Month: April 2020

A Slave to What?

In the sixth and seventh chapters of Romans Paul discusses the issue of slavery. He suggests that we are all slaves to either sin or righteousness. “Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness.” (6:16) “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” (6:18)

He puts it in a slightly different way later in the chapter. “But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. (6:22)

In a previous passage Paul discussed the contrast between being under law and under grace. The law of God is a factor in both conditions, but the contrast is in two different relationships to the law, the obligation to obey it in your own strength, and the internalization of it, obeying through the power of the Spirit.

Basically the same contrast is in view in these chapters. The law has a role in being a slave to sin in that it defined what sin was. Without the law, there is no concept of sin, no standard of behavior. In discussing this side of the issue, Paul says some things that have been taken by some interpreters to imply that the law is no longer a standard to be aspired to. “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.” (7:4) “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.” (7:6)

With Paul saying that “you died to the law… (that) once bound us, we have been released from the law…”, it’s no wonder that in the second century Christianity was able to find supposed biblical support for its new anti-Torah theology. It seems that Paul is discussing the same dichotomy he was earlier when he was not “under law”, but also not free from God’s law. (cp. I Cor. 9:20-21)

In Romans chapter seven he goes on to emphatically state the positives of the law so that we don’t get the mistaken impression that we can ignore it. “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not!” (7:7) “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” (7:12) “We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin.” (7:14) “I agree that the law is good.” (7:16)

This string of affirmations by Paul seems to be given as a caution so that his readers don’t get the wrong impression from what he said previously. The earlier mentions of the law seem to be in connection with the definition of sin and being a slave to sin. Paul elucidates this in 7:13. “Did that (the law) 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.”

So it was actually sin, as defined by the law, that brought death, not the law itself. And when Paul says, “you died to the law”, he’s talking about the relationship to the law of obligation to obey it in his own strength, as was the case under the “old covenant”.

Paul seems to give us his ultimate conclusion at the end of chapter seven. “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law.” (7:22) “So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.” (7:25)

Paul, and each one of us, can choose to be a slave to the “law” of sin, or to God’s law. Which one will you choose?

Under Law

In Romans 6:14 we find the statement that “You are not under law but under grace.” The phrase is not “under the law” but “under law”. What does it mean to be “under law”? Paul uses this term several times in Romans, I Corinthians, and Galatians. Let’s look at these passages to try to determine what Paul means by it.

In Galatians 4:4-5 we see that Jesus was “born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.” In this passage Paul identifies with those who are “under law”. In I Corinthians 9:20, however, he claims that he in not “under law”. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. (He was a Jew.) To those under law I became like one under law (though I myself am not under law) so as to win those under law.”

It seems from these passages that “under law” refers to the relationship of the Jews to the law based on the Mosaic covenant, referred to by Paul sometimes as the “old covenant”, and by the writer of Hebrews as the “first covenant”. When God spoke the ten commandments from Sinai and gave additional laws, the people responded, “Everything the Lord has said we will do.” (Exodus 24:3) Moses then took the blood from burnt offerings and sprinkled half of it on the altar and the other half on the people (Exodus 24:6-8), obligating them to follow these laws in order to please God.

Jeremiah speaks of this when he announces the new covenant. “‘The time is coming’, declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them’, declares the Lord.” (Jer. 31:31-32) The people were not able to keep the covenant with God in their own strength. These people, the Jews to whom the law was given, were “under law”. Jesus was born under law, and Paul was under law before he found Jesus.

The blood of Jesus inaugurated the new covenant as pointed out by the author of Hebrews (7:22; 8:6, 13; 9:15-22). Under the first covenant, under law, people were responsible for their sins, and no one was able to keep the obligations. Paul’s message to those under law was that under the new covenant Christ took their past sins and they were no longer responsible for them.

What does that mean for life under the new covenant? Are people free to do whatever they want? Jeremiah described the new covenant (with Israel) as involving putting God’s law in their minds and writing it on their hearts, being their God and they his people. Even under the new covenant God identifies his law with his character.

Paul makes that clear in the passages that we mentioned earlier. In I Corinthians 9:21 he goes on to say, “To those not having the law (Gentiles) I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so as to win those not having the law.” Whatever Paul meant by becoming like one not having the law, he wants to make clear to us that he is not free from God’s law, which Christ affirmed in Matthew 5:17-19 and elsewhere.

But Paul is even more emphatic on that point in the Romans passage. In Roman 6, after stating that “you are not under law, but under grace”, he goes on to say, “What then? Shall we sin (break the law) because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (6:15) Here he uses the same extreme phrase that he uses in 3:31 to assure people that he is not abandoning the law as a guide to behavior — “Absolutely Not!”

He makes the same point just as emphatically in 6:1. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” Just because we are no longer “under law” as the Jews were before the death of Christ doesn’t mean that we are free to ignore God’s instructions in his law about how to live.

Those of us who have trusted Jesus, been brought near to Israel, and been grafted into the olive tree, have God’s Holy Spirit to help us obey his instructions that we couldn’t do in our own strength. As the prophet Ezekiel said, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezekiel 36:26-27) No wonder that the day of God’s sending the Holy Spirit coincided with the festival that Jews use to remember the revelation at Mt. Sinai: Shavuot or Pentecost.

In conclusion, Paul contrasts these two different relationships with the law in Galatians 5:18 when he says, “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.”

Ephesians 3 – Abolish?

In the second chapter of Ephesians there is a passage that trips up a lot of readers. It seems to say that the law was abolished. Let’s look at this passage and see what Paul was really talking about.

In the familiar verses 8-10 Paul points out that salvation is by grace through faith, not by works. Then in verse ten he clarifies that we are created to do good works, lest anyone think that works were not important.

In verses 11-13 he discusses the situation of Gentiles; they were once excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants. But those who believe in Christ and his work are no longer in that state. They are included in Israel and the covenants. (cp. v. 19)

But in verses 14 and 15 we get the passage that is so often misunderstood. “For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one (Jew and Gentile) and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.” With a translation like this, it is natural to think that Paul is claiming that the law has been abolished.

There are a couple of problems with this understanding. Paul emphasized in Romans 3:31 that faith does not nullify the law. He uses the strongest possible epithet to declare that. We could translate it, “Absolutely Not!” Also he uses the same Greek word in both passages for abolish or nullify – katargeo.

So we know that Paul did not consider the law to be nullified or abolished. What then did he mean by his statement?

It’s clear that the main thing he’s talking about is the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles. This wall has been destroyed through the death of Jesus, as he points out in verse 16. The result is that both Jews and Gentiles are together as one new man.

The law clearly had a part in this separation between Jew and Gentile. Paul pointed out in Romans 3:2 that the Jews have a great advantage over Gentiles in that they were entrusted with the very words of God. They had the instructions about how to live in a way that was pleasing to God. The Gentiles for the most part were unfamiliar with these instructions about how to live.

The law has also played a part in the hostility that Gentiles have historically held toward Jews. Unfortunately, Christians have been guilty of antisemitism as much as any other group throughout history. Jews lived differently than others and considered themselves a people chosen by God. Thus others hated and persecuted them. This hostility is alluded to by Paul in verses 14 and 16.

Given the context and Paul’s other statements, it’s fair to conclude that what has been abolished is the law’s role as a barrier, a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. That seems to be the emphasis of the passage.

When you think about it, was the wall destroyed in order to let the Jews out or to let the Gentiles in? Is it God’s intention that the Jews give up their heritage of revelation and live like Gentiles? Or did he intend to let believing Gentiles in to join with Israel in living lives according to God’s instructions? The answer seems obvious.

The bulk of the passage in Ephesians 2 and other places in Paul’s writings talks of Gentiles being brought near, joining with Israel, and being grafted into the Jewish olive tree. The unique possession of the Jews is God’s self-revelation in his law. That is now available to the Gentiles as well.

If more evidence is needed, Paul goes on in the fourth chapter of Ephesians to exort his readers (and insist on it) that they no longer live as the Gentiles do. Since he is speaking to Gentiles who lived like this in the past, what is the change he is looking for?

The obvious antonym of living like Gentiles is living like Jews. Paul is implying here that once Gentiles have believed in Jesus, they should change their lifestyle to a non-Gentile (i.e. Jewish) one and live according to God’s instructions to his covenant people, of whom they are now a part.

The Definition of Sin

In his epistle to the Romans, Paul expresses a theology of salvation through faith in Jesus. The starting point is usually that all men have sinned, and sin results in condemnation. Thus the default state for all is a state of condemnation.

This raises the question of “what is sin?”. If sin is to cause condemnation, it helps to be able to define that causation. In both Hebrew and Greek the word for sin comes from an archery term meaning “missing the mark”. But what is the mark?

In the case of Adam’s original sin, the mark was a direct command from God, not to eat of a particular tree. Under the influence of his wife, who had not been a party to the command, he ate the fruit, and thus sinned, disobeying a direct command. Paul discusses this in the latter half of Romans 5.

But in general, when Paul defines sin in the Roman epistle, he repeatedly ties it to the law. For example, at the end of the discussion in Romans 5 he says, “The law was added so that the trespass might increase” (5:20).

He says similar things earlier in the epistle. In chapter 3, after making the point that no one will be declared righteous by “works of law”, he states that, “rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” (3:20) He makes a similar point in chapter four when he says that “law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.” (4:15)

The first epistle of John makes it even clearer. “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.” (I John 3:4) So for both Paul and John the definition of sin seems to be transgressing the law. The law is necessary to define sin.

This brings up an internal self-contradiction in much Christian theology. On the one hand, Christ’s death is necessary for salvation since all have sinned (transgressed the law), and are therefore condemned to eternal damnation. On the other hand, much of Christianity believes that the law is no longer in effect since the death of Christ. So we are condemned for violating a standard that doesn’t exist anymore. You can see where the problem lies.

It’s true that in Romans 2 Paul states that, “All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.” (2:12) This makes it seem that sin can be “apart from the law.” But the context makes it clear that Paul is contrasting Jews, who have knowledge of the law, and Gentiles, who generally don’t. The following verses make it clear that they both are accountable to the same standard, whether they know about it or not.

It’s a shame that many Christians in the second century took an anti-Jewish, anti-Torah turn in order to preserve themselves from the Fiscus Judaicus, the onerous tax on Jews and those who lived Jewishly. The first century followers of Jesus seem to have embraced the law as God’s standard for a holy life, based on statements by both Jesus (e.g. Matt. 5:18) and Paul (e.g. Romans 3:31).

For many centuries Christianity as a whole has been in open rebellion against God’s law. It is the intention of this blog to show how the New Testament confirms the role of God’s law and to summon believers back to it. Then we will be like the saints in Revelation who “obey God’s commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.” (Revelation 12:17 cp. Rev. 14:12) May we become like them.