Why They Followed the Law (Part 1)

Tyler, how can you be so adamantly opposed to drawing a distinction between law and grace when that is what Paul does throughout his letters? “You are not under law, but under grace” has to mean something.

[TylerR]

I’ve never attended a non-dispensational church, so I can’t speak about whether this is a problem in other circles. But, I will say that there is a pervasive misunderstanding in dispensationalism about why OC saints followed the law. Beginning with Scofield, through Chafer, and down through some flavors of dispensationalism (usually, classical dispensationalism), there has been a false belief that OC saints followed the law to gain merit and be justified before God - or because you fear Him and don’t want to die. This is a terrible error. It misreads the text so badly.

This error is also why (I believe) dispensationalists (at a lay level, at least) often misunderstand the Book of Galatians. They take it to mean Paul is slamming the OC law. He isn’t. He is attacking the false perversion of it that was characteristic of his times; the version the Judaizers were peddling in Galatia. His remarks must be seen in that light. I just finished teaching 1 Pet 1:13-16 in Sunday School, and Peter quotes Leviticus very approvingly. The law is useful and good, provided you interpret it correctly in light of the New Covenant. That is, if you think the NC is actually here (another DT issue!)

I was taught some watered-down variations of the Scofield/classical dispensationalist answer throughout the years, here and there. It couldn’t be further from the truth. As the years go by, I am moving further and further away from a more strict dispensationalism. I agree with Ryrie’s infamous sine qua non, but I’m less and less satisfied that the fine details of the system really capture what the Bible teaches. Like Paul Henebury (i.e. “Dr. Reluctant”), I find myself to be a “reluctant dispensationalist.”

Tyler,

It sounds like you are on a slippery slope. Whether your journey leads you out of dispensationlism (as it did for me) I appreciate your commitment to and pursuit of the truth.

Steve

Are OT saints “in Christ”?

Are they excluded from the marriage supper of the Lamb? (Do they eat post shift?)

[TylerR]

I’ve been told my views are more in line with progressive dispensationalism. This is ironic, because I haven’t read anything specifically on progressive dispensationalism. It just hasn’t been an area of interest for me. I plan to read Bock’s work one day. All I’ve read about it is from critics who see it as a betrayal.

Reading your Bible may align your thinking with PD without reading the books. I do think that for many, Progressive Dispensationalism becomes a station on the way out of Dispensationalism. There are other stops along the way. My problem has been that although I lean historic premill (I have difficulty seeing multiple phases of the Second Coming and multiple resurrections) with some affinity for elements of amil, I see some in both systems I can’t reconcile with the Bible. After 40 years I’m still trying to figure it out :-) but am content to know that Jesus is coming again and will reign forever and ever. That is abundantly clear to me.

[TylerR]

I’ve been told my views are more in line with progressive dispensationalism. This is ironic, because I haven’t read anything specifically on progressive dispensationalism. It just hasn’t been an area of interest for me. I plan to read Bock’s work one day. All I’ve read about it is from critics who see it as a betrayal.

The word “betrayal” reminds me of a time when I asked my pastor about whether there were any references he knew of that fairly described the “other side.” He didn’t even flinch when he said no. We gotta do better than this. Progressive dispensationalism may or may not be correct, but it is not a “betrayal.”

On a side note, or perhaps more accurately as a main point, it strikes me that if I read any significant amount of the Old Testament, I see salvation by grace through faith, especially in the prophets and Psalms, and to a degree as well even in the Torah.

Tyler, that’s fine.

Tyler:

I fully understand the dichotomy you write about. Systematic theology is the “cloud” and the brass tack is the passage. But I’m sure you know and were taught that Bible study, exegesis, exposition, et al, don’t/can’t stop with a simple passage; there is the task of coordination—harmonization or systematization, if you please. But I do note that you have gone from Mark 12:28-34 to paradigmatic conclusions. That’s what I am pushing for as well. Systematics and “passages” are good friends. But the passages clamor to leave exegetical incubation and rub shoulders with myriads of other passages “out there” in the world of biblical consistency, away from the gnomic aorist, moveable nu and/or enclitic mem nests.

Speaking of passages, I would like to see your handling of some of the passages I mentioned under the “motivations” rubric, and harmonize them with those that seem antithetical to them; e,g., Rom 2:13; 7:10; and Lev 18:5.

And, back to the Law-Grace distinction, a good exegesis of John 1:17 would seem to make such a distinction valid if not better. I guess I don’t see where the strength of Old Covenant-New Covenant language is superior and somehow makes dispensationalism understandable, especially given the problems with the hermeneutics surrounding the New Covenant.

Tyler:

In going over your article again, I find nothing of substance with which I could really disagree. Who can fault serving God with his whole being? As you note, this has always been the divine requirement, going from Eden to the present day. Divine moral standards could demand no other than absolute moral perfection. God has no sliding scale of different strokes for different folks. This is also the genius of the Law of Moses. The divine prescription that permeated the entire Mosaic system was the complete obedience of the whole person to the totality of the Law, all of the time, and with perfect motives. Anyone who did that could “live” (Lev 18:5). Some would question the assertion of “duty faith,” i.e., the idea that God demands repentance, faith and moral perfection from every single member of the human race, but I think it is legitimate (Acts 17:27). Every deviation from His holy will and person calls for infinite redress.

My original post on this thread simply suggested the need for an atmosphere or a theological, dispensational, revelational and historical context to understand what it was to live under the Law of Moses. This would also impact living under the following dispensation, Grace, in a continuous or discontinuous motif. In rereading your main post I still think there is much that would add clarity and precision to the basic proposition of this thread—which concerns moral living under the Mosaic Law Covenant. To wit:

1. The Great Shema (Deut 6:4-6) and the appeal to it in the era of the Gospels are actually in the same administration historically, i.e., Old Covenant Law (1445 BC to ca AD 30) (Mt 22:40; Mk 12:18-27). This would seem to cloud or stymie an argument for a basic continuity of moral obedience between Law and Grace (or the OC vis-a-vis NC configuration). A clear reference to a strictly Grace or NC source would seem to be preferred to complete the comparison/contrast.

2. The necessity of perfect obedience to God’s person and will in both Law and Grace inevitably generated multiplied incidents of disobedience and the need for forgiveness and restoration. The OT saint had only one venue for this—the Levitical system that functioned at the place where God had “placed His name.” With the grace and truth that came by Jesus Christ came also the individual priesthood and soul liberty of believers. I.e., living for and loving God with one’s whole being changed radically.

3. Perhaps greater than all was the changed pattern of daily obeying God. Under Law daily life was tightly regimented as to what could be eaten, the threads of fabric in garments, the animals that pulled the farm machinery, the paying of various tithes (two tithes each year, an extra tithe every 3rd year [termed “the year of tithing”!] ), attendance at the three pilgrimage feasts at the central altar (for the men), and the whole festal calendar and the somewhat complicated sacrificial system, to name a few. Living under Grace could not have a greater contrast, it would seem.

4. There were, of course, very happy occasions for those under the Law. The Psalmist could declare his love for the Law; some of the holy days were very festive. Going to the house of the Lord (the Temple) could bring great gladness and very fulfilling spiritual experiences (e.g.,thirsting urgently for God [Ps 42:1—note the centrality of the altar in this quest—when could the Psalmist “come and appear before God” at the central shrine with a suitable offering, possibly a peace offering?] ).

But…there were divinely-mandated procedures that caused sadness and fear that also become part of the overall scenario of living under Law. E.g., the sinner was personally to slit the throat of his substitute victim at a sin or trespass offering. Or consider someone who had to watch his son being executed by stoning for cursing his father and/or mother.

The above points were noted somewhat off the cuff but were designed simply to suggest a larger and clearer picture of what living under the Law of Moses included, or how the mandate of Deut 6:4-6 was impacted.

TYLER

Thanks for the expeditious reply. And, in the words of our departed but venerable friend from Geneva, good luck with the Qal participle.