The Fullness Of Time
Chapter Eleven
The Rule Of Life For The New Covenant Believer
It is important, at the very outset of this chapter, to discern the character of the believer's freedom. If he is "free from the law," does this mean that he is free from all law, the Mosaic law, two-thirds of the Mosaic law, "a misapprehension of the law-covenant," or something else entirely different from all of this? The way we answer this question has a great bearing on what we understand to be the rule of life for the new covenant believer.
In Galatians 5:1, Paul exhorts the Galatians to practice the truths that he has been expounding by refusing to allow anyone to rob them of that liberty that Christ died to purchase for them. He writes, "For freedom Christ has freed us, stand fast, therefore, and do not be oppressed again by a yoke of bondage." Since Paul is writing to Gentiles, he does not warn them against being oppressed again by the yoke of the law. They were never under that yoke. He warns them against becoming loaded down with a, i.e., any, yoke of bondage. It is altogether possible that he uses the definite article with the word "freedom" to refer to a particular freedom. In this case, the phrase would be translated, "For this freedom Christ has freed us," and would refer back to the preceding context.
The Context
In the context immediately preceding this verse, Paul appeals to the Galatians on the basis of an allegory drawn from the factual events of Abraham's life (4:21-31). We have considered the details of that allegory in chapter nine and have concluded that in that passage Paul was exhorting his readers to discard the Mosaic covenant as a means of producing spiritual heirs. That law cannot declare sinners righteous before God.35 It cannot make them holy. It is not even the proper standard of holiness any longer. It has never produced a single heir to God's promised inheritance. In addition to all that, its children (the Judaizers) continue to harass the true heirs of the promise. What must be done? Paul says, "Cast out the bond woman and her son."
"For This Freedom"
Although Paul does not use the word "freedom" in the immediately preceding context, the concept is unquestionably present. He does say that we believers are "not the children of the bond woman (children born into bondage, without inheritance) but of the free woman (free-born children, heirs to the blessings of God). He then writes, "For this freedom Christ has freed us" (5:1).
What, then, is this freedom for which Christ has freed us? Since the liberty that Christ has purchased for His people is multifaceted in character, this question might be answered in many ways. Christ has delivered us from the guilt and power of sin. He has emancipated us from enslavement to the wicked one. He has quieted our nagging consciences and freed us from their accusations. He has satisfied the wrath of God and delivered us from the fear of death and judgment. In the light of the preceding context, however, it seems likely that the freedom that Paul has in mind here is freedom from the law of Moses.
Avoiding Antinomianism
Antinomianism is a term that may be used somewhat ambiguously. Its definition depends, at least to some degree, on the theological position (relative to the law) of the person who is using it. For example, Charles Buck defined "antinomians" as, "those who maintain that the law is of no use or obligation under the gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that clearly supersede the necessity of good works" (Buck 1826,25). This definition is ambiguous enough that almost every evangelical Christian could be excluded from it or included in it, depending on how its component parts are defined. Before pleading guilty to antinomianism, therefore, we would have to have certain questions answered. For instance, what does he mean by "law"? Is he using the term biblically or theologically (see footnote 1 on page xxx)? Does he, by the term "law," mean any revelation of the will of God that places obligations on men, the Mosaic law as a whole, the Decalogue, or some other law? What does he mean by "the necessity of good works"? Is he referring to the necessity of good works as a ground of justification before God, as a means of retaining God's favor subsequent to justification, or as an evidence of conversion? If as an evidence of conversion, to what degree of perfection must they be in evidence? Is it possible to know that I have been converted if my practice of good works is less than perfect? As you can see, this definition provides ample opportunity for labeling someone "antinomian" if we wish to do so?
We are using the term "antinomian" to refer to anyone who uses freedom from the Mosaic law as a base of operations for gratifying the flesh (see Gal 5:13).
Antinomianism -- A Misinterpretation of Liberty
Antinomianism is really a misinterpretation of liberty. The (implied) question that Paul takes up in Gal 5:13ff. is one that is raised by his preaching of the gospel (cf.Rom 5:20-6:1). His message of justification through faith alone, apart from the works of the law, continually exposed him to the charge of being an antinomian.36 Paul's view of salvation history, that led him to state emphatically that the believer is not under the (Mosaic) law, also left him (along with those who understand him in this way) open to this charge. We may learn a great deal concerning what Paul believed about the law, by observing both what he said and what he did not say in answer to this charge.
One of the ways in which Paul might have responded to the charge of antinomianism is to have hurriedly instructed his readers concerning the theological distinction between moral, ceremonial, and civil law. He might have told them that what he really meant when he wrote about freedom from the law was freedom from the ceremonial and civil requirements of the Mosaic system. The problem is that this distinction had not occurred to him. He still viewed the commitment to keep the law as an obligation to "keep the whole law" (Gal 5:3). If adherence to the Mosaic law involves an obligation to keep the whole law, then freedom from the (Mosaic) law must involve freedom from the whole law. The charge of antinomianism that Paul faced could not be softened by redefining what he meant by "law." How, then, did he answer the charge? He answered it by responding to antinomian misinterpretations of liberty. There are at least three such misinterpretations implied in Gal 5:13ff.
License to Sin
The first way that antinomians misinterpret Christian freedom is to view it as a license to sin--in Paul's words, "as a base of operations for indulging sinful passions" (Gal 5:13). It is inconceivable that anyone could pervert the meaning and tendency of Paul's teaching further than this. John Brown has written concerning this misapprehension of Christian freedom,
The madman who has mistaken his tattered garments for the flowing robes of majesty, and his manacles for golden bracelets studded with jewels, has not erred so widely as the man who has mistaken carnal license for Christian liberty (Brown, n.d.,126).
It is impossible to read the New Testament rightly and conclude that Christ has set His people free to do as they please, in disobedience to the revealed will of God. The plain New Testament teaching is that Christ "gave Himself for us to free us from lawlessness and purify unto Himself a people of His own, zealous of good works" (Titus 2:14). We are married to Christ "that we might bring forth fruit unto God" (Rom 7:4).
Paul makes it clear that the new covenant believer is not free to live his life without restraint; he is under the management of the Spirit (Gal 5:18).
Freedom from All Law
A second way that antinomians misinterpret and, consequently, abuse Christian freedom is by interpreting freedom from the Mosaic law to be freedom from all law. Douglas Moo writes, ". . . the position outlined here holds that Christians are free from the Mosaic law, not that they are free from all law" (Moo 1988,218). The antinomian forgets this distinction. He uses freedom from one law as an excuse to disobey all law. He wants to be free, not only from the restraint and management of the paidagogos, but from all restraint.
Paul answers this objection in Gal 5:13ff. by reminding his readers of their obligation to that "one word" in which the entire law is fulfilled, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." He makes it clear in his first epistle to the Corinthians that not being "under law" does not free one from the law of God. He writes, ". . .to the ones without law as without law, (not being without the law of God, but on the contrary, I am under Christ's law"--lit. "in-lawed to Christ," (1 Cor 9:21).
Later in this chapter, we will consider the objective standard by which the new covenant believer is to order his life.
Liberty Without Love
In reality, the antinomian is one who desires to be free from the law by ignoring the first and second great commandments of the law (Matt.22:37-40). He does not love God. He does not love his neighbor. He is the sole object of his own love. He ignores Jesus' summary of the Old Testament Scriptures in which he is commanded, in all things, to treat others as he might wish to be treated under the same circumstances (see Matt 7:12). In short, he wants to enjoy the liberty of Christ, without the love of Christ; but, no such (true) liberty exists. The liberty that Jesus gives sets us free, not from love, but to love (see Eph 5:1-2).
Is Law the Answer to Lawlessness?
It seems obvious to many that the best way, indeed, the only way to avoid antinomianism is by imposing a healthy dose of the Decalogue on new covenant believers. It seems clear to them that many of the ills of society, both secular and sacred, can be traced to our failure to preach the Ten Commandments.
In defending the Ten Commandments as the standard for Christian behavior, Walter Chantry has written,
All who labor to topple the Ten Commandments serve the cause of moral confusion, whatever their intended aims may be. Once deny that the Decalogue is a synopsis of the moral law and men are sent into a haze of imprecise ethics. They are adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness. Consequently unsafe subjective impulses begin to direct moral thinking; for the other divinely given impressions of the moral law are too complex for most to grasp" (Chantry 1980, 80,1).
It seems that Pastor Chantry did not have time to think through the implications of this statement. Yet, his statement does seem to capsulize the opinions of those who contend for the perpetuity of the Decalogue as the summary of God's "moral law." His statement reveals two startling ramifications of that view.
A Diminished View of the
New Testament Scriptures
For this view, the New Testament body of truth seems, in some way, to be defective as "a definitive objective standard" of behavior. To say that we who have been given the New Testament Scripture may be "sent into a haze of imprecise ethics" unless we cling to the Tables of Stone as a synopsis of the moral law, is to diminish the value of the New Testament Scripture as an objective standard of behavior. The truth is that it is impossible to give such a disproportionate emphasis to the Decalogue without de-emphasizing other expressions of the will of God. Are we who, for our final authority, look to Christ who has replaced Moses as the greater and final law-giver, really "adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness?" If so, the writers of the New Testament Scriptures will be astonished to hear that they wasted so much papyrus.
A Lack of Confidence in
the Work of the Spirit
This view also seems to betray a lack of confidence in the work of the Holy Spirit. We can't believe, can we, that apart from the Decalogue, the moral thinking of the child of God is directed by "unsafe subjective impulses?" If we do, then what does that say about our confidence in the ability of the Spirit to lead and sanctify believers, in accordance with the Scripture? Is the New Testament expression of the "moral law" really so complex that believers cannot be led by the Spirit to grasp its significance for a life of godliness? If so, why did the writers of the New Testament spend so much time and energy composing such enigmatic letters? Why not just give these poor, baffled saints a copy of the Decalogue?
The Reign of Grace,
Paul's Answer to Antinomianism
Even a cursory reading of the history of Israel, as set forth in the Old Testament, should be sufficient to teach us that law is not the answer to lawlessness. But, if the imposition of law is not the answer, what is? The short answer to this question is that grace is the remedy for lawlessness. It is not the law of God that has appeared, teaching us to deny ungodliness etc., but the grace of God (Titus 2:11). When Paul wished to assure Roman believers of their freedom from sin's reigning power, he did so by underscoring the point that they are now under the reign of grace. He wrote, "For sin shall not lord it over you: for you are not under law but under grace" (Rom 6:14).
Further investigation into the nature of this "reign of grace," quickly makes it plain that Paul is not simply making reference to the believer's freedom, under grace, from the condemning sentence of the law, or from legalism, but from the regime of the law itself. As we saw earlier, the believer is now under new management.
In Galatians 5, Paul gives his readers very practical instructions to help them avoid fulfilling the desires of the flesh. He does so in response to an anticipated objection that would go something like this, "If new covenant believers are free from the law, what guarantee is there that they will not live their lives in the practice of sin?" His answer provides great insight into the nature of the reign of grace.
There is a point that should be made here, that seems to have great significance in the debate concerning what (if any) authoritative ethical standard remains for the N.T. believer. Gal 5:13ff. would have been the perfect place for Paul to have reasserted the perpetual relevance of the Tablets of Stone, had that been his belief. Why did he not simply say, " Keep the Ten Commandments and you will not fulfill the lust of the flesh?" When he answers the anticipated question, "How are the works of the flesh to be curbed if indeed the Christian is not under the law?", he does not hurriedly clarify his position and explain that the Christian is still under the Decalogue as it is now mediated to him by Christ. No, he says, "Walk by the Spirit, and you will never, by any means, fulfill the desires of the flesh." (Gal 5:16). Although we must recognize that this is an argument from silence, it seems that Paul's silence at this point speaks volumes concerning the present validity of the Decalogue as the ethical standard for Christian conduct.
Someone might object that Paul does reassert the relevance of the Decalogue in the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Yet, we need to understand that this commandment is not merely a summary of God's eternal righteous standard; it is God's eternal righteous standard. The particular code of conduct that belongs to a given covenant administration may change when that covenant is superceded by another covenant. God's righteous standard never changes. "Love your neighbor as yourself" is a far greater commandment than the six commandments that it "summarizes." Of course, as we shall see, this love needs to be defined. Apart from a clear definition of what it means to love one's neighbor, we would be left to "unsafe subjective impulses." The question that we need to ask is whether it is necessary to resort to a covenant that God made with Israel alone to find such definition. The Mosaic covenant gave such definition, but it did not merely demand obedience to a list of ten rules. It demanded love for God and neighbor. The problem was that it could not produce what it demanded. The new covenant is a better covenant in that it not only defines love for God and neighbor, but it produces what the old covenant could only demand.
Faith That Works by Love
In Galatians 5:6, Paul establishes love to one's neighbor as a standard of values for those who are in Christ. He writes, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any value, but faith which works effectually by love." In the new age, whether or not a man is circumcised is a matter of indifference. The Mosaic law and its ceremonies have come to an end. The fullness of the time has come. What matters now is faith. But, it is not just any faith that Paul has in mind. On this point, he is in perfect agreement with James (see James 2:14ff). A faith that does not produce obedience to Christ, is not the faith of God's elect.
But, what is the principle that energizes faith? Paul answers, "faith . . . works by love"(Gal 5:6). Will the believer, under grace, live a life that is characterized by fleshly gratification? Not if his faith is a living faith; for a living faith is a loving faith, and faith works by love.
Now, what is the source of this energizing principle? Does the believer's love for God spring from his knowledge of the strictness and holiness of the covenantal document of Sinai? Does he keep in line because he hears the law's loud thunder, and trembles beneath its dreadful curse? What is it that actuates the great apostle as he labors to the point of exhaustion in the work of the gospel? What is it that restrains him from living a life of sin and self-pleasing? Is it the law, with all its threatenings, that hems him in? No! Paul answers, "The love of Christ constrains us . . ." (2 Cor 5:14). Why should those who belong to Christ "love, and sing, and wonder?" Why should we "praise the Savior's name?" John Newton answers,
If our love and service to Christ are to be acceptable, then they must spring from His love to us (see 1 John 4:10,19; Heb 12:28).
Loving Service to the Brethren
In Gal 5:13, Paul sets loving service to the brethren, in sharp contrast to using freedom as "a base of operations" for satisfying the flesh. In 1 Cor 9:19, Paul tells his readers that even though he is free from all men, he has "enslaved himself to all. . . ." It is the believer' responsibility, as he is led by the Spirit, to impose certain restrictions on his own life-style. In his commentary on this epistle, John Brown quotes an excellent comment that Calvin made on the proper handling of Christian freedom. In this comment Calvin shows that Christian liberty does not allow a person to do as he pleases. Love for his brothers in Christ will in many cases cause the Christian to curb the use of his liberty.
There is a great difference between Christian liberty, and the use of Christian liberty. Christian liberty is an internal thing and belongs to the mind and conscience, and has direct reference to God. The use of Christian liberty is an external thing; it belongs to the conduct, and has reference to man. No consideration should prevail on us for a moment to give up our Christian liberty; but many a consideration should induce us to forego the practical assertion or display of our liberty (Brown,n.d.,126).
It becomes obvious here that the liberty that Christ has won for His people is positive as well as negative. Not only has Christ delivered us from dreadful servitude. He has also delivered us for delightful service. But, again we must ask, what is it that impels the Christian in this life of service to Christ and His people? What is it that moves him to limit the use of his liberty? Paul answers, ". . . serve one another by love" (Gal 5:13).
In the following verse, Paul gives his readers a reason for rendering loving service to one another. He writes, "For, the whole of the law37 is fulfilled (perf. act. ind.) in one word, namely in [observing, keeping] this [precept], `love your neighbor as yourself.' Does Paul want us to understand that love replaces law? Not in the sense that there is no longer an objective standard by which we must test the reality (and righteousness) of our love for God and neighbor. What he means is that loving service rendered to God (carried out in a practical way by serving the saints--see Heb 6:10) fulfills all the requirements set forth in the law. If your life is filled with self-sacrificing love and persevering, humble service for God's people, then there is no law that will condemn you (see--Gal 5:23). Paul gives several examples of such service in Gal 6:1-10.
Walking by the Spirit
There are three corresponding phrases in Galatians 5-6 that describe the believer's responsibility to respond to the Spirit's leading. They are to "walk by the Spirit" (5:16), "keep in line with the Spirit" (5:25), and "sow to the Spirit" (6:8). In all three cases, the result of the right response to the Spirit's activity is either not doing what is characteristic of the old age (the works of the flesh--5:16,25), or doing what is good and beneficial (6:9-10).
It is not possible for the Christian to go on fulfilling the desires of the flesh. Those who do so have no inheritance in God's kingdom (Gal 5:21). He cannot go on sowing to the flesh. Those who do will reap rottenness (6:8). But, how can Paul be so certain that the saints will persevere in faith and holiness? It is because they are under new management. They are not under the law, which was weak through the flesh (Rom 8:3), they are under the powerful, controlling influence of the Holy Spirit (see Chapter Ten). They live in the fullness of the time, in which God has sent forth His Son to accomplish what the law could never accomplish. He has made it possible for the righteousness required by the law to be fulfilled in those who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4 cf. Gal 5:16).
What is the source of that "faith that works by love" (Gal 5:6)? It is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22). Where does the believer's love for God and neighbor come from? It is a grateful response to God's love that He so richly displayed in sending forth His Son and poured forth in our hearts by His Spirit that He gave to us (Rom 5:5). This grace is also a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22).
What duty will the believer neglect as long as he walks by the Spirit? What sinful desire will he fulfill? Paul answers, "Be walking by the Spirit and you will never by any means38 fulfill the desires of the flesh" (Gal 5:16).
Objective Criteria
Is the believer, then, left to "unsafe subjective impulses" (Chantry 1981,80),39 or are there objective criteria by which the believer can measure his progress in holiness and test the genuineness of his love?
Before answering this question, we need to emphasize that Paul does not conceive of holiness as mere conformity to a list of rules. In his thinking, holiness consists in loving God and neighbor (Paul knew nothing of a love that did not show itself in practice--cf. 1 Cor 13), and in walking in line with the Spirit.
There are, nevertheless, objective criteria by which the reality of faith, love, obedience, etc. can be tested.
Jesus' Teachings
The first criterion by which the new covenant believer must examine himself is Jesus' own teaching. It is evident in many sections of the New Testament that Jesus was regarded by the early Church as the new law-giver; a second Moses, e.g., Acts 3:22ff. This is a lesson that the Church had learned from Jesus' own teaching (Matt 5; John 5:45-47).
In Matthew's record of Jesus' commission to His disciples, they are told that part of their task would be to teach those who were discipled by them "to observe (guard, keep) all the things that I [Jesus] have commanded you (Matt 28:20). When Jesus ascended a mountain, sat down, and taught His disciples, He did so for the purpose of giving them the laws that would govern the new creation into which He was about to enter and over which He would rule by His Spirit. If we are looking for an objective criterion by which to examine the reality of our religion, we could not do better than to compare ourselves to that lofty standard.
A second clearly revealed objective standard by which the believer should examine himself is found in the New Testament Epistles. There are many extended passages in the New Testament in which the writers set forth the duties of God' s people, e.g., Eph 4:25-6:9. Only an extreme bias in favor of the Tablets of Stone as the only definitive objective standard by which God's people may judge righteousness could cause this standard to be slighted. In comparing these NT passages to the Decalogue, we must be careful that we do not regard them merely as good advice. They are every bit as authoritative as Jesus' own words.
We must not ignore the definitive objective standards of the New Testament Scriptures. One listing of such standards is found in Gal 5:19-23, in the context of freedom from the law and the need to use that privilege wisely. Paul wants to make sure that there is no mistake about the nature of the Spirit-led walk that he has been urging on his readers. He refuses to leave them to unsafe subjective impulses. Instead he gives them a list of lifestyle characteristics for two very different ways of life. He first describes the pattern of behavior that characterized the old age--"The works of the flesh are manifest which are these. . . ." (Gal 5:19-21). The man who practices such things is clearly not "walking by the Spirit." Then, if any doubt remains, he lists, in Gal 5:22-23 (in contrast to the works of the flesh), the positive virtues of those who walk in line with the Spirit--This is what the Spirit produces: love, not sexual immorality(5:19), joy, not a false religious experience (5:20), peace, etc., not strife, division, etc.(5: 20-21), and self-control, not drunkenness (5:21). What clearer standard for self-examination could one ask for? In his conclusion to the Galatian Epistle, Paul writes, "As many as walk according to this rule [standard of measurement], peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God" (6:16).
Conclusion
We must conclude, then, that it is not necessary to limit the believer's liberty to "freedom from a legalistic misapprehension concerning the Sinaitic law-covenant" or freedom from the "ceremonial" and "civil" laws, in order to avoid antinomianism. We may understand Paul to mean that today's believer is entirely free from the Mosaic law, without being libertine in our approach to the question of a proper standard of behavior, since freedom from Mosaic law, as a covenant rule of life, is not freedom from all law. The new covenant believer is not without definitive objective standards by which to govern his behavior or test the reality of his love to God. To discover God's righteous standard, it is not necessary to return to the Mosaic covenant that God made exclusively with Israel, since the New Testament Scriptures leave no doubt concerning how believers today must live in order to please God (see 1 Thess 4:1).
34 It is possible, in some circumstances, to understand (hina) with the subjunctive as an expression of consequence rather than purpose. It is better here to understand it as an expression of purpose. Paul is not merely arguing that the flesh and the Spirit are mutually held in check with the result that the believer is not able to do what he wishes in either direction. He is arguing that the purpose (and, therefore the consequence) of the Spirit's activity is to prevent the believer from living according to the flesh.
35 Douglas Moo has wisely remarked, ". . . that Paul distinguishes promise and law by definition (see Gal 3:15-25 and Rom 4:13-16), so that the denial that justification can come through the law (e.g., Gal 3:11) is not a denial that those under the law could be justified. It does constitute a denial that man could ever be justified by means of the law (see Gal 2:21; 3:21). What is sacrificed, it seems to me, when nomos is construed to mean legalism, is nothing less than the heart of Paul's conception of saving history" (Moo 1983, 88).
36 If, then, we are not open to the same charge whenever we preach the gospel of justification through faith alone, our message must be different from that of the great apostle to the Gentiles. Dr. Lloyd-Jones wrote, "The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge [antinomianism] being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel" (Lloyd-Jones 1973,8).
37 The position of the article in the Greek (ho pas nomos) expresses totality or entirety.
38 Note the double negative in the Greek.
39 Chantry no doubt refers to such impulses as "unsafe" because they are subjective. How can it be known that they are the impulses of the Spirit if, in his view, the only trustworthy objective standard has been toppled? (cf. 1 John 4:1-6).
40 The word "standard" is used here in the sense of a measuring device--see kanon Gal 6:16, where the word is used for an ethical and spiritual norm or standard of measurement.