Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Jerry Bridges Proffers Gospel-Driven Bondage
“….they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it.”
“’Jesus / gospel‘ replaces ‘justification,’ and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.”
Let me begin with some groundwork. As John MacArthur said in his book “Truth War,” to fight error in our day takes determination, perseverance, and tenacity. This is because today’s propagators of false doctrine are masters of nuance. In regard to those who propagate the antinomian doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, the goal is to eliminate application of biblical imperatives by referring to such a use of God’s word as “living by lists,” “reducing the Bible to a book of rules,” etc. Of course, they don’t mention that the Bible has “rules” that are often stated in list form. Therefore, they carefully word their presentation so you will assume they are talking about people who use the Bible in a legalistic way. Meanwhile, they ignore practical application of the Scriptures while heavily emphasizing grace. Soon our particular efforts in sanctification will be buried and forgotten (out of sight, out of mind) while subtle / negative references to the application of biblical imperatives slowly throws one more shovel-full of dirt on the hole that obedience is buried in.
This method is also accompanied by synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we are sanctified by the same monergistic gospel that saved us, we can’t do anymore with the Law in sanctification than we did with it in justification. After all, one of the Gospel Sanctification mantras is “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” D.A. Carson, in an interview with Tim Keller concerning the T4G 2011 conference, shared that the main thrust of that conference will be to teach pastors how to “drive toward Christ and the gospel” and to show what “Biblical Theology [ie., Geerhardus Vos hermeneutics] looks like” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you [always] get to Jesus.” Let me rephrase that. What D.A. Carson really means is they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it. If the “same” gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, then sanctification is monergistic. If it’s not monergistic, then it’s not the same gospel that saved us. They can only have it both ways until people start asking questions. Later in the interview, D.A. Carson disingenuously notes that several perspectives on preaching will be presented at the same conference; supposedly, unlike other conferences (who only present the Grammatical Historical perspective). In saying this, he assumes the listeners will not associate the term “Biblical Theology” with hermeneutics. Let me also add that it’s not really about always getting to Jesus; it’s about always getting to “what Jesus has done, not what we have done” (another GS mantra often used by Micheal Horton). “Jesus / gospel” replaces “justification,” and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.
This now brings me to the significance of an excerpt from the Jerry Bridges book, “Transformed by Grace.” Jerry Bridges (who coined the phrase, “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”) is not any different from most GS advocates; it’s difficult to find definitive grounds for argument in their nuanced approach. Most of the time you will have to read several pages in order to find clear statements that reflect what they really believe. In this case, another blogger supplied the following excerpt from the above mentioned book. My comments are in brackets:
“Paul’s call to stand firm in our freedom in Christ and not let ourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery is just as valid today with our rules as it was in the Galatians’ day with the Mosaic law… God gave us our spiritual Magna Charta.
[Paul’s call to freedom in Christ regards freedom from being justified by the Law. Here, Bridges extrapolates that idea into the realm of sanctification. As I mentioned above in my introduction, we see Bridges slight the idea of applying biblical rules to life, but doing so subtly by calling them “our” rules. But since the Mosaic Law is part of scripture, and he makes that comparison, he is really talking about the application of the Mosaic Law (where applicable, ie., Ephesians 6:1) to life. Also, though Jesus’ yoke is light, we, in fact, are His slaves and were “bought with a price.” ]
Through Paul, He called us to be free: ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ In fact, God doesn’t just call us to freedom, he actually exhorts us to stand firm in our freedom – to resist all efforts to abridge or destroy it.
[Yes, in regard to justification, BUT as Christians, we actually find our freedom in aligning our lives with God’s law:
James 1:25
“But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
James 2:12
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom….”
Furthermore, Jesus said that the “truth will set you free,” and “thy word is truth.” Freedom comes from applying God’s word to life. We are set free by being slaves to Christ’ lordship, that isn’t the same as being in bondage to the Law in an attempt to be justified by it.]
Despite God’s call to be free and His earnest admonition to resist all efforts to curtail it, there is very little emphasis in Christian circles today on the importance of Christian freedom. Just the opposite seems to be true.
[But we are called to freedom on two fronts: freedom from the Law for justification, and freedom from the bondage of sin by obeying the perfect Law of liberty. Bridges only refers to the one. Why? Because in his mind, they are both the same, that’s why. However, in our day, the freedom that is not being emphasized is freedom for the believer by PROPERLY aligning his or hers life with the word of God.]
Instead of promoting freedom, we stress our rules of conformity.
[They’re not OUR rules, they are the Lord’s rules. Please note that a “lord” usually has rules he wants you to follow.]
Instead of preaching living by grace, we preach living by performance. Instead of encouraging new believers to be conformed to Christ, we subtly insist that they be conformed to our particular style of Christian culture. Yet, that’s the bottom line effect of most of our emphases in Christian circles today.
[ Living to love Christ by keeping His Law and striving to please Him accordingly is not “living by performance,” that is a typical GS red herring. Paul said whether in the body or apart, “we make it our goal to please Him,” and obviously, the word of God is the standard for that. Also, notice the *us against them* mentality in the suggestion that supposed graceless living is a “Christian culture” in most “Christian circles today.” This is indicative of the GS mentality that believes they are on a mission from God to save the church from the Dark Ages of synergistic sanctification.]
For example, many people would react negatively to my quoting only part of Galatians 5:12, ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ Despite the fact that this statement is a complete sentence, they would say, ‘But that’s not all of the verse. Go on to quote the remainder: ‘But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.’…
[Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the Galatians were being tempted to go back to a system that taught you had to keep the Law to maintain your salvation, NOT the idea that you keep the Law to love Christ and to please Him. We believe that we are kept by the power of God, but that does not negate our call to uphold the Law of God!]
The person who reacts this way has made my point. We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism.
[Here, Bridges makes the shocking suggestion that being concerned with keeping the Law is not “guarding” our freedom, and that being more afraid of indulging in the sinful nature than guarding our “freedom” is legalism. This troubling assertion should speak for itself.]
Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” – Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace, pp. 121-122
[ In this last statement, Bridges notes another GS staple often propagated by Paul Tripp and David Powlison; namely, our efforts as Christians to uphold the Law leads to self-righteousness and religious pride, and to make such an effort is “focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” Instead, we should supposedly only focus on “what Jesus has DONE rather than our OWN efforts,” which supposedly leads to an automatic kind of obedience earmarked by a willing and joyful spirit / attitude.]
How can bridges talk so strongly about one freedom without at least mentioning the other? Because that’s the freedom (through the Law in sanctification) he doesn’t want to emphasize even though his audience is Christian. Therefore, what Bridges is actually teaching is a gospel-driven bondage that averts Christians away from an effort to apply God’s word to life. Not only that, we now have conferences that are teaching leaders to propagate this approach wholesale throughout the church; true freedom as bondage. Buyer beware.
paul
The Gospel Onslaught Against Discipleship
Meet Jim. He is in the midst of a very disturbing problem that torments him day and night, the kind of problem he never dreamed would inflict a believer. But he often says to himself: “maybe I’m not a believer after all.” In desperation he went to his pastor for help. His pastor seemed shocked and perplexed in regard to the revelation, and suggested that they pray about it (James 2:15-17). But Jim had already been praying intensely for many days with no end to the problem in sight.
Now we find Jim at a larger Baptist church on a Sunday morning; “more resources to help people” had been the reasoning that brought him there. He walks into the spacious foyer and peruses the many well-dressed people engaged in pleasant conversation. As he works his way through the crowd, he scans the faces of many people walking about while looking for something in their demeanor that would indicate that they could help. He then walks up to the Information table and opens a brochure about the church. He reads the information regarding the pastoral staff and wonders to himself: “Can these men help? Do they know what God would say about my situation? And if they can, will they have time? After all, they look like very important men and are probably very busy.”
Then Jim hears a call to worship through the elegant glass doors between the foyer and the large sanctuary. The sanctuary has a pricey, new, and contemporary feel which is impressive, but does little to arouse a glimmer of hope that Jim is looking for. Jim suffers through the praise music that lifts up the God that seems so far away from him, and anxiously awaits the sermon which may convey the answers he is looking for. The message is about the gospel. Is this what Jim needs? “Perhaps,” Jim thinks. “Maybe I missed something the first time; I certainly don’t feel saved!” But Jim has re-examined his original commitment to Christ and what he believed over and over again. Not only that, when he relocated from New York, he didn’t tell his present church that he was a Christian, but made a new profession of faith and was baptized, just to make sure. Jim gets in his car to go back to the chamber of dread he calls home, and as he watches the cheerful parishioners leaving for their own destinations, he wonders: “Why can’t I be like them? Whats wrong with me?”
Even as a new believer I found it bazarre: the whole evangelical mentality of “get people to come to church so we can get them saved” routine; it just didn’t jive with everything I was learning in the Scriptures as a new believer. Getting people saved was all that mattered while members in “good standing” were living with others out-of wedlock, and Christian couples who were married talked to their pets with more respect than they did each other. My first Halloween party as a Christian was also a dose of reality as I arrived at the church dressed like Moses holding a wooden image of the Ten Commandments, only to be mocked by vampires and werewolves. But most telling was the time I led a married couple / schizophrenics to the Lord and demanded that they be baptized and accepted into membership the following Sunday. The church reluctantly agreed, but I was approached by the church leadership afterward who stated the following: “Now that they are saved, we need to send them away where they can get help.”
This “gospel only, bag-em and tag-em (sanctifi-what?),” mentality that began in the 1950’s started to see the chickens coming home to roost around the time I got saved in 1983. Christians were not looking to the church to solve any of life’s deep problems, but were gathering at the well of philosophy with the rest of the world while chanting “all truth is God’s truth.” That’s when Dave Hunt published his book entitled, “The Seduction of Christianity” which sent shock-waves throughout the Evangelical community. While his book was a huge, and necessary challenge (he refuted the idea that Sigmund Freud was smarter than the Holy Spirit), it only stated the problem and offered no specific solutions.
How to use the Bible to help Christians with deep problems came via Dr. Jay Adams in the early 1970’s, but his biblical approach didn’t really pick-up steam until the 80’s. Barely anybody who is aware of the impact that this biblical counseling / discipleship approach had on the church will call it anything less than a reformation. But what was the church’s response to this rediscovering of biblical sanctification? While the first gospel wave made so much of salvation that sanctification was forgotten, the second wave claims that salvation and sanctification are the same thing. If you can’t beat-em, join-em together. Hence: “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” “So brother, you really think you’re saved by the gospel and then you move on to something else?” [envision person saying that with knowing smirk on their face].
Either way, the results are the same. The church wants to sell the idea that God has the power to save our souls, but He can’t save a marriage; the idea that he can save schizophrenics, but must leave them in their present condition (First wave). Or, the idea that mediation on the gospel alone empowers the Christian for holy living (Second wave). Trust me, the world ain’t buyin’. Christians should get a grip because “gospel” means “good news.” “News” means the same thing in the Greek as it does in English: it’s something that you hear that you haven’t heard before; once you embrace it as your own, it’s no longer “news.” This would seem fairly obvious. Furthermore, 2Corinthians 5:18-21 makes it clear that the gospel is a ministry of “reconciliation” entrusted to those who are already reconciled. Therefore, if we are already reconciled, do we “move on to something else?” Absolutely, and please take Jim with you.
paul
Do You Misrepresent Obedience? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian: Part 2
“Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us.”
In part one, we looked at how teachers misrepresent the Pharisees as those who were proficient in upholding God’s word “outwardly.” Supposedly, the Pharisees were impressive in regard to their ability to do that, but only received condemnation from Christ as a result. The conclusion of the matter? You can’t please God by “trying” to keep the Law. And in almost every case where this thesis is presented in a sermon or Bible lesson the following is also continually emphasized: “You can’t be saved by keeping the Law.” This confuses the role of the Law in justification verses sanctification.
We also looked at the fact that the basis of this proposition is erroneous. The Lord’s primary beef with the Pharisees was not their “efforts” to keep the Law, but the fact that they modified the Law of God to fit their man-made traditions and rules (Mark 7:8-13). We will now look at the other erroneous part of this assertion; namely, efforts at keeping the Law are always an outward affair. In other words, obedience pertains to the outward only; so, because the Pharisees supposedly focused on obedience to the Law, they were only “cleaning the outside of the cup,” and were “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” And since (don’t miss this) inside change is such a complex affair, we can’t “reduce the Bible to a bunch of do’s and dont’s,” and “live our lives by lists.” So then, since *all change* is from the “inside out,” and Christ is the one who changes us, what follows is many theories on how that happens.
And trust me, the theories are not in short supply. They mostly entail being wowed by who Christ is as a person which is learned from the scriptures and general revelation (creation). Therefore, change by enamoration; when we realize how awesome Christ is and what He has done for us, joyful obedience naturally follows without any effort on our part. There is also “intelligent repentance” which is a complex system of discovering sin in our heart. When we discover sin deep in our heart, and repent of it through prayer, our heart is emptied of sin, leaving a void which Christ fills with Himself, resulting in Him obeying for us. There is also the inside change by prayer only angle as well.
The above theories propagate the idea that obedience has no curative value and is merely a natural result (and therefore essentially outward) of something more complex; Christians have swallowed this concept hook, line, and sinker. However, biblical obedience is both inside and outside, and Christ rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting inside obedience; that is what He meant by accusing them of being whitewashed tombs. Let me explain. In Matthew 23:23-28, Christ confronts the Pharisees with both examples of the whitewashed tomb and cup that is only clean on the outside.
But first, in verse 23, it is very apparent that He chides them because they “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” These have to do with attitudes. At least one, mercy, is among the beatitudes listed at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount by Christ, and the other two have similar implications among the other eight beatitudes. In regard to the cup illustration, Christ said the Pharisees were “full of greed and self-indulgence.” Outwardly, they put on a show to appear righteous to others (so they probably didn’t even obey outwardly when in private), but on the inside of the cup they were greedy (selfish) and self-serving. This isn’t rocket science; for example, I was very comfortable on Susan’s couch last night while watching my favorite show on the Fox News Channel. Then Susan came into the dinning area (which is open to the family room), and started clearing off the table to get it ready to be set for me and four others. That’s when the Holy Spirit kicked me in the conscience and I was either going to die to self (obey) or not. My outward obedience in helping her set the table began with inward obedience. And by the way, she could have probably cared less if I helped or not; I did it to please Christ.
In verses 27 and 28, Christ uses the same kind of illustration (whitewashed tombs) regarding the fact that the Pharisees were full of “lawlessness” on the inside. In other words, their minds / thoughts were saturated with things like lust, covetousness, and revenge while being concerned with outward appearances to impress others (motives). One of the primary reasons God judged the Earth via the flood was the rampant lawlessness of the mind (Genesis 6:5). The fact that God calls for an inward obedience to Godly thinking is clear. Paul said in 2Corinthians 10:5 that we are to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
In addition, it is important to note that inside obedience and outside obedience work together to bring about change. Change is impossible without the inside work of the Holy Spirit, but *all* change is not from the inside out, it’s *both.* The Holy Spirit is our “helper,” and he helps us with our role in the sanctification process: inside and outside obedience (John 14:12-17). Regarding the fact that inside and outside obedience work together for change, let me illustrate. Here is what Christ said in Matthew 6:19-21:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The counsel from Christ to store up treasure in heaven rather than on Earth is imperative and precedes the location of our heart. Stop investing on Earth, start investing in Heaven. It’s a matter of investment; where we invest is where our hearts will be. Is it not obvious that many marriages have come to ruin because one or both spouses invested in a career rather than each other? We also see this in one of Paul’s imperatives: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Ie., stop investing in evil, start investing in good. Cling to the one and neglect the other. Our love *must* be sincere, and the key is where we invest as a matter of obedience – feelings will follow. Also, Romans 12:2 plainly says how our minds are transformed; conformity to the mind of Christ rather than the world.
Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us. Paul said it like this in Philippians 4:8,9;
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In this passage we have inside obedience, outside obedience, and the God of “peace” with us.
Brothers and sisters I beg you: flee from any teacher who toys with the biblical concept of obedience.
paul
Do you Misrepresent the Pharisees? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian
I heard it again yesterday in a Sunday morning message: the Pharisees were really,really good at keeping the Law, but at the end of the day Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. Alas, proof that we can’t be justified by keeping the Law (which no one would argue with). The pastor, in this message that is one of many in his series on The Sermon on the Mount, even said something like this: “The Pharisees’ efforts at keeping the Law wasn’t the issue, they were good at keeping the Law.” But is that true? And by the way, considering who the audience was at that church (primarily saints gathered for worship and the hearing of the word), and the fact that his topic was the role of the Law in Christian living, why was he even discussing justification in that context? Based on his view of the Pharisees and their supposed efforts to be justified by keeping the Law, one of his statements to *us* was “you don’t keep the Law by trying to keep the Law.” Hmmm, really?
We certainly are not justified by “trying” to keep the Law, but should we try to keep the Law in order to please and obey our Lord? Yes, I think so. Now, I don’t know this pastor very well, but I know him well enough to know that he wouldn’t dream of synthesizing justification and sanctification, but due to the fact that our present church culture is awash in an antinomian doctrine that does just that, are pastors propagating such a synthesis unawares? Yes, I think so. In his sermon notes, the top of the page has statements like ”Things Jesus wants us (“us” would presumably be Christians) to know about the Law.” The top part of the notes are also replete with “we” in regard to the Law, but the bottom part has statements like: “We live in the Age of Grace; salvation is not of works,” but yet, the whole message clearly regards the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. Therefore, whether unawares or otherwise, he clearly extended the relationship of the Law in regard to Justification into the realm of sanctification.
Here is where we must call on our good friend Jeff Foxworthy who developed a program for helping people who may be rednecks but don’t know it. He presents several different questions from different angles of thought, and depending on the answers to the questions, “you just might be a redneck.” Likewise, if you misrepresent the Pharisees, you just might be an antinomian without knowing it.
First of all, we can see from the very same proof text used to demonstrate the idea above that the Pharisees were not guilty of attempting to keep the Law in order to be justified:
[19] “Anyone who breaks 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 practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19,20).
So, as the reasoning goes, verse 19 indicates that “we” should revere God’s Law, but since the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law (an assumed interpretive criteria) we shouldn’t “try” to keep the Law because that’s what they tried to do, and our righteousness must surpass theirs because you can’t be saved by keeping the Law (and again, why are we discussing salvation in this context to begin with?). But we can see just from this text alone that this interpretation is not true. In every literal English translation that I could find, the coordinating conjunction “for” links verses 19 and 20. As we know, coordinating conjunctions join two complete ideas together and indicates the connection between the two. In all cases, the translators saw fit to translate the conjunction “for” from the Greek texts. If Jesus was contrasting the two ideas, a different conjunction would have been used like “but,” ie., the Pharisees do verse 19 really well, “but” not perfectly, therefore you need a righteousness that is perfect (this is true, but not what Christ is referring to here). No, the conjunction used is “for” which indicates “reason”(reason why): because the Pharisees were guilty of verse 19, they (the audience) were not going to enter the kingdom of heaven if they where like the Pharisees in regard to habitually breaking the Law of God and teaching others to do so. Also, I think the Lord’s reference to being the least or the greatest “in the kingdom” (verse 19) is in reference to degree and set against the example of the Pharisees who were guilty of doing (breaking the Law and teaching others to do so) habitually which was an indication that their souls were in peril. Therefore, even if the assumption regarding the Pharisees ability to obey the Law outwardly is true, it’s the wrong transition; a better transition would be “but” and would read something like this: “Christians should obey the Law ‘but’ even if you keep the law as good as the Pharisees do, it will not get you into the kingdom, so you need a righteousness that surpasses theirs.”
Granted, depending on how you diagram the sentence, you might be able to make a case either way, but is it true that the Pharisees were experts at keeping the Law outwardly? No. From other Scriptures we know that the Pharisees were guilty of verse nineteen; specifically, they replaced the Law with their own traditions. That’s why Jesus immediately launches into the whole “you have heard that it was said….but I tell you”starting in the following sentence (verse21). Not only that, Jesus says specifically in Matthew 15:1-9 that His contention with the Pharisees (and the teachers of the law as exactly referred to in verse 20) was the fact that they twisted the Scriptures according to their traditions:
[1] Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, [2]”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”[3] Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ [5] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ [6] he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”
The Pharisees were not proficient at keeping God’s law outwardly. In fact, they didn’t do so at all, but rather propagated teachings that were “rules taught by men.” Therefore, the Pharisees were guilty of neglecting the true Law and teaching others to do so (Matthew 5:19). They were not the poster-children for some campaign to demonstrate the futility of Law-keeping, especially in regard to believers. In fact, Christ said their lax attitude toward the Law was indicative of those who will not enter the kingdom. For this reason the Pharisees were not the greatest in heaven as the masses supposed, but the least, if they were even in the kingdom at all. Therefore, when Christ told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, He wasn’t talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ that the Pharisees were supposedly trying to obtain themselves for salvation (besides, they were not attempting to do that to begin with as I have demonstrated), but rather the true righteous behavior demanded of kingdom citizens. If Christ was talking about an imputed righteousness (for sanctification), why would He have not simply said so? For example: “Your righteousness must not only exceed that of the Pharisees (which wouldn’t have been hard to do anyway, and therefore by no means a profound statement by Christ), but ( a contrast conjunction) must be a righteousness that comes from God alone”…for sanctification.
If you misrepresent the Pharisees as the first century poster-children for “let go and let God theology” because they supposedly tried to keep the Law, you just might be an antinomian. But in part two, we discuss another question that may give credence to the possibility: Do you misrepresent obedience as outward alone? Well then, you just may be an antinomian.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments