Remembering the Past

Reading: Deuteronomy 15 – 16; 24.

We are often told we aren't to live in the past. The implication is that we need to move on, and forget anything pertaining to our old life. Some are even uncomfortable with being reminded that we were sinners saved by grace. Or we hear platitudes such as, “If God has forgiven me, why would I ever want to remember it.” Of course, there is truth that is being presented even in these comments. But, is there a way we are supposed to remember the past?
Indeed, when we are coming before God, into His presence, we are to draw near confidently, without shame, because Christ has opened the way for us. We are not to come in cowering, or groveling in the shame of our past sin. This Gospel truth is vital and significant for every believer. We have been transferred out of the kingdom of darkness, the kingdom in which we were objects of God's just wrath, and into the kingdom of the Son He loves, the kingdom in which we are chosen, holy and beloved in Christ by the Father. This is remembering what Christ has done for us in a very appropriate way.
But is there benefit in remembering the past, that we were slaves to sin, unable to free ourselves? Is there benefit to “not forgetting” the desperate state from which God has saved us? Knowing that our deliverance from slavery to sin is parallel to Israel's deliverance from slavery in Egypt, I think we can learn how to remember the past in a productive way.

After commanding the Israelites to have a day of rest, we read,

Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day. (Deuteronomy 5:15)

What would this memory produce in the Israelites? It seems that it would remind them that they didn't have a day off as slaves; they didn't enjoy rest as slaves. It would produce gratitude in their hearts for God. Rather than thinking about “what can't I do today because it is the Sabbath,” they would be thinking along the lines of, “I get to rest today because of the Lord's great love.” This would be remembering well.
Then in Deuteronomy 15, we find a remembering that would produce generosity.

If a fellow Hebrew, a man or a woman, sells himself to you and serves you six years, in the seventh year you must let him go free. And when you release him, do not send him away empty-handed. Supply him liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to him as the LORD your God has blessed you. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today. (Deuteronomy 15:12-15)

They were to remember the generosity with which God had dealt with them in their slavery and pathetic state, and were to have the same kind of generosity toward those in a comparable situation.

Remembering was also to effect how they were to give to the Lord.

Count off seven weeks from the time you begin to put the sickle to the standing grain. Then celebrate the Feast of Weeks to the LORD your God by giving a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the LORD your God has given you.... Remember that you were slaves in Egypt, and follow carefully these decrees. (Deuteronomy 16:9-12)

They were to celebrate a feast which involved going to Jerusalem to give a freewill offering in proportion to the blessings the Lord had given them. Paul used a similar logic in Corinthians regarding how the grace of Christ in the cross is to effect our giving in the Lord (2 Corinthians 8:8-9).
Finally in Deuteronomy 24 we have two examples of remembering well.

Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this. (Deuteronomy 24:17-18)

Remembering the past in the right way was to produce justice for the alien (strangers, non-Jews...those they might otherwise have prejudice toward) or fatherless, and prevent them from taking advantage of widows (powerless, unable to help themselves) in their desperate neediness. (Taking as collateral when they are needing help things necessary for daily life.)

And then when they were collecting the harvest, not only were they to give to the Lord, but they were not to bleed the field for all it was worth.

When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the alien, the fatherless and the widow, so that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands. When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the alien, the fatherless and the widow. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this. (Deuteronomy 24:19-22)

They were to remember in a way that produced mercy for the poor. How much more then, should our remembering that we were dead in sin, objects of God's just wrath, and slaves to the ruler of darkness, whom God has mercifully delivered, produce mercy for others, generosity, justice, and gratitude in our hearts to God? How much more should it produce love for our neighbor and humility in our dealings? Are you remembering well?
Love the Gospel, Live the Gospel, Advance the Gospel,
Jerry

What is the difference between Law and Gospel? (part 3)

The previous two blogs discussed two different ways of defining the distinction between law and Gospel, and the implications of those definitions. In this entry I want to discuss how justification interacts with these two definitions. To begin, let's review the two definitions.

One definition, rooted in Hebrews 10:1 or Colossians 2:17, says the law relates to the Gospel as a shadow relates to the object which casts the shadow. By the shadow of something, I might be able to get an idea of what the real thing is; I should recognize it. But when I have the real thing, I have greater clarity, more accurate details and specifics about what the shadow was revealing.

The other definition characterizes law as “that which commands all good, and forbids all evil,” while the Gospel “contains the free promises of God made unto us in Jesus Christ, without any respect of our deservings.”¹ By this definition, the law is not a shadow of the Gospel, but something that is the opposite of the Gospel.

It seems the second definition has developed into the idea that the Gospel is justification, while the law is rules and regulations only. I'm not sure which is the chicken or the egg in the proverbial question of which came first. In other words, I don't know whether the definition grew out of equating the Gospel with justification, or whether equating the Gospel with justification grew out of the thinking produced by this definition; but there seems to be a relationship.

How does the Gospel relate to justification? For the answer let's look at Romans 1:15-17.

So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome. ¹⁶For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹⁷For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith." (ESV)

Paul was eager to preach the Gospel, unashamed of the Gospel, confident it would produce a harvest in Rome (vs. 13). Why? On what was Paul's confidence based? Paul knew it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes. What did he know about the Gospel that produced this confidence? Paul knew the Gospel is the power of God to salvation because of something that was contained in the Gospel. “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith.” The Gospel reveals justification by faith alone; free righteousness.

This sets up a relationship between the Gospel and justification. The Gospel cannot equal the doctrine of justification, but must always contain the doctrine of justification. The Gospel is like a nuclear power plant... it is the power of God for salvation for all humanity who believes. The doctrine of justification by faith is like the nuclear reactor in the power plant. The whole plant is powerful, but the source of the power is found in the reactor.

How does this relate to our opposing definitions of law and Gospel? If the Gospel is justification, then the Gospel cannot contain any rules, for it is all about free righteousness. However, if the Gospel is powered by justification, then it may also contain the law of Christ. The Gospel is both big and small. That is to say, the Gospel can be summed up in some key points. Usually, if someone asks you to share with them the Gospel in a minute or two, what you might share is a version of the doctrine of justification. And that is perfectly fine because you have shared part of the Gospel; indeed that part which powers the whole. But the whole Gospel of course cannot be shared in a few moments... we have Matthew, Mark, Luke and John for starters. The Gospel is the Story about Jesus Christ.

Does this proposed relationship between Gospel and justification fit into the idea of the Law being a shadow of the Gospel? Absolutely. For the law was never supposed to be about rules only. At the center of the community was the tabernacle/temple. Every day sacrifices were to be made for the sins of the people. When you walked into the tent of meeting, you immediately found yourself in front of the altar of sacrifice, which you had to go around to get to the gathering area. In other words, you come in by way of atoning sacrifice. And the amount of blood being shed daily, the significance of the annual Day of Atonement, all pointed to what made that shadow covenant possible: God was going to pass over their sin and place the punishment for it on another life (in this case a sacrificial animal).

It seems Judaism in Christ's day often failed to see this just as the church often forgets the truths of grace revealed in justification. They turned the law into justification by works. However, the shadow also pointed to the source of its power in substitution and sacrifice which are the very foundation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact the law taught us the language and thinking necessary to understand the Gospel in terms of truth. In it we learn about holiness, judgment, guilt, atonement, sacrifice, substitution, bearing away one's guilt, redemption... well the list could go on. This language and thinking was necessary to understand the work and person of Jesus Christ. The law was our tutor in more more ways than showing us we could not keep the commands, though it certainly teaches us that as well.

Love the Gospel, Live the Gospel, Advance the Gospel,

Jerry

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 1)

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 2)

1Richard Greenham; language updated. Quoted in Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. This is not the first writer I've run across that communicates this. In fact, this would be a commonly held view.

What is the difference between Law and Gospel? (part 2)

In the last blog, we discussed two different ways of distinguishing between law and Gospel.

One definition, rooted in Hebrews 10:1, says the law relates to the Gospel as a shadow relates to the object which casts the shadow. By the shadow of something, I might be able to get an idea of what the real thing is; I should recognize it. But when I have the real thing, I have greater clarity, more accurate details and specifics about what the shadow was revealing.

The other definition characterizes law as “that which commands all good, and forbids all evil,” while the Gospel “contains the free promises of God made unto us in Jesus Christ, without any respect of our deservings.”¹ By this definition, the law is not a shadow of the Gospel, but something that is the opposite of the Gospel. In the previous devotion I discussed a significant implication of the different outcomes these definitions produce in how we view both law and Gospel.

I'd like to discuss another implication of one of these views over the other. It seems that the definition saying the law commands all good and forbids all evil, while the Gospel contains the free promises of God in Christ, is behind many responses people often make if pressed about their behavior. You've heard it said, and may have said yourself, “I'm not under the law; I'm under grace,” in response to a question about your behavior. And it may have been perfectly appropriate, depending on the context. However, the logic often behind such a statement may not always be biblical thinking. The reasoning may be a version of this: If the law commands all good and forbids all evil, then any requirement that someone makes of me must therefore be under the law, and we all know we are not to live under the law.

However, if the law is a shadow of the Gospel found in Christ, then the law showed us what God was like, and Jesus Christ, in the Gospel, shows us with even more clarity what God is like. And, since Christ is the fulfillment of the law, I am no longer under the written code, but under the person, Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean there isn't anything specific written, but that the old written code is no longer in authority, but Christ is over me as revealed in the Gospel. And the Gospel can make requirements of me, as the law did, yet they are rooted in the person and work of Christ. In light of what Christ has done on our behalf, saving us, we are drawn to Him, indwelt by Him and being conformed to Him. So Christ's law of love, or His humility which considers others better than ourselves, really are imperatives, or rules, by which we are called to live. These don't earn our salvation; they grow out of our salvation.

This is why Paul could require certain behaviors of the recipients of his letters. And why he could quote the law, but interpret it through the Gospel and talk about how it is still applicable to us; all the while insisting we are not under law. In Paul's mind it seems to be a different construct than, “We are not under that which commands us, but only that which makes promises but no demands.” Rather he seems to have us under a, “We are not under the written code, but the Person code—the person of Jesus.”²

So we find Paul regularly connecting us not to the law but to the person, Jesus Christ and His saving work on our behalf as the rule we are under.

We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” (Romans 15:1)

Paul draws a line from the rule, “we are not to please ourselves, but our neighbor,” to the person and work of Christ on our behalf, “for even Christ did not please himself.” Again,

Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. (Ephesians 4:31—5:2)

Even in marriage the Gospel rules our lives, conforming us to the image of Christ.

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. (Ephesians 5:25-27)

Examples of this abound. Christ Himself gave us a parable which teaches the same principle in Matthew 18:23-35.

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. The servant fell on his knees before him. “Be patient with me,” he begged, “and I will pay back everything.” The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

This first part of the parable pictures our salvation. The servant owed the king something the size of a large national deficit. There is no way it can ever be paid back, no matter how committed, or how much the servant promises to do right. All that could be done is take his and his families lives away as an exchange for the debt they could not pay. But that master took pity on him. Not because of the sincerity of the begging (there is no way he could have thought he would ever have been able to pay back the king), but because of something found in the king. But then,

...that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. “Pay back what you owe me!” he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, “Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.” But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt.

This man had been forgiven a debt he could not repay, but when he found his fellows servant who owed him a significant (just over 3 months wages) debt, but not unpayable, he refused to show the same kind of mercy. He should have connected the dots... the forgiving mercy of God which He received becomes the motivation for how he lives. But he failed to connect the dots. Grace received should have been grace empowering, but he did not receive the grace for what it really is. So when the first master, the king, found out,

...the master called the servant in. “You wicked servant,” he said, “I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?” In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

The Gospel becomes the reality upon which we base our lives. This man wasn't told that he should have done so because God said so, though that would be true enough. He should have forgiven the fellow servant just as he had been forgiven. The Gospel is the reality that the shadow Law pointed to. In the shadow we see that God delivered the Israelites out of Egypt, then gave them the law—salvation before holiness. So the Law contained Gospel hints all the way through. But these aren't as clear until we come to the clarity of the Gospel.

Love the Gospel, Live the Gospel, Advance the Gospel,

Jerry

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 1)

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 3)

1Richard Greenham; language updated. Quoted in Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. This is not the first writer I've run across that communicates this. In fact, this would be a commonly held view.

2The “written code” is a phrase referencing the Law (Rom. 2:27,29; 7:6; Col. 2:14). This is not to say that the Gospel is not written. It is indeed written and we have it in Scripture. However, it is about the Central Character of the Gospel, Jesus Christ, living in us by His Spirit (the Spirit of the Son). So this is not a disparaging remark about the fact that it is written; maybe a contrast with the law written in our hearts by Christ's Spirit dwelling in us... the Christ written about in the Gospels and applied in the Epistles.

What is the difference between Law and Gospel? (Part 1)

This question, I believe, is significant. And answering it is not as easy as it might appear on first blush. What follows is certainly not the answer to this question, but a discussion on the matter, and offers at least in part what is my best answer at present. This is an area I find myself growing in regularly and my answer developing as the years go by. In this brief devotional, I am merely reflecting on thoughts I had this morning as I interacted with another answer to this question.

Hebrews 10:1 “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship.”

This is the simplest answer that I can find in Scripture. Of course, simple on the surface. Debating its meaning might be the work of many scholars. However, when I compare it to definitions which are commonly set forth or assumed, I think it is the simplicity of this statement that bears considering.

One English minister, writing in the late 16^th century, defined law as “that which commands all good, and forbids all evil,” while the Gospel, “contains the free promises of God made unto us in Jesus Christ, without any respect of our deservings.”¹ The truth he is trying to set forth regarding justification by works of the law vs. grace through faith I certainly embrace. However, this definition of Gospel and law might be a shortcut to the truth that confuses things a bit for me. By this definition, the law is not a shadow of the Gospel, but something that is the opposite of the Gospel. And since there are promises in the Old Testament, and “commands” to do good in the New Testament, we would be left to say that the Old Testament is full of Law and Gospel and the New Testament is full of Law and Gospel. Indeed, by this definition, Jesus taught both law and Gospel. Maybe.

However, if the concept of a shadow is taken a bit more seriously, we might think differently. If the Law is a shadow, then I should expect to find in it both command and promise. And then, in the Gospel, I might expect to find both command and promise, but with greater clarity, even more accuracy, than I found in the Law. By the shadow of something, I might be able to get an idea of what the real thing is. But when I have the real thing, I have greater clarity, more accurate details and specifics about what the shadow was revealing.

What's the difference? I think there are probably many. But as an example, I think we tend to miss some important truths by what I might call an over-simplification of the Law vs. Gospel. As a case in point, let's look at just one example: Galatians3:22-27, with particular emphasis on vs. 24.

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

By the Greenham definition, we can say that the commands were put in charge to show us our sinfulness until grace was revealed in Christ that we might be justified by faith. And that is a wonderful truth. However, we stop short of what I think is a fuller meaning of the verses in question. If the Law is a shadow containing both command and promise, the same truth can be gained, because we know that the Law wasn't the final answer but a shadow waiting for fulfillment. But we can also discover other truths about the role of the Law as a guardian.

In addition to showing us our need for a Savior from our sin, the law taught us a whole new language and understanding of how God works. The law taught us about the need for sin to be paid for, the concept of substitution with animal sacrifices being used to cover sin rather than God just killing each sinner, the concept of God dwelling amongst us again in the tabernacle, the idea of God's wrath and the satisfaction of that wrath. And many of these things were found in the promises of the Law and the provisions of grace in the law. In fact, without the Law, we could never have recognized Jesus Christ to be the Savior. John's Gospel speaks of the inconsistency of the leaders of the Jews, who studied the law, but not recognizing Jesus. They missed the whole point of the Law—to lead to Christ that they might have life. And the means by which they were to come to Christ was that they should have recognized Him. The shadow should have made the Reality recognizable.

There are other implications and distinctions that could be made and maybe they will be the topic of a future devotion.

Love the Gospel, Live the Gospel, Advance the Gospel,

Jerry

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 2)

What is the Difference Between Law and Gospel (Part 3)

1Richard Greenham; language updated. Quoted in Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649. This is not the first writer I've run across that communicates this. In fact, this would be a commonly held view.