6/02/2009

Befuddlement

Most of the book of Deuteronomy is a (very long-winded) speech by Moses on behalf of God at the border of Canaan. In this speech, lasting from Chapter 4 to chapter 30, and probably a couple of days, Moses reiterated the law given on Sinai and added a number of new commandments as well. Blessings are described for those who obey and curses for those who don't. Then, in Chapter 30 verse 11, God says through Moses, "Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach."

Many, many times I have heard it said that the Old Testament law was impossible to keep, that it's sole purpose was to show us how impossible it is to please God. How, then, do we wrestle with this verse? We can't just write it off as hyperbole. We certainly can't call God a liar. Could we say that hypothetically a human being could keep the law but in practice none but the God-man ever has? I suppose we could. But it seems like a half-baked beat around the bush to me. God's justice would still seem slightly un-God-like if He made such a proclamation with the full knowledge that in practice no one would ever live up to it.

Lest I get lumped into the dispensationalist camp (or any other theological marshmellow roast), I am not saying that our salvation is through anything but grace through faith, and I find it highly doubtful that even a Jew could find salvation in any other way. Yet somehow that assertion needs to be balanced with a verse in scripture that causes questions, rather than simply tossing the verse aside as some old testament eccentricity that lost its relevance when the Beta version of Torah 2.0 was released (aka Acts and the Pauline letters). Unlike computer programs, scripture does not go out of date and is not replaced by later releases- only illuminated.

1 comment:

C.A.S. said...

I'm curious, then, as I have had similar discussions with my parents, what is one to do with the passages in the OT regarding sacrifice? I've heard both sides of the camp, and right now I'm still on the fence. One side says that the OT is an example of the idealist, God-following life, and the reality is that it's too unrealistic to follow such old, legalistic teachings. The other side says that it could and should still be feasible for us to follow as God meant for us to follow. Though I agree with you that we cannot simply write off the words of God as hyperbole, what are we to do with it? What, do you think, is more important: the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law?