Religiosity and rule-based understanding

Some can hardly imagine religiosity without a rule. This is the cause of legalistic thinking. It is just an expression of “faith” that one determines the (assumed) laws to be the basis of life. Such rules provide supposed security. On the one hand, one sees the laws as a kind of compass in the world, and on the other hand, by observing the requirements, one could take concrete steps to behave in a “God-conform” way, perhaps even to “improve” oneself and thus come closer to God.

In the process, it can happen that a culture of thinking emerges that becomes “legalistic”. Religiosity expresses itself in ritual, and those rituals that one anchors in everyday life. What can you think of? You can impose things on yourself for religious reasons. It’s about clothes, the way you speak, the words you use. It can be about certain habits, (self-imposed) rules and prohibitions that you follow. Religiosity lives from setting oneself apart from others (and oneself). Certainly, this is not the only way to be “religious”, but it is worth mentioning here in the context of the “question of the law”.

The 10 commandments as a basis?

In some churches, it is a matter of course to read the 10 Commandments every Sunday. Where one does not, it may still be that these same commandments are seen as a kind of “moral foundation” (the Law of Moses in condensed form). Anyone who questions this is often accused of “lawlessness. As if everything is either black or white. Behind this often lies the fear that without law, everyone just does what they want and this, by definition, creates evil in the world. One should imagine the image of man that speaks from this. The alternative to this mental short-circuit would be a more differentiated view. Differentiated here does not mean “watered down,” but rather “examined, clarified and weighed in detail.”

Whether the 10 Commandments are good or not is not relevant in the context of this text. While the laws do have relevance, meaning, the question here would be a different one: Do we as Christians (as believers from the non-Jewish peoples) have to obey these commandments? Is God asking this of us? It is precisely this view that is vehemently held by some. The specific question here is: Are the 10 Commandments given to us, the followers of Christ, by God and binding? Related to this, if we follow these 10 Commandments now, can we finally do what we have always wanted to do afterwards?

Of course, one cannot simply extract a part from the Old Testament and then designate that part as the absolute guide for today. This does not do justice to the biblical text or the challenges of our world. It would also be misleading to think that there are only these 10 commandments. In fact, there are hundreds of instructions and commandments. They all stand in clearly defined contexts. They can therefore be tested in the best possible way.

Meet expectations

Those who keep laws often do so because they believe that God expects them to do so. Fortunately, such a specific question or idea can also be checked. Is that right? What is the context of this?

However, such questioning is not tolerated everywhere. Those who are confronted with (unwritten) laws and legalities in their environment or have grown up in such an environment may have had very different experiences with them. Without asking the question of “right” or “wrong,” it can have different effects on people. It can be experienced positively (as religious liberation: “I can get closer to God through this”), or experienced quite negatively (as religious compulsion: “I have to do this whether I want to or not”). Religious communities can put huge pressure on members.

A religiosity with laws is also about promises of salvation. As a result, legal living arrangements are perceived by some as positive. Keeping the law promises salvation or even healing (an offshoot of which is then called “order”). Undoubtedly, a sober and positively oriented approach to life is preferable to a chaotic and destructive lifestyle. But do the ends justify the means? Also, does God require me to keep the precepts? And what happens if I don’t succeed in meeting these specifications? Promises of salvation can be very treacherous. Or should my life be shaped more by grace?

Those who see the law as the basis of daily life (whatever that may mean) may ask themselves what is the basis of their own trust in God and faith. The issue here is the tension between trust on the one hand (“faith”) and obeying laws (“works”) on the other. Consequently, it is also about the tension between grace and legality.

So what does the Bible say? If it is claimed that we Christians must obey the law, where does this stand? And how is that to be implemented today? Again and again I am confronted with questions about this subject area. These are often sincere questions, and not infrequently it seems that churches and congregations leave believers out in the cold with such questions. This is not good, because the spiritual vacuum would like to be filled – and what could be considered for this? Sects and sectarian pseudo-religiosity like to take the place of sound sober theology. Religiosity and faith are not the same thing, and pious life designs are not yet proof of the divine origin of all instructions and ideas.

Interpreting the Bible

If I want to check what God wants me to do, I can usefully look up the Bible on it. However, the Bible says very different things, and times have also changed constantly. What about the laws now? For example, someone wrote on the forum of jesus.ch (livenet.ch):

My question: What about the laws and commandments of the Old Testament?
a) Are they all invalid?
b) Are only some invalid? If so, why?
c) Are all still valid?

These are good questions. They can be named and answered concretely. Who checks it? This is about understanding the Bible. It is about understanding what is valid today and why. When I asked these questions in a community, the short circuit came immediately. The short circuit then runs like this:

The 10 Commandments say that you should not murder. If the commandments do not apply to us, does that mean that we can murder after all?

Such a demand is absurd and misses the point. It is not a question of whether we may murder or not, but it is a question of whether the commandments that were explicitly given to Israel also apply to us? It’s about the construct, not the individual questions. Indeed, the individual questions can be answered without the law. It is not that we knew “only by law” that one does not murder other people. We can even find the 10 Commandments good and live by them without framing them as a “condition of salvation” that we have to fulfill.

One thing is often left out of the answer to these questions: Who wrote what to whom? These are basic questions that we should ask every Bible text (supplemented by: Why? What for? When?). An inductive Bible study helps to find suitable approaches.

There is only one God, but He does not always act the same. God is always the same, but times change. Messages change. Not everything applies today (building the ark, New Heavens and New Earth). Not always a Bible word is addressed to us today (as if we are called directly and literally). While we can learn something from every Bible word (2 Timothy 3:16-17), God does not address us personally in His Word everywhere.

Sometimes God speaks only to Noah, or only to the people of Israel, and sometimes only to today’s church of all nations. We cannot simply hide the target groups, any more than we can simply open our neighbor’s mail with impunity and refer to ourselves (e.g. wages, bills, parking tickets, lottery winnings). Or in other words, everything has been written for us in a figurative sense – so that we learn something from it, but not everything literally speaks of us.

Everything is for us, but not everything speaks of us.

Now whether the law is valid or invalid, i.e. whether we should obey the 613 commandments and prohibitions from the Torah today or not, is a question of context. Undoubtedly, they fit in the context in which they were given. The question is, is that our context? Has anything changed since then? Has the target group perhaps changed – are we part of the target group or not? And: Do I believe what the Bible says?

The Mosaic Law

The law that God gave to the people of Israel via Moses was given only to that people. This law is exclusively for Israel. “These are the ordinances, and the judgments, and the statutes, which the LORD gave between himself and the sons of Israel in mount Sinai by Moses” Deut. 26:46.

Now what about the other peoples? These God made all go their own ways: “He made all nations go their own ways in the generations past” (Acts 14:16).

Those who insist that we, as believers from the nations, like Israel, are also required to obey the Law of Moses, have so far failed to grasp the essence of the Law and its unique assignment to the people of Israel.

The Message of Jesus in the Gospels

There is incredible confusion about what in the Bible speaks directly to today’s church and what speaks to other audiences. A common view is that the Old Testament was for the Jew and the New Testament is for the church today. Or, to put it bluntly: Wherever Jesus is written, today’s church is inside. This is a misconception.

Wherever it says Jesus, is today’s church inside?

Jesus himself, for example, says quite clearly about his task in the Gospels: “But he answered and said: I am sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mt 15:24). Only when we believe such a statement, we can better classify many things in the Gospels. Incidentally, Paul confirmed this again later when he wrote to the Romans, “For I say that Christ became a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers” (Rom 15:8). So Paul took Jesus’ statement seriously.

Paul as an apostle to the nations

Neither Jesus in the Gospels nor the 12 apostles ever went out to the nations. Only proselytes like Cornelius were “docked” (with difficulty!) to Israel. This does not change until Paul is called as an “apostle to the nations” (Rom 1:5; 11:13; Gal 2:8; 1 Tim 2:7). Where the word “nation” means the non-Jewish peoples). Paul was not one of the 12. he was the 13th Apostle.

Why did it need a 13th apostle? This is exceedingly strange if one assumes that, for example, the 12 apostles and Jesus were already actively traveling all over the world and to all nations. They were just not (Gal 2:8, Jk 1:1, etc.). Or in other words, Jesus (in the Gospels!) and the 12 apostles, without exception, focused on the fulfillment of the promises to Israel (Acts 1:6; 2:36, etc.).

Once you see this distinction, you cannot think away from the New Testament. It was incomprehensible to myself that I did not realize this sooner. Nevertheless, it took me some time to gradually trace this throughout the New Testament. It was as if a veil had been lifted from the text. Finally, I could let the text speak for itself and no longer had to “spiritualize” or reinterpret anything according to the internalized teaching.

Different target groups, different messages

If we read and believe these details in Scripture (even if they run counter to our tradition or current understanding), then we have a handle to answer many questions. Both in Jesus (in the Gospels) and in the 12 apostles we find references to the Mosaic Law. This is logical because all of these speak to Israel or speak of the coming Messianic kingdom.

With Paul, however, things change. He reveals mysteries hidden until then (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:1-11). As an apostle to the nations, he speaks to a different audience.

It’s not just about target groups. It is also about the content of the message, and it is different from that of the twelve apostles. The twelve apostles in Jerusalem and Paul mutually recognized that Paul was entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as well as the 12 with the gospel of the circumcision (Gal 2:7-9). There are major differences between the two, for example, in terms of the law.

In my opinion, the confusion arises from the fact that we do not pay attention to these distinctions, which the apostles themselves clarified. They informed each other and saw the unifying as well as the dividing. 2000 years of church history has simply swept off the table much that was the subject of the New Testament. Therefore, we are inclined to put certain assumptions over the Bible and think that this is the only and logical view. I had to realize for myself that I was not only believing, but sometimes also gullible, even naïve in reading the text according to preconceived notions.

In my opinion, the confusion arises from the fact that we do not observe these distinctions, which the apostles themselves clarified.

We have mixed everything up: Israel, nations, life and faith, law and grace. We’ve heard for so long that everything is the same that it’s no longer noticeable how we keep twisting Scripture to make everything fit. However, this is clarified if we pay attention to the target groups, which are clearly stated in the text, and then grasp the context anew.

Paul and Peter

Is there now a discrepancy between the statements of Jesus and the twelve apostles on the one hand and those of Paul on the other? Yes. The perceived contradiction does exist. However, we do not have to try to harmonize the contradictions by hook or by crook, but can see precisely from the differences that Jesus and the 12 were speaking to Israel, while Paul was speaking to the nations. Then there are two -inherently consistent- messages for two target groups.

Peter has already pointed out that some of Paul’s writing is difficult to understand (2Pet 3:15-16). But if Peter had a different target group, a different hope than Paul in mind, the supposed contradictions dissolve.

A lot has changed – especially with regard to the nations. The 12 apostles were in joyful expectation of the Messianic kingdom for Israel.

• The prophets saw a blessing for the nations that comes through the agency of Israel (a priestly nation. 1Pet 2:9 Isa 2).
• In Paul, however, the blessing for the nations comes through the rejection of Israel (Rom 11:11-15, which is limited to a time: Rom 11:25-29). For Peter, this must have been hard to digest. It was very different from what Jesus or the prophets had talked about.

Paul and the Law

Paul has a clear assessment of the law: “But we know that everything the law says, it says to those who are under the law” (Rom 3:19). The nations, however, were never given the law.

The only function of the law is to show that no one can fulfill it: “that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world brought to the judgment of God. Therefore, by works of the law no flesh is justified in his sight; for by the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:19-20). The law brings about wrath (rather than obedience, or deliverance. Rom 4:15).

What is the purpose of the law? The law was added in this world for Israel at another time, with this purpose: “But the law was added beside it, that the transgression might increase” (Rom 5:20). The law is good, but no one can fulfill the law’s requirement. In consequence, the law was given so that this was made clear.

Those who try to keep the law today do nothing reprehensible in doing so, but probably have not realized for whom the law is given, nor for what purpose it was given. Paul clarifies.

The law is not the problem, we are the problem.

Paul makes it clear that “the law is holy, and the commandment holy, righteous, and good” (Rom 7:12), but, that we cannot (and should not!) keep it. The law is only to show transgression (Rom 3:20). The law is not the problem, but we are the problem: “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin” (Rom 7:14). We cannot keep the law, we will never be able to keep it, even if the law is good. Something completely different is needed.

A new focus for today

Paul describes the gospel for today as follows: “But now, apart from the law, God’s righteousness has been revealed (witnessed by the law and the prophets), but a righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ, which is for all and comes upon all who believe. For there is no difference; for all [read: Jews and Gentiles] have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:21-23).

It should be made clear that the law, as well as good, would always focus only on our effort. Paul, on the other hand, declares that God’s activity is central in the gospel. The law demanded justice from man. The gospel of grace, however, speaks of God’s righteousness. These are different things. This righteousness, which God Himself achieved on the cross, is now given to us. It is a mind-blowing message that depends not on my doing, but on God’s doing.

Will the law be repealed?

No, the law is not abolished, but the grace in which we participate does not run via the law. The Gospel that Paul preaches speaks of something happening “Separately from the Law.” The Gospel is about God’s righteousness, not our righteousness (Rom 1:16-17). God’s righteousness is not fulfilled by the law (which can only expose human error), but is confirmed by Jesus Christ, through the cross and resurrection (Rom 4:25).

So those who focus on the Mosaic Law today fail to see the grace by which we are called. To the Galatians Paul had to write in all clarity:

“O ye unreasonable Galatians, who then hath bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was drawn crucified? This is the only thing I want to know from you: Did you receive the Spirit from your works of the law, or in hearing of His faith? Are you so unreasonable? Did you undertake the beginning in the spirit, now to complete it in the flesh?”. The apostle does not mince words when he goes on and on in his epistle: “Ye are deprived of blessing, and are separated from Christ, who would be justified by the law: ye are fallen from grace!”
Gal 5:4

Grace, in fact, is quite different. It is out of grace that Paul can write: “Yet you were called to freedom, brothers; only do not let freedom become an occasion for the flesh, but slave to one another through love! For the whole law is fulfilled in the one word: You shall love your neighbor as yourself!” (Gal 5:13-14).

The real crux

The real sticking point in understanding is not the statements about the law, but understanding these statements in their context. Can we interpret them correctly in our own context? There are many traditions that hinder a clear view. If we want to do justice to the text, we should have the decency to at least ask about the understanding at the time. As the scriptures here above point out, Paul explains much in Romans, specifically chapters 3-5. So studying the Epistle to the Romans in depth will shed much light on these questions. But only when we recognize from Scripture that Paul is speaking to people other than Jesus and the 12 can an understanding of the texts be gained in their own light.

The challenge of the question “Does the law still apply today?” lies in the understanding we have of biblical contexts. It is the theological glasses we wear that shape our understanding. If we think that “everything is about the same”, we have to “spiritualize” many data. We must then reduce everything to ethical or moral values, and disregard statements to the contrary. In my opinion, it does not do justice to Scripture if we “spiritualize” everything. Although there are valuable insights and useful generalizations, each biblical text was first written, heard, and understood in its own context.

Deepening

Theses for discussion

• The law that Moses left to the people of Israel was never given as a guide for the church today
• The Bible is not lawful, but only our interpretation can be
• Fondness for rules (legalism) easily takes the place of a sober faith
• Confusion regarding “keeping the law” comes from not paying attention to biblical context.