The Law of Christ – the debate continues. Part 4 – All Men NOT Under Law

This is an ‘unexpected’ addition to the previous three considerations of this subject.

 In Part 1, I looked at the logical reasons why I am persuaded that the ‘Law of Christ’ as referred to by Paul in Galatians 6 vs 2 is not a ‘collection’ of imperatives formed from as a subset of the New Testament.

 In Part 2, I examined the text of Galatians itself to see why expositionally, this view does not hold up, and how Paul quite clearly states in the passage what he considers this ‘law of Christ’ to be.

 In Parts 3a and 3b, I considered the actual words of Jesus when He instituted the new covenant, and proposed that the ‘law of Christ’ which Paul refers to is the ‘new commandment’ given by our Lord to His disciples on that night.

 Recently, there has been yet more published, in spoken and written form, concerning the ‘background’ view that believers must be under the ‘Law of Christ’ because all men, everywhere, throughout history must always be under some form of God’s law. I aim to show that this is a presupposition and is not actually Biblical thinking at all. Thus, however much I respect and love my brethren who hold this view, I believe they are mistaken. However, again, it must be emphasised that this is an ‘in-house’ discussion between believers. I am not, for one minute, doubting their salvation – or their sincerity. In contrast, I want to assert that the Bible, in fact, teaches that God ‘gave Law’ twice and twice only in human history:

• The first time through Moses, for Israel, in Canaan, on Mount Sinai
• The second, in Christ, for believers throughout the world, in the Upper Room in Jerusalem on the night before He was crucified

‘Given Law’, even in human government, has specific purpose. It is the ‘cement’ by which a people group live together. Indeed, we could define a ‘people group’ – tribe or nation – as “a collection of individuals who are in a society under single government, of some kind or other) and in submission to, and thus bound by, an accepted, common law.” It may be argued that God’s law does not need to be the same as human law. But the living God uses language to communicate to us in His word, and the basis of language is that we understand the same things by the same words. If your ‘idea’ of what ‘red’ is differs from mine, we can no longer use the description with any meaning. We must define terms in order to understand them and to understand each other. It is no different when God speaks to us in His word, the Bible. And in fact, it is quite likely that our concepts of society and government and ‘law and order’ derive from our having been made in the image of God when He created mankind. It’s the way we are ’wired’.

 And here we come to an important and fundamental rule. When we read God’s word, we must allow it, not us, to define what it means. We must not ‘import’ meaning into what God says. We must not take a little from one place, and some from another, to construct our appreciation of His truth. Not a few ‘systematic theologies’ have fallen into that trap. Systemetise we must – that is just the way the human brain works in order to make sense of things. But when it comes to God’s truth, the Bible, not our brains, must control how we read it. So, with God’s ‘given law’, I want to suggest two definitive statements which help us to understand why God gave it:

1. The purpose of God’s ‘given law’ at Sinai was to govern God’s old covenant people, Israel, through and during their living in the land He had given them – in Canaan – until He would send His Son.
2. The purpose of God’s ‘given law’ in Jerusalem is to govern God’s new covenant people, the church of Christ, until He appears again at the end of the Gospel age.

And we are told in the book of Hebrews, and elsewhere, that the former covenant, called ‘the old covenant’ or ‘the Mosaic covenant’ was a shadow, a promise unclear and not fully defined, of the new covenant in Christ, which is its ‘substance’ – its fulfilment. We go on to see more of how the giving of law at Sinai served to distinguish Jew from Gentile.

Mankind in two halves

When we read the Bible, the Old Testament records for us God’s dealings with His chosen people, Israel – the Jews. The New Testament speaks to those who are called by His gracious purpose to build His church, the body and the bridegroom of His Son, who came to live, die and rise again so that His purpose in all history might be brought to fulfilment. It is in this age, of course, that we now live. Our New Testament writings, delivered by those Apostles Jesus chose and equipped to be the church’s foundation, tell us not only what these two covenants are, but how they relate to each other – and there are parallels and there are contrasts. One of the distinct contrasts stated plainly, again and again, throughout the New Testament is this.

  The Jews have the Law of God The Gentiles do not have the Law of God

 Some verses which bear this out:

  “…when Gentiles, who do not have the law…” (Romans 2:14)

“…the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God …” (Romans 3:1)

“… the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.” (Romans 9:4)

 … indeed the biggest challenge the first church had to contend with was the integration in Christ of both Jew and Gentile. Paul speaks of a ‘wall of hostility’ between them, with Jew hating Gentile and Gentile hating Jew:

“ For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace … “ (Eph 2:14,15)

 Note that! The way Christ sorts out this great divide is to abolish ‘the law, with its commands and regulations. It is this very law which causes the division in the first place between Jew and Gentile.

Two types of sin

In what John Piper has called ‘the greatest letter ever written’, Paul writes to the church at Rome. Acknowledging God’s call on his life as to earn him the title ‘the Apostle to the Gentiles’, he sets out, for both Jew and Gentile, a brilliant reasoned argument, at the beginning of which he wants to make it plain that both of these ‘two halves of humanity’ are accountable to God and in need of salvation – of Christ. We will follow this argument with care, so that we understand it, but for now, note his comment in chapter 5 verse 14:

“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given” And in chapter 2 verse 12: “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.”

 Plainly then, and distinctly clear, there are two kinds of sin – sin committed by those under the law, and sin committed by those who do not have the law. Paul insists that both are indictable and will lead to death. Both types of sinners are accountable to God. Both will be judged. Both require atonement, redemption, salvation, justification. Note that Paul does not say that Gentiles have their ‘own kind of law’. This is clear. Jews have law. Gentiles do not.

Sin – a universal definition

One of the claims of the ‘All men always under Law’ view is that without some definition of God’s law, we cannot have an adequate definition of sin. For them, sin is simply the breaking of God’s Law – whatever form of it happens to apply to the section of humanity under consideration. And they quote various verses in support of that – we will consider some of these later. But is it true that the Bible only ever defines sin in that way? I believe not. For example, consider Romans 2 again:

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.” (vs 7 – 10)

 Paul is saying that God’s judgement will be irrespective of whether a person is a Jew or a Gentile. In both camps, he defines sin, not according to law at all, but like this:

“… those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil …”

 So we see three distinct components in this description of what sin actually is. It is –

a) Self-seeking
b) Rejection of the truth
c) Following evil

 In the famous verse – Romans 3 vs 22,23 – Paul has said:

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

 Thus another way of describing this ‘universality of sin’ is simply ‘to fall short of the glory of God’. In fact, that is what the word ‘sin’ actually means – to fall short, or to miss the target. Law or no law, when man fails to live up to all that God has made him for, he sins.Previously, just a few verses before, he has been even more graphic. Accumulating quotes from the Psalms, he writes:

Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
 there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.” “Their throats are open graves; their tongues practice deceit.” “The poison of vipers is on their lips.” “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; ruin and misery mark their ways, and the way of peace they do not know.”  “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

We have more than enough by way of a description of sin that is comprehensive, and includes those who are and those who are not under God’s Law. So how do the distinct ‘sinnings’ differ? Paul tells us in Romans 2. There is

1. Command-breaking sin – including the ‘transgression’ of God’s given Law.
2. Not-command-breaking sin.

We will consider the second first.

Not-command-breaking sin

Back to Romans 5:
“To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.”

 So, points to consider from this:

1. There was sin in the world before there was God’s law in the world.
2. Sin was doing its death-producing business all the way along, from Adam to Moses (even if it is not ‘charged against anyone’s account’ – more on that later)
3. The nature of sin changed somehow when the Law was given through Moses
4. Sin before Moses included a ‘type’ which was not the breaking of a given command – as was Adam’s sin (but did not necessarily exclude the ‘type’ of sin that WAS the breaking of a given command – like Adam).

Question: When Cain killed his brother, Abel, was that sin?
The answer must be ‘yes’ – of course it was. But where in Scripture do we see a command, as a direct word from God, which Cain had received, that he must not kill? So when he commits murder, it is not the breaking of a direct, given command. And yet it is still sin. We see it in Moses’ summary of the state of the world which gives rise to God’s intention to wipe mankind, with the exception of Noah and his family, from the face of the earth. Why? What gives rise to such a devastating solution? Genesis 6 vs 5:

  “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. “

 God does not say ‘they continually break my law’. His definition of sin is to do with the state of their hearts and the ‘inclination’ of their minds – this is the seat of sin.

Command-breaking sin

The other ‘kind’ of sin, then, is sin that is like Adam’s sin – disobedience to a clear command of God. Adam was instructed :

“You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” (Genesis 2 vs 16)

 He is thus commanded, by God, before the creation of Eve. So to him belongs the responsibility for bearing and upholding this command. Evidently, he communicates it to Eve, because when she is confronted by the serpent with the question, “Did God say …” she answers:

“God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”” Genesis 3 vs 3)

 Eve was deceived, we are told (1 Timothy 2 vs 14). But when she presents the forbidden fruit to Adam, all we are told is simply, “He ate”. The serpent beguiled the woman. But Adam was just blatantly and rebelliously disobedient. He had a clear command. He chose to disobey it.

Deception and command-breaking

We need to note that Eve’s deception does not excuse her sinful disobedience. She had other options. But she chose to take it upon herself to usurp her husband’s – and God’s – authority and act upon her own judgement, despite the lucid clarity of what had been commanded. We must also guard our own thinking in this respect. It is possible for Satan to use God’s word against Him, twisting it around so that we end up convinced of precisely the opposite to what he says. There is only one recourse in this – get back to the source. Eve’s deception could have been resolved had she not acted until she had referred the options back to the one who had given the disputed word to her – in her case, her husband; and in Adam’s case, God Himself.

Commands and Law

Note also that this command given to Adam is not referred to anywhere in the Bible as ‘law’.

 There is a quiz show currently on TV, which is a particular favourite of mine, called ‘Pointless’. The idea is that contestants have to find the most obscure answer to various questions, which have previously been put to 100 people. The score for each question which attracted the least number of right answers, out of the 100, is the winner. Of particular value, attracting bonuses and advantage, is a right answer which not one of the 100 got – a ‘pointless’ answer. Now, we could play ‘pointless’ with the Bible. Which questions give the least number in response? We do it already, from within New Covenant Theology, when we critique systems like Covenant Theology. For example –

• In how many verses does the Bible speak of ‘the moral law’? Pointless answer – the answer is zero. How many times does the Bible mention ‘the Ten Commandments’? Answer – only 3.

So, in our context, we may ask:

• How many times does the Bible refer to ‘the law of Adam’ (as it does ‘the Law of Moses’)? Answer – Pointless – it doesn’t.
• The ‘law of Noah’? – Zero
• The ‘law of Abraham’ – Again, zero.

We see plainly that God gives these great men of the pre-Christ order definitive commands, which are obeyed ‘in faith’. Abraham is commanded to leave Ur and go where God says He will show him. Noah is commanded to build an ark. Of course there are God’s commands. Of course they are authoritative. But the Bible does not call them ‘law’. And when we come to the New Testament, neither does the enlightened teaching of the fulfilled old covenant ever mention any ‘Law’ other than the Law of Moses – as ‘law’. And here is my contention – if the Bible doesn’t call it ‘law’, why should we? Equally, God gives us commands in the Apostolic writings. Are they authoritative? Of course they are – they are the word of God to us - Scripture. We should love and respond to them as the very food of our souls. They are communications from the God we love and serve. They bring Christ to us and us to Him. But there is no New Testament reason why we should build them into some form of new law, in the pattern of that older covenant. That’s just moving backwards. To do so makes the shadow the substance and the substance the shadow. If you do that, you stand the Bible on its head!

No law = no transgression

So we come to this verse, which those who say there always has to be some kind of law of God in operation so often misunderstand. They argue like this:

1. Sin has always been in the world since Adam
2. Without law, there is no sin
3. Therefore, there must always be law

But Paul does NOT say ‘without law, there is no sin, does he? Look carefully:

“It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless, because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.” (Romans 4 vs 13 – 15)

 "Where there is no law, there is NO TRANSGRESSION” – not ‘no sin’. 

Stand this passage side-by-side with the one from Romans 5, and we start to get the picture:

“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned— To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.” (Romans 4 vs 13 – 14)

 So following Paul’s logic, we see:

1. Sin was in the world before the Law (of Moses) was given – but it was not always the ‘command-breaking’ kind.
2. All men sin and are sinners; all deserve death – both before and after the Law was given.
3. When the Law was given, God laid down commandments to be obeyed for His people Israel. What this does is to give sin definition by ‘drawing God’s lines’, by commanding ‘you shall not’ or ‘you shall’.
4. Sin against God then becomes the crossing of His drawn lines – transgression. Which is ‘countable’ and ‘chargeable’.
5. Thus, in judgement, God can say ‘I commanded this and you disobeyed me’ to those who had received His special revelation of Law. And thus this Law brings wrath (the anger of God against unrighteousness) because of transgression.

What about the Gentiles?

We have seen that in His revelation to Adam, and to the Patriarchs, from Abraham through to Moses, the Bible does not say that God gave them His Law. There are verses which indicate His commands to them, in many and various forms. But these are not designated ‘law’ by the word of God. ‘Ah’, but someone says, ‘What about Romans 2? Doesn't Paul say in that section of his argument that the Gentiles DO have a form of God’s law?’ Well, let us now examine that passage:

“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. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.” (Romans 2 vs 12 – 16)

 First, note how emphatic Paul is. These who are Gentiles do not have the law - he says it twice in one sentence. They sin apart from the law. They will perish apart from the law.

*Note: This section is actually addressed to Jews who DO have the Law in order to emphasise that it is not sufficient to merely ‘have’ the Law – one must be a perfect ‘doer’ of the Law in order to be righteous in God’s sight. What follows – his comments on the state of the Gentile is a parenthesis; an aside. Hence most translations insert brackets around it.

We will follow Paul’s argument step by step:

1. Gentiles (non-Jews) do not have the law of God - emphatically not!
2. As such, they will still be judged by God.
3. However, they do have not one, but two ‘inner witnesses’ which attest to their accountability for the way they live.
4. The first of these is indicated when they do ‘by nature’ what the law requires. We may think of this as the universal awareness of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, which ‘everybody has’. More, there is a ‘leaning towards’ wanting to do those things. Humans ‘naturally’ applaud what is considered ‘noble’ and denounce what is thought of as ‘bad behaviour’.
5. Paul’s language in this respect is careful. He re-iterates ‘even though they do not have the law’. But their actions indicate that the requirements of the law (not the law itself) are written on their hearts. They have that within them that ‘points in the same direction’ as the law. Perhaps as a residue of having been created in God’s image?
6. The second ‘inner witness’ is the conscience (see the word ‘also’?). Note that this is distinct from the sense of moral right. This is the ‘inner policeman’, which weighs and judges ones actions, either accusing of wrong or excusing it. This leads to rationalisation – the thought processes which explain all this to the individual, within the individual.
7. And all of this is not ‘God-law’ but self-law – “they are a law for themselves”. As such, it is neither absolute nor perfect; rather, it is self-determined and variable.

So, if we read the passage aright we can see that Paul is NOT saying that God has ‘given law’ to the Gentiles – where is the record of such a revelation? Rather, this is the effect of the Fall, and is the inner state caused by the fallen nature.

Conclusions

So, in conclusion, as far as Biblical revelation is concerned:

1. Adam was not ‘given law’ by God – he was given a command.
2. Noah was not given law as apart of God’s covenant with him. He was given commands concerning the repopulation of the earth, and also promises concerning the grace and faithfulness of God
3. Abraham, even taking into account his faith-filled obedience to the promises and commands of God, was not given law. Indeed, Paul states quite clearly in Galatians that the law came 430 years later.
4. The period of time from Adam to Moses is differentiated from the period from Moses to Christ as pre-law and under Mosaic Law(for Jews)
5. The Gentiles are not considered to be under God’s law, nor have they ever been

And, as previously elaborated in this series, in the new covenant, Christ gives us His single, essential ‘new commandment’ – the Law of Christ. Thus I repeat what I set out to begin with, that

In redemption history, God has only twice ‘given law’ – once on Sinai, and as a fulfilment of that ‘shadow’ in the Upper Room in Jerusalem at His Last Supper and the institution of the new covenant.

 So it is indeed true that believers are bound by a law – the ‘law of Christ’. And this is what he says is ‘My command’ – that ‘you love one another as I have loved you’. And in Galatians 6, Paul tells us that by living lives of sacrificial, serving love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, we can actually fulfill that law.

Why does it matter?

Is this just an academic question, with no real bearing on practical Christian living? Something that those who are more disposed towards ‘theology’ will delight in, but just does not touch the believer-in-the-street? Well, I do not think this is only theoretical. What is important – vital – about it is to understand who we are in Christ and how we live lives under His Lordship and in His Spirit. And it seems to me that when the coming of Jesus is set over and against the previous, Law covenant in John 1:

“Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” (John 1 vs 16 – 18)

 … here we are being shown something fundamental to the Gospel, to the new covenant. When we are told that we are those who are NOT under law, but under grace, we have to listen. This is more, much more, than a declaration that the Law of Moses is redundant. It is saying that the very way we relate to God in Christ, is distinctively ‘fuller’ in the new covenant. We are led by the Spirit, who indwells us to do His leading – we are not ‘pushed’ by a law – any law. The worship life of Old Testament Israel revolved against the symbol of God in their midst, which was the Jerusalem Temple. But that was just a picture of the lasting, glorious truth that now the living God makes the hearts of His children His home. And although we are, and must be, cognisant of and obedient to, His revealed word, it is born, as living truth, from the page into our very souls. We are living ‘being-transformed’ lives, becoming more like Jesus, not by a rigid and dogged obedience to precepts and commands, but because when God speaks through the Bible to us, our hearts are set on fire. We find our thinking is being retrained, so that more and more, we ‘have the mind of Christ’. And ultimately, this is the way He, the risen Lord, will be exalted in who we are, what we say, and what we do.

  “For me to live IS Christ, and to die is gain.”


* Link to YouTube presentation of this material:

"For freedom Christ has set you free" - All men NOT under the law of God

Is Jesus the Lawgiver - Examining James ch 4

“Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?” (vs 11, 12)

Introduction

In understanding this, the only verse in the New Testament where the term ‘Lawgiver’ is used, we have to be sure to apply the normal rules of common sense and of exegesis. As always, context must determine how we see it saying what it is saying. And as always, Kipling’s six strong serving men will also serve us:

“I KEEP six honest serving-men
 (They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
 And How and Where and Who.”

There are two errors (at least) that it is possible to fall into when considering Scripture. One is to play the ‘numbers game’. This has one basic rule – that the more often a word or phrase occurs, the more important it is. The wise realise that there are major aspects of doctrine which actually do not get referred to frequently – the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is one such. But the opposite error is to therefore argue that this question (of frequency) must not be a consideration at all. And thus upon sparse Scriptural grounds, all manner of strange beliefs may be constructed and adhered to. In this case, where this word only appears once, surely the reasonable thing to do is to evaluate it by its context, and not to import into it meaning that the author did not intend, or to broaden it beyond the scope it was intended to cover.

So we must ask here questions like

Who was this written to?

Why was it written?

When was it written?

What is the writer’s intention?

How is what is said intended to challenge and correct?

… and we will let Mr Where rest for the moment.

Questionable Christians

We can see from the immediate description in this chapter alone that although James calls these readers ‘brothers and sisters’, they are in desperate trouble. Just look at what is true of them:

·         They are fighting and quarrelling

·         They covet and ‘kill’

·         They are driven by wrong motives and sinful. selfish desires

·         They are proud and arrogant

They have sold out to the world and are behaving like unbelievers. They have committed spiritual adultery – something that old covenant Israel was guilty of many times over. They are proud and resistant to God’s Spirit. They have only their own interests at heart, and are prepared to trample upon the needs of others and to besmirch those others’ names in order to get their way. No holds barred! And their outward behaviour demonstrates the turmoil of their hearts. All of this whilst still maintaining that they are yet Christ’s and are of the faith.

Unconditional Surrender?

To deal with this dire state, James counsels absolute, unconditional repentance. They are to abandon these terrible behaviours and turn from them completely. They are to cast themselves, with utter abandon, on the mercies of God – to depose their puffed-up egos and re-enthrone their God in His rightful place. They are commanded to

-          ‘wash your hands’,

-          ‘purify your hearts’,

-          ‘grieve, mourn and wail’ – this is not a feast, it should be a funeral!

And thus humbled, it will be God, not they, who lifts them up. When God lifts up, no-one can cast down. When God casts down, no-one can lift up!

One Lawgiver

Included in this corrupt and chaotic cocktail of wickedness is the business of speaking against other believers. James’ argument here is that anyone who thus ‘speaks against’ another ‘speaks against’ the law. That is, they weigh, in their own dubious judgement, not only the worth and value of the victim, but also the worth and value of the standard they use to perform that evaluation. They place themselves in the position of judge – ready to ‘hear the case’ and ‘deliver the verdict’. And here is James’ radical condemnation:

“There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. “ (vs 12)

These Jews knew all about the One who had given them the Mosaic Law – the Lawgiver of Sinai. He had demonstrated that, within the bounds of covenant, this was His right and His alone. So, those who presume to judge others are making themselves Judge/Lawgivers - they are putting themselves in the place of God Himself. “Who are you to do this?” asks James! A quote from Kurt Richardson’s commentary on James:

“James pointed out to his audience that God alone is the lawgiver, echoing the earlier affirmation that there is but one God (2:19; cf also Jesus’ declaration that “there is only One who is good” in Matt 19:17). Only he who gave the law is qualified to judge based upon the law, for this law of God is the instrument of God’s will by which some will be saved and some will be destroyed. Earlier, James had ascribed this saving capacity to the Word of God. God alone possesses the right to save and destroy (cf. Matt 12:4 and also 8:25; 16:25; Luke 6:9; 19:10). God’s prerogative of judgement, whether to grant life or to condemn, is why judging is prohibited for believers.”
(New American Commentary)

So we can see that this passage does not have the aim of giving to Jesus the appellation of ‘Lawgiver’. It does not even name Christ – it speaks of ‘God’. It does not state that the role of the Son, specifically, is to be one of ‘new Lawgiver’. Otherwise it could be expected for the argument to go on to say ‘and here are His laws’. Would not this be the ultimate killing stroke against these wayward people? To say, ‘you are behaving like (this) when Jesus has commanded that you behave like (this)’. But rather the thrust of this is to depose these pretenders and strip from them their rebellious and pretentious assumption that they have the right to judge. This is ‘homology’ as much as it is ‘theology’ – about what man isn’t as well as about what God is. But it is not specific Christology.  Surely our Christology points towards the contrast and dissimilarities between 'lawgiver' and 'grace-and-truth-bringer' (John 1 vs 17)

Conclusion

To derive from this passage that Christ is, in fact, Moses’ replacement as ‘the new Lawgiver’ is not supportable. To use it in that way when it does not even name Jesus specifically just seems to make use of it as a ‘prop’ to support the convictions of those who have already made up their minds that He is this. But this is not the proper way to understand God’s word, and the weakness of the argument actually damages their cause instead of supporting it.

The Law of Christ – the debate continues

Part 3a – Where it all begins

In the previous two parts of this study, I have addressed, first, the logic and reasoning of those who assert that the ‘Law of Christ’ is a collated set of commandments/commands which are binding upon believers in Christ, and my reservations about that. Second, I attempted a more positive, straight exposition of the only place where that strict phrase is used in Galatians 6. Here, I want to whisk us back to the beginning, the place and the occasion when Jesus institutes the new covenant on the night before His cross. I have asserted that the law of Christ, as referred to by Paul, is no more and no less than the single ‘commandment’ Jesus gives to His disciples on that dark, troubled night. That needs some ‘unpacking’. I will attempt that now.

The Deep, Deep Desire of Jesus

John gives us much detail of what transpired before, at and after they all reclined at that table – the synoptic gospels less so. However, there are insights to be gleaned from all directions. Here is one from Luke:

 “When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”” (Luke 22 vs 14 – 16)

Sometimes our translations need a little ‘assistance’. This statement of our Lord’s is doubly powerful. Literally, He says, “With deep desire, I have deeply desired …” In other words, this specific meal is of extremely important significance. The way he phrases it, He would not think of going to the cross until He has eaten this meal with them – this Passover. This alone should alert us to the fact that what is about to take place is fundamental and foundational in our understanding of what Jesus is about to do.

John reminds us of two things:

“Jesus knew that the hour had come for him to leave this world and go to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he loved them to the end.”

So he emphasises that

• Jesus knew what He was about to suffer and that He would be leaving His disciples to return to His Father. He knew that this was His ‘hour’.
• Jesus’ love for these disciples was uninterrupted and absolute.

In what state would He leave them? Abandoned? Deserted? Having taught them so much about the love and the closeness of God in His own person, would all of this fall to the ground now that His earthly ministry was done? As we view this, and we get the sense of the disciples’ increasing bewilderment (because they did not understand what was about to happen, let alone why), and their concern and sadness (because at least they had begun to understand that Jesus was talking about going away, and to a place they could not go). And we can ask questions they did not know how to, or even that there were concerns here they were not aware of. If Jesus had begun so much, done so much, whilst He was with them, how would this continue? Having challenged their core beliefs in the Mosaic system again and again, when He had gone, would they just revert to what had gone before? Would Jesus just be to them the man/God who ‘was’, but was no more? Was this spirituality He had woken them to to vaporise with His parting? Little did they know of the full glory of what He would yet do. And we need to wrestle in order to grasp its greatness to. For this night, and what Jesus did in its few, short hours, is the equivalent in covenant terms of what God did on a smoke-filled mountain in the desert of Sin, with all of its fearful heralding, forbiddings and warnings over a period of weeks.

This small-sized conference room in Jerusalem is the new covenant Sinai, the place of covenant institution. And here is the substantially-invisible reality of that which the shadowy-visible old covenant whispered its promises.

The Washing of Feet

“Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God, so …” (John 13 vs 3 – 4a)

We know from the other gospels that the disciples had been bickering, even on their way here. Who was the ‘greatest’ among them? Maybe, this was to decide who would take the place nearest the Master at table – this decided the seating order at Jewish feasts – but they had had such discussions before. The more important you were, the higher up the table you sat. So intent are they in their argument, that the servant’s chore of washing the dust of the road from soiled and smelly feet doesn’t occur to any. And thus, there they are, all ‘reclining at table’ with dirty feet, uncomfortable, but too proud and too late for anything to be done about it.

Who is ‘the greatest’? JESUS is the greatest! The Father has subjected all things to Him – nothing is excluded. And He knows that when He dies, He will be returning to the bosom of the Father. No sin to be dealt with, no disobedience to be sorted, no stain to be cleansed. Without doubt, He is the greatest. He knows it – and these men would have no hesitancy at all in admitting it. But it is Jesus, even in the light of this, who takes up towel and bowl and proceeds to do for them what they would not do for each other.

But wait! There is more to this than just a lesson in humility. Yes, there is that salient, sobering, stinging lesson that they ‘got’ then, there. But Jesus says there is more. For He tells Peter, when he objects,

“You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

Something is going on here beneath the immediately obvious. Something these men did not see directly, but would see afterwards – after Jesus had risen and ascended. We get a further glimpse when Jesus tells Peter:

“Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

And then, when Peter changes his mind and asks for an all-over wash,

“Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”

So here is the urgent question. What kind of cleansing ministry of the Son of God to these men who were already His called and committed disciples could possibly mean that without it, they would not be a part of Him at all? That is a crucial question and not to be lightly passed over.

There is, of course, an immediate lesson. Jesus explains it. He, the Lord and Master, has washed the feet of His disciples, His servants. He sets us an example. No task, no end should be beneath us as we, who are in Christ, seek to similarly serve one another ‘as He has served us’. We should wash each other’s feet. Jesus tells us that in this is great blessing, great happiness. The ‘not every one of you’ is added because Jesus knows the black heart of the one who would betray Him, and even now, was about this business. Later, He will say to them,

“You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.” (15 vs 3)

Quite evidently, this speaks of more than just physical hygiene. The Lord is talking about the state of hearts before God. The disciples were already sanctified – set apart for God’s use – by the words He had spoken, the truths He had taught them. Their acceptance of these things had changed them in ways they had not realised. There had been a dealing with inner wickedness, a washing of the soul, a renewal of the spirit, all in His great love. They had been brought this far by His protection and prayer. Their eyes had been opened to Him and His truth. Perhaps sometimes they had perceived it. Many times they had not. But here they were, on this last night that was to be both an end and a beginning. And their Lord insists they must have their feet washed. By Him. Without which, they would have ‘no part’ in Him. That is a drastic thing to declare, all dependant on a towel and a bowl of water. What could He possibly mean?

I think we have failed to grasp the importance of a rather simple element in the Jewish world – water. Fresh, new, clean water was used for more than the removal of dirt from the body. The Mosaic covenant gave explicit instructions for many, many ‘washings’ – ablutions, and these were ceremonial. That is to say they signified the cleansing from inner wickedness. These preparations were required for priests and people. Before they came to the Temple. Before they offered sacrifice. In all kinds of circumstances, the Jew thus prepared his heart for approach to the holy God. Throughout – particularly in the immediate vicinity of the Temple – there were the Jewish baptisteries, the mikveh, which required meticulous total immersion of the whole body, right to the last hair of the head. These baths had to be supplied with fresh, not stored, water. The body had to be clean before – before, note – this ceremonial immersion was performed. A couple of quotes to help us along:

“Though there are no extant laws for laymen in regard to washing the feet, such laws for priests are given in Ex. xxx. 19-21. There mention is made of brazen vessels, placed between the Tabernacle and the altar of burnt offering, in which the priests had to wash their hands and feet on entering the Tabernacle or before approaching the altar of burnt offerings: hence at all their priestly functions. Just as no one is allowed to approach a king or prince without due preparation, which includes the washing of the hands and feet, so the Israelite, and especially the priest, is forbidden in his unclean condition to approach Yhwh, for he who comes defiled will surely die.”

And again:

“—In Rabbinical Literature:

The priests were not permitted to minister unless they had performed their ablutions, among which the washing of the feet is especially mentioned (Zeb. 17b). According to Tosef., Men. i.e, the priests were accustomed to rub and wash their hands and feet in the basin twice, to insure the proper degree of cleanliness.

… and from another source:

“In the Torah, priests are required to wash their hands and feet before entering the holy place of the tabernacle to offer sacrifice on the altar.  Moses receives these commands in Exodus 30:17-21.  Exodus 40:30-32 describes these instructions.  1 Kings 7:38 and 2 Chronicles 4:6 mention ten basins(40 baths) in which the priests were to wash.  Also, the high priest is expected to wash his hands and feet on the Day of Atonement(Lev. 16:24). “

So we see how necessary the washings of hands and feet were to priestly service, as well as for common use – and this cleansing thus effected was ceremonial. And this is what I think Jesus is about here. As these men approach the real Day of Atonement, as they recline in the presence of this Great High Priest, who is also their sacrifice, all of the pictures – the shadows – of ceremonial preparation that the old covenant had painted were now fulfilled. Jesus prepares His disciples in completion to serve in the ‘priesthood of all believers’. They are not Levites, not from Aaronic families, thus in the old order, they do not even qualify as priests. But the new covenant is not of that order, and fishermen and tax collectors may now serve. And to do so, they must have their feet ceremonially cleansed. Their feet must be washed by none other than the hands of their Saviour. And because their hearts are already His, that is all that is necessary.

Why? Why would Jesus so greatly desire to eat this Passover with them? Because – oh, because – He is about to lay the very foundations of the new covenant, the covenant in His own precious blood. 

Watch and listen, and tremble and weep, and rejoice with unutterable joy. Here is the basis of your eternal salvation.

“This is my body … This is my blood”

At the centre of this stage are the words of institution. We repeat them, as we should, in obedience to His command, whenever we break bread and share in the cup, don’t we? The use of the present tense here has troubled many over time. We deny the rather fanciful idea that every time we repeat this simple process, Jesus is re-crucified, and the elements are transformed, in whatever way, into the real body and blood of Jesus, in the hands of the ‘priest’. That is just an endeavour to explain the words of Christ at a rather superficial level. What Jesus is doing here – has done – is more profound, and needs some consideration if we are not to fall into foolish traps. And yet, at the same time, is not this so simple? What could be more straightforward, more accessible than the simple consumption of bread and wine together? No elaborate ceremony, requiring the ministrations of ‘specialists’. Anyone, anywhere, any time, we may remember Him.

What is confusing here is Jesus’ use of the present tense. He does not say ‘this represents’ or ‘this symbolises’ … or anything equivalent. His use of ‘THIS IS’ is striking, and brings the cross into this upper room on this night. It is as if He is saying to them that if it would be possible for Him to preach to them what was happening when He was suspended by nailed hands and feet on tomorrow’s cross, here is what He would want them to hear. In these words, Jesus expounds His death, and it’s vital importance for their understanding of what He was to do.

Thus, for us too, whenever we repeat it, the bread and the wine are our declaration of covenant. We are saying, in what we are doing that we are in it – we ‘participate’, as Paul later puts it in1 Corinthians. That this – His death - is our life and meaning, the covenantal sacrifice; the ‘cutting’ of this God-given new covenant by which God wraps His arms around us and transports us from the kingdom of death into His very presence. We, who are sinners, deserving nothing less than judgement and hell, are redeemed by THIS body, THIS blood, and because of it, we are His forever. With such potent purchase, no power in existence shall wrench us from its grip.

Thomas Kelly writes it thus:

We sing the praise of him who died,
of him who died upon the cross;
the sinner's hope let men deride;
for this we count the world but loss.

Inscribed upon the cross we see
in shining letters, God is love:
he bears our sins upon the tree:
he brings us mercy from above.

The cross: it takes our guilt away,
it holds the fainting spirit up;
it cheers with hope the gloomy day,
and sweetens every bitter cup.

It makes the coward spirit brave,
and nerves the feeble arm for fight;
it takes its terror from the grave,
and gilds the bed of death with light.

The balm of life, the cure of woe,
the measure and the pledge of love,
the sinner's refuge here below,
the angel's theme in heaven above.

Who can write such things without a heart filled with utmost praise? Do I hear an echo of that in yours, my friend?

And it is in this – let us mark it again – that the covenant given through Moses is swept into yesterday. In its place stands the new covenant ‘in His blood’, that will endure forever, and bring all the saints before the throne of God now, and into His full presence forever later. Here, here it begins. 

And all the might and foreboding majesty, all the noise and flashings, all the commandments and institutions of priesthood are gathered here in the hands of the very Son of God, who fulfils, then replaces them with an order the glory of which outstrips them all. Cleansing guilty consciences. Sweeping sin away to be counted no more. Dealing with the realities of which those former things were mere shadows, great and complex and sophisticated, in their own way, though they were.

“This is the new covenant IN MY BLOOD”.

NO LAW! 

What, none? None at all? But surely that is law-LESS-ness, and as far as it befits the things of God, is to be avoided at all costs. Surely such a condition could never be conceived of in our earthly state. Is it not so that without law to hold us back, unbridled sinfulness will break out and there will be no constraint on our wickedness. Surely it is true that even for the Christian, unless we live under the commands imposed by the authoritative ‘thou shalts’ and ‘thou shalt nots’ of the holy God, we will be self-driven and at enmity with Him, hostile to His purposes and foreign to His ways. For is not sin yet present in our earthly bodies, and we must wrestle with temptation and our desires, and without law we will be lost before we start. Surely …

But ‘NO LAW’ is written in God’s word!
We gasp! Where do we find this incredible claim? How will we thus live without it? Where will we go for the leash which restrains our lusts? Well, it is here, in Galatians 5:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Against such things there is NO LAW.
Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.”

There it sits, nestled in the middle of these statements of the Apostle. He has listed many examples of the ‘works of the flesh’ (vs 19 -21), and he says clearly that those who engage in such things are not Christians, not believers at all. They will not inherit the kingdom of God. But on the other side of this great divide, there are those who are Christ’s, in whom this astounding work has been wrought, and in whom is the very Spirit of God. They ‘belong to Christ’. And if so, the old nature, the flesh, has been put to death at the cross – do you see that? Thus mortified, they are alive in the Spirit, and they walk with Him, hand in hand; they are to ‘keep in step’ with His drumbeat.

And here it is, shining in all its glory. We who thus live, redeemed and cleansed, washed in His blood and renewed in the inner nature, we who are His grow from the inside this wonderful fruit, this sweet produce to His glory. He changes us by infusing us, nurturing us with His holy sap, and we cannot fail but to bring forth His fruit, as we abide in Him, and He in us. There it is in nine-fold fullness. And the verdict the word of God brings is with it –

Against such things – THERE IS NO LAW!

You see, ‘law’ is, by its nature ‘against’. What it does is to oppose wicked behaviour. It attempts to tie it down, so that it will not have free reign and produce its destructive havoc. That is the purpose of law. But this fruit needs no restriction. Let it grow as it will. It spills out goodness, love and joy. You see that you cannot describe it without using the very words Paul does. It is freedom. It is Christlikeness. To legislate it is like trying to tell sunlight how to shine – that is a totally unnecessary lesson. It just does it. 

And this is how the Christian is to live – with NO LAW. No law, but a crucified flesh, with its passions - that is already accomplished. No law but in step with the Spirit - this we must do. For the substitute for the shadowy life-pattern of law-control is Spirit-freedom. And, believer, that is precisely what you were born for in Christ.

A Man of Suffering, and Familiar with Pain

This question was recently posed in one of our online groups:

How are we to understand Luke 22:42?
Jesus said: "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not *My will,* but Yours be done." 

 The poster continued - “Does Jesus have a "will" that needs to be brought in line with the Father's will? If so, do we - in some sense - have to pray for the Father's will to be done, in a fight for faith to humble ourselves and submit to God; casting down our will & desires for our Father's will? If so...Where do we "hear" the Father's will?”

 Is God Schizophrenic? 

There can be no doubt that even as Jesus was praying that prayer, His mind was fully made up and focused on the necessity of His going to the cross. So what is the “my will’ He refers to, which has to be submitted thus?

To be plain:
 a) The will of Jesus – that the ‘cup’ of suffering would pass from Him, i.e. that He would not have to undergo the cross. That this is the thought of the moment is seen in that in so many other places, the Lord testifies to His disciples that He must die, as it is written of Him:

“We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.” (Mark 10: 33,34)

 This is no pretence. Jesus is not play-acting for our benefit. At this moment, who was the ‘audience’? His disciples were all sleeping, and He had moved away from them. He was not ‘playing to any gallery’ here. This was fervent, heart-cry from Him to His Father. “(Jesus) offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death.” What can be more plain? Jesus did not want to die. He shrank back from it. Foreseeing, as only He could, all of the agony and pain, the sorrow of death itself, and the torture of separation from His lifelong fellowship with His Father, and realising how this would torture His body, mind and soul to the depths, He appeals to God that if there is another way, that way rather than this be taken.

 b) The will of the Father – to subject His Son to all that the cross involved to procure the redemption of those He was saving. We see this plainly stated in Isaiah 53:

“Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.”

 How are we to understand this apparent bifurcation between the will of God the Father, and the will of God the Son, who is, nevertheless, in perfect conformity to the Father’s will?

God's Strange Design

I think this must be one of those areas where we have to admit that even with Spirit-read revelation, our logic and reasoning will only take us so far. As Wesley aptly puts it:

 “’Tis mystery all – the immortal dies,
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain, the first-born seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
‘Tis mercy all, let earth adore!
Let angel’s minds enquire no more.”

When confronting such things, we must pause in wonder, in love, in praise. Where the ‘mystery’ is revealed to be active ‘mercy’, we at least have a reason, if not an understanding. And such a gaze into glory should rightly bring us to our knees before Him, with hearts full of bursting joy and thanks.

That said, I think God shows us something of what is going on here.

The Heart of the Father, the Cries of the Son

 The best commentary on this is Hebrews 5: 7-10:

 "During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek." 

 Let us mark the steps of this progression one by one:
a) He prays earnestly to avoid the trial, with full confidence that His Father can save Him from death.
b) But He prays in reverent submission. “Not my will, but yours be done.”
c) He was heard.
d) He learned obedience by this means
e) He was ‘made perfect’ by its course
f) He thus became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him, as an eternal high priest

Notes:
1. This prayer of the Lord's demonstrates the necessary part of the process by which He became our eternal high priest. Hebrews 5 says,

 "Every high priest is selected from among the people and is appointed to represent the people in matters related to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins."

 and

 "… no one takes this honor on himself, but he receives it when called by God, just as Aaron was."

This, then, is a part of Jesus appointment. In this respect, Jesus does not choose the role. Rather, He – even He – receives it. This chapter again:

"In the same way, Christ did not take on himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”" 

 2. So Jesus evidences that this is being conferred upon Him by His Father. Note that the 'become' is in this context. We might well wonder at it. When was God ever NOT Jesus' Father? Well, here it is. It is in the aspect of His priestly ministry that He(Jesus) becomes what He was not previously - and thus God 'begets' Him as an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek. And it happens here, in Gethsemane, on this night – however much it has been conceived beforehand, here is the ‘birth’ of this! Startling!

3. This process - by which Jesus becomes our perfect high priest - requires that He is able to sympathise with us in our weaknesses. Though, with the earthly, Aaronic priesthood (as this chapter makes plain) this is to do with the priest also being sinful and having to offer sacrifices for his own sin, this aspect cannot be true of the Lord, can it? So what is the 'shadow lesson' that this old covenant component is intended to teach us? It is that Jesus Himself had to LEARN this obedience - because of His own fleshly frailty, and His own body's natural unwillingness to submit to suffering and death. Thus “He is able to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray, since he himself is subject to weakness.” ... but without failing.

 4. So here is the great benefit and blessing that brings us. When our 'flesh' cries out "NO" to the prospect and price of obedience to God's will, this is not necessarily a failing of faith - it is a part of its path - the willing submission to His will, and the learning of obedience. And when we tread this way, we can know that we have this Lord, who has gone before us in this respect also, AND THAT HE DOES NOT DEAL WITH US HARSHLY. Because He knows what that struggle is like - He has 'been there'. Hear this! Let it shout comfort to your soul, as it does to mine. When you face death itself, alone, stripped naked, and naturally fearful, He stands with you to strengthen. To intercede. To provide. In reality you will not be alone. Your great high priest, who has learned this very lesson, will be at your side. He faced it utterly alone, so that you will not. And in other struggles we face, the same glorious ministry to us, in our heart of hearts, is true also. When your flesh shrinks back, as well it might, for you are dust, the spirit in you can yet soar. Pray, you must, in your tent of a body, which will so soon be returning to the ground. But pray knowing that just as your Lord, your Saviour was heard, and attended by angels to strengthen Him before His terrible ordeal.

5. Now, look at the testimony God gives to this struggle. We are left in no doubt as to its outcome:- “…he was heard because of his reverent submission.” God is not in the habit of ignoring the plaintive cries of His children. Because your Lord experienced this, and here is the result, you, too, can be thoroughly assured that in your deepest, darkest trials, He hears you too – you who are in Christ. The ‘answer’ for our Lord was not rescue, it was strengthening. If your Father will not bring you out of your trial, He will bring you through it – He will!

6. Finally, we need to note this very important point. Without this struggle, our salvation would not have been procured. Look at this: "... once made perfect, He became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him." This was a part of His essential cross-work. Interesting, in passing, that He ‘becomes’ what He must, on our behalf, by His obedience to the Father. We ‘become’ what we must by our obedience to Him! But do you see the main thrust of this? That it is because He has thus become an eternal high priest that we are assured of our eternal salvation. He eternally does what we eternally need, and will never, never fail us.

 So, my dear brothers and sisters in Christ, don’t lose heart. And draw near to your Father, to your Lord, now, with joy-filled boldness.