“LAW” AND “WORKS” No Longer Under Law When we become obedient to Christ as our Lord and Savior (and obedience is a concept Reformed/Calvinist/Evangelical folks don’t like associating with salvation), we receive, according to Paul, a "righteousness of God" that is not our own (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 5:18; 10:3; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This righteousness is not derived directly from the Lord’s perfect life, as Calvinists and even some brethren believe. Instead, this righteousness derives from the fact that Jesus’ sacrificial death satisfied the debt we owed for our sins (Rom 5:18). In this way, according to Romans 4:5, and this way only, we, “the ungodly,” and this includes both Jews and Gentiles, have been justified (Acts 13:39; Rom 3:24; Gal 2:16; Tit 3:4-7). And if God has so justified us, who is it, as Paul asked in Romans 8:33, that can bring a charge against God’s elect and make it stick? As a result, we who have been redeemed _by_ grace _through_ faith _in_ baptism _for_ good works (cf. Eph 2:8-10; Col 2:12) are no longer _hupo nomon_, that is, “under law” (Rom 6:14-15; Gal. 5:18). Here, then, as in other places where Paul emphasizes Christians are no longer under law, is where it is important for us to understand how Paul is using “law,” for how is it that Paul can say we are no longer “under law” as he does here, and then turn around and say we are “under law” toward Christ (1 Cor 9:21)? I hope to solve this “puzzle” before concluding this series of posts. There are plenty, particularly Calvinists, who think Paul’s point in these “not under law” passages is that the Christian is no longer under law, period. This is clearly false, for Paul taught unequivocally that Christians are “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). There are others, and more than a few of these are brethren, who believe Paul uses “law” in such passages to exclusively reference the law of Moses, thus teaching that Jews were no longer under the law of Moses, which was clearly true. In fact, and there can be no doubt about it, the Old Covenant dispensation, with its law of Moses, was fulfilled and terminated by Christ’s death on the cross (Col. 2:14). It is therefore a categorical error not to understand that the OT was _kartegeo_ (done away with) by Christ. But this is not, or so it seems to me, the way Paul is using “law” in such passages. Instead, it is clear that Paul is using “law” in Romans 6:14-15 and Galatians 5:18 to make the point that we are no longer under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. When I say “no longer under,” and it is necessary for me to make this point clear, I am not saying we are no longer under law, and neither was Paul, for we are “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). What I mean is that we who have “obeyed the gospel” are not under a system that requires perfect law-keeping in order to be righteous, which means, and I’ll explain this in more detail as we go on, we are no longer interacting with God in just the Creator-creature relationship, which would have us all condemned and on our way to hell. Instead, we are interacting with Him through the Redeemer-saved relationship, which has us righteous with a righteousness that is not our own-that is, not a righteousness we have earned by perfectly keeping law (cf. Rom 3:21, 22; 2 Cor 5:21; Phil 3:9). This is the only way man has ever been saved (and I’ll expand on this last point a bit later). Addressing the fact that we are righteous with a righteousness that is not our own and not by perfect law-keeping, Paul said to Titus: “But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Tit. 3:4-7). Then, writing to the Ephesians about the same thing, Paul said: “But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Eph 2:4-9). These passages, if they mean anything, and they mean a lot, teach us that a man isn’t saved by his perfect doing (i.e., “works of law”), for under such a system, all are found wanting. There must be no doubt, then, that Paul makes it clear that the righteousness of God (viz., the imputed righteousness, or righteousness that is put to our account) that is ours by “grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom 3:21-24) is a righteousness apart from law (viz., apart from a system of justification by perfect law-keeping). Thus, for someone to come along and cavalierly argue that such a system never existed, but is instead the invention of those who want to teach their brand of salvation by grace through faith, is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the Creator-creature relationship, a relationship that says the whole duty of man is, and always has been, to fear God and keep His commandments (Eccles 12:13). That this was true during the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations, as it is now during the Christian age, is a truth that cannot be misunderstood without serious consequences, for it is why all (both Jew and Gentile) could be declared “under sin” (Rom 3:9; Gal 3:22). But if there is no law (i.e., if there is no system of justification by perfect law-keeping), there is no sin (Rom 4:15; 5:13). And if there is no sin, then there was no need for a Redeemer who, in order to be qualified, had to meet the requirements of law perfectly. For it is only then we could be redeemed by His perfect, unblemished sacrifice. No, the truth is that man, whether Gentile or Jew, has always been amenable to God’s law-code. However, a Gentile was never, unless under indenture to a Jew or unless a proselyte, amenable to the law of Moses; nevertheless, he was, just like the Jew, a sinner (Rom 3:27-31; 2 Cor 5:13-14; Gal 3:13). Thus, it must be necessarily inferred that Paul’s use of “law,” unless the context demands otherwise, is not to be understood as referring exclusively to the law of Moses (viz., the OT), and therefore was not being contrasted with faith in Christ (i.e., the NT), making it nothing more than an OT versus NT thing, as many brethren think. As I’ve stated already, that the covenant has changed is crucial, and a failure to appreciate this has been the downfall of many a denominationalist. In fact, this is clearly one of James D.G. Dunn’s mistakes, in that he believes the New Covenant is but the Old Covenant written in the hearts of the Christ-followers.[2] In fact, he plays down any hint of discontinuity between the Mosaical Covenant and the New Covenant under Christ. But far from playing a minimal role in Paul’s doctrine, as Dunn believes, the New Covenant was vital to everything the apostle taught. But back to the point at hand, because the covenant with Israel had changed, the Old Covenant was no longer in force and anyone who was “in Christ” who tried to put themselves under it had “fallen from grace” (Gal 5:4). So the reason Paul’s reference to the New Covenant is minimal in Romans and Galatians is because the contrast he’s making between “works of the law” and “the law of faith” is not the difference between the OT and the NT. Instead, it is the distinction between two entirely different ways of salvation: “law,” a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, and the “law of faith,” which is a system of salvation by grace through faith. Miss this point and you’ve, well, missed _the_ point of what Paul was saying. The So-Called “Tension” Between Romans 3:28 And James 2:24 This brings us, then, to the test case-the harmonization of the two passages listed above. Those who believe the “works of the law” versus the “law of faith” contrast is only referring to the change in covenants argue that what James says about “works” in his epistle proves their case. They think so, I believe, because they have failed to understand that what Paul was contrasting was two ways-two systems-of salvation, with one permanently blocked by man’s sinfulness and the other the only way sinful man has ever been saved. But if what they think is true is, in fact, true, then perhaps what James has to say is the proof-text. On the other hand, if what I think is true is, in fact, true, then what James said must be in complete harmony with what Paul said. So it is to these two men and their epistles that we now turn, for if what I believe Paul said about not being justified by “works” cannot be harmonized with what James said about being justified by “works,” then my understanding of how Paul used “works of the law” cannot be correct. But before any attempt to harmonize these two passages can be undertaken in earnest, more work needs to be done. It is to this task that we’ll turn our attention in the next post. (continued) _________ Notes [1] E.P. Sanders, _Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People_, 1985, Kindle ed, loc. 1713. [2] Dunn, _The New Perspective on Paul_ (revised edition), Chap. 20, “Did Paul have a Covenant Theology? Reflections on Romans 9:4 and 11:27” (2004), pp. 429-446.
Posted on: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 19:25:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015