One of the constant debates Christians seem to have concerns our relationship to the Law. Some take the words of Jesus in Matthew 5 as an indication that we must still live under the Law, that is unless the New Testament clearly does away with some aspect of it (like the sacrificial system). And indeed Jesus did say, “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the prophets; I have…come to fulfill them.” But more than that, Jesus says, “I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” He then tells us we will never see the kingdom unless our righteousness is greater than that of the scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus illustrated this greater righteousness with several things: anger, lust, divorce, oaths, retaliation, and hating our enemies. In all these things, Jesus points to responses greater than the words of the Law—responses that have to do, first, with one’s heart. Then he said, “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” There is the greater righteousness: perfection.
But we have a few problems here. One is that if we come to rely upon our own works then Jesus’ words condemn us. We cannot be perfect. Jesus’ words ultimately show our need for something greater: himself.
Another is how we understand Jesus fulfilling the Law.
A popular Law issue that some try to impose upon Christians today is the tithe. They say, “We still must follow the Law unless the New Testament specifically does away with a part of it.” So we no longer offer sacrifices, but we still must tithe. But that’s not what Jesus said—rather, not an iota or dot was going anywhere. Others try to divide the Law into categories like civil, ceremonial, and moral—the first two are gone, but the third remains. Yet that suffers the same as above with the whole dot thing; and besides, the Bible nowhere divides the Law as such. Then if we try to create such divisions, we run into our own problems trying to figure out which law is which category.
The answer is so much simpler than redefinitions and trying to divide the Law into parts: “all” was accomplished on the cross. Jesus fulfilled the Law for us in his perfect righteousness and gave us such status through his sacrifice. Since all has been accomplished, the fullness of the Law was not destroyed but upheld in Christ. And if we are in Christ we are no longer under any part of the Law but free to live in him.
The early church had the same debate, and Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia gives us this answer.
He begins his letter by chastising the churches for turning to a false gospel (1:6-7), a gospel that required them to return to certain tenants of the Law (4:21), specifically that of circumcision (6:12-13) in order to be justified. Paul takes the bulk of the letter to explain how the Law relates to Christ and the life of the Christian.
In 2:15ff, Paul states about himself and other Jewish believers that even though they are Jews by birth and not “Gentile sinners” they know they are not justified by the works of the Law but faith in Christ. Through the Law, Paul states, he died to the Law so he could live to God—and how did he die? “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me…I live by faith in the Son of God.” A little later in 3:10ff, Paul states that everyone who relies on the works of the Law is cursed, because a person is cursed “who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Paul’s implication is properly that no one is able to keep the Law perfectly, so all are cursed who try to use living by the Law as a means to their justification. But we died to the Law and found life in Christ because “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.” Thus, the blessings of Abraham came not only to the Jews but also to the Gentiles—all who are in Christ.
In 3:2, Paul reminds the Galatians they received the Spirit by hearing with faith and not the works of the Law, and chastises them saying, “Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?”—in context speaking of their attempts to seek perfection through the commands of the Law concerning circumcision.
But the Spirit and the promises to Abraham are not about the Law and do not come through the Law, rather it is all through faith. So Paul asks in 3:19, “Why then the Law?” His answer: “It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promises had been made.” And in 3:21-22, “Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the Law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” And, “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith” (3:24). So the whole purpose of the Law was to point out our sinfulness and be a guardian to show God’s righteousness until Jesus came—the child God promised to Abraham.
Then a key verse in the discussion concerning Christians and the Law comes in 3:25-26, “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Jesus you are all sons of God through faith.” If the Law is the guardian, and we are no longer under a guardian, then we are no longer under the Law.
In 4:21-31, Paul speaks to those “who desire to be under the Law” and gives them an allegory about Abraham’s two sons born by Sarah and Hagar. He says, “One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.” Mount Sinai, of course, is the place where Moses received the Ten commandments and the rest of the Law. This represents slavery—specifically our slavery to sin and inability to keep the commands of the Law. Then, “But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother…now you, brothers, like Isaac are children of promise.” We are of something better—something greater than the Law, and are therefore free.
Furthermore, “But what does the Scripture say? ‘Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.’ So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.” These are strong words, but Paul is telling us in Christ we cast out Mount Sinai, we cast out the Law, for freedom.
And should we want to live under the Law? No! “For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (5:1). We should want to live in the freedom that Christ brings. Now this freedom is not “an opportunity for the flesh” (5:13). We are free from the demands of the Law, but we are not free to carry on in sin. Instead we have what could be called a new law or new command in Christ (see also: John 13:31-35, “A new commandment I give to you…”), which is “though love serve one another” and this fulfills the whole Law (5:14).
So instead of living under the Law, we live in the fulfillment of the Law through love. And since the Holy Spirit is within us, setting us free, we walk by the Spirit and so not gratify the desires of the flesh (5:16). The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, which “against such things there is no law.”
In summary: the Law was given to stand as a guardian until Christ came. It shows us how far short we fall of the righteousness of God, and thus our need for Jesus. In Jesus, who perfectly fulfilled the Law, we find life and freedom. In this freedom we are no longer bound under the commands of the Law but walk according to the love and fruit produced by the Spirit of God within us.
Like God says through Jeremiah when it comes to the New Covenant: we now have his Law written on our hearts.
Instead of “you shall not murder,” we live by love and kindness to our neighbor. Instead of “you shall not steal,” we live by patience and self-control. Instead of requiring the tithe, we live by generosity.
Instead of sacrificing sheep and bulls, we live in the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus. We are not bound by the Law but free to live in Christ.
Well said! “Free from the law, O happy condition … Christ has redeemed us once for all!”
One of the ‘Doctors’ of the Church wrote this:
” . . . to the heart that loves, all is well.”
and another wrote:
“”In the evening of this life,
I shall appear before You with empty hands,
for I do not ask You, Lord, to count my works.
All our justice is blemished in Your Eyes.
I wish, then, to be clothed in Your own justice . . . “
But that’s not what Jesus said—rather, not an iota or dot was going anywhere.
Exactly
Two words: Bin, go
I think people forget that although the church began with the Jews, it was quickly dominated by Gentiles, often far from Israel. What would they know of Moses or the Law? As you said, Jesus said the Law would remain until fulfilled, and then proceeded to fulfill it.
The law is still in effect…but for the Christian there is now no condemnation under the law.
“We are saved by grace through faith, not of works(the law), lest anyone should boast.”
and:
“Christ is the end of the law for all those who have faith.”
There it is.
Freedom.
He is, after all, ‘Christ THE LORD’ and it is the King’s Command that you must obey faith-full-y
Mike,
I have a few things I would like to ask about and/or shoot by you for your take. I think you have done a good job overall, but there are some areas that could use some clarity.
Since the people Paul addressed this letter to are primarily Gentile believers, it doesn’t make much sense to say that they are “returning to certain tenants of the Law.” Their desire is to become legally Jewish in order to “seal” their salvation (Galatians 3:3). Paul argues with them that their circumcision and conversion to Judaism is not a means to salvation because they are already saved by faith (see his argument in Romans 4 also). Paul further cautions them not to undergo this conversion because it will put them under a stronger obligation in regard to the Law (Galatians 5:3).
I am of the opinion that the statement from Paul here in Galatians 5:3 means that he is still a Torah-observant Jew. If he were not, the Galatians that he is writing to would have a simple rebuttal to his statement there, i.e. “you don’t keep Torah Paul, so why would we have to?” (For further confirmation of Paul’s Torah-keeping, you can look to Acts 21 which was certainly written after Galatians). In fact, one of Paul’s criticisms of the circumcision faction in Galatia is that they do not keep Torah (Gal. 6:13) a charge he repeats about this faction in Romans 2. Paul continued to advocate keeping the commands of Torah (1 Corinthians 7:18-19 as a sort of restatement of Galatians 5:6; also his statements in Romans 2:25-29; 3:31; 15:18). This attitude also shows up in the Didache as well.
The problem of what to do with the Law is often made too complex in my opinion. You wrote:
The last sentence that you wrote is the main problem I see. It denotes a sort of “skittish” attitude about the Law. We don’t dare want to suggest that the Law is our guide for righteous living for some reason and so we come up with these circumlocutions to avoid saying so. The Bible is adamant that we walk in love by obeying those commandments. They are all about love. This is what Jesus asserted in Matthew 22:40 when he stated that the twin commands to love God and love our neighbor form the underpinning of “all the commandments.” This is what Paul is saying as well in 5:13-14:
Your conclusion ultimately reveals a tension with admitting that the Law essentially encapsulates/defines what a life of faith looks like.
“Love and kindness to our neighbor” will still ultimately result in not murdering them as well. “Patience and self-control” likewise will keep us from stealing. Being generous will likely take us well beyond a simple 10 percent. As believers living a life of faith, we are almost certain to fall on this side of the Law. We would in fact question a person who calls himself a believer but insists that it is OK to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, and so forth. Paul calls these things “obvious” in Galatians 5.
As for the sacrifices, they were never for sin anyway (Hebrews 10:4) whereas Christ’s most certainly was. Our freedom in Christ is much like the freedom described by one of my favorite patriotic songs. It is liberty in Law. It is never liberty against Law.
Jeff,
I don’t have too much time to discuss tonight, so I’m just going to make a few brief comments:
1) I’ll admit, “returning to certain tenants of the Law” and doesn’t capture the essence of what I was meaning (my fault)–by that I was not meaning they (at least most of them–as you said being Gentiles) practiced the Law before conversion. It’s more the idea the OT was their Scripture (as much of the NT had not yet been written), so through that they would have had a familiarity w/ the Law and Jewish observance. So “returning” they were attempting to go under the Old Covenant that had passed on for the New. Not a clear choice of words, though! 🙂
2) I know what you’re getting at w/ Acts 21, but I don’t necessarily see that as a reason to go with your interpretation of those verses in Galatians. If Paul was still a Torah-keeper, I think it has more to do with not being an offense to other Jews kinda in a 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 type of way, and the reason he circumcised Timothy in Acts 16 “because of the Jews who were in those places.”
After all, when Paul speaks of opposing Peter in Galatians 2, he doesn’t criticize Peter for living like a Gentile but for trying to make the Gentiles live like Jews when “certain men came from James.” Hence, Peter’s “hypocrisy,” a point he emphasizes in 2:15-16 that even for the Jews it’s not about the works of the Law and in 2:19 how he has “died” to the Law.
3) I don’t think there’s really a tension that you’re seeing there. Without going the route of dividing the Law into different categories, there is a moral continuity in God.
Part of the Law is Deuteronomy 22:8–when you build a house you are supposed to put a “wall” (parapet) around the roof so a person doesn’t accidently fall off and you incur bloodguilt. That is a “moral law” (it certainly isn’t civil or ceremonial) about loving your neighbor just the same as do not murder. Yet I know of no Christian who teaches we still must fence-in the roof of our house. It is a Law we no longer obey, and we don’t even think about b/c we don’t live in a culture here where we build buildings w/ flat roofs and have a lot of people on them.
That law is gone, yet the greater law of love remains. So out of love, kindness, etc. for my neighbor I won’t murder him but kinda in the spirit of what that parapet law was about, if I have my neighbor to my house I will try to make it a safe environment so my neighbor doesn’t get hurt.
We are free from the letter of the Law and free to walk in God’s moral character of love for others.
Here’s how I see it: the Law mandated love, the Spirit produces love; the Law mandates things like the tithe and leaving part of the crops in the field to give to the poor, the Spirit produces generosity that gives to needs and assists the poor w/o demanding a set percentage…
Mike,
This is one of the reasons why I really like having these discussions with you. We are able to disagree at times and still maintain a good conversation.
You mentioned the Peter rebuke in Galatians and I find that I see that one differently now than I used to.
The core issue here isn’t the entirety of Peter’s lifestyle; it is about table fellowship. The problem Paul has with Peter is that he has broken his own example. Peter was the first one to cross the line and defended his reasons for doing so in Acts 10 and 11. This explains Paul’s statement in Galatians 2:17-18:
What Paul is basically saying then is that we (the Jewish apostles and Peter in particular) tore down this wall of separation between us and the Gentiles, if you rebuild it, you are claiming that we were wrong to do so and were actually breaking the Law by doing it. This is the reason for Paul’s rebuke. It is compounded by the fact that the person who did this is Peter. Trying to read a larger context of Torah-keeping or not as a whole is anachronistic on our part.
As for Galatians 2:19, I have a question. What do you think it means when Paul says he “died to the law” given his later actions (i.e. Acts 21), his later statements (some of which I referenced earlier) that show he still adhered to the Law in some way?
I think that Paul is saying something different here. Paul is talking about his Jewish status in verses 19 and 21 when he speaks of law, as this is the very thing he is trying to discourage the Gentiles in Galatia from seeking to obtain. He is telling them that he has come to understand that his Jewish status(a legal status) means nothing in regards to justification/salvation. Or to make my point clearer, let me comment on verse 21:
In other words, if getting saved was merely about becoming Jewish through a legal conversion (going under the law in Paul’s terminology) there would have been no reason for Christ to die at all. I would see Paul’s statement in verse 19 as an admonition to the Galatians that because he is Jewish, he knows better than anyone that becoming Jewish isn’t going to do anything for them regarding salvation. Through the law (being Jewish) he has died to the Law (thinking his Jewish status was important) which has now freed him to live to God.
Jeff, I don’t know where you stand on the “Israel and Church” spectrum, but it is part of a much broader discussion that helps drive my interpretation of these items.
The New Covenant is w/ “Israel and Judah” and replaces the Mosaic aspect of the Old–as talked about in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8&9. In this I understand Jesus to be the fulfillment of OT Israel, and the church as the NC people of God who are an extension of the faithful “assembly” within Israel (or to use Paul’s explanation in Romans, the OT faithful and the NT church are all children of Abraham by promise).
We gentiles are grafted in to the Israel of promise, and therefore as a part of Jesus’ church we are a part of God’s Israel (Romans 9-11).
Over and over again in the NT, the writers emphasize how faithful and believing Jews and Gentiles are not two distinct groups, but we are one group, one body, all children of Abraham, all part of one covenant, etc.
Therefore as part of that larger rubric I have a difficult time seeing the logic of saying Paul saw himself as one who had to keep the Law as a Jew in combination with his faith while at the same time telling the Gentiles they did not.
Thus I take his statement of having “died” to the Law as meaning he saw himself as no longer required to be under the Law, but (as I said) would still adhere to it so as not to be a stumbling block to other Jews as the Gospel went out.
Mike,
In general, I would agree with most of what you said here. We are indeed grafted in to Israel. The thing we miss about the Law is that it is not a “one size fits all” thing and never was. The idea that there are different obligations to the Law is somewhat foreign to us. Think about it this way. There are commands that only apply to women, some that are only for priests, some that are only for slaves and so on. Try as you might, you could never fulfill any of those commands in any way. This is part of what Paul is asserting as he tells each person to “live they life they are called to” (1 Corinthians 7:17-24). Paul mentions that a Jew should not “seek to remove the marks of circumcision.” I take that to mean that he believes that Jews should continue to live as Jews according to the Law. What do you think he means by that statement?
Even though Jews and Gentiles are part of a “single group,” that doesn’t mean that there isn’t different obligation. Thus Paul’s statement in Galatians 5:3. That statement would make no sense whatsoever if Paul doesn’t assume that different people have different obligations within the commandments. Thus, Jews are beholden to the covenant in a way that the Gentiles are not. Paul himself lived by that standard, not as a “means of avoiding being a stumbling block,” but as a matter of conscience and to be consistent with his own teaching.
Mike,
One last thing for tonight anyway, although I think there was something else I saw to comment on, I just can’t think much more tonight. 🙂
This statement is a little strange to me. The whole point of the Law is that it defines God’s moral character of love for others. The example you cited above about the “roof protection” is something where the spirit of the Law is still in force much as you have stated. Legalism works on the “letter of the Law” (I will put up a barrier to fulfill an obligation), whereas we are told by Jesus to get to the “heart of the Law” if you will (I will do what I can to protect my neighbor who is visiting my home even if such protections aren’t “spelled out for me” by the Law).
Law is law is law…is law.
ANYTHING thatb we must be DOING in order that we might be justified…is law.
The law in it’s true sense is every demand that our existence places upon us to fulfil our humanity. And the law demands perfection. “You must be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.”
The law always demands and the law always accuses.
Those in Christ desire to keep the law…but not for righteousness sake. Our Lord has already done that (for us). But we know the intent of the law (for our good and the good of the neighbor…so we want to keep it…even though our Old natures often keep us from doing that (Romans 7).
Christ does free us from the demand of the law (for righteousness sake) but that demand is with us while we are here on earth and it shall not be mocked.
So what do we do? We repent and are forgiven. Over and over and over (St. Paul says , “for those of us who ARE BEING SAVED…”) until we are laid in the grave when Christ will raise us for the last time.
My 2 cents.
You know something, you sure are one “wild and craaaazy guy”. Sorry, just had to do that.
Steve,
Hey brother, I think there are at least 4 problems with what you are saying.
1. The beginning of Romans 7 teaches a redemptive historical shift in being released from the law and being bound to Jesus. (I personally do not think the Augustinian view concerning what Paul later says in Romans 7 is correct)
2. If we are going to say that while we are not bound to the law as a means of justification, we are still bound to the law [of Moses] as a rule to follow, then I think that would mean we are bound to follow the entire law (including animal sacrifices, food laws, etc.).
I think Mike rightly sees a problem with trying to “divide” the law.
3. Paul clearly [in my mind] distinguishes between the law of Moses (which he has a flexibile relationship with) and the law of Christ (which Paul says he is “within”–new HCSB) in 1 Corinthians 9.
4. When Paul says that he is not under the law, I do not think it is accurate to interpret him as meaning any of these things:
Well, concerning #4 above 🙂
A. That Paul is only talking about being under the law as a means of justification.
B. That Paul is only talking about the civil/ceremonial aspects of the law (again assuming the rightness of the 3-fold division of the law…an erroneous assumption IMO).
C. That Paul is only talking about “legalistic interpretations” of the law.
The place where I work is switching pension providers. For a time, people under the old pension plan can move their money to the new plan, but there will be no more contributions to the old plan. All new employees will be under the new plan. The old agreement is complete, only the new agreement remains.
The Law was given to the Jews as part of the Old Covenant. A covenant is an agreement. The Jews agreed to keep the Law and God agreed to bless them as long as they kept the Law.
Christians have never agreed to the Old Covenant, indeed, from the beginning of the Church, the Old Covenant was closed to new members. People under the OC could, if they wished, move willingly from the OC to the New Covenant, leaving the OC behind. But the OC was not open any longer.
Christians can most certainly learn from the OC, but we cannot, even if we wished to, place ourselves under the demands of the OC. It is not for us. It never was. We can learn principles from it, but we are not under its demands, nor should we desire to be. Our lives, as Christians, will sometimes look as if we are keeping some of the old covenant, because things like “not stealing and not lying” are good things in any time and culture.
Two more things: 1. It is “tenets”. 😉
2. God gave Peter a vision of unclean animals to show him that the Gentiles were to be given the Gospel. It kind of boggles my mind that people think that this vision is what negated the Jewish dietary restrictions. Do you really think if God had used a different literary device that Christians would even now be shunning ham sandwiches and lobster tail?
I will agree with you that the vision doesn’t negate the dietary laws. I am surprised however as well at how many people miss that very point. As to your question it is hard to say. That vision was certainly used by the church fathers in that manner. My better challenge was simply this. Can you find any instance in the NT of any Jewish believer eating an “unclean” as opposed to “common” meat or food? I haven’t found one yet.
Example, no… but you do have Mark 7:19 where all foods are declared clean.
Declared is a bad verb translation, the KJV uses “purge” there for instance. All Jesus is saying there is that you “purge” i.e. expel as fecal matter all the food that you eat. Mark 7:19 might be one of the most “overextended” verses in the Bible. If Jesus were actually suggesting that the dietary laws are undone when He said this, they would have had real legal grounds to kill Him based on the OT. No one in that crowd even considered that as the point of what he was saying. The whole argument was brought on by a discussion about hand-washing for heaven’s sake not eating pork. In fact, this passage also has Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for “laying aside the commandment of God” in favor of their own traditions. The idea that this singular verse sets aside the dietary laws is bad exegesis in my opinion as it reads more into the situation than is there.
Hmmm… you did cause me to go look at the Greek.
The “declaring” or “saying” certainly isn’t in there… but I’m not so sure the KJV is right either.
It certainly stands as a “difficult” verse to get a good clear interpretation, I’ll give you that… 🙂
I think this is a verse where context helps us more than we realize. It is certainly too vague to use as a foundation for what most people assert it to mean regarding clean and unclean meat. At best it is a solid condemnation of ritual hand washing, but they are still talking about “clean” foods in any case here.
SBC President Bryan Wright posted Scripture today that I think connects with this post by Mike–Matthew 7:22-23.
Here is the Scripture (with the addition of verse 24)
Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord…23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity [anomia]. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
Some thoughts:
1. The word translated “iniquity” is the Greek word “anomia” from which we get the word antinomianism (i.e. someone who is against law).
2. Therefore, the concept of “law” is present in what Jesus is saying.
3. “Therefore” at the beginning of verse 24 connects what Jesus has just said about Law (vs. 23) with what He is about to say in the rest of verse 24.
4. What Jesus goes on to say in verse 24 has to do with the “sayings” of Jesus Himself in the sermon on the mount (in context).
5. Therefore, I think these verses show that it is Christ’s own words that are law in this New Covenant age.
In other words, to disobey Christ’s “sayings” in the sermon on the mount is to be antinomian.
I plan on continuing below…
Benji,
I think the distinction is between law and Law. Anything that we should obey is in a very real sense “law”. But that is not the same as saying that Christians are bound by the Law of the Old Covenant, or rather, some mysterious moral subsection of the Mosaic Law.
I’m trying to get some stuff done before I start a “mini-vacation” tomorrow, so I won’t have time to deeply discuss, but:
I think this helps with the “tension” notion that Jeremy brought up above between the Old and the New.
We are no longer under the Old (under the Law), but we have our own “laws” or “commands” in the New, some of which b/c of God’s unchanging moral character will be the same or similar to the letter of the OT Law.
The Law was to show us our imperfection and inability to please God–if we failed at one point we failed at them all (James 2:10).
Now we are under the “law of liberty” (James 2:12). We know we cannot achieve righteousness by keeping the Law, so by faith we trust in Jesus who is righteousness for us. In Jesus, instead of ten words written on stone, we have his law written on our heart through the Holy Spirit–manifesting itself in “fruit”. Thus when Jesus gives a commandment, we do not do it out of obligation seeking righteousness, rather we do it as the righteous who love God and others and desire to please God (we do it b/c God has shaped our hearts to want to do it).
BTW–my bad:
I think this helps with the “tension” notion that Jeremy brought up above between the Old and the New.
Should read:
I think this helps with the “tension” notion that Jeff brought up above between the Old and the New.
1. The O.T. pointed forward to a Messianic figure who would be a prophet like Moses.
2. Just as Moses went up a “mount” so does the figure of Christ in Matthew.
3. Since Moses was a picture of Christ in relation to words (a prophet “speaks”), then what we can expect from the “greater than Moses” Messiah are words which are marked not only by a quantitative advancement (additional words), but a qualitative advancement (a higher quality of words).
[This is not intended to be taken as if the words of Moses are in error whereas the words of Christ are truth…it is to be taken in the same kind of sense in which Jesus is a higher quality of bread (the Bread of life) than what we see in the manna of the O.T.)]
4. This qualitative advancement is implied, IMO, in the thrust of Jesus contrasting the words of Moses with His own words.
5. Therefore, I do not think Jesus is merely interpreting the spirit of what Moses said since that would have Jesus functioning as a scribe rather than a “greater” prophet.
6. Instead I think Jesus is the new lawgiver and that to disobey His words of higher quality is to be antinomian and thus a rejection of His Lordship…hence, the “Lord, Lord” of Matthew 7:22.
(More could be said on this topic, but I wanted to limit myself to the context of Matthew of which Bryan Wright quoted from)
God Bless,
Benji
Benji,
I agree, but it certainly is not the same definition of “antinomian” that is used by people who think the old covenant is still binding upon us. Paige Patterson even used the word “antinomian” to describe people who drink alcohol, which is even more confusing because that law appears in neither the old or the new covenant.
Bill,
I agree with you in that what I said above is not the same as defining antinomianism as someone who disobeys [what some refer to as] the moral law within the law of Moses.
The Old covenant has passed away and I do not believe the law within that covenant transcends that covenant.
I think the technical way of saying it is that I do not believe any law within Moses is transcovenantal.
Now, some of those laws are renewed in the N.T. such as not stealing, etc [but not the Sabbath]. However, even those renewed laws do not get much emphasis.
Instead what gets the emphasis is the rooted-in-Christ’s-death “love one another” command (for example) which is stated over and over again.
And this is a problem that I see with the perspective of those who think that the 10 commandments are “foundational” for Christian ethics.
I think that perspective can tend to emphasize what the N.T. does not and minimize what the N.T. emphasizes.
I think it can tend to cast an old covenant ethical orientation over the New Covenant church.
Benji,
That makes sense. Thanks.
Mike,
Brother I wanted to run something by you and see what you think (if you are too busy today, I understand).
I don’t think what I am about to say is contradictory, but I do think that it is something which I have not “systematized” in a nice and tidy way, if you will.
Accordingly, my perspective is that biblical theology should have it’s say (even if it looks “messy” at first) before the systematization stage (if something should even move to this stage in the first place).
Jeremiah 31:33
But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
What I see here is a promise in which some kind of law would be internal in contrast to the law of Moses which was on tablets of stone and thus external.
The law promised here would be “written” upon hearts.
Accordingly, I see 2 Corinthians 3:3 describe the nature of the fulfillment of this promise:
2 Corinthians 3:3 [Forasmuch as ye are] manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Some thoughts:
1. Christ is the writer.
2. Christ is not writing on tablets of stone (an obvious allusion to the “external” material used to write the 10 commandments upon).
3. Christ is writing on fleshly tables of the heart (writing on the “internal” heart of God’s people).
4. Ink is not what Christ impresses upon the internal heart.
5. Instead it is the Spirit which Christ impresses upon the internal heart and thus I think the Spirit is the law that Jeremiah 31:33 referred to.
Now, I also think that there is some sense in which we see the echo of Moses’ in Christ giving the new “commandment”, for example, in John 13 (which you referred to).
Therefore, I think there is some sense in which Jesus gives new revelatory law.
However, I am not sure how to systematize (if we even should) the idea that the Spirit is Law and Christ’s revelation is Law.
What do you think about these things?
(See Moo in Romans if you can, starting with the 2nd paragraph on Pg. 757 and ending on Pg. 758.)