This is somewhat of a sequel to the previous article on David eating the shewbread – considerations of the one lead to the other. Both deal with our attitude toward the Word of God: both deal with Jesus’ conflict with the Jews over the meaning of scripture and its use. Understanding scripture is vital. We have to understand the Lord’s will in order to obey it and please Him and go to Heaven. In malice we are to be childlike but in understanding we are to be mature. How many doctrines did the early Christians have in common with the Pharisees? Remember when Paul called himself a Pharisee rather than a Sadducee (Acts 23:6)? (much like us calling ourselves conservatives). Pharisees believed in God, the Spirit, judgment, resurrection, creation and inspiration of scripture, yet Paul probably had more problems with them than the Gentiles who had a background in idolatry! He described the Jews as being “contrary to all men” (1 Thess. 2:15).
It’s how the scriptures are to be interpreted that makes the difference. Jesus had the same problem with the Scribes and Pharisees. Remember the occasion when they came to the disciples asking how come your master eats with tax-collectors and sinners? – and you remember His directive; Go and learn what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice (Matt.9:13 cf. Hos. 6:6). I wonder if any felt the need to go and learn? To Go takes time and intent, while Learn implies the meaning was not straightforward (not lying on the surface). It might seem to be saying that sacrifice was not important but that was not so – God Himself designed and commanded sacrifice!
Jesus’ directive implies they had not understood it, but misunderstood it (we cannot understand the same thing differently – when two people have ‘different’ understandings it really means one misunderstands it or that both misunderstand it and the ‘correct’ understanding is something else). In Matt.23:23 Jesus said they had got the tithing of mint, anise, and cummin right, but missed other more complex and difficult injunctions of the law. Some things are heavier than others – from Barus: heavy. Met. burdensome, oppressive, difficult of observation (Matt.23:4) grievous, oppressive (Matt.20:29; 25:7) authoritative, strict, stern (2 Cor. 10:10) – as opposed to easier, simple things such as tithing table salts [“How much did we grow?” “Such and such”. “Okay, divide that by ten and we’ll give that to the Lord” – and it’s done! Simple! Like the woman in the TV ad whose New year resolution was to warn people about fallen power lines – she was not going to be busy!]
Today we have the swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction to that of the Pharisees. Extremes beget extremes. Some are so desperate to get away from Rome they run all the way past Jerusalem and end up in Babylon! Salvation by works has produced salvation by faith only. Jesus’ statement has been construed to mean that you can forget the “little” things as long as you focus on the “big” things. This is not what Jesus said at all. Note what He said in relation to the tithing of mint, anise and cummin – don’t leave this undone. Every word of God is pure, and everything God commanded and/or commands has the Divine directive to support it. Your word is true from the beginning: every one of your righteous judgments endures forever. (Ps. 119:160)
Imagine how confusing it would be if God let us make up our own rules as to what is important and what is not. You don’t have to do much imagining, for this is the very case today as to why, in part, there is so much religious confusion. Many believe they are so close to the Lord and yet live in disobedience to express commands of God. Why do you call me Lord and don’t do the things I say? is as pertinent today as it was when spoken. “You don’t have to be baptised as long as your heart is with Him”: “You don’t have to give liberally to the Lord’s cause as long as you give your heart to Him” are common examples of this twisted thinking.
Some things get a life of their own and we lose sight of where they come from. Homophobic was a word coined to express fear of becoming a homosexual and then it described the fear of being “outed”. Now it is a label to denigrate one who stands for the Lord’s command on this subject. Gay was a good word in its day but the younger generation wouldn’t know the original meaning of the word.
In much the same vein people talk about the letter and spirit of the Scriptures. What is meant is if we insist on strict obedience to the Scriptures then we are guilty of stressing the letter and not the spirit. Where does this idea come from? It sounds like something that could be plausible because it is so popular (like the fabled “sinners prayer” that is not found in the Bible). Many will reply that this principle is in the Bible. I have yet to find it and so I ask, “Where is it found?” The answer is often “It’s in there somewhere”. So I will offer 2 Cor. 3:6 as the possible source and the answer will almost invariably come “yes, that’s it”. Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament: not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
2 Cor. 3:6 is certainly a part of God’s holy writ, but it is an erroneous assumption to say that “letter” means the external command and that “spirit” is the spirit of the command. And it is erroneous to suggest that God’s written word is in conflict with the spirit of the word. We cannot act upon assumptions. If this philosophy is true then certain things naturally follow: First it would mean that God’s written word is deadly! It would be deadly to obey the “external” of a command (if we allow such a thing). For example it would be deadly to eat the Lord’s Supper or be baptised into Christ or obey any other command. Second, how can we know what the spirit of a command is apart from the letter of the command and what the written word says about the letter and spirit? (if there is such a distinction). For example, baptism involves an outward act of being immersed in water, but apart from the word how can we know its purpose? The written word tells us to be baptised and the written word tells us why we should. The outward form of baptism, without faith and our acceptance in faith of the meaning and purpose of baptism, is not scriptural baptism. If the act itself had some value apart from Christ and faith and obedience in Him, we could form a “baptism gang” as part of our evangelism – the gang’s job would be to baptise others by force and thus bring them into Christ – but this would not be scriptural baptism and the person would go down a dry sinner and come up a wet sinner. We know nothing about the spirit of Christianity except as it is revealed in the written word of God
Third, our love is tested by our obedience to God’s commands (Jn.14:15; 1 Jn.5:3). What way is there to show we have the spirit of a command unless we obey from the heart what the command says? We have this strange but common situation where many end up not obeying a command whilst thinking they are with the Lord “in spirit”. This is utter self-deception, ultimately having to disobey the command to prove they are in tune with God! If I do what the command says then I am a legalist so I will prove that I have the spirit of the command by disobeying it. Go figure.
Paul wrote commands of the Lord (1 Cor. 14:37), and he never said he was the minister of an inward covenant that had no outward requirements – cf. Jer.31:31-34 – I will put my laws in their inward parts. The New Testament has laws and commands – cf. Isa. 2:2-4 – out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem: 1 Cor. 7:19 – circumcision and uncircumcision are nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God (are what matters).
Fourth. Context, context, context! Many regard this as the first rule of hermeneutics (the science of interpretation). In this context of 2 Cor.3, “letter” stands for the old testament while “spirit” stands for the new testament. Paul’s statement in v.6 is that he is an able minister of the new testament, not of the old. The rest of the chapter will confirm this is so. In v.7 he speaks of the ministration of death (O.T.) contrasted with the ministration of the Spirit (v.8). In v.9 he speaks of the ministration of condemnation (O.T.) contrasted with the ministration of righteousness. In v. 11 he speaks of that which is done away (O.T.) contrasted with that which remains (N.T.). He goes on to speak of that which is abolished (O.T. -v.13), the reading of the Old Testament (v.14) and the reading of Moses (v.15).
So it is a passage that contrasts the two testaments, calling one “letter” and the other “spirit”. We might well ask as to why he would use such terms (this is not the only place – cf. Rom. 7:6). Things can be contrasted without suggesting they are opposites. For example John 1:17 says the law came by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. Now if grace and truth came by Jesus does that mean there was no grace in the Mosaic age and that Moses told lies, not truth? Obviously not. There was graciousness and truth in the old testament but it was the new testament that fulfilled and completed it, showing how God was able to be gracious and true in the old testament.
Both testaments were in written form – they had ‘letters’. Both testaments were inspired by the Spirit (2 Pet. 2:1 –holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit – this is in reference to the old testament). Both were to be written in the heart (Ps. 119:11; Prov. 3:3; Jer. 31:31-34). So it seems that both testaments had a lot in common so what is the comparison? In the context of the time when Paul wrote Corinthians the Old testament was indeed old and only contained in letters and not in living inspired men. The Holy Spirit was inspiring no men to go about preaching the Mosaic law as the way of salvation (but note vs. 14,15 – it could still be read). The New testament, however, was not on tables of stone or contained in scrolls in the temple and synagogues, but given directly by inspired men – a ministry of the spirit.
So what is it then? Obey from the heart all that the Lord has spoken in the new testament and for the reason He has so commanded.