Chapter 03.2 - How May I Know About God

How May I know About God (Part II)

The Christian faith is firmly established on the idea of God’s self-revelation. It is not uncommon to read theologians who talk about God speaking in ancient times to Abraham, Moses and others in dreams as well as speaking directly to them. In common with Judaism, Christians believe that God revealed Himself to Moses and we have the Law as the design of God for the life of the people of Israel. Christians affirm the idea of progressive revelation that began with God’s covenant with Abraham, progressed in more detail in the Law given to Moses, affirmed by God’s act of deliverance from slavery in Egypt. In the life of Israel spokesmen for God, called prophets, appeared calling the people back from their sin and rebellion to obey the commands of God. In the prophetic writings there are additional declarations about a future age when a Messiah would come and bring salvation to the people of Israel. This promise also included hope for people who were not Hebrews. Christians believe that the Messiah is to be found in Jesus, the Christ, born in Bethlehem in Judea. He is the fulfillment of the messianic passages in the Old Testament. The first Bible of the Christians was the Old Testament. The New Testament did not come into existence until collections of the Gospels as well as a collection of Paul’s letters were circulated among the churches. These collections eventually become the New Testament and the basic Scriptures for the Christian movement. However, Christians still treasured the Old Testament and were highly influenced by it through the centuries. There are many pastors who love to preach from the Old Testament and declare its message to their congregations and it is true that many pastors and congregations are very much like Old Testament "Christians." Obviously, there is no such thing as an Old Testament Christian, but their mindset is very Old Testament oriented. If we are to examine the New Testament and its attitude toward the Law, the Old Testament, we encounter a problem. First, Christians affirm obviously the idea of a final revelation of God in Christ. God-Incarnate becomes the final word. How then does this relate to the Old Testament in application. Why do Christians not obey the Old Testament in issues like the dietary rules, sacrifices, and religious holidays? The most obvious and clearest treatment of the contrast between the new Christian movement and the Old Testament relates to the idea of salvation. Do Christians have to observe the Old Testament rules to become Christians? Must they become Jews first? This struggle is reflected in Romans, Galatians, particularly, and in other books like Hebrews. The conclusion is that the Law could not bring salvation. Only trust in Jesus as Lord and Savior can bring salvation and hope. There is no other name given whereby we can be saved. (Acts 4:12) In other practical matters, there is an inconsistency due to the transition from Judaism to independence of the Christian movement. Paul, particularly becomes expedient in trying to deal with certain problems in regard to women. In Galatians, Ephesians, Romans, and other places he declares that we are not under the Law, but in trying to deal with the troublesome women, he resorts to the authority of the Law. In practice, the early church was in a state of transition from the rule of Law in the first Covenant to the realm of Grace in the New Covenant established by Jesus, and it did not carry through on the full application of the Gospel to the issue of women and their role in the Church. If we never come to see the contrast between Grace and the Law, there will never be a Christian attitude toward women in the church. The recent statements by the Pope about women in the church are the result of this influence of the Law, disregarding the full wonderful statements about the grace of God bring equality to all in Christ. (Gal 3:28.) There may be a measure of discomfort in trying to contrast these two concepts. They are strongly contrast in the New Testament and the Christian--male or female--is not under the law and the church cannot be rule from the standpoint of Old Testament Law. We can start with the words of Jesus. There are many things that Jesus did and said that upheld the Law and its practice. However, there are some disturbing statements that he made which alarmed the keepers of the Law in his day. It is upon these words that we must focus. Consider the statement in Mat 5:17. Jesus said, "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them." There is great respect in this statement as well as something radical. What is the fulfilling? There was apparently a breakdown in what the law had become in the minds of the people. The Greek word means to "make full, to fill, to fill up," and Thayer gives the definition "to fulfill, i.e. to cause God’s will (as made known in the law) to be obeyed as it should be, and God’s promises (given through the prophets) to receive fulfillment."(p. 518) In what Jesus was teaching, we can see the real fulfillment of the Law. Jesus agreed with the rabbis concerning the two great commandments--love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself--but these two commandments were applied in a legalistic way. Legalism distorted the inner meaning of the law and turned people’s minds toward a system rather than toward God and their neighbors. Jesus condemned the tithing of mint, dill and cummin, when they neglected the weightier requirements of the law. (Mat 23:23) Further change is stressed in the words concerning John the Baptist. When John was thrown in jail for his preaching, his followers went to Jesus with the questions from John: "Are you he who is to come, or shall we look for another?" The reply of Jesus came from the words of the prophet Isaiah, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk...and blessed is he who takes no offense at me." (Mat 11:4 ff) Then Jesus questioned the crowd concerning who they thought John to be. Then to stress a point he said: "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John: and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come." Something new is in the making and the Kingdom of heaven is declared to be imminent. In Luk 24:44 Jesus talked about the fulfillment of the law and the prophets in regard to his crucifixion and resurrection. "These are my words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled." Then he opened their mind to understand the scriptures, and said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations..."(Luk 24:45 ff) This becomes the pivotal event in looking at the difference between Judaism and Christianity. This event also makes the Gospel the "good news of something that happened recently" in contrast to the principles of the Law. So much is bound up with the passion event, the death and resurrection of Christ, that it becomes the dividing line between the Old and the New. Put in more radical terms the law is eclipsed, made obsolete, and the Messiah ushers in a new era in God’s dealing with mankind. A new covenant means the old covenant is obsolete. From Jesus’ standpoint this was the purpose of the Law and the Prophets and this is what was fulfilled--they pointed to Him. The Gospel of John makes the contrast that "the law was given through Moses’ grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17) This verse is followed by the awesome statement: "No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."(John 1:18) Contrast the revelation of the Law to the revelation in the Son. In the first case the law tells us something about God’s requirements, in the second case we have God embodied in his Son. In the first case we obey a principle, in the second we encounter a person. In the first following of the letter of the law, (often in a perfunctory way), and in the second there is the transforming power of His fellowship (1Jn 1:7 ) In the first case we have a law which condemns and accuses, in the second, we have a Redeemer who brings forgiveness. In the first we have the cold letter of the Law, in the second the Messiah gives the presence of the Spirit. There are many contrasts possible, but we must not overlook the importance of the fact God reveals Himself, not just principles, or laws. He embodies the real meaning of the law in terms of self-giving --agape, God’s love. If one encounters the Son, going back to legalism is regressive and redundant. We shall turn now to see how Paul deals with the law in his theology and practice. The book of Galatians deals with the issue of the Christian faith and the law of the Old Testament. Galatians begins with a strong warning against believing "another gospel" even though an angel were to preach it. There is no other gospel. Paul’s gospel came through "a revelation of Jesus Christ."(Gal 1:12) Paul describes his facing down Peter on the issue of circumcision. Christians cannot live like Jews. The truth is: "a man is not justified by works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ....because by works of the law shall no one be justified." (Gal 2:16) The questions are raised: "Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?" Did the Spirit do miracles by means of the law or by faith? The purpose of the law is said to be that of a tutor, a custodian until Christ came. Then we are no longer under that tutor. The grand conclusion is drawn out by Paul: "For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neighbor Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3:26-28) He then warns "every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. (Gal 5:3-4) The eclipsing of the law can be seen in the contrast: "But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law." In turning to Romans one finds a similar motif. We read that "no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law since through the law comes knowledge of sin." (Rom 3:20) The righteousness from God that he gives to the believer is not a result of the law, but the "law and the prophets bear witness to it." (Rom 3:21) Paul "holds that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (Rom 3:28) Paul notes that faith does not overthrow the law, "but on the contrary, we uphold the law." No explanation is given about this upholding. What seems more clear is that the law was once good and served as a preliminary revelation of God, but now that Christ has come it is fulfilled, virtually made obsolete. It is difficult to reach any other conclusion since he noted: "you are not under law but under grace." (Rom 6:14) Paul’s explanation on how we escape being under the law involves the matter of death. The law has no hold over a dead person. We have been "baptized" into Christ. This means that we have been enveloped by Christ and his Spirit. It does not have to do with water, but the presence of Christ. We are immerse into his life by faith. Now that we are in Christ, what happened to Him, happens to us. Since he died, we died. Since we are dead in Him, the law has no hold on us. Since we are made alive in Christ, we are alive in the Spirit, and the Spirit is to direct our lives. This analogy is developed in chapters 6-7 of Romans. Rom 7:4 notes, "Likewise....you have died to the law through the body Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God." Because of this "we are discharged from the law...so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. Paul is not merely against t he law, but sets for the positive benefit of the Gospel. "God has done what the Law, weakened by the flesh, could not do" sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirements of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." The law plays its role of bringing judgment and death. The Spirit gives life and forgiveness. In relation to Israel, Paul pours out his heart in concern for them because "Christ is the end of the law, that everyone who has faith may be justified." (Rom 10:4) There are indications in other books about the passing of the law into the era of grace. To the church at Ephesus Paul wrote that Christ has abolished in "his flesh the law of commands and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of two, so making peace.(Eph 2:15) To the Philippians he confessed: "For his sake I suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I might gain Christ, and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness of God that depends on faith." (Php 3:8-9)

One must be driven to the conclusion that the Christian is not under the law and should not revert back to the demands of the Old Testament. One should not have an old covenant mentality. We are brought into a new living relationship based on faith that may be reflected in the terms of the New Covenant. The law is obsolete for the Christian view of things. We have been looking at the basic theology concerning grace versus law. When it comes to practice we don’t have a clear application in some areas. But keep in mind that the early church was in a state of transition as indicated above. Practical problems arose. In the matter of salvation and faith there are strong statements of Romans and Galatians and others. But in some practical problems an appeal is made to Law. Paul took a strong stand against Peter concerning the matter of circumcision (Acts 15:1-20), but later when he returned (Acts 21:1-40) to Jerusalem, he gave in to what may be called expedience, or emergency pressure. After giving his report which brought gladness to the people, they responded with a warning. The people had been told about you that "you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. (Acts 21:21) What to do? Do a law thing to convince people otherwise. Take a vow, shave your head, pay the expenses, and "all will know that there is nothing in what you have been told about you, but that you yourself live in obedience to the law. (Acts 21:25) To Paul’s credit it must be said that his motivation for living was winning people to Christ. He told the Corinthians that he was a free man, but made himself a slave to all that he might win them the more. "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the Law I became as one under the Law--though not being myself under the law--that I might win those under the law. (1Co 9:19 ff) Even in this episode in Jerusalem he followed the custom for the sake of winning people to Christ. In this event he did not escape. People spotted him and he caused a riot and ultimately this lead him on a free trip to Rome. Submitting to the law personally for the sake of evangelism--though not being under the law--is one’s personal decision. However, it is another issue to declare that we are free from the law, and then impose it on others, particularly women in the following situation. The issue comes up in 1Co 14:34 when the words are given: "the women should keep silence in the church. For they are not permitted to speak, as even the law says." It seems that we are lead to the conclusion that in the state of transition from Law to Grace, the implications were not thought out regarding the application of grace to the theological statements set forth so clearly and emphatically in Galatians and Romans. A similar situation prevails in the epistle of Timothy where the statement is made that women should learn in silence....for "Adam was formed first, then Eve...." This is simply another example of ignoring the implications of the freedom from the Law or the Old Testament. It is an example of imposing the Old on the New. The revelation of Grace, in contrast to the revelation of the Law, may be seen another context. The Gospels speak of Jesus as the embodiment of God and his revelation for mankind. In Mat 11:27 Jesus said, "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." These words describe a very exclusive word about where salvation is to be found. The confession of Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, is affirmed by Jesus to come from the Father in heaven. (Mat 16:16-17) Similarly, Paul claims that his gospel was revealed to him by Christ himself.(Gal 1:11-12) The gospel of John affirms that the Son has descended from heaven (John 3:13) and is the one who brings spiritual rebirth. In John 5:23 we are told that "He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him." If we want to know what the will of the Father is, then we are to believe the words of Jesus. In so believing one passes from death into eternal life. After seeing some signs of Jesus the question is asked, "What must we do, to be doing the work of God?" The answer of Jesus is: "This is the work of God that you believe on him whom he has sent."(John 6:28-29) A little further the claim is made: "For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:40)

The claim of identity with the Father recurs in this epistle and is stated as the basis of charging Jesus with blasphemy. But the positive point is that in knowing Jesus, one knows the Father. He taught, "I know Him for I come from him and he sent me." (John 7:29) The relation is closely drawn in his rebuttal to the Pharisees where he said, "You know neither me nor my Father; if you knew me, you would know my Father also." (John 8:19) The revelatory act involves more than mere knowledge as good as that can be. It also involves redemption. "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me." (John 8:28) Further, the comment is made by Jesus to the Pharisees’ claim of God as their Father, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me."(John 8:42) Then as the story proceeds Jesus tells them that they did not know God. But "I do know Him and I keep his word."(John 8:55) Additional implication of the revelatory act bringing redemption is seen in the story of the good shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Jesus said, "I know my own and my own know me, as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." (John 10:14-15) No more simple, but profound statement can be made than the words "I and the Father are one" affirming the fact if we are to know God it can only be through Christ. To the charge that he was blaspheming Jesus urged them to believe the works he did, "that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." (John 10:38) We have not touched on the beginning of the Gospel, the Prologue concerning the Word made flesh. The embodied Word, the message from God, in Jesus is identified with God and is God. He is described as the source of creation, the light of the world, the revealer of God, and the source of grace and truth. In the last days of Jesus he gave his disciples a remarkable way of remember his death. In the last supper, which is recorded in Mat 26:26-29, Mark, Luke, and 1Co 15:1-58, Jesus took the elements of bread and wine and made some important remarks. The bread represented his body which was broken for them, and the wine represented his blood which was poured on for the forgiveness of sins. In this event Jesus established a new covenant fulfilling the words of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah, among others, that a time would come when a new covenant would be established with the house of Israel. This new covenant was God’s new entry into the life of the world, his creation, and it gave the promise of forgiveness of sin, the guarantee of his Spirit’s presence in the believer, and the hope of life everlasting in the presence of God.

Consequently, Paul could say that God has "qualified us to be ministers of a new covenant." The book of Hebrews draws more direct comparisons between the Old and the New. Having contrasted the words of Jeremiah about the coming new covenant, the conclusion is reached, "In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. and what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13) Heb 12:24 speaks of Jesus as "the mediator of a new covenant." If we stop to reflect on all of this some conclusions may be forthcoming. First, we can see an interpretative device, a hermeneutic, taking place in the transition of the beginning community of believers. The church grew out of Judaism because a Messiah was promised in Judaism. The Messiah that came was a suffering Savior described in Isa 53:1-12, rather than a militant leader, and what he preached was not what was hoped for popularly in those days. By the fact that Jesus instituted a new covenant, by his death, changes the total view about the law and prophets. Christians are not supposed to be using the Old Testament as the norm for their behavior as good as it is. There is something better. Life in the Spirit is supposed to transcend life by the law. There is the possibility of a new birth, a new creation, a new self in contrast to the old. This is the covenant of God’s unique grace that transcends the law. Second, there are valuable lessons learned in the Old Testament, and we can learn much, but it must weighed in the light of the New Covenant, Grace, and Jesus Christ. We must raise questions about practices that go on in Christendom and examine them in the light of the New Covenant of grace. This is particularly urgent in the area of the role of women in the church. Third, the revelatory redemptive act comes in the person of Jesus, the Son of God. We cannot return to a lessor view of revelation. We must measure all practices in light of this great event in human history. God does not merely offer good news but a good relationship. The event of the Cross makes a radical difference in how some of the words of Jesus are understood. To one person he taught that one may have eternal life by keeping the law. This was the position of Judaism for Jesus lived as a Jew. However, after the crucifixion and resurrection the gospel of forgiveness is declared to all nations not based on the law, but faith. (Luk 24:44-49) Paul is not a corrupter of Christianity as many liberal minded thinkers have affirmed, and as Muslim teach, but the true interpreter of this great event in which God makes a new covenant with new beginnings for all of mankind. As we turn to other doctrines we shall see that the concept of grace and the new covenant will force us to think anew some of the traditional doctrines taught by theologians who have been highly influenced by the Old Testament and its law mentality.