5
The Reason for the Rules

Mishandling the Rules

It was one of the most exciting moments in young Ashly Erickson’s life. As the freshman first baseman for Central Lakes College, she had just hit a home run in the bottom of the seventh inning to break a 0–0 tie and give her team the 2009 Minnesota College Athletic Conference women’s softball championship. As she rounded third base several of her teammates, gripped by the euphoria of the moment, rushed out and gave her some high fives. That was the beginning of the end of the celebration. When Erickson touched home plate, the other team began shouting, “That’s an out! She’s out!” The opposing coach then informed the umpire of the rule that states teammates are not allowed to “touch a batter or base runner legally running the bases.” The umpire listened, shrugged, and called Erickson out. The game went into extra innings and, as you might have guessed, Central Lakes went on to lose 4–0. As ESPN columnist Rick Reilly recounts, “It was a walk-off-walk-back-on homer—the first game ever lost by congratulations.” Reilly goes on:

I hate this kind of crap. There’s nothing cheaper than using some tiny, unconnected technicality to rob somebody of her rightful moment of glory, won fair and square. It’s the cheapest thing in sports: an adult pencil-whipping some kid just because she can. And my e-mail box fills up with these kinds of stories all the time:

I lost the pine box derby because a den master said I didn’t fill out the form right.

They DQ’d our team because the coach found out I failed math class two years ago.

They said the goal didn’t count because my jersey was out.

Makes me want to chew a hole through my desk.36

I think we can all understand Reilly’s frustration. He is rightly angry at people who either create silly and vindictive rules or misuse rules in a silly and vindictive way, a way they were never intended to be used. For example, I suspect the rule against touching base runners was intended to stop teammates from giving each other any sort of unfair advantage over the other team. Fast players aren’t allowed to carry slow players around the bases, for instance. High-fiving a player who has already hit a home run offers no unfair advantage. While the letter of the law may have been violated by the congratulatory hand slap, the spirit certainly wasn’t. The rule was used for a purpose for which it was never intended. I doubt that the author of that particular injunction would have considered the coach and her players “good sports” just because they followed the regulation.

Unfortunately, this approach to rules is not confined to sports. In an all-too-familiar story, five-year-old Liam Adams was recently suspended for three days from his kindergarten class at Cheviot Elementary in Cincinnati for violating the rule forbidding “possessing a dangerous weapon or object.”37 The problem is that he didn’t possess a dangerous weapon or object at all. He brought a tiny plastic toy gun to school. It wasn’t a threat to anyone or anything. I think we all realize why schools have anti-gun rules: They are intended to keep kids safe. Why, then, was little Liam suspended? Because some administrator didn’t use the rule for its proper purpose. They followed the law as if the rules are good for their own sake. In this skewed view, sending a five-year-old home for having a toy pistol in his backpack is laudable for the simple reason that the rule was enforced.

I tell these sad stories because many skeptics view God in the way that Rick Reilly views the coach of the team that took away Ashly Erickson’s home run. They see God as a “pencil-whipping” adult who enforces silly and vindictive rules on us in an attempt to spoil our enjoyment of life and just because he can.

If there is one aspect of the Bible story the skeptics you talk to are likely to know, it is the fact that God hands down rules from on high. However, they won’t view the giving of this law as an act of grace, as the psalmist did (Psalm 119). Rather, they will probably understand the Ten Commandments (and the rest of the 613 rules in the Old Testament) as the edicts of a dictatorial taskmaster who loves to force people to jump through ridiculous hoops. For example, Christopher Hitchens speaks of God’s actions at Sinai as the work of an authoritarian ruler that resulted in tyranny.38

The foundational problem with this position is that it only sees the letter of the law and not the spirit. This view understands the law as an end in and of itself rather than a means to a different end. In other words, these skeptics think that the rules themselves are what God considers righteous. Those who obey, then, are by definition good. Righteousness becomes “doing the right things” and “not doing the wrong things.” A godly Christian is one who observes the rules.

For example, within this understanding of the law, I could put the Ten Commandments up on my wall and read them every night to evaluate how I’ve done that day. Did I murder anyone today? Nope. Check. Did I steal? Not a thing. Check. Did I have sex with anyone other than my wife? Negative. Check. Did I make or worship any statues? Not that I remember. Check. And on down the line. As long as I can check off everything (or at least most things) on the list of rules, I must be pretty righteous, right?

Wrong. The law is not an end in and of itself. It cannot be used as a checklist for measuring holiness. Rather, the law is a means to a different end: godly character. The rules are not intended to be an indicator of true holiness; they are designed to lead us to true holiness. To be truly righteous is to be a particular type of person. It is to exhibit certain inner character qualities. Being actually good according to God is not just about keeping the rules.

Adding Rules Upon Rules

Unfortunately, using commandments as a checklist for righteousness is very common among believers, so it is easy to see why skeptics would misunderstand the law. One reason so many people use the rules as a checklist is that it offers a straightforward and easy way of not only gauging one’s moral worthiness, but of making oneself appear and feel more and more righteous. This is done by adding to the list and keeping more commandments than are even in the Bible!

For instance, every church subculture seems to have many extra-biblical rules (written or unwritten) that people follow. “Come to church a certain number of times per week”; “Serve in some capacity, such as teaching Sunday school”; “Wear a certain type of clothing”; “Listen to a particular style of music”; “Don’t drink or smoke”; and so on. I once visited a church that had every congregant’s name on a list in the foyer. Beside each name was a row of boxes to check, each representing an activity that the people were to have taken part in the previous week. Did you read your Bible twice a day? Check. Did you evangelize at least five people this week? Check. These things were seen as signs of righteousness, even though they are not explicitly commanded by God anywhere. However, they do provide an easy way to quantify whether or not you are a good person. “Why, I am an elder of the church board, give eleven percent of my income, and told twenty people about God last week, for goodness’ sake. How much more holy can I get?”

Redefining the Rules

Treating the rules as a yardstick for holiness is also popular because it makes it easy to interpret the law in such a way as to allow for stuff that we want to do. So if the law teaches that I am not to gossip or lie about my neighbor, I can say, “Well, I didn’t lie and gossip about my neighbor—the person I was talking about lives two doors down.” A lot of teenagers I know have very explicit physical relationships with their boyfriends and girlfriends yet believe that they are doing nothing wrong because they didn’t actually have intercourse. They define fornication in such a way that they can have sex without actually having sex. Convenient isn’t it?

Hitchens rightly mocks this weasel-like approach to the rules, which he claims is prevalent among most religions. For example, he writes that Talmudic Judaism teaches:

Don’t do any work on the Sabbath yourself, but pay someone else to do it. You obeyed the letter of the law; who’s counting? The Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her. Shia Muslims offer “temporary marriage,” selling men the permission to take a wife for an hour or two with the usual vows and then divorce her when they are done.39

Hitchens concludes from these observations that the god of these religions would rather have “hypocritical and self-interested affectation of faith”40 than sincerity of heart, even sincere unbelief. In other words, Hitchens thinks the god of these religions is a tyrant because he is interested in an outward show of religious observations rather than a person’s inner heart condition. In this view, God would rather have the softball game lost over high fives than won by a legitimate home run hit by an excitable freshman. If Hitchens is correct, he has a point.

Being, Not Doing

But he is not correct, at least in regard to Christianity. The answer to Hitchens’ objection is that the God of the Bible evaluates these legalistic approaches to the law in the same way that Hitchens does. God also hates it and finds the hypocrisy of people who practice it appalling. There may be many who approach the rules as a benchmark of righteousness, but according to Christianity they are simply wrong, and skeptics are right to react negatively to it.

Instead of a standard for righteousness, God’s law should be seen as a means to that end. It is a tool with a threefold purpose: It is pedagogical, protective, and punitive. In other words, it teaches, it shields from harm, and it acts as a punishment for doing evil. In all of these roles the rules are intended to guide a person toward true righteousness. True righteousness is about possessing the character qualities of God. One does not become righteous simply by keeping those rules or any of the other regulations we come up with. Rather, we become righteous as we mature and develop godly virtues. Holiness is not about doing certain things; it is about being—being like Christ.

A Parental Approach to the Rules

My wife and I have a list of rules for our children. For example, they are not allowed to hit each other, they have to wash their hands before meals, and they must say “please” and “thank you” at the appropriate times. We have several reasons for these rules, including our desire to keep them safe from harm and diseases and to be relationally skilled. However, we are not at all interested in having the children grow up to be self-aware of how polite, clean, or socially adept they are. In other words, these rules are not to be used as an end in themselves. They are a means to a different end. My wife and I don’t want the kids to keep the rules for the sake of keeping the rules. They are meant to help lead them to develop certain good character and personality qualities; they are not indicators of those good qualities. If you have ever seen a child say “please” or “thank you” begrudgingly, you know how this truth plays out. The kid might say the right words, but that doesn’t mean he is actually polite or thankful.

If our daughter didn’t use the rules properly, she might grow up and think to herself, “I am such a cultured person. Look at how well-mannered and groomed I am. I am so thankful I had the proper upbringing.” That is just the opposite of what we want. These rules are in place to keep our kids humble, not make them proud. We want them to say “please” as a sign of respect and “thank you” as a sign of gratitude. The rule is designed to point their attention away from themselves and toward the person they are addressing. To use the rule to pat themselves on the back is exactly the opposite of its intended use.

While we strictly enforce the rule about not hitting, it is not a license for the kids to pinch. (“But I didn’t hit her!”) It is also not an indication that we want the children to cease touching each other at all. (“You said I can’t hit so I am never going to hug her again either!”) We want the interpersonal relationship rules to guide the children toward actually caring about the well-being of their siblings. In the same way, personal hygiene rules are intended to engender a respect for one’s body and a desire for healthy living. The heart condition is what is ultimately important; the rules are primarily a means to that end.

The Fulfillment of the Law

This is God’s approach to the rules as well, as Jesus explained in his famous discourse the Sermon on the Mount. Just as God gave the people the Ten Commandments from a mountain, Jesus climbed one to explain those rules more clearly (Matthew 5–7). He started with the sixth commandment:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, “You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.” But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother or sister, “Raca,” is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, “You fool!” will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Matthew 5:21–22

Not only are we not to kill one another, Jesus says, but we are not even supposed to get angry with each other. We can’t go to the rule list at the end of the day and check off number six and think we are doing all right. Instead of asking, “Did I kill anyone today?” we have to ask, “What was my attitude toward other people today?” This gets to the heart of the issue. God doesn’t only want to keep you from murdering someone; he wants you to be a forgiving, loving person. God desires a heart condition that is not quantifiable. The rule about murder is to be followed, but it is not the end of the issue. Rather, it is a means to a further end. That end is a pure heart.

Jesus continued: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27–28). Jesus says it is not enough not to have sex with someone who is not your spouse. You are not even to lust after someone. You are to be a faithful person in your heart. You are to use the law to develop a character quality, not treat it as a task to be checked off.

The Old Testament law was given to the world for the same reason rules are given to children: to lead them toward righteousness of the heart. The rules are to be kept, but are not the end-all and be-all of righteousness. Character is. The rules are for children. When children grow up, they should no longer need the rules to tell them what to do. Rather, they should be the kind of people that the rules meant for them to be. For example, if my child who is now four continues to say her prayers and say “please” and “thank you” only out of obedience to me when she is twenty-five, there is a problem. By that time she should be mature enough, humble enough, and thankful enough to do those things because they flow naturally from who she is. I don’t expect my son, who is now a toddler, to have to call me up when he is thirty to ask me how he should treat a co-worker who won’t share. He should be well beyond that. That is the point: Rules are necessary for the immature, but as a person grows, he shouldn’t need the rules anymore. The rules should have served their purpose and become superfluous. That is how God uses the rules as well. They are meant to lead us to being people of character.

Paul sums up this principle well and provides us with a nice list of qualities in Galatians 5: “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law” (vv. 22–23). Notice that the fruit of the Spirit consists entirely of character qualities. Also, look how Paul ends the list: Against such things there is no law! Why is there no law? Because the law is for those who have not yet developed character qualities. The rules are for children, for the immature. When one grows up, the law is no longer needed.

That was largely Jesus’ point to the Pharisees and other religious leaders of his day. They were the experts on the law, and as such should have realized that it was provisional. Instead, they treated it as the very embodiment of righteousness. Again and again Jesus scolded them with this passage, providing a good summary of his points:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Matthew 23:23–28

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. Righteousness is not keeping the letter of the law in an outward show of obedience; it is a heart condition. Righteousness is qualitative, not quantitative. The Pharisees were very good at checking items off their daily list of rules and duties, but they missed the point. Notice that Jesus tells them they have “neglected the more important matter of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.” This is just what we have been saying. God wants us to be a certain type of person: one that is just and merciful and faithful. God explains in Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” God does not need a percentage of our possessions as if that offering were good in and of itself. He desires that we be righteous on the inside. The Pharisaical approach to the law is exactly what Christopher Hitchens was talking about when he criticized the practice of paying others to work on the Sabbath. It turns out that Hitchens was exactly right. What he failed to realize is that Jesus beat him to the punch by about two millennia. God does not hand down rules just for the sake of watching us jump through hoops. Rather, he gives us the rules because he is interested in making us into the type of people who can live forever in familial communion with him. His goal is to make us mature adults.

The Unity of God’s Work

Clarifying the reason for the rules will help the skeptic understand the relationship between the law and true righteousness. It will also help him see the unity of God’s overall plan. Often unbelievers are confused by the fact that there are some rules we don’t follow anymore (such as Sabbath keeping), and that God seems to allow things in the Old Testament that he no longer finds acceptable in the new. For example, earlier I mentioned a listener named Justin who sent me an email asking why God wasn’t more concerned about slavery in the Old Testament. Part of my answer to Justin was that God had to accommodate the people in the moral condition they were in. It’s not that God wasn’t concerned about slavery; it’s that he was dealing with cultures that were morally immature. He implemented laws that were pedagogical, protective, and punitive within the context of their situation. For example, one part of the law prescribed taking “an eye for an eye” (Exodus 21:24). Today this rule is viewed by most people in the West as barbaric. However, compared to taking the life of an entire family, just taking another person’s eye is quite an improvement. The law was, in fact, a move toward civility in ancient Near-Eastern culture. “An eye for an eye” was not yet “Love your enemy,” but as Jesus explained (Matthew 5:38–42), its purpose was to move the people in that direction.

While it may seem to skeptics that God is inconsistent in the way he deals with people, the fact is that he is entirely consistent, but he is dealing with real people, not computer programs. He can’t just flip a switch or rewrite a line of code and make people instantly hate slavery or treat their neighbors with humility and love. He needs to relate to people in the immature state they are in and attempt to grow them up. This takes time and various means. So although it may look like God is changing the rules, in fact he is simply accommodating people in various cultures at various stages of history while keeping the overarching goal the same.

I applied the principle of accommodation when I worked for five years with inner-city youth. Part of our ministry involved taking kids from troubled backgrounds to the mountains for summer camp. Well, let’s just say that many of the youngsters I was in charge of at camp operated according to a different value system than that with which I had been raised. Hard street life was all they had ever known. Therefore, it was simply not realistic to expect them to behave like I did as a kid or like my own children do. Most of the urban youth simply weren’t spiritually or morally mature enough to do that.

As such, I adjusted my rules accordingly. For example, I gave junior high boys rules about hitting and stealing that my own son had mastered by the age of three. Rather than expect them to love their enemies, I tried to make them less dangerous to their enemies as a step toward that more distant goal. I also was much more lenient with my camp kids in regard to crude and vulgar language than I am with my children at home. Does that mean I wanted the inner-city youth to be foul-mouthed? Of course not, but I had to deal with reality. They simply were not going to be able to instantly and completely change the way they talked.

Now, if someone looked at the way I interacted with my camp kids compared to the way I parented my own children, they might say that I was inconsistent. Shouldn’t I have the same rules for both groups? The answer is no, and it’s not because I am inconsistent. The difference is not in me, but the kids. Rules that I implemented at camp would be completely unnecessary at home because the purpose of those rules had already been accomplished there.

As we have seen, this is what Jesus and Paul and the rest of the New Testament writers taught concerning the law. God was dealing with people where he found them. That is not to say he was content to leave them there. However, he had to deal with reality. He gave them rules pertaining to their situation and even condescended to allow them certain practices that he was not in favor of due to the hardness of their hearts. For example, Moses allowed the people to divorce as a protective measure for the women. Allowing an official divorce was better than having an unwanted wife turned out on her own, or worse. However, as Jesus explained, God has never approved of divorce. His allowance of it was strictly due to the immature state of the people (Matthew 19:7–9).

Conclusion

In the previous chapter I argued that the meaning of life is to love God and that he requires worship and sacrifice as a means to that end. In this chapter we talked about why God gave us the rest of the rules. Ultimately, they are given for the same purpose, because to love God is to enter into the blessed life of the Trinity, and that is only available to those who become like God. In other words, a relationship with God is not for those who just keep the letter of the law, but for those who actually become godly.