The Sword Room

Enough is enough! Rob Bell’s newest book is like his others: a vague jumbled mess of confusing conflicting ideas with no real rhyme or reason. It isn’t that what Bell writes is deep; it’s just flat stupid. Or, he knows that the brain-dead Christians who read his garbage will lap it up without gagging or flinching. This is his worst book ever, and it was a waste of money. I have wasted too much time already on it and I will end my review with one last entry. If you do read the book–and I would recommend that if you do you borrow it and don’t funnel any more money to this joker–here is a heads up, as close as I am able to discern, as to where Bell is going in this book.

I already told you how he starts off with a chapter called Open in which he tells us that we need to be open to new ways of thinking about God because we are ever learning and evolving. What was good enough in the superstitious pre-enlightened Bible times will not cut it in our advanced technological world.

The next chapter is built around the word Both. Here Bell tells us that God is so transcendent and unknowable that human language cannot accurately describe him. Scripture is a feeble account of people who encountered God and then tried the best they could to write an account of their experience. These sacred stories point us to God but they are not God. Mind you, I have never heard a single theologian ever say scripture is God. Basically Bell is repeating the Neo-Orthodox view of revelation espoused by Karl Barth and Emil Bruner, who said that the Bible is not the word of God, but rather points us to God, becomes the word of God when we existentially experience God through it as a vehicle of revelation. Bell does not come right out and say this, but allows you to draw your own conclusion. For that matter, Bell doesn’t come right out and say anything that could be used to label him for the heretic he is.

Bell says we need to learn how to embrace paradox and mystery in our faith. When you hear people talking like this it is code for unbelief, plain and simple. Bell says we need to see opposites like faith/doubt and conviction/uncertainty as dance partners rather than enemies. Square that one with Hebrews 11 if you can.

Next Bell builds a chapter around the word With, and talks about the immanence of God. However what he is referring to is not the biblical concepts of general revelation and divine providence. In fact he never mentions these. Instead he rambles on about how God’s Spirit is present in everything and how God is encountered in the somber heavy experiences of life, such as in witnessing a death or the birth of a baby. Or through a realization of the oneness and interconnectedness of all things. Or through our collective sense of hope, purpose, and direction.

In a short chapter developed around the word For Bell talks about how God is for everyone and desires that all reach their highest potential as human beings and experience meaning and joy in their lives. Pure onward and upward humanism sugar coated with Christian-ese jargon.

These other chapters bring us to the word Ahead. God is ever pulling us ahead to join him and understand him in new ways more in keeping with our evolutionary development. We live in an enlightened technological age now, and we cannot go back to the old categories of describing God characteristic of a more magical, superstitious time in history. It is obvious in reading Bell that he holds to the Big Bang theory and standard Darwinian evolutionary theory. In tandem with this he seems to hold to a view of religion espoused by 20th Century liberal German theologians called the History of Religions School, or religionsgeschichtliche. For example he claims that religions developed as man evolved and tried to find explanations for the phenomena they observed. They attributed fertility and crop growth to gods, who were in control of the rain, sunlight, temperature, etc. They built altars and offered sacrifices to these Gods in an attempt to please them. A good crop meant they were pleased, and if you pissed them off they would send drought and famine. The problem with this view, not to mention it is based on a humanistic cosmology, is that it flies in the face of the biblical facts of creation, revelation, and man’s suppression of the knowledge of God, as manifested in the false religions of the world.

A couple other items to keep in mind. Bell talks about holism–the belief that truth must be understood as an organic whole and not by the breaking things down into their component parts for examination. For this reason he seems to eschew disciplines like exegesis, systematic theology, creeds and confessions, etc. I say seems because Bell gives you enough to get impressions of what he believes, but he never just comes right out and says it. He is a slick weasel.

Another telling thing is that Bell makes frequent reference to the Jesus story. This is an expression used by theological liberals who talk about the events described in the gospels but in fact view them as sacred myth with no objective historicity. I have no way of knowing where Bell really stands on this or virtually any other subject because he is a master of saying as much as he needs to say to screw people up without hanging himself.

In the end I have to say I really cannot tell if Bell is a genuine Christian. I can tell you this: what he says and doesn’t say in his books can in no way be contained in the pale of Christian teaching. The sad thing is that millions of unsuspecting believers will read his shit and think it’s great. Pastors will simply ignore it in hopes it will blow over without their having to denounce Bell, thereby appearing unloving, intolerant, or divisive.

OK, I’m done.

So often I hear Christians talk about how lucky we are as believers to not be under the Law of Moses. Most of the time what they mean is that it is nice not to be bound by stringent dietary regulations and a Levitical priestly system of bloody sacrifices. With this who would disagree?

Others would say they are glad not to be under the Mosaic Law because under the New Covenant we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone. But this kind of thinking assumes that there was a time in history, particularly the period in which Israel was under the Law of Moses, that sinners were pronounced righteous in some other way–namely obedience to the law. Lest you doubt that any reputable Christian would ever countenance such heresy, let me direct your attention to some statements appearing in the marginal notes of the original Scofield Reference Bible.

At John 1:17 the marginal note of the SRB states that in the present dispensation the point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation.

At 1 John 3:7 the SRB editorial note tells us that the righteous man under law became righteous by doing righteously; under grace he does righteously because he has been made righteous.

With good reason future editions of the SRB omitted these rather embarrassing statements. The fact is that no sinner has ever been saved in any other manner than any other sinner. Salvation is by faith plus nothing. Now it is true that in his epistles Paul talks about the Judiaizers being under the law, but he is speaking about their being subject to an aberration and perversion of God’s Law. Theirs was a use of the law never intended by the Lord.

So I am wondering what is so easy about being under the Law of Christ. Here it is again:

Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like to it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:37-39).

We have already seen that the Decalogue is covered by these two commandments. Is it really easier to love God with heart, soul, and mind now than it was in the days of Abraham or David? Loving God with the heart means with a will that chooses God’s way over the lusts of the flesh. Loving God with the soul implies zeal, earnestness, and yes, emotion. Loving God with the mind means we recognize Him for who He is and do not replace Him with the man-made caricatures of books like The Shack or theological systems like Arminianism.  I don’t know about you, but I am not too good at this business of loving God.

I am no better when it comes to loving others as I already love myself. Jesus is not saying here that we should love ourselves first as prerequisite to loving others. Rather He is assuming that we already love ourselves. Our problem is not that we hate ourselves, but that we love ourselves too much. In fact even the person who takes his own life is acting selfishly. He does not hate himself but rather what his life has become. The fact that he wishes it were better shows he does not really hate himself; for you do not wish those well whom you hate.

The core modus operendus of the flesh is self love, self gratification, and self exaltation. By nature we do not love God and we do not love our neighbor. If anything can be said to be better under the New Covenant is that God has given us a new heart and engraved His laws on our hearts. We are dead to sin and alive to God, which means that we are not impotent in the daily battle with the world, flesh and devil. We are indwelt and empowered by the Holy Spirit. we have many means of grace afforded to us to assist us in our spiritual journey.

Here is where higher life models of sanctification are reduced to absurdity. Jesus gives us a two-fold great commandment (not an exhortation or suggestion) to love God and neighbor with everything we have–heart, soul, and mind. Kinda’ looks like He intends we put some elbow grease into it: not for justification; that is a done deal. When you love someone intensely you are willing to work long and hard to please them. It’s called a labor of love. So like I said, my flesh loves itself more than it loves God and others. But because I am able to mortify the deeds of the flesh daily, failure to do so and acquiescence to my own sin is clearly an evidence of self-love. Mine is the opportunity to demonstrate love for God and others in my thoughts, words, and actions. When I do this I am not striving in my own strength, nor do I need to sit and passively wait on God to deliver me from sin when He already has or to give me power for victory that He has already granted. To think otherwise is to be willfully deceived.

So then–the Law of Christ administered under the New Covenant: better, yes. Easier? What planet are you living on?

OK, so if we are under a new covenant mediated by Jesus Christ whereby He is our King and we are His bond-servants, how can we be without law? Who ever heard of a king or kingdom with no laws? Especially since we have been born again by the Holy Spirit and have God’s Law imprinted on the fleshly tablets of our heart?

To be sure the believer is subject to the law of God mediated by his Lord and Savior.

Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).

For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.  And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law (1 C0rinthians 9:19-21).

If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well (James 2:8).

But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed (James 1:25).

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty (James 2:12).

These various expressions seem to harken back to the Lord’s summation of the moral law of God into a two-fold great commandment:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets (Matthew 22:37-40).

If you love God with all your heart, soul , and mind you will not worship false Gods or make idols and graven images. You will not take God’s name in vain. If you truly love God you will obey Him by loving your neighbor as you already love yourself. You will not dishonor your parents. You will not steal, lie, murder, commit adultery, bear false witness, or covet. Now of course no one perfectly meets these standards all the time. The believer knows he is justified by faith and thus his motivation for keeping the law of Christ is that it is the royal law of his king, and it is a law of liberty because he is free from its power to condemn him when he fails.

There is nothing easy or automatic about the law of Christ. But obedience to it is the defining mark of the genuine believer. The bar is set high. Whoever says the Christian is not under God’s law is quite simply mistaken in his understanding of God’s word.

The key to understanding how the New Testament writers–particularly Paul–handle the Old Testament law is the concept of covenant. A biblical covenant is a binding contract between God and His people and follows the form of ancient written agreements called suzerainty treaties. The suzerain, or lord, entered into a treaty with the subjects of conquered lands, called vassals. The contract included promises and benefits the suzerain would afford his subjects as well as stipulations to be obeyed by the vassals, including rewards for compliance and penalties for non-compliance. The first covenant we find in scripture was made between God and Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 15:1-21).

A more detailed covenant was made by God with Israel and mediated through Moses. This covenant is sometimes called the old covenant, and it is the one mentioned most frequently by Paul when he is discussing the law. I assume you are familiar with this covenant, which is spelled out in great detail in Exodus through Deuteronomy. It includes the Ten Commandments and other moral laws, the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system, the dietary laws, and the civil case laws. Included also are promises of blessing for obedience and threats of curse and deportation from the land for apostasy. The important thing to remember is that this covenant was made with a specific nation–Israel. The manner in which one entered into the covenant was primarily through physical descent, although there was a process afforded whereby gentiles could convert as proselytes. This covenant was temporary and served as a preparation and foreshadowing of Christ, who fulfilled the types and shadows as well as moral demands of the old covenant. But judiaizers in the early church sought to bring gentile believers under subjection to the law as it had been administered through Moses as a means of justification. You must understand this contextual backdrop to make sense of Paul’s teaching concerning the role of law in the Christian life.

Christian believers are under what the Bible calls the New Covenant. Whereas the old covenant was administered through Moses with a physical nation, the New Covenant is administered by Jesus Christ. Entrance into the New Covenant is through spiritual regeneration, or the new birth. The New Covenant was predicted by Jeremiah and mentioned throughout the New Testament:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more (Jeremiah 31:31-34).

Under the New Covenant the believer serves as a bond-servant of Jesus who reigns as his prophet, priest, and king. He does not obey Jesus because his salvation depends on it, but rather because genuine salvation involves more than intellectual assent to the facts of the gospel in an act of making a decision to “accept Christ.” The servant of Jesus has passed from spiritual death to spiritual life and is now dead to sin and alive to God. As such he is at no point powerless over sin and in fact has been given a new heart that loves the Lord and wants to obey him. The Spirit indwelt believer does not reject God’s law, as per antinomianism, but rather has the law of God imprinted on his heart. Here is where Jim G. and I will find a point of agreement: as believers we know what right and wrong is for us. When I was first saved I was involved in a relationship with a girl who was not a believer. No one needed to tell me that my fornicating was a sin, although the New Testament is replete with statements to that effect. I knew drunkenness was a sin without reading Ephesians 5:18. I could not be at peace with the Lord or myself as long as I persisted in these habit patterns. The Holy Spirit in me hated sin and I grew to hate it too. I remember clearly settling in my mind the issue as I sat outdoors in my favorite place of prayer: If I have to choose between serving the Lord of righteousness or my own sinful flesh I want the Lord’s best. I cannot say I have always made good on that commitment; but I have never been able to slough off sin and say, “Oh well, it doesn’t matter anyway, since I made a decision for Christ. Once saved always saved.”

Why, then, are nine of the ten commandments restated in the New Testament? Why are there so many moral commands, exhortations, and prohibitions given to Christians? First, here is not the reason why they were given: to show believers their impotence to obey and drive them to Christ in despair. I believe they were given because even though God’s laws are written on our hearts, our hearts are prone to the flesh and the suppression of truth over time. As our society slides ever toilet-ward there are increasing numbers of fake Christians claiming to love the Lord and at the same time saying their consciences do not convict them regarding brazenly sinful behaviors. God’s written commands to believers in the New Testament serve as a corrective against moral decline and a check and balance against laissez faire antinomianism.

So–is the New Testament believer under the Law? Yes. But he is not under God’s Law as administered through Moses in the old covenant. He is now under the law of Christ administered by the Lord in the New Covenant. More on the law of Christ next time.

Here are some verses which seem to say that the law has been fulfilled and abolished for the New Testament believer:

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4).

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian (Galatians 3:23-25).

…by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace (Ephesians 2:15).

Of course we all agree that certain aspects of the Mosaic law were done away with by the work of Christ. After all, no one is offering animal sacrifices for sin on a brazen altar through the mediation of Aaronic priests. Since we are not living under a theocracy we do not execute adulterers, homosexuals, and incorrigible teens. Nor do we observe the Levitical dietary restrictions. We all agree that Jesus fulfilled God’s standard of perfect righteousness and that by faith in him we partake of this imputed righteousness apart from obedience to the moral law of God, as codifed in the Decalogue and elsewhere.

But does this mean there is no sense in which at least the moral law of God applies to the New Testament believer? Some would answer this question in the affirmative, and are some of the ideas which contribute to this notion.

First there is the influence of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is a kind of theology which originated in about 1830 through the teachings of John Nelson Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren movement in England and popularized in America through the publication of the Scofield Reference Bible. Dispensationalism is based on a foundational dichotomy of Israel and the church. Anything that was written to Israel cannot apply to the church even indirectly, and nothing written to the church applies to Israel. For this reason dispensationalists conclude that the law given through Moses has no relevance for the church today because it was for the Jews only.

Another influence is called decisional regeneration and is based on an Arminian concept of the new birth. Proponents of this view hold that a sinner is capable of believing the gospel before he has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit (i.e., while he is still spiritually dead). As a result of his decision for Christ, often expressed through reciting a sinner’s prayer, walking an aisle, raising a hand, or filling out a decision card, he is made alive. Under this scheme a person’s new birth is based on his libertarian free will and choice to “accept Christ,” rather than the sovereign work of God. Unlike many Arminians the decisionalist holds to an aberration of the biblical doctrine of perseverance called eternal security. Eternal security is the belief that once a person has believed the gospel and is pronounced righteous he can never be subsequently lost. The Calvinist believer in perseverance will agree up to this point. But the Bible believer parts company with the decisionalist on an important point: he does not believe it is possible for a truly regenerate believer to go through his entire life devoid of any fruit of the new birth. The decisionalist believer in eternal security, while he would not say it is right or good to disobey God, would nonetheless say it really doesn’t matter what a person does or does not do after salvation as far as his fire insurance policy is concerned. In his mind justification and sanctification are sealed off hermetically from one another in an air-tight compartmentalization.

Finally, there is what I will call higher-life dualism. This approach to the Christian life is a modernized version of Gnosticism and is based on a Platonic dualism of body and spirit/soul. The body is either bad or merely impotent (and irrelevant). When a person is saved his soul/spirit is indwelt by Jesus. The believer in and of himself is powerless to do anything but passively yield to the indwelling Christ because there was no real constitutional change wrought at salvation.  The only difference, it is said, between a saved and unsaved sinner is that the saved sinner is forgiven.The idea therefore is to stop trying to obey God in your own strength (because you can’t) and get out of God’s way and let Him do it through you.  Let go and let God. Allow Him to lead and guide you through a mystical process quite apart from human effort. While proponents of this kind of thinking pay lip service to God’s word they are in fact more prone to give extra-biblical impressions and twinges more credence than scripture. The whole key to higher-life spirituality is to realize you have two competing dogs in you, the white or good dog (Jesus) and the bad black dog (you). Feed the good dog and starve the bad dog and you will experience victory by God’s power working through you in an unmediated fashion. You will see this kind of thinking reflected when you hear a preacher pray just before his sermon that the people will not see or hear him, but that they will see and hear only Jesus. Or when believers piously shun “striving in the flesh” and ”wait on the Lord” for power to do what He has already enabled them to do; meanwhile they hypocritically work their asses off in more mundane matters such as business or yard-work.

These factors converge to produce an antinomian philosophy of the Christian life that has no room for any kind of law. The problem is that when we look at the New Testament we see nine of the ten commandments explicitly repeated or indirectly implied. In this connection observe the following table:

There are many more examples I could give, such as Paul’s command against stealing in Ephesians 4:28 and the Lord’s denunciation against not only the act of adultery, but of sexual lust as well (Matthew 5:28.). The obvious question is: if antinomian higher-life theology is true then why does God command us to obey His law in the New Testament? Was God speaking tongue-in cheek when He gave these commands? This is a question any serious Christian needs to answer.

Here is the standard higher-life response to this question. The commands of the New Testament are given specifically to show the believer that he is powerless to obey God. They are given to drive him to his knees in despair and thus to Jesus in full surrender and dependence. In other words God issues these commands with no expectation that you or I or any other Christian will actually obey them.

Tell me, how sensible and reasonable does that sound to you?

We saw in the last post how the purity of the gospel was threatened by false brethen teaching a message of justification by faith plus circumcision (Acts 15). We also saw that up to this point Paul had been preaching that saving righteousness comes by faith alone in the person and work of Christ: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:39). The apostles and elders at Jerusalem upheld the doctrine of justification by faith and condemned the spurious gospel and those bearing it.

It is no surprise, therefore, that two of Paul’s epistles (Romans and Galatians) deal extensively with the issue of justification by faith, and one only briefly albeit forcefully (Philippians). In these epistles you will see the word group for justify, justification, and righteousness (Greek root dikaio) used extensively (59x in Romans and 14x in Galatians). Among these usages we see the word law (Greek nomos) sprinkled (54x in Romans and 30x in Galatians). Notice too the numerous reference to faith and believing (56x in Romans and 26x in Galatians). In the same context we see several references to circumcision (15x in Romans and 12x in Galatians. In one place Paul not only makes it clear that Abraham’s faith was counted as righteousness, but that he was justified by faith before he was circumcised:

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness…How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision (Romans 4:3,10).

We might also mention that Abraham lived and was justified by faith hundreds of years before the giving of the law through Moses.

But the concept of justification by faith is not limited to circumcision but applies to any works of law or human merit:

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:4-5).

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:16).

The reason no one can be justified by works of law or merit is that God grades on the pass/fail system and not on a curve, and the cutoff point is 100% obedience:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them (Galatians 3:10).

The false gospel of justification by faith+works is so serious that Paul pronounces damnation on those who preach it (Galatians 1:8-9), and refers to them as dogs, evil workers, and the mutilation (Philippians 3:2-3).

There are other places in Paul’s writings where this false gospel is condemned, but these references are given to show the general flavor of his teaching. The important thing to remember is that Paul’s epistles focus on the impotence of any system of works of law or any other kind of human effort to earn righteousness or effect justification. There is an emphasis on circumcision because that seems to have been a central focus of the false teachers.

This being the case the question remains: What role does God’s law play in the life of the justified believer? We know that works of law are of no value as they pertain to justification. But what about sanctification?

That will be the subject of the next post.

One overlooked book in terms of formulating correct doctrine is the book of Acts. This book gives us the situational, historical, contextual backdrop against which the epistles were written. Acquainting ourselves with the milieu of this pivotal transitional period of church history will help us understand Paul’s statements about the role and purpose of the law.

In the early chapters of Acts the Christians were Jews located in and around Jerusalem and Judea, and they were considered to be a fringe offshoot of Judaism. One noticeable difference was that they did not observe the offerings and sacrifices because they believed Jesus was the substance and fulfillment of the old types and shadows. The early Jewish believers retained many of the traditions of their heritage, such as circumcision; but this was often done simply for cultural reasons. From the very start the message was one of forgiveness through faith in the person and work of Christ. There is no evidence to suggest that the early Jewish believers eschewed the commands of the Decalogue in particular or the moral law in general.

When the gospel began to make inroads to the gentile world Paul made it clear that justification was by faith alone and not in the works of the law: And by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses (Acts 13:39). And so a great turmoil resulted in Antioch, the base of operations of the early gentile church, when certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the tradition of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). At the Jerusalem Council which followed the apostles and elders upheld the doctrine of justification by faith alone.

In their letter of encouragement to the gentile churches they: (1) corrected the notion that believers must be circumcised and keep the law, adding with reference to the Judaizers, to whom we made no such command (15:25). This statement must be understood in terms of justification by law vs. faith, for that was the issue at stake. (2) gave what look like suggestions designed to foster cohesiveness rather than division between Jewish and gentile believers: For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well (15:28-29). With the exception of abstinence from fornication these directives seem to fall under the parameters of Christian liberty (Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 8), and have never been considered as perpetually binding on believers through the generations.

There is really no further mention of the law and how it relates to the Christian faith until Paul has completed three missionary journeys and travels back to Jerusalem (Acts 22). There again we see what look like concessions made by Paul and his companions designed to ward off conflict between Jewish and gentile believers. The elders at Jerusalem told the apostle: you see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. What then? For the assembly must meet, for they will hear that you have come. Therefore do what we tell you: we have four men who have taken a vow. Take them and be purified with them, and pay their expenses so that they may shave their heads and that all may know that those things of which they were informed of you are nothing, but that you yourself also walk orderly and keep the law. But concerning the gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality (Acts 22:20-25).

Although the unbelieving Jews later caused an uproar and had Paul arrested, it is clear from the above statements of the Christian elders that they were in no way denying justification by faith. Rather, they were trying to appease the Jewish believers who had been raised in that culture. Remember too, that Acts is a narrative and as such simply attempts to report the events accurately with no reference to the rightness or wrongness of the advice they gave Paul. You are entitled to your opinion on that. I happen to believe that Paul disregarded several direct warnings by the Holy Spirit not to go back to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-23; 21:4, 10-14). Having put himself in this situation, he further compromised by caving in to the whims of the Jewish believers in Jerusalem. JMHO.

In any event it is clear that the key dispute in Acts with relation to the law and the believer is centered around the concept of justification. The question of how anyone–Jew or gentile–is pronounced righteous before God is answered decisively in act: saving righteousness comes by faith alone in Christ alone.

This point is of utmost importance in interpreting Paul’s statements about the law in his epistles.

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17).

This verse is a favorite of antinomians because it seems to position Jesus Christ against Moses. But several observations of this verse are in order. First, notice the use of the word through indicating agency. God is the author of the law as well as grace and truth; Moses was the agent through which the law came and Jesus Christ the conduit of grace and truth. The use of the word law here (used with the definite article) seems to be specific and comprehensive, encompassing the entirety of the covenant given through Moses–moral, ceremonial, dietary, and civil. This is not to say no general and less codified form of law existed either before or after Moses, for God gave moral commands to His people going clear back to Eden; and in the New testament there are numerous moral imperatives addressed to Christians, many of them restatements of Old Testament commandments.

When John says that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ he does not mean to say there was no grace and truth before the incarnation. We know that centuries before the giving of the law at Sinai Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord and that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness. Saints like David were surely recipients of the grace of God in Christ as they looked forward to the coming of Him who would crush the head of the serpent, as predicted in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15). In other words, grace and truth has always come through Jesus Christ: it has never come through anyone else and never will. As Paul tells us there is one God and one Mediator between God and men–Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). It is not as if, as stated in the marginal notes at John 1:17 of the original Scofield Reference Bible, that saints in the Old Testament were saved by legal obedience and in the New Testament by grace through faith. In John 3:10 Jesus was amazed that Nicodemus, a teacher of Israel, did not know about the new birth. He should have.

The Law of Moses served a purpose, but that purpose was not to provide a system of human works whereby we might be justified, or pronounced righteous before God. No human being in history except Jesus Christ has ever been declared righteous by their perfect obedience to the law of God. God’s law, in whatever form it is given to us, provides a standard of righteousness as God sees it, and conversely of sin as God sees it. As sinners God’s law points us to our need for a righteousness outside ourselves, a perfect righteousness that can only be provided by Christ. As regenerate recipients of God’s grace in Christ the abiding moral directives of God addressed to us in scripture provide us with a framework for discernment, moral decision-making, and right thoughts and behaviors. God’s law ought to inform the civil magistrates and authorities as well, but of course this rarely happens. Justification is by grace through faith, and so is sanctification. But this does not mean sanctification can occur apart from obedience to God’s word: Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth (John 17:17).

Jesus made it clear to the Jews of His day that they should have known about Him: You search the scriptures because in them you think that you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me…If you believed Moses you would believe in Me; for he wrote about Me (John 5:39, 46). Jesus identified Himself as the I Am of the Old Testament (John 8:24, 56, 58), the very person who appeared to Moses and gave him the Decalogue, the one apart from whom they would die in their sins. The message of Jesus in John is not one of discontinuity with Moses and the law, but rather of continuity.

Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ; but this in no way negates the role of obedience to divine commands in sanctification. Jesus stated categorically that if you love Me you will keep My commandments and He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me, and again, if  anyone loves Me he will keep My word (John 14:15, 21, 23). It is important to bear in mind that the use of the word commandments is in the plural, as in more than one. Antinomians are fond of verses like John 15:12: This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you (15:12), as if this is the only command of the Lord that matters. Ironically, it is the antinomian Christian who has the least tolerance for other Christians and shuns fellowship with them the most. Why? Because they are so loveless and judgmental. (!) If the antinomians had read 1 John they would realize that not loving other Christians is tantamount to hating them, and that there will be no haters in heaven. They would also discover that the essence of sin is lawlessness (1 John 3:4–Ouch!!!).

As we will see in the remainder of the New Testament, obedience to the commands of God (law) as a means of sanctification is in no way contradictory to the concept of justification by faith alone in Christ alone.

This will be a two-part blog consisting of selected statements of Jesus on the Law from the gospels of Matthew and John. No Mark and Luke because the material of the synoptics is pretty much parallel.

Do not think I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass away from the law till all be fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:17-19).

This is the definitive text on the Law in the sayings of Jesus. The Lord tells us plainly that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. Now we know that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament in His birth, ministry, death, and resurrection. We also know that Jesus was the substance of the types and shadows of the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system. We also know that the Lord was the only person in history who ever lived up to the perfect moral demands of the law, making Him the end of the law for righteousness for everyone who believes (Romans 10:4).

We know the ceremonial law of the Old Testament was abolished because we are plainly told as much by scripture (Hebrews) and the witness of church history. But what about the moral law? The fact is that the moral law was never intended to be a means of gaining or earning saving righteousness. Only Christ could perfectly fulfill this requirement. So here we are not arguing about justification by faith–that is a given. That said, does the fact that Christ fulfilled the moral law of God mean that it is abolished or still exists but with no relationship to the daily walk of the justified believer? Some would answer this in the affirmative. But here’s the question: does the fact that something is fulfilled mean it is no longer in force or existence? In Matthew 3:15 Jesus went to be baptized by John in order to fulfill all righteousness. Are we therefore to conclude that there is no such thing as righteousness any longer because of this fulfillment? What about the fulfillment of the promised advent of the Spirit at Pentecost? Does this fulfillment not have an abiding ongoing effect in the life of the Christian?

In other words, can something be fulfilled and still be in force in some sense? Back to our original text. In v. 18 Jesus made reference to the passing away of heaven and earth as the terminus of the law’s force. This would seem to make the law in some sense applicable in our own time frame, would it not? (Last time I checked, heaven and earth had not passed away.) If obedience to the moral law of God is not relevant, why would Jesus speak thus about the final judgment? The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13:41-42). If the damned are described as those who habitually practice lawlessness, what does this tell us by implication about the redeemed elect?

Again, we are not talking about obedience as a means of justification, for Jesus clearly taught against this–e.g., in his interview with the rich young ruler (Matthew 19:17-22). That assumption granted, what significance does the moral law have to the believer in his daily experience?Jesus summed up the law and prophets with the twofold great commandment of loving God and neighbor (22:37-40). Surely this summarization of our Lord has some application to us as believers–and not for justification. The question I am getting at is this: how do these moral commands apply to us as believers in our daily walk? Antinomianism denies any application, but I believe this is the wrong path.

What exactly is antinomian higher-life horse crap? As I will be discussing it this is the erroneous view that since human effort is not necessary for justification, it likewise has no place in sanctification. The key to the Christian life according to higher-life pietism is to let go and let God and trust the Spirit to “lead” you moment by moment apart from any work on your part. Any emphasis on human effort in sanctification is seen as “legalism,” and “striving in the flesh.” For the remainder of this entry we will refer to the above view of sanctification as AHHC.

Proponents of AHHC look to the book of Galatians for biblical support. Their understanding of this epistle is in fact a colossal misunderstanding and an example of how not to do exegesis. Particularly, champions of AHHC distort the material from Galatians–which is specifically about justification–and erroneously apply it to sanctification. To demonstrate this you will want to do a quick skim of the epistle to see that the words justify (verb) and justification (noun) in their various forms are used many times in the epistle. The words sanctify and sanctification are not used in Galatians. This epistle was written to correct a very specific problem–a false gospel of justification by law/works. Paul had gone into the Galatian region and preached the gospel of imputed righteousness by faith alone in Christ alone, and many were converted to the Lord. Subsequently Judiaizing false teachers infiltrated the ranks of believers, informing them that, unless you are circumcised according to the tradition of Moses, you cannot be saved (Acts 15:1). So the problem of Galatians, or of the Galatian Heresy as it is called, is not that of (A) believers holding fast to justification by faith but also requiring human effort/works/law for sanctification. Rather it is a matter of (B) genuine believers who once embraced justification by faith alone but through the influence of the false teachers regressed by rejecting justification by faith for a gospel of justification by works, particularly circumcision. It is this false gospel of justification by works that Paul deems worthy of damnation (1:8-9). If you do not understand the correct emphasis of the epistle you will be prone to fall into the errors of AHHC.

I will now cite some examples from the epistle of how proponents of AHHC misapply the word of God, followed by the proper contextual renderings. I will give only the most glaring examples because once you see them the rest of the epistle will come into clear focus for you.

I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me (Galatians 2:20). This verse is simply teaching us that we were once dead and Christ made us alive spiritually–He did it all and we did none of it ourselves. Living by faith in Christ means trusting what His word tells us about justification: His righteousness is our righteousness, and we are forever free from trying to earn merit whereby we might commend ourselves to God. That is the meaning in the context of the epistle–not that we are incapable of anything spiritually now that we are alive in Him, and that we are to simply let go and let God by getting out of His way by sitting back while He does the heavy lifting in sanctification.

Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? (Galatians 3:3). This verse is the life verse of the AHHC proponent and might be paraphrased to ask the Galatians if having begun in the Spirit (justification by faith) they are now being made perfect by the flesh (sanctification by works). And yet the remainder of the chapter is a defense of justification by faith, which would be an unnecessary exercise if the Galatians already believed in justification by faith. Paul’s meaning, then is that they had started out believing in justification by faith but now they are rejecting what they once embraced and adopting a scheme of righteousness (justification) by works. Their case was like that of a genuine believer rejecting the faith once delivered for the sacramental sacerdotal system of Roman Catholicism. The bottom line here is that the issue of where works of obedience to law fit into sanctification is not in view since the topic of discussion is justification.

Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1). The yoke of bondage here is the yoke of justification by works. Paul has made it abundantly clear that by the works of the law will no flesh be pronounced righteous in the sight of God. In chapter five he talks about why trying to be justified by works is bondage–you have to be perfect to do it, and no one can perform flawlessly.

I say then: Walk in the Spirit and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh, For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law (Galatians 5:16-18). In context these verses teach that living under the principle of justification by works of law activates the sinful flesh and short circuits faith in Christ and the work of the indwelling Spirit. The end result is the deeds of the flesh rather than fruit of the Spirit. These verses have no direct application whatsoever to the believer who embraces justification by faith and with no thought of merit works his ass off for the Lord from a heart of gratitude.

Again–the epistle to the Galatians is a defense of justification by faith and speaks little to the issue of sanctification, except to point out that you cannot progress in sanctification if you have not settled the issue of justification. That said, this epistle in no way supports AHHC or any other false system of antinomianism.