I am already aware of a number of 'answers' and 'objections' to my question.
1. Israel was a new nation, and like all other nations she required laws in order to govern herself, for a nation without laws is a nation of chaos.
- This is a practical and true answer.
2. The law was given in order to reveal our inability to keep it; therefore it drives us to the only one who ever did keep it perfectly, that is Christ.
- This is an anachronistic but true answer (and packed with sermon material I might add)
3. The law was given so that Israel's obedience to it would be a beacon of hope to a lost world and a testimony that Israel is God's elect.
- True also and closer to the point, but did it have to be this way? Could not Israel have been a light to the world simply by having a faithful heart to God (cf. Abraham) without having a series of 'do's and don't's' (i.e. Torah)?
All three of the answers above would have been (and are) correct answers if the question had been broadly, what is the purpose of the law? But the question I'm asking is much more particular, the question I'm asking is not in regards to the law in general, but to the law specifically in relation to the covenant!
In other words, if the covenant given to Abraham is a covenant of Promise obtained by faith passed down to Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob (that is, Israel), then why is it that when the covenant is reiterated and confirmed to the children of Israel a new element, the Torah, becomes the Charter by which the covenant seems to hinge on? Why all of a sudden is the covenant dependent upon works of the law (Deut 27-30) as opposed to faith in the Promises given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (i.e. Israel)?
This apparent conflict seems visible, perhaps even to Paul, in Romans, particularly 1-4. The first chapter of Romans reveals the global dilemma, the depravity of the human condition. Chapter two seems to present the solution; that Israel, the elect of God, are a new creation of humans, through their righteous obedience to the Torah, were to be a light to the nations - but something has gone terribly wrong within the covenant people themselves, namely, their failure to keep Torah. So now the covenant people have become a part of the problem. It's not surprising then that in chapter 4 Paul turns his attention back to Abraham - the one in whom the covenant was made to in the first place - and draws all attention back to the covenant of promise based on faith.
Now since Abraham and his Seed, (and those who are 'in' that Seed) are the real solution to the evil condition that humanity has found itself in, it would seem natural that Paul would go from the explaining the problem (chapter 1) to presenting the solution (chapter 4) - chapter two with the apparent solution of Israel and the law would almost seem like an unnecessary hiccup which we might otherwise skip over as irrelevant. Not that Israel would be irrelevant, for Israel, the children of Abraham, were (are) the elect of God, they still were (are) a great part of the solution and of course the climax of it all is the Messiah who was born an Israelite.
But all of this leads us full circle back to my original question, while confirming and reiterating the Covenant of Israel (i.e. Jacob; also Isaac and Abraham), the covenant of Promise which is obtained by faith, why add Torah as a Charter to the Covenant?
?
Derek
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment