Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts

Sunday, October 08, 2023

Sermon: *Not* Set In Stone

The Ten Commandments (Bible Card)
The Ten Commandments (Bible Card)

 Lectionary: Proper 22

Text: Exodus20:1-4, 7-9, 12-20; Philippians 3:4b-14

Introduction: Connotations of Law

The relationship between Christians and law in the Bible is complicated. On the one hand, many Christians are quick to state that the law was done away with (or something like that) because of Jesus Christ and grace. But on the other hand, many Christians, especially many American Christians, believe wholeheartedly that many biblical laws, starting with the Ten Commandments, are necessary to the proper functioning of society. Traditionally, Christians have been quick to label Jews as legalistic in terms of redemption, deliverance, and salvation. At the same time, many Christians may not impose too many obstacles for someone to approach Christ, but once you do, there is a laundry list times ten, of standards (but don’t call them laws or rules) that you are expected to live in to and up to.

Maybe for some of you, this sounds rather foreign. If that is the case, good for you and thank God you never had to experience it.

But for others, the mention of law in relation to the Bible, Christianity, and religion might be a huge trigger for fear, judgment, and feelings of inadequacy and failure.

Psalm 119 is an entire acrostic poetry on how wonderful and good, liberating, and joyful God’s law is. Is there something we are missing when we think about law in the Bible?

Static View of Law

In our present society, “law” has certain connotations, images, and even feelings associated with its mention and use. Among some of the positive ones include stability of society, predictable expectations of behavior, and baselines for many types of relationships. Some negative associations might be rigidity and inflexibility, harshness and leniency (depending on what one wants from the law), loopholes, too many laws, and unequal applications. Law may also invoke neutral associations, especially regarding its ideals, even if they are not often or ever met. These might include such things as justice, equality, and fairness. Law is usually thought to be stable and permanent. Once a law is handed and written down, it is expected to be unchanging except in the rarest of circumstances. Our entire society operates on the premise of that predictability.

When Christians brought up in the Western tradition (that’s us) think about the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, and how it was given to Israel, we imagine something like what is depicted by Charlton Heston in The Ten Commandments, receiving the law on tablets of stone, written by God himself. “How much more permanent and eternal could it be?” we ask ourselves.

I hadn’t thought much about it before, but the story of Esther contains interesting explanations about the law of the Medes and the Persians. One such example is found right near the beginning. It reads,

19 Now, if the king wishes, let him send out a royal order and have it written into the laws of Persia and Media, laws no one can ever change. (Esther 1:19a CEB)

When the text goes out of the way to explain something, that is often a clue that what is being explained might be foreign to the audience. Here, “have it written into the laws of Persia and Media, laws no one can ever change,” is certainly used to make a point to the king about a desired effect of the law, but I also think (because it is repeated in Esther 8:8 and found in Daniel 6:8) that it explains something that is not a Jewish norm regarding how they think about laws. (Both Esther and Daniel are late post-exilic writings).

To us, the practice of around laws of ancient Persians seems overly harsh, especially if the laws are impetuous and unwise, or conniving and malicious. But even in our society, dumb, self-serving, and even malicious laws get passed and we know how difficult they are to change. In practice then, I think that our society is quite like the Persians.

Dynamic View of Law

How then, did the ancient Israelites and Jews view law and what were their practices?

From a commentary on this portion of Exodus, Thomas Dozeman writes,

“Law in the Bible resists a simple definition. It embraces many words and metaphors, including torah (tôrâ), judgment (mišpāṭ), statute (ḥôq), commandment (miṣwâ), testimony (ʿēdût), and covenant (bĕrît). The dynamic character of law is conveyed through metaphors of motion and speech. Law is alive, deriving from the words (dĕbārîm) or voice (qôl) of God. The words are codified in writing, including the Ten Words (ʿăśeret haddĕbārîm), the Book of Torah (sēper hattôrâ) and the Book of the Covenant (sēper habbĕrît). Once codified the law is anything but static. Rather, it creates a roadway (derek) through life upon which humans are able to walk (hālak). The vocabulary indicates the breadth of the subject matter, while the metaphors underscore the dynamic quality of law as a resource for change through time. Jewish legal interpretation employs the metaphor of walking, halakah, to underscore the dynamic character of law in ongoing tradition.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 716) [Emphasis mine.]

And Dozeman continues,

“Ancient laws function differently than the modern Western model of law, where the legal judgments of the court are comprehensive and clearly expressed in written language available to participants in advance. The ancient legal practice is not tied exclusively to written laws, but depends on the context of the situation to resolve dispute.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 717)

Pete Enns, in Exodus for Normal People writes,

“Debate and wisdom always have been necessary for us to figure out how to obey God’s laws. This is why, strictly speaking, Judaism is not so much focused on obeying the Law of Moses ‘on its own terms,’ but on the long tradition of working out what it means to obey ambiguous and ancient laws as circumstances change over time… The common view among Christians, that Jews are slaves to the letter of the Law, does not remotely do justice to the subtlety of Jewish tradition.” (Enns, 2021, p. 107)

From these quotations, we begin to see how vastly different the modern, Western conception of law is vs. how the ancient Israelites and Jews thought and worked with their laws. For us, the law is the end of arguments. Sure, decisions might be appealed, as happens in our legal system. But eventually, a final verdict, a final interpretation of the law as it is written, is handed down, a precedent is set, and that interpretation is understood to be mostly permanent, except in very rare cases. For Jews however, the law is the beginning of contemplation, dialogue, argument, and a contextual application that is assumed to not be the final word on a matter and application can change as context changes. And this includes the Ten Commandments.

Amy-Jill Levine writes,

“First, the Torah is not a law code in the sense of a comprehensive set of laws intended for use by the court, and in a number of cases, such as the Decalogue, it is unclear how or by whom they were enforced. Second, it contains several collections of laws that reflect different periods, authors, and audiences.” (Levine, 2020, p. 206)

Progression of Law

The very literary development of the Hebrew scriptures and its Torah portion shows evidence of gradual development and change to the Law.

We are probably of the impression that the Ten Commandments is the first, the earliest, and the foundation for all the other laws of the Torah. But the literary history indicates otherwise. Levine continues, “Biblical scholars call the earliest collection, Exodus 20:22-23:33, the Covenant Collection.” (Levine, 2020, p. 206) The Decalogue is a later development.

Furthermore, there are two versions of the Decalogue, and there is evidence that suggests that the version found in Deuteronomy 5 is the earlier version. In this (Deut.) version, the reason for the Sabbath is humanitarian: the deliverance from slavery. In the Exodus version, the reason for the Sabbath is creation, and the set-apartness (i.e., holiness) of the seventh day, which is more a priestly concern that develops post-exile.

In fact, Exodus 19:20 through 20:17 looks like a late insertion. There are numerous pieces of literary evidence to support this (which we don't have time right now to explore more fully). What it means is that the original narrative of God’s theophany at a mountain (unnamed originally, but probably Horeb) to Israel and the giving of the Covenant does not include the Decalogue. The Decalogue was a separate tradition that merged with the earlier theophany tradition to form what we now have as a single Sinai narrative.

The laws found in the Torah reflect too, many of the law codes that existed in other societies around Israel. The progress of the laws found in Torah is summarized by Levine.

“The abolition of social classes, this equal treatment of people from different classes, perhaps based in the biblical notion that all are created in God’s image (so Gen 1), is a parade example of how the Bible improves upon the legal system it inherited.” (Levine, 2020, p. 208)

In other words, other law codes at the time privileged those with power and means, but the unique feature of the Torah is that all are equal under God.

But what about when Jesus comes on the scene, and the apostles inaugurate the Christian community? Levine offers the following,

“When we put Jesus into his Jewish tradition, we see that both concerns, justice and mercy, remain. Great care must be taken in using the Bible as a precedent for judicial issues—especially when the biblical materials are not as clear as we may think.” (Levine, 2020, p. 217)

And Dozeman writes,

“An interpretation of law as a dynamic resource for change and spiritual contemplation is less common among Christian interpreters, who selectively read NT literature that views law negatively as a system of religious legalism resistant to change and antithetical to the mystical experience of God…

[But] Law is also a resource for change in the NT. Jesus states in the Gospel of Matthew that teachers of the law trained in the kingdom of heaven bring forth old and new treasures (Matt 13:52). Recent scholarship has reinforced the dynamic role of the law in NT literature.” (Dozeman, 2009, p. 723)

Examples of dynamic change in interpretation of the law include Peter and what clean vs. unclean means; Paul and his interpretation of circumcision, his views around food regulations, and his interpretation of what constitutes belonging to Israel. The conflicts between Jesus and the teachers of the law are also examples of how the interpretation of the law was not static but constantly undergoing change.

God is Unchanging?

What all this means is that the laws are not written in stone. If the laws are dynamic and interpretation is contextual, does that mean there is nothing firm and solid?

Both the Old and New Testaments contain texts that state that God does not change (Numbers 23:19; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; et al.) This unchanging nature of God has traditionally been extrapolated, at least within Christian tradition, to include laws that God has given. But we have now seen that the Jews view God-given laws quite a bit differently than the traditional Christian view.

When we investigate the Hebrew scriptures and history, we do find what is considered the unchanging nature of God. It is hesed, often translated as “lovingkindness” or “steadfast love” into English. But those words and phrases do not capture the full essence of what that means. Joshua James in Psalms for Normal People explains,

“There’s a common refrain that occurs throughout Psalms that will help us anchor this theological tenet about God’s past actions informing the people’s present trust. In our English translations, the refrain is typically rendered, ‘for Yahweh’s steadfast love endures forever.’ For many modern readers, however, the point is missed…”

“The Hebrew term rendered ‘steadfast love’ is hesed, and its intended meaning goes well beyond sentimentality. It refers to ‘acts of commitment’ or ‘acts of faithfulness.’ God’s love, in other words, is measured not by what God feels, but by what God has done. In Psalms, hesed is an observable divine activity that consistently works on Israel’s behalf.” (James, 2023, p. 109)

When we read the beginning of the Decalogue, God starts with what God has done in the past for God’s chosen people. That is the basis and foundation for why the law is given. It is the one thing that does not change about God. God’s commitment to God’s people begins even before the people are aware that there is this God. And the history of the Israelites demonstrates God’s commitment even when the people are unfaithful.

How God’s acts of commitment and faithfulness look changes depending on people, society, and history. But God’s commitment to people God chooses does not change.

How people demonstrate faithfulness to God also changes depending on their society and culture, history, and many other human attributes. Each group of God’s people have to determine what that looks like. And that is the reason for God’s law. It is a starting point to begin learning and experimenting with what faithfulness looks like for those people, in that place, and at that time. What is found in God’s instructions to God’s people is to be a people who practice justice and mercy without distinction to all.

Law and the Gospel

When all this is brought together, the gospel lived and proclaimed by Jesus isn’t at all different from the law and covenant given to Israel through theophany from a mountain.

What does becoming a people of justice and mercy look like for us today? In what ways can we meditate on God’s revelation and God’s instructions, both the older and the newer Covenants, so that we can be faithful and committed to God’s purposes for us?


__________________

References

Dozeman, T. B. (2009). Exodus (Eerdmans Critical Commentary). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Enns, P. (2021). Exodus for Normal People. Perkiomenville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

James, J. T. (2023). Psalms for Normal People. Harleysville, PA: The Bible for Normal People.

Levine, A.-J. a. (2020). The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently. San Francisco: HarperOne.

 

 


Sunday, March 18, 2018

Sermon: Old vs. New Covenant

Lectionary: Year B, Lent 5
Text: Jeremiah 33:31-34

Old and New Testaments

The Christian Bible is commonly divided into two major sections: the Old and New Testaments. The word “testament” comes from the Latin testamentum meaning “a will” and in Christian usage can also be traced back to the Greek word diathēkē meaning “covenant.” Literally, then, the Christian Bible identifies the two parts as the Old and New Covenants.

That there are two things termed Old and New implies that there are two things that are somehow different. In Christianity, the change that happens in the new is the introduction of Jesus Christ. In some of the Christian circles I’ve been a part of and grew up in, the Old Covenant is frequently synonymous with the Covenant of Law, founded at the giving of the Hebrew Law at Sinai. The New Covenant is frequently identified as the Covenant of Grace which was initiated at Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

This notion of a covenant of law and a covenant of grace isn’t wrong but it is not a complete picture. And the traditional explanations of how law and grace are related to the covenants, at least how I’ve commonly understood them, may not be entirely accurate.

We heard the reading from Jeremiah 31:31-34 a few minutes ago. This is the longest continuous text in the Hebrew Scriptures that is found in the Christian Scripture (Hebrews 8:8-12). Individual verses and shorter phrases are also found scattered throughout the New Testament. The New Testament authors must have seen something in these ancient words from Jeremiah that resonated with their new experience in the light of Jesus.

Observations and Questions

As I read Jeremiah, I observed a few things.

First, the initiator of the old and new covenants is the same: it is God and this God does not change between the two.

Second, the content of the covenant is the same: it is still something about God’s instructions and God’s relationship with the other party to the covenant.

Third, the reason a new covenant is necessary is not because God changed or because the contents of the covenant changed, but because the people broke the first one.

The passage also raised some intriguing questions:

First, what then, changed between the old and the new covenants?

Second, if the new covenant, where the instructions are inside the people and written on their hearts, is better than the first covenant, why didn’t God do that from the beginning?

Third, if everyone supposedly knows God in their hearts then why all the contradictions about God and how do we decide what is right or wrong about our knowledge of God?

If I dealt with each of these points individually, we might be here for quite a long time. Rather, I think that by taking a step back and looking at the broader picture and context, I will be able to address multiple points simultaneously.

The Covenant at Sinai

The first stop we will make is at Sinai, with the Hebrews just coming out of Egypt with Moses as their leader and prophet. And then we will jump forward to how the author of the letter to the Hebrews, many years after Jesus left the earth, explains the significance of Jesus in the new covenant.

I think we are all familiar with the basic story of the giving of the Decalogue, the Ten Commandments, at Sinai. The Israelites, fresh out of Egypt, reach Sinai and there, God speaks the Commandments, and Moses receives a copy on tablets of stone. But that isn't the entire story. There are a few interesting details about this story in the book of Exodus that are relevant to this morning’s message.
Exodus 20:18-21 (CEB)
18 When all the people witnessed the thunder and lightning, the sound of the horn, and the mountain smoking, the people shook with fear and stood at a distance. 19 They said to Moses, “You speak to us, and we’ll listen. But don’t let God speak to us, or we’ll die.”

20 Moses said to the people, “Don’t be afraid, because God has come only to test you and to make sure you are always in awe of God so that you don’t sin.” 21 The people stood at a distance while Moses approached the thick darkness in which God was present.
Notice what just happened. God has spoken directly to the people, but they did not want God speaking directly with them. God first attempted to establish a direct relationship with all the people, but the people rejected it. Instead, they asked for a mediator to communicate to them on behalf of God. They asked Moses to be the intermediary, and Moses accepted the role.

A few chapters later in Exodus, another interesting narrative is found.
Exodus 24:1-3, 9-12

Covenant at Sinai
1 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of Israel’s elders, and worship from a distance. 2 Only Moses may come near to the Lord. The others shouldn’t come near, while the people shouldn’t come up with him at all.”

3 Moses came and told the people all the Lord’s words and all the case laws. All the people answered in unison, “Everything that the Lord has said we will do.” ...

Covenant meal with God
9 Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel went up, 10 and they saw Israel’s God. Under God’s feet there was what looked like a floor of lapis-lazuli tiles, dazzlingly pure like the sky. 11 God didn’t harm the Israelite leaders, though they looked at God, and they ate and drank.

12 The Lord said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain and wait there. I’ll give you the stone tablets with the instructions and the commandments that I’ve written in order to teach them.”
We see how Moses becomes the mediator, carrying messages from God to the people, and the people’s response back to God. We see God communicating to Moses and giving him instructions and commandments to take back to the people. We also see in these texts that Moses is the primary mediator, but there will be others who also are part of a system of carrying messages between God and the people. A system of religion and accompanying services and sacrifices was established to help mediate and God to the people. This was codified into a set of laws.

To summarize this first part then: God wanted a direct relationship with the people. The people rejected that arrangement. Moses became the mediator between God and people. God codified how mediators and mediation of God’s nature and will to the people would function. This is the Old Covenant. Yes, there is a strong presence of law, but the foundational reason for the covenant is God’s desire to have a relationship with humankind and love them, and for the people to respond back in love.

The rest of the Old Testament is a story about the failure of the people to live up to the covenant. Priests and prophets came and went. Some tried and were marginally successful, but none succeeded fully. Many were downright antithetical to God’s nature.

The New Covenant

Jump forward a millennium or so to the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament.
Hebrews 1:1-4
The Son is God’s ultimate messenger

1 In the past, God spoke through the prophets to our ancestors in many times and many ways. 2 In these final days, though, he spoke to us through a Son. God made his Son the heir of everything and created the world through him. 3 The Son is the light of God’s glory and the imprint of God’s being. He maintains everything with his powerful message. After he carried out the cleansing of people from their sins, he sat down at the right side of the highest majesty. 4 And the Son became so much greater than the other messengers, such as angels, that he received a more important title than theirs.

Hebrews 9:15

Christ’s death and the new covenant

15 This is why he’s the mediator of a new covenant (which is a will): so that those who are called might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance on the basis of his death. His death occurred to set them free from the offenses committed under the first covenant.
The problem with the Old Covenant wasn’t the originator – God – or its contents – God’s desire to have a relationship with humankind. The problem with the Old Covenant was that all of its mediators were flawed. It was what the people wanted, but in a way, it was broken from its very inception. It was God accommodating the people’s desires, because God does not force his way. He allowed the people to try out their way until they were more ready to hear from God directly.

When that time came, God sent Jesus Christ to be the final and perfect mediator. Final and perfect because Jesus is God incarnate showing to the world who God is and what God is like. Jesus’ relationships with his family, friends, strangers, and even enemies is how God relates to people. Nothing more can be said or shown beyond what Jesus demonstrated.

The originator and content of the New Covenant are the same as the Old: God originates it and it is God’s invitation to us to be in fellowship and relationship with God.

So why is it often equated with or spoken of as the Covenant of Grace? It has to do with the very last part of Jeremiah’s passage: “I will forgive their wrongdoing and never again remember their sins.”

Forgiveness of sins is not for God’s benefit, but for ours. God’s love for us is not contingent on God’s forgiveness of us or on our confession or repentance.

But guilt is a powerful force. Perhaps one of the most powerful and destructive in terms of relationships. We need to know that God forgives. A God who initiates the offer of forgiveness, regardless of offenses committed, is a God of grace. Not only does God forgive, but God does not keep a record, an accounting, of sins. We don’t have to work our way to a certain level before God wants to have a relationship with us. Every single person stands on the same level with God, and God wants to be a positive part of every single person’s life. That is grace.

Was there no grace in the Old Covenant? There certainly was. The very preamble of the Ten Commandments shows God’s grace in initiating the deliverance of God’s people out of slavery. The very fact that God initiated a covenant shows that God’s grace remains the same throughout eternity.

The difference is Jesus, the only perfect mediator and revelation of God. When Jesus was lifted and crucified, he still offered forgiveness to those who mocked him, to those who tortured him, and to those who nailed him to the cross. There was no hint of anger or desire to seek revenge in Jesus’ words and actions on the cross. This is how God responds to sin. God’s grace, mercy, and forgiveness were fully demonstrated through Jesus at the cross. This is the vital lesson of the cross. This is what the body and blood of Jesus means.

When Jesus asks us to love our neighbors and enemies, to only seek to do good for others: that is the heart of the gospel. That is the heart of the covenant. Both old and new. The eternal covenant. 

Benediction

I close now with the benediction found at the closing of the letter to the Hebrews:
Hebrews 13:20-25

20 May the God of peace,
who brought back the great shepherd of the sheep,
our Lord Jesus,
from the dead by the blood of the eternal covenant,

21 equip you with every good thing to do his will,
by developing in us what pleases him through Jesus Christ.
To him be the glory forever and always. Amen. 

Thursday, January 02, 2014

Grace and Truth is God’s Totality

Lectionary Christmas 2A

John_1_14-18

Pictured above is the last few verses of this week’s Lectionary Gospel reading.

The climax appears to be found at verse 17. The author is likely alluding to Moses’ experience on Sinai as described in Exodus 34. He contrasts the giving of the law with the coming of Jesus Christ. The law “given through Moses” implies a source, but the author chooses to omit it, giving this text a far more negative portrayal of the law than even Paul(!). Not only does law not bring salvation, it cannot even give a revelation of God. (This text could even be read that the law as given was ultimately Moses’ interpretation of God.) The way law and Jesus Christ are contrasted, the author seems to be communicating that the law, in fact, paints a picture of God that is utterly wrong.

What the author wants his readers to understand is that the only way to “see” God is through Jesus Christ. Jesus was and is with the Father – with the Father’s heart, even. This being, who is intimately familiar with the heart of the Father came to live with us.

What did the people who walked with Jesus discover? That the Father and Son share the same glory: “grace and truth.” That “grace and truth” is the “fullness,” or the totality, of who and what God is.

(The parenthetical statement from John the Baptist was likely added to argue against his followers and to counter Jewish traditions of authority figures.)

How might we apply this passage today? What strikes you as important? How do you see God?

Monday, December 23, 2013

Joseph, Jesus, Justice

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 4A

In this passage, Joseph is portrayed as one who exemplifies the kind of justice that Jesus will reveal about his Father’s.

I see a chiastic (ring-composition) structure in Matthew’s rhetoric. The outer envelope (1,9) mention “Jesus,” the center section (4-6) is concerned about names, and the very center (5) is the directive to Joseph to name the child “Jesus” and gives the meaning for this name.

Matthew 1_18-25

This passage is not Matthew trying to “prove” the Virgin Birth. For Matthew he simply accepts it as true. Given the lack of scientific knowledge about childbirth and the numerous mythologies available about miraculous births and deities conceiving with humans, it probably wouldn’t have been too far-fetched for ancients to tacitly accept this as true, even if much suspicion remained about the “real” facts about how Mary conceived.

The real concern of Matthew in this passage is to show how Jesus could be a Son of David when he is clearly not biologically [1:1-17] a son of Joseph. (Traditionally Luke’s genealogy [3:23-38] has been said to be Mary’s through David’s son Nathan, but this view should not be accepted as hard fact.) Thus Matthew gives an expanded account of the genesis (translated as genealogy [v1]and birth [v18]) of Jesus. By the act of naming, Joseph makes Jesus a son according to the Law [Galatians 4:4].

This takes care of the genealogy and Matthew’s main concern, but we notice that in comparing envelope 3-7, the former is greatly expanded. We are invited to ask, “Why did Matthew feel compelled to expound upon Joseph’s thoughts and feelings?”

The word rendered as “considered” has a much more emotional connotation. We should read it as Joseph fuming and angry with the predicament he is facing. Part of it certainly has to do with what he perceives as Mary’s violation, whether of her volition or raped. His property has been violated; the betrothal contract (law) broken. But we also see his heart where he considers Mary as a person. Even though love was not a requirement for ancient Jewish marriages, I think it is right to read love in Joseph’s heart. Joseph wants to treat Mary compassionately and with mercy. But he is in a dilemma: the law says one thing and his heart says another. I read this as the main reason he is fuming. He cannot find an adequate way to resolve this dissonance.

For both Joseph and us, contracts and laws too often mediate relationships. Laws can certainly simplify relationships. Everything is spelled out in black and white.

I believe Jesus came to remove Law as
a mediator of relationships

Instead Jesus came to be “God with us.” No more mediator. We can speak with and fellowship with God directly. Paul, in Galatians 3:15-4:7, seems to be saying the same thing. Those who belong to Christ are no longer bound by law but are adopted into God’s family through grace.

What then of the angel’s explanation of the name “Jesus” as “he will save his people from their sins?”

Joseph had a distorted picture of God. He saw God pictured one way through the Torah, but his heart gave him a different picture. He couldn’t find a way to reconcile the two images. It is the same with people today. We get distorted pictures of God and our actions are influenced by the distortions. If we think God is controlling and abusive, we tend to become that way. If we think God is hateful, we think it is okay to hate. If we think God is vengeful and violent, well, we think that’s okay for us. If we think the Law defines God’s character, we become legalistic. And so on.

Wrong thinking about God is sin. Jesus came to deliver and save his people – us – from all the terrible portraits humans have painted of God. He came to show us that Law does not define him. In fact God is transcendent over the Law. The Law describes aspects of Him, but He is not a slave to it. Righteousness and justice (they’re essentially the same words) transcend the law (read Galatians again).

The angel told Joseph to break the law. Joseph was told that justice trumps law; that mercy and compassion always take priority over legal correctness. If love could be constrained by law, Jesus had no reason to become incarnate, “God with us.” But he came to show that relationships based on love are messy and unpredictable, that it cannot be codified by law.

Jesus came to save us from the
Sin of Law