The law part 4: On Righteousness and 2 fundamental errors

In New Testament times there was a discussion: should Gentiles conform to the law and if so, how much? If they had faith in Jesus, was this enough, or did they need something extra to seal the deal, so to speak? We can look at this question quite casually and from a distance, but for the people at the time, this was a massive issue. Bare in mind, the vast majority of early believers were Jewish. To tell a committed and faithful Jew that the gentiles didn't need to follow all the details of the law and yet for the gentiles to then fellowship with the Jews as equals, would have been a major challenge.

This challenge came up in discussions most commonly through the issue of circumcision. Some believed circumcision should be a requirement for full acceptance of gentiles into the church, which suggested that they needed to become circumcised. This basically would imply that what Jesus did was not complete until they were circumcised. This would imply that a person was not fully justified and made righteous until they had this done. For Jews, membership into Jewish religious life was not possible before Christ without being circumcised. Let's start by commenting that this is quite understandable. It is not good looking at this discussion with our modern eyes and seeing this issue as being silly, or rolling our eyes. This was part of Jewish identity to the core, for them to let go of that idea was no different from you or I having to give up something which we believe is important to the core of our being. This was a big and significant jump for Jewish believers to grasp and process, so it is not a big surprise that it kept coming up.

The problem is, however, as we read and process this discussion today, we see it as meaning that some believed righteousness can only fully come through Christ AND adherence to circumcision. Even Paul, to try and not offend Jews, actually had Timothy circumcised (Acts 16:3), not because he believed he had to, but because he didn't want a barrier to come between them when ministering in the area. It is rarely because Jews were saying believers should conform to the whole law, although that did happen as well, but largely the focus was on just circumcision. At least, that is what the bulk of what triggered the discussion on law. Galatians, for example, contains almost half of all references to circumcision from Romans to Revelation in its discussion on law.

This is error number 1. We are in error if interpret all discussion on accepting or rejecting the law as being about all of the value of the law, when it is largely (although not exclusively) concentrated around the issue of circumcision. We need to be careful that we do not read into the discussion on circumcision and see that a rejection of that practice is a rejection of anything of value in the whole law and for many this would include the prophets.

For example, taking this to an extreme, where the law says 'you should be circumcised'. In Christ we are not required to be circumcised, but it is even clear that we should not get circumcised (In Colossians 2, Paul points out that circumcision is fulfilled for us in Christ). So in this case, we should go against the requirements of the law. This would equally apply to, for example, the sacrifices. Christ is our once for all sin sacrifice, therefore, we now do not make sacrifices for sin, at all. So we do the opposite of what the law says, as it was fulfilled in Christ. It is done. It is clear, in these things that we do not follow these types of practices.

However, the law also says 'Do not murder'. In that case, we do not do the opposite of the law, texts such as do not steel, etc. cannot be treated in an identical way as the treatment of priestly or what some call ceremonial laws. They are of a different kind and nature, and obviously so. Now, no one is arguing we do the opposite of all laws. However, the logical argument for the rejection of the law and the prophets, if applied in the way suggested, implies that very thing. This is why it is in error.

Error 2: Because we interpret the law issue through the eyes of New Testament discussion on law -the belief that righteousness can be gained through law- we then can make the mistake of reading that perspective into the Old Testament. Yet, this issue is only a New Testament period belief.

It is not actually claimed in the Old Testament that we can gain righteousness through the law.

Perhaps read that again and ponder it for a moment.

People believed that they could be righteous through perfect obedience to the law, it was the attitude of the Pharisees. But it is not what the law actually claimed. So whenever there is NT discussion on law, it is always in the context of a man made belief that they could gain righteousness through the law: 'I am righteous because I obey the law'.

If we, therefore, use these passages to reject the law and the prophets as of being any use in the life of the believer, we are again in error. This is because we reject the law and prophets on the basis of a specific issue addressed in the NT and false claims made about the law. Which are more relevant if we are dealing with those same claims today, but not in other circumstances. It means judging the value of the law and prophets more on its own merit and what it actually claims, rather than judging the law according to a false claim about the law.

This whole discussion in the NT has made one thing very clear, we cannot gain righteousness through the law, so there is definitely no need for believers today to get circumcised. We are made righteous only through Christ.

However, in our modern day of discussing law, and whether the law has any value or use for us, we need to remember the above. All comments in the NT testament are made in this context of engaging with Jews and Gentiles coming together in Christ. But the vast majority of modern situations do not actually reflect this. We need to come with our own own questions of the usefulness, validity, or helpfulness of the law. Unless questions that we have today reflect those of the NT (and many do) then we need to rethink how to answer them.

We know, for example, that if we relied on law, all we would have is that no one would be declared righteous (which the law never actually claimed). The covenant was an agreement to follow God's laws and that he would be their God, but never did that include that they would be made righteous. Righteousness has always come through faith. Remember, Abraham believed God, and he was regarded as righteous. Remember that Noah believed God and built the Ark and was saved. These examples demonstrate that righteousness and salvation come through faith alone in God alone.

Even when accepting the law, it was based on faith, it involved the people putting their faith in God in order to follow the law. It has always been about faith. There was never righteousness by works. If a person was sincerely aiming to seek God, they would follow the law to the best of their ability, but also admit mistakes and failures, make atonement and carry on.

Even justification was by faith. When people made atonement for sin, they had to trust in God, that he would forgive.

Do you need more evidence that the law does not make someone righteous? The law itself includes sacrifices for sin. If it was expected that people would fulfil the law and could in fact do so, there would be no sacrifices for sin, but the law has no such expectation.

For example, the day of atonement covering all sins of the whole nation. It is done regularly, a cry for a need for atonement. Leviticus 16 explains the day of atonement and in verse 34 'This is to be a lasting ordinance for you: Atonement is to be made once a year for all the sins of the Israelites' (NIV 1984).

There is no claim that righteousness comes through the law, in fact, the law takes into account people's unrighteousness.

New sins, a need for constant recognition for sin, constant atonement for sin. Something is wrong - sin - and sin needs a response. The cry for a saviour is in the law and the prophets.

So when people discuss the value of the law, it is clear righteousness cannot come through the law, and we are not under the law any further (discussed in part 5), but also when people discuss rejecting the law, they usually do it based on scriptures which are discussing the issue of gaining righteousness through the law, and ceremonial laws such as circumcision, not scriptures which simply talk of the wisdom in the law and the prophets outside of trying to gain righteousness by it. And this is an error which we it would be helpful to avoid.

If we discuss law and if we can be made righteous, or more righteous, through conforming to its requirements, such as circumcision, then we undermine the value and reality of the gospel. The New Testament is as clear as day on that issue. But if we are discussing the wisdom in the OT, the helpfulness of the OT, how the OT points to Christ and reveals Christ then these are different types of questions and therefore require focussing on different scriptures in the New Testament than ones simply challenging gaining righteousness through the law (discussed in part 6 and 7).