The Laws of Moses

The notion that Moses had introduced a religion that was all about how to earn God’s favor through strict adherence to a system of laws misses the point that the cultic animal sacrifice rituals for atonement or forgiveness were an integral part of that system precisely because there was no one who could do all that the law required.  The difficultly and hence inevitability of failure and hence need for forgiveness did not arise because any one law or command was formidable, but rather because of the sheer volume of such laws and of the need to persistently follow all of them.  There seems to have been an intentional irony to the fact that God demanded perfection which he knew no one was capable of.  Anyone who completely did all that was required by the law could not boast that he was perfect because to do completely all that the law required meant admitting that one needed forgiveness.   What did a person need forgiveness for if he had done all the law required?  He needed forgiveness if he did not ask for forgiveness.

That sounds a little sillier than I would like.  After all, what am I saying?  Doesn't real guilt factor in here somewhere rather than this guilt concocted through some catch 22 game of gotcha?

The conclusion to draw was that this clever system precluded both of the typical misguided attitudes—i.e. that a person, on the one hand, could earn God’s favor, or, on the other hand, that he might just as well not be obedient at all.  What God was after was the humility with which a person must recognize he is at the mercy of God even if he behaves as he should because God is under no obligation to forgive or protect anyone from evil. 

The conclusion should NOT be that one is damned if one does what is required and damned if one does not.  Of course, no one who is forgiven is damned.  But more to the point, God is not cheating us out of all chances to win a game by breaking all the rules or making winning impossible.  Should we even be thinking of behaving morally as a game we play to win salvation like that is a prize?  

Before answering "no," read 1 Cor. 9:24-27.  That is a passage that needs some hard work of interpretation.  Paul's talking about his own ministry and of resisting evil because, of course, all his hard work would be for naught if he was exposed as a hypocrite. If he did fail and become hypocritical, I suppose he'd still be saved insofar as he sorrowfully repented. But I doubt his ministry could be restored. So the race analogy he used makes sense given that context.  I think what is at stake is his ministry--not salvation.  But the passage is ambiguous and perhaps intentionally so because, I suppose, even salvation can be jeopardized by any capitulation to evil.  What, for example, happens if one doesn't ever reach a point of sorrowfully repenting? 

However else one may want to describe life besides as that of a challenge, one would be right to understand that love has something to do with why we exist and that evil and sin mysteriously complicate that purpose. And most importantly, we need to be saved--we cannot save ourselves.  Some mention of love is important because clearly God's message to the world does not reduce to: "be good at following a bunch of rules." And as much as one claims to understand that, if one still thinks that loving is something that can be prescribed by a rule book, one is greatly mistaken.