In chapter 12, Tom Wells continues to answer a critique of NCT thinking by Reformed Baptist pastor, Richard Barcellos. At the heart of the controversy is understanding what my law means in Jeremiah 31:33. In the previous chapter, Wells argued that although Barcellos agrees with NCT in it’s redemptive-historical understanding of the change from Old Covenant (OC) to New Covenant (NC), he “draws back from the applications or conclusions that the redemptive-historical understanding demands.” (p175) In other words, although Barcellos is quite happy to talk of the Old Covenant going through eschatological transformation through the death and resurrection of Christ, he is unwilling to speak of any real transformation with respect to the content of the Ten Commandments; “they read virtually the same as they did before” (p176).
Wells goes on to argue that Barcellos’ assertion that 1 Timothy 1:8-11 is evidence that the Decalogue still directly binds Christians is unfounded. While Paul uses the Decalogue as a pattern for what he had to write, we must only see its relation to the Decalogue as a formal one. If each sin/sinner listed corresponds to individual commandments among the Ten, Wells asks the rhetorical question “did Paul mean to specify only violators of those particular commands in using this language?” Of course not. After demonstrating that this passage teaches the Decalogue is for sinners, not New Covenant Christians, Wells does a good job of exposing Barcellos’ attempts at shoe-horning a perpetual Sabbath observance on Christians in this passage:
…nothing here demands the “perpetuity of the fourth commandment” in the sense he uses the phrase; nothing here repeats it in the sense of laying in upon anyone under the New Covenant, and nothing here makes it “binding on all men”. (p198)
Wells argues that Barcellos (and I’m assuming other Reformed Baptists who agree with him) is inconsistent in his redemptive-historical hermenuetic. While emphasising the OC as a type and shadow of the NC, he makes the mistake of applying the Decalogue “as it always was, in the literal words of Exodus 20.” (p203)
Wells points out, in the context of discussion over the Sermon on the Mount, that the OC law was a national law for a national society. So for the most part, OC law had a national reference and a “righteous man” could be anyone in external conformity to that law. So an Israelite could inwardly lust while meeting the national demands of the law “you shall not commit adultery” and remain an unpunished member of the covenant community. Therefore, when Christ said,”You have heard that it was said, ’You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you…” (Matt. 5:27, 28), he really was highlighting a contrast between old and new law. Furthermore, it is not at all clear that your average Israelite was expected to infer that lusting equals adultery from the command “you shall not covet”. Jesus law was something new, it really transformed the OC and directed it at the heart.
Wells also answers the objection that NCT employs a primitive “if it’s not repeated in the NT it’s not binding” hermeneutic by quoting Craig Blomberg
It is inadequate to say either that none of the Old Testament applies unless it is explicitly reaffirmed in the New or that all of the Old Testament applies, unless it is specifically revoked in the New. Rather, all of the Old Testament remains normative and relevant for Jesus’ followers (2 Tim. 3:16), but none of it can be rightly interpreted until one understands how it has been fulfilled in Christ. (Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary p103-104, quoted p208)
As I’ve said, Wells argues persuasively against Barcellos’ position. Yet, as I continue to blog through the book and interact with bloggers comments, I wonder if descriptions of “law” as a category binding upon Christians is appropriate. Is it appropriate to describe Christ’s Sermon on the Mount as NT law? In one sense I suppose it is, since NT believers submit to the “law of Christ” (1 Cor. 9:21). Is it not the case though, that under the New Covenant, believers almost become a living embodiement of what the law was powerless to do? In 2 Corinthians 3:1-3 Paul describes NT believers as those who are a living embodiement of Christ’s gospel power. The reason is that, in contradistinction to the law written on stone and thus producing death, the Spirit has written gospel power into human hearts and produced life. I am beginning to think that “law” as a category belongs to the era of “the flesh” or “this passing world”.
In Romans 7 when Paul says we have died to the Law the one law he cites as an example of Law comes from the Decalogue and is in fact the most internal of these laws – you shall not covet.
And I assume you think dying to the Law means it’s no longer a guide for moral living? 7:14, 22, 25 present a tremendous challenge to that interpretation. It would seem much more appropriate to understand 7:4 in light of 6:15-23. Died to the law = no longer a slave to sin.
Hey brandon. Hope you’re well. I think the exhortations in the epistles are sufficient as a guide to moral living without turning to OT law.
The OT law is a guide, but only as it is read through Christ, that’s the whole point. Hence Sabbath observance is not a literal resting one day a week, but the daily resting from one’s works in Christ.
Wrong. I agree that Jesus was contrasting a national covenant law with a law for the individual, I disagree that He was delivering anything new (cf Job 31:1; Prov 6:25). Schreiner, who thinks that Wells and Zaspel’s book is “basically correct” still thinks this point is wrong.
http://www.biblelighthouse.com/covenants/nct-reisinger01.htm
So it wasn’t a “New” Covenant then? It was just Old in a new context?
I don’t think you’re reckoning with the sheer force of Christ’s “But I say to you” statements, i.e. “Moses said this, but I say this”.
Furthermore, I agree that pious OT men like Job were acutely aware of the dangers of lust. Nevertheless, I still think Wells’ point stands, i.e. it’s not at all clear that lusting equals adultery from the command not to covet.
I’m not saying the OT law didn’t deal with the heart at all. Just look at the tenth commandment for instance, or the command to love God and neighbour. Nevertheless, the NC does not consist in laws written on a piece of stone coming at men in the flesh and condemning their twisted desires. It consists in exhortations in heart godliness to those for whom Christ died and in whom dwell the life-giving Spirit.
Further, I’ve already mentioned my discomfort with “law” as a NT category.
Brandon
I think we can learn from the law as we can learn from every other area of Scripture. We do so by interpreting it within its redemptive-historical context. However, the law as an authority (OC) has no rights over us and we are not under obligation to it.
In the same way we are not under the authority of sin. Neither Law nor sin can command our obedience for their authority only extends to people alive in this world, people ‘in the flesh’. In Christ we are not ‘in the flesh’ but ‘in the Spirit’, that is, God does not see us as alive in the old creation but alive in the new. Our position is exactly the same as Christs – as he is (presently before the father in love) so are we in this world.
Got to run now but may say a little more later.
John, I would appreciate your comments on what I commented on. Specifically Romans 7:14, 22, 25
Hi Nick. I’m not sure why you responded the way you did. I’m well aware of your opinion on OT law. I was talking specifically about Romans 7.
Btw, I noticed I was demoted from your blogroll. I’m kind of curious why
I know you were talking about Romans 7, but you were stressing that the law is a direct guide using this passage. In citing the Sabbath, I was trying to show how the law is an “indirect” guide for the Christian. I wasn’t really being clear (as usual).
I demoted you from my blogroll because I was disappointed in the direction our previous discussions took. I found you kind of patronising and dismissive. That’s not to say I was whiter than white and was probably equally patronising and equally dismissive.
Oh. So you were imposing your system upon the text?
I don’t see any system being imposed. I’m just assuming that Romans 7 doesn’t teach that the law directly binds. Unless of course laws forbidding the wearing clothes made of mixed fabric means I should bin half of my wardrobe. Still imposing a system?
Yes Nick, you are.
Eh? So reading the law through Christ is imposing a system? Your statement really doesn’t hold up and you know it.
With your logic those who don’t have parapets on their roofs and who don’t stone rebellious teenagers are imposing a system on the law?
And by the bay, when Paul says he serves God’s law with his mind in Romans 7, I assume he means the whole law.
So you’ve got a problem right away if you think the whole law directly binds the Christian without reading it through Christ. That’s the point I’m trying to make by citing verses like stoning rebellious kids, etc.
Brandon
It’s difficult to deal with verses in Roms 7 in isolation. I think the chapter needs to be considered as a unit. In a moment I shall try to comment on the texts you cite. However, let me give a brief sketch of the chapter.
It seems to me 7:1-6 is his whole argument and the rest of the chapter is simply an exposition of this.
7:1-6 lays down firstly the principle law in general and ‘the Law’ in particular only apply to people who are alive (7:1,5 Cf Gals 3:3). Jewish people in particular while ‘in the flesh’ were married to the Law. It had authority over them. However because of the sinful nature of the heart and the powerlessness of law they were unable to keep the law (v5) – thus the law which held out the promise of life (this do and you will live) actually produced death (v5). The only answer was to be delivered from the relationship with the law and be married to another. This happened to us in the death of Christ (v4). Now we live in a new relationship (in fact elsewhere in Romans, in a new realm). We live not in the realm of the flesh but of the Spirit, the authority in our life (our husband) is no longer the Law but Christ, and note, to Christ in resurrection (v4,6) and so serve God bearing fruit (v4).
This change of realm, husband, authority is absolutely critical to grasp for it lies at the heart of all Paul says and how he understands the Christian life. As I say the rest of the chapter simply expands on this.
7: 7-11 simply reveal the effects of the Law on ‘flesh’. It exposes sin, excites sin and so condemns (kills) the sinner (bears fruit to death 7:5). For non-Jews this happened when the ‘works of the law written on the heart’ (natural law) condemned them (ch 2). Here Paul is revealing the effects of the Law on Israel (corporate or individual it doesn’t really matter).
The OT story of Israel is of course just this. The Law as Moses predicted simply led to judgement and exile (death). It simply repeated the Adamic covenant of works – it produced death. 7:8 has language that echoes the fall.
At the moment I must go but will finish comment later.
To be cont.
Brandon
To summarise the above a) what is clear from 7:1-6 is that those who are ‘in Christ’ no longer have a relationship of any sort to the Law. That is, it is not binding on them. If it were then we must eat only kosher food etc. b) The function of the Law to Israel was to reveal to Israel her sin (v14 Cf 3:20).
I should note again that when Paul speaks of ‘the Law’ he is speaking about the Mosaic Covenant in toto, including the decalogue. It is in fact the most internal law of the decalogue he refers to in 7:7 (coveting).
7:12-23 . He defends the goodness of the law and locates the fault entirely in himself/Israel. He/Israel/for that matter humanity are ‘of the flesh’(v14) and sold under sin. Sin exploiting the Law produced death (v12). We are again at the conclusion of 7:5 – a lethal combination of flesh (man sold under sin) and law can only produce the fruit of death. His principle point in all this section is the powerlessness of the law to produce anything for God, in fact because of the flesh it produces more sin and makes sin more serious (elsewhere, a transgression) 7:13.
Now we come to the difficulty, and it is a difficulty for any interpretation of Roms 7. On the one hand we are regularly told in the chapter that the Law addresses man/Israel in the flesh. It is for people ‘sold under sin’, powerless to obey the Law. This clearly seems to refer to an unbeliever. On the other hand we are told this person ‘agrees that the law is good’, wishes to keep the law and hates when he inevitably and continuously fails to do so while ‘delighting in the law in his inner being’.
Who can such a person be? No Spirit-filled believer is sold under sin (Ch 6). Yet do any ‘in the flesh’ ‘delight in the Law in their inner being?
Superficially we may compare this with the warfare between the flesh and the Spirit in Gal 5:17. Yet only a superficial glance will lead to this conclusion for while in Gal 5 there is warfare there is not constant defeat. In Roms 7 the story is one of constant defeat. More importantly still the problem in Romans 7 is the absence of the Spirit. The Spirit is mentioned only in 7:6
Rom 7:6 (ESV)
But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Here the mention of ‘the new way of the Spirit’ anticipates ch 8. However, Ch 7 is not Ch 8. This ‘person’ in Ch 7 is still trying to serve ‘by the way of the written code’. He is ‘under law’.
Given the above, I understand Roms 7 to be Paul’s description of Israel trying to serve God under the old economy. Paul may be thinking of real regenerate Jews who can be described as ‘in the flesh’ because they are not yet ‘in the Spirit’, that is they belong to a different age. Or he may be referring to unregenerate Jews who had a commitment to the law (as he had before conversion), or he may be referring to a ‘theoretical Jew’, a Jewish believer in the old economy regenerate but without the power of the Spirit to put flesh to death and enable the ‘requirement of the law’ to be produced in him by the Spirit. I doubt if it is possible to be dogmatic which it is. The one thing sure is Paul is describing the powerlessness of the law to reform/conquer flesh and produce a life of fruit for God. It is this that leads to his cry of wretchedness. He is wretched, not primarily because of guilt, but because of frustration – he lives in a body that can only produce death, not life.
Cont below.
In summary,
Roms 7 describes the real or hypothetical Jew (regenerate or unregenerate I am unsure and don’t think it ultimately matters) trying to live for God under law. The result is an introspective focus (note the ‘I’ and me profusion), a focus on law, and a profound sense of failure and frustration. Paul is showing the redundancy of Law in producing fruit for God.
Roms 8 sits in stark contrast. If the OC (of Law) produces sin and death and condemnation then the NC (in Christ) produces ‘no condemnation’ In us living ‘in the Spirit’ the ‘righteous requirement of the law’ is fulfilled who ‘walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.’
8:1-3 The condemnation or curse of the law that sin in the flesh produced was placed on Christ. In his death ‘flesh’ was condemned – that is the sentence of death was passed on it.
8:4-17 In a resurrected Christ, alive in the Spirit, we find ourselves through the Spirit able to live the life the Law in principle required. However, no-one understands this life in the Spirit as living out literally the OT commandments of Law for all agree many of these commands clearly do not apply. Rather Paul calls for a life that is led not by outer laws but by the promptings and leading of the Spirit. Of course, the Spirit as we depend on him will lead us to study OT and NT and through this will lead and guide us in righteousness. More than anything else the Spirit will lead us, not to delight in the law but to delight in Christ. He is the enfleshment of a life pleasing to God and is the example for a believer.
Yet even as I write this last sentence I know that even the life of Christ has to be interpreted for us by the Spirit for he was a Jew living under Law to redeem from the Law. But that is another topic for another day.
John
Thanks for giving me your perspective John. I enjoy thinking outside the box. However, you’ve got a lot of work to do to convince me of anything you just said (not that that’s your goal in life).
Is there anything in the text aside from the “sold under sin”/”agrees the law is good” that leads you to this conclusion? I really don’t see anything else that could warrant it. Rather, it seems quite clear that Paul is talking about his own personal experience.
Brandon
Let me spell out my understanding of Paul. He sees history as the story of two creations and two humanities. The first creation had Adam as a head. He fell and as a result all in Adam die. God can do nothing with Adamic humanity. It has the sentence of death upon it and it must becarried out. There are various powers/authorities that have control over the old fallen creation in Adam – Satan, sin, death and the Law. Christ came in the likeness of sinful flesh that he may take the place of sinful flesh (certainly the elect). In his death the sentence of God against Adam was executed. Our history as Adam-people, in the flesh, condemned old creation, came to an end. That life is over.
But Jesus rose from the dead and all those united to him did so too. We have a new life. We are no longer in Adam, we are in Christ. We are not in the flesh but in the Spirit. We are not old creation but new creation. We are no longer slaves to Satan, sin and death we are slaves of righteousness. We are not answerable to Law but produce by the Spirit the life of God. In fact our new life (which partakes of the divine nature) sourced in the risen life giving spirit of Christ (1 Cor 15) is incapable of sinning – that which is born of God cannot sin.
This fundamental change of creation and humanity is what we are in Christ. Of course we still live in the old creation, we still have the flesh in us though we are not in the flesh but what we are called to do is accept God’s reality about ourselves. Put to death what God has already put to death on the cross. Consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God etc. Set our affections on where God sees as as being. This is the way of life and holiness not living by the rules of a law. Even God’s law, is weak and beggerly, because it belongs to the old age and was/is incapable of producing a holy thought or act.
I hope this shows a little why I feel speaking of the Law as a rule of life is sub-christian ground.
Brandon
Surely you agree with much of what I said since I did little more than quote Roms 7.
The question of who specifically Paul means by the ‘I’ is certainly debatable – I leave room for the possibility it may be an unregenerate Paul. The one thing it is not, is Paul living ‘in the Spirit’, married to Christ, under his authority, and producing fruit for God. What we have is someone seeking to serve God by the written code and utterly failing.
My position is not so unusual. You will find it, or something very close to it in Douglas Moo on Romans and J R W Stott on Romans. Both are in my view excellent commentaries.
Really? Really? Do you guys still not get it? It’s this kind of nonsense that prevents me from taking you seriously. “I’m just quoting the Bible, not interpreting it.” “I’m not developing a system of theology, I’m just interpreting this verse differently because it doesn’t fit with my interpretation of a different verse.”
There is nothing wrong with thinking systematically and offering your own interpretation of a verse. But please just recognize it as such.
Brandon, I care little whether you take us seriously. I offered you an explanation regarding what Paul means by delighting in God’s law from Romans 7 i.e. that it’s obvious to all that the law doesn’t directly bind, but you responded with your usual patronising one or two word answers and then a rant.
Despite my earlier modest attempts at civility and accepting of wrongs on my part (which you ignored) I see little evidence to make me regret deleting you from my blogroll. Kindly don’t come back until you’ve shed your superiority complex.
Well, I suppose that’s fine. I just want to note a couple things:
1) My question was to John, not you. The two of you have different views regarding the law and specifically John’s comment was in disagreement with you. Therefore you should have let John answer my question to John.
2) Your mantra has been against “systems” and “imposing a system on the text.” However, when you replied to my question to John, you did not deal with the text itself, instead you sought to interpret the text based upon your system. That’s perfectly fine. We all do that. It’s necessary to do. The reason my answers are so short to you is because if you cannot even recognize what you are doing, then there is no point in discussing the validity of your interpretation and your system. It makes conversation meaningless. We have to at least see eye to eye on that basic level before we can talk about anything else.
I have commented on your blog because I thought it would be a good place to be challenged and to offer challenge. But perhaps that’s not what is happening.
Brandon
It is true, that we all work with a framework. The question is how close our framework is to Scripture and how willing we are to adapt it when Scripture demands. That’s what a discussion like this should be about.
I thought a great deal of what I said on Roms 7 would have been fairly uncontroversial and did not merit a blanket dismissal. I had hoped you would interact with the interpretation where you think I am wrong and why.
Perhaps, you should do a blog on Roms 7 and give your understanding.
John, my comment about taking more to convince me of what you said was also a comment about your “spelling out your understanding of Paul” overview, not just Romans 7. Sorry for the confusion.
The entire thrust of your interpretation of Romans 7 rests upon your belief that it does not actually refer to Paul, but instead refers to Israel as a whole, or to some hypothetical individual Jew living before the New Covenant. I’ve never heard that before and I don’t see any support for it in the text. However, I asked a follow up question on this specific point to see if there was any more reason why you choose to interpret it the way do. You did not directly respond but instead basically said we don’t know who Paul is talking about.
My question was about 7:14, 22, 25. You rightly noted that no one in the flesh delights in the law in their inner being, and you defended your interpretation by saying it was referring to an elect Jew under the old economy. However, when pressed, you backed off and said we can’t know and that it might just be unregenerate Paul. Well, it can’t be unregenerate Paul as you already pointed out. So I am left to conclude that the only reason you interpret Romans 7 the way you do is because of your interpretation of 7:4.
Am I missing something?
Brandon, I answered your question to John because it looked like a question to me too. You did after all quote me at the top of your comment, so it’s only natural that I assume it was addressed to me.
I did actually talk about what it meant for Paul to delight in God’s law in Romans 7. And yes of course it is a system of thought but the key is in your word ‘imposing’. I don’t believe I was imposing my view given that I presume you read the law through the lense of Christ too.
I’m sorry if my previous comment appeared harsh. I get frustrated at what I see as your terse dismissal of viewpoints (ala your comments on John’s long response) without actually engaging them. It is a style I consider unnecessarily provocative and rude, resulting in some of my irritable responses. The upshot is that when we should be discussing issues it results in mudslinging.
I’ve discussed theology with Roman Catholics with less aggro. We have more in common than them and the sad thing is that we should be friends. I’ll give you one more comment then I’m closing this thread.
Sorry for the confusion. I quoted John, not you, and I clicked the reply button on John’s post, not yours.
[...] Part 7 – answering critics [...]
[...] Part 7 – answering critics [...]