If the law has not passed away, what then of grace?

April 11, 2009

Personally, I am in the process of working my way through the Gospel of Mark in preparation/repentance as we move closer and closer to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday. However, a question came up today from a professor of mine that I had to address.

Matthew 5:17-20 {ESV}
[Jesus taught, saying:] “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever laxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Late last year I did a rather lengthy blog about the later portion of this verse — “exceeding the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” This post however will look at the earlier portion of this verse, particularly v 18– the bit about NOTHING of the law is passing away with Christ’s coming.

What exactly brought about the gears in my head turning in regards to this verse? I started focusing a bit on this verse as a result of a brief conversation I had with one of my professors and a fellow Religious Studies Major. I do not exactly know HOW we got to talking about it… but Travis mentioned a student in his youth group had asked about why they were no longer bound to the levitical law. Travis gave the answer, “Because we are under the new covenant,” yet admitted he did not have, at that moment, a better answer than that and began to wonder a bit for himself what the answer was. My Prof. alluded to Matthew 5 in stating that Jesus had said he did not come to do away with the law, and not
one “jot or tittle” would pass away from the law.

The next words (as close as I can remember) were “Now, this is in complete contradiction to what is written in Galatians! Yes it is — Complete contradiction… [Christians] pick-and-choose which rules to follow and which ones to not.”


For better or for worse, I did not respond to that comment. Possibly for worse. I had no desire to get into a theological discussion /argument
with her however. Not only does she come at scholarship from a more
secular angle, her coming at the conversation from a… well… NOT Reformed tradition means we are coming to the table from utterly different presuppositions about what the purpose of the law is, how man is saved, etc. Furthermore, if I do not chew on something for a while, my tendency to stutter really gets in the way. Either way, I figure I could pseudo-respond in blog-fashion. Certainly my prof’s noting that Jesus said that not one bit of the law would pass away. However, I would take GREAT exception to the rest of her statement. To claim Jesus’ words are contradictory of Paul’s?

So what is my response?

I will first state the presuppositions I hold. I and a Reformed Christian and hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of the Holy Bible. I hold to the actual authorship of the Bible– that is, if a book in the cannon says it is written by St. Paul… it WAS written by St. Paul. This goes for ANY book of the Bible, btw… even Daniel! I believe the Bible as being, as Paul wrote to Timothy, “theopneustos” — breathed-out of the mouth of God. And as it is theopneustos, and our God is a God of order, not confusion or contradiction, then the Bible never contradicts itself. Any “contradiction” that we may observe IS either able to be harmonized with clear Scripture or may be beyond our comprehension as fallen man to understand. Again… no true contradictions in the Scripture. No double-talk from the Holy Spirit.

Now that that’s out of the way…

Again, Jesus DID say that not one bit of the law is to be thrown away with the coming of Christ. This only makes sense with what Jesus was doing in the sermon of the mount – showing the TRUE nature of the law in the first place! Again, the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, 6, & 7) is NOT some sweet little sermon about good morals. Not at all. You think you’re only guilty of murder if you actually KILL a guy?? HAH! If you even are P-Oed with someone, you are a murderer at heart! You think you can get a divorce?? If you get any sort of divorce other than sexual immorality, you are an ADULTERER! You think you are to only love those you like? Love EVERYONE! Oh and by the way… adultery isn’t only what you do … it includes your THOUGHT LIFE!! Not the nicest most encouraging sermon I’ve ever read, I’ll tell you that! But this is completely in line with what Christ himself said about the law. Not only was he not abolishing it… he was showing that the TRUE nature of the law is SO MUCH more tedious and demanding on man than once thought! What does the law demand? Jesus tells us: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).

Just in case his disciples and those listening to his sermons thought Christ had come to do AWAY with the laws, he makes them IMPOSSIBLE to follow, by saying that through the law, Christ demands PERFECTION!

So… How does this fit in with salvation by grace, apart from the law? Easy. The law was never meant to save anyone. It was to point toward the Savior– Christ Jesus. “Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:19-20). Paul writes here that the law was NOT to justify anyone in the sight of God; it can’t be done!

How then are we justified? Romans 5:9 – “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by [Christ's] blood, how much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.” Galatians 2:16 – “We know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of
the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.”

Romans 5:18-21:
“As one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Furthermore, as written throughout Paul’s letters and in Hebrews, we know that Christ’s sinless perfect life allowed him to be the perfect atoning sacrifice for our sin to be made “once for all,” as in NO more sacrifices are needed. That’s it — “it is accomplished/finished” as Christ said on the cross. His death atones for our sin, and HIS righteousness in life becomes OUR righteousness, imputed to all who repent of sin and place their trust in the gospel!

There is NO contradiction between what Christ spoke of concerning the law in the Sermon on the Mount — that not one part of it would be done away with — and the gospel of grace through faith, apart from the law. The law has not passed away… but its purpose was never to save us through obedience. For salvation via obedience to the law, PERFECT OBEDIENCE is required; this is something we are utterly unable to accomplish because of our utter sinfulness.

The law has not passed away. Its purpose is now what it always has been — to bring about the knowledge of our sin. It is a signpost pointing toward Christ Jesus. The law points out our utter sinfulness and inability to obey the law perfectly and be righteous of our own doing. However… there is one who DID fulfill the law by perfect obedience — Christ Jesus. And his righteousness and death on the cross purchases salvation for all who will repent and believe. This salvation is by grace through faith, not a result of works… so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9).

The law is still there… still showing us our need for the Savior. And the fulfillment of the law is Jesus Christ– our needed Savior. Salvation is not through the law that condemns. It is in the lived-out righteousness and perfect atoning sacrifice paid in full on the cross for the sin of all who would repent and believe.

It is a beautiful and glorious gospel.

<><


Entry Filed under: God, bible, christianity, gospel, theology. .

6 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Nick  |  April 12, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Not the nicest most encouraging sermon I’ve ever read, I’ll tell you that! But this is completely in line with what Christ himself said about the law. Not only was he
    Hi,
    I have some comments about what you said:

    You said: “he was showing that the TRUE nature of the law is SO MUCH more tedious and demanding on man than once thought!”

    Nick: That’s not accurate, Jesus was actually raising the standards His own Covenant required. This went beyond the Mosaic Law.

    You said: “he makes them IMPOSSIBLE to follow, by saying that through the law, Christ demands PERFECTION!”

    Nick: This is also not accurate. Jesus wasn’t giving impossible demands, that is distortion of His character. The be perfect doesn’t mean the second you sin you get an irrevocable “F-”, that’s not at all what He was saying. He was saying live life as best as you are able, which means repenting when you fall. The most solid proof of this is in the next few verses He teaches us the Lord’s Prayer. Certainly a good Christian prays this…but what does the prayer say? “Forgive us our trespasses,” proving my point that utter 100% perfection is not what Jesus ever had in mind. God never gives impossible demands.

    You said: “How does this fit in with salvation by grace, apart from the law? Easy. The law was never meant to save anyone. It was to point toward the Savior– Christ Jesus.”

    Nick: That is correct. The Law never could save, even if kept perfectly. It’s sole job was to expose sin. Think of it as traffic laws, you get nothing extraordinary for keeping the traffic laws but you get in trouble for breaking them.

    You said: “His death atones for our sin, and HIS righteousness in life becomes OUR righteousness, imputed to all who repent”

    Nick: The Reformed teach the Father damned Jesus in place of the sinner’s damnation, but that is unBiblical. Second, nowhere does Paul teach Christ’s righteousness is imputed.

    You said: “The law has not passed away…but its purpose was never to save us through obedience. For salvation via obedience to the law, PERFECT OBEDIENCE is required”

    Nick: This is also wrong and unScriptural. The Law DID pass away, the Mosaic Law is over with because Christ was Who it pointed to (1 Cor 5:7b) and He came to show a more perfect way (Mk 10:1-12 shows Christ demands more than the Mosaic Law).
    The Law, which is the Mosaic Law (Gal 3:15-18) never could save, even if kept perfectly. It had nothing to do with perfect obedience (Gal 3:15-18, 21).

    You said: “The law has not passed away. Its purpose is now what it always has been — to bring about the knowledge of our sin.”

    Nick: Yes it has passed away, the Mosaic Covenant ceased to exist when Christ came.

    You said: The law points out our utter sinfulness and inability to obey the law perfectly and be righteous of our own doing.

    Nick: The law does point out sin, but it never made us righteous “by our own doing”, even if kept perfectly.

    The problem here is that the “Law” Paul is ‘fighting’ against is not synonymous with “any and all good works,” it is specifically talking about the Mosaic Law.

    Reply
  • 2. jesusfreakrkg  |  April 13, 2009 at 5:12 pm

    @ Nik:

    1)Christ did not RAISE the stakes… he was explicit in what the stakes were in the beginning. He said not one part of the law would pass away. This indicates that what he was stating was always part of the law. The point is that God’s law requires the man be perfect- impossibility. God’s law is unable to follow ultimately

    2)Umm… yes. Christ DOES demand perfection. Again, Matthew 5:48: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are by nature imperfect. We are utterly children of wrath and wicked from birth (Eph 2, Ps 51). How can you be perfect if you sin? If you rape someone, can you still say you have kept the law of the United States perfectly? If you assassinate the President, can you say you’ve kept the law perfectly? NO!! Perfection means you are FREE from ANY blemish. We all are sinful wretches – Scripture is clear on this point. So yeah… if you sin EVEN ONCE… you are not perfect. If you lie, you are a liar. If you have stolen something, you are a thief. Last I checked, there are no lying thieves that are perfect. “Living your life as best as you are able” doesn’t matter. You can try your best not to break the Law… but if you have broken it at all, you are GUILTY. And simply “saying you are sorry” doesn’t change the fact of that blemish. I never stated we do not repent… but our repenting of sin does not equal perfection. For if you are perfect, and we repent, why do you continually sin???

    3)“Nick: The Reformed teach the Father damned Jesus in place of the sinner’s damnation, but that is unBiblical. Second, nowhere does Paul teach Christ’s righteousness is imputed.” Haha. Really? You think so? That’s fun. You really have been deceived into thinking that the Bible does NOT teach imputation of sin? That’s … wow. I’ve never met anyone so far off on the atonement before. Well, no one who has so blatantly stated as such.

    But just as well, I will provide Scripture to back it up… especially your claim that PAUL never taught it. 2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Let me unpack that… God made Christ (the sinless one) to BECOME sin, so that believers will become the righteousness of God. But just in case you think Paul must have gotten it wrong… (blasphemy aside)… what did Peter say about it? 1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteousness for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.” Again, 1 Peter 2:24 – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” He bore and suffered for our sins, and died so that we may be counted as righteous!

    Want more? Ok. What did the prophet Isaiah say? Isaiah 53:4-6 – “Surely he [that is, Christ] has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, SMITTEN BY GOD, and AFFLICTED. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Not enough? One more? Ok. Later in the address, the prophet, also speaking of Christ, declares that Jesus’ death was PLEASING to God the Father. “Yet it was the will of the LORD to CRUSH HIM.”

    The Reformers DID teach that God crushed Christ for our sin… and that Christ’s righteousness became his bride’s – the Church’s. However, they did not, as you imply, make it up as they went along. It was drawn from the Holy Scriptures – most notably Paul, Peter, and the prophet Isaiah. Christ was CRUSHED for his bride’s sin. He was punished for me in my stead. IT was a true substitutionary atonement. No infused righteousness here.

    4)When I said that “the law never passed away.”… you DO know I was just quoting from Christ himself, right? So… then… your charge is that Christ is a liar or not as theologically correct as Paul? That’s all I really know what to do with your reply of “nuh-uh” when I quoted Jesus in saying the law has not passed away. I guess you could just take it up with Jesus… don’t blame me for what the Bible says.

    I do want to say that Christ doesn’t SHOW us any WAY. He IS the way. Christ did not come down to show us “a better way to live” by giving more law or explaining the exact detail of the moral law. He IS THE WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. (John 14:6). And I even said earlier that the law CAN’T SAVE. Why? It was not the purpose of the law to save, and if it COULD save, it requires perfect obedience. NO ONE has EVER been saved because of perfect obedience… only by faith (Hebrews 11).

    5)The Mosaic Covenant passed away? … When Jesus said the law never passes away in Matthew 5:17-20…? Furthermore… I would point out that there are not two distinct covenants in terms of SALVATION. There has always been a covenant of grace through faith. How were the prophets of old saved? Again… Hebrews 11… by faith. There are not two roads to salvation. ONE road – through the person and work of Christ Jesus. One plan for salvation. It is true the covenant now is BETTER in its ability to save – that no offering is offered repeatedly and no priest is needed to mediate on our behalf—for Christ holds both office as sacrifice (which is complete) and mediator (which he currently holds, seated at the right hand of the Father).

    6)No the law never = righteousness if kept perfectly because NO ONE DID keep it perfectly… as NO ONE CAN… because of our sinful nature from birth AND because of our own sin. We cannot work to save ourselves through the law or any other libertarian means. We need God’s grace to save… and God’s grace ALONE.

    Reply
  • 3. wellwateredgarden  |  April 14, 2009 at 9:55 am

    I believe we are all talking about the same thing. Our differences simply reflect the preaching we’ve been brought up or sat under.

    It is certainly true that Christ is the way, not just a better way but the only way and simple belief in His atoning sacrifice brings us to complete salvation.

    God is not surprised by our sinning! He may be saddened by our continuous doubts and fears but nothing catches Him unawares. He is totally able to save us who believe or even the whole world if He so chooses!

    I think we need to resist splitting theological hairs and rely simply and mainly on Jesus’ teachings and encourage one another while we look eagerly and expectantly for His imminent return.

    May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ catch you smiling and passing it on.

    The way I see it, anyway …

    Reply
    • 4. jesusfreakrkg  |  April 14, 2009 at 10:10 am

      @ wellwateredgarden – I do not mean to offend… but you are incorrect for saying that Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing about how man is justified. Catholics teach infused rightesousness — a blatantly synergistic view of salvation, in which Jesus died for sin, and I am washed free of my sin in baptism… and yet, after this washing, it is up to ME to keep myself in the faith, so to speak, via confession, penance, and other good works. In Rome’s eyes, Christ’s blood is not sufficient enough to actually atone for my sin.

      Scripture (and Protestants) teach a monergistic view of salvation through Christ’s imputed righteousness. we do not save ourselves by our actions. Instead, Christ ALONE saves.

      I recognize you wish for Christians to have unity… and I think Christians DO have unity in the essentials. However, I would also include HOW we are justified in God’s sight to be one of the TOP essentials — along with the person of Jesus Christ (and the doctrine of God in the Trinity)… and the bodily resurrection of Christ… and the fact that he is returning (though we can disagree on HOW he will return… ie: Amillennial, PreMillennial, Dispensational PreMillennial, PostMillennial, etc).

      I would emphasize that these are not mere theological hairs we are splitting. They come in light of the very question: “How can sinful man be justified in the sight of a Holy and Righteous God?”

      God bless.

      Reply
  • 5. wellwateredgarden  |  April 14, 2009 at 3:50 pm

    Hey, jesusfreakrkg … I had no idea you were actually comparing Roman Catholicism’s version of salvation verses the Protestant’s, I missed that. It never ceases to amaze me how scholars and individuals can read the same Bible and then come to seriously different conclusions.

    I believe that sinful man is justified totally through the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Period! When THAT is believed and confessed, and wholly accepted in faith, then salvation and righteousness is complete.

    We may do works out of thankfulness and as result of the ‘calling’ God places on our lives, but not unto salvation, only to gain promised rewards (Hebrews 11:6) in this life and the next, keeping in mind that the do-er will always get the better blessing, because it is better to give than to receive. Very Simple! (See Isaiah 6 and Romans 10)

    The way I see it, anyway …

    Reply
  • 6. Nick  |  April 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm

    Hi,

    Thank you for your response. I was out of town for a few days and could not get to a computer (my cellphone internet is too slow).

    Here are some comments I have:

    You said: “He said not one part of the law would pass away. This indicates that what he was stating was always part of the law.”

    Nick: You are cutting off His word’s mid-sentence, He said not one word of the Law will pass away UNTIL all is fulfilled about it. And when Jesus says “you have heard it said…but I tell you…” that formula makes it clear what He is saying was new and improved, not part of the original.

    You said: “The point is that God’s law requires the man be perfect- impossibility. God’s law is unable to follow ultimately”

    Nick: The “law” in question is the Mosaic, so it shouldn’t be confused with some univeral law, and nowhere does Scripture indicate God gave impossible demands. To suggest God gave impossible demands is to make a mockery of Deut 30:11ff.

    You said: “Christ DOES demand perfection. Again, Matthew 5:48: “You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” We are by nature imperfect. We are utterly children of wrath and wicked from birth (Eph 2, Ps 51). … So yeah… if you sin EVEN ONCE… you are not perfect.”

    Nick: I say you are misreading this. He was not saying that once you mess up you’ve totally failed. As I proved in the way Jesus told us to pray it includes “forgive us our sins,” which would be absurd if Christ demanded perfection the way you speak.

    You said: “You really have been deceived into thinking that the Bible does NOT teach imputation of sin? That’s … wow. I’ve never met anyone so far off on the atonement before. Well, no one who has so blatantly stated as such.”

    Nick: One thing needs to be clarified here. I as a Catholic affirm original sin, what I deny is the notion of imputed sin/guilt.

    You said: But just as well, I will provide Scripture to back it up… especially your claim that PAUL never taught it. 2 Corinthians 5:21 – “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Let me unpack that… God made Christ (the sinless one) to BECOME sin, so that believers will become the righteousness of God.”

    Nick: The word ‘impute’ is simply not there, nor is the concept. You are assuming “made sin” means impute, but that is reading into the text. The passage is saying Christ became a sin offering. I go over this very issue in my debate on my webpage in my first essay (if anyone is interested).

    You said: what did Peter say about it? 1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteousness for the unrighteous”

    Nick: This says nothing about imputing sin. It simply means the righteous suffered for the unrighteous, think of it in the sense of a man suffering by taking on an extra job to care for some people who cannot work.

    You said: Again, 1 Peter 2:24 – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” He bore and suffered for our sins, and died so that we may be counted as righteous!

    Nick: If you read this in light of the context, starting at v19, then you see what pleased God was the “obedience unto death,” nothing to do with transferring the punishment. And the Greek term for “bore” is actually a sacrificial term (used also in 1Pt 2:5) which means ‘offer up’.

    You said: Want more? Ok. What did the prophet Isaiah say? Isaiah 53:4-6 – “Surely he [that is, Christ] has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, SMITTEN BY GOD, and AFFLICTED.

    Nick: Verse 4 is quoted directly in Mat 8:16f, and has nothing to do with imputation of sin. As for the ’smitten by god and afflicted,’ the passage is clear that this is how the Jews saw it on the outside – “WE ESTEEMED HIM” – not what actually was going on.

    You said: But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned – every one – to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

    Nick: Note the word “chastisement,” that is a very different concept (and word) than punish. With this in mind, it becomes clear Is 53 (esp v5) is not talking about a legal imputation of guilt and legal transfer of punishment.

    You said: “Not enough? One more? Ok. Later in the address, the prophet, also speaking of Christ, declares that Jesus’ death was PLEASING to God the Father. “Yet it was the will of the LORD to CRUSH HIM.”

    Nick: It was pleasing in that it was His Plan that the Passion take place. This should be understood in the same sense it pleased God to make Job undergo all kinds of tortures by giving the Devil a blank check, because God knew it would bring about a greater good.

    You said: The Reformers DID teach that God crushed Christ for our sin… and that Christ’s righteousness became his bride’s – the Church’s. However, they did not, as you imply, make it up as they went along. It was drawn from the Holy Scriptures – most notably Paul, Peter, and the prophet Isaiah. Christ was CRUSHED for his bride’s sin. He was punished for me in my stead. IT was a true substitutionary atonement. No infused righteousness here.

    Nick: Hopefully you can take a fresh look at many of the texts you gave me and see they are not saying what the Reformers thought was there. I go over these very passages in my Penal Substitution debate with a Calvinist which I posted on my webpage.

    You said: When I said that “the law never passed away.”… you DO know I was just quoting from Christ himself, right?

    Nick: Yes, I know. As I pointed out above, you cut the verse short. He was not saying the Law would never pass away, only that it would not pass away UNTIL it is all fulfilled (in Christ).

    5)There has always been a covenant of grace through faith. How were the prophets of old saved? Again… Hebrews 11… by faith. There are not two roads to salvation. ONE road – through the person and work of Christ Jesus. One plan for salvation.

    Nick:I agree there has always been one path, made possible by grace, all I’m saying is Paul was dealing with the MOSAIC Law only. Paul was not going after a universal law of all possible good works.

    You said: No the law never = righteousness if kept perfectly because NO ONE DID keep it perfectly… as NO ONE CAN… because of our sinful nature from birth AND because of our own sin. We cannot work to save ourselves through the law or any other libertarian means. We need God’s grace to save… and God’s grace ALONE.

    Nick: It is not about nobody able to keep it, it in itself couldn’t save even if kept perfectly. Read Gal 3:15-18 and it becomes very clear. God had a path of salvation in place “450 years” before the Mosaic Law even existed. If 450 years after Abraham, God changed salvation to be based on the Mosaic Law, then God’s promise to Abraham would have been nullified…and God doesn’t operated like that. That’s Paul’s point.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Required

Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Author of the blog

Recent Posts

 

April 2009
S M T W T F S
« Feb    
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Blogroll

Categories

Blog Stats

Archives

Pages

Tweet tweet