With the recent marriage ruling by the Supreme Court, I’ve seen several people on Facebook link to this 2012 Gospel Coalition article by Tim Keller: Making Sense of Scripture’s “Inconsistency”.
Keller sought to give a brief explanation as to why Christians still seem to hold to Old Testament teaching that condemn homosexuality yet “ignore lots of Old Testament texts—about not eating raw meat or pork or shellfish, not executing people for breaking the Sabbath,” etc. Keller addressed the charge that Christians seem to be inconsistent in what they accept from the Old Testament, and especially the Law, and what they do not.
As a staunch Presbyterian, Keller did not surprise in his explanation to divide the Law into the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral. As his and the typical “reformed” explanation goes: the church is not a theocratic nation-state so we are not bound by the civil, Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial as the great sacrifice so we are not bound by those either, but God’s ethic does not change so we are still bound by the moral.
I agree with the line of thinking in this way: God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; in him there is no shifting of shadows; and his nature has defined the true north of the moral compass for all eternity.
However, being from the Show Me State I have to reply with a skeptical “show me” when it comes to the overarching argument itself: Where in Scripture do we ever find such a breakdown of the Law and how do we know what Laws belong where?
On the one hand, yes do not murder is clearly a moral issue; but what about that law from Deuteronomy 22:8 that says you must build a fence around your roof so you’re not guilty of bloodshed if someone falls off? That certainly seems like a moral issue, yet I don’t see too many roof fences around. Of course, some would say, “Well, the application of that principle today would be…”—fair enough, but it still shows a point: we can be kind of inconsistent with the “moral laws” as well.
I would say that the Bible offers a better response than the standard Reformed breakdown, and that is: We are not under the Law at all. Some of you will surely agree, others of you just shared a collective gasp—hold that breath for a moment. To say that we are not under the Law at all is not necessarily to become an anything goes antinomian, as I’ll detail below. Like I said: God’s moral character is unchanging; but I believe the New Testament teaches that when Christ came the Law—the entire Law had served its purpose and no longer holds sway over us. Instead, we are remade in Christ with new hearts, new desires, and the Holy Spirit dwelling within us who leads us into a new kind of law, what Paul calls the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and James the law of liberty (James 1:25) and royal law (2:8). This law could be called the law of love as it was defined by Jesus in Matthew 22 as love God and love your neighbor.
So, for example, we don’t ‘not murder’ because it was written on tablets of stone thou shalt not murder; we don’t murder because we love our neighbor and love always seeks the good of another.
I would argue that the clearest text about this is the entire book of Galatians. There, Paul dealt with a situation in the churches of Galatia where certain teachers from a staunchly Jewish background had crept in and told the Gentile Christians, “Faith in Jesus is good, but if you really want to be part of the Family, then you have to be circumcised as well.” To say that this ticked off Paul would be an understatement.
His argument about faith and the Law begins in earnest in 2:15 and follows through most of the rest of the letter. Some highlights include Paul’s insistence that no one will be justified by keeping the Law (2:16), in Christ we are dead to the Law (2:19), and that the Holy Spirit comes upon a person by faith and not by keeping the Law (3:2).
Then Paul weaved his way to the purpose of the Law. In 3:24-25 he called it a “guardian.” In other words, the Law kept watch over God’s people “until Christ came.” Since Christ has come, Paul argued, “We are no longer under a guardian.” That is about a clear of a statement on the issue one comes across: The Law was a guardian until Christ came; Christ came and we are no longer under the guardian; therefore, in Christ we are no longer under the Law.
Paul did not make a distinction between different types of law. He simply pointed back to the Law as a whole. And if we are confused on that point, in 4:21-31 he spoke of Hagar and Sarah in an allegorical fashion. He called one a slave woman who bears children for slavery (Hagar), and the other a free woman who bears children for freedom (Sarah). Then Paul called Hagar Sinai and Sarah the Jerusalem above (which could be taken as Zion).
Of course, the most famous thing about Sinai, and Paul’s point in context, is that it was the place Moses received the Ten Commandments and then additional laws giving further explanation to the Ten—the items some know as moral, ceremonial, and civil laws. Paul then wrote, “‘Cast out the slave woman and her son…’ So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (4:30-5:1). In other words: you’re free from the Law, the entire Law, so quit trying to submit to certain parts of it.
Now Paul was well aware that a misunderstanding here could lead to antinomianism. So after a brief trek back to the issue of circumcision, he returned to the idea of freedom from the Law and wrote, “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:13-14). Here we find a reference back to Jesus’ Matthew 22 summary of love: “On these two commands hang the entire Law and prophets;” and we find a response to irresponsible antinomianism.
It’s not do whatever you want, do what feels right, redefine your morality. No, Paul doubled down on the unchanging morality of God. But he came at it from a different way. Instead of words on stone, we have the Spirit of the God who defines true morality within us.
In our state of sin apart from Christ we were bound by the flesh. Paul said, “The works of the flesh are evident.” And the very first thing he mentioned is sexual immorality. Ultimately, the Bible always takes sexual ethics back to Genesis 2, before the fall: one man, one woman, bound together as husband and wife, sharing one flesh. Anything else, including heterosexuality and homosexuality, is defined under sexual immorality—a work of the flesh, not of the Spirit.
Likewise, Paul listed under fleshly works: impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of envy, drunkenness, orgies, and the likes. And those who practice such things “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Instead, being in Christ and having his Spirit we are freed from the Law and free to live in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. “Against such things there is no law.” Thus, we are free to live by something greater: the character the Spirit of God within us produces. Whether we’re talking heterosexual desires or homosexual desires, self-control is the very thing that leads us to be able to abstain from sexual relations outside of a Genesis 2 one flesh definition.
Side note here: Paul wrote about this in shorter order in 2 Corinthians 3 where he contrasted letters carved in stone with the ministry of the Spirit—a clear reference to the Ten versus the Spirit within.
Now this is not to say that the Law is without purpose today. Though it is no longer a guardian holding sway over us, Paul wrote that it still proves we are sinners in need of a greater righteousness (Galatians 3:19, cf. Romans 7 where Paul also states in 7:6 that we are “released from the Law” before going onto speak about the purpose of the Law).
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus even upped the game a bit by teaching that with the Law it’s not merely about the exact commands but the heart behind them. Anger and hate are akin to murder even if you don’t carry out the physical act (Matthew 5:21-26, cf. 1 John 3:15). Lust is adultery even if you never crawl into bed with someone other than your spouse (5:27-30). That was the Pharisee’s problem, after all, they had down the literal keeping of the Law. They obeyed the letters carved into stone. But their hearts were far from God and they ultimately were guilty Law breakers because of it.
Yes, Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he did not come to abolish the Law and that not the smallest bit would pass away “until all is accomplished.” But he is the One who accomplished all through his life, death, resurrection, and ascension. That is ultimately what Paul was arguing, and even James, and also the entire book of Hebrews.
Unlike Keller’s viewpoint, shared by many wearing the Reformed label, it’s not that we are bound by certain aspects of the Law but not by others, depending on if it’s civil, ceremonial, or moral. No, it’s much simpler than that: everything changed through Jesus. The Child of Promise came—the One promised before the Law and the One who frees us from the Law.
Yes, we are still called to hold to God’s moral proclamations but not because they were encoded in Law, rather because they transcend what was given to Moses on Sinai. Instead of being bound by that which was first carved into stone, we are free—free to live for something greater than our fleshly desires, free to live by the Spirit because Jesus fulfilled every iota and every dot in what he accomplished.
That, I believe, is the most consistent way.
One of the clearest, short articles, that I have ever read on this subject. Absolutely wonderful. Bless you.
I agree with Daniel…. Nice job!
Theocratic musings and diversions make for huge wastes of time IMHO. The loci of law is instructive, as you have pointed us to……
Mike, I appreciate your post. I did not find much I disagree with here, but I am also not sure we need to draw much of a distinction between Keller’s approach and yours. I doubt Keller would disagree with much of what you have written here either. It seems to me that Keller is answering a different question than you, and thus gives a different answer. He is answering the objection that someone may raise concerning why Christians believe homosexual activity is sinful, but do not believe that eating shell fish is sinful. You seem to be answering a broader, “What is our relationship to the Law as Christians?” kind of question. Obviously the two are very much related, but they are not the exact same question. I think you do a good job of answering the question I understand you to be answering. But if I asked you why Christians believe homosexual activity as sinful, but do not believe that eating shellfish is sinful, I would be confused by your answer.
Maybe my response doesn’t make much sense either. Just trying to interact a bit with some thoughts I had while reading your post. Thanks for putting the time you did into writing the post and giving us all something to think about.
I think what we find in Keller’s argument is that Christians are not free from the law, but only the ceremonial and civil. But not the moral. It ends up making an awkward relationship with the Ten for instance: We’re bound to all but that Sabbath one.
I’m saying that none of the 10 or any law applies to us as laws.
Instead of saying, “we’re under all the moral but nothing else, and here’s what’s what” as Keller; I’m saying we’re under none, but as Christians we still don’t practice the works of the flesh because the Spirit leads us away and under a better “law”.
Yes, the conclusion of “we don’t do this as Christians is the same” but the “why” is different.
Keller answers why in saying only part of it is binding. I answer why by saying none is. We both want to eliminate the charge of inconsistency… I just, obviously, think my defense is more consistent with the biblical texts.
Mike,
“I’m saying that none of the 10 or any law applies to us as laws.”
None of the ten applies to us? Not murder? Not adultery?
Not as words on stone as such.
If the Spirit is leading is in love and peace and goodness and putting off the old self that wanted to break the laws, then we won’t be murderers or adulterers.
It’s like I said in the post: We don’t “not murder” as followers of Jesus b/c the 10 says it. We “not murder” b/c the Spirit leads us to live neighbor instead.
That’s what I get from Galatians, etc. Where Paul wrote we’re not under the law, we’re to car out the “slave woman”–referring to the law, we’re to live free, but not use our freedom as a covering for evil but instead walk by the spirit.
Cast out not car out…
I see what you’re saying Mike. We should not murder our neighbor and not covet his stuff etc. because we love our neighbor. And also, we should not worship other gods b/c we love the one true God.
But that’s not distinctly NT. I do know Jesus said “And He said to him, “‘YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.’ 38″This is the great and foremost commandment. 39″The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’…”
But he was simply quoting the law itself from DT and Lev.:
Dt. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.a 5Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6These commandments that I give you today are to be on your hearts.”
Lev. “”‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
So Jesus was not bringing up something new. Obedience to God’s moral law has always been from the heart, not because of the stone tablet.
Anyway, God bless.
Adam,
That distinction is important. “Not” eating shellfish is built on the premise of requirement to law. “Degrading passion” (path?) in the context of Romans 1, is foundational to created order. Eating shellfish, was disobedience in context to the Levitical law (where liberty through Christ is obedience today), where then and now (and into eternity…Romans) “degrading passion” continues to be consistently defined by creation.
Christ’s freedom for mankind to eat shellfish is well documented, along with the His continued affirmation concerning sexual relationships according to His created order. Comparing attributes of a law fulfilled (made complete through Christ) to the created order continuum, reveals a real demarcation of understanding.
Again, an important distinction in this debate over the validity of scripture and the homosexual experience!
Adam expressed my views better than I could. At the same time I am in agreement with the fact that we are not under the law. Simple statesmen, simple concept! I have not read Keller extensively but being a Reformed Baptist I too appreciate the categorization of the law into different types, but I do not ever say, “Now the Moral law we are under but not the others.” I’m not convinced Keller says that either. I could be wrong on that but I think that’s the way you read him.
The question I am confronted with time to time is not “how does a Christian live in light of the pentateuch?” but, “Why are you Christians so inconsistent about the laws of God? Why aren’t you stoning kids for being disrespectful and why do you have mixed fabrics in your clothes?”
I Could have sworn I typed Statement – how did it come out statesmen?
Clark,
“I do not ever say, “Now the Moral law we are under but not the others.” I’m not convinced Keller says that either. I could be wrong on that but I think that’s the way you read him.”
If I read what you mean here correctly, I think it would be true of Keller that he would affirm Christians still under the moral law, all 10, but definitely not the OT civil and ceremonial. He confesses the WCF which states that we are under the moral but not the civil or ceremonial.
God bless.
Adam,
I’m in the same denomination as Keller. I think you are right as you read this. And Mike you acknowledge much of the result is the same. I don’t really see the conflict.
The moral law was and always will be about love. The two tables of the law are about our duties (our of love) toward God and toward man.
As well, there seems to be several places where it can be legitimately argued that the moral law is still binding on Christians. Here are a few:
Matt. 5:17-19; James 2:8 (cf. Lev. 19:18), 11-12; Eph. 6:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:19;
As to the sabbath, no we are not exempt from that one. Most of us just ignore it though.
Thanks for the article Mike.
That’s right Les… the “moral” law has never left effect. It was there previous to the Levitical law, and it continues in reference to it. The Levitical law is a parenthesis in the workings of God and the revealing of the Messiah. Some people try to conflate the demands within the freedoms,…that would be a backward response to what God has shown in Christ to mankind and how his bride exists in the world.
And this is where the arguments would show divergence.
I would say that while taking a day to rest each week is wise, a demand for Sabbath obedience is not binding in the old way. For the arguments above, for I think Colossians 2 where Paul mentions Sabbaths and other days, and Hebrews where it says that Christ is our Sabbath rest. So to be in him through faith is to perpetually Sabbath from dead works.
I’ve heard some argue that our Sabbath is now Sunday–it switched to the Lord’s Day… I actually used to argue that until I realized I couldn’t actually find that in scripture.
We’re exempt from Sabbath keeping. Either that or Seventh Day Adventists are correct. Which is it? 😉
I guess having “one” day was a good start for a stiff necked people to begin to realize that Messiah was in front of them. Many are still going through the motions (checking off the law list)…. even in our churches today.
Les,
With all due respect, we are definitely not under the sabbath requirement. Romans 14:5-6; Col. 2:16-17
Greg,
Don’t even mention any possibility of Seventh-day Adventist being correct – we might have to re-invite Ben Carson!
Lol. 🙂 Couldn’t resist that. 😉
Ha!
Mike Bergman,
What does Acts 20:7 mean to you if we have no Christian Sabbath? They met for religious purposes.
As they did each day in Acts 2.
Every day is a “Christian Sabbath” because everyday we are in Christ, he is our Sabbath rest. In early Acts they got together as often and whenever they could. There are a few descriptions here and there to things happening on the “Lord’s Day”, but those descriptions neither limit those events just to one day a week, nor do they give dictation for one day to be set apart as a new Sabbath replacing Saturday in the Law.
Mike Bergman,
If the Sabbath day was a law of Moses, I wouldn’t observe it. Be must go to Gen. 2, where God blessed the Seventh day and sanctified it. God made this day for man to rest, it is a holy day.
I reckon something that God Blessed is good enough for me. Although Sunday is the Christian Sabbath and not Saturday.
I’m too old fashioned to change now. No one should work on the Christian Sabbath is they don’t have to.
I think just because we are under grace don’t mean we destroy something God himself set up.
Jess,
I know you are not going to change since you say you won’t. However, the day the Lord blessed was the seventh, not the first. Secondly, Colossians 2 says that we should not let people bind us with a Sabbath. In Romans 14, Paul says that some people esteem every day the same, and they are okay to do that. If your position on the Sabbath were correct, Paul could not talk that way in Romans 14.
For Christians, the Old Testament is important for history, prophecy and to show lineage to Jesus. Everything that God wants us to carry over in our daily living from the Old Testament is found again in the New Testament. Everything else was Jewish customs and laws.
Gentlemen, obviously we disagree over the continuing validity of the sabbath command. We of the Reformed faith view it differently and have scriptural reasons for doing so. Not only the WCF but the LBC recognized the 4th commandment as valid for all time. LBC:
“As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )”
But be that as it may, I’m sure we all agree that worship is our highest call.
God bless.
Les: Some in the Reformed faith view it differently, I would agree with Mike. I think scripture is clear that what Mike is saying is correct. Christ came to free us not keep us bound. That would include laws of the Sabbath.
Debbie, I realize some in the Reformed faith see it differently too. But confessional churches (PCA, ARBCA for example) are unified on this one. Certainly though there are people who are reformed who would differ. I was referencing confessional churches.
God bless.
For anyone interested in a brief presentation (PDF) of the Reformed view of the perpetuity of the Sabbath John Murray’s short piece lays out the rationale pretty well. Much better than an old country boy like me.
http://www.newhopefairfax.org/files/30.%20Sabbath%20by%20Murray.pdf
Les,
You are right on the money.
One weakness in Keller’s approach to the Law, which is the same approach I take, is that the distinctions between moral, ceremonial and civil seem to be arbitrary. For example, Leviticus 19:18 says love your neighbor. Leviticus 19:19 says do not wear clothes woven from two different kinds of material. Consecutive verses are separated and placed into two different categories. This is hard to accept.
My push back is the alternative is no less arbitrary. For those who point out we are no longer bound by law but are free to live by the Spirit above fleshly desires I point out what our freedom allows and what is sinful is equally arbitrary.
Like all here, I am grateful for the entire Law for without it we would not know the holiness of God.
Dean, I think you have echoed what Paul wrote to the Romans….especially your last line.
Dean, that is part of what I was trying to get at in my initial comment. I hold Keller’s position with regard to the Law, but I also struggle with the feeling that the categories are arbitrary. The problem is that Mike’s approach doesn’t eliminate that feeling.
Dean, I agree that there seems to be an arbitrariness to this view. However, it may not be as “arbitrary” as it seems at first, in light of the Book of Hebrews.
I think that the fact there is an entire book in the New Testament that deals with the issue of the interpretation of the Old Testament, is significant. I am assuming that the main purpose of Hebrews is to reconcile the Old Testament to the work of Christ.
Without some distinction of the different spheres of application for God’s Law, we’d still be obligated to abstain from bacon. That just seems wrong at some gut level.
What’s the difference vetween a “staunch” Presbyterian and a Presbyterian?
The same between a Baptist and a staunch Baptist… He actually holds to the beliefs of Presbyterianism and doesn’t just wear the badge. 🙂
Nice!
I’ve always looked at this way….we are not OT Israel. We are NT Christians and the Church. The OT law was for OT Israel, and the law does show man how far short he falls of God’s moral perfection. It does teach us that we’re sinners in need of a Savior. And, of course, we’re saved by grace thru faith, and not by keeping any law. And, yes, we do have a new heart. We are a new creation in Christ. And, the Holy Spirit gives us a new desire to live for God. And, Jesus did not come to do away with the law, but instead, He raised the teachings of the OT to a much higher level in the NT. And, the NT is what Christians should live by, now. We are not required to keep OT laws, not one iota. So, we can eat catfish and pork chops, and worship on Sunday, without any guilty feeling of disobeying God. We live by the NT teachings.
But, Believers….Christians…should certainly OBEY Jesus. There are numerous teachings in the NT about if we really love Jesus, we will OBEY Him. If we really love Jesus, then we will obey His commands. And, of course, our works will show that we have real faith.
So, Mike, I think we’re agreeing a whole lot on this, but I just wanted to hear from you…to see if we are….if I’m understanding you correctly, or not?
David
I think this is the “fun” with certain aspects of theology… We essentially come to the same conclusions but for different reasons.
Long answer short: I think in the OT we see 3 primary covenants made: With Abraham, through Moses (aka the Law), and with David. The one with Abraham was always the primary one and the other two were subsets under them. Ultimately Jesus fulfilled them all. He is THE Son of Abraham (Gal 3, etc.) and he is the Son-King promised to David (Luke 1, etc.), he also kept the Law which no other person could.
But of the Law specifically, that covenant was temporary and a placeholder. See my post, as well as Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 that speak of a New Covenant that is different than and replacing the “old” defined as the one “made with their fathers on the day I took them out of Egypt”–clearly, Sinai.
You’re view sounds dispensational, which I believe you are based on previous conversations, mine isn’t–I DO think in a way we are the continuation of OT Israel, just redefined.
Christ fulfilled what Israel could not in the Law keeping. Then he brought the New which is the Spirit on the heart not words on stone. Jesus is true Israel, the true offspring of Abraham, and through him, we get included into the promises to Abe as children of Abraham; Jesus is the true King of Israel, and we are subjects of his Kingdom. He fulfilled the Law to Israel, and now we’re under a new law–his law. Are there certain similarities with the old Law, yes, but the legal intuition is different.
So, I would agree with your conclusion, but we differ with how we get there and our relation to OT Israel.
(my views on it are systematized by NT Wright in “Paul and the Faithfulness of God” and by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum in “Kingdom through Covenant”.–the latter specifically coin the core ideas as “progressive covenantalism” as it’s closer to Covenant theology than it is to dispensationalism, but is properly neither. 🙂
Other good books from this perspective:
Brian Rosner, Paul and the Law
Thomas Schreiner, Christians and Biblical Law, 40 Questions
Jason Meyer, The End of the Law
Douglas Moo, Romans, NICNT
Douglas Moo, Galatians
Thomas Schreiner, Galatians
Thomas Schreiner, New Testament Theology
Douglas Moo, “A Modified Lutheran Perspective,” in “Five Views on Law and Gospel,” Stanley Gundry, ed.
N. T. Wright, After You Believe
Craig Blomberg, “The Sabbath as Fulfilled in Christ,” in Perspectives on the Sabbath, Christopher John Donato, ed.
I fall in line with David.
There is the OT law given to the nation of Israel through the Mosaic covenant. That law is not binding on NT Christians.
There is another law which is the Law of God which is binding on every person. This Law is reflected in the consciences of man in every time and culture.
No Gentile was bound by the Mosaic Law unless they themselves sought to live under it [and get circumcised]. This is why the Jews wanted the Christian Gentiles to become circumcised. They did not understand that Jesus and His people were not under the Mosaic Law.
No one today is bound under the Mosaic Law. Hebrews 8 tells us that the old covenant has passed away. And as we read in other places in Hebrews, a new covenant means a new law.
The world in general has been under the Law of God [not the Mosaic covenant]. And when they sin they are justly condemned. God, knowing the self justifications of man included in the NT the moral guidelines man should live by [which includes the sin of sex outside of godly marriage]. This gives the church a basis to declare the sinfulness of man so as to proclaim the sole answer in the Gospel. It also gives the church the base line to discipline its own members. [Base line — see below]
The church is not under the Law of God. This law condemns to Hell every sin. But the church is not condemned though they still sin. We are not under that Law. Rather we are under the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus: the Law of Love. Thus as the church, we must live beyond the base line, and walk in love.
So when the world wants to know why we say gay sex is wrong but we eat pork, the answer is not that we are no longer under the law, for no one is under the Mosaic law: all can eat pork. Rather the answer is because the NT tells us gay sex is wrong. It tells us adultery is wrong.
The other issue at play is the unbeliever. The unbeliever is still under the law. What law? Is an unbeliever sinning when he eats shell fish? No. Is he sinning when he participates in homosexual acts? Yes. If an unbeliever asks why it is a sin for him to participate in homosexual acts, but not to eat shell fish, talking about the Spirit and being freed from the law just won’t cut it.
I think Romans 1-3 argues that unbelievers are not “under the law” and are not going to be judged by it. Sin was sin before the Law, and sin is sin even if the Law was not heard by someone.
Sin, at its core, is disbelief in God and disobedience to God. Were aspects of that eventually codified in the Law, yes, but that doesn’t mean unbelievers were suddenly then put under the Law.
Like you said, they’re not sinners for eating shellfish, and I’d go so far to say they’re not sinners for breaking the Sabbath. They are foremost sinners because of idolatry; which even though codified in the Law at Sinai, transcends the Law. That’s Romans 1-2–idolatry is the main issue with the Law and apart from the Law. Then out of that idolatry they do other works of the flesh.
So, really if I’m dealing with homosexuality in a person and trying to witness to them, I’m not bringing up at all it being called an abomination in the OT–I am bringing up God’s declarations in Gen 2 well before the Law, the effect of Gen 3 on us spiritually, emotionally, physically, in our desires and orientations, etc., and how all sexual activity outside of the Gen 2 bound are “works of flesh”, but how through Jesus we receive the Spirit, we receive freedom, and we receive a new heart with the ability to fight daily against the old flesh.
Mike,
Romans 1-3 argues just the opposite, NOT that unbelievers are not under the law but that all are under the law.
Romans 3:
19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
Gentiles were not and are not under the Mosaic Law, even as Jews today are not. We read in chapter 2:
14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
Now the Law the Gentiles do not have is the Mosaic Law.
But they do have the work of the Law of God written in their heart, on their conscience, so that they know right from wrong, and are justly accused when they are judged in that Day.
I think we’re actually kinda sorta saying the same thing… Just when I say “The Law” I mean the Mosaic whereas when you say
“The Law” you mean God’s overarching defining of morality.
Mike,
I agree, but it wasn’t clear or I just misunderstood.
You can go back to Genesis but you don’t need to. Paul is quite clear in Romans 1 about gay sex being wrong. Those that no longer listen to or have seared their consciences will seek to justify their sin in various ways. Convicting them of sin is the job of the Spirit, Telling them the truth, that it is sin, is our job.
That’s why I feel this discussion is a bit of a merry go round. We are talking past each other I think more than we are disagreeing. The Mosaic Law (and I would specify moral) is a reflection of God’s holy character. It is not just a bunch of rules God likes. It is written on the hearts of every person.
That is why it was sin for Cain to murder Abel before God ever said, “Thou shalt not murder.” That is why it is still sin today for one person to murder another, because God’s standards have not changed. As you said in the original post, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The command, “Thou shalt not murder” did not make it sinful for the Israelites living at that time to murder someone. It made explicit the standard (based on God’s holy character) that was already written on their hearts.
The judicial and ceremonial laws are not a reflection of God’s holy character, but the application of the moral law which is the reflection of God’s holy character. That is why I think Keller’s distinction, though not without its difficulties, is helpful.
Adam,
You are right.
The Mosaic Law, which forbade eating shellfish, was never binding on the gentile world as a whole. Not then, and certainly not now.
But the Law of God, which always has been, as it is a reflection of His holiness and righteousness [and which really doesn’t care about shellfish or pork eating one way or the other], has always been binding on mere men.
And we know that gay sex is forbidden because the NT tells us it is.
Inconsistencies and apparent contradictions are in the word of God for purpose. I remember a professor from Liberty during one of my counseling courses giving a super outline of a one-shot scientific experiment illustrated in the case of Daniel dealing with the King’s representative concerning the food. However, in and of itself, the experimental analytical method marked with a null hypothesis is not sufficient to deal with every case. Obviously, History is not amenable to a laboratory method. Likewise, there is a need for a new scientific method, a more synthetical method, one that can encompass not only a hypothesis, but, where it is required, the exceptions to the hypothesis when they happen also to be true reflections of reality. As one of the early fathers of modern science is reported tod have said, “If the rule is true, and the exceptions are true, then the truth is both the rule and the exceptions.” This approach lends itself to the period and time and world in which we live, that is, the digital, macro and micro, the symmetrical and the asymmetrical realities which must be accounted for in any description and summary of the abstract that points the way to the solution and understanding of the realities with which one is dealing.
Today, our weakest point in our contemporary scientific method is the hull hypothesis. In other words, what does one do, when the null hypothesis is also true. Many say, there is something wrong with your hypothesis then, but they fail to take into account the need of a more holistic outlook and wherewith all to come to grips with the quantum and nanorealities along with the macrorealities with which one must deal.
Dr. Keller’s observations concerning the Old Testament, food, and our Lord are correct as far as they go, but there is a need that they should go farther and encompass the variances, differences, and apparent contradictions within a holistic framework that better explains what God is about in communicating with mankind, especially as we have already set out on our venture to the stars, one that shall eventually take in the universe from one end to the other (Mt.24:31) in the next 20,000 – 900,000 years.
I don’t have time to respond except to say I’m excited to see SBC brothers discussing this topic.
I’ve also linked to the best book I’ve seen from Baptist theologians on how the covenants fit together. I’m sure it will solve ALL the problems! 😉
http://smile.amazon.com/Kingdom-through-Covenant-Biblical-Theological-Understanding/dp/1433514648/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436465763&sr=8-1&keywords=kingdom+through+covenant
Yeah, mentioned that book somewhere in the comments above… 🙂
I am impressed with the depth and quality of thought in this thread.
I am also humbled. I have a degree in religion from a Baptist university and attended two seminaries finishing with two years of an M.Div. and a M.A. in theology.
Yet, there is still so much I don’t know. In my case, “Knowledge is finite, but my ignorance is infinite.”
Concerning the Sabbath, it is my view that every day is a Sabbath, a holy day, a special day in which to serve the Lord. However, I do maintain that as Sunday, the first day of the week was the one observed by the Christian as is noted in the NT, that is the day for us to observe with worship. However, any other day can be spent in worship, too.