Question: If the law informs our sanctification, shouldn’t we follow Old Testament law?
I have a friend who was Baptist and now is a Messianic Hebrew. She is being taught that we are to keep the feasts, etc. If the law now informs our sanctification how should I respond to her? Just today she put a post on Facebook that Jesus came not to do away with the law but to fulfill the law.
Weak teachings concerning the law, actually, sum zero teaching concerning the law, typical among Baptists, will leave many vulnerable to these kinds of deception. How do you answer her? What’s the specific purpose of keeping the feasts? For love? Or maintaining salvation?
Also, as a parenthesis, we must stop looking at the law, a broad term for all Scripture, as: what it was back then and should we do that now? The law, or Scripture, is not only instruction, but a full-orbed statement on life and being. God may want us to learn certain intent and principles regarding Old Testament events, but that doesn’t mean the application isn’t different at a later time.
And, break for qualification: If she is involved in the Messianic movement that is the most popular in our day, they believe that the whole law is fulfilled through these rituals, or feasts. Hang on, this is super important to understand.
There is no such thing as a “legalism” that attempts to obey the law according to sound interpretation and truthful life application via every jot and tittle. That’s why there is no such thing as “legalism,” but ONLY anti-law, or antinomianism. The serpent was an antinomian, the Pharisees were antinomians, the Antichrist will be literally, “the man of anomia” (a[anti] nomia[law]), and the religion of the last days will be antinomianism: “Because of anomia, the love of many will wax cold” (Matt 24:12).
The false teaching that dominated the day during the time of Christ, and always has, and always will, is a justification through the law. But, said religion knows that it is impossible to keep the law perfectly, so the law is fulfilled through some kind of initial ritual and other rituals following.
Please don’t miss this: when Christ and the apostles spoke of attempts to be justified by the law, they were really referring to a fulfillment of the law via some sort of tradition or ritual. Hence, because any real attempt to keep the law was replaced with ritual for purposes of justification, the finer points of love were/are neglected. For example, the Judaizers believed that circumcision fulfilled the whole law. Paul said, “no,” if you want to be justified by the law, you must keep it perfectly:
Galatians 5:2 – Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.
See it? Their attempt to be justified by the law only involved circumcision. Paul said, “no,” if you want to be justified by the law, you have to keep the whole enchilado.
What does the Bible say the problem is with this? Answer: anti-love. You can’t be in some kind of endeavor to stay justified and love at the same time. Justification has to be off your plate, and the focus must be love. The law must be ended for your justification so you can be free to fulfill the law for purposes of love. You aggressively love with pure motives because you know it is absolutely impossible to finish a finished work and earn points with a law that has no part or parcel with justification. Hence, what Jesus said to the Pharisees:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others” (Matt 23:23).
And…
Matthew 5:19 – Therefore whoever relaxes 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. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
And why didn’t they have any righteousness? Because they were not born again and still under law. There is no law in justification–law is only good for love in sanctification: “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Jesus, in essence, also stated it this way: look, focus on love; in the same way one violation of the law violates the whole law in regard to justification, one act of love in sanctification fulfills the whole law–focus on love.
Let me summarize with what Jesus said to the Pharisees as well:
“thus making void the word [law] of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do.” (Mk 7:13)
And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition!(Mk 7:9)
he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word [law] of God.(Matt 15:6)
The Pharisees were antinomian outwardly and inwardly:
Matthew 23:27 – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness [“anomia”].
I will conclude with the rest of the Galatians passage that I almost forgot to include. I think it summarizes all of the points here:
Galatians 5:5 – For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11 But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12 I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
You are in a pickle with your friend because you must undo years of Protestant orthodoxy, spiritual bumper stickers, and doctrinal illiteracy. Until she has a fundamental understanding of justification and sanctification, this will be very difficult. Her mindset reminds me of what Paul said to the Galatians:
Galatians 4:10 – You observe days and months and seasons and years! 11 I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.
Christianity and Islam: The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?
Originally posted March 10, 2014
Many relate to my personal testimony; despite my best efforts, I have been for the most part at odds with church. Julia Duin noted in her book Quitting Church that she has always sensed that something is fundamentally wrong with the Evangelical church.
I wonder if that mysterious fundamental reason has come to light. Note this statement by Al Mohler, arguably the most influential Evangelical of our day:
Niebuhr’s fifth model is where he seems to be pointing us, that is, to Christ the transformer of culture. These are the conversionists, and they are far more hopeful than the dualists. They understand the distinction between Christ and the culture, but they also understand that it is the mission of the church to transform the culture with the claims of Christ. We continually hear this kind of language: “Let’s go out and redeem the culture. Let’s go out and conquer the culture in the name of Christ. Let’s transform every dimension of the culture, whether the media and the arts, or business and finance, and let’s subdue them to the claims of Christ. Let’s have a more Christian military and a more Christian realm of arts.” This leads to a very progressive impulse, one which looks to a better world and a better condition if we will only do this. It promises transformation, hopes for cultural redemption, and leads to Christian activism. (Preaching the Cross: chapter 3, subheading; Niebuhr’s Treatment of Christ and Cutler, Niebuhr’s fifth model).
What a minute. Is this not the exact same vision as Islam? Moreover, do Muslims understand this better than most Christians? When Christian missionaries travel abroad, are they perceived this way whether they know it or not? When we hear of Christian missionaries being murdered or detained for “conspiracy to overthrow the state,” we immediately assume that’s a crock. Well, maybe not when you consider what the Crusades were all about coupled with this contemporary dominion mentality among leading Evangelicals.
Furthermore, Al Mohler is far from being the only one propagating these ideas. This same idea is the theses of Paul David Tripp’s book Broken-Down House. Many examples could be given, but I will not belabor the point past the following notation by blogger Joel Taylor:
While filming a promo in Dubai (UAE) for the new student missions conference, CROSS, John Piper (standing in front of the Burj Khalifa tower) makes this statement:
“And that tower and this city are coming down!”
Was that a wise thing to say while standing on United Arab Emirates soil? I wonder how the Arab people would understand his remark if they saw this?
It probably wouldn’t surprise them. The American church was founded on the Reformation, and many of its European stalwarts had their own standing armies. And ok, we have much spiritual tyranny and a divine right of kings mentality in the church today; ya think? If they muse about bringing down the Burj Khalifa tower what do you think they will do to you if you ask too many questions?
So this explains everything. It’s really not about the gospel. It’s not about making disciples, it’s about globalism. Making “disciples” is not the primary goal, it’s only a small part of a much larger vision. The whole idea that people can only find salvation in the “local church” is the ploy that funds the global vision while Christians believe it’s about the gospel. We are encouraged to bring people to church to get them saved for that very reason. It also brings to mind all of the hoopla about “lone rangers” who are not “under the authority” of a local church.
Do I think this clarifies the mission of home fellowships? Absolutely. Do you want to make disciples? Or do you want to fund world dominion? Christ’s mandate to the assemblies was to make as many disciples as possible before Christ returns. Why? Because He is not calling on Christians to renovate the earth—He is going to come back and blow up the whole thing and start over.
This is a short post, but one that opens up a very wide avenue of considerations. “There is no perfect church”: that’s not the issue; the issue is the fundamental mandate. That’s not merely a question of perfection, but the difference between eternal investment or a complete waste of time and money.
paul
leave a comment