of context from the letter. So it is with the Law of God. The idea that we can replace the teaching of God is the very first deception recorded in scripture. It remains the most prevalent one to date. "Tweaking" exchanges truth for a lie...and the lie can become so prevalent that it is seen as truth. This reinvented truth opens the door for doubt and corruption, not only in society and individual relationships, but in the mere ability to hear the truth and know it. Rightfully so, are there many who even come to doubt the scriptures themselves because the person is blind and deaf to anything other than the Lie.
The prevalent teaching pertaining to the Law when it comes to believers, is that the "new" testament has replaced the "old" testament. The "old" testament is sometimes referred to as the Old Covenant. And the Old Covenant seems to be synonymous, in the eyes of believers, as the "Law." The common assumption is that the "new" testament is a New Covenant (and sometimes is referred to as such) as if believers of OT times were unaware that the NT provisions were even to occur. In the Garden, however, God himself spoke of the coming of what we know as the NT. Jeremiah spoke of the new covenant, and Paul identifies his time period (and beyond) as existing in the "new covenant." First, let me assert that the testament, testimony if you will, of the Grace, Mercy and Provision of God was spoken of by Moses - and earlier still, even to Adam. Everything goes back to that proclamation in the Garden, "...And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." The "old covenant" made with Abraham and his descendants is an eternal one. In the Garden, man was first convinced that eternal meant only that which exists for a short time. When asked about Old versus New, I honestly hold the point that there is no "New." Even when scripture refers to the New, I believe it is talking not about new as in a place or time, but rather in freshness in form and quality. What was new, what was innovative about the New Covenant brought forth in the New Testament, was the physical act of our part being taken upon by God. From t his, not we as a people or as a nation have the Law as something that unites us, but we as individuals in relationship with the Father have the Law personalized, or "in our hearts." The relationship that Abraham enjoyed because of his relationship with the Father (faith which was counted as righteousness...a standard) is the relationship that we, too, enjoy because of God's grace. Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law. (Romans 3:31)
Another prevalent teaching states that the church (here identified as a non-Jewish institution) has become His Chosen, and that it is only those who are saved by faith while those who were OT believers and modern day Jews labor/ed for their salvation through the Law. Following this thought is the assertion that the Law is done away with this side of the cross. This teaching came as a result of not only ignorance, but from an intentional, purposeful false teaching which has blossomed in more than one group with a cult-like devotion. The only way one can support that definition, and to support their doctrine, is by doing away wholly with the Law itself. Generations have swallowed this understanding without question, and while proclaiming the virtues of Bereans, neglect recognizing that, "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)
For those craving a deeper understanding of their spiritual heritage, or those who find the pro-Law argument at least interesting might be trying to deal with the common assertions against the Law. The laws people seem to question me the most about aren't even in the Law, but rather are Judaic or Protestant/Catholic in origin. The reader might no doubt be familiar with the concept of "building a fence around the law" referencing to what lengths the worship leaders felt it necessary to keep a believer from accidentally breaking a law. Our family keeps (scriptural) kosher, and so one of the more common questions I'm asked is if I'll eat a cheeseburger or if I'll pick ham out of the Southern version of green-beans. I will consume a cheeseburger. The cheeseburger question comes from hearing that one who is kosher is not allowed to mix milk with dairy. In actuality, scripture states that we are not to consume an animal that has been prepared in it's mother's milk. We can extend this, certainly, to not having a meal consisting of any dairy accompanying a meal in which it's offspring is being consumed without becoming legalistic. Kosher is an act and demonstration of purity (nothing to do with health, which is the common teaching in churches). Certainly one can see the cruelty of boiling a calf in it's mother's milk. But can you also identify that doing so breaks a natural and whole unity? With the marching on of time, few of us raise our own food or are in positions of knowing the true/detailed history of a given portion. In shopping for cheese we have no certain idea of the relations between the cow giving that dairy product and the burger which we plan to grill for lunch. The likelihood (especially in America) is that there is no line between the dairy cow and the beef cow. For this, I fall back to Paul's wisdom of the Law when it came to purchasing meat in the market. It was more than a don't-ask-don't-tell approach. It was proper understanding and placement of the Law applied to the very everyday and mundane task of finding something to eat. If I know that two cows are in relation, I would abstain. If I eat with a friend who lives on a farm and lives a more rural existence than myself, I will allow reason to guide me.
I will not, however, pick pork out of the green bean dish that my mother-in-law prepares for holiday gatherings. No, I'm not using discernment only with my mother-in-law. I will not pick out pork or shellfish (among other things) from a dish period, for the intention of eating what is left behind. Neither will I eat an egg fried in bacon fat, or eat a fish of whose origins with whom I am unfamiliar. It becomes very difficult to be a gracious dinner guest, so I'm moved more times than not to decline an invitation for lunch or dinner. There are times, however, when the host will lovingly want to honor us by trying to adhere to the standards we follow in eating. In those cases, I also follow Paul's answer concerning meat in the market (please understand, I'm not equating a dinner invitation with Pagan sacrifices)...I share with them what I can not in good conscious take part in, and do not question the rest. The same method is how I handle eating out. I ask questions concerning the content of the meal itself, and leave the rest. In preparing meals for my own family I know and am responsible for the background and preparations of the meal/s so will not observe ignorance for the sake of community. This was a long, round-about example of how what people assume are laws, are not in fact, scriptural laws. The non-scriptural laws are a lot more limiting and burdensome than the Law of God. What worries some who are being spiritually led to observe the Law is that the Laws are burdensome.
In our homeschool setting, we are embarking upon a study of our system of American Government and its laws. What binds us together as a nation isn't an ideal, a motto, or a name...but our laws. Our laws set us apart from every nation in the world. While "tweaking" of these laws have diminished the impact we have on our soil and abroad, our particular laws are what defines America. The tweaking of the laws has changed what it means to be an American. Any citizen of the world coming to our country would be, for the large part, subjected to and protected by our laws. Their requirement, for the large part, would be the same as any citizen. Any new citizen or young natural citizen, of course would be given time to grow and become educated. The expectation is that such individuals will eventually follow the laws with a greater understanding and ability. Following the law, even flawlessly, does not make you an American any more than following the Law of God makes you saved. I believe that there is scriptural evidence to support that this same expectation was placed upon new believers when pertaining to the obligation to keep God's commandments. (I can already see this post is getting longer...so if there is a need/request to expound on this, I will do so at a future time.)
If an individual holds even the shadow of a belief that keeping (or attempting to keep) God's commandments equates to, or adds to, or proves Salvation, then that same individual can disregard the atoning death of Messiah as it has all been as nothing for him spiritually. Any righteousness we have is solely through that atonement and is given to us. "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9) If an individual sees that their adherence to the law brings about a thing of superiority in their spirit and which spews forth disdain in their action and in their words for others, then that individual can disregard the resurrection of the Messiah as it has been as nothing for him spiritually. Any personal awakening and knowledge comes from and is guided by God which causes humility. "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." (James 3:17) If an individual believes that a follower must follow the Law because of their standing in Messiah, then that individual can disregard that kinship, as the relationship is but an allusion. "But why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say? Whoever comes to Me, and hears My sayings and does them, I will show you whom he is like: He is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid the foundation on the rock. But he who heard and did nothing is like a man who built a house on the earth without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently; and immediately it fell. And the ruin of that house was great...If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." (Luke 7:46-49 and John 14:15) If an individual believes that the Law has been done away with because of the cross, then that individual can disregard the need of every man because Messiah was/is the solution to that need. "And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? The assembly must certainly meet, for they will hear that you have come. therefore do what we tell you: We have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads, and that all may know that those things of which they were informed concerning you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immortality. (Acts 21: k20-25)
If an individual asks if they are forbidden to follow the walk of Messiah because they are Gentiles...or if they have the freedom to wholly abstain or selectively choose certain laws because of their physical heritage, then let that person prayerfully understand that while there is no longer Jew and Gentile, the grafted branches are still called grafted. That both states must be true, because it is scripture that tells us such, then to commit or not based on physical heritage or spiritual heritage would be folly. If you are a believer, grafted or no, the root vine the same. A branch's healthy response to that vine is to bear fruit. Those bearing no fruit are cut off, natural or no. Apart from the root, the branch is unable, then, to bear fruit. And in either state, the branch in and of itself is unable to produce. Through the vine they are nourished, and without obligation, responds to that nourishment. "And if a stranger dwells among you, and would keep the LORD's Passover, he must do so according to the rite of the Passover and according to its ceremony, you shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger and the native of the land." (Numbers 9:14)
If an individual in right knowledge of salvation, being in relationship with God, is driven to follow His commandments, then blessings be upon that individual, for as John said, "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are inHim. He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked." (I John 2:3-6)
Even in our spiritual imperfection, the Lord still loves us. In our zeal, those of us who have an interest in the Law, can commit two hurtful acts. We teach incorrectly that the Law was a shadow of the things to come, and that it is now a worthless thing. We exchange it by teaching that the spirit of the Law only is what is important, and create a false doctrine which appeases the sin rather than provides the answer for its removal. Such teaching produces freedom in a person's conscious while allowing them to remain in their current state. Simultaneously it encourages the individual to ignore what they are convicted of, and to hate those who mirror their plight. Or, we can teach that those who are not following exactly as we follow are immature in faith or don't measure up as believers. It creates a way for individuals to be seen as living in a position of rebellion even if their faith is rich. Can you imagine the enormous harm done to a child by placing upon them the expectations of an adult life immediately and at once and expect them to carry out as an adult would? Can you imagine the stress inflicted to those, and upon their relationship with God that while they intimately embrace God and seek to do His will that one would impose upon them the need (wrongly) to obtain something which God Himself has not yet spoken to them?
Recent Comments