Why They Followed the Law (Part 3)

Well argued. And I appreciate this study. There is so much broad criticism of Moses these days… some of it borders on unintentional blasphemy. There was no new testament when these words were inspired:

7 The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; (ESV, Psalm 19:7)

Or these…

7 I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules. (ESV, Psalm 119:7)

And from a NT perspective Paul wrote:

13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. (ESV, Romans 7:13–14)

The “that which is good” here is either law as a category or the law of Moses in particular.

Either way, it’s a far cry from the way many speak of the law today (dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist alike!)

Tyler, thanks for your work on this. A couple of thoughts. First, this framework causes some real problems for Sailhamer’s thesis that Moses wrote the Pentateuch to contrast a life of Faith (Abraham) with a life under the Law (Moses). Also, do you think there are any implications for the classical Lutheran position that the Law is “anything which makes demands” (cf. The Book of Concord here: http://bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#V. Law and Gospel) and the subsequent relationship of Law and Grace (particularly in the Mosaic Covenant)?

Tyler, thanks for continuing to interact on this with me. For what it’s worth, there are Dispensationalists who offer a more balanced perspective. I have benefited from Eugene Merrill’s OT Biblical Theology…”Everlasting Kingdom,” I think. I’m looking at the Portuguese version here on my shelf, and it’s just called “Teologia do Antigo Testamento.” Very vanilla title. Anyway, Allan Ross, who was at the time at Dallas, contributed a good article in “Continuity and Discontinuity” which also was very firm on the gracious nature of the law and the capacity of Israel to obediently enjoy the blessings of the law by lives of faith. So there’s some good stuff out there. But like you, I found “Law & Grace” by Houghton to be an unhelpful framework. I have a good friend who thinks the world of Houghton, and I’m sure Houghton has a sharp mind, but there are intrinsic inconsistencies in his model.

Here’s another question. How would we distinguish what we are saying about continuity from the classical Reformed model of continuity of grace? There are enough variations of “New Covenant” theology, or whatever Gentry and Wellum call themselves, that we don’t need to consider the overarching “Covenant of Grace” as necessary to the system (they in fact deny such a construction). So how should we distinguish what we are saying about the continuity of grace from a generally covenantal perspective?

I also have had trouble with the “Cliff’s Notes” version of dispensationalism, at least, as I read through the Old Testament in light of the new and see Christ shining through in a ton of places. So I guess I’m a heretic with Tyler on that. And I simultaneously am uneasy with the Lutheran approach—it also seems to place a gulf between Torah and evangelios that I don’t see in Scripture.

It strikes me as well that Paul’s denunciation of Pharisaical legalism—quite different from what Moses preached, I agree—stands as a warning to us about the perils of “fencing off” God’s moral laws with our own rules. Neither Paul nor Christ appear to have ever squabbled with earnest students of the written Torah, who sought to live it in their lives. The squabble was largely with the Pharisees and Sadducees, along with the corrupt priesthood. There is a lesson there, I think.

There have been a couple of helpful dispensational reformulations lately that are worth mentioning. A number of years ago Mal Couch wrote an article entitled “The Relationship between the Dispensations and Covenants,” Published in the second volume of what was then known as the Conservative Theological Journal (Now the Journal of Dispensational Theology), this article was an attempt to provide an element of continuity through an emphasis on the Covenants. It’s worth reading. More recently, Michael Vlach just published a massive Biblical Theology entitled “He Will Reign Forever.” He stands tall on the shoulders of McCune’s theology of the Kingdom while providing a more balanced view of the questions of Law and Grace. His research is very, very extensive and he is thoroughly conversant on issues of Progressive Dispensationalism, Progressive Covenantalism (Gentry and Wellum’s view), and classical Covenantal thought, while maintaining a generally Classical Dispensational approach. His volume ought to be considered a major contribution to the development of Dispensational thought.

WHY THEY KEPT THE LAW

Tyler:

I first intended to write an extended note but decided that brevity was the better part of valor. So pardon any abruptness or clipped phrases.

The series was to remedy the thought that dispensationalists rely too much on Paul in Galatians and Romans rather than going back to the Mosaic world in the OT itself. But, going back, I frankly do not recognize the OT world that is described in this series. It is far more a Christianized world; no meaningful discontinuities between Law and Grace were noticeable.

Jesus Himself was born, lived and died on OT grounds, and He was infinitely more solicitous for OT Mosaism than what is described (e.g., Matt 8:4; 23:23; for John the Baptist, see Lk 3:7-20, esp. v. 18). Christ’s “it has been said…but I say to you…” was simply a call back to the Mosaic Law, not a disparagement of it. He began the transition from Law to Grace (Mark 7:19) (which transition was a gigantic discontinuity that ended with the abolition of the Law of Moses [Col 2:14] ), enlarged it and ended His life promising further revelation (John 16:12-15). He left the transition process to the NT authors of Acts and the epistles. The NT closes the subject with the grand slam walk-off of discontinuation—the Book of Hebrews! (There was no theological reference to the theology of Hebrews in the series, unless I missed it.) By the bye, I’m still waiting for your exegesis of the adversative construction in John 1:17, as well as other texts of what the Law could accomplish if used ” lawfully” (1 Tim 1:8).

Jesus’ and others’ attitude toward the OT Levitical forms did not reflect that they were “temporary band-aids…which were nothing but object lessons pointing to Jesus Christ.” Conversly, there was obviously some dimension of efficacy in the offerings; they were not regarded as magical or as historical-theological-Christological pantomimes. E.g., offerers could walk away “forgiven” (Lev 5:6, 10) and could experience some form of expiation of guilt (Ps 103:12) though not an eternally finished removal at the time (Heb 11:39-40; Heb 9:13). Old Covenant sins were given final expiation at the death of Christ (Heb 9:15).

There was not sufficient comprehension of the importance of the central altar in Mosaic religion. All of life for the Israelites, individual and corporate, emanated in the end from the Temple and its personnel whom the Mediator (Moses was the first) appointed. The Law formed an absolute theocratic monarchy that regulated everything, even including the direction of their payers. What is missing, for instance, in the analysis of Solomon’s dedicatory petition is that prayer was to be directed “toward and in this house, this place, this city, this land.” The prophet Daniel took it literally.

My understanding of the substance of the Deut 6:4-6 mandate, which actually goes back to Eden, is that this all-consuming love for God is to be discharged within certain time periods of God’s administration of His will. I view the unfolding epochs, such as the Law of Moses, as creating differing understandings, expressions and applications of the command to love and obey God with all of one’s being. I do not see this as a somewhat static, linear, continuous high-spiritual energy motivation. As such the upward trajectory of revelatory information and salvation history makes the motivation different, i.e., greater–and better. The transitions in these dispensations are thus not exactly seamless, each having continuation and discontinuation, predominantly the latter. Thus I could not “agree wholeheartedly” with Motyer’s assertion earlier in the series; in truth I could not agree at all.

A low point in the series was the argument from silence against law-keeping, apparently conceived by Strauss’ dictum about not having to dot every “i” and cross every “t” in order to “make us worthy to enter God’s presence.” Because Solomon does not explicitly mention “law-keeping, external rituals or even a sacrifice” and other such actions (such as “learning the sacrificial system”), it is concluded ostensibly that all that was needed was “repentance” (Prov 28:13). In OT soteric thought that would be abstract, confusing and unintelligible. Faith and repentance were not “out there” in some kind of a cloud, they would have been accompanied by or expressed through a sin offering, or a trespass offering, or some means through the Levitical system that God had ordained and set up in the Mosaic Law. Not so under Grace. This one truth alone forms a monumental discontinuity incapable of penetration in Law-Grace exegesis and theology. This argumentation, my friend, is not worthy of you.

I confess that brevity again escaped me. Please read again my early plea for pardon.

Tyler:

One last try at unraveling the knot of continuity/discontinuity.

In rethinking our positions re: motivation for living for God, especially in the OT vis-à-vis the NT, I have concluded that we might be a little closer than we think. Deut 6:4-6, either written or understood, appears to me, to be more than a stand-alone, independent, static, linear and sort of unstructured mandate incapable of being expanded, increased or bettered in the history of sin and salvation. In my paragraph you quoted on 6/23/27 I explained briefly that the unfolding progressive divine revelation elevated God’s administrations (dispensations) thereof in such a manner that the motivation for living for God with all one’s being brought a heightened relationship and thus greater incentive, stimulus, or motivation. The great Deut 6:4-6 Motivation is actually the sum of the many motivations/incentives inherent in it. Even you mentioned that “motivations [plural] have always had to be pure …the entire point,” which I take to mean that these small “m’s” form the structure for the “Big M” of Deut 6. As such they increase, expand, and enhance previous expressions of the all-important impetus in living for God. This is the essence of the dispensational transitions from the beginning.

You state that the Book of Hebrews “shows a massive discontinuity in the form of worship and not the essence or motivation for it.” But the very forms of worship in Mosaism were in fact intrinsic motivations of Deut 6:4-6, and Hebrews demonstrates theologically the discontinuity of the earlier (Law) and how much “better” is the later (Grace and Truth). In fact there are divine warnings against carrying on with Mosaic prescriptive motivations in the new administration of Grace (E.g., Heb 2:1-4; 3:12-19, especially v.12 where the continuation of Mosaic motivations was apostate thinking!). I can’t imagine that the “better blood” of Jesus’ sacrifice and all it entails, vis-à-vis the blood of bulls and goats, did not impact greatly one’s incentives, or motivation, to serve Christ with every ounce of his being. In fact, that seems to be saying exactly what you yourself stated: “If anything, Hebrews provides much greater incentive for worship…people can know God and be closer to Him today than King David ever could, because of the finished work of Christ.” Well put!

I can’t comprehend why my thinking entertains any charge of “works-righteousness.”

The Q, “Do you suggest Isaiah, Malachi and Hosea had a different understanding about God and how we ought to relate to Him, than Moses did?” Well, they were all under Law and should have had a common knowledge on how to relate to God. But—did the aforementioned four OT saints have a different understanding than those of us who are under Grace? Most definitely.

The Q, “what do you do with the Psalms, many of which are much earlier than the immediate pre and post-exilic prophets. They, too overflow with love for God…Psalm 119?” I don’t quite understand the Q; I don’t see the pertinence of the Exile. About five centuries separate David from the Exile.

Tyler:

This is my final response. We will never have consensus as long as we keep spinning our wheels up there “in the clouds,” or anywhere else for that matter. I had thought from some of your statements that we might be on the same page in some manner. But not to be. In my mind I’ve narrowed down the major reason for our impasse: I don’t think you comprehend dispensational studies, at least not those since the early 1960s, or before. Charles Ryrie, Clarence Mason, et al., clarified dispensational theology immeasurably by introducing the concept of consistently unifying the dispensations around progressive revelation. There was real “progress” being made by the new revelation that began a new dispensation. (This was authentic “progressive dispensationlism.” Some late-comers have co-opted the term but have radically changed its structure.) This constructed a staircase configuration in which there is real progress—theologically, spiritually and personally—toward an ultimate goal within earth history (for me it is the Messianic Kingdom of God on earth). Your understanding seems not to be able to account for such revelation, and I see no cumulative effect that reaches a divine goal within the historical process. More, or progressive, revelation, for you, appears simply to be more information in a linear fashion instead of producing the bettering effect of a heightening of each dispensation from the previous one. This linear idea was actually one of the main criticisms against old Scofieldism which often interpreted the dispensations as a series of mailboxes lined up and nailed to a long 2 x 4.

The introduction of new revelation occurred at the end of a dispensation, not during its ongoing, as you seem to understand. (Sorry if I wasn’t clear.) Thus it formed a transition period that led to a new dispensation with some continuity with the former one (via the revelational carryovers or continuing revelational principles), but with overall discontinuity with the former dispensation.

That is why your approach to sin and salvation history, applied unchangeably, or with almost no meaningful discontinuity or beneficial change in incentives, seems so wooden. Of course, the perfect obedience principle of Deut 6:4-6 was in effect after Adam’s first sin. This motivational standard never lessened; everyone should have obeyed it, even though no one ever did or could do so. But this somewhat abstract principle with its “oughtness” seems a tad facile to serve as a unifying center for all of God’s activity, especially for sin, service and human existence. Your sketch of divine intervention into sinful history, via Deut 6:4-6 essentially, is very reminiscent of the old amillennial idea that human history continues on in linear fashion with good and evil, God and Satan existing side-by-side until the eschaton, after which is a sudden and dramatic cataclysm with Christ’s return. Christ thus triumphs over sinful history in an eternity which is totally discontinuous with that sinful history. Actual human history never gets sanctified within its own time.

Your idea of fundamental continuity via the Motivation Mandate seems so generic and inflexible, although O. T. Allis in Wonderland in his book Israel and the Church (1945) might agree. Covenant theology at least tried to use the biblical covenants to unite salvation history on a broad base of theological continuity. But part of its failure was that it lacked a truly biblical concept or philosophy of ongoing earth history. In that light, I have at least this one overall question: What is God actually accomplishing in human history? What is the unifying principle of all His activity external to Himself? That unifying center will also be the undergirding theme of the Bible. Is it redemption? Is it to create a people that will love and serve Him perfectly, i.e., with perfect motives, all of the time, in every detail of His will? Or what is it? And what are His means?

My friend, this whole matter cannot be relegated to the indefinable “clouds” or the “weeds.”

I don’t think there is actually much, if any, substantial disagreement between what you’re saying, Tyler, and what even the most rigid classical dispensationalists believed. The difference is mostly a problem of emphasis. Some dispensationalists are, for whatever reason, oriented toward emphasizing differences (“discontinuities”) from age to age, while believing pretty much the same things as other dispensationalists who emphasize similarities.

What it boils down to is the question, what was the spiritual condition/faith condition of the faithful OT saint? Were they the just living by faith? So I think it’s pretty clear in OT times you had both the faithful (and faith-filled) few and also the superficial works-for-blessings (and nothing more) crowd—apparently the majority much of the time.

By Jesus’ day, you still had both of those categories. You had OT faithful like Anna and Zacharias and Simeon keeping the law but full of faith and looking eagerly for the coming messiah. But you also had unbelieving groups like the Pharisees, Saducees, etc. And the confused masses.

By the time of Galatians, you had Judaizers that really only used the law superficially to manipulate people. But they were not men of faith. So Paul tries to help the Galatians understand what the law was for, what it was supposed to do, and what it was never intended to be… He points everyone back to Abraham, to clarify that law was supposed to be a layer on top of Abrahamic faith, never a primary basis for relationship with God.

I don’t think most dispensationalists have truly rejected this. They just, in zeal for the distinctions they see as important, have overstated their perspective at times. Then you have some who have been genuinely confused.

The bigger problem nowadays is not a dispensationalist issue, though, but the libertine evangelical theology that wants to bad mouth the concept of law in any and every context.