Examining the Argument against
bondage to the Law
In my view, you can't sort out the issue of Pacifism vs Self-Defence,
until you first sort out what Paul really said about the Law.
Here are the two opposing sets of scriptures that seem to support one extreme or the other as to Law versus Grace:
Here is the Recap of the basic Protestant argument:
So what's wrong with this picture? It seems like a straightforward summary of the Christian position. It appears to explain in a tidy manner facts like Paul's leniency on the Sabbath keeping, and the apparent switch to Sunday by early Christians.
The Beginning of the Sabbath Controversy
The Sabbath controversy begins with Jesus Himself. The Sabbath was considered the jewel of the Ten Commandments. It was the proud centerpiece and the very sign of the covenant for Israelites (Ex 31:16-17). Jewish groups actually competed over how strictly it should be kept. (Mk 3:2). When the authorities ignored John the Baptist, (Mk.2:18/Lk.7:30) Jesus seems to have deliberately provoked them by publicly ministering on the Sabbath. (Mk.2:23-28) Jesus knew the value of public controversy.
Yet in all this, Jesus never actually broke the Sabbath. (Heb 4:15) In fact, His speech shows He does not teach or encourage Sabbath-breaking either (Mk 3:4). He wished to restore the Sabbath to its true purpose, (Mk.2:27) and make it an easier burden again. (Mt 11:30) He seems to say that the Sabbath will not pass away till the end of time. (Mt.5:18f)
There is no real difficulty in all this. Although He angers extremists, Jesus' position on the Sabbath is moderate, in harmony with the OT and easily accommodated by Judaism at large. The problem was that the Pharisees had exaggerated the Sabbath to the neglect of more important commandments. (Mt.23:23) It had become a 'holier than thou' piece of ethnocentric acting which perpetuated racism and dishonored God. (Jn.8:49)
The real difficulty and also the irony begins with Paul. This trained Pharisee was a zealous Law fanatic and a persecutor of Christians. (Phil.3:5-6) He was an accomplice in Stephen's murder for allegedly speaking against the Law (a false charge: Acts 6:13,8:1). Defecting from his own party and claiming a vision, he appoints himself Apostle to the Gentiles. He then goes far beyond Jesus and every other Apostle and says, 'The Law cannot save, (Rom. 8:3) the Law brings death, (Rom 7:10), we are dead to the Law, we are not under the Law' (Gal 5:18). He then goes on to dismiss circumcision, to make holy days irrelevant and food laws optional. Keep in mind Paul is speaking primarily to gentiles, not Jews! If Jesus provoked the Pharisees, Paul provokes Jews, Christians, Pagans, and just about everyone! Paul's tactics and the publicity they score for Christianity are hardly accidental.
The Legal Dilemma
Paul's statements cannot simply be explained away. Paul seems to tell us that the Law is 'done away with'. (Col.2:14-15) Then in the same breath he demands we keep the law! (Rom.3:31,6:1-2) If this weren't confusing enough, he then proceeds to pick and choose which laws to keep. (Gal.5:2,Col.2:16-17) In what sense can we be free from the law if we have to keep it anyway? What can such talk mean? By what principle are some laws retained and others dismissed? And where does Paul acquire the authority to do this? No one can just take the rest of the NT and with mere reason arrive at Paul's unique doctrines. If these questions cannot be adequately answered, Christianity must abandon Paul.
Yet we can't just dismiss him as a heretic. He is after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Nor can we follow Paul and ignore the rest of the Bible. If we want to keep Paul, we must class his teaching as revelation, just as Paul himself claims! (Gal 1:16) But in order to assess Paul's revelation, we must correctly identify what is new in Paul, and what is common to and harmonizable with the rest of the NT. For that we must properly understand exactly what Paul actually says in detail.
Past Solutions to the Problem
In the past, Christian theologians made a distinction between the moral laws and ceremonial laws of the Bible. They used these categories to explain why we are still obligated to keep the Ten Commandments (the moral code), but not the sacrificial (ceremonial) laws. Later, other Christians carried this idea to its logical conclusion. The Sabbath, since it was one of the Ten Commandments, was part of the moral code and must be obeyed. More extreme groups insist not just on a strict day of rest, but on keeping the 'correct' day. This isn't just 'legalism'. Since the Sabbath is a day of remembrance, it is obviously rebellious to deliberately celebrate the 'wrong' day. (James 4:17) The OT actually singles out the Sabbath, yet not to make it lesser than the other Ten, but by underlining its solemn importance with an everlasting oath! (Ex 31:16-17) From this it is clearly unfair to just slam the Adventists for viewing the Sabbath as greatest of the Ten Commandments.
The Problem with Paul
Unfortunately for everyone, such a solution can't solve the Paul problem. It actually comes to a crisis with the Sabbath. Paul never separates the Ten Commandments from the other laws in his discussions, except to underline them as a symbol of the Old Covenant. (2.Cor 3) If this distinction is so important, why is it not clearly made? He also deliberately singles out the Sabbath and the Food Laws as optional, and flatly rejects circumcision entirely. (Col 2:16-17, Gal 5:2) There's a problem with this grouping too, since these laws are neither overtly ceremonial or sacrificial. In fact the common thread seems to be that these are the laws which distinguish Israelites or Jews from other nations.
We can now see why protestants reject the 'Sabbath Keeper' position in search of something that can better harmonize and blend Paul with the rest of the Bible. But is the Protestant solution the best we can do?
bondage to the Law
In my view, you can't sort out the issue of Pacifism vs Self-Defence,
until you first sort out what Paul really said about the Law.
Here are the two opposing sets of scriptures that seem to support one extreme or the other as to Law versus Grace:
--- SCRIPTURES LUTHER INTERPRETED TO FAVOUR SALVATION BY GRACE ---
'Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. (Gal.3:13)
'...having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.' (Col.2:14)
'...having abolished in His flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in
ordinances...' (Eph.2:15)
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, engraved on stones, was glorious, will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? (2.Cor.3:6-8)
Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2.Cor.3:17)
'Stand fast then in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You who are justified by the law have become estranged from Christ; you have fallen from grace. (Gal.5:1-4)
--------------------------------------------------- SCRIPTURES THAT WARN OF COMPLICATIONS FOR LUTHER ----
Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. (Rom.3:31)
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? (Rom.6:1-2)
Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then, shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin, unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness. But thank God that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine into which you were delivered: And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness. (Rom.6:14-18)
'Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, he will also reap.'(Gal.6:7)
Here is the Recap of the basic Protestant argument:
The Old and New Covenants: The moral laws were true from the beginning and are true-for-all-time principles. The Sabbath is not one of these true-for-all-time principles, and had to be given by revelation from God. The core of the Old Covenant is the Ten Commandments. They are all part of the Law which was done away with when Christ died. But the other nine Commandments are restated in some form and even intensified in the NT because they are moral laws, (true for all time), and so they remain valid.
The Sabbath law is merely ceremonial, and the specific day is actually arbitrary, and so only the principle if anything may need keeping.
So what's wrong with this picture? It seems like a straightforward summary of the Christian position. It appears to explain in a tidy manner facts like Paul's leniency on the Sabbath keeping, and the apparent switch to Sunday by early Christians.
The Beginning of the Sabbath Controversy
The Sabbath controversy begins with Jesus Himself. The Sabbath was considered the jewel of the Ten Commandments. It was the proud centerpiece and the very sign of the covenant for Israelites (Ex 31:16-17). Jewish groups actually competed over how strictly it should be kept. (Mk 3:2). When the authorities ignored John the Baptist, (Mk.2:18/Lk.7:30) Jesus seems to have deliberately provoked them by publicly ministering on the Sabbath. (Mk.2:23-28) Jesus knew the value of public controversy.
Yet in all this, Jesus never actually broke the Sabbath. (Heb 4:15) In fact, His speech shows He does not teach or encourage Sabbath-breaking either (Mk 3:4). He wished to restore the Sabbath to its true purpose, (Mk.2:27) and make it an easier burden again. (Mt 11:30) He seems to say that the Sabbath will not pass away till the end of time. (Mt.5:18f)
There is no real difficulty in all this. Although He angers extremists, Jesus' position on the Sabbath is moderate, in harmony with the OT and easily accommodated by Judaism at large. The problem was that the Pharisees had exaggerated the Sabbath to the neglect of more important commandments. (Mt.23:23) It had become a 'holier than thou' piece of ethnocentric acting which perpetuated racism and dishonored God. (Jn.8:49)
The real difficulty and also the irony begins with Paul. This trained Pharisee was a zealous Law fanatic and a persecutor of Christians. (Phil.3:5-6) He was an accomplice in Stephen's murder for allegedly speaking against the Law (a false charge: Acts 6:13,8:1). Defecting from his own party and claiming a vision, he appoints himself Apostle to the Gentiles. He then goes far beyond Jesus and every other Apostle and says, 'The Law cannot save, (Rom. 8:3) the Law brings death, (Rom 7:10), we are dead to the Law, we are not under the Law' (Gal 5:18). He then goes on to dismiss circumcision, to make holy days irrelevant and food laws optional. Keep in mind Paul is speaking primarily to gentiles, not Jews! If Jesus provoked the Pharisees, Paul provokes Jews, Christians, Pagans, and just about everyone! Paul's tactics and the publicity they score for Christianity are hardly accidental.
The Legal Dilemma
Paul's statements cannot simply be explained away. Paul seems to tell us that the Law is 'done away with'. (Col.2:14-15) Then in the same breath he demands we keep the law! (Rom.3:31,6:1-2) If this weren't confusing enough, he then proceeds to pick and choose which laws to keep. (Gal.5:2,Col.2:16-17) In what sense can we be free from the law if we have to keep it anyway? What can such talk mean? By what principle are some laws retained and others dismissed? And where does Paul acquire the authority to do this? No one can just take the rest of the NT and with mere reason arrive at Paul's unique doctrines. If these questions cannot be adequately answered, Christianity must abandon Paul.
Yet we can't just dismiss him as a heretic. He is after all, the Apostle to the Gentiles. Nor can we follow Paul and ignore the rest of the Bible. If we want to keep Paul, we must class his teaching as revelation, just as Paul himself claims! (Gal 1:16) But in order to assess Paul's revelation, we must correctly identify what is new in Paul, and what is common to and harmonizable with the rest of the NT. For that we must properly understand exactly what Paul actually says in detail.
Past Solutions to the Problem
In the past, Christian theologians made a distinction between the moral laws and ceremonial laws of the Bible. They used these categories to explain why we are still obligated to keep the Ten Commandments (the moral code), but not the sacrificial (ceremonial) laws. Later, other Christians carried this idea to its logical conclusion. The Sabbath, since it was one of the Ten Commandments, was part of the moral code and must be obeyed. More extreme groups insist not just on a strict day of rest, but on keeping the 'correct' day. This isn't just 'legalism'. Since the Sabbath is a day of remembrance, it is obviously rebellious to deliberately celebrate the 'wrong' day. (James 4:17) The OT actually singles out the Sabbath, yet not to make it lesser than the other Ten, but by underlining its solemn importance with an everlasting oath! (Ex 31:16-17) From this it is clearly unfair to just slam the Adventists for viewing the Sabbath as greatest of the Ten Commandments.
The Problem with Paul
Unfortunately for everyone, such a solution can't solve the Paul problem. It actually comes to a crisis with the Sabbath. Paul never separates the Ten Commandments from the other laws in his discussions, except to underline them as a symbol of the Old Covenant. (2.Cor 3) If this distinction is so important, why is it not clearly made? He also deliberately singles out the Sabbath and the Food Laws as optional, and flatly rejects circumcision entirely. (Col 2:16-17, Gal 5:2) There's a problem with this grouping too, since these laws are neither overtly ceremonial or sacrificial. In fact the common thread seems to be that these are the laws which distinguish Israelites or Jews from other nations.
We can now see why protestants reject the 'Sabbath Keeper' position in search of something that can better harmonize and blend Paul with the rest of the Bible. But is the Protestant solution the best we can do?