Law: What is it good for?
Romans 6:14 says:For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
What is Paul talking about here? What is meant by the terms ‘under law’ and ‘under grace’?
Or, in this passage:
For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. – Gal 2:19
Or here:
…the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. – Gal 3:24-26
Too often I hear the assertion that New Covenant/New Testament believers are not ‘under law’, without any definition of what is meant by these terms. So, to illustrate:
Is it perfectly OK for me to lie as a professing Christian? Hey, as long as I don’t make a practice of it like 1 John warns, why worry about the sometimes necessary pains it takes to always tell the complete truth?
Is it perfectly OK for me as a professing believer to commit adultery in my heart by lusting after women other than my wife? Hey, as long as I don’t actually commit the act, then its ‘washed in the blood’ and water under the bridge, correct?
Well, there are several answers that can be given to these questions, one of which is how Paul responded to in Romans 6: Do we sin though that grace may abound? Certainly not!
However, my aim today is to show that in order for the term ‘sin’ to even exist, there must be a definition or standard by which to measure. By necessity, the use of the term ‘sin’ implies a law. Is it a sin to lie? Of course! Thus, there is a ‘law’, or a ‘precept’, or a ‘standard’ (all synonyms of God’s law) by which sin is measured. As it says in the book of 1st John, sin is lawlessness, as it is any breaking of the law.
So, unless you believe that in the New Covenant there is absolutely no standard whatsoever given to the Christian, then you must deal with the fact that there is still a ‘law’, and Christians are commanded to obey it. Also consider that the church cannot practice church discipline if there is no law. We cannot ‘know them by their fruits’ if there is no law. Ultimately, we cannot even know how to ‘live Godly in this present age’, if there is no law.
I say these things because I would like to write some future posts on the law vs. grace debate, along with the Dispensational, Covenant, and New Covenant Theology disagreements on this subject as well. This will serve as a simply 'defining our terms' post so that the air is clear before we start throwing around terms such as 'law'. Speak now if you disagree with the assessment that anything that is a sin is a law, and that as Chrisitians, we are commanded and obligated to obey what God has commanded.
Conclusion:
When I use the term 'law' from here on out (to refer to that which is commanded and expected of New Testament Christians), I am referring to any thought, word, or deed which God considers a sin. When I use the term 'law', I am never referring to a external standard of conduct that justifies or condemns those who place faith in Christ. Salvation is by faith through grace, and is a gift from God, not a result of works.
SDG
23 Exhortations:
When I use the term 'law', I am never referring to a external standard of conduct that justifies or condemns those who place faith in Christ.
For the New Covenanter (me anyway), 'law' is always an external standard of conduct.
The 'law of Moses' is one of these external standards. This is the 'law' that Christians are not under.
However there is also the 'law of Christ' that is an external standard of conduct. This is the 'law' that Christians are under. This law goes further than the 'law of Moses' because in addition to be an external standard of conduct, it has also been written on the hearts of believers.
And that is the overwhelming testimony of Paul in his letter to the Galatians.
Jeremy,
Good clarification about the ‘externality’ of the law. But I would disagree with you on the ‘law of Christ’.
When I say that the law is external, I mean specifically that it has absolutely no power to justify or commend us to God. Remember, the law is good, but we are not.
With that understanding, I also affirm that when the Spirit brings forth new life in the believer, that He writes what was external into our hearts so that it becomes internal. We now love God’s law, we have the power to obey it in the Spirit, and it is no longer a ‘ministry of death’. It has no power over us, so why should it be a ministry of death? Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Instead, the formerly ‘death’ aspect of the law now serves as a goad to push us to Christ. We know look at the law as instruction to righteousness (2 Tim 3:16), and as a constant reminder of our depravity and need for Christ. If there is no constant reminder of the law, then there will not be a constant reminder to run to Christ.
But, contrary to NCT, I don’t believe Christ brought a new law. Instead, I believe He exegeted the real purpose of the law, which is the means for showing NC believers their sin in the face of the Pharisees who thought they obeyed it.
In summation, and one day I will post on this, but I believe that God’s law given at Sinai and reaffirmed by Christ and His Apostles, is fixed and rooted in His moral nature, and that only God Himself has the authority to repeal any of the commands. We are to assume continuity between the Old and New Testaments except where the scriptures state otherwise (Hebrews takes care of the ceremonial and civil aspects of the law).
But maybe you could elaborate more on Galatians, for I’d be interested to know what passages you are referring to.
SDG
Nathan: Romans 6 would answer your question. It's the Holy Spirit in us that causes us not to want to sin. It's Phil. 1:6. It's not the law. The law shows our need for a savior. We sin Nathan. We are forgiven through Christ's death and resurrection. We want to be holy, not because of the law, but because we are new creations .
Well, for one thing, Paul never once in the whole letter to the Galatians (and I believe this is true for the rest of his writings) tells the Galatians to view the law as a goad to push us to Christ (I'm assuming you mean this in a 'third use of the law per Calvin' sense and not necessarily in the sense in which Paul tells us that the law of Moses was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ initially).
I'm about to start work now, but I'll try to locate a link from Campi's blog where he and I debated this and amail it to you.
I mean email.
No, no, Jeremy.
You said "amail"- now you have to air mail it to Nathan.
Jeremy,
You said: "For the New Covenanter (me anyway), 'law' is always an external standard of conduct.
The 'law of Moses' is one of these external standards. This is the 'law' that Christians are not under.
Are you saying that Christ brought a new law? If this is what you are saying I must wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Jeremy,
BTW brother, I think its crystal clear throughout the entire book, that the law spoken about in Galatians was the ceremonial law, not the moral law. The entire context of Galatians is exclusively circumcision. The Juddaizers were not propagating the idea of the moral law as a means of justification, but rather the ceremonial law.
That's why Paul in Philippians 3 could say that he followed the law blamelessly. He was not talking about the moral law, but rather the ceremonial law.
Davide,
I think cutting up the mosaic law into ceremonial and moral sections is the farthest thing from Paul's mind. Where he speaks of the law of Moses, he always speaks of it as a whole.
And yes, I believe Christ is the new lawgiver. The parallels could not be clearer in Matthew. After his baptism he spends forty days in the wilderness and almost immediately goes up into a mountain to give his law.
The point of contention that we will encounter in this is what he means when he says in Matthew 5:17 that he did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.
Here's the link I emailed to Nathan;
The Importance of the Subject of Law and the Gospel
My comments are made as the Doxoblogist.
This debate marked my 'conversion' to NCT, regarding the law. So I may have revised my views a little since then.
Basically, Steve's post on the law happened at the very time I was teaching through Galatians, and I was not able to reconcile what he posted (which I formerly believed) and what I was reading.
Unfortunately I have to get to work in a minute, so I'll have to read that post later tonight.
You said: "And yes, I believe Christ is the new lawgiver. The parallels could not be clearer in Matthew. After his baptism he spends forty days in the wilderness and almost immediately goes up into a mountain to give his law."
However, as we would both probably agree, we don't base our doctrine on resembling 'parallels,' so I would not use Christ fasting 40 days as an argument for Christ giving a new law.
Christ said the two greatest commandments that could be summarized IN THE LAW, were:
1. Love God with all our heart, soul and mind.
2. Love our neighbor as ourself.
Are you trying to say that we are not longer under the obligation of these commandments?
Nope.
I tend to think that "nomos" in Paul's writings almost always (if not always) refers to the Law of Moses (even Romans 3:27; Rom. 8:2a).
A good example of Paul means by the phrase "under the law" is found in 1 Cor. 9:20-21.
"20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law."
OK, OK,
Andrew, I think he meant 'amillennial', in which we are in agreement.
A few observations concerning the comments made above:
-Debbie, good comment, I agree.
-Regarding the book of Galatians being about ceremonial: I say yes and no. Yes, that is the topic, however, the point of Paul's entire letter to that Galatians concerned justification. That, unfortunately, is not the topic of this post. It is here where I believe NCT's fall off the cliff, for they fail to understand that Paul is making a case for justification of natural-born sinners, and that he is dealing with the misapplication of the law within 2nd temple Judaism.
-Cutting up the law into ‘sections’ of moral, civil, and ceremonial, are certainly OK due to the fact of how the law is used in the New Testament. The moral law of the OT is repeated numerous times, while the ceremonies are abolished. Even Jesus made a distinction in the law when He compared Sabbath breaking to healing, and tithing to justice and mercy, the ‘weightier’ matters of the law.
-I agree with the imagery, Jeremy, of Christ coming out of the desert and going up on the mountain. However, this wasn’t to signal a new law, but to symbolize His authority as the interpreter and original giver of the law. Moses didn’t write those commandments, did He? Instead, Jesus did, and He visits earth in bodily form to exegete that law. It's called progressive revelation. The real purpose, nature, and obedience to the law came through Jesus, not through Moses. But the law itself did not change, for God does not change. Jesus never, ever gives a command that cannot be found in the Old Testament law. Never. A new law means a new law, not a supernatural change in the people under the law, which is of course what happens to us in the New Covenant.
-Daniel, for the most part I agree with you. However, my position is that the law was never abolished, as Jesus said He did not come for that, but rather, when Paul uses the term ‘law’, he is nailing down the point that the law can do nothing of justification/righteousness.
SDG
Jeremy,
You said: "I think cutting up the mosaic law into ceremonial and moral sections is the farthest thing from Paul's mind. Where he speaks of the law of Moses, he always speaks of it as a whole."
This is simply not true. What about the Romans 2:14-1 "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness..."
Surely, the Gentiles did not have the ceremonial and civil law written in the hearts!
Here's the simple biblical reality that Nathan pointed out, which we all must agree with. Without the law, it would be impossible to know what sin is. According to the apostle John, sin is defined as the transgression of the law.
Secondly, this law existed before Moses. Lying was still sin. Adultery was still sin. Idolatry was still sin. Whether the commandments are repeated in the NT or not, doesn't matter because the law condemned sinners before and after Moses. Again, that's why Gentiles who did not have the law, are still condemned, because it is written in their consciences! Therefore, it is an undisputable, self-evident reality that the law plays an integral part of every believer and nonbeliever's life, by giving us a standard of right and wrong, and thereby drawing us to Christ.
Secondly, Christ's teaching that we should love God with all our heart and soul and mind, and our neighbor as ourselves were not new commandments. This is clearly
evinced by the fact that Christ asked one the Pharisees what were the two greatest commandments, and without hesitation answered with these two commandments.
Jeremy,
Well I waded through all 100+ comments at the link you posted. I'll be expecting my merit badge shortly. :)
As I suspected, I find much to agree with you about.
I have to be honest and say that I think Tim Brown asked some tough questions of your position that maybe you weren't really ready to answer at the time...maybe that's changed by now.
I do think, as you have said here, the great challenge to your position lies in two things:
1) Dealing with Matthew 5:17 so that it can wind up saying the opposite of what it seems to say on the surface (i.e. that Christ really did come to abolish the Law, though He says He didn't...)
and 2) Defining with some (maybe not perfect) precision what you mean by "the law of Christ" as distinct from the law delivered by Moses.
So, I do look forward to your interaction with Nathan's future posts on this topic.
David,
Great point, about the two greatest commandments. They were, of course, commandments contained in the Law of Moses; and therefore I'm unsure about why it would be right to extract them and claim them as the "the law of Christ" as a thing distinct from the law of Moses.
Dispensationalists have long posited a "law of Christ." The rub has always been in trying to define exactly where that law is different than found in the torah.
If a command or principle must be repeated in order for it to remain in effect, then the New Covenant must allow for bestiality. It was prohibited by Moses, but no repitition of that prohibition is found in the New Testament. That is the sort of problem that is typically encountered.
Gordan,
Matthew 5:17ff. is the crucial point. I'm going to be arguing my side on Nathan's latest post when I get a chance to actually take the time needed to explain the exegesis of the passage.
As for a definition of the 'law of Christ', I'm going to have to stick with anything that Christ and his Apostles commanded and the moral law that has continued from creation.
One clarification; the law of Moses contains many moral laws that should be obeyed, but their incorporation into the Mosaic code does not make the law of Moses and the moral law equals.
So like all of you, I believe ther are moral laws contained in the law of Moses, and many of them are readily identifiable, but holding up the law of Moses as a standard of conduct for New Covenant believers is a position thatI believe cannot be defended according to Scripture.
Here's what I'm saying said much better.
Desiring God on the Covenants
Personally, even from that statement from Piper's website (above), I have a hard time believing that Piper is NCT. I've listened to his series on Romans, and I've read a good bit of his material.
Now, Piper certainly isn't a huge theologian; he knows a good bit of theology, no doubt, but I wouldn't consider him a theologian per se. Not like MacArthur, Sproul, James White, etc. He knows one subject very well (God's sovereignty and J Edwards theology), but you wouldn't hear him preaching, say, through the book of Daniel or Revelation. Hebrews, yeah maybe.
Anyway, I don't consider Piper a NCT, even though he agrees with some of their distinctions. He is definitely covenantal, though not full-fledge because he isnt a sabbatarian. Not only that, but wasn't it last year that he put forward a motion in his church to allow people to count their baby baptism as real baptism?
Amillennial mail, Nathan?
No wonder you got his article so fast.
Good thing he didn't say he'd pmail (post-millennial mail) it to to you, or none of us might be around to carry on this conversation by the time it came.
I think I'm in the same boat with Piper. I only lean NCT.
Post a Comment