Another Conversation on the Law

I posted this image on X recently with the caption, ‘But I’m the one “cherry-picking” when I use the clear passages to interpret the ambiguous passages.’ After numerous hostile and rude replies, I added ‘I’d love to have a conversation with someone who disagrees and is intelligent, thoughtful, and civil. I’m tired of the frauds, snakes, and ignoramuses.’

Someone named Langston replied. His comments will be in quote blocks. Mine will be in bold.

Rom 6:14
for you are not under law but under grace.
Rom 3:21
now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
Rom 10:4
For Christ [is] the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

There’s much more

My reply reflected my irritation:

Are you volunteering for that conversation? Or just shotgunning prooftexts as if your interpretation is the only one possible?

Langston: My point is that the epistles are built upon the idea that the laws given to Israel have not come to us in the same form or fashion. It’s not just a couple obscure verses.
Due to the word limit, I wanted to lay a scriptural foundation from the outset.

Me: What do you believe it means for “sin to have no dominion over you” and how is this related to not being “under law” in Romans 6:14?

Langston: Sin, being made known by the law, has dominion over us, for by the law it brings us death and a curse. Yet we have become dead to the law and married to another, and therefore we are no longer under its dominion.

Me: That’s pretty much how I understand it too. We might still have a semantic difference in the word “dominion” or “under”, so let me tell you how I understand that concept, and you can let me know if you see it differently.

If a person is under law (in this case The Law), he is subject to the law’s power to condemn because he broke it. It doesn’t mean he has a legal obligation as a citizen to obey the law, but that his disobedience has given the law authority to punish him.

This is similar to idiomatic expressions like “running from the law”. That doesn’t mean that the legal code is chasing me. It means that the enforcers of the code are chasing me because I broke the code, putting me under the jurisdiction of the legal system. If I had not broken the law, the law would have no authority to come after me.

Since Jesus’ death expunged my criminal record, I have effectively died to the law, removing me from its authority to punish, but not my obligation as a subject of the King to keep the King’s Law.

To continue the analogy of human law, if a judge declared me innocent of criminal charges, that would release me from the authority of man’s legal system, but it would not absolve me from the obligation of every citizen to keep the law. If I despise the freedom that I have been given and continue to disregard the law, the judge will issue a new warrant for my arrest.

(The analogy isn’t perfect. I don’t think Jesus will reject anyone for sins of ignorance or weakness. I believe only our conscious rebellion will put us back under the dominion of sin, aka condemnation.)

Langston: we have been freed from the law and married to another, wouldn’t it follow that my obligation is to another as well?

So that is not to say we are without law, for we have come under the law of Christ.

Me: Absolutely. Our obligation is to Christ our King. We are under him, not under the Law. That doesn’t mean we don’t continue to obey his Law, though. It only means that our relationship to it has changed.

The Law is no longer our master. Where once it was a master to point us to our need for a Savior and also to keep us in bondage to our own sins until we submit to that Savior, now it has become a tool that the Holy Spirit can use to aid us in becoming more like him. The Law has become an advisor instead of an accuser.

Langston: the law was a tutor to bring us to Christ.

In high school I was obligated to comply with certain rules.

Upon graduation, though I can still appeal to the truths I learned, I’m not obligated to do all the things I was in HS.

I would say the same regarding Torah.

Me: I disagree.

There’s always a danger in taking an analogy too far, and Paul’s schoolmaster is a frequent victim.

Jesus said that anyone who relaxes even the least of the commandments in the Torah and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, while those who do and teach them will be called great.

Paul and James said that every commandment that God gave can be summed up in the one: love your neighbor as yourself. John said that we only know that we love one another if we are keeping God’s commandments. This seems to me like a consistent doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles that the entire Torah remains God’s perfect standard for all people.

Obviously not all of it applies to everyone and there are some aspects that cannot be kept by anyone, but I can’t think of a single commandment that *can* be kept today that shouldn’t be. I can show how every single one of them shows love for both God and neighbor.

Langston: I don’t think the apostles are least in the kingdom for telling the gentiles that they only need to keep from idols and fornication. Nor is Mark for saying Jesus declared all food clean.

Again, we are freed from the Law.
I’m not under the law. I don’t have to make up an analogy.

Me: “I don’t think the apostles are least in the kingdom for telling the gentiles that they only need to keep from idols and fornication.”

I agree, but they didn’t tell them that. Paul also told them to refrain from lying, slave trading, “and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine”.

I understand that you are referring to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, but I’m certain you don’t believe they were telling the Gentiles that they only needed to do those 4 things. I don’t think anyone believes that. Stealing, disrespect of parents, false prophecy, etc. are all still sins, but weren’t mentioned by the Council.

The controversy that the council addressed was concerning salvation and the immediate changes that must happen in order for anyone to be considered “saved”. As the Epistles clearly show, they never meant for anyone to think those were the only rules for Gentiles.

I address this in more detail in this article: Does Acts 15 Say We Can Ignore God’s Law?

And filled in some gaps in this one: Acts 15, revisited.

Langston: It’s those things unique to the laws of Moses.

“why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the GRACE of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved IN THE SAME MANNER AS THEY.”

Me: The “yoke…neither our fathers nor we were able to bear” isn’t the Law of Moses.

For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.
Deuteronomy 30:11 ESV

The unbearable yoke were the extra rules that the religious leaders had added to the Law.

They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
Matthew 23:4 ESV

The scribes and Pharisees put that yoke on the people, not Moses. In Acts 15, those same people, although they had come to faith in Jesus, were trying to put all of the Gentile believers under the same bondage to man-made rules.

God’s Law is much simpler than man’s. Shortly after declaring that all who keep and teach even the smallest of God’s commandments in the Law of Moses will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven, Jesus said,

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Matthew 11:29-30 ESV

“Learn from me.” Learn what? Learn what he taught and what he did, and then do the same. Trust him.

Yes, we are saved in the exact same manner as everyone who came before the cross: by the grace of God. Nobody in any era of history was saved from their sins by obedience to the Law. The Law was given so that we would know what sin is, not so that we could be absolved from sins that we have already committed.

Langston: I’ll close here:

Verse 5: But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

Being yoked can just mean in subjection too. The fathers broke the laws. They didn’t handle the yoke.

Me: Agreed. That’s how Jesus used the term ‘yoke’, being in subjection to him. Being yoked isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Acts 15:5 is a perfect illustration to prove my point. There is no command anywhere in Scripture to circumcise grown men as a condition for salvation or fellowship. Sure, if you want to eat a Passover sacrifice or go to the Temple, then you’d need to be circumcised, but neither of those circumstances were the issue. They were talking about Gentile converts who lived a long way from Jerusalem and were unlikely to ever have the opportunity to do either of those things.

Circumcision for salvation or even for membership in the commonwealth of Israel was a man-made invention, not a commandment from God.

I go into more detail on that here: The Covenants of Israel.

BTW, Langston, even if I disagree with you, I really do appreciate the civility and spirit of your conversation!

Langston: Much appreciated friend!

This conversation was such a refreshing break from the usual pattern on social media. Doctrinal disagreements don’t mean we have to be enemies.