Contact or Contract?

That extra 'R' stands for religion. I mean the extra 'R' in the word 'contract' that is not in the word 'contact'.

If you read my last post, you will know that it is not my belief that God was wholeheartedly in the Law. The Law is religion. Yes, the best religion, because there is some glory in it and it tells us a lot about God. However Paul tells us in Galatians and Hebrews and many other places in the New Testament about the limitations of the Law.

Surely God wanted to save me and you passionately and wholeheartedly. Surely he wanted to save us completely?

If I think he is half-hearted then I will be too, I guarantee. 

But God is not like that. His throne is surrounded by beings who are in constant awe and amazement. They are enthralled, in love. If you have any sense, you will not feel that for too long towards someone who is half-hearted towards you. That is human nature. It is also sensible.

Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.    (Heb 12:2 KJV)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;    (1 John 1:1 KJV)

Jesus endured the cross for the joy (read 'enjoyment') of knowing us! God thinks human beings are a supremely good idea, worth going to extreme lengths over to recover our friendship.

For our part, we can have contact with God. John had physical contact with God the Man. We can have spiritual contact with him, which is probably even better. One day we will have physical contact too. One day he will wait on us and serve us, who have been looking forward to his appearance.

Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them.    (Luke 12:37 KJV)

If we contact God, we are connected with his resources. Emotional, financial, physical, spirtual, mental, everything.

Add the 'r' and we get contract. The Law was contract.

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:   (Deu 28:1 KJV)

And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.    (Deu 28:2 KJV)

........there follows a list of blessings covering just about all areas of life 

But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:    (Deu 28:15 KJV)

........there follows a list of curses covering just about all areas of life 

Paul calls Deuteronomy 28:15 'the Curse of the Law'.

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:    (Gal 3:13 KJV)

We have been rescued from this tit-for-tat contractual relationship with God where failure to keep the rules rigorously results in harsh and broad-based punishment.

Instead, we encounter God as Father. This is possible because of what Jesus did to remove the valid legal basis for our punishment. We will then be able to experience the tender fatherhood of God, rather than seeing him as an angry slave-master, constantly saddened by our shortcomings and misdemeanors. We need to be fully conscious of the total effectiveness of the blood of Christ. Remember that this was a radical concept, even for Jews, when Jesus started preaching it. God as Father! Well, a good father treats his children as individuals, he is sensitive to their state of mind and mood. He does not exasperate them by expecting more than they can give. (Perhaps he might to teach them a lesson if they re being mean and demanding to others!)  He will discipline them but not out of temper, to release his own frustrations, and not to get even. He will discipline them so they learn for their own good. He will be harsh only if harsh is the only way forward. Law has no such sensitivity, even good law. It is proceedural, contractual, impersonal.

God had much more in mind when he made us.

The Law- Administered by Angels

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator.    (Gal 3:19 NRSV)

Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.    (Gal 3:20 NRSV)

I have been talking about exegesis. What about these verses? What do I think?

To understand the Old Testament, we really need the new. We will get really muddled otherwise. The Old Testament seen correctly shows us just how wonderful and powerful the New is.

Galatians, like Hebrews, is a powerful exposition of the supremacy of the New Covenant. Galatians Ch3 is a fabulous overview of the sweep of Biblical revelation. Paul starts in v1-5 by reminding the Galatians that they received the Holy Spirit because Christ was crucified and they believed. They did not receive Him because they observed the Law. No-one observes the Law. Christ fulfilled the spirit of the Law perfectly, but even he did not observe the letter of the Law, see Matthew Ch12 for example.

Galatians 3v7 quotes Hosea 6v6. God desires mercy, not sacrifice. We can see here that the Old Testament itself tells us that God's heart is not really in the Law as a governing system! Psalm 51 v16 tells us the same thing, with David typically expressing things in terms of God's emotions. David says

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.    (Psa 51:16 NIV)

The same David who inspires us to be close to God's heart, and who clearly found delight in God's presence, here gives us insight into what God does not find pleasure and delight in. Oddly enough, it is aspects of the Law; sacrifice and burnt offering! Now God is in harmony with himself. If he finds no delight in something, it is because it is not his best. The law does not reflect the best heart intent of God!

The Law hinges on man's performance. Mercy hinges on God's performance. God, understandably, prefers his performance in us to our performance without him.

Galatians Ch3 goes onward from verse 6 by explaining that there is a continuity between the situation that existed between God and Abraham and the situation with us under the New Covenant. The Law is portrayed clearly and firmly as a departure from this flow, see v10-13.

The Gospel is concerned with promise. Abraham believed in a God who makes promises. He believed God, and he also believed the promises. The Gospel is primarily about believing in promises. We are exhorted to live in the good of the promises, but we are commanded to believe the promises themselves. The promises are about the total sufficiency of God in our lives, starting with forgiveness of sin and new life symbolized by baptism. Blessing comes to those who believe that God has answered everything.

Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.    (Gal 3:7 NIV)
 
So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.    (Gal 3:9 NIV)

There is a resonance, a thread, a continuity between Abraham and the New Covenant believer, so much so that the passage says that the Gospel was preached to Abraham, v8. It does not just mean that Abraham was told that all nations would be blessed through him. Abraham was aware that the basic nature of Gospel relationship with God entails faith, and believing. It means walking relationally with God.

Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."    (Gal 3:6 NIV)

In this passage, the Law is portrayed as a departure from Gospel faith. The Law demands righteousness. The Gospel credits righteousness to us because we have believed.

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."  Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."    (Gal 3:10-11 NIV)

The Law was given through Moses. It was given to those for whom Moses personally pleaded, the Israelites, the physical seed of Abraham. An analysis of Exodus shows that these people did not have the faith of Abraham. They did not deeply put their hope in the faithfulness of God. They believed they could establish their own righteousness when they were told the rules.

The people all answered as one: "Everything that the LORD has spoken we will do." Moses reported the words of the people to the LORD.    (Exo 19:8 NRSV)

Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.    (Rom 10:3 NIV)

The Israelites at the time of Moses wanted contract. God wanted intimacy. From intimacy comes adoration, and from adoration comes surrender. From our surrender comes a place for the life of God in us. That life shows forth in beautiful, natural righteousness.

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.    (1 John 4:10 KJV)

This is the empowering dynamic behind the New Covenant, the force field which allows righteousness to spring forth. God is the one who alone is able....

....to satisfy the desolate and waste ground; and to cause the bud of the tender herb to spring forth..    (Job 38:27 KJV)

The tender shoot of beautiful and righteous fruit in our lives comes forth because we have been close to him.

For as the earth bringeth forth her bud, and as the garden causeth the things that are sown in it to spring forth; so the Lord GOD will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.    (Isa 61:11 KJV)

I love the KJV for the evocative poetry!

So why the Law? It was a package to meet the Israelites as they were, in their unbelief. Moses pleaded their case to God because they would not listen and believe. So God gave the Law as a supervisor to hold them together as a people and to discipline them until they can see their need for the Gospel.

For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them (the Israelites under Moses); but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.    (Heb 4:2 KJV)

It is interesting that the writer does not see God as excusing the unbelief because Jesus was not yet incarnate. God can read all the attitudes of our hearts. 

Wherefore the law was our (the Israelites') schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.    (Gal 3:24 KJV)

The best the Law can offer in terms of righteousness is to set forth God's behavioural requirements. In this respect, the Ten Commandments still stand. The best the Law can offer in terms of ritual is to make us aware of heavenly realities, of our eternal advocate and his sufficient sacrifice.

So it is my belief that the Law did not flow directly from God's heart. It was a response to the pleading of a mediator, Moses. And because God will not perform directly that which is not fully upon his heart, the Law was administered (Greek diatasso; arranged thoroughly, set in order, often translated 'ordained') by angels.

To quote Witness Lee, 'The Law is God's secondary economy'. (RV footnote)

   

Exegesis-How do we proceed?

Exegesis then is the drawing out of meaning, wisdom, concepts, advice, conclusions, from the Bible as the Word of God.

Both a tenacious clinging to orthodoxy and an excessive need for novelty have their dangers.

The doctrine of God as Trinity is a reasonable conclusion adopted from the Bible, as is the Rapture of the Saints. Neither word is present in the text, but both are reliable inferences. To get these concepts from the Bible we have to read the New Testament thoroughly and think a little. Creeds like the Nicene and the Westminster Catechisms are further examples of distillations of Biblical concepts. Both are widely respected and useful. 

Now there is a danger of making unreliable inferences from the information we have. But if we don't try, we won't discover anything new. In the case of Biblical exegesis, the information we have is...the Bible....of course....plus our experiences, direct, here-say, or reading we have done.

In the secular field I would say that the theory of evolution is a 'discovery' based on existing evidence. I believe it to be incorrect for explaining our origins.(see my blog www.creationandlogic.blogspot) Returning to Scripture, it is clear that some historic statements by church leaders are based on unbalanced inference from the Biblical text. Pope Gregory VII supposedly used scripture to justify 'articles of faith' such as the following;

'It may be permitted (to the Pope) to depose emperors'

'(The Pope) himself may be judged by no-one'

'The (Roman) Church has never erred, nor will it, to all eternity....'

There is also a danger in sticking too doggedly to existing orthodoxy. For one thing, the sort of stuff above, once seen as new Biblically-based thought, can become unchallenged orthodoxy.

Another example about orthodoxy from the secular field. I hear that the recent financial crash was at least partially due to bankers slavishly using a formula called the Black-Scholes equation to evaluate the value of financial products called derivatives. This was orthodoxy. The inventors of the formula got a Nobel prize. It was accurate enough when used within certain constraints, but became highly inaccurate in extreme conditions of trading. Traders could defend themselves by saying the used the accepted formula. This was an appeal to orthodoxy.

Now in the last post I said there is room for orthodoxy. There are certain things that are so clear in Scripture that they must be accepted. It is clearly perverse and evasive to try and deny them, yet there are those who do, such as Jehovah's Witnesses. But there are a lot of other areas where opinions are subjective. We need to be selective about what we take on board. There are some conclusions I have come to where I am keen to state that what I am saying is my opinion for you to consider, and no more than that.

In any case, we will never reduce God to a formula that fits in our head. If we could, we would not need to consult and submit to a living Being. We would not have to learn by engaging with others. We would know what God wanted from our clever formula.

Questions arise in our minds and we like to search Scripture, and read existing opinions, in order to get an answer. If you are like me and do this a lot, I think it can be helpful. God is not against us asking questions if we really want the answers.

People who like to see something new in the Scriptures are good for the Body provided we do not take their opinions as automatically authoritative, like the Pope wanted his followers to in the examples above. Preachers and teachers are likely to make mistakes at times. God can use them to bring new revelation and understanding. But we must test what is said and hold to the good.

Teaching on healing, prosperity and positive confession has blessed the Body. However, often it has been presented in a simplistic, formulaic way. But don't throw it out altogether because of that.

Martin Luther was a man who challenged orthodoxy. Most of his conclusions were valid. His starting point was Scripture. He questioned orthodoxy of the day and went to the source material.

A Point or two about Bible Interpretation (Exegesis)

I will step out on a limb a bit in an attempt to answer a theological point arising in my mind. Before I discuss the point, in the next post or two, I want to make another point about exegesis. Exegesis is the discipline of analysis of the Biblical text. The Greek word means 'to lead out', i.e. to bring out meaning form the text. The term is increasingly used when texts other than the Bible are being analyzed, but it is the Bible I am concerned with here.

A brief Google search of any well known Christian teacher past or present will bring up numerous 'heresy hunter' websites. Most of these sites seem a tad acrimonious and blinkered to me. I have met one leader written off as a bad job by one of these sites that I had read just days before. I feel it would be very helpful for some of these heresy hunters to talk to their 'victims' before writing. That is not to say they sometimes don't have a point.

Now the meaning of the word 'exegesis' was, as I said, 'to lead out' or 'to draw out'. We are looking for underlying meaning; what is not necessarily spelled out verbatim in the text or set of texts. There is going to be an element of speculation at times. There is going to be an element of opinion. 

To interpret scripture, to form a worldview based on it, we are going to have to experiment with our thinking, meditating on various verses and ideas. If we don't do this, there is no need for preaching. Just reading the Bible out will do. There is certainly a place for that. But most areas of knowledge rely on this type of 'thought experiment' in order for them to develop.

That said, there is a balance between orthodoxy and controversy. We can stay in the safe orthodoxy, or try to. We can look for what everyone agrees on in Christian belief. That is a good thing to do at times, so we can decide on what is unshakable common ground. Things like the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ. Something like the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the Second Coming. Also the full and sufficient sacrifice for sins made on his cross. Things like this should distinguish the true church. However, we should let fundamentals be fundamentals, and details, details, and be aware and wise concerning the shades of gray in between too.

The Body of Christ includes people from all sorts of diverse denominations who truly believe; some very ancient and traditional. I recently read about a Russian Orthodox couple who showed great faith and compassion in the way they took in orphans. However, we cannot include people from groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons who deny the deity of Christ, or plainly distort or add to the Scriptures. We cannot include, obviously, faiths which rest primarily on personalities other than Christ, such as Islam or Rastafarianism. We can see these people best as potential members of God's family, rather than enemies.

In my next post I want to get back to exegesis within the Body of Christ and make a point about how revelation from Scripture develops.




  

The Purpose of the Law

For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.    (John 1:17 KJV)

John saw a fundamental difference between the Law of Moses and the coming of Jesus Christ. You cannot get round that fact. Try any Bible version that is not forcing a prejudiced interpretation on you. I have just read a set of rhetorical questions in a Christian periodical about 'Biblical Worldview'. For some, it seems, Christianity is largely concerned with conforming the laws and behaviours of the land (in this case South Africa) to the Ten Commandments. Now I am not against people living in line with the Ten Commandments. If we really did, any country would be a safer and more prosperous place. In a place like South Africa, morality and integrity in government and business need all the help they can get, for sure.

However this is not really the prime thrust of Jesus. He did not come to transform a society and it's institutions of Government by forcing them to follow a written code, albeit a supremely excellent one.. Instead he called individuals to turn to God for the remission of their sins.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.    (Acts 2:38 KJV)

What does this mean? It means turn from living life out of fellowship with God. Receive new life from God. Be baptised as a sign that a new life has begun in you, a new life which will cause your sins to remit, i.e. die out.

You will look in vain in an accurate translation for the common evangelical concept of turning from your sins, or repenting of your sins, as a precondition or preliminary to coming to Christ. if by this we mean, 'are you willing to let go of your sins', fine. If we mean, 'are you by your own efforts putting away your sins', that is not fine. We cannot. The important thing is coming to Christ. Sure, tell people he will deal with your sins more and more as time goes on, and if you are not prepared for that, don't come. But you cannot deal with sin without him. We are here to help people love Jesus passionately from the heart, to partake of and abide in his righteous life, not to make them solid legalists trying to reform themselves. i believe this is not detail. it is vitally important that we realize our only sufficiency (adequacy, competence) is in Christ.

Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;    (2 Cor 3:5 KJV)

Look at the Acts verse about repentance in the New Living Translation. This version has been rendered according to a common strand of evangelical 'culture'. the text is a distorted interpretation of the original.

Peter replied, 'Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.' (Acts 2v38 NLT)

This sounds like evangelical orthodoxy, but it does not represent the original text.  

The same article mentioned above implied that the death penalty be enforced. I am sure many prosperous South Africans would like this as a deterrent to high rates of often violent crime. However, David effectively committed pre-meditated murder. Unless you are seriously saying he should be let off the hook because he didn't actually do the deed, merely arranged it, then he should have been executed because his violation of the sixth commandment.

We are not to burden people by telling them they must scoop the darkness out of their lives. We are here to show them that Christ wants to fill them with life. Sure, when we have done that, we can exhort them to live according to what they have received.

Paul spends the bulk of Colossians chapters 1 and 2 explaining what Christ has done for believers. Look at it yourself. But he interjects with the odd comment telling us how we should live.

That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;    (Col 1:10 KJV)

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:    (Col 2:6 KJV)


So yes we are to walk right. But we walk right having been made aware the impartations of glorious loving acceptance God has made to us. To live under the Law is death. We are living a life of onerous duty and constant 'no's. To live with Christ is fulness of life. Emotional riches. Pleasures at His right hand. The fullness of Christ in us. David loved God passionately. He yearned for more of His presence above all. He understood the emotional life of God. He sinned seriously, and repented. And a few verses from the end of the Bible, Jesus is bold to call himself the root and offspring of David. David and not Moses. Interesting!


  

Ruth, Ezra and Law

I have been listening to teaching on the Book of Ruth (Thanks Malcolm). This is a nice story about faith and redemption. It is not a story about perfect people. Ruth was a Moabite and Moabites were considered second rate people under the Law, see Deuteronomy 23v3. Moabites were not to be included in the assemblies of Israel. They were descended from Abraham's nephew Lot by incest. Despite this shame, they were therefore however, close blood relatives to the Israelites. Unlike Canaanites, Moabites were not beyond the pail for intermarriage, Deuteronomy 7. Yet Ruth, marriageable for an Israelite but not to be accepted as a full Israelite under the Law, was included in the natural bloodline of David and therefore of Christ.

Ruth was the great grandmother of David. In the book, we see that Ruth married Boaz. Now Boaz's mother was Rahab, see Matthew 1v5. Rahab is spoken of in the Book of Joshua. Assuming it is the same Rahab in both cases (which is widely assumed; see for example the Spirit Filled Life Bible or the Wikipedia article on Rahab), this again shows that David had a dodgy family line in terms of legalistic purity according to the Law of Moses. Rahab was a prostitute, and also presumably a Canaanite, and therefore, according to the letter of the Law, unlike a Moabitess, not to be married, see Deuteronomy chapter 7.

Naomi the Israelite seized the opportunity when her daughter-in-law was shown unusual kindness by Boaz when they first met. The advice given by Naomi could also be seen as less than morally ideal. Ruth was told maximize her attractiveness and make her romantic intentions known to Boaz in a way which could be seen as seductive.

And so there were dodgy goings-on in the ancestry of David and therefore in the natural line of ancestry of Jesus himself.

It is notable that David himself had serious problems with sexual morality, which is not good ( 2 Sam 11,12). He did not get away with it. It is also notable that David did not adhere to the letter of the Law (1 Sam  21) and he did get away with it. Why? I believe that anyone who looks for the heart of God, the underlying kindness and mercy, finds that He does not hold them to the letter of the Law. That does not mean He overlooks all misdemeanors as David also found. We see these truths even in the time when the Law was deemed to reign over Israel. It also does not detract from the Law as being a broad indication of God's standards, even today. It just means, under grace, that we are not held to it in a pedantic way. God prefers growing intimacy to rigorous adherence to procedure. It means grace was available even during the dispensation of the Old Covenant for those who truly sought God as a friend and not just for a contract.

We see that Jesus had no definitive moral advantage in his human ancestry; what we would now probably call his 'DNA' or 'breeding'.

Ruth as we have pointed out, also did not have the right stuff when it came to ancestry. However, when confronted with people who knew of the God of Israel, she displayed a humble and contrite heart. She left her people for those who worshiped YAHWEH. She was willing to take a lowly role and a lowly future with those who were the people of God at that time. David too seemed to realize at at least one point in his life that God was not after rigorous Law-keepers, see Psalm 51v17-18. He was looking for those who were looking desperately, loyally, to Him, and those who walked with Him, or at least tried to, and acknowledged His Name.   

Contrast this grace seen in the life of Ruth and Rahab with the rigorous and ruthless (interesting word) enforcement of legalistic righteousness seen in Ezra 10. Pagan wives are summarily put away without mercy. It is not clear whether any of these wives had, as Rahab did, a heart after God. If so, the Israelites were displaying an unnecessary, 'legalistic' cruelty to these, technically pagan, wives and their children. 

The Law of Moses is a shadow of realities found in Christ. It is inadequate and insufficient. God is really looking for faith working through love (Galatians 5v6), not legalistic adherence to Law.*

Strict ritual (exemplified by the Law) absolves the heart of responsibility to forgive and love. Righteousness is reduced to ritual, procedure and checklist. This provokes us to self-justification and judgment of others. Faith alone however steers us into the arms of God, into adoration and surrender. The new life which comes forth from intimacy will start to keep the righteous requirements of the Law quite naturally, see Romans 8v1-4.

Attempting to keep the letter of the Law will very often make us miss God's heart. God was happy for His Son to be descended, humanly speaking, from people who, under the Law, would be rejected from the assembly of God.

And so Jesus was descended from an imperfect human line; imperfect in faith, imperfect legally speaking. However, His spiritual descent was perfect, the Holy Spirit was His Father, and this factor over-rode the natural factors completely. 

The same is true for us; the Holy Spirit within us can over-ride the natural disadvantages and setbacks in our lives.

*However, it is possible to exhibit a degree of faith even in one's pursuit of God through the Law. I believe Ezra was doing just this. Primary theme; Ezra and the Israelites were looking to revive their worship of God after exile. Secondary theme; they did so by resurrecting the Law. But since this was all they understood, God accepted their efforts.