 A Critique of the New Perspective on Justification Part Three
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith." (Romans 1:16-17 NKJV) Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.
Throughout these articles we have been examining the teachings of N.T. Wright, James Dunn, Don Garlington, Thom Smith, John Armstrong and Scott Hafemann with regard to a new view of justification. It seems to many that this new view, on the surface, assaults the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the doctrine of sola fide and the doctrine of sola gracia. It seems to leave the sinner, albeit converted and trusting in Christ, to ultimately face a court scene before God as Judge, where the final outcome of the judgment will be based on the works done as a Christian. These works will be the basis of the sinner's final "justification/vindication." The adherents of the new view vehemently deny that works play any part in salvation. They insist that they are in the tradition of Luther and Reformation theology. The question we are seeking to answer is this: Is the new view the same truths Reformed theology has always taught, now merely dressed in different terminology, or was the new terminology necessary because the basic doctrine has changed? As I have already mentioned, one of our problems is that the new view insists it is basically in line with Luther even as it seeks to show how very wrong Luther was in light of the new view. James Boice and Philip Graham Ryken have said it well. They co-authored a book entitled The Doctrines of Grace. In a section dealing with "The Present Evangelical Crisis" they say the following: Then there is the new perspective on Paul, as developed by E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, and others. This is an attempt to reinterpret New Testament theology by reassessing the apostle Paul's relationship to first-century Judaism, as well as his doctrine of justification. According to the new perspective, Paul was not (as the Reformers taught) trying to combat the works-righteousness of the Jews, because first-century Judaism was already a religion of grace. Nor did he consider "the righteousness of God" (Rom. 1:17, RSV) to be a gift that God grants to sinners; although righteousness is an attribute of God, it cannot be credited to anyone else. The effect of this change in perspective is to cast doubt on the Reformation doctrine of justification, which properly insists that the righteousness of God is imputed to the sinner who receives Christ by faith alone. According to the new perspective, the Reformation was wrong about Paul, wrong about Judaism, wrong about Roman Catholicism, wrong about justification, and therefore wrong about the gospel!… (Boyce and Ryken, The Doctrines of Grace [Crossway Books, 2002], 63) The last sentence sums up our feeling. The men we are writing about go to great lengths to assure us that they believe the Reformation doctrine of justification as set forth by Luther and the creeds. However, there always follows a "but" which in turn is followed by lengthy denials of what Luther taught. How can adherents of a theology who believe and teach that "the Reformation was wrong about Paul, wrong about Judaism, wrong about Roman Catholicism, wrong about justification" in any way claim they are basically in the same tradition as the Reformation? It seems that in God's own good providence, every generation has its own peculiar battles. Every generation must be constantly reaffirming the gospel in its purity and simplicity. This is no small task, no menial task; it is a laborious task, but it is a task from which we may not shy. A correct understanding of justification has separated, and continues to separate, Romanists and Arminians from those who hold to what is commonly referred to as the Doctrines of Grace. Unhappily, the "new" view of justification is separating itself from the old view held since the time of the Reformation. May our gracious God be pleased to exalt his name and may he grant that we join the chorus: But those who wait on the LORD
In this third article it is imperative to keep in mind that we have only one goal. We want to answer the basic question that Paul asks in Galatians 3:19. The KJV says, "Wherefore then serveth the law?" The NIV states, "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" In our last article we showed that the New Perspective on Justification gives a totally different answer to that question than the historic view of Luther. In this article we want to look carefully at how the Scriptures themselves, especially Paul's writings, answer this all-important question. Any theology that gives a wrong answer to the question concerning the original purpose of the law could hardly give us a correct view of Paul on justification. If we misunderstand the purpose for which God gave the law in the first place, we can hardly understand its purpose and function today. We differ with the New Perspective on Justification's view of the Old Covenant on at least two points. First, as we saw in the last article, [See July, 2002 issue of Sound of Grace] this new view teaches that the Old Covenant could be kept and in some instances was kept by certain people. They can say this because they insist that the Old Covenant did not demand "anything close to perfect obedience." In no sense is this a minor point. This difference affects one's whole approach to justification. I believe the Scripture is clear that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only human person that ever kept the Old Covenant. The second point of disagreement is directly related to the first. The New Perspective, in total agreement with classical Covenant Theology, insists that the law was given "to a people that God had redeemed." We wholeheartedly agree that obeying the law was the clear obligation and delight of a true believer. However, we disagree that that was the primary purpose for which God gave it. The New Perspective insists that the Israelite was "given life" by being "born into the covenant," and he now obeyed the law to guarantee that he stayed within the covenant. The whole idea of "getting into the covenant" and "staying in the covenant" is in one sense the key idea of the New Perspective. We will look at "Covenant Nomism" in a future article. My whole point in this article is to show how vastly different Paul's view of the purpose for which God gave the law is from the view of the New Perspective on Justification. The basic question we are considering has already been raised by the Apostle: "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" Was its primary purpose to give regenerate people a revelation of God's will to help them know how to show their love to God, or was it given to a nation that was made up of mostly self-righteous rebels that needed to be convinced that they were guilty sinners who needed grace? What do the Scriptures teach? It is very difficult to correctly answer a vital and technical question if one does not clearly understand why the particular question was asked. Let me illustrate what I mean. In Romans 6:1, Paul asks, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?"(NIV). To understand the importance of both the question and the answer, we must ask, "Why did Paul, at that particular point in his argument, ask that particular question?" Nearly everyone agrees that Paul felt his sweeping statement about the purpose of the law in Romans 5:20 could leave him open to the charge of blatant antinomianism. In other words, Paul deliberately raised the question in order to clarify what he meant in Romans 5:20. Here is an outline of Paul's argument in that section: (1) Romans 5:20 is Paul's classic statement on the purpose for which God gave the law. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more…" The law was added for the express purpose of making "the trespass increase." I realize that cuts right across most people's theology, but that is what Paul says. The primary purpose of the law was not to curb sin, nor was its primary function to be a "rule of life for God's redeemed people." Please note the word primary. Paul says the law was given to "make the trespass increase." (2) Paul raises the obvious objection to his statement concerning the purpose of the law. If God deliberately gave the law to make "the trespass increase," and if that gave opportunity for God's grace to be manifested more, is Paul not actually encouraging us to sin "for the glory of God," since by our sin we are helping to make grace increase? Is that not the question Paul is asking in Romans 6:1, "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" Martyn Lloyd-Jones goes so far as to say that when we preach justification by faith, if some of our hearers do not raise this objection to our preaching, then we are probably not preaching the biblical doctrine of justification. I cannot see how anyone will ever make this accusation against the teaching of the New Perspective on justification! (3) We must see that Romans 6:2-13 is Paul's answer to the specific question asked in 6:1. Whatever you understand those verses to mean, they must directly help to answer the question raised in 6:1. (4) Verse 14 is the conclusion to the Paul's answer. Paul here states why it is impossible for the objection in verse one to be valid. Notice that the word for begins the summary of the answer. Romans 6:14 is emphatic: "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace." The primary reason that sin cannot be the master over a Christian is because the Christian is "not under the law but under grace." Being under sin and be under law are directly related, just as being free from the law is connected with being free from sin. Understanding and applying that truth is the essence of preaching the gospel of God's sovereign grace. (5) Just as the sweeping statement in Roman 5:20 logically raised the question in Romans 6:1, so the amazing statement in 6:14 raises another logical question. If I am beyond the reach of the law because I am not under the law but under grace, then does it not follow that I can sin without fear? "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?" (Romans 6:15). That question could only be asked in the light of the truth presented in 6:14. (6) Verses 16 through 23 then answer this second objection. To understand Paul's view of law and grace, you need to see Romans 5:20 as Paul's classic statement on his view of the law, and then see how he goes on in Romans 6 through 8 to explain and defend that statement. It is necessary to ask, "Why would Paul raise the ridiculous question about continuing to sin so that grace can increase if he did not realize his statement in 5:20, on the surface, implied that very thing?" If you understand the statement in Romans 5:20, you will easily see that Galatians 3:19 is asking the identical question and Paul is giving the same answer. We are ready now to consider the matter of why Paul, in Galatians 3:19, asked this specific question about the purpose of the law. Why did he feel compelled to ask, "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" How did the doctrine he was formulating and the problem he was correcting necessitate a clear explanation of God's purpose in giving the law? What was the problem in the Galatian church that Paul was seeking to correct? If we fail to ask and correctly answer the question in Galatians 3:19, we cannot possibly understand Paul's view of the purpose and function of the law in relationship to justification. We must have a basic understanding of the book of Galatians in order to understand Paul's question and his answer. It is obvious that the Galatians did not have a correct understanding of the purpose of the law. In Galatians 4:19, 20, Paul questions the validity of the Galatians' conversion: My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, The problem Paul had with these people was two-fold. First, he did not see the evidence of Christ in their life, nor was their theology Christ-centered. Second, the root of their problem was a total misunderstanding of the law. v. 21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? Paul clearly states that if the Galatians had understood what the true and essential function of the law was in the purpose of God, they would never have wanted to go back under it. Remember, these people were converted and nurtured under the ministry of Paul himself. This proves that true Christians can have a zeal for the law of God that is totally wrong! In Galatians 3:19, Paul is in effect saying, "The law was not given for the purpose for which the Judaizers are using it. Let me show you the true reason for which God gave the law." One thing is clear and must be grasped at the very beginning: Paul is emphatic that the Galatians did not understand the true nature and function of the law. It follows just as clearly that teachers or theologies that currently attempt to use the law in the same manner as the Galatians are just as wrong as the Galatians. We will ask and answer two related questions: First, exactly why did Paul raise that particular question at that time with that group of people? What had he said prior to the question about the law or about justification that provoked that specific question? The answer is that Paul was convinced the Galatians did not understand God's purpose in giving the law in the first place. They were corrupting the gospel of free and sovereign grace by adding law-keeping as an essential element in justification. Now listen carefully. The Judaizers were not in any way denying that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and that he must be received in faith as the Messiah. They insisted as strongly as Paul that a person must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. I repeat, in no way were they denying the absolute necessity of believing in Christ. However, they were denying the absolute sufficiency of Jesus Christ. The Judaizers were not pitting law against grace, or faith against works as alternative ways to be saved. They were mixing the two things as equal parts of one whole. They were not saying, "You must be saved by works and not faith," but rather, "You must be saved by both faith and works." In other words, their gospel message was, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, keep the Law of Moses, persevere unto the end and then, finally, you will be saved." Some would have added, "and since it was grace that enabled you to both believe and to persevere in good works to the end, then, in reality, you are saved entirely by grace." I repeat, I cannot emphasize too strongly that the Judaizers did not in any way deny the absolute necessity of faith in Christ. However, they denied the absolute sufficiency of faith alone to bring about justification. The second related question is this: Why would I, and others like me, spend so much time and effort on this subject in this year of A.D. 2002, long after Paul wrote to the Galatians? Why would I knowingly lose dear friends of long standing over a problem in the Galatian church of Paul's day? The answer is simple. Many of us believe the identical error has been dressed in modern garb and is being propagated in our churches today. In order to both prove and clarify this I want to discuss several things: (1) Exactly what did Paul say that would have provoked the specific question "What, then, was the purpose of the law" in Galatians 3:19? (2) How does his answer to that question square with our understanding of God's purpose for the law, past, present and future? (3) Are men today basically undermining, even if unconsciously, the message of Paul even as the Galatians were? Let's begin with Galatians 3:1. Notice the rapid-fire questions in Galatians 3:1-5. Remember the single question with which we are concerned: "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" And remember the two answers that we are comparing: Was the primary function of the law conviction of sin unto justification, or was its primary purpose to help believers "stay in the covenant?" The emphasis in bolding is mine. 1. You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3. Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4. Have you suffered so much for nothing--- if it really was for nothing? 5. Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? Phillips paraphrases verse 1: "O you dear idiots of Galatia … who has been casting a spell over you?" They were 'dear' to him but they were still acting like idiots. Paul is amazed at how quickly they departed from the truth. "Nothing else but being bewitched can explain your utter stupidity." Galatians deals with one basic theme approached from two different angles. The basic theme is: "What is the gospel?" or "How did you become a Christian?" Paul calls it "receiving the Spirit" or becoming a "true child of Abraham." Notice it is not "when" you received the Spirit, but "how." It is assumed by Paul that all Christians have received the Spirit, and that they did so at the point of conversion. "Receiving the spirit" is synonymous with becoming Christians. John Stott has said it well: Paul assumes that they have all received the Spirit. His question is not whether they have received Him, but whether they received Him by works or by faith (verse 2). He assumes also that this is how their Christian life began (verse 3: having begun with the Spirit). What he is asking concerns how they received the Spirit and so began the Christian life. What part did they play in the process? (John Stott, The Message of Galatians [IVP, 1968], 71.) So the question concerns understanding the gospel. (1) Is justification based solely on faith? Is it "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ–plus nothing?" (2) Or is the Gospel based on both faith and works? Is it "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, be circumcised and keep the law of Moses and you will be saved?" Which of the two is the biblical way of salvation? Put in the terms of the argument at Galatia: Is Christianity the religion of Abraham–grace and faith? Or is it the religion of Moses–law and works? The two different angles presented in Paul's letter are these: (1) What must a person do to get into a state of grace (Justification, being saved in the first place)? (2) What must he do to stay in a state of grace (Sanctification, growing in grace in the Christian life.)? If the answers to both of these questions contain absolutely nothing with regard to our keeping the law, and indeed they do not, then the logical question in Galatians 3:19 looms large. "Why, then, did God give His Holy Law?" We must see that Paul's question here, just as in Romans 6:1, is the logical conclusion to what he has just said about the law. First, if the law neither saves nor sanctifies, and it can indeed do neither, then why did God ever give the law in the first place? And, second, what is the Christian's relationship to the law today? Must Gentiles be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved, or 'become the true children of Abraham'? All of this is clearly asked in 3:1-5. (1) Verse 2 deals with how you got saved in the first place. "Did you receive the Spirit [get converted] by observing the law, or by believing what you heard?" Is it faith or works? (2) Verse 3 deals with your perseverance in faith. "Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" Are you justified by faith and sanctified by your works? Are you saved by grace and sanctified by the law? (See Jerry Bridges' books, Transforming Grace and Disciplines of Grace [NavPress], for a biblical answer to these questions.) Verse 5 is a good summary and again asks whether God's blessings in any sense come to a sinner because he obeys the law, or do they come purely by faith? "Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?" In other words, is God's religion based on the principle of 'do' or the principle of 'believe'? Is Christianity the religion of Abraham or the religion of Moses? Again, John Stott has said it well: God's dealing with Abraham and Moses were based on two different principles. To Abraham He gave a promise ('I will show you a land … I will bless you …,' Gen 12:1, 2). But to Moses He gave the law, summarized in the Ten Commandments. 'These two things, (as I do often repeat),' comments Luther, 'to wit, the law and promise, must be diligently distinguished. For in time, in place, and in person, and generally in all other circumstances, they are separate as far asunder as heaven and earth…' Again, 'unless the Gospel be plainly discerned from the law, the true Christian doctrine cannot be kept sound and uncorrupt.' What is the difference between them? In the promise to Abraham God said, 'I will … I will … I will … '. But in the law of Moses God said, 'Thou shalt … thou shalt not …'. The promise sets forth a religion of God-God's plan, God's grace, God's initiative. But the law sets forth a religion of man-man's duty, man's works, man's responsibility. The promise (standing for the grace of God) had only to be believed. But the law (standing for the works of men) had to be obeyed. God's dealings with Abraham were in the category of 'promise', 'grace', and 'faith'. But God's dealings with Moses were in the category of 'law', 'commandment' and 'works'. (Ibid, 86, 7.) When we remember that both the religion of Abraham and the religion of Moses were ordained and given by God, then we dare not merely set them in opposition to each other and discard the one and keep the other. We must clearly understand the biblical relationship of the promise (the religion of Abraham) and the law (the religion of Moses). The question in Galatians 3:19 looms larger and larger. We know the law is "holy, just and good," and we know that God deliberately gave it to Israel for the purpose of administering death (2 Cor. 3). How do we get these two facts together and fit them into the message of the gospel of free and sovereign grace? What indeed is the real purpose and function of the law? If God is the author of the promise to Abraham and also the author of the law given to Moses, then he must have had a distinct reason for giving the law as well as the promise. They must ultimately both serve the same end. That is the exactly the question that Paul asked not only in Galatians 3:19, but also dealt with after his statement of apparent antinomianism in Romans 5:20. I think all will agree that Galatians 3:19 is a very key text of Scripture. It asks the specific question concerning the purpose and function of the law. "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" ANSWER: "It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." The text provokes at least three obvious questions: 1. To what was the law added? 2. Why did God add the law (to whatever it was added to), or, what does because of transgressions mean? 3. Was it a permanent or temporary addition, or, what does until the seed should come to whom the promises are made mean? The typical response of classic Covenant Theology is that the phrase "it was added" means the law was an "addendum added to the Abrahamic covenant." That understanding would clearly contradict Galatians 3:15. "Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case." Not only may a covenant not be set aside after two parties agree on its terms, but nothing at all can be added to or taken away from the terms of the covenant once it is cut. To "add" the Mosaic covenant as an addendum to the covenant God made with Abraham would in effect change the very nature of the Abrahamic covenant. Classical Covenant Theology uses the fence theory to explain "because of transgression." It insists the law was given to protect Israel (fence them in) from pagan idolatry and willful sin until Christ came. This was necessary to "protect the gospel." If that was the law's intention or purpose, nothing ever failed as badly as the law. The Jews were constantly going into idolatry, and the generation that was alive when Christ came crucified him because they had corrupted the gospel into a religion of works. Lastly, Covenant Theology further insists that the "law" in Galatians can mean anything you want it to mean as long as it does not mean, or include in its meaning, the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments, or so-called 'moral law', must be excised out of the term law and raised to a separate level; otherwise you must admit that the commandments, as part of the whole law, were in force only "until the seed should come." The law that Paul is talking about had a historical beginning at Sinai and a historical end at the coming of Christ. I think any fair and honest interpretation of Galatians 3:19, and Paul's whole theology of law, must see and understand at least three things: 1. The law, in some sense, was added to the revelation of God. Sinai was not the beginning of law, but it was the beginning of written and codified law. Statements like "before the law," "the law entered," "until the law, sin was in the world" do not mean that either sin or guilt began at Mount Sinai. Nor can those texts be made to mean, "Well, the law really was there long before Sinai." I repeat, the law, meaning the Ten Commandments as a summation of the terms of the Old Covenant, must have, in some sense, a historical beginning at Sinai and a historical end when Christ comes. The law that had been written in the conscience and given orally was, for the first time, codified and put into written form at Mount Sinai. The Sabbath commandment was added to those commandments as the covenant sign, and the law became a covenant document written on Tablets of Stone, or Tables of the Covenant, by the finger of God. This covenant document was expanded into the "Book of the Covenant" and later the phrase "Old Covenant" included the whole Mosaic administration including the ceremonial feasts. So we can say that the law, as a covenant document, was added to the revelation of God. This answers the first question raised by our text. 2. The law was also added to man's conscience. Sin took on the character of willful transgression of revealed, codified, covenant law. At Sinai, God imprisoned man's conscience under the terms and threats of the law as a covenant of life and death. That is the meaning of Paul's terms in Galatians 3:22-24: "the Scripture has confined all under sin," (v.22); "kept under guard by the law," "shut up to faith," (v. 23); "the law was our tutor" (v. 24). These expressions cannot be either glossed over or treated as if these functions of the law existed prior to Sinai. There is a distinct period of time (some would call it a 'dispensation') that existed "before the law," that is distinguished from another period of time, "after the law." The dividing point between the two is the "giving of the law." There is also a "before sin" and "after sin" period of time separated by "sin entering into the world." The phrase 'because of transgressions' does not mean the law was given for the "express purpose of curbing transgressions." Actually, Paul is saying that God's purpose was exactly the opposite. The law was specifically designed by God to magnify sin by clear definition and thus bring sin to the surface. The law did not make a person sin, or make him more sinful, but the law did provoke sin and thus expose it. The law certainly made man more accountable for his sin. This amazing fact was a great problem for the Jew. He could not believe God's holy law was deliberately designed by God to be a "ministry of death." He could not understand how the law 'blessed' a sinner by killing any and every hope the sinner had of achieving heaven by works, birth, or ritual. The truth presented in our text and in Romans 5:20 and Romans 7:5-13 provides the correct understanding of the purpose and function of the holy law of God. Let's look at the Romans 5 and 7 passages for further understanding of what Paul means by the phrase "the law was added because of transgressions." The ASV has a note, "for the sake of defining." Remember, we are still seeking to answer the question, "What, then, was the purpose of the law?" In Romans 7:5, Paul writes: For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (NIV) The sinful nature is stronger than reason, conscience, and law all put together. Notice that Paul specifically states that the law actually "aroused sinful passions." The law was the instrument that brought the sinful passions to the surface. It is indeed an amazing statement, but the law is the greatest ally that sin has. That is exactly what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15:56: "The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law." The law actually gives sin its awesome strength. The purpose for which the law was given is stated clearly in this passage. If you are tempted by sin, and seek help from the law, will the law help you or help sin? It is an amazing thought, but Scripture is clear. The law will help sin, or rather, sin will use the law. 3. The specific tutorial function of the law that began at Sinai and ended with the coming of Christ, was peculiar to the nation of Israel and lasted only until the time when the Holy Spirit became the New Covenant pedagogue, or "until the seed should come." This brings us to our third question: Was the law a permanent or temporary addition? Again, we find that Paul addresses this aspect of the law in Romans chapter 7, this time in verse 6: But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. The phrase written code can only refer to the Ten Commandments as a covenant document of life and death. The phrase written code is deliberately set in contrast to the "new way of the Spirit." This is the "written code that was against us" and was taken away by the cross (Col. 2:14). The law, as covenant terms or written code, must not be allowed to terrorize a believer's conscience. The law can neither bless the believer nor curse the believer. He is beyond the reach of the power of the law to be either his judge or executioner, or his benefactor. Galatians 5:6 and Romans 7:4 are the key verses concerning our new service in Christ through grace. Romans 7:4: Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. Galatians 5:6: For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (KJV) We must have all three of the things mentioned in this last text: We must have faith, but it must be a faith that works, and not a dead faith. However, it must be a faith whose works are motivated by love and not fear. None of these things are optional in true salvation. We must have all three and they must be in the right order. Summary As we wrap up our answer to the question, "Why, then, the law?", please look with me at one last key passage. Paul illustrates and explains our relationship to the law in Romans 7:1-13: 1. Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2. For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. 4. So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. Paul here sets forth the real problem with the law. Was the law perfectly holy? Yes! Was the law perfectly good? Yes! Was it a just law? Yes! Were its demands as a husband good, just, and fair? Yes? Then why did we have to die to the law as a husband? Why did that relationship have to be totally nullified? What was wrong with our first husband—the law—that made it essential that we be totally delivered from it as a husband? Look at Romans 7:4. We had to die to the law, as the only means of legitimately severing our relationship to it, so we could be married to Christ, "In order that we might bear fruit to God"! The law cannot plant a seed in our hearts that will provoke love and produce fruit acceptable to God. The law cannot produce holiness. It can only condemn, and that is exactly the job that God gave it to do. All that the law can "provoke" in our hearts is sin and fear. The law is an impotent husband when it comes to furnishing a seed that can produce holy fruit unto God. As long as the conscience is wedded to the law and motivated by its just, holy, and good demands, which we cannot meet, it can never produce acceptable works of righteousness. This is true even though the law is "holy, just and good." The seed of the gospel alone can produce the fruits of grace. Is that not exactly what verses 5 and 6 are saying? 5. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. 7. What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." In verse 7, Paul asks, "Is it the law's fault that I cannot be holy?" He recognizes that it is a nonsensical question, and his own answer is a resounding no! Is the law either sinful or in any way to blame for my sin? No! The whole problem is created when I try to use the law to perform a function that God never intended the law to perform. This is the very point Paul makes in chapter four of Galatians with the allegory of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a wonderful handmaid but was never meant to bear Abraham's children. Likewise, the law was a wonderful handmaid of the gospel but was never meant to produce holiness in either a sinner or a saint. Paul says that Hagar is a symbol of the law covenant given at Sinai, and his whole point is that the law was never intended to beget, or be the mother of, holiness. Hagar, the law, had to be cast out along with the child she had produced. In our passage from Romans, Paul continues to link the strength of sin to the law: 8. But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. This is the same principle that Paul presents in 1 Corinthians 15:56, and which we considered earlier. Sin uses the law against us. The law actually produces the fruit of sin in us because our natures are willing slaves of sin. Apart from the law, sin is present, but it is asleep as far as our feeling its power. The law makes it spring to life. 9. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I did not become either a sinner or more sinful when the law came in power. All the law did was to help prove what was true all along, namely, that I am a depraved sinner. That was exactly its God ordained purpose. We would never have believed we were so wicked apart from the law 'coming' in power. 10. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. The law covenant promised life for all those who obeyed. However, the more sincerely one attempts to keep the law, the more acutely he feels the power of death. The words, "intended to bring life" does not mean that God actually hoped some sinners would be able to do so. This is a grievous misunderstanding of the purpose of law advocated by the New Perspective on justification. The phrase means that there are two ways of life set forth in the OT Scriptures. (1) Obey the covenant and live, or, (2) believe the promise made to Abraham and live. Paul is saying, "I have news for you, however, if you try the first way, you will never make it. But then, that's exactly why God set them in front of you." 11. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good 13. Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful. (NIV) Again, in verses 11 and 12, Paul shows the awful power of sin to use the law as an ally. When misused, the holy, righteous, and good law of God is one the greatest hindrances to biblical sanctification. I urge a reading of the introduction to Lloyd-Jones' book on the seventh chapter of Romans where he deals with this truth. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can read Romans 7:13 and then say, "God gave his holy law to a redeemed people so they could show their love by obeying it." I find it even more difficult to understand how the New Perspective on Justification can say, "The law never demanded anything even close to sinless perfection." Romans 5:20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, Conclusion Neither the individual laws nor the guilt of sin came into being for the first time at Sinai. God judged and drowned the whole world, apart from Noah and his family, because of the awful sin of mankind at that time. Genesis 6:5 tells the whole story: "The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Remember this took place long before 'the law was given' at Sinai. The people who lived before the law were just as wicked in their hearts and in their lives as those living under the law after Sinai. The law had nothing to do with making man more depraved. At Sinai sin took on the nature of actual and deliberate transgression of a known commandment. Look up Romans 4:15, "… because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression." It does not say, "where there is no law there is no sin." There was sin before Sinai, but sin was not reckoned as a breach of covenant law. Sin was not reckoned as transgression of law simply because the law had not yet been given. Let me illustrate what I mean. Suppose we were playing volleyball without any boundary lines laid down. We said, "Out of bounds is about there someplace," with nothing to mark it. Imagine the arguments over whether a given shot was or was not out of bounds. Suppose we put down rocks or handkerchiefs at the four corners of the court. That would help some but not very much. Finally, we put down either a string or a white chalk line. Now the boundaries have been set. Now that we have clearly 'defined' out-of-bounds, we can know for sure whether we are within or outside of those lines. Those boundary lines will not only tell what is truly in and out of bounds, they will also tell how honest you are and whether you want to win at any cost. Your attitude to the lines reveals your heart. The presence of the lines will sometimes bring out of you "another person." It is amazing how some people simply cannot stand to lose and will lie and cheat. Once the lines are laid down, then ignorance can no longer be a mitigating factor in any sense. In and out of bounds are clearly marked, thus bringing some lies clearly to the surface. At Sinai, God laid down clear boundary lines and made obedience to those lines the basis of his covenant relationship with the nation of Israel. After Sinai, the nation of Israel not only sinned against conscience and the law written in the heart, they also deliberately sinned against clearly known written covenant laws. The New Perspective's insistence that the law could be kept, and was a means of maintaining one's standing in the covenant does not take into account Paul's teaching on the purpose of the law. It misses the concept of the relationship between sin and the law, and makes the law to be only an instrument of sanctification, contrary to Paul's statements in Galatians 3:3-5. Paul recognizes that his presentation of the law's purpose and effect lays him open to the charge of anti-nomianism. If our perception of the law does not leave us open to the same charge, is it possible that we are not grasping the subject in the way Paul intended us to? Is there any way that the New Perspective's view of the law could result in an accusation of anti-nomianism? Not only is the New Perspective's view on justification contrary to Luther and both historic and contemporary Reformed theology, as we demonstrated in our earlier articles, it is contrary to the Apostle Paul himself. For Whom Did Christ Die Submitted by Pastor Don McKinney For His people: Matthew 1:21. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. For the elect: Romans 8:33-34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. 34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, [for those God justified] yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us [for whom He died]. For "My people": Isa 53:8. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. For the "children of God": John 11:51-52. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. For "His seed": Isa 53:10. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. For the "many sons": Heb 2:10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For the sheep: John 10:15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. For the Church: Acts 20:28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And also - Eph 5:25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; For His friends: John 15:13. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. For "the many": Matt 20:28. Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. For the seed of Abraham: Heb 2:14-16. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. |