Christians and the Law

The question of whether the law plays any part in the lives of Christians today still divides the Christian community.

You would think from the way some Christians preach, write and talk that law should play no part in the Christian life. The 'Grace, Not Law' slogan based presumably on Romans 6.14 and often linked with the facile quote of John 1.17 can certainly suggest this teaching.

The scripture, 'For the law came by Moses, grace and truth by Jesus Christ' suggests to some that law has nothing to do with Christians today but this post suggests otherwise.


Briefly put: we are saved from sin's penalty by grace and grace alone through faith (Eph 2.8). However, the preaching of law sensitises us to our sinful state by showing us what sin is: for sin is lawlessness (1 Jn 3.4). After being saved, the law acts as a guide for the good works we are created to do (Eph 2.10).

Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Luther thought the law to be important in at least two respects and arguably in a third as well.

First, law was important in terms of its 'civil' or political function. Luther believed the laws of the land should be obeyed by Christians and non-Christians alike.*

Second, Luther believed that the law should be a first step in preaching because its preaching convinces hearers of their need for the gospel and its promises. 

How does the law do that? When the law is preached sinners realise their law-breaker status (Rom 7.7). And saints also realise how far short they fall of its requirements being unable to attain its standards. 

'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength', says the law. And do we? No we fail every day in fulfilling the first and great commandment. 

The law points out our failings and in earlier times was preached strenuously so that hearers got that message. But they weren't meant to stay with their failure but to turn always to the only way out.

For the preaching of the gospel directs us to the only remedy for sin which is the sacrifice of Christ crucified, resurrected, ascended and now interceding for the saints at the right hand of God (1 Cor 15.3-8; Heb 7.25; 9.24).

Hence, Luther made a sharp distinction between law and gospel warning that mixing the two would result in the grievous error of trying to achieve righteousness through man's own works or deeds.

This distinction - after all, Thomas Cranmer was influenced directly by Lutheran ideas - is reflected in Anglican services where the Prayer Book calls for the Law (either The Two Great Commandments or less often, The Ten Commandments) is read near the opening of the service by a lay reader or priest/pastor. 

All respond with:  

'Lord, have mercy on us; and write your law in our hearts by your Holy Spirit'

or other words provided. 

Third, and more controversially, the Lutheran tradition soon came to recognise a 'third'** function of the law in the life of baptised Christians (see here). This third use is that the law acts as a guide for their behaviour as saints. 

It can never, ever save them from sin; only faith IN CHRIST JESUS can do that. But law understood from a New Covenant standpoint (Lk 24.25-27, 32, 44-45): that is, the Old law, prophets and writings are to be understood in the light of the New*** Covenant, can instruct Christians (1 Cor 10.1-14).

* This 'use' may seem obvious to us but some Anabaptists said that the saints weren't bound to obey such law. Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation regarded civil government with suspicion and did not always recognise the jurisdiction of the law courts.
** Such a function or use had already been recognised by the followers of Calvin and is embedded in the Calvinist tradition.
*** Various foolish errors would be eliminated if the Church at large interpreted the Old just as Jesus Himself did!

Trinity Sunday

Trinity Sunday is the first Sunday after Pentecost. It doesn't have a fixed date because Easter doesn't and therefore nor does Ascension Day (40 days post Easter) and Pentecost (50 days post Easter).

I've been told Trinity Sunday, inspires a sense of trepidation in preachers in some Anglican churches who observe the day. That's unfortunate, for Anglicans at least, because the Anglican tradition places the teaching of the Trinity liturgically¹ at the centre of its worship.

Implications if all Christians viewed themselves as Full-Time Ministers*

Jesus said to his followers 'you are the light of the world' (Matt 5.14). Note he didn't say, 'should be', 'were to be', 'better be', 'could be' but are.  

Christians are now the light of the world (Phil 2.15) because they are in Christ who is The Light of the world (Jn 8.12). The Christ who is within all Christians by the Holy Spirit's presence ensures that Christians everywhere shine as light in the world.

They shine not only in 'churches' on Sunday but in every area of life where legitimate human endeavour takes place all through the week. They do that in marriages, families, 'para-church' organisations, neighbourhood groups, art groups, businesses, scientific research, professions and trades of every kind, farming, recreation, entertainment, and in all other activities 'too numerous to mention'.

Implications

The main point is that the LDc should do its job to prepare all the saints for the work of ministry (Eph 4.11) out in the world in all the various areas that I have listed above and more. Correlatively, the LDc should not try to be a political group, or run a business, or imagine it is a family, or indulge in too much entertainment. It's main focus is Word and Sacrament so that the saints are empowered for ministry (service) in all non-church areas during the week.

This thought is implicitly in the people's words after Communion in the Anglican** church's liturgy:

'Father, we offer ourselves to you
as a living sacrifice
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Send us out in the power of your Spirit
to live and work to your praise and glory. Amen. (emphasis mine)'

Second, it should restrain itself from grabbing all the saints' time so that they have the opportunity to pursue the Lord's business outside the confines of the church's ambit. Some churches even boast how they have a meeting every day or evening! No wonder the Body has so little impact on societies in which they live!

Perhaps some church ministers should work part-time in the church and part-time outside so that they remember what the church is actually there for.

Third, the congregational-structure ought to consider itself as an institution alongside other Christian associations working in the same vineyard. Being so, it should not suck up all the best talent found in the wider Christian community on the basis that 'the Lord should have the best available'! Of course, the Lord should but this comment is under-girded by a division of the world into sacred and secular. It understands the church to be in the sacred realm and therefore to be the realm along with missions deserving of the best. 

However, any realm can be sanctified by the presence of God's people unless certain civil societies make that impossible. In some societies the possibility also exists to develop separate structures*** to form Christian schools, or Christian home-schooling, universities, political groups, labour organisations, and etc.

I tend to favour the formation of separate associations in some cases (particularly in schooling). Such associations force our present society to reckon with the fact that Christian witness in the wider sense is public and not just private.

*I do realise that my title's aspiration will have varied applications for Christians depending on the country and political system they live within.
**The pity is one doesn't hear this emphasised in the Anglican Church.
***The Netherlands, at the beginning of the 20thC is an outstanding example of where this societal development took place. Unfortunately it didn't save this society from a severe deviation from the Word of God with respect to same-sex 'marriage' and other matters. However, I don't believe that its societal structure as such led to that deformation.

Are You A Full-Time Minister Or A Part-Time One?

*The denomination that I am a part of seems wedded to the idea that full-time ministers of Christ only exist within the congregational structure. Therefore, it clearly implies that all the work done by the 'laity' (an abominable term btw) is outside the ambit of the Body of Christ.

Just to make myself clear: I am NOT talking about involving the non-ordained 'laity' in congregational work such as song-leading, worship-leading, taking up the collection or dispensing the elements for Holy Communion. All of these tasks need to be done but the 'laity' spends most of its time outside the confines of the congregation.


The Body of Christ (the capital 'C' Church Universal) is not identical with the variously named institutional-congregations that provide corporate celebration of the Word and Sacrament within the Body of Christ. That's the distinction I am aiming for you to consider.

If you are a husband/wife, father/mother, family member, and have any other vocation of any legitimate sort then each of these callings is 'holy' work because the LORD is Lord of every sphere of life: marriage, family, vocation, schooling, politics, etc. and the Christian congregation too.

The latter is no more 'holy' or 'spiritual' than any of the other spheres. However, it is different because it is a central hub of the Church Universal.

What the congregation and its ministry chiefly do is to equip the 'laity' for its 'ministry' (Eph 4.12) outside the congregation in its daily callings. And I don't just mean only devotions and testifying either, although these are part of it obviously. 

Their work of ministry embraces any edifying sphere of human life for which each member (or members) has the calling and gifts. Christians are called to present their bodies (whole selves) as 'living sacrifices, holy and acceptable to God, which is their spiritual worship or service' (Rom 12.1).

In Romans 12.4-8, we have a list of functions or gifts that members of the Body of Christ might have. We are told to exercise these gifts for the common good (1 Cor 12.7) which can be interpreted in the first instance towards other believers that we meet in the congregation but it doesn't stop there. We have a particular responsibility towards any Christian believer we meet who is in need. Moreover, our responsibility is also towards those who are not yet believers.

Do we not know that the Father sends the rain on the just and the unjust (Matt 5.45)? Do we know remember that God is also declared by the apostle Paul to be, 'the saviour of all** mankind, especially of those who believe' (1 Tim 4.10)? If so, how much more shouldn't we be prepared to serve our neighbour in daily life with any gifts we have been given by God.

Martin Luther puts the above issue graphically in the following: 'God is milking the cows through the vocation of the milkmaid'.

*I've delayed my projected post on the topic of the 'implications of the Reformation's discovery' by expounding more fully on what the discovery was.
**I don't believe in universal salvation -- in fact this verse suggests a decided difference between believers and nonbelievers -- but that God's 'saving' expressed in this verse points to God grace showered on all indiscriminately in blessings that sustain life.

Pentecostal Power

Pentecost Sunday is the day churches celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.1-21. Luke, the disciple, mentions the coming of the Holy Spirit first in his gospel account (Lk 24.49) and I particularly appreciate the translation 'clothed with power from on high'. In these words, three ideas are given but I will focus on the aspect of power.

'Power'

What is this power? I ask this question because power is often associated with evil, the wish to hurt and harm others. Men and women lust after power, lust to exercise power over others for their own ends and to the misery of others.

Contrariwise, Jesus' use of his Holy In-Spirited power was to do good, to release others from the grip of Satan's bondage, to bring light into darkness. 

He was anointed by God with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10.38), and went around doing good and healing people oppressed by the devil. Jesus delivered those imprisoned in the devil's clutches.

And what Jesus began, the church of God continued under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Just as Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit and with power, so were his chosen apostles.  

'Power' is one of the common themes in the Lucan gospel account (Lk 24.49) and The Acts (see Acts 1.8) coupled with the descent of the Spirit upon the waiting disciples. We also know that 'signs and wonders' are connected to continuing work of the Spirit within the community of faith (Acts 4.30-31; 5.12, 15-16 etc) particularly through the apostles. 

When these signs and wonders are examined they all have this same liberating* character (Acts 3.8; 9.32-35; 9.36-41; 14.8-10; 19.11-12; 28.5-6, 8-9) as found in Jesus' ministry. By this means, the apostles and disciples fulfill the words of Jesus, 'As the father has sent Me, so I am sending you' (Jn 20.21).

*Except for a few which evidence judgement. Judgement is also an aspect of God's dealing with mankind (e.g., Acts 5. 1-11; 8.20-24; 10.42; 17.30-31; 24.25) and demonstrates that God will in no wise ignore the cry of those unjustly treated. 

A Troublesome German Monk

Most of us know how God used the German monk, Dr Martin Luther (1483-1546), to shake to the core the medieval western (Roman) church in the early decades of the 16th century which led to the Protestant Reformation.

We know that his views can summarised by: justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Of course, Luther did believe that the sinner is justified by faith in Christ alone without good works. (Nevertheless, faith in Christ, he said, is never without good works [Eph 2.8-10].)

Luther's battle with the Roman church was also evidenced in Rome's doctrines surrounding the virgin Mary, its dead 'saints', clergy, bishops and Pope who could be said to be intercede between the Roman church believer and Christ. 

Hence, the Roman church was in a powerful, politico-faith position because to be under its curse -an anathema- was to be dammed to eternal torment. Few kings, emperors or any others of the time were prepared to oppose Rome knowing their eternal destiny was apparently at risk.

The Priesthood of All Believers

The 'priesthood of all believers' is an important teaching of the 16th century Reformation in its three branches (Lutheran, Reformed, and Anabaptist).

Luther used this doctrine to savage the Roman Church's clericalism. Imagine the situation in England before the English Reformation began to take hold in 1548. You would come to your parish church to hear Mass said but would understand nothing of the service because it was in Latin. Before Mass, you might have gone to Confession so that your sins could be absolved by your local priest because without a priest's absolution you were not forgiven.

Luther punctured the arrogance of the Roman Church 'priesthood' by declaring that all Christians without exception form a priesthood (1 Peter 2.5-9; Rev 1.6); that the division of the Church into 'priests' and 'laity' is without biblical warrant.

He says this in his famous attack on Roman Church's claim to be above 'temporal powers' because it is a 'spiritual power':

 We see, then, that just as those that we call spiritual, or priests, bishops, or popes, do not differ from other Christians in any other or higher degree but in that they are to be concerned with the word of God and the sacraments—that being their work and office—in the same way the temporal authorities hold the sword and the rod in their hands to punish the wicked and to protect the good. A cobbler, a smith, a peasant, every man, has the office and function of his calling, and yet all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man should by his office or function be useful and beneficial to the rest, so that various kinds of work may all be united for the furtherance of body and soul, just as the members of the body all serve one another (Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate).

Although this sword has a sharp edge that Luther wielded so effectively against the corruption of the Medieval Church of his time, do we not see that it can also be used to attack much of the present church (Roman, Protestant and Eastern) because it has lost contact with Reformation view? 

Truth to tell, Vatican II has taken more notice of Luther's views that have many of his Protestant descendants!!

The Fatal Spiritual/Secular Divide

Some Christian groups have endeavoured not to encourage a

professional ministry in the congregation at all. 

However, Luther was not arguing for such a thing. Luther was keen to maintain distinctive offices in the congregation; but Luther looked at Christians everywhere, whether cobbler, smith, peasant and declared them all 'consecrated priests and bishops'!! That is, all these vocations are ways of fulfilling, if you like, the second commandment. They are avenues of serving humanity as priests.

Most Christian churches are stuck in the thinking that their clergy minister (serve!) in the spiritual realm while those, in the congregation, are destined to live out their days in the secular realm.

That's not what the Reformation re-discovered through Luther and Calvin. But, it's dearly what the Church at large needs to re-discover today.

Next Time: The implications of such a discovery 

'The Church Beyond The Congregation'

I was confronted 30 years ago with a different form of the message contained in this book by James Thwaites (a Pentecostal), and it still faces me today.

Some book titles are arresting and The Church Beyond The Congregation is one of these. However, it is more than just arresting because it is very easy to misunderstand what the book is proposing by simply interpreting its title within our normal categories. It's a creational given that we do this and it's dashed difficult to modify or abandon our settled categories.

I could start by asking, what is the Church? Such a simple question but it is easy to get the answer wrong according to New Testament (NT) terms.

The normal understanding of the Church is that it is only the institutional structure, the congregation that Sunday-by-Sunday meets to hear the scriptures read, to break bread, to pray and fellowship (Act 2.42).

If you would like a snapshot of this regular view, Google 'the Body of Christ', then click 'images' and peruse. For example, the image to the left gives this mistaken view in a nutshell.


However, we misunderstand the riches of the meaning of the Church as the Body of Christ if we believe that Church is fully expressed in its congregational activity, the 'religious' gathering on Sunday (or whenever), personal evangelism and individual 'good works'.

This grievous error of equating the Church with the congregation James Thwaites attempts to dispel in the above book.

In this introductory post, I can't present all the evidence for Thwaites' uncommon, though completely orthodox view (although Thwaites' speculations are at times unorthodox bordering on a form of panentheism). So I will outline one scriptural area that could be explored by those wanting to have their own understanding of the Church<--->congregational relationship enriched.

Ephesians

Arguably Ephesians is the great NT letter focussing on The Church as the Body of Christ (and Colossians is a companion letter focussing on Christ as the Head of the Church). 

The picture given in Ephesians is of Christ seated at the right hand of the 'God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory' (Eph 1.17) who 'made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all' (Eph 1.22-23, emphases mine).

Amazing statements are made in Paul's prayer (Eph 1.15-23). These verses should urge us to look beyond the Christian congregation (not forsaking it because it is a necessary part* of the Church) to what God is doing through his whole Church in all areas of life: marriage, family, and every work life (see Eph 5.21-33; 6.1-4, 5-9).

An Important Implication

Many important implications flow from the above understanding of the Church and its servant, the congregations of the various denominations. 

One that I want to emphasise at this point is that every Christ-believer is a 'minister' and is part of the general ministry of Christ's Body (Eph 4.11-13).

That being so, the term 'full-time Christian worker or minister' used to imply that only 'ordained, full-time pastors or workers' are full-time Christian workers is incorrect. 

However, I hear this expressed all the time and I'm sure readers of this blog do too. This view means that most of the people of God are outside the exalted group of Christian ministers and have to be content with doing 'secular' work which of course is inferior to the 'sacred' work of the church's ministry.  

This view falls short of the NT view of 'ministry' which essentially means service.

Next time, I will outline a brief history of how the churches of today got themselves into this unbiblical position and some steps we need to take to break our way out of it.  

* Perhaps as a hub is to a wheel depending on how important one sees the institutional church to be and I do see it to be important.   

The Aftermath of Ascension Day

Why is it important to remind ourselves as Christians about the meaning of Christ's Ascension and further to acknowledge his Ascension on a special day?

Christ's Ascension was/is important because Jesus was going to:

1. send the Holy Spirit on his disciples 'not many days hence' (Act 1.5);
2. intercede for his saints (those who believe in Jesus) (Heb 1.3; 7.25);
3. war as the exalted Lord along with the Father until all the Son's enemies are subdued (Acts 2.34-35; 1 Cor 15.24-28);
4. come again to exercise compassionate judgement upon mankind both dead and alive.


Ascension Day is celebrated 40 days after Easter Day; and just as Easter is a movable feast so is Ascension Day (and also Pentecost too). In AD 2013, Ascension Day is Thursday May 9th. If we examine (a traditional version of) the Apostles' Creed we find a direct reference to Christ's Ascension:

the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick [living] and the dead.   

The Apostles' Creed (developed between c. AD215 and the 6th century AD) mentions Christ's Ascension to the place of authority at the right hand of 'God the Father Almighty'.

Christ the Warrior Lord

Christ is now exalted in heaven and on earth (Matt 28.18-19); yet he still waits until his enemies become his footstool (Acts 2.34-35). In fact, the apostle Peter in Acts is quoting Psalm 110.1 which happens to be the most quoted (e.g., Heb 1.13), or alluded to (e.g., Heb 1.3), verse in the NT!

In 1 Cor 15.24-25, we read how Christ is active now in 'putting down all enemies under his feet'. Interesting too is the observation that the Father is also said to have 'put all things under his [Jesus'] feet' (1 Cor 15.28). (The latter shows the close connection between the Father and the Son in the Godhead.) 

Hence, our Lord Jesus is not passively sitting in heaven but actively at war against anything that is in opposition to the Father's will. The Father's will is pre-eminent because although members of the Trinity are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal, the Son and the Spirit have subordinated themselves in love to the Father's will.   

Archaic Pronouns: Sometimes Important Words For Us Today

Many Christians today don't use Bible versions that have archaic words such as 'thou', 'thee', 'thine', 'thy', 'ye'.  

I've heard preachers ridicule such language as if using such language is so out of fashion that no church (or person) should be caught dead using it.

Before going on, I should make clear that I'm not trying to argue that we should go back to the King James Version (KJV) as it was in AD1611 or AD1769. For a number of reasons the Church probably cannot do that. 

However, many were brought up on the KJV and its rhythms are still alive for them. In my case, after deserting it for translation after translation I've now come to view it with much more respect.

The populist bandwagon of getting rid of the KJV altogether has only led to a succession of translations which makes for reasonable uniformity and a stable text for memorisation almost impossible. 

Let's consider a few well-known Bible texts and see how a knowledge of the KJV's language clarifies rather than obscures certain passages.


In fact in these same passages, the obscurity occurs in some of the last century translations.

'Luke 22.31-32'

In the 'old-fashioned' KJV this Lukan passage reads, 

And the Lord said to Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren [italics indicate words that the KJV translators added*]. 

We might think we understand this text and when we will look it up in some-not all-modern translations we would conclude that Simon's (Peter) welfare is the focus throughout; that is, that you = thee = thy!

However, when the above verses are examined one will find that Satan desired to have all of the apostles because in AD1611 (and 1769) 'you' was used in the KJV for the plural form of 'you' and meant the equivalent of 'you-all'. 'Thee', 'thy' and 'thou' denoted the singular. (See Table 1 below.) 

Hence Jesus was saying that Satan desired to sift as wheat all of the apostles-not just Simon-however Jesus has prayed specifically for Simon that his faith not lead to his ruin.

By the way, these differences in these pronouns were found in the Greek text the translators were translating. Hence, the translators deliberately used these more archaic forms (according to here) to overcome the diminishing social use of thee, thy, thou, ye, etc.

In fact, I found a number of more recent translations over the last 100 years that note this difference in their translations; the NIV (1985) notes the plural in the margin and in 2011 version it is in the translation itself (a better option).

The difficulty is that modern English does not use a different word for 'you' singular and 'you' plural but to get a right understanding of Luke 22.31-32 one needs to realise that we have an ambiguity with the English 'you' which isn't found in the KJV and some older translations too.**

'John 3.7'

Marvel not that I say unto thee, Ye must be born again.

I first heard this classic text emphasised in the local Brethren Sunday School my sisters and I attended early in our lives. We even had a chorus that made it quite clear that Jesus was speaking primarily to Nicodemus. It contained the two English pronouns, 'thee' and 'Ye' in the KJV which our chorus appeared simply to equate. 

So unfortunately, if my recollection is accurate, we just weren't taught correctly the meaning of 'thee' and 'ye'.

Although the first pronoun is directed to Nicodemus, the second is plural and means 'you-all', presumably all the Jewish leaders and Jewish people including Nicodemus. (See Table 1 below.)

Some translations do translate so as to make a difference as the KJV does such as the ASV, Darby's Translation, the ESV, JB Phillips NT, and others. Others make a marginal note about the issue. Others don't translate this important nuance at all such as the Amplified Bible, The Message, NASB, NKJV, RSV, and The Voice. 

Other Scriptures

A large number of texts can be produced which suffer at the hands of some modern translations because if the you/you-all distinction is ignored the passages become ambiguous. For some examples of this point, see Exod 4.15; 29.42; 2 Sam 7.23; Matt 24.64; Luke 5.24; Jn 3.11; 14.9; 1 Cor 8.9-12.

More can be adduced towards the end of this site from which the following Table is used with thanks.

Table 1. Personal Pronouns and Their Cases

		Nominative	Objective	Possessive
First Person	singular	I	Me	My (or mine)
	plural	We	Us	Our (or ours)
Second Person	singular	Thou	Thee	Thy (or thine)
	plural	Ye	You	Your (or yours)
Third Person	singular	He/She/It	Him/Her/It	His/Hers/Its
	plural	They	Them	Their (or theirs)

* Other translators don't bother to do this but the KJV translators had such reverence for the Word of God written that they believed that the reader was entitled to know what they had altered. 
**Interestingly, other modern languages such as French, Spanish and Italian have two forms for 'you' so it's easy to distinguish between the singular (you) and the plural (you-all). Also, some older translations mentioned above do translate this verse in the same way as the KJV.