Deuteronomy: Terms of the Covenant
These final sermons of Moses bring the Torah to a close.
Law professor John Eidsmoe explains how Jesus uses the law to show “Rich Young” his need for a Savior.
The Rich Young Ruler.mp3 (John Eidsmoe)
Below, you can find John’s bio on the Gospel Martial Arts Union website and a page where you can purchase his books.
Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia has shown us the importance of being set free from the laws demands. We’ve also seen how the cross frees us from the grip of sin – when we trust in Jesus and receive His new resurrection life. Only the cross of Jesus can free us from the burden of the law and the power of sin at the same time.
We cultivate the fruit of the Spirit through daily individual decisions in which we reject the flesh and yield to the Holy Spirit. These decisions add up over time and put us on a trajectory to more productive Christian living. We are beginning to “walk by the Spirit”. A “walk” implies both direction and empowerment; The Holy Spirit gives the believer both of these.
Consider these pairs of Polar Opposites: Plus and Minus, Night and Day, Black and White, Light and Darkness, Win or Lose, Right and Wrong, Life and Death, Heaven and Hell.
Now let’s add one to it: Law and Grace. Grace and Law should be treated as Polar Opposites; it’s vital that we see this difference for what it is.
This week we are in Galatians 1:11-24. In Galatians 1:15, Paul says God “separated me from my mother’s womb” and called him to a very specific ministry.
This is a thread that runs all through the Bible. Abraham, for example, was promised a son (and a whole bunch of descendants, for that matter) some 25 years before the birth of Isaac. Jeremiah was called to be a prophet “Before God formed him in the womb” (Jer. 1:5). And so on, we could follow this thread for a very long time. Therefore, abortion has long been frowned upon by those who take the Bible as authoritative.
There is, however, another argument in favor of a pro-life stance which does not rest on biblical authority (an unacceptable basis in American political culture these days). Here is how it goes and I welcome all comments and counter-arguments. Thanks to Norman Geisler for stating the case similarly (2004).
Both the right to life and the right to liberty are important values to both sides. The controversy is really only over which value applies in the case of abortion.
There is good reason for anyone to believe that an unborn child or fetus is a person. For example it has its own:
This list could go on and on. Therefore, many would agree that such details make the unborn child, or fetus if you insist, a unique person. This is a convincing set of facts. Can we at least allow that it seems difficult to prove otherwise? For example, can we prove conclusively in the face of such evidence that it was simply part of the mother’s body – and not a person at all?
Now, for the sake of argument, let’s still say the question is up in the air and we’re still uncertain. Maybe it’s a person and maybe not. Therefore, an abortion may kill a person or it may not.
In that case, the pro-life stand is still preferable to pro-choice, because it is reckless to do anything that has a 50-50 chance of killing an innocent human being. Would you throw a bowling ball off a bridge onto a freeway because an innocent person might not die? Remove the railing from your balcony? Shoot a gun into a dark room? Caution dictates that the right to life has to take priority over the right to liberty.