No Law! Yes, Really

David Gay has issued, and very quickly published, in pdf and audio-sermon form, a critique of my comment in the New Covenant Grace group. Sadly, every single one of his criticisms is flawed and invalid. He quotes me:

No Law!

‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control against such things there is no law (Galatians 5 vs23 ESV). This verse is indisputable. It cannot be implied that Paul only intends to say that the law of Moses alone is not in play – he plainly says ‘NO LAW OF ANY KIND And this indicates that when he says, so many times, elsewhere, that the believer is not ‘under law , he also means ‘ not under any law Not merely ‘no longer under the law of Moses , as some would like to have it, although the Gentile never was anyway.

Comments on DG’s pdf. His words in bold:

1. I freely admit that the phrase ‘the law of Christ is not used in any of those passages, but what else can they be referring to? (Quoting various passages)

Note: So this is a presupposed conclusion, from elsewhere, which has been imposed on these texts. I, and others, have commented on the passages he mentions elsewhere, and shown how they do not indicate or imply that they belong in a collated 'law of Christ'.

2. 1. If these two believers are right, this can only mean that believers, not being under any law, are not under the law of the land in which they live, and they do not have to obey it.

Note: This is quite evidently not what the original statement is about. The ‘no law’ statement in Galatians 5 is concerned with God’s law, not man’s law. This is a rather spurious observation.

3. 2. If these two believers are right, why do the Scriptures stress that believers are bondservants of Christ?

Note: This is a logical fallacy. It reasons:

a. Believers are under the ‘yoke’ of Christ

b. The Jews were under the ‘yoke’ of the Law Moses

c. Therefore the Law of Moses was a ‘yoke’

d. Therefore, all ‘yokes’ are laws

e. Therefore believers are under the law of Christ

This is a logical fallacy of the kind

a) All dogs have four legs

b) Cats have four legs

c) Therefore, all cats are dogs

A ‘yoke’ was the coupling device used to tether animals together to pull, for example, a plough. The plain, analogous meaning is a picture, not a definition. There is no reason to equate it with ‘law’. This is imposed upon it, and it stretches the analogy to suit DGs purpose. Are ploughing oxen ‘yoked’ with law? Does ‘unequally yoked with unbelievers’ mean ‘unequally lawed’?

Another objection. When Jesus says, in Matthew 11:28 - 30:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”

... He is quite obviously talking about the 'yoke' of learning. In the rabbinical schools, pupils signed up to a particular teacher, accepting their particular 'take' on the Law. That was referred to as 'taking up the yoke' of that particular teacher. So what Jesus alludes to in this analogy is not to do with bondserveants at all. We cannot infer by this that what Jesus is doing is replacing old Law with new law. The whole point is that these Rabbis had such stringent and proliferate teaching on what the Law requires, which placed such burdens upon those who followed them. By contrast, Jesus says His yoke is easy and His burden is light. Further, the character of the great Teacher makes learning from Him a joy.

This is yet another example of where DG seems to read 'law' meaning into everything - whether it is actually there or not.

4. 3. If these two believers are right, why do the Scriptures stress that believers are married to Christ?

Note: Again, this is a picture -an illustration. And its point is that believers have ‘died to the law’. Nowhere does it state that subsequently they are ‘married to another law’. Paul says they are now 'married to Christ', not to 'the law of Christ'. DG reads that into the illustration.

5. 4. If these two believers are right, this can only mean that believers never sin.

Note: Again, a ludicrous accusation. It is patently obvious that I made the statement and yet I do not hold that believers never sin. Our display of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives is a ‘work in progress’ – we are not always consistent. Paul is saying that ‘against this fruit-manifesting display of the Spirit’ there is ‘no law’, as I have explained in my comment. Not that against any aspect of the believers life, there is no aspect of discipline ever required. Sadly this typifies DG’s extremising (see my book “Love – not Law”) – of pushing someone’s statement to an unwarranted extreme, then criticising them as if they said it!

Second, DG ignores Paul’s argument in Romans 2 and 5, which plainly states that there are two ‘kinds’ of sin – sin where there is a definitive command, and sin where there is not. Paul never says that the ‘law of conscience’ (a confused representation of what Paul actually says) was given ‘as law’ by God. Pagans are said to be 'without excuse' because their inward, moral sense points them in the same direction as 'what the Law requires'. Their conscience bears witness to this by either accusing OR EXCUSING them. This is no action of a God-given law - it is self-law. Pagans sin because of wickedness. Not because they break law. This is why the world was destroyed by God in the Flood. Genesis 6 refers.

6. 5. If these two believers are right, why did the apostle say what he did in 1 Corinthians 9:21?

Note: This has been addressed in my book “Love -not Law”. The use of anomos (without law) – and ennomos (in-lawed) need to be studied carefully, and they most certainly do not lead to the conclusions DG reaches. There are also articles on these two studies on my blog.

DG closes his ‘Stop Press’ alert with this:

“Finally, as I said, what might be the consequences if believers pick up the assertions on that Facebook thread, and run with them? Is there any danger that the idea of being law-less might morph into being lawless? How serious that would be!”

My answer –

DG is arguing with Paul himself, and with Scripture. Read Galatians 5 again!

 

And wait! DG has total ignored the rest of what I wrote. Here is the whole post:

 

*****

No Law!

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." (Galatians 5:22‭-‬23 ESV‬)

This verse is indisputable. It cannot be implied that Paul only intends to say that the Law of Moses alone is not in play - he plainly says 'NO LAW OF ANY KIND'. And this indicates that when he says, so many times, elsewhere, that the believer is not 'under law', he also means 'not under any law'. Not merely 'no longer under the Law of Moses', as some would like to have it, although the Gentile never was anyway.

The truth consistently taught throughout is that the believer in Christ lives by the operation of the Spirit in his/her heart and not by the 'dynamic' of obedience to God-given law of any description. That when this is so, and the child of God is keeping 'in step' with Him, the fruit He brings forth will be evident in their life, to the great glory of God, and the fleshly desires will be put to death, even as the flesh has been already crucified with Christ. That when this singular, nine-fold fruit is the abundant harvest of the saint, the appearance of obedience will also be there as a matter of course, for fruitfulness such as this shines Christ-likeness which far exceeds mere outward conformity. For love alone fulfills all of the old law, and even fulfills what Paul calls 'the law of Christ'.

Thus such a Godly, Christ-exalting lifestyle satisfies, fills out to overflowing, and exceeds anything any paltry law could ever be seen to require. Better try to bottle the bright shining of the sun than to attempt to define such Spirit-rich exuberance in terms of obedience to laws! And God's word does not do so.The truth consistently taught throughout is that the believer in Christ lives by the operation of the Spirit in his/her heart and not by the 'dynamic' of obedience to God-given law of any description. That when this is so, and the child of God is keeping 'in step' with Him, the fruit He brings forth will be evident in their life, to the great glory of God, and the fleshly desires will be put to death, even as the flesh has been already crucified with Christ. That when this singular, nine-fold fruit is the abundant harvest of the saint, the appearance of obedience will also be there as a matter of course, for fruitfulness such as this shines Christ-likeness which far exceeds mere outward conformity. For love alone fulfills all of the old law, and even fulfills what Paul calls 'the law of Christ'.

*****

A Crucial Question

Matthew 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23

“What must I do to inherit eternal life?” 
This is the question asked by the enquirer we have come to refer to as ‘the rich, young ruler’.

Who was he?

Mark just calls him ‘a man’. Matthew tells us he was a ‘young man’. Luke tells us he was a ruler. And all three gospels identify that he went away sad at Jesus’ answer ‘because he had great wealth’.

How did he address Jesus?

Mark, with his normal attention to important eye-witness details, tells us that he ‘ran up to Jesus’. Two gospels say that he addressed Jesus as ‘good teacher’. The third, that he asked about ‘what good thing must I do’.

What did he ask?

Two gospels say he asked what he must do to ‘inherit’ eternal life. Matthew just says ‘get eternal life’.

How did Jesus answer?

1. Jesus questioned the question. He queried the young man’s use of the word ‘good’. Whether ‘good teacher’ was polite and respectful, or ‘good thing’ was a generalisation, Jesus evidently wanted to make plain that ‘goodness’ is not a relative thing – it is absolute. And only God Himself is ‘all good’. Everything and everyone else which or whom we might consider eligible for that description is flawed in some way. I think Jesus was getting the young man to think “Why am I asking this Jesus about this? Why do I think He is qualified to answer?”
2. Thus the Lord turns the focus of the question from ‘the thing to do’ to ‘the person to ask’. Himself. And implicit in the consideration of this is the stunning conclusion that Jesus Himself is God!
3. Jesus then points to what the man already knows (“You know the commandments”). Pleasing God, in the old covenant, was about keeping the commandments. Again, the gospel writers vary in which commandments they record Jesus as mentioning. All are from the ‘second tablet’ – to do with relationships between man and man (whereas, traditionally, the first four commandments in the Decalogue are to do with relationship between man and God, and were thought to have been written on the first stone tablet). But in addition to the quoted commandments from ‘the Ten’, Matthew adds that Jesus mentions ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ – which is not one of the Decalogue. “Do this”, Jesus says, “and you will live”.
4. When the man responds that he has kept all of these “from my youth up”, Mark tells us something quite unique:
5. “Jesus looked at him and loved him.”
6. The Lord then proceeds to inform him of the ‘one thing’ he lacks – the most critical of all. He is to abandon his riches – distribute it to the poor – and become a follower of Jesus. The consequence is that he cannot see himself doing that because he has great wealth, and he departs crestfallen.There follows Jesus’ remarks on how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.

My Comments

1. In consideration of this account, we need to take the story as a whole and look at it ‘in situ’, rather than extracts to which we apportion meaning which the Lord never intended. We have to bear in mind:
2. That Jesus is dealing with a Jew, well versed in the Law, and meticulously observant of it. Thus He speaks to Him in his own terms.
3. That Jesus ministers at the ‘junction’ of the covenants. He leads away from and out of the old, and into the new, for which he prepares the way. Consequently, it is a mistake to take what He says about commandment-keeping as a viable alternative to getting eternal life
4. That there are things here that we do not and cannot know. Both about what Jesus says and about the young man. In my view, it isn’t legitimate to prejudge him and the thoroughness or otherwise of his law-observance.
5. We must not over-interpret. When the young man says he has ‘kept all of these commandments from my youth up’, it is not necessary to think he is claiming perfect adherence. And Jesus does not castigate him for a false claim. Must we, then? Will we do more than Jesus does?

So, conclusions and lessons from the account:

1. Quite evidently, law-observance has not been sufficient to give this earnest seeker assurance that he has eternal life. But he knows he wants it. 
2. The Law, though, has done the job God intended in his life. It has brought him to Jesus.
3. It is not a sin to be a ruler. It is not a sin to be young. And it is not a sin to be rich. Some take the last of these as an indication of covetousness – thus stating that he WAS breaking a commandment. But Jesus doesn’t even hint at this. Jesus elaborates later, and exposes how riches get in the way of discipleship. This is a 'new covenant' problem, not an old covenant one.
4. The Lord displays and illustrates His ‘mission statement’ – that He did not come to condemn, but to save.
5. We need to explore what it was that prompted (the also young) John Mark to comment that Jesus looked on him and loved him.
6. This is very ‘NCT’, is it not? A clear demonstration that the Law brought condemnation, but was powerless to give life. Only the living Lord could do that, and nothing should get in the way of our following Him. 

To whom else should we go?

The Law Was Given Through Moses

Because some are asserting that God’s law is expansive – even eternal – so that all men everywhere and at all times are always under some version or other of that law, I want to spend some time examining what the Bible knows about these various ‘Laws’. The insistence, as far as I can see it, is threefold:

1. That law and law-keeping is a fundamental and essential attribute of man’s relationship with God, in whatever covenant, or even no covenant, he happens to be.
2. That certain of God’s moral requirements, expressed as commandments (laws), overarch the whole of human history, and that they have always been ‘issued’ for mankind to obey in some form or other.
3. That the breaking of God’s law is always the definition of ‘sin’, and ‘sin’ is always that.

I want to suggest that God’s word only knows of one, complete, God-given Law – the Law of Moses – whatever other commands and communications there were to others at various times. That the designation of that as God’s Law was unique and never repeated. And that the heart of the new covenant – Christ’s covenant – is completely contrasted to it, not paralleled.

‘THE’ Law

My first argument is simple. It is seen, for example in this verse from John’s gospel prologue:
“The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. …

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 14; 16-18)

The contrast in the bolded statement is clear:
The law was given … – Grace and truth came …

We see, then, that the heart of the new covenant is Jesus Himself, rather than a suite of commandments sent via a mediator. But this is not my point. The thing is that it is a noticeable and consistent reference pattern of the New Testament writers to refer to ‘THE law” – indicating the Mosaic covenantal law. Implying that there is no other ‘law’ which is of interest to the writers to set alongside the new covenant. Indeed, going even further, perhaps implying that there was, only and ever, one, God-given law.

So Paul, in Galatians 3, says:
“The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed.  … What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.” (Galatians 3 vs 16,17)

Do you see?
‘The promises’ – and the qualifier (to distinguish from other promises spoken to anyone else) – ‘spoken to Abraham and his seed’

But
‘The law’ – and the qualifier is not ‘given to Moses’ (to distinguish it from other ‘law’ given to anyone else), but – ‘introduced 430 years later’.

‘Introduced’ means that it was not there, in any shape or form, before this. This was the first incidence of it.

It could be argued that this is only because it is this Law of Moses that is ‘in focus’. But I think it is significant that no other kind of law is ever mentioned. At all! This is Paul’s statement from Romans 2 – and he is talking to Gentiles as well as Jews:

“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)

Note that there are no qualifiers. At no stage in his argument does Paul say anything like “but they DID have ‘the Law of Adam’ or ‘the Law of Abraham’”. It is just, starkly, Jews had the law and Gentiles did not have the law. Quite evidently, he speaks of the Law of Moses. But no alternatives are mentioned.

This goes further. If, in fact, the Gentiles had some kind of God-given law, his argument in this passage does not make sense at all. He is saying that despite their NOT having God’s ‘given law’, nevertheless they had a law-like function in their hearts which makes them tend (imperfectly) to do the same things that the Law actually requires.

‘The Law of Moses’

Second, the designation ‘the Law of Moses’ is distinctive. We are never told anything about ‘the law of Abraham’ or ‘the law of Noah’ or ‘the law of Adam’. No collection of God-given laws assigned to any of these people is ever referenced in the Bible. The new covenant is new because the old covenant was old. And the old covenant, Moses’ covenant, was a law-covenant. As John 1 vs 17 says, the new covenant is a grace-and-truth covenant, a Jesus-covenant.

The Law of Sinai

Third, the occasion for God’s giving of this special Law, with all of its detailed commandments about tabernacle construction, priestly attendance and service, sacrifices, and the social rules of behaviour for the people in Canaan, is remarkable. It is given with great and fearsome displays of power and majesty, along with terrifying warnings and prohibition. Such a ‘giving’ is unparalleled. Surely, if God gave law anywhere else, it would be reasonable to expect similar display. Certainly, He would not just ‘slip it in to the statute books’ unnoticed and unannounced. When God gives law, those for whom it is intended hear what is going on, so that they are under no illusions that THEY are under that law. It is published and made both clear and available, so that it can be read and read again, and understood. It is to be proclaimed by the priests. It is to be ‘in the mouth’ of the leaders of Israel. It is to be ‘bound on their foreheads’ and affixed to the doorposts of their houses. The law of God is a very public affair indeed.

And, chiefly, we are completely logical to expect such occasions as the giving of God-law to be attested in His word – the word of the revelation of His dealings with man throughout history. But after or before Sinai, there is absolutely no equivalent at all. No other law-giving.

We are left to conclude that if law there is other than the Mosaic law, it is of a completely different kind. And of law of any other nature, again, there is no indication whatsoever in God’s word.

The Law of God’s New Land – Canaan

Lastly, Mosaic Law is physical in nature because it is ‘land-law’ – law given for a physical people occupying a physical country. They are not to be merely a replica Egypt. They have grown up under the law of Pharoah. They are now to adopt the law of God. It institutes not only laws for worship and approach to God, but also laws for their living side-by-side with each other. But in the new covenant, we are ‘living stones’, built into a spiritual – not a physical – temple for a dwelling-place for God. Essentially, non-visible. The true realities of which the old ‘shadows’ only hint.

The Visible Law

God tells Moses:
“I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you.” (Exodus 19 vs 9)

And vs 16 – 19 relate the phenomena which accompanied God’s communication:
“On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. Mount Sinai was covered with smoke, because the LORD descended on it in fire. The smoke billowed up from it like smoke from a furnace, and the whole mountain trembled violently. As the sound of the trumpet grew louder and louder, Moses spoke and the voice of God answered him.”

Hebrews 12 draws out this contrast between these two covenants. This is the Sinai covenant:
“You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: “If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned to death.” The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, “I am trembling with fear.” “ (vs 18 – 21)

And the Christ-covenant:
“But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly, to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven. You have come to God, the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” (vs 22 – 24)

We see that ‘the mountain that can be touched’ – visible, audible, tangible, physical – is compared to the as-yet immaterial realities of the ‘substance’, the heavenly Mount Zion. And belonging to the first is a physical set of laws engraved on very-physical stone tablets. But in the new, no mention of new law. It is, however, there, written on the hearts of the ‘spirits of the righteous made perfect’.

Here, then, is how God gives His law. Where else do we see it? Nowhere.

Heart Law

In Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36, God promises a new covenant, even in the midst of the chaos Israel had made of the old one. He says it would be a Spirit covenant, where a new heart would be given to His people – a heart where He would put His law. It would be ‘not like’ the covenant which Israel broke so completely. Hebrews 8 tells us that “the new covenant is established on better promises.” Not, you will note, ‘better law’. Obedience there would be. But when the Son of God gives us His commands, whether through the mouth of the incarnate Word, or those of His appointed Apostles, we are to obey not because they are our law, but because He is our Lord, and we love Him.

Conclusion

I still love that old Coca Cola ad. One has to see how clever these people are who draw our attention to what they want us to buy. There were many other ‘colas’. But only one original, against which the competitors came a poor second. Why be content with ‘also-rans’ when you could have … “the Real Thing”?

So we see that God’s law, as given through Moses, is unique in its many respects, and it was given only once. Nothing else is referred to as ‘the law of God’. And Biblically, nothing should be. What it promised is fulfilled in Christ. It is replaced by ‘the real thing’, of which it was a record only of the copies. God does not, again, ‘give law’. And what He gave to Moses was not ‘eternal law’ – it was not durable; it would be replaced by something – someone – who would vastly outstrip and surpass it. Who would fulfil it. And we would know, in no uncertain terms, that that was what He was doing, if it was, just as it was an unmistakable publishing on Mount Sinai. The laws which comprised it would be delineated and numbered, clearly identified as our rule-book for new covenant living. We would have a “however-many-a-logue”. But, as Hebrews 10 tells us:
“The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves.”

The reality is the givingof God's Son and the giving of His Spirit.

To refer to ‘the law of Christ’ as a substitute ‘law of Moses’ actually diminishes both. And destroys the super-eminence of the Son of God and the outpouring of His Spirit, which now lies at the centre of all we are as believers, members forever of the true Israel of God.