Grace v2.0

Jump to Comments

Thielman’s chapter titled Grace in place of grace: Jesus Christ and the Mosaic Law in John’s Gospel in his book, The Law and the New Testament (Herder & Herder, 1999) is very informative when considering the relationship of Jesus to the Mosaic Law He was so often accused of having disregarded. A casual reader of the Gospel of John could mistake Jesus’ approach to the Law as less than zealous. However, this notion is dispelled with the help of Thielman. His proposal is simple: Jesus came to fulfill and replace the Law of Moses, not to disrespect and dispose of it. It is with this fulfillment and replacement motif in mind that John could the phrase “grace in place of grace” charin anti Charitos. The Jews want nothing to do with Jesus’ interpretation of the Mosaic Law that is the context of all the arguments with Him. The prologue only introduces the reader to concepts found fully revealed later in the Gospel. Thielman outlines three steps in discovering the meaning of “grace in place of grace”.
First, he observes the two great legal controversies that faced Jesus: His attitude toward the Sabbath and His claim of equality with God. Beginning in chapter 5 of John, Jesus begins interacting with the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath and its importance in light of other Laws. The Pharisees charge Jesus on two counts: doing work (healing) and influencing others to disobey the Sabbath (”take up your mat”). Later in chapter 8, Jesus heightens the anger of the Pharisees against Him by claiming equality with God (vs. 12ff). Jesus’ defense on both counts is simple. He asserts in both chapters 5 and 9 that the Jews search the Scriptures to find eternal life in them and set their hope on Moses. They fail to realize the role of the Law as a witness to someone (Jesus) beyond itself and thereby making Moses (who no longer intercedes for them) to become their accuser. Further, in His defense, Jesus levels two other charges against the Jews concerning the Mosaic Law. The Jews violated the sixth commandment when they attempted to kill Him (7:19-24). The hypocrisy of the Jews is also unmasked when they judge the crowd for choosing Jesus or their understanding of the Law and belittles them for it (7:49). Immediately after this exchange, Nicodemus, one who allegedly understands the Law makes an appeal to Law that is not found. Thielman claims the interaction between Jesus and the Jews and Pharisees in chapters 5-10 reveals that Jesus stands above the Law as its termination and fulfillment.
Second, he examines the ways in which Jesus’ person and teaching replace the Law. Thielman introduces the reader to how Jesus’ sign at the wedding at Cana is a replacement of the Jewish purification rituals. This sign is immediately followed by the claim of Jesus’ body being a replacement for the Temple. Thielman is excellent in taking the reader through the three pilgrimage festivals prescribed in the Mosaic Law (Passover, Unleavened Bread, and Booths) showing Jesus’ interaction with them as well as His fulfillment of them. Finally Jesus “replaces”, according the Thielman, the Mosaic Law with a new commandment of His own
Last, Thielman applies two aspects revealed in John’s approach to the Law to his statement in 1:16-17. When returning to the phrase “grace in place of grace” Thielman claims that John recognizes the Law’s positive relationship to Jesus as well as the fact that Jesus, because of the revelation He brought with Him, supercedes the Law. Jesus never claimed the Mosaic Law was graceless. “The Mosaic Law was characterized by grace; but its measure of grace pales in comparison with what has become available with the appearance of Jesus Christ. Believers, John claims, have drunk deeply from the fullness of the incarnate Word and, in doing do, have replaced the grace of the law with the true grace of Jesus Christ.”
Many of Thielman’s arguments are valid and well made. He has interacted with scripture very well and given a good synopsis of Jesus’ position contrasted with the Jews/Pharisees. However, as one reads his argument, this reader cannot see a “termination” as he claims. A fuller understanding maybe, a pointing to something bigger than the Law, definitely. Also, as one reads the word “termination”, he can’t help but think of Matthew 5:17 in which Jesus says, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” Even though this passage obviously is not found in John, the direct words of Jesus must be addressed when using words such as “termination.” One is right in asserting that the grace of the law is replaced with the grace found in Jesus Christ. This does not necessarily eliminate or terminate the Law, aspects of this Law are in place today, the application is only different. The Law can still point to Jesus Christ in retrospect. While the grace of the Law can be defined as “terminated” because of an upgrade to “grace 2.0″, the Law remains as a signpost to Jesus Christ.

2 Comments

Filed under New Testament