Opus 2024-262: Noah Law

According to the apostle Paul, the purpose of the law was to show us what righteousness was, and what sin was.

(Rom 3:31 KJV)  Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

(Rom 7:7 KJV)  What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

This is in the middle of a long discussion of the law.  I am simplifying so don’t take this to the bank as a proof text.

Now, hold that thought and go back to the time of Noah, in Genesis 6.  This is centuries before Moses was given the law.  Technically there was no law to break.  Ask yourself how was mankind being judged as evil if there was no law by which to measure?  How can people be judged by God if they don’t know what is the difference between right and wrong?

I think my conclusion would be that people and their inner man make a decision which direction they’re going to go.  You see this kind of thinking all through Psalms and Proverbs, two books I am currently spending more time reading than any other part of the Bible.  I realize they are written after God gave the law to Moses and before the sending of the Holy Spirit but I find verses like this,

(Pro 4:16 KJV)  For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall.

This is more than original sin or the sinful nature.  This is a conscious decision to embrace evil and advance it.  This is bigger than the law.

When we talk about law there are two important statements that must be considered.  The first was the statement of Jesus when he said that he did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill the law.

(Mat 5:17 KJV)  Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

The second, mentioned earlier, was when Paul told us that the law was there to show us the boundaries, but that we were not saved my following that law.

If you put these together, it makes you wonder if the concept of fulfilling the law means that the laws are now moving from being legalistic statutes to being moral principles.

Recently when I was on a road trip I drove through some mountainous terrain.  I was not on the Interstate so the pavement followed the contour of the ground along the path that the cows used to travel to get back to the barn.  The road was probably first paved when Model T’s were the common mode of transportation.  They were graded flat.  Some wise person who did little driving decided that the curve required a 35 MPH speed limit and put up a sign to enforce it.  At the time it made sense:  Marginal grading, slippery surfaces, poor suspension and new drivers could combine to deliver death and destruction.  It was the law and to disobey was a recipe for disaster.  

Move forward 100 years.  The road has been regraded.  The surface has been improved.  You car has the suspension for the Indy 500 and you have been practicing spin outs in your dad’s car for years.  The sign still says 35 MPH.  The hill is still the same.  The laws of physics have not changed.  Also, I guess the local cop could still give you a ticket for going 40.  That law needs to be fulfilled not destroyed.  The principle however still is as real as ever.

This concept of principle vs statute would not apply to clear moral laws such as theft and adultery.  They are fulfilled because the Holy Spirit has us acting that way.  Other laws such as the sacrificial system, diet and rules for gardening are in a different category.

Is there a danger here?  Obviously.  We tend to push as far as we think we can get away with.  I took the curves at 60 MPH and lived to tell about it.  The fulfillment comes from having the Holy Spirit give us guidance and living in obedience.  The example in Matthew is in the midst of the Sermon on the Mount.  Many people say that is an impossible expectation.  I would say they might want to put a little confidence in the Spirit and walk with Him.

Thoughts and speculations for working out what seems to be a conflict.  I don’t require you to agree but I would request that you put away your branding irons reserved for heretics.

homo unius libri