The Law of Moses is popularly held to be very different from the religion of the New Testament, not only in its general outlook on life but in its mode of achieving its purpose—the Law being regarded as teaching salvation by works and the Gospel salvation by faith. Such an over simplification is clearly unsatisfactory for while the New Testament does emphasize Faith and its reward of life being a free gift from God it is abundantly evident that Faith must be evidenced by works and not just words, and that true thankfulness for the gifts so freely given is properly expressed in actions as well as words.
The promises of the Law do seem to be based on the philosophy of rewards and punishments “A blessing if ye obey . . . and a curse if ye will not obey the commandments” (Deut. 11 :27-28). This sense is perhaps intensified by the practical character of the blessings : long life – prosperity – peace. Yet when we look at one which is quoted by Paul as the first commandment with promise we find that the law is not something capable of simple mechanical fulfilment. Honour thy Father and Mother is not an easy command to obey like an automaton, without thought or consideration. Honour should perhaps be regarded more as an attitude of mind than as of positive activity. So obedience to such a command is not a simple automatic mechanical performance of works.
On the other hand some commands that at first sight appear capable of being performed mechanically are not properly performed without some mental exercise that is very akin to faith. In the incident of the Brazen Serpent the record speaks of it being made so that those who looked upon it should live. The alterations made by the Revisers appear to indicate that more than the mere sight of the eyes was needed. A casual glance would hardly be properly described as “looking unto.”
Effective obedience to such a law would seem to require a degree of faith that takes it out of the realm of a law of works. Even the Sabbath Law was not as simple as it appeared. We may smile at the Pharisees classing the rubbing out of ears of corn between the palms as work that broke the law, but an honest assessment of the phrase “do no servile work” may make us wonder where we would have drawn the line. Jesus did not attack their definition of work but drew attention to other laws—circumcision and sacrifices (which involved the killing and flaying of animals) in obeying which there was an inevitable doing of servile work and so a breaking of the Sabbath Laws.
Clearly even the Sabbath Law was sometimes over ridden by other commandments so that the question ‘Which is the greatest Commandment’ was not academic but very practical, for the greatest commandment would surely be the one that over rode all the others and was always to be obeyed.
The conflict between such laws which required the exercise of human judgment to resolve is repeated on a lower plane when the deductions from God’s promises run counter to what seems like commonsense. Caleb was willing to rely on past evidence of God’s delight in his people as an Ernest of his intention to bring them into the Promised Land in spite of seeming difficulties of powerful men and fortified cities. ‘Common sense’ triumphed at the time but it is obvious that Caleb’s simple deduction of faith was really the right way to reason about God’s commandment.
Sometimes God recognized the ‘Commonsense’ fears that would arise from obedience to the law and promised that they should be groundless. Three times a year the whole of the male population was to gather to the Lord. (Ex. 34:23). Imagine what opportunities this would give now to the border raiding Arabs, but then God promised that at such times nobody would desire their land (Ex. 34:24). Here very simply is a law that the thinking man could only obey by trusting in the promise. Faith was needed to be able to do the works.
In the law of the Sabbath year the record includes the obvious question of commonsense — what shall we eat the seventh year. (Lev. 25:20) and the answer — that the sixth year will have an abundant harvest that shall last three years (Lev. 25:21) It would seem that the Sabbath years were never properly kept ; was that because the sixth year’s harvest never seemed to be enough or was it much wanting more ? Both reasons betray a lack of faith. This is another example of a law that could not to be obeyed mechanically. It needed faith of a courageous kind to do it properly.
Finally we turn to the central object of the worship under the law. All the ritual centred about the place where God met with his people—between the cherubim on the mercy seat (Ex. 25:22) Yet for the ordinary Israelite who came within the linen curtains of the Tabernacle enclosure there was between him and the mercy seat two vials, one of which hung a perpetual screen behind which only the High Priest went, and that but once a year ; and even then the cloud of incense vailed the Ark and the cherubim. For all the apparent nearness of the presence of God dwelling in the midst of his people as the sight of his dwelling place was unseeable as his dwelling place in heaven.
When the camp moved the Ark lead the people but it must have looked a strange sight wrapped in the woven vail and then enveloped in seal skin with an outer wrapping of blue. So that even in this focal point of their religious life the Jews faced the same problem as ourselves. The Invisible God meets with his people but there is no visible place of meeting. For all the outward trappings of sacrifice and priestly office the Jew yet worshipped in faith what he could not see.
To call the Law of Moses a law of works in contrast to the law of faith which is the Gospel is to imply that God uses two different sets of principles in his dealings with his people of Moses’ day and those of later times. Whereas the law, besides showing sin as exceeding sinful, gave many opportunities for a display of faith by those who believed that God did not command the impossible nor promise the unattainable.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One