Fatal assumptions

When I read through the Old Testament I am struck every time by the tension between the Law on the one hand, and the common state of godlessness on the other. And this tension occurs at more than one level. Let's consider some examples.

When Moses brought the Israelites to Sinai, the command to circumcise all males was very clear (Leviticus 12:1–4). This command really predates the Law entirely (see Galatians 3:15-17), going back to Abraham (Genesis 17:9–14). There's no question that circumcision was commanded and expected. However, when we get to Joshua 5, we find that those who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, but the nation had apparently not practiced circumcision while they were in the wilderness (Joshua 5:4-7).

It baffles me. There is no clearer command in the Old Testament than circumcision. And Moses had to have known how seriously God takes it, after the journey back to Egypt (Exodus 4:24–26). But the plain statement of Joshua 5:2–7 is that circumcision hadn't been practiced at all in the wilderness. I have trouble reconciling those things in my mind.

 

Here's another example: Saul sends men to watch David in his house and kill him the next day (1 Samuel 19:11–17). Michal, David's wife and Saul's daughter, tells David to escape through the window and she puts "the image" in the bed to make them think it was David (1 Samuel 19:13).  What is "the image?" The NASB clarifies, by rendering "the image" as "the household idol" (1 Samuel 19:13 NASB). 

So here's a puzzle: why does David have a household idol? And why isn't it ever mentioned again?

Were we to judge David based on what Scripture tells us of his peccadilloes, we would be right to conclude that David was a man of loose morals. If we're not convinced by anything else, we might be convinced by Tamar's opinion that David would sanction an incestuous marriage with her half-brother (2 Samuel 13:13).

Here's another example: if we compare the law of the king (Deuteronomy 17:14–20) to the description of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:1ff), it's difficult to reconcile the two. If Solomon had set out to deliberately disobey every single command God gave to the king, he couldn't have done a more thorough job. He literally does the opposite of what God commands: he multiples horses to himself (1 Kings 4:26) – horses from Egypt no less (2 Chronicles 1:16–17) – and wives (1 Kings 11:3-4). He multiplies silver and gold to himself (1 Kings 9:28) to the point where silver wasn't considered valuable (1 Kings 10:21).

I realize the point of the descriptions of Solomon's wealth was to show God's blessings on him, but the fact remains that Solomon did exactly the opposite of what God commanded the king to do, and God blessed him in it.

We could go on: we could enumerate the sins of David and Solomon and Moses and virtually every other Old Testament saint. But the point isn't to slander men (and women too) that God loved and loves. The point is first, that God shows each of them grace. Second, the point is that I find myself entirely unable to explain where God draws the line, so to speak. I cannot tell you why God acts against David in the case of Urijah and Bathsheba, but He doesn't act against David when he demands Michal back (compare Deuteronomy 24:1–4 with 2 Samuel 3:13–16). I can't explain why David's household idol gets no more than a passing mention, but Solomon's worship of Chemosh, Milcom, and Molech causes God to act against him (1 Kings 11:4–7).

Perhaps the most surprising thing of all is that scripture tells us David's heart was perfect (1 Kings 11:4) and he followed God fully (1 Kings 11:6).

 

Of course we see similar themes in the New Testament as well. 

I realized a while ago that Luke's gospel opens with descriptions of godly and upright people when the nation was in utter ruin: Zecharias and Elizabeth, Mary and Joseph, Simeon, and Anna. Luke is very careful to relate that four of these people are connected with the Temple in Jerusalem. Mary and Joseph are in Nazareth, so they're not so immediately connected with the Temple, but when the dedication of the Lord is mentioned, it's explicitly connected with obeying the Law (Luke 2:22–24).

Bear in mind, this is after Ezekiel 10:15–22. God's glory had left the Temple long before this. And this wasn't even the same temple! It wasn't Solomon's temple, nor even Zerubabbel's. This was Herod's temple. But Scripture treats it like it was the place where God had set His name. More shockingly, the Lord Himself referred to it as His "Father's house" (John 2:13–16).

And we might also remember the priests in Christ's day were Sadducees (Acts 5:17–18). They didn't believe in the resurrection (Matthew 22:23, Acts 23:8). That's a pretty big heresy. But the Lord acknowledged the Temple. 

Luke takes care to demonstrate Anna's godliness by describing how dedicated she was to the temple (Luke 2:36–38). If there was ever justification for writing off a temple, Herod's would be the one to write off. But the New Testament authors are careful to honor it, and Christ Himself acknowledged it.

 

Here's a final observation: Luke 24:13–34 tells us about two disciples walking to Emmaus after the Resurrection. They didn't know about the Resurrection, of course, but there they were, walking to Emmaus. They were going to wrong way: they should have been walking to Galilee (Matthew 28:7). But the Lord catches them up on the road, and He walks with them. Let's be clear about this: they're going the wrong way, and He goes with them.

 

All these stories might act as an antidote to pharisaism and puritanism, if we let them. If we think on them, meditate on them, and let them sink in, we might find some useful applications from them.

From the story of the circumcision in Gilgal we might learn something like: if you see a man entirely negligent of some fundamental observance, it might be he's more like Moses than you are. Leaving an entire generation uncircumcised is a big deal... but I'd love God to say the things about me that He says about Moses.

From the story of David and Michal we might learn something like: If you see a man with idols in his home, don't just assume he's not fully devoted to God. Don't forget a man whose heart was perfect with God had an idol in his home.

From the story of Bathsheba and Urijah we might learn something like: if you see a believer sin egregiously with no signs of repentance or remorse, don't forget God didn't send Nathan to confront David for about a year. It's possible for a true believer to live in the shadow of his sins for a very long time.

From the story of Solomon we might learn something like: just because someone burns incense on the high places doesn't mean that God isn't going to ask him what he wants. And just because God is blessing someone doesn't mean that he's walking uprightly. He could be enjoying God's blessings while at the very same time he's disobeying in every way.

From the story of Anna and Simeon in the temple we might learn something like: when we see someone faithfully attending a church built by a wicked man, run by godless heretics, don't assume God isn't counting that as genuine devotion. Even the church in Thyatira had overcomers, and there's not a word in Scripture to suggest they should have left it.

From the story of Christ cleansing the Temple we might learn something like: when we see someone going to worship God in a church built by a wicked man, run by leadership that doesn't even believe in the Resurrection, let's not assume Christ wouldn't go there too.  If there are as few as two or three gathering there for Him, then He's there (Matthew 18:20).

From the story of the two walking to Emmaus we might learn something like: when we see someone walking the wrong direction, let's not assume the Lord isn't walking with them. It's probably better to be going the wrong way alongside Christ than it is to be going the right way alone.

Now, I realize that there's a need for repentance. And I fully agree that when we see problems in our own lives, we aren't just to ignore them. We're to repent of them, turning to God from idols to serve the living and true God. I'm not out here trying to teach a lax attitude towards obedience. But if we learn nothing else from our Bible stories, let's learn that God almost never does what we expect Him to. 

That's pretty much the definition of "grace."

 

Not under law, but under grace

Romans 6:14 says we are not under law, but under grace. In my experience, that verse is easier to quote than it is to hear, believe, and take to heart. It is good for us to meditate on it.

Scripture is adamant that no one has ever been justified by works of law (Romans 3:20, 27–28; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:10). No one is justified in God's sight by obedience to law – neither the Law of Moses, or any other law. 

Someone once told me that when Scripture says we aren't under the Law (Romans 6:14), it doesn't mean that we don't have to obey the Law. Rather, he claimed, it means that we aren't justified by keeping the Law. That makes sense if you don't think about it too much. But once you start thinking about it, you realize that if our being "not under the law" means we're not justified by keeping the Law, then surely it follows that the Old Testament saints who were "under the law" were justified by keeping it. But that contradicts the plain teaching of the epistles, doesn't it?

The only way I can make sense of these two claims in the epistles is to conclude that the Old Testament saints were under the Law only as a rule of life – never as a means to justification –, so the epistles' claims that we are not under law must mean that we aren't under the Law even as a rule of life. I don't find evidence in the New Testament that we are to keep the Law for any reason: either as a means of justification, or as a rule of life. And yes, that includes the Ten Commandments.

I realize that Romans 6:14 is referring to law as a principle, not to "the Law" as a specific code. But that distinction might not be as significant as it seems at first.  No doubt "law as a principle" includes the Mosaic Law, that's self-evident. But it's not a stretch to extrapolate the Mosaic Law into "law as a principle" when we consider that it was given by God Himself. In other words, our problem with the Mosaic Law isn't that it's a defective law, but that the principle underlying it (or any other law) is not how God deals with us.

This is the fundamental claim in Romans 7:12–14. The Law is good, but I am not. 

Technically speaking, only Israel was ever under law: the law wasn't given to the Gentiles, but to the children of Israel at Sinai.  Romans 2:12 makes this clear: there are those who sinned "without law," who will perish "without law." On the other hand, those who sinned "under law" are condemned "under law." In this very simple taxonomy – only two categories! – both are condemned, but they aren't mixed up.

"Not under law, but under grace" means God deals with us, not on the principle of law (what we deserve), but on the principle of grace (He gives us freely what He desires us to have). 

Now, it's important to note that only one Man is justified on His own merit. For God to declare Him righteous is only acknowledging what He is in Himself. The rest of us have no hope for outside of God's grace. This is the plain teaching of Romans 4:1ff. Abraham and David – one without the Law (cf. Galatians 3:14–18), one under Law – are both justified entirely by grace through faith. God justifies us on exactly the same basis He justified them.

We more closely resemble Abraham than David in that we aren't under law as a rule of life. David was, we are not. But we don't entirely resemble Abraham either, because God dealt with Abraham as a man alive in the world. In this sense, both Abraham and David have a very different experience from us. We aren't alive in the world, but we have died with Christ. A believer who was once under the Law (and I think we can probably include an awful lot of people who grew up in Christendom here) has been freed from it in that he has died with Christ, and has now been freed from law.

And notice how careful the Scripture is about this: we have been freed from law so that we can bring forth fruit to God (Romans 7:4). We cannot produce fruit for God and maintain a relationship with law. The two are incompatible. Either we have law, or we are free to produce fruit for God. We cannot have both.

The problem comes down to this: law as a principle (and the Law in particular) is given to reveal sin (Romans 3:20). And notice it reveals sin, not sins. For many years I misread and misquoted that, thinking the Law reveals which things are sins, and which things aren't. But that's not what the text says; it says that law reveals sin. It reveals our own fallen-ness. It reveals that we are lost. It reveals that we cannot keep rules, even when they are good. It reveals that the mind of flesh isn't subject to the Law of God and cannot be (Romans 8:7).

And notice this is taught in the Pentatuech itself: Deuteronomy 29:4 makes it very clear that obedience requires an entirely new heart. Fallen men and women can't hope to please God (Romans 8:8). It's not merely that they don't want to (they don't), but that they cannot.

So law reveals my own sinfulness, and the Mosaic Law does it better than any other law can. It wasn't given for righteous men and women (1 Timothy 1:8–11). And here's where a lot of dispensationalists go wrong: the Law has not been abolished. Scripture doesn't teach that the Law has died, it teaches that I have. On the contrary, when we tangle with the Law, we find that it does exactly what it is supposed to do: it shows our own sinfulness.

There is coming a day when the Lord will have a people with new hearts, and He will write His law on their hearts (Jeremiah 31:31–34, cf. Deuteronomy 17:18). But that day hasn't come yet, and we're not those people. We haven't had the Law written on our hearts, we have died to it (Romans 7:4). The difference is striking.

I have no doubt that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us here and now (Romans 8:1–4). Notice, it's not that the Law is fulfilled in us, but "the righteousness of the Law" is fulfilled in us. It's not that we fulfill the Law, but we find ourselves walking in the very same righteousness the Law approves.