What is “Q” and What Is the “Synoptic Problem”?

Have you every wondered what “Q” is and why it is so often mentioned with respect to the New Testament Gospels? Then consider watching this brief video from ASKABIBLEPROF.COM. It explains what Q is and how it has impacted Gospel studies. Another helpful video from ASKABIBLEPROF.COM. Just look for us on YouTube, Facebook, and the web.

Read Full Post »

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY vs. SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY: What is the difference?

Have you ever wondered if there is any difference between the disciplines of “biblical” theology and “systematic” theology? Well this brief video explains how they are different and why you should care. Just clink this link: https://youtu.be/OcSI5LuKzZc. You can also find us on YouTube, Facebook/Meta, LinkedIn, and Rumble by the same name, as well as at ASKABIBLEPROF.COM.

If you want to help support the channel, then look for us on Patreon at: https://www.patreon.com/ASKABIBLEPROF

Read Full Post »

WHY DID JESUS WALK ON WATER?

We all know the old joke about why the chicken crossed the road; it simply wanted to get to the other side. One could ask the same question about why Jesus walked on the Sea of Galilee (Mt 14.22-33, Mk 6.45-52, Jn 6.16-21). Was it only because He needed to get to the other side? But seriously, why walk on water? Are we to actually believe that Jesus suddenly felt the urge to walk on water and therefore God miraculously enabled Him to do so? We all remember those vacation Bible school felt board presentations displaying Jesus in a ghostly white robe walking on that stormy sea. But have you ever wondered what the real point of the “story” is. If you think that it was only to teach Peter that he needed to keep his eyes on the Lord, then you are missing the main point because 2 of the 3 Gospel make no reference to Peter’s failure and rescue. Consequently, the importance of keeping our focus on Jesus is only a secondary lesson; it is not the main one. So if trusting the Lord in the midst of life’s storms isn’t the main point, then what is? Was it just another miracle demonstrating that God was on Jesus’ side? Could not Jesus have miraculously sprinted super-humanly fast like Elijah and arrived at Gennesaret a head of the disciples? Wouldn’t that have also been very miraculous? We know that God has performed several miracles involving water. There was Moses turning the Nile to blood; and Joshua’s leading Israel across the Jordan on dry ground; and don’t forget Elisha’s floating axe head; and of course the big one, the crossing of the Red Sea. Was walking on water just another aquatic miracle that God performed on Jesus’ behalf? The short answer of course is no—there was a more important point that the Lord was making.

Before answering this question, it’s necessary to address first an attitude that some have about Jesus’ life and ministry. It seems that some have the idea that Jesus was simply bumbling through life with God as His good luck charm; specifically, that God wildly blessed everything that Jesus did. Regrettably, some try to acquire this Jesus “magic” for themselves so that they can “live their best lives now.” However, Jesus explained how He went about deciding on what to do in this manner: “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in the same way. For the Father loves the Son and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will be amazed” (Jn 5.19-20, NASB). In short, everything that Jesus did was directed by the Father. Jesus didn’t live independently of the Father and the Father wasn’t around just to cover Jesus backside. Consequently, as the incarnate God-man He is our consummate model of what it means to live in complete obedience to the Father’s will—whatever that cost may be.

That being said, Jesus also explained that the central theme of the Old Testament was to reveal precisely who He was. John 5.39 quotes Jesus asserting that “You examine the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is those very Scriptures that testify about Me . . . if you believed Moses, then you would believe Me; for he wrote about Me” (Jn 5.39, 46a). Additionally, He told the disciples that “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things that are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled” (Lk 24.44).  But most importantly He explained that “Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!” (Mt 5.17-18). Jesus embraced His identity as revealed in the Old Testament. Moreover, He either “fulfilled” during His first coming or will fulfill at His second coming whatever it communicates about the Lord God. As far as Jesus was concerned the entire Old Testament foretold of His coming, and it explains everything about Him, as well as what He promises to accomplish. Consequently, Christians that ignore the Old Testament because it contains uncomfortable things or because it’s hard to understand necessarily deprive themselves of fully comprehending Jesus. In other words, by ignoring the Old Testament we guarantee our own spiritual ignorance about the Lord because it is foundational to understanding Him. 

That being established, we now turn back to the original question, which is “why” did Jesus walk on water? What was the essential point that He was making? As previously referenced, the Old Testament contains 2 key events in which God performed miracles involving water. The first was His rescuing Israel from the Egyptian army, in which the entire nation safely “passed through” the Red Sea (Ex 14.13ff, Ps 78.13, Neh 9.11, 1 Cor 10.1). The second was crossing through the Jordon River on dry ground (Josh 3.1-17, Ps 66.6).  However, during these miracles the Israelites could only safely pass through those waters, they were not enabled to walk on the waters. Scripture reveals that only divinity possesses the capacity to walk on water. We are told this in Job 9.8, which states that God “alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea” (NIV). Of course, for a brief moment Peter walked on water, but only by the divine enabling of the Lord Jesus Christ, not from Peter’s own power. If left to his self, then he would have drowned. The Scriptures teach that only He who is divine can walk on water, those that are only human lack this ability.

But what did the Gospel authors think about that miracle? Unfortunately they provided little commentary about the event. John simply stated that Jesus got into the boat. Mark explained that the disciples were “terrified” and “astonished,” and by that point their hearts were “hardened” with respect to comprehending Jesus’ full identity (vs 52).  Matthew wrote that the disciples “worshiped” the Lord and actually declared that He was the “Son of God” (vs. 33). The rest of his Gospel, however, reveals that their momentary confession lacked an adequate appreciation of what they asserted. It is not until the end of his Gospel that Matthew revealed that they fully comprehended who Jesus is.

So once more, why did Jesus walk on the stormy Sea of Galilee? For the same reason that He had previously stilled it (Mt 8.23-27, Mk 4.35-39, Lk 8.22-25), because He was revealing that He is God incarnate, for only God can control the Earth’s elements so as to calm a stormy sea by just the power of His spoken word (Ps 65.7, 89.9, 107.29). And similarly, only God can walk on water (Jb 9.8). Therefore, if we think that it was just serendipitous that God the Father enabled Jesus to walk on water in order to teach Peter a valuable lesson, then we are missing Jesus’ purpose for that miracle. Jesus was making a Christological statement concerning Himself.[1] This self-revelation is why He walked on those waves. Consequently, if we ignore the Old Testament and read only the New Testament, then we will miss the riches of discovering exactly who Jesus is.  However, if we study the entire Bible with the purpose of discovering what it reveals about the Lord, then we have the opportunity to comprehend Jesus’ full identity. That means learning that He is the incarnate God; He is the one who was eternally before the beginning; He is the promised messianic Davidic King, and He is Lord of Heaven and Earth. And most importantly, He is Lord of all and the only savior of the world, for He is the One that even water serves and submits to His will.

---

[1] Simply defined, “Christology” is the study of the person, nature, and work of Jesus Christ.

Read Full Post »

THE BIBLE AND HUMAN GOVERNMENTS

Many people no longer think the Bible is relevant to today’s world, and it’s easy to see their perspective. For instance, how many ancient books provide suitable insights for how today’s societies should function? Regrettably, some even question whether anything written over 200 years ago can still be relevant (e.g., our Constitution). We are being led by some that think that if something hasn’t been recently written, then it should be ignored or impugned, and this is certainly their attitude towards the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the Bible is always relevant and recently I discovered a rarely mentioned passage that is essential for developing a biblical theology on human governance.

First, it’s necessary to quickly review two well-know passages that explain God’s purposes for government. One is Romans 13.1-9, which explains how Christians should respond to government. Paul wrote that believers should submit to their governments because God establishes them as instruments for good. Consequently, believers should pay taxes and honor to those in authority. Jesus himself said “. . . render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Matt 22.21). Some might mistakenly assume that Paul was writing while a “good emperor” ruled the empire. However, the emperor in power as Paul wrote was none other than Nero, the one that would institutionalize Roman persecutions against Christianity. His declarations provided the legal basis for Rome’s ruthless campaigns against Christianity for the following 2 centuries. Nevertheless, Paul explained that the primary function of government was to protect its citizens from external enemies and internal criminals. Consequently, God provides governments with “the sword” in order to fulfill this responsibility. Paul, therefore, directed believers to “do good” and love their neighbors so that they would not fear their governments.

Did Paul know that at times governments would run amuck and diverge from their divinely mandated commission—of course! He certainly was aware of Israel’s past renegade rulers. Nevertheless, God revealed to Paul His intent for governments. That governments at times falter in their divine mandate is no license to oppose them. Does this mean that people should never revolt against tyrannical governments? Again, of course not, but understand that all governments possess “the sword,” so if one is going to overthrow an oppressive government, it will come at a cost of life. History is littered with examples of how hard it is to kill evil governments, so beware.

Another well-known passage is 1 Timothy 2.1-4, here Paul directed believers to pray for all people and especially those in positions of authority so that we may live “tranquil and quiet” lives in all “godliness and dignity.” Paul wrote that God views such self-interested prayers as acceptable. Why would these types of prayers be encouraged? Paul stated that peaceful societies provide opportunities for people to come to faith in Christ, to prosper, and to receive the “knowledge of the truth.” Does that mean that Christianity can’t spread during times of persecution—again the answer is no. Some of Christianity’s greatest expansions occurred during times of intense persecutions. Nevertheless, another divine function of government is to provide an atmosphere of freedom that allows people to live peaceful and self-directed lives where they can provide for their families and do good for those around them. Consequently, God is not offended that believers pray for their rulers so that they may lead peaceful lives; instead He encourages it for the purposes of evangelism and church growth.

These are some better-known passages that explain God’s purposes for governments. That being the case there is another passage that is indispensable to developing a comprehensive theology on human governance. The previous two passages assume benevolent governments; however, 1 Samuel 8.10-18 provides divine insight as to what all governments inevitably become, which is greedy and oppressive. Its greater context is Israel’s rejection of God as their “ruler” and their request for a “king.” The prophet Samuel responded by explaining the inevitable result of their request, which was that their king will take their sons, daughters, their servants, their taxes, and their fields. In short, Samuel warned that their future kings will confiscate the “best” from the people; and eventually the people will become “servants” of their kings (vs 17). While people long for governments that protect their rights; regrettably, sooner or latter rulers are driven by their own lusts, and inevitably turn their citizenry into slaves. As Lord Acton asserted, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”; and as the Bible warns, those in positions of political control always covet more power.

If you think that Samuel’s warning applies to only monarchies, then you need to brush up on world history. Here God has provided for us the inevitable trajectory of all governments, whether they are monarchs, socialistic, communistic, democracies, empires, aristocracies, dictatorships, parliaments, republics, or any combination of them. No matter how noble the initial intent for any government, or how well conceived its charter, in the long run it all will oppress its citizenry. And why is that? It’s because people are systemically sinful (Rom 3.10-18), and all governments are run by people. As time and weather erodes all fortresses, evil people incrementally erode the good within governments by promoting themselves, and while ascending they grab more power in order to entrench themselves in positions of authority. As Jesus himself observed, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them . . . .” (Luke 22.25).

The Scriptures are certainly relevant with respect to a realistic philosophy of human governance. They explain God’s purposes for government, as well as why all governments inevitably fail. Many are deceived into believing that somewhere there is a perfect form of government. One that is just and fair, one that has all the answers, and will provide for all of their needs with equity. Such a perspective is unrealistic and lacks wisdom. I’m of the opinion that a democratic Republic that recognizes and protects our inalienable God given rights is best. But I understand that no matter how hard we try to control governments, in the end they will ultimately control us. No one should be surprised at this outcome; this inevitably is because Satan knows the value of using sinful humans to achieve his ends. If he can control those that lead us, then he will exponentially maximize his evil influence upon entire nations and cultures. Regrettably, scripture foretells of a future global government that will be inspired and influenced by him, and it will monopolize the distribution of essential resources while demanding fanatical devotion from the world’s population to its titular human leader—the Antichrist. Any that reject him will be either executed for treason or relegated to a life of abject poverty (Rev 13.1-17; 2 Thes 2.3-10). Does this future certainty mean that believers should not participate in current governments? Not at all. It only means that we should have a biblical perspective for all forms of government. Specifically, that they all eventually fail, and inevitably one will be the vehicle by which satanically driven people will once again seek to extinguish the people of God. But thanks be to God that the Lord will sovereignly intervene on our behalf. On that wonderful day “the government will rest on His shoulders and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, . . .” (Is 9.6-7). May He come quickly.

Copyright @ 2021 Monte Shanks

Read Full Post »

The World according to Psalm 1

Recently my wife and I began watching the “Star Wars” episodes in their proper chronological order. The last episode we watched contained the showdown between Obi Wan and Anakin Skywalker (i.e., the future Darth Vader). Just before the climatic dual, Obi Wan informed Anakin that “Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” In case you are unaware, Siths are committed to the “Dark Side.” In other words, only really bad guys believe in absolutes, which ironically is also an absolute. But hey, it’s Star Wars, so who is really paying attention anyway. Nevertheless, absolutes are an unavoidable part of life; we deal with them wherever we go (e.g., gravity, the need for oxygen and water, etc). Some are to our benefit, some are neutral, and some we generally chose to ignore, like the absolutes found in the Bible. A good example of just such an absolute is found in Psalm 1.

Psalm 1 is a startling psalm, which is a significant reason for why it’s the first one in the Book of Psalms. It’s startling because the psalmist observes that there are only 2 types of people in the world, there are the godly and the ungodly. Verse 1 appears to categorized the ungodly into 3 degrees, they are the “wicked,” the “sinners,” and the “scoffers” (NASB). Some suggest that these labels are synonyms that simply refer to the same type of person (i.e., the ungodly), but others see a progression from the lesser to the greater in the spectrum of ungodly people. I personally agree that the psalmist is describing a progression towards entrenched ungodliness.

On the other side there are the godly, which are marked by 2 passions. First, they “delight” in the “law of the Lord,” and second, they meditate on it constantly. As the psalmist put it, “And in His law he/she meditates day and night.” Thus, for the psalmist there are only 2 types of people in the world, those who love God’s word and those who reject it.

At this point some may object by asserting “That is a rather limited perspective; the world is much too diverse for such a prospect to be true”; and I’m sure there are countless other objections. But the problem with such objections is that the psalmist wasn’t too impressed with them. You either delight in God’s word, or you don’t. You either study it to seek Him and His will or you don’t. It’s just that simple.

Some have excuses for not ruminating over God’s word. Excuses such as “It’s not really relevant today’s world”; or “It’s was written so long ago and translated so many times, who knows what it originally said?” Other common excuses are that “It’s too hard to understand”; or “I don’t really have time for it.” The psalmist observed that such excuses do not deter those that love God; consequently, they are constantly availing themselves to the Scriptures. More importantly, it should be noted that the psalmist didn’t write that the godly simply “read” God’s word, but that they “meditate” upon it, and they do so “day and night.” Plainly stated, the Bible is not your personal daily greeting card from God. Understanding it requires appreciation, devotion, discipline, reason, and faith. It is not for the lazy and indifferent, it is for those that are serious about finding God and worshiping Him. And least we forget, in the psalmist’s day “the law of God” referred to just the Pentateuch and not the entire Bible that we now possess. It referred to only the first 5 books, which includes Numbers and Deuteronomy (which basically means the “second law” or “repetition of the law”; in other words, “now let’s go over this again”).

But some may suggest, “Well none of this actually affects me since I don’t really fall into either camp.” And there is the rub. Anyone making such a claim objectively places themselves outside of the camp of the godly, which means that for the psalmist they are being influenced by the wicked, or by sinners, or possibly by scoffers. Only the ungodly appease themselves with reasons for not studying the Bible. The godly, on the other hand, enjoy meditating on the Scriptures because in them they find God and His will for their lives. Only the ungodly “trust in confusion” (Is 59.4), and only they find excuses for neglecting God’s word. As the apostle Peter explained, while referring to specific New Testament letters, that “. . . the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Pet 3.16).

So if it’s been a while since you invested time in meditating upon God’s word, then it means you are on the wrong path. It means that you are being influenced by the wicked, or by sinners, or maybe even by scoffers. Those that walk in their “ways” inevitably begin to look like the wicked, and after a while they windup standing around with sinners. And in the end, they find themselves sitting among their fellow scoffers. In other words, they become the ungodly.

Only by delighting in the Bible, and being delighted in it in such a way that one is constantly thinking about what it says, trusting in what it means, and applying it to one’s daily life protects that one from the future of the ungodly. It protects them because it should inevitably lead to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby rescuing them from the fate of the ungodly. And there is a different destiny for the ungodly. The psalmist described their end in this manner: “The wicked are not so, but they are like chaff that the wind blows away. Therefore, the wicked will not stand in the judgment, or sinners in the assembly of the righteous. For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish” (Ps 1.4-6).

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2021

Read Full Post »

DID PAUL AND JAMES DISAGREE ON THE ISSUE OF FAITH AND WORKS?

DOES FAITH PLUS WORKS SECURE SALVATION?

One observation that is often raised when reading the Epistle of James is that James’s teaching about the relationship between works and faith seems to “contradict” what Paul taught on the subject.  One thing we should remember with respect to the Epistle of James is that in all probably it is earlier than any of Paul’s letters.  Some seemed to think that James is disagreeing with Paul.  However, with respect to chronology, if anyone is disagreeing with someone, it would have been Paul disagreeing with James, and not vice versa.  However, contrary to what some may assert, there is no real conflict between these two early church leaders, a fact which is objectively documented in Acts 15.13-29 and Galatians 2.7-9.

Nevertheless, some perceive a conflict when they attempt to understand James’s use of the word “justify” through Paul’s use of the very same word.  Before turning my attention to James’s use, an important observation should be made concerning his theology on salvation.  James never taught that a person is saved through works alone.  James mentions the word “faith” just as many times as he mentions the word “works” (actually more if one includes relative pronouns and synonyms).  For James, faith and works were different sides of the same coin rather than two separate actions or entities.  His problem, however, was with those claiming belief in the Lord Jesus Christ and yet showed little objective evidence of it in their lives.  So let’s be clear, James was not concerned with performing religious works for the sake of securing justification before God, but rather with certain types of works that reveal genuine saving faith.

Now as to James’s and Paul’s use of the word “justify.”  When Paul used the word “justify” he almost exclusively used it in the forensic sense.  In other words, he used in the context of God’s declaration of a new completed reality.  More specifically, he used it to describe what God declares as an accomplished status for sinners through their faith in Christ (Rom 5.1, 8-9; 1 Cor 6.9-11; Titus 3.5-7).  And just for the record, when God declares something accomplished, it is then a reality—it no longer should be thought of as belonging to the realm of the potential.  Generally speaking, therefore, when Paul used the word “justify,” he was predominantly describing what God has accomplished for a sinner in spite of his/her guilt.  In God’s courtroom, he declares the repentant sinner justified and thus righteous in His eyes because of Christ’s payment for his or her sin debt.

This is not what James meant as he used the word “justify.”  If this word had only one nuance or one specific meaning in which it always meant the exact same thing in every context, then unquestionably Paul and James would be in conflict.  However, it does not have the same exact meaning in every context, and even Paul and Jesus also used this very word with a very different nuance.  And what is this different meaning?  It is the meaning or sense of “vindication.”  As previously explained, Paul predominantly used the word with the meaning of God declaring a guilty but repentant sinner as “justified” through his or her acceptance of Christ as their savior, and thus he has confirmed upon them a new status.  However, in a different context, the proper understanding of this word is “to vindicate or acknowledge that the righteous were already in fact what they claimed to be, which is ‘righteous.’”  In other words, it is not a declaration of a new state of being, but a declaration that what was previously claimed was in fact true. Following are examples of where Paul and Jesus used this word with this very meaning.   The first is Romans 3.4 with respect to God’s judgments.  The question we should ask ourselves is this, are God’s declarations ever wrong or incorrect?  No, they are not.  In this passage, therefore, God’s judgments are not being declared right in spite of the fact that they were not, but rather they are being “proved right” (NIV) or vindicated as being right.   Again, in 1 Timothy 3.16 Paul stated that Jesus was “vindicated” (NASB) by the Holy Spirit during his earthly ministry.  In other words, the Holy Spirit did not declare Jesus as right in spite of himself, rather the Spirit revealed or vindicated Jesus to be what he already was, which was the righteous one sent by God.  And lastly, Jesus stated in Matthew 11:19 that “Wisdom is vindicated by her deeds” (NABS).  Did Jesus mean that wisdom needs to be declared right in spite of itself, or that wisdom is vindicated to be exactly what it is (i.e., wisdom) by her deeds?  Clearly what Jesus meant was that wisdom is always wisdom, and her deeds reveal this to be obvious, because through them the integrity of authentic wisdom is inevitably demonstrated.

And this is exactly James’s point, which is that authentic faith is vindicated as genuine saving faith because it results in a changed life that is habitually faithful, compassionate, and loving.  A mere confession of faith without any works that are the natural result of authentic faith is useless, and therefore dead.  In other words, simply saying that you “believe” in Jesus is not a “hall pass” that excuses your unbelief.  God is not fooled by anyone’s hypocrisy with respect to their relationship to the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now, let’s take a deeper look at what James actually taught about the relationship of faith and works, as well as his examples of genuine faith. If we look at James’s quote of Genesis 15.6, we see that he states that Abraham’s attempted offering of Isaac “fulfilled” what God had already declared to be true concerning Abraham.  More specifically, Abraham’s actions revealed that he had already sincerely trusted God with for his life and what God had promised him concerning his descendants.  And for the record, James fully understood that God had already declared Abraham righteous well before he placed Isaac upon that alter, which is obvious by James’s quote of Genesis 15.3 (the account of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac is found in Genesis 22).  Again, Rahab’s faith was vindicated as genuine faith by her decision to hide the Israelite spies.  Consequently, her deed proved that she had already truly believed in the God of Israel.  There is something very intriguing about the specific actions of these two OT believers.  Think about them, one attempted sacrifice of a child, and the other was the treasonous act of a harlot.  In other words, they are not the types of compassionate deeds that immediately come to mind when we think of what constitutes “good works.”  When we think of “good works” we think of compassionate acts that show how good we really are, such as feeding the poor or sheltering the homeless.  That is not what Abraham’s and Rahab’s actions demonstrated, their “good deeds” revealed that they had fully trusted God instead of their own capacity to benefit themselves. Consequently, their actions revealed that they already trusted in God and that their faith in him was genuine.  More specifically, they revealed their total abandonment of all that they held dear for nothing more than a belief that God would provide for them. Such dependence is the hallmark of authentic saving faith.

And finally, Jesus as well as all of the other NT writers—including Paul—clearly taught that genuine faith produces “good works” in the lives of those who are saved (Matt 7.16-20; Eph 2.8-9; Titus 2.14; 1 Pet. 2.9-12; 1 Jn 3.13-18).  So, without question the old proverb is soundly biblical, which is as follows: “While works do not save, saving faith works.”  Consequently, James did not teach that salvation is the “reward” for those that believe and perform good works, but that good works are a birthmark of those who how have been already born again.  Our attitude, therefore, should not be that we have to believe in Jesus and do good works in order to earn or secure our salvation, but that because Jesus has already saved us, then we get to do good works that magnify the name of our wonderful savior and glorify God.

Doc

Copyright @ 2013 Monte Shanks

 

 

Read Full Post »

DID PAUL BELIEVE THE MOSAIC LAW HAD 2 OR 3 “PURPOSES”?

There is some confusion today concerning how Christians should relate to the Mosaic Law.  Some argue that it has absolutely no place in the lives of believers, and that we only live and walk by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.  Consequently, in this blog I wish to address the theological question of how many “purposes” there are for the Law of Moses (hereafter “the Law”).  Please note, that this discussion does not address the “moral law” that God has instilled into everyone (i.e., our conscience; cf., Rom 2.12-16); instead, this is about the Law that Moses received directly from God as recorded in the Pentateuch, which is also commonly referred to as the Mosaic Covenant.  I approach this topic with some trepidation since some have different understandings and misunderstandings concerning the “purposes” of the Law.  To be sure, there are many purposes of the Law, but with respect to theological debate of our time, some argue that there are only 2 fundamental purposes for the Law, while others assert that today there exists 3 purposes for the Law in the lives of believers.  I will attempt to address these issues briefly, which almost assuredly means that I will either be misunderstood or offend someone.  However, no offense is intended.

The First Purpose of the Law

The first purpose of the Law is easy and virtually everyone agrees as to what it was, which is that it was a covenant between God and Israel that provided for the Jews the “legal” parameters of how they would live with God in the Promise Land.  More specifically, it explained how a sinful people (i.e., the Jews) could co-exist with a holy God and worship him while living in the land that he had given them.  It is extremely important to be very precise concerning this use of the Law since some over-generalize it, thus leading many into a critical misunderstanding that Law was and still is a means to salvation.  The Law was never meant to provide salvation to those who obeyed it (Gal 3.11, Heb 10.1-10).  Consequently, the Law was a contractual agreement between the Israelites and the God of Abraham concerning how God would permit them to live in the land that he has promised to Abraham and his descendants.  This contract (i.e., covenant) also included instructions as to how they could remain fruitful in the land, a land which God has unconditionally promised to the Jews forever.  Consequently, anyone that attempts to apply the entire Law, or just parts of it, to their lives today (e.g., the Seventh Day Adventist) while living outside the Land of Israel has completely misunderstand this first essential function of the Law.  The Law explained to Israel how they could enjoy the Lord’s presence and his blessings without offending him by their propensity to sin.  Regarding the inevitable occurrence of sin, the Law revealed and explained for the Jews what God required from them for the purpose of providing temporarily atonement for individual breaches of this covenant.  Essentially, the Law was too curb the sinfulness God’s people as they lived in the land with him, as well as while they were identified as a people set apart by him for his purposes; otherwise God’s holiness would require that he discipline an unfaithful generation, and even potentially temporarily casting them out of the land (which inevitably happened). For further explanation concerning this purpose for the Law read Deuteronomy 27-34.  Some refer to this function as the “civic” purpose of the Law.  This designation, however, can cause serious confusion since the Law is often described as having 3 parts: a “moral” component (which identified universal sinful acts [e.g., murder and theft] and godly responsibilities [e.g., marriage and family obligations]), a “cultic” or religious component (identifying how to practice the Hebrew faith), and a “civic” or “social” component (identifying civil responsibilities and reconciling legal disputes).  These divisions may help some today understand different emphases found within the Law; however, the Jews in Moses’ day would not have viewed the Law in such a manner. They would have viewed the Law as a whole, all of which would have been morally obligatory.  The Law in its entirety was a spiritual covenant between Israel and God, and there was no “non-moral” or secular aspect to it. Moreover, stating that the Law focuses on 3 different areas of Jewish life has little to do with ascertaining whether the Law has 2 or 3 “purposes” for believers today. The Law’s different focuses within the practice of the Hebrew faith is not germane to the current discussion.  Nevertheless, at the risk of being misunderstood, the constitutional function of the Law will be referred to as a “civic” purpose of the Law, and it was this specific purpose that was the Law’s original function. Moreover, it should be observed that the Law was given only to the Jews, it was not also given to any Gentiles, nations, or other people groups.  It was given to the genetic descendants of Abraham, and it was given to provide the Jews with the necessary directions for obeying and worshipping God while living in the land that he had forever promised to Abraham and his offspring.

A Second Purpose of the Law

Paul identified another purpose of the Law in Galatians 3.15-4.7, which is to convict people of their sin and their need for atonement, justification, and redemption.  In short, the Law also taught Jews (as well as people today regardless of their ethnicity) of their need for a savior.  This purpose is at times referred to as the “theological” or Christocentric use for the Law, and on this purpose Evangelicals agree.  The Law was never a conduit for salvation (contrary to what some from the New Perspective may suggest, or others that promote various forms of a “works based” soteriologies).  Paul explained that a purpose for the Law now was that of an educator (i.e., a tutor). It teaches sinners of their need for a savior, which Moses himself prophesied would someday come (Dt 18.15).  It should be noted that this was always a purpose of the Law.  The Law always revealed to the Jews, and by extension all people, that they were sinners, and therefore in need of redemption and atonement.  While Gentiles were not required to enact the Law in their own countries, once exposed to its contents they would certainly learn what they already knew about themselves, which is that they are sinners and thus in need of redemption. And finally we now know that Jesus Christ is the perfect sacrifice for our sins, and thus he is the only savior available for all humanity (Acts 4.12, Jn 14.6).

A Third Purpose of the Law

Whether or not there is a “third purpose” of the Law is where the majority of disagreement occurs.  Those who believe there is a third function of the Law assert it may be used as an instrument to educate believers concerning the will of God with respect to specific issues, topics, and question, thus aiding the believer’s ability to experience practical or progressive sanctification (as opposed to positional sanctification).  This third function of the Law may be referred to as the “didactic purpose.”  However, some argue that advocating for such a purpose is a contradiction to what it means to be a Christian.  The argument being that promoting the Law as functional in the life of a believer misdirects them from living by faith in Christ alone; consequently, they deny that the Law possesses any didactic benefit or function for anyone that has received Christ (e.g., some modern Lutherans and Reformed theologians).  Regardless of what some theologians may argue, in order to answer the question of whether there is a “third purpose” of the Law one simply needs to look at the example set forth by the apostle Paul (who originally identified the second purpose of the Law).  For example, twice the apostle Paul quoted a commandment found in the Law (Dt 25.4) in order to provide guidance to believers on matters involving Christian practice.  Paul first quoted Deuteronomy 25.4 in 1 Corinthians 9.9 and then again later in 1 Timothy 5.18.  The issue at hand was whether pastors should receive remuneration for ministries to their churches.  Paul’s appeal to the Law in this instant fulfills neither a Christocentric function (i.e., leading one to faith in Christ), or civic purpose of the Law (i.e., explaining to the Jews what God required of them while living in the Land).  The importance of these passages is that they demonstrate that Paul practiced a third use of the Law (whether purposefully or not one can only guess—heaven only knows if Paul would have engaged in this debate).  This practice of Paul demonstrates that he believed that the Law provided insight for believers with respect to what was correct or godly behavior in the eyes of God.  If Paul did not believe there was a didactic purpose for the Law, then he would not have employed commandments found in the Law to teach the church at Corinth or his disciple Timothy what God viewed as appropriate behavior and/or responsibilities of believers.  He certainly would have refrained from using it if he thought it might promote some twisted form of legalism; thus, confusing believers on how to walk by faith in Christ.  Nevertheless, Paul saw no danger in employing commandments found in the Law in order to teach believers how they should live with one another and walk with God.  Conversely, Paul never taught believers that they should only seek the Holy Spirit’s guidance concerning matters pertaining to godliness.  No, Paul gladly used the Law to educate Christians with respect to what God expected from them.  Moreover, it was Paul who also wrote that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3.16-17).  When Paul referred to “all Scripture” he was most definitely referring to the Law, as well as the entire Old Testament, since at that time there was no “New Testament” to which Christians could turn.  Consequently, the Law has a didactic function for believers today, and without question it is an essential aid for helping Christians walk in the Spirit as they seek to obey the Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God the Father. While the Law can aid us in walking in a sanctified manner, it is not the source of our sanctification.  Obedience to anything found in the Law, or the rest of the Old Testament for that matter, does not make us holier people, only Christ provides us with positional sanctification (i.e., eternal life and salvation), as well as progressive sanctification (walking faithfully with him throughout our daily lives as we seek to fulfill his will through the guidance of the Holy Spirit).  Consequently, while both the Old and New Testaments teach us about the Lord, godliness, what he expects of us, and his will for our lives, it is only the Lord Jesus Christ who makes us holy.

Doc.

Copyright ©, 2014 Monte Shanks

 

Read Full Post »