Christians and the Law

I have been a Christian for a over 25 years and have struggled in one way or another with one question above all other questions during my years.

The question centers around the relationship of the Christian and the Law. Where the problem comes in is with the seemingly irreconcilable passages where Christ and Paul speak both against and for the Law, almost in the same breath. These are beyond the scope of this paper to address.

I have had a number of experiences which shaped this understanding. The initial experience is one that I barely remember due to my age at the time. I was raised in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. In the LCMS, there is a strong emphasis on the distinction between Law and Gospel. This is exemplified by the book by Walther on the subject. Although I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I don't remember much of this experience since I was not a Christian at the time. My last attendance at the Lutheran church was my confirmation. By the time I was confirmed, I was a committed atheist.

My next experience was with Calvary Chapel. Although I did not know it at the time, Calvary Chapel was a heavily Dispensationalist sect. For folks in this way of thinking, the Law has little if anything to do with Christians. Eventually, I shifted to the Vineyard with a wider view of the Second Coming - more in the Historical Premillenial vein, I still had little change in view of the relationship of the Christian and the Law.

To sum up this view, the only parts of the Law that are still valid are the ones that are explicitly mentioned in the New Testament as valid by Jesus and/or the Apostles. A test case for this is the sin of beastiality. Neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor anywhere in the New Testament is there an explicit condemnation of beastiality. Thus, in this viewpoint it is no longer a valid law. It is clear that this test case breaks this paradigm.

About 1991 or 1992 I got connected up with some Messianic Christians at Temple Beth Yeshua in Southern California. Their view of the Law seemed to make more sense to me than the Calvary Chapel view, although I now see that their view was also deficient. When asked about their view, they said that Jewish Christians are to obey the Law, including kosher laws but that non-Jewish Christians are not bound to follow the Law. It may have been mostly for apologetic purposes in their own Jewish communities that they kept more continuity, but it was also apparent that they struggled with the question themselves. Interestingly, in the movement I saw what could best be described as the conversion of Gentile Christians into Jewish Christians. One man even legally changed his name from Charles to Levi. I grew disillusioned with the radical Dispensationalism of the Messianic Christians and eventually left the synagogue. Their views on Israel and their refusal to even mouth the term "church" left me convinced that my children would be raised in a subsect of a subsect of a subsect if I stayed on.

Next in my journey I ran into the Reconstructionists. I was introduced to them by Bob and Gretchen Passantino who were interestingly enough, LCMS-style Lutherans. I was initially attracted to the Reconstructionists by their refutations of Dispensationalism. They had their fingers on the pulse of all of the things that I saw that were wrong with Dispensationalism. In particular, the book "Last Days Madness" by Gary DeMar was a major part of killing off Dispensational thinking in my mind.

The Reconstructionists are typically Reformed Presbyterians. The Reconstructionists also were five point Calvinists, which Bob Passantino (peace be to his memory) preached against with a passion that I have never met before or since.

The Reconstructionists added a nuance to the discussion of the Law that others had not mentioned (or I had missed). They pointed out that the Law consisted of three parts; ceremonial, moral and civil.

Ceremonial laws are those that have to due with the temple practices but may also include such things are kosher law. There are some Reconstructionists that even challenge that point and hold to kosher law.

Moral laws are things that do not change and are rooted in the character of God. Do not bear false witness, is one such example. Prohibitions against beastiality and homosexuality fit in here as well.

Civil laws are the way that society is organized. The basic question asked by Reconstructionists is "By What Standard?". In other words, if the law of the country is not based on God's Word, in particular the Old Testament, then what is it based on? For surely there will be some basis, either God's Word or man's.

Sorting out whether a particular law is in this category or one of the other categories can be a challenge although it is easier than you may initially suspect. Rushdooney's impressive book "The Institutes of Biblical Law" is once such attempt.

This allows for a solution to the initial dilemma of how there could be passages for and against the Law. Some passages state that that Law will never pass away. Others say that it is quickly passing away. The cermonial law was based largely on temple worship. With the destruction in 70 AD of the temple, this law was gone. The book of Hebrews is particularly compelling in this regard. The moral law of God can never change being based in the character of God. In that sense it is a mirror of the personality of God.

Their treatment of the civil law is the tripping point for those who reject Reconstructionism. However, the basic question has yet to be adequately answered by the other since "By Which Standard?". The standard answer of "if it is repeated in the NT" has proven inadequate with test case after test case.