The Limits to Grace

“Come up and be sa-aa-ved by the blood of Jee-ee-sus!” So ring the voices of preachers across the Bible Belt. Preachers of older, more sedate, denominations say similar things, in softer, solemn words. Such calls are based upon scripture. Paul repeatedly wrote that we cannot be saved by works of the Law, that Jesus’ sacrifice was necessary for our salvation.

We have apparent contradiction. On the previous pages of this chapter I cited many passages indicating that Christians have work to do. How does this jibe with freely given grace? Moreover, those who accept Jesus and become Christians will be judged to a higher standard than nonbelievers. How do we reconcile this with the idea that accepting Jesus results in forgiveness of sins?

How do we reconcile the Old and New Testaments? Dispensationalists argue that we are under a completely different set of rules than the ancient Hebrews. While the ancient Hebrews had to follow the Law of Moses, we are under the law of grace, we are forgiven. This view strikes me as a cruel joke. Those who lived before 33 A.D. (thereabouts) had to follow a stringent set of laws, while those who live afterward merely have to Believe.

This view also renders most of the Bible as irrelevant – including much of the New Testament. Jesus spent much of his ministry berating the Jews of his day for not properly following the Law as given to Moses. Jesus set high moral standards and talked repeatedly of people being judged according to their works. Jesus even acknowledged that the Law would continue as long as this heaven and earth continue.[Matthew 5:18, Revelations 21:1]

Many Christians simply swallow the contradictions, ignoring them or holding them as mysteries. These Christians believe they are saved and have no need of works, while at the same time accepting the obligations to avoid sin and do good works. I cannot fault them. Indeed, it is to their credit; it is “entering the Kingdom as a child” if I interpret the phrase correctly. But it is a hard task for those of us with un-childlike training in logic. Are intellectuals to be excluded?

Not entirely. After all, St. Paul was an intellectual. But yes, Paul being an intellectual did cause problems. Compare St. Paul’s letters with Jesus’ sermons. Jesus used simple stories with concrete imagery, easy to translate into even primitive languages. Paul, on the other hand, used complex sentences and abstraction, presenting a greater challenge for future translators.

Even with perfect translation, Paul presents problems. Many devout Christians proclaim every word of the Bible to be true, and then go on to build doctrines based on short snippets of scripture. For much of the Bible, this procedure works, but not for St. Paul’s letters. Paul was prone to lengthy, complex arguments spanning multiple chapters. He explored logical dead ends and even employed sarcasm. Building doctrines on short quotes from St. Paul’s letters is a very dangerous game!

Even in his day, Paul’s intellect presented problems. St. Peter complained of people misunderstanding Paul, and these were people who met Paul and spoke the same language. Today, we not only speak a different language, we also lack context. We have letters from Paul letters but not the letters to Paul. Fully understanding Paul has been a challenge for theologians for centuries, and has helped split Christianity into denominations.

The issue of grace and faith vs. works was a major divider between Martin Luther and the Catholic Church. It continues to divide Christians to this day. It even divides individual Christians. I have heard sermons on how we are saved purely by grace and sermons on the need for good works from the same preacher. Most confusing!

Dr. Gene Scott used to take Paul’s writings (and Martin Luther’s arguments) to surreal lengths on his late night program. In between readings on UFOs, questionable archeology, grail myths* and lost tribe speculations, he would lambaste other preachers for imposing moral obligations. Dr. Gene taught that you could get in trouble for obeying laws of Moses, because to obey any was to entail an obligation to obey them all, down to ancient Hebrew dress codes. In Dr. Gene’s theology, salvation comes through faith alone, and faith meant sending Dr. Gene your tithes (plural!), even when you don’t think you can afford it…

So who is right? Any by what authority do I step into a debate that has baffled priests and theologians for centuries? I haven’t been to divinity school and I don’t speak New Testament Greek.

What I can do is provide some extra context. For the past few years I have been a member of a denomination that considers the Law of Moses to still be in force, remembers the Sabbath and keeps the Biblical holy days [Leviticus 23]. As such, my perspective is much closer to that bridge between Judaism and Christianity that Paul walked. This perspective reveals connections between Old and New Testament that tend to be hidden from those taught that the old commandments are moot. For example, there is a strong connection between Paul’s words on grace, and sacrificial laws in Leviticus, as I’ll reveal later in this article.

I also have a bit of extra context from my political activism, and yes, my penchant for science fiction and fantasy. Luther, Calvin and ancient Catholic theologians also had this bit of context, but many modern Christians, especially those of the “Jesus is my buddy” variety, do not.

Jesus is Lord

“Accept Jesus as your Lord and redeemer and you will be saved!”

What do these words mean? Does one simply need to recognize that Jesus died for your sins and everything is hunky dory? If so, why bother going to church? Why bother reading the Bible?

One possible answer: it is a matter of language. We tend to preserve archaic language in a religious context: “thou”, “redeemer”, “covenant”, “lord”, “heaven” … The problem with such words is they cease to have real meaning when we don’t use them in everyday life. Religious language can degenerate into mantras, meaningless babble.

Once upon a time, the word “lord” had everyday secular meaning. In this democratic age, the term is relegated to fairy tales and costume dramas. Yes, we still have lords and kings walking the earth, but these kept creatures are a pale shadow of their terrifying ancestors. Today’s lords are still addressed with bows and special courtesy by some, but it’s all for fun, not fear. Watch the early scenes of the movie “Braveheart” to taste to full impact of what the word “lord” once meant.

Today, we might do better to replace the word “lord” with “boss” and “servant” with “employee.” Doing so restores the operative meaning of many New Testament passages. Modernized parables would involve the owner or CEO of a business leaving a branch office in the hands of an employee.

Like “lord”, “boss” implies a degree of respect, but it also implies required action – as “lord” once did. To get paid, you don’t just suck up to the boss, you carry out the boss’ orders. Better yet, you look out for the interest of the business and treat your underlings well. Remember, Jesus did leave us with quite a few orders, including: love, charity, doing good works, and obeying the Commandments.

Problem is, the term “boss” is a bit tepid, especially in these days of OSHA, unions and enlightened management. Being fired is the worst a modern boss can do. A true lord can beat or even kill his underlings. Let’s try again; let’s find a word that still has the punch the word “lord” once had.

“Accept Jesus as your massa and you will be saved.”

There, that should have some real punch, especially for the African Americans in the audience. The plantations of the Old South were the last relics of the lord/servant relationship in the U.S. The relationship is one of bowing and scraping, hard work, beatings for disobedience, and general humiliation.

This is the price of being saved.

Jesus is not my friend. He is my king, my master. I willingly accept this position of servitude because I get something very valuable in return. I also recognize that Jesus paid a terrible price for the privilege. One day, I might be able to call Jesus friend, just as trusted servants and employees can sometimes become friends with their superiors. But I would not presume to make the claim on my own. Jesus referred to his disciples as servants during most of his ministry. Only at the end did he call them friends.

The plantation metaphor is still imperfect. We Christians have more opportunity for advancement than the negro slaves of the Old South. Also, our servitude is not that of a purchased foreigner, but that of a countryman indentured for debts or criminal acts. The indentured servants of pre-revolutionary America might be a more apt metaphor, but it holds a bit less sting to the modern mind.

Accepting Jesus as “lord” implies works. Let’s have a look at this work and then we’ll get back to grace.

By Works of the Law

Q: What does a slave earn by doing what he is told?

A: Nothing. But nothing is better than being punished.

We earn nothing by obeying Biblical Law. So why bother? Some preachers say don’t bother, that the Law has been done away with. But then they stumble across many passages in the New Testament calling for righteousness and obeying commandments. Quite confusing! One possible resolution to this logical dilemma is to take our position as servants/slaves seriously. A servant does not receive pay or praise for obeying orders. But such a servant does avoid getting beaten or worse. This principle might be what Paul is referring to in some of his passages where he appears to deprecate obeying the Law. But I cannot be certain. I don’t speak New Testament Greek and I don’t have access to the conversations and letters Paul is responding to in his letters.

What I can say is: Jesus did refer to this principle, in language that easily crosses translation barriers. I leave it to the reader to determine whether Paul was referring to the same principle as Jesus in Luke 17.

Moreover, Jesus did spoke on ways we can actually earn “treasure in heaven.” Give to the poor. (This may require giving beyond a tenth to actually merit an actual credit.) See The New Levites for citations. Jesus also said that a repenting sinner brings more joy in heaven than 99 righteous persons [Luke 15]. I take this to mean that the missionary or evangelist who inspires others to repentance receives some heavenly commission. See also Mark 4, regarding those who “bear fruit.”

Finally, Jesus told his audience how to earn forgiveness : you will be forgiven as you forgive others. See The Power of Mercy for more details and citations. This is real work. Turning the other cheek is painful, both physically and emotionally. Forgiving debts is expensive. It’s generally cheaper to avoid sin in the first place than to have to make up for it.

And here we have a big problem. What of the sinner who has worked up a huge deficit? What if the price of mercy is too high? When so, the price of sin becomes a sunk cost. Might as well go all the way and forget about religion entirely. This was the position of Paul’s formerly pagan audience. How were they to make up for years of idol-worship, prayers to false gods, visits to temple prostitutes and other sins?

The answer is grace.

Grace in the Sacrificial Law

Grace is not a new concept. It did not appear with Jesus’ ministry. It can be found in the Old Testament. Finding it is not easy for many Christians. Reading the old books is quite a chore. They contain laws with harsh penalties, tedious genealogies, tedious census figures, and tedious descriptions of temple construction and sacrificial schedules. It’s easy to overlook important bits of knowledge.

The old books are a bit easier to read for those who believe them to be still relevant, those who attempt to follow more of old laws, such as remembering the Sabbath, obeying the dietary restrictions, and celebrating the Biblical holy days. The books were easier yet for Paul and his contemporaries. They didn’t need to puzzle over descriptions of the temple/tabernacle; they had an actual temple to look at. And they could see the schedule of sacrifices in action. Passages puzzling to modern Christians were thus straightforward to the earliest Christians.

Read Chapter 4 of Leviticus with fresh eyes. For those who zoned out by the many passages on animal sacrifices, it’s easy to miss the important point in this chapter: for inadvertent sins a sacrifice was required for atonement. For inadvertent sins a sacrifice was also sufficient for atonement. No further punishments were necessary.

Jesus fulfilled this requirement for the whole world. Temple sacrifices are no longer required, because the underlying principle has been fulfilled by other (superior) means. The underlying law has not been done away with [see Hebrews for more details]. God has allowed the Temple to be destroyed in order to make this point clear.

A pagan prior to conversion is ignorant of much of the Law; many of his sins are thus inadvertent. St. Paul wrote:

On multiple occasions St. Paul alluded to the idea that unbelief makes one less responsible for one’s sins.

Paul goes so far as to describe God winking at certain sins! (At least during a time of ignorance.) This fits quite well with Leviticus 4. It also fits with common sense notions of justice. Perhaps more importantly, it makes salvation possible and fair. How can a child from a tribe of head hunters be judged to the same standards as one who grows up on an Amish farm? And if one is to be saved from past sins by works, we have a huge unfair burden on those who had the wrong upbringing. Many would consider themselves to be damned despite any possible human efforts. With damnation a sunk cost, might as well enjoy sinning…

The opportunity to have a fresh start despite one’s past makes conversion worth the effort, regardless of where one is in life. This idea fits with the idea of baptism as rebirth, and of being “dead to the Law.” It also fits with the parable of the vineyard [Matthew 20].

But is “dead to the Law” an ongoing state? Or is it a description of one’s past prior to conversion to Christianity? I lean towards the latter interpretation. It is consistent with the idea of “counting the cost” and with the many passages on the importance of good works and not sinning. It is also consistent with the sacrificial law in Leviticus 4. I am not alone in making this connection:

Hmmm, it looks like we do in fact get a free pass for past sins before baptism, and perhaps knowledge in general, but after that, we are responsible! This is a scary concept. Indeed, the passage in Hebrews ends with:

Scared yet? Here is some more:

The Nature of Grace

I believe I have made a solid case that mere belief in Jesus is not an eternal Get Out of Jail Free card. Divine grace has limits. Christians have work to do, efforts to make. A rough model of divine grace would be: upon baptism/conversion, all is erased because your old self is declared dead. But then the accounting restarts. Effort is required.

But that’s a rough model. A living God is not a computer algorithm. God can grant grace when he wills. The Bible records at least two other scenarios where divine grace is commonly given:

1. Sincere repentance. Read the story of David. Read his psalms. David broke quite a few laws. But he could be quite sorry afterward. He did not treat laws he broke as done away with or irrelevant. Instead, he punished himself. He also sometimes received divine punishment before being fully forgiven.
2. Extenuating circumstances. God does at times grant a pass for extenuating circumstances. David was allowed to eat consecrated bread when he and his men were starving [Matthew 12]. Healing on the Sabbath is permitted, as is freeing an animal from a ditch. Several Old Testament heroes used lies and subterfuge in self/national defense.

There may be more. This article is not meant to the final word on grace. Common sense might be a good guide. How would you expect the police/legal system to treat you for breaking laws? Under what conditions would you get off for repentance/good behavior? When would paying a fine or community service suffice?

Don’t apply this metaphor too literally. God is not the same as our imperfect earthly justice system. Do take God as seriously as you take your local justice system.

Scratch that. Take God more seriously. The stakes are higher. Next, we shall more closely at those stakes. What exactly does the Bible say about the Afterlife?

*Many years before “The DaVinci Code” Dr. Gene Scott was covering the same material on his late night show. He would sit in his chair wearing a novelty hat, puffing on a cigar and reading from “Holy Blood, Holy Grail.”

Next: Is Hell a Translation Error?

In this Chapter:

• A Narrow Path
• A Pearl of Great Price
• The Fate of Unbelievers
• The Limits to Grace
• Is Hell a Translation Error?
• Who will go to Heaven?
• Crowns for the Saints
• Salt of the Earth
• A Christian Nation
• Appendix A: Problematic Passages
• Appendix B: More Faith vs. Works Quotes
• Appendix C: Sheol Quotes
• Appendix D: Hell Quotes
• Appendix E: Sleep Quotes

Copyright 2007-2008, Carl S. Milsted, Jr. All rights reserved.