GRACE
Part
15
In Grace, Part 14, I shifted from discussing the
differences between those who hold to the views of Pelagius vis-a-vis Augustine
to those who differ regarding the nature of sanctification among those who
claim to be Augustinian. In this issue I will continue along this same vein.
What role does the Old Testament Law play in
sanctification? This is the topic of this issue.
First, let’s discuss the meaning of the word Law. God
uses the Hebrew word Torah for
those commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Before
this time the Bible mentions
Torah only once, in Genesis 26:5, when the Lord appears
to Abraham: Because that
Abraham obeyed
my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
When used in reference to the Mosaic Law Torah includes
the dietary, civil, ceremonial and moral laws. In the New Testament the Greek
word for law is nomos. (Ethos is sometimes used for law when in
reference to customs or way of life). Nomos often refers to the Mosaic
Law but is also used in other ways, as seen in Romans 7:21-25.
In Romans 7:1-20 Paul consistently uses nomos in
reference to the Mosaic Law. Let’s look at what he says in Romans 7:1-3: Know
ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while
her husband Iiveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she
is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Paul uses the analogy of the woman’s relationship to her
husband to show that the authority of the Mosaic Law is not perpetual. In this
illustration the wife is the believer and the husband is the Law.
The illustration would have been more exact if Paul had
said that the Law is dead rather than that we are dead to the Law. Then we,
still alive, could marry another. We see the reason Paul worded it this way in
verse 1: them that know the law, i.e. Paul didn’t explicitly say the Law
is dead in deference to the Jews. Probably Paul did not want to offend the Jews
and thus complicate the problem of communication.
Paul gives the application in 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.
Being dead to the Law I am joined to Christ. I am in
union with Christ in the same way I used to be in union with the Law. The
passage implies that the Law cannot produce fruit pleasing to God.
Paul teaches that just as the woman is free from the law
of marriage when her husband dies, so the believer is free from the Mosaic Law
when Christ died. The Law was our first husband, and it died with Christ who
fulfilled its demands. We married Christ when He rose from the dead and we were
converted. This union is essential to holiness.
Freedom from the Law does not grant us leave to indulge
ourselves but to bear fruit unto
God. Christ provides freedom from Law by satisfying the Law’s
demands. We clearly
see that Paul talks about the Mosaic Law in verse 7
where he uses the Tenth
Commandment not to covet as his illustration.
Paul does not argue salvation by Law in the Old
Testament and through grace in the New Testament. The Law never saved
anyone--only grace. Rather, the issue is living under Law. The Old Testament
saints were in union with the Law; in the New Testament we are in
union with Christ. Thus, in the New Testament God frees the
believer from the Law in a way that He did not for the Old Testament saints.
The issue of Romans 7 is sanctification, not justification.
Some in the Augustinian camp argue that the New
Testament Church carries the mantle of Old Testament Israel, and therefore
appropriates to herself all the Old Testament covenants. In particular this
includes the Mosaic Covenant.
Christians from every tradition agree that the New
Testament enforces the Abrahamic Covenant. As Paul says in Galatians 3:29: And
if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Not all agree, however, regarding the Mosaic Covenant.
Those who insist that the Mosaic Covenant is in force today say, The New
Testament believer is obligated to keep all Old Testament laws unless they are repealed
in the New Testament. Examples of Old Testament laws repealed in the New
Testament are those that pertain to the sacrificial system, which the death of
Christ annulled.
Titles given to those who
hold an extreme form of this view include Theonomy, Cultural Mandate and
Dominion Covenant. They believe that the Church has a mission to claim the
institutions of society for Christ and do what Israel failed to do in the Old
Testament, i.e. establish a theocratic kingdom on earth. The Puritan Lord
Protector of England, Oliver Cromwell, in the Seventeenth Century held this
view, for example.
The majority of those who believe in the continuity of
the Mosaic Covenant in the New Testament are not this radical. They do not have
as their goal making the United States a theocratic nation. But when I talked
to the president of a major seminary that embraces this view, he said that
although they disagree with Theonomy, they are defenseless against it. Once you
embrace the application of the Mosaic Covenant in the Church, you have
difficulty refuting Theonomy.
Others, who hold to the Augustinian view of Romans 5-8,
do not believe that the Mosaic Covenant applies to the New Testament Church,
and say, The Old Testament laws are not obligatory for the New Testament
believer unless God repeats them in the New Testament. Because of
Romans 7:1-4 (plus a host of other passages, including Romans 6:14) I hold to this view.
Those who believe in the continuity of the Mosaic
Covenant call those of us who do not antinomian”: anti = against; nomian
(nomos) = law. Many use it polemically to connote a total disregard for the
commandments of God.
Those who believe that the Mosaic Law applies to the
Church conclude that we receive justification by grace and sanctification by
Law. Whether we receive sanctification by grace or by Law makes a profound
difference on how we view the Christian life.
If you use the Law as a
guide to sanctification, your heart will feel condemned because of your
inability to measure up to the Law’s demands. If you have a sensitive
For this reason many, who believe once saved, always
saved doubt their salvation and even refuse to take communion. Having looked
to the Law as a guide to sanctification, they feel guilty and question if they
are among the elect.
How to handle sin in my life is the key issue in
sanctification. Do I question my election and become preoccupied with trying to
keep the Law, or do I recognize and accept my freedom in Christ because of His
grace and move ahead in my growth in the Christian life? This is why the
question of JUSTIFICATION BY GRACE; SANCTIFICATION BY LAW is so important.
If I look to the Law for sanctification rather than the
presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, I will not be free from the Law, but
enslaved by it. (Remember, the Old Testament saints
never looked to the Law for justification, but rather to
the grace and mercy of God. Thus if the Old Testament saints were under the Law
and we are not, it must mean that the Old Testament saints sought to keep it as
the standard whereby they pleased God). In summary, the Old Testament saints
endeavored to keep the law as a means of pleasing God rather than as the means
of justification.
I am propositionally and emotionally secure in my
relationship with God because of His grace. Grace means I am not on a
performance standard, and this is why I can be honest with Him. Romans 7 deals
with the reality of the conflict of sin in my life in light of my position as
explained in Romans 6.
Those justified are sanctified, and only those
sanctified can claim justification. Yet justification is an absolute term,
while sanctification is relative. The former is an ACT, the latter a PROCESS.
The latter has a measure of degree, but not the former.
If I view the Law as the standard by which I measure
myself, I will either become legalistic and pharisaical or I will despair and
lose my assurance of salvation. This produced the confusion of Mark 7 and the
problem Jesus had with the religious community of His day. I naturally tend to
look to the Law for justification when I look to the Law for sanctification.
The experience of Romans 7:14-25 is relative, e.g. in v.
23: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind,
and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. It
is clear that some are more captive to sin than others. Therefore,
THEOLOGICALLY we can say that sanctification must follow justification (cf.
Romans 6:1, 6), but EXPERIENTIALLY we cannot say that because one doesn’t show
the fruit of sanctification he isn’t justified. We must, however, discipline
those who break the negative commandments (cf. I Corinthians 5) and TREAT them
as though they are not justified.
A cursory reading of the New Testament reveals the
presence of commandments that are binding on the believer. Grace means that the
rules do not define the relationship. If I break the rules, confrontation is
essential, not because of the rule per se, but because of a concern for me, the
rule breaker.
Jim Rayburn of Young Life illustrates this well. He told
kids that Young Life wouldn’t major on rules but on the adventure of getting to
know the Creator God of the universe. If you major on rules, you despair. If
you major on knowing Christ, the rules take care of themselves.
Every parent understands this in raising children. If I
accept my child because he keeps the rules, he will feel perpetually on
probation and will view our relationship as legalistic and brittle. If I accept
my child because he is my child and I major on developing a relationship with
him, the rules tend to take care of themselves.
This holds true in all our relationships, with fellow
believers, our children, and most importantly in our relationship with God. We
relate to Him on the basis of grace, not law.
The
grace of our Lord be with you,