Theological distinctions between Law & Gospel

20
Aug

The three assigned readings for the 13th Sunday after Pentecost are Isaiah 66:18-23 (All worship God); Hebrews 12:4-29 (2 mountains) and Luke 13:22-30 (I do not know you). Chosen to preach on this Sunday in Canada are two verses from Hebrews 12; namely, 18 and 22: “For you have not come to the mountain that may be touched and that burned with fire, and to blackness and darkness and tempest” and “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels.”

The purpose of this blog is not to provide a full sermon that may be preached but rather to sensitize you to the possible L&G elements that would be welcome when heard. A more complete explanation of what follows can be heard by going to kfuo.org and clicking on Law and Gospel and listening to the archived radio program for August 20, 2007. The two mountains of Sinai and Zion provide not only an excellent analogy for Law and Gospel but also a way of understanding the distinction of L&G.

For example, ask most Christians what comes to mind when they think of “Law” and they will respond, “The Ten Commandments.” Though such an answer is not entirely in error, it certainly can result in a law-oriented theology in which salvation is merited rather than is inherited due to the work of Jesus Christ.

The goal of this sermon is to have another definition or synonym for “Law” which provides a fuller picture of how God understands “Law” and its impact on human beings. That concept is “Mt. Sinai.” For is not Mt. Sinai the location according to Exodus 24 where Israel made a covenant with God to observe and obey all that He commanded? And is it not that covenant that fell flat on its face only a few chapters later with the construction of the golden calf? And is it not Mt. Sinai in which the sounds and sights were so overbearing that the people “begged that the word should not be spoken to them anymore”? Yes, to all.

For God’s purpose of the Law in regard to the spiritual realm is to put to death our faith. Not our faith in Jesus Christ but our faith in ourselves! For the Law reveals our true condition and rips away from us the shield of our good works against an angry and wrathful God. The Law is good as it strips us of all our egotistical pretentions of observing God’s will as the way to salvation.

In fact, without such an understanding and application of the Law, one not only does not look forward to Mt. Zion but rejects it as unnecessary. It is not that the two mountains represent two Gods–the God of wrath and the God of mercy. No, instead, Mt. Sinai represents God in His holy wrath against humans offering Him their works to offset their sins. Mt. Zion represents God’s sole work in taking care of the separation between men and God by becoming our substitute in taking the full wrath of God upon Himself so that those who trust in Jesus might be saved.

Yes, there are a number of ways that one can explain the difference between Law and Gospel. But what a clear distinction is made when “Law” refers to “Mt. Sinai” and “Gospel” reminds us of “Mt. Zion.” The Law then is not regarded as advice from God as to how to appease His wrath; instead, it reminds us that nothing we do, say or think can placate the deserved wrath from God against us–except the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For He indeed is our Mt. Zion.

Category : Law & Gospel

2 Responses to “Sermon C: 13th S Pent: Heb 12:18,22”


natamllc August 23, 2007

Being a good Christian and all and then reading this article, you have to admit that these things are not what you would normally expect to hear in a general discussion about “one’s faith”, every day, “being stripped of my faith”!

Huh?

Wait just a minute!!

How am I going to be saved but by my FAITH?

Oh, then I realize the load that is lifted off my shoulders, my self-imposed burdens to do and be right before God, when I am stripped of my faith, when my faith in myself is lifted from me.

This is not natural, normal human activity or thinking: “denying myself or my beliefs”. It leaves me with nothing to do to be right before God today! It just cannot be that easy, can it?

Here’s how Jesus put it:

Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Someone said, maybe you did before during a Law Gospel broadcast on KFUO, that the “Law” is the tip of the Sword of the “Gospel”.

Without being cut first by the Law, there is no need for the healing the Gospel brings.

Again, it is so true that the Law strips me clean of my faith in myself leaving me with nothing to do and a need for a Savior and His Faith, His Love and His Peace.

I am praying that God will send a revival of this understanding of the gift of Faith once delivered to the Saints, to the Saints these days! The world will be better off for it.

Jud 1:2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Jud 1:4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Michael
Eureka, Ca.

Larry - KY August 25, 2007

Dr. Baker,

I heard the other day on issues and etc something very helpful about “Law” preaching I’d never thought of. A kind of “rule of thumb”. That the Law is really being preached when it leaves NO loop holes for all hearers. That was striking to me. Because many passages that are strictly law and actually preached as some in today’s ear there may STILL be a loop hole to hear. The example given was a GREAT sermon on the Pharisee and the tax collector. The pastor brought the law about by bringing the Pharisee “up to date”, “I tithe 10% of my gross and not the net, I do this and that in the church, I’m not like that pregnant woman over there that shouldn’t be, my job is not like THAT persons job that is bad, etc…” Laid the Law hard that way. But he didn’t leave it there, he hit were some of us go then, like myself, somewhere the text is not explicit but underlying it, its law principle IS. The tax collector and sinner in us that says, “FINALLY, that Pharisee is getting it right where he needs it.” THAT tax collector has become the tax collector saying, “I’m glad I’m not like THAT Pharisee or legalist over there…etc…” The pastor REALLY closed out all the loop holes in the Law, THEN laid the Gospel forth as “who was justified”, that Jesus died for both the Pharisee and the Tax Collector…STRONG Gospel given and not left up to our works.

It struck me more than just closing a “loop hole”. It struck me this way, and I’m for good exegetical preaching, but one could preach that verse VERY exegetically, alllll the Greek in the world understood behind it, and yet leave a legal “loop hole” for someone to squirm out of, and in the end MISS the REAL Law point of the passage for someone. Yes, Jesus explicitly sets forth the Pharisee and the tax collector and says the later is justified. But His point was not that strictly speaking, not a new way to be doing things. His principle was Law Versus Gospel…the principle is more key even the only point rather than just the accuracy of the details.

It struck me that one could be very very very accurate and exacting to a text, due diligence, even tremendous study and diligence and accurately parrot a verse but NEVER once penetrate the heart with it and thus MISS it in reality all the while being accurate to it. Because that pastor could be accused by some as not being true to the passage. And in the sense of “letter accuracy” that is true. The passage doesn’t speak of condemning the tax collector and justifying the Pharisee, in fact in the “letter” of it – it does just the opposite. BUT in the Spirit of the passage it’s against works and for free grace, the letter of the conditions are interchangeable and must be in order to “close out the loop holes” in the Law so Grace can shine on. But one could be wrongly accused of “reading into the text” by those proposing exegetical accuracy. Again, I’m very for good preaching along that lines, exegesis, but it alone can miss everything. Our pastor warned us of this about a year ago, but until the “loop hole closing” thing was mentioned and I saw a stark black and white example of it, I’d never seen it so brightly before.

The fundamental unit really is Law and Gospel, Works versus total shameless free grace! I think that’s why some, and even myself when new terror sets in about a passage Law and Gospel are confounded SO much. We forget that BASELINE in explicit passages and suddenly we say, “I KNEW IT, it can’t be that GOOD!”

Blessings,

Larry KY