Law & Works Introduction If we are to ever get law and works - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

“Law” & “Works”

Introduction

If we are to ever get “law” and “works” correctly defined as Paul used these terms, then we must let Paul do it. Although this seems so reasonably obvious, it has been my experience that we too often impose on Paul

• ur own set of beliefs about what he was

talking about when he used these terms. In

• ther words, we are all too often engaging in

eisegesis, rather than exegesis, and our polemics, more often than not, reflect it.

Introduction

We do the same thing with “grace” and “faith,” but I’ll let Jonathan deal with those two terms, mentioning them in this lecture

• nly as they relate to the two terms under

consideration. Just why we have the tendency to read into, rather than out of, the Scriptures when it comes to the terms mentioned, I am not exactly sure, for we have been, and are, a people who seriously embrace the idea that…

Introduction

the objective standard for everything we believe and practice religiously is God’s

• Word. Thus, as I attempt to define “law” and

“works” as Paul used these terms, I am well- aware of my own susceptibility to doing the very thing I am here criticizing, and what that would make me, if guilty. Therefore, after hearing what I have to say, if you can demonstrate that I am guilty of reading into the definition of these terms my own ideas,…

Introduction

then I trust you will point out just were it is that you think I have done so. Paul, who was directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, made it clear that no flesh has any cause to glory in God’s presence (1 Cor 1:29), and this because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 3:23). Thus, there can be no mistake about whether Paul believed it was possible for anyone to be saved by perfect law-keeping. When I say…

Introduction

“possible,” I don’t mean that he believed it was morally impossible for man to keep law perfectly, only that man has not done so, nor will he ever do so, and this was why, if man was to be saved, that the divine Logos had to take upon Himself flesh and ultimately die for

• ur sins. Paul would have certainly known,

either from what he had learned from the OT Scriptures, or what he had been taught by the Holy Spirit, that man, as a free moral agent,…

Introduction

does not have to sin, but that he does, and because this is the common plight of every man, except for the wholly sinless Jesus, it was necessary for Him, the only begotten of the Father, to die for all mankind, doing so as the completely unblemished sacrifice (2 Cor. 5:14-15). When we become obedient to Christ as our Lord and Savior, we receive, according to Paul, a “righteousness of God” that is not…

Introduction

• ur own (Rom 1:17; 3:21-22; 10:3; 2 Cor

5:21; Phil 3:9). This righteousness of God that is put to (imputed to) the obedient believer’s account is not derived directly from the Lord’s perfect life, as Calvinists, and some brethren,

• believe. Instead, this righteousness derives

from the fact that Jesus’ sacrificial death satisfied the debt we owed for our sins (Rom 5:18). In this way, according to Romans 4:5, and this way only, we, “the ungodly,” have…

Introduction

been justified (Ac 13:39; Rom 3:24; Gal 2:16; Tit 3:4-7). If God has so justified us, who is it, as Paul asked in Romans 8:33, that can bring a charge against God’s elect and make it stick?

No Longer Under Law

Paul taught that Christians, who were redeemed by grace through faith in baptism for good works (cf. Eph 2:8-10; Col 2:12), and are thus being led by the Holy Spirit, are no longer hupo nomon, that is to say, “under law” (Gal. 5:18). Here, then, as in other places where Paul emphasizes that the Christian is no longer under law, is where it is important for us to understand how Paul is here using “law.” There are plenty, particularly Calvinists,…

No Longer Under Law

who think Paul’s point in these “not under law” passages is that the Christian is no longer under law, period. This is clearly false, for Paul taught unequivocally, as has already been noted, that Christians are “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). There are others, and more than a few of these are brethren, who believe Paul uses “law” in such passages to exclusively reference the law of Moses, thus teaching that Jews were no longer under the…

No Longer Under Law

law of Moses, which was true. In fact, and there can be no doubt about it, the Old Covenant dispensation, with its law of Moses, was fulfilled and terminated by Christ’s death

• n the cross (Col. 2:14). It is therefore a

categorical error not to understand that the OT was kartegeo (done away with) by Christ. But this is not the way Paul is using “law” in such passages. Instead, it is clear that Paul is using “law” in Romans 6:14-15 and…

No Longer Under Law

Galatians 5:18 to make the point that we are no longer under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping. When I say “no longer under” (and it is necessary for me to make this point clear), I am not saying we are no longer under law, and neither was Paul, for we are indeed “under law toward Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). What I mean is that we who have “obeyed the gospel” are not under a system that requires perfect law-keeping in order to…

No Longer Under Law

be “righteoused,” to use Sanders’ term (a term I happen to like), which winds up meaning, and I’ll explain this in more detail as we go

• n, we are no longer interacting with God in

just the Creator-creature relationship, which would have us all condemned and on our way to hell. Instead, we are interacting with Him through the Redeemer-saved relationship, which has us “righteoused” with a righteousness that is not our own—that is,…

No Longer Under Law

not a righteousness we have earned by perfectly keeping law (cf. Rom. 3:21-22; 2

• Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9), which is the only way

man has ever been saved (and I’ll expand on this last point a bit later). Addressing the fact that we are “righteoused” with a righteousness that is not our own and not by perfect law- keeping, Paul said to Titus 3:4-7: “4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of…

No Longer Under Law

righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” Then, writing to the Ephesians about the same thing, Paul said: “4 But God, who is…

No Longer Under Law

rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith,…

No Longer Under Law

and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (2:4-9) These passages, if they mean anything, and they mean a lot, teach us that a man isn’t saved by his perfect doing (i.e., “works of law”), for under such a system all are found

• wanting. There must be no doubt, then, that

Paul makes it clear that the righteousness of God (viz., the imputed righteousness, or…

No Longer Under Law

righteousness that is put to our account) that is

• urs by “grace through the redemption that is

in Christ Jesus” (cf. Rom. 3:21-24) is a righteousness apart from law (viz., apart from a system of justification by perfect law- keeping). Thus, for someone to come along and cavalierly argue that such a system never existed, but is instead the invention of those who want to teach their brand of salvation…

No Longer Under Law

by grace through faith, is to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the Creator- creature relationship, a relationship that says the whole duty of man is, and always has been, to fear God and keep His commandments (Eccl. 12:13). That this was true during the Patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations, as it is now during the Christian age, is a truth that cannot be misunderstood without serious consequences, for it is why…

No Longer Under Law

all (both Jew and Gentile) could be declared “under sin” (Rom. 3:9; Gal. 3:22). But if there is no law (i.e., if there is no system of justification by perfect law- keeping), there is no sin (Rom 4:15; 5:13). If there is no sin, then there was no need for a Redeemer who, in order to be qualified, had to meet the requirements of law perfectly. For it is only then we could be redeemed by His perfect, unblemished sacrifice. No, the truth…

No Longer Under Law

is that man, whether Gentile or Jew, has always been amenable to God’s law-code. However, a Gentile was never, unless under indenture to a Jew or unless a proselyte, amenable to the law of Moses. But even so, he was, just like the Jew, a sinner (Rom. 3:27-31; 2 Cor. 5:13-14; Gal. 3:13). Thus, it must be necessarily inferred that Paul’s use of “law,” unless the context demands otherwise, is not to be understood…

No Longer Under Law

as referring exclusively to the law of Moses (viz., the OT), and therefore was not being contrasted with faith in Christ (i.e., the NT), making it nothing more than an OT versus NT thing, as many brethren think. As I’ve stated already, that the covenant has changed is crucial, and a failure to appreciate this has been the downfall of many a denominational-

• ist. In fact, this is clearly one of Dunn’s

mistakes, in that he believes the…

No Longer Under Law

New Covenant is but the Old Covenant written in the hearts of the Christ-followers (cf. notes in book). In fact, he plays down any hint

• f discontinuity between the Mosaical

Covenant and the New Covenant under Christ. But far from playing a minimal role in Paul’s doctrine, as Dunn believes, the New Covenant was vital to everything the apostle taught. But back to the point at hand, because the covenant with Israel had changed, the Old…

No Longer Under Law

Covenant was no longer in force and anyone who was “in Christ” who tried to put themselves under it had “fallen from grace” (Gal. 5:4). So the reason Paul’s reference to the New Covenant is minimal in Romans and Galatians is because the contrast he’s making between “works of the law” and “the law of faith” is not the difference between the OT and the NT. Instead, it is the distinction between two entirely different ways of…

No Longer Under Law

salvation: “law,” a system of justification by perfect law-keeping, and the “law of faith,” which is a system of salvation by grace through faith. Miss this point and you’ve, well, missed the point.

The “Tension” Between Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

This brings us, then, to the test case—the harmonization of the two passages listed

• above. Those who believe the “works of the

law” versus the “law of faith” contrast is only referring to the change in covenants argue that what James says about “works” in his epistle proves their case. They think so, I believe, because they have failed to understand that what Paul was contrasting was two ways— two systems—of salvation, with one…

The “Tension” Between Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

permanently blocked by man’s sinfulness and the other the only way sinful man has ever been saved. But if what they think is true is, in fact, true, then perhaps what James has to say is the proof-text. On the other hand, if what I think is true is the truth, then what James said must be in complete harmony with what Paul

• said. So it is to these two men and their

epistles that we now turn, for if what I…

The “Tension” Between Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

believe Paul said about not being justified by “works” cannot be harmonized with what James said about being justified by “works,” then my understanding of how Paul used “works of the law” cannot be correct. But before any attempt to harmonize these two passages can be undertaken in earnest, more work needs to be done. It is to that task that I turned much of my attention in the book.

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:28). “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24). I do not believe Paul and James are talking about two different kinds of works. Instead, they are speaking of “good works” (i.e., acceptable works) which are the same for…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

both (especially consider Paul’s use of “good works” in Ephesians 2:10). So, the question is: What is the explanation for the different ways Paul and James relate faith and works to justification? The best answer, I think, is that faith and works are both related to justification, but in different ways. In other words, both Paul and James are referring to the same faith, the same works, the same…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

people, and the same justification. They are in complete agreement on all of these things, which are all somehow, someway, related to each other. The difference, then, is in the way they have chosen, by inspiration, to express themselves, and this derives from how the relationship between these two things is to be understood.

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

people, and the same justification. They are in complete agreement on all of these things, which are all somehow, someway, related to each other. The difference, then, is in the way they have chosen, by inspiration, to express themselves, and this derives from how the relationship between these two things is to be understood.

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

Paul is emphasizing the immediate, direct, inherent relationship between faith and justification, while James is emphasizing the necessary, but indirect, relationship between works and justification. Thus, like James, we can say that justification is by works, but only in a secondary, indirect sense, in that works are the natural, necessary expression of, and evidence of, faith. It is important just here…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

to keep in mind that the works (i.e., “good works”) under discussion are the law conditions, and not those works done in connection with the grace conditions. Paul’s effort is to deny that justification is equally related to the “law of faith” and the “works of law,” while James’ effort is to demonstrate that justification is related to the “good works” of the law but only in that such…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

works are the natural, inevitable expression of genuine saving faith. So, Paul does (in his context) deny a system of justification by faith plus works, and this because “works of law,” (viz., imperfect works done under a system of justification by perfect law-keeping) are permanently prevented (the legal term is “estopped”) from having any soteriological value, while James, in fact, affirms…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

justification by a faith that works (and once again these are the “good works” Paul mentioned in Ephesians 2:10). Therefore, we are not just talking semantics here, as some

• think. Paul denies that one is justified equally

by the “law of faith” and “works of law,” while James affirms that one can be justified

• nly by a faith that works—namely, genuine

saving faith begets or produces the…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

“obedience of faith.” This “obedience of faith” is not just obedience to the grace conditions which are, after all, works we must do in order to be saved and stay that way, but

• bedience to those “good works” which we

were created in Christ Jesus to do—works “of God” that He determined “beforehand” we would do in connection with His Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

This interpretation, I believe, passes the scriptural litmus test. If not, I look forward to its refutation. “27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of

• faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is

justified by faith apart from the deeds of the

• law. 29Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is

He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes,…

Romans 3:28 And James 2:24

• f the Gentiles also, 30since there is one God

who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:27-31).