ImportantQuestions may be submitted to the Biblical Spirituality eGroup or directly by email. Those submitting questions understand that questions will be answered as time permits and at the owner's discretion, and may be posted on the website or eGroup. The submitter should specifically request anonymity if that is desired. |
| Subject Areas | |
I have a question in regard to the old law vs. grace issue. I have seen, in my years in the church, that we are very quick to make law and grace mutually exclusive. We veritably preach law as the enemy and grace as the ever-understanding friend.
Although they can't save me or give me merit with God, the 10 Commandments still apply to Christians. I suppose that the issue that I am getting at is antinomianism in the church today. I believe that it is more widespread than we would like to admit.
What were the Judaizers teaching in Paul's day, i.e., specifically the group that he seems to be counterattacking in his letter to the Galations? When they taught that men had to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses to be saved, were they referring to the Law of Moses as it is in the Bible, or to the Rabbinic tradition as well, with all of its extra laws and traditions?
David M.
Dear David:
You certainly have asked a big question! Law vs. Grace has probably been the single biggest area of controversy in the Church since the beginning.
Paul often had to deal with both legalists (judaizers) and libertines (antinomians et al.). Generally, he said that both were wrong in some ways. The legalists tried to bind Christians to the ordinances of the Law, while libertines emphasized grace to the point that they claimed they could sin with impunity.
I have found that many of the old-line pentecostals tend to be rather legalistic, holding to rules and regulations which do not necessarily matter or apply to today's world, in an attempt to enforce righteousness externally, i.e., trying to make even non-Christians act Christian. In this, they are modern-day Pharisees.
Meanwhile, a lot of charismatics lean to the libertine side. This seems to come hand-in-hand with an emphasis on material prosperity and a bent toward self-glorification. Obviously, some balance is needed.
Make no mistake that grace has abolished the Law of Moses (John 1:17, Gal 2:21, Eph 2:15ff., Rom 4:14ff., 5:13, 8:1), but this is a statement which requires some qualification. The ordinances of the Law -- the rituals, physical acts such as circumcision -- are no longer considered salvific. Indeed, they conveyed to Israel the form of righteousness and of salvation to come, not the actuality. Jesus, however, emphasized the spirit of the Law over the letter (esp. Mat 5). Paul makes it clear as well that Christians remain bound to fulfilling God's moral law.
The Law is good, Paul says, in terms of its moral code. But whoever ascribes to rightousness by fulfilling the Law binds himself to fulfill its letter, and will be judged by it (Gal 2:11-21, 3:10, 5:3-4, James 2:10ff.). In truth, no one can fulfill the Law.
Christ alone fulfilled the Law, and by paying the price himself has abolished it -- for the Church, as his Body, has entered into his righteousness. Therefore, Christians will not be judged according to the Law and are not bound to the letter. Paul goes so far as to say, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage" (Gal 5:1).
However, Christians are still required to live by the spirit of the moral law by doing good works and abstaining from sin. As Paul writes,
"By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph 2:8-10).
Paul's view is that because we are saved by grace, we are then expected to do good works. To sin after being saved is a profanation of God's temple (I Cor 3:16-17, 6:15ff., see also Heb 6:6). We are not to fall into the trap of taking grace lightly, overemphasizing our "liberty," as if we could do as we please (Rom 6:15, I Cor 6:12ff., Gal 5:13, I Pet 2:16).
So how are we to fulfill righteousness without law? Paul points to the need to be spiritual, not carnal. The spiritual part draws near to Christ in righteousness, the carnal part is prone to sin (Rom 6:20, 7:15-25, 8:6ff.). We must "walk in the Spirit" in order to be spiritual and subdue the flesh (Rom 8:1, 4; Gal 5:16, 25).
Part of fulfilling righteousness is also attitude. We must "reckon (consider, account, attribute) ourselves to be dead" to sin and the flesh, denying its power over us (Rom 6, 8:10-14).
The alternative to spiritual living is to incur judgment. If one is "in Christ," i.e., a Christian, he does not immediately lose his salvation if he sins. However, it is clear that Christians are still judged according to their works (I Cor 3:10ff., 6:9ff., Rev 2:5ff.).
So what if you perceive sin in another Christian? There are times when a sinning Christian needs to be confronted and hopefully restored (Mat 18:15, Gal 2:11, 6:1). But Paul warns against judging other Christians, since Christ is the ultimate judge (I Cor 4:2ff., Rom 14:4-5, 20, 22). This is a touchy subject, too involved to get into here. See also "May Christians Judge Others?" on the Publications page.
In short, we need to take a much longer view of sin in the church than the two extremes of making rules and regulations and, on the other hand, denying guilt for sin.
As for the source for the judaizers, they were probably Pharisaical or at least rather orthodox. The Rabbinic tradition actually came centuries later, though many Jews see its origins in the earlier Pharisees or Sopherim. Counting on the Rabbinic tradition for Bible interpretation or history is always risky, since it is very late, and the rabbis often contradict each other.
Finally, while I support the moral code of the Ten Commandments, most Christians would consider the keeping of the Sabbath to be one of the ordinances which have been nullified, as exemplified in various Sabbath-day activities of Jesus.
Dear Mr. Hughes!
After reading your web-site, I found that you give exclusively support for the historical and archaeological inerrancy of the Bible. You do neglect, however, any (in fact many) studies and excavations which point towards the conclusion that the Bible is not entirely historically accurate. From a site which lays any claim to academic and scholarly integrity, I would expect the representation of at least two approaches to a topic, as well as a bibliography showing the sources of the quoted material. If this is to laborious a task, citations inside the text would be helpful, too.
Even though I do admit that many parts of the Old Testament are historically accurate, excavations during the past four decades indicate that several biblical accounts do not seem credible. As an example, let me cite Joshua 10 and Judges 1: Jericho, the legendary city which Joshua supposedly subdued using trumpets or similar musical instruments, did not exist during the time of the conquest of Joshua. (Kenyon, Kathleen M.: Archaeology in the Holy Land.) In fact, the area of present-day Jericho was uninhabited until several centuries later. The question is, of course - how could Joshua conquer something that did not exist? I do indeed believe that this is impossible, and that the entire account of the capture of Jericho is a myth. - To the question of the walls, I have to notice that the burnt rubble found stems from an earlier period. Till Farrell quotes the Biblical Archaeological Review on this topic: "Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added)."
In addition, let me send you an excerpt of an article by James Still, treating the topic of the excavation of Jericho in a serious and more elaborate manner:
The German excavators Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger excavated Tell es-Sultan from 1907-09 and concluded that Late Bronze Age Jericho -- about 1500 BCE when Joshua was said to have led the Conquest of Canaan (Joshua 1-11) -- was destroyed much earlier, in 1600 BCE, and therefore the pan-Israelite invasion hypothesis was historically questionable. This was disturbing to some and so a well-funded John Garstung (sic.) returned to the site in 1930 with the goal of reconciling these two dates in order to support the truth of the Conquest. Working under the presupposition that the biblical account was true, Garstung excavated Jericho from 1930-36 and allegedly uncovered the remains of a wall that was burned and had appeared to be blown outward from the inside. Garstung dated this destruction to the Late Bronze Age period of 1500 BCE in perfect agreement with Joshua's Conquest of Canaan. Garstung's amazing confirmation of the biblical account that the walls did indeed collapse at the sound of trumpets was quickly published in the popular press and seen by many as a triumph in "proving" the Biblical account.28 However, William Albright contested Garstung's findings quietly and knew that the evidence did not support his conclusions.
The controversy raged on until Kathleen Kenyon returned yet again to the
site in 1955 to apply a more exacting type of systematic archaeology (called the "Wheeler-Kenyon method") that is now used regularly throughout the field. Kenyon argued that Garstung had excavated the wrong wall and mistakenly thought that the Early Bronze Age foundations were instead the Late Bronze Age walls of the time of Joshua's Conquest. Jericho was destroyed, not in the Late Bronze Age, but rather nine hundred years earlier in the Early Bronze Age sometime around 2400 BCE. The site was a small village during the Late Bronze Age when Joshua was said to have crossed the Jordan River, making Tell es-Sultan's conquest unnecessary. French archaeologist Judith Marquet-Krause excavated at nearby et-Tell (the biblical Ai in Joshua 7-8) and found, similarly, that it too was destroyed around 2400 BCE. By the time of Joshua's conquest, the city had been completely abandoned. J. A. Callaway, of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, attempted to "circumvent the negative evidence" of Marquet-Krause during his revisit of the site in 1966 but ultimately his findings were rejected by other scholars as "shoddy" and purely apologetic in purpose. Given that Kenyon's work at Tell es-Sultan and that the Wheeler-Kenyon method has become the standard for excavations, it seems incredible that McDowell would advance only Garstung's flawed excavation as the "truth" while ignoring Kenyon's pioneering work entirely."
Tell es-Sultan (Jericho)
Another dillemma in the Bible pertains to the city of Lachish. Lachish, not mentioned at all in the Bible, was an important kingdom established by the Assyrian king Sennacherib in the South of Israel in 701 B.C.E., several kilometres north of present-day Beer-Sheva. The importance of the battle for Lachish was so immense that the Assyrian King had sculptures made of the Battle scene, which stretched over the entire front of his palace. In his own accounts, he numbers the people deported after he had conquered Lachish to 200,150. (Reade, Julian: Assyrian Sculpture) Of this event of central importance, not the last trace has been found in the Bible, rendering its use as a historical source more than questionable.
I wonder, too, which version of the Bible you are using: The Bible, as we know it today, was only canonized around 400 C.E. This was done in a voting process conducted by men who had not only religious, but also political and personal interests at their time, thus determining by majority decision what is commonly called the "Word of God". Additionally, no such thing as THE original Bible exists, neither in Greek nor in Latin nor in Aramaeic (sic.) nor in Hebrew; only several thousand documents, of which most are NOT identical to each other, serve as a source of the Inspired Scriptures.
Finally, let me ask you about gratuitous evil in the world. How can an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God permit such glory in his kingdom as Auschwitz, famines, floods, infant mortality, the Gulags, the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is it truly all for some greater good which I (and six million Jews slaughtered during the Holocaust) have not yet been able to see? Please let me know.
By the way - it's "Schweinehund", and it's capitalized, as all nouns in the beautiful German language are. Additionally, the connotation of that word in German is slightly fascist, as it was commonly used as an abusive description for Jews in Nazi Germany.
Your
Sex-Obsessed Womanizer / Atheist / German / Infidel / Humanist / Anti-Christ / Skeptic / Leftist / High-School Student / Liberal
David Korn
David,
I will read your letter more thoroughly later, when I am not in a hurry. In regard to Jericho, however, the mainstream archaeologists actually date habitation on the tel site to at least 10,000 years. In regard to Kathleen Kenyon, she dug just five trenches in Jericho over a limited time, as if that were enough to base broad conclusions as she did. As reported in a BAR article a few years ago, archaeologist Bryant Wood went back and studied Kenyon's own data, and concluded just the opposite as she -- that indeed there was evidence of walls which fell outward. So at the very least, you see how subjective archaeological "proof" can be.
To me, the Bible is a glass half full, and I am confident that archaeology will eventually "fill" the rest of the glass, i.e., prove the Bible, as certainly tends to be the case in my observation. To the liberal/secular humanist, however, no proof is good enough. They will always see a glass half empty. But their intransigence is based on their choice of worldview, on their biases rather than objective evidence. If there is a "maximal conservatism," as James Barr claims, there is certainly also a "maximal liberalism," which will always seek the most liberal answer to every question.
As for me, I am an apologist, and am hardly responsible to make my "opponents'" case for them.
Blessings,
Paul Hughes
Dear David:
I have had a chance to read your letter more closely, and can deal the remainder of your issues.
On the subject of Lachish, the fact that its destruction is not mentioned in Scripture is literally an "argument from silence," and might have simply not been relevant to the writers' purposes.
Second, the Bible I use depends on the purpose. My 1967 edition Scofield King James reference Bible serves for basic Bible study and devotional reading, while the NIV Study Bible is an excellent reference. Of course, for exegesis I always refer to the original language. I must admit I am no great expert in the Hebrew, having had only 3 courses, which I took as electives, but still find the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and a good lexicon quite useful, along with the Septuagint. I had a full 3-year course in Koine Greek grammar and exegesis, and consult either the Nestle-Aland or UBS critical texts, with the Bauer/Arndt/Gingrich/Danker lexicon. So I am not unaware of manuscript differences, "witnesses," and early versions.
Third, if you really want to understand the "gratuitous evil in the world," that is another very broad subject -- but reading Romans chapter 1 would be a good start. And I'm afraid I don't understand your reference to Schweinehund.
Finally, I offer these excerpts from my notes, referring to Kathleen Kenyon's archaeological method:
- "Kathleen Kenyon deserves some of the archaeological sainthood conferred on her by fellow archaeologists for improvements in methodology, but she was better at 'collecting infinite amounts of useless detail' than she was at analysis . . . . I have long thought that Ms. Kenyon drew mountains of conclusions from the tiny unrepresentative area she actually dug at Jericho" (Dr. Erich A. von Fange in BAR [July/Aug 1990]:11).
- "When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the Biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction of Jericho, we find a quite remarkable agreement" (Bryant Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?" BAR [Mar/Apr 1990]:53).
- "[Kenyon's] thoroughgoing excavation methods and detailed reporting of her findings, however, did not carry over into her analytical work. When the evidence is critically examined there is no basis for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Hyksos or Egyptians in the mid-16th century B.C.E." (Ibid, 57).
- "History has not been kind to Kathleen Kenyon. Many of the conclusions she reached concerning Jerusalem . . . have been proven wrong by later excavations. And her vaunted archaeological method has also been criticized, sometimes severely. The principal criticism . . . has been that it requires such detail and care that the amount of excavated exposure is inevitably too limited. In the words of William Dever . . . Kenyon's methods 'are so tedious and demanding in application that scarcely ever is a single building completely cleared, let alone a building complex large enough to give us an adequate exposure on which to base our understanding of the material culture of the period'.
"In the words of . . . Yigal Shiloh, . . . 'Kenyon thought once she took an area and, like a checkerboard, put down four small squares, perforating the area, that she had finished her work'" (Review of H. J. Franken and M. L. Steiner, Excavations in Jerusalem 1961-67, Vol. II, by Hershel Shanks, BAR [July/Aug 1991]:4, 6).
I hope you find the Truth.
Paul
I have been "Born Again" and have been part of the CHURCH for many years now. I however have not been "going to church" because I don't believe what I see out there calling itself "the church" is what Jesus started 2000 yrs ago. I honestly read of a real living, organic, and spiritual body that came into existence with the 12 disciples. It is not something you "Go To" or "Join" or "become a member of" but a literal spiritual body you become part of (Jesus body) when you accept Him with your heart.
I do not find anything wrong with meeting with the brethren on a regular basis, but to do it in a controlled fashion where one man speaks and all others listen seems more pharisee like to me.
If I could find a group of brothers who would meet around a table and talk about the real day to day struggle of being a believer today, a group of brothers who build up and edify each other, I believe that would be closer to what Jesus was planning on.
In Jesus Name,
Frank
Dear Frank,
I certainly know where you're coming from, because there is a lot that has been done and is still being done in Jesus' name that falls far short of the mark. Many would-be Christians, or at least church attendees, are jaded by seeing the "leaven" of human imperfections and carnality mixed with the true and spiritual -- or even an outright counterfeit of the Church.
However, I would ask you a few Biblical questions:
In many ways, Biblically, the Church is pictured as the Israel of the Exodus, called out and separated to gather themselves together as a distinct people. They are "called out of the world," not necessarily geographically, but to live by separate rules, goals, lifestyle, etc. They are to be different and distinct -- not just people with individual opinions who remain among the masses, living just as they do.
I could go on. I believe that Jesus' plan was indeed that those who receive Him were to found and participate in corporate assemblies. I have run into some who believe it is wrong to have more than one church in a given city, and others who hold that every church should be a "house church" without a formal pastor -- both unshakeable in their convictions. I suspect that the Lord is much more flexible than we are in such details. However, I must always point believers to that which should be their one goal:< to seek the will of Christ through the Holy Spirit, and do His perfect will.
Watchman Nee wrote that until a Christian leader has heard from God, he should keep his mouth shut. It is not that we shouldn't have opinions, but that those opinions should always be subject to the Divine will. Sometimes people think they are being "spiritual" while they are really just "particular." We must all be careful lest we begin to "teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:9 et al.). We must learn to sacrifice our own opinions, particularisms, and memories of past hurts on the altar -- they often limit God and stand in the way of His perfect will being done, not to mention setting brethren at odds.
My basic goal in founding West Loop Church is to correct some of the wrongs and shortcomings of the Church, in practice, by simply being willing to follow the Lord's leading fully, setting aside hindrances and preconceptions such as traditions and conventional thinking. I want to open doors that maybe haven't been opened before. Yes, I want it to be "a group of brothers [and sisters] who . . . build up and edify each other," too. That is my basic concept of the Church. I pray the Lord will guide you into just such a Body, according to His perfect will.
Spiritual blessings in Christ,
Rev. Paul Hughes
B.B.
Dear B.B.,
A former classmate of mine, Dr. Craig Keener, had a book on the subject published by Hendrickson, available from CBD. Sorry, I can't recall the title.
For my part, I have a few thoughts. Marriage is holy before God, not to be taken lightly, not to be entered into and exited at will. As for divorce, there is one, some say two, Biblical justifications for it: adultery, and some say abandonment as well. In some ways you might consider abandonment to be in spirit the same as adultery, in much the same way as apostasy is, to God, the same in spirit as idolatry.
The person considering divorce can think about scriptural teaching on divorce in two ways: the first is the Bible's "primary" teaching, which points to God's perfect will. Then he/she might think in terms of the Bible's "secondary" teaching, which concerns how much God will allow, account for human frailty, accomodate without judging -- i.e., his "permissible" will.
Christ's primary teaching on marriage and divorce is that marriage is holy & God hates divorce. Therefore, God's perfect will is that married persons remain married, if at all possible. The secondary teaching is that divorce is allowed when one marriage partner has in effect nullified the marriage by discarding and violating it. Then the offended party is "free," as Paul says -- no longer bound to the other.
Then what about remarriage? Some regard the offended party to be "free" as well to enter into another marriage. But that is not explicit in Scripture, and is an assumption on their part. In the absence of explicit permission to remarry, I would have to place remarriage in the realm of God's "permissible" will, not his primary or perfect will.
Thus, whether a person initiates a divorce proceeding, and whether he or she goes on to remarry, are questions of whether he/she will pursue God's perfect will or see how much "imperfection" God will accomodate. Frankly, I have a real problem with Christians who aim not for God's perfect will but see instead how close to the sin line they can walk without crossing it. Christians should always be pointed toward God's perfect will, even if they have to suffer for it -- because if they suffer in righteousness, will they not be rewarded for it in heaven? And to paraphrase Jesus, if they seek their own pleasure in this world, then they already have their reward.
There are, of course, other considerations. I have known divorced Christians who fell into fornication, sometimes repeatedly. They were apparently too weak to remain chaste. In such a case, one wonders whether Paul's concession, "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor 7:9), might also be applied, "It is better to REmarry than to burn." But I would emphasize that remarriage is in fact a concession to carnal nature, not a right before God. Therefore, anyone who remarries should do it in humility, not claiming it to be righteous and unquestionable.
In the end, these "hard questions" of self-determination, apart from a specific prohibition, must be left to the individual. Yet their decision must be made "according to knowledge," not according to lust, self-seeking, a desire for romance, or neediness. They must reach such a crucial decision, in regard to God's permissible will, through much prayer & study of Scripture, until they have confirmation that they indeed have God's permission. As Paul writes of judging the practice of others, "Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he stands or falls . . . . Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" (Rom 14:4, 5).
Again, Paul writes, "For meat do not destroy the work of God. All things are indeed pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense . . . . Happy is he who does not condemn himself in that which he allows" (Rom 14: 20, 22). Moreover, Christians are solemnly warned, "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient . . . all things do not edify" (1 Cor 10:23).
I would therefore suggest the following course for this "couple." It is crucial that, if she is to pursue the new relationship, she must first do everything "decently and in order."
This course might seem hard, but then I am radically committed to following God's perfect will. Anything less is a compromise with the flesh. I have grave doubts whether this couple would submit to this stringent procedure -- they have compromised godliness already -- but if they are earnest, committed Christians, and really seek a loving relationship blessed by God, they will.
|
|
|
|
Center for Biblical Spirituality |
INSIGHT Newsletter |
Send |