Establishing the Law: Romans 3:31

[GHansen]

Long one of my favorite texts,  I took a longer look at the passage after reading a book edited by D.A. Carson. The writer admitted that he wasn't exactly sure what Romans 3:31 meant but he  was quite sure that the passage did not mean that we uphold or establish the law by keeping the Decalogue. I was also informed by a small volume "Establish the Law" which delved into this passage and another in Romans 10.

The term "law" in Romans 3 does not refer to the Decalogue. It actually refers to the "oracles of God" i.e., the OT. Possession of the OT writings gave the Jewish people an advantage over the Gentiles in knowing God and their own status before him. Paul quotes several passages from the OT in verses 10-18. Those passages are mostly from the Psalms, not the "Law of Moses"; nevertheless, Paul calls them law in verse 19. Jesus also referred to the Psalms as law in John 10:34 and 15:25. Paul quoted Isaiah and referred to it a law (1 Co. 14:21). Paul is not doing anything unusual here. What he is saying in Romans 3:31 is that we establish or uphold the witness of the OT by recognizing ourselves as sinners and believing in Christ. In chapter 4, he rehearses the story of Abraham to show that faith is what the OT calls us to.  

[Ron Amnsn]

On 5/10/2019 at 7:20 AM, GHansen said:

The term "law" in Romans 3 does not refer to the Decalogue.

Is there any verse in the New Testament where the word "law" clearly refers to the Decalogue alone?

I couldn't recall any such verse and didn't find any with a quick search.

The Israelites and Jews very rarely tried to separate the Decalogue from the rest of God's instructions found in the Books of Moses.

[GHansen]

Ron, Romans 3:31 is just one of numerous errors in the SDA doctrinal construct. Common teaching is that "commandments" in the NT always refer to the Decalogue. That's another common error. It's the problem with proof texting without reference to context. Commandments often refer to the teachings of Christ, not the Decalogue, especially in John's writings.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

I agree.  Context is very important.  When the New Testament was being written, the Greek-speaking Jews and believers already had an Old Testament written in Greek (the Septuagint) that had been around for a couple centuries.  So the Greek words found in the Septuagint already had established Scriptural usages.  For example, if the New Testament writers wanted to refer to Gods' instructions, statutes, or ordinances, they would use a word that was already used that way in the Septuagint.  If we want to know what the word entole (commandment) means in the New Testament, we need to find out how it was used in the Greek Old Testament. Likewise for the word ekklesia (often mistranslated as "church").  Ekklesia had already been used to refer to the assembly of Israel at Sinai for a couple centuries before it was used by the New Testament writers.

The Decalogue was referred to in the Old Testament as the "Ten Words" in both Hebrew and Greek.  That is the literal meaning of the term "Decalogue" in Greek-- "Ten Words" rather than "Ten Commandments".  There are far more than ten commandments found in the Books of Moses.

It's interesting that you say that John used "commandments" to refer to the teachings of Jesus.  John also teaches that Jesus was YHWH that created the world and interacted with the Israelites (John 1:3. John 8:58. etc).  It was the pre-incarnate Jesus that taught the Israelites the Old Testament instructions and statutes found in the Law of Moses, including the Decalogue.  So according to John and according to the writings of Ellen White, the words of YHWH in the Old Testament would be the teachings of Jesus himself.

[R. G. White]

On 5/10/2019 at 8:20 AM, GHansen said:

Long one of my favorite texts,  I took a longer look at the passage after reading a book edited by D.A. Carson. The writer admitted that he wasn't exactly sure what Romans 3:31 meant but he  was quite sure that the passage did not mean that we uphold or establish the law by keeping the Decalogue. I was also informed by a small volume "Establish the Law" which delved into this passage and another in Romans 10.

The term "law" in Romans 3 does not refer to the Decalogue. It actually refers to the "oracles of God" i.e., the OT. Possession of the OT writings gave the Jewish people an advantage over the Gentiles in knowing God and their own status before him. Paul quotes several passages from the OT in verses 10-18. Those passages are mostly from the Psalms, not the "Law of Moses"; nevertheless, Paul calls them law in verse 19. Jesus also referred to the Psalms as law in John 10:34 and 15:25. Paul quoted Isaiah and referred to it a law (1 Co. 14:21). Paul is not doing anything unusual here. What he is saying in Romans 3:31 is that we establish or uphold the witness of the OT by recognizing ourselves as sinners and believing in Christ. In chapter 4, he rehearses the story of Abraham to show that faith is what the OT calls us to.  

You are right. That verse is not saying that we establish the law by keeping the Decalogue. This may or may not be true, depending on how the matter is approached, but that's not the point of Romans 3:31. That verse states that our coming to genuine faith does not void the law. Rather, it establishes the law (i.e. the Torah, the five books of Moses).

So, we need to understand what those five books are all about. They include a system of ceremonial law which the New Testament clearly teaches is obsolete. Yet, their thrust was the gospel, and that purpose is promoted by our coming to true faith. The Decalogue is obviously the core of the Torah, and when we put our faith in Christ's death on the cross, we acknowledge that every sin -- every violation of the Decalogue -- must meet its penalty, which is death. That's why we find it necessary to accept that He died in our place, by giving our lives to Him in loving service. The Torah also includes much moral instruction that helps to explain the application of the principles of the Decalogue. Obviously, the true believer will show due regard for these precepts as well.

[GHansen]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 11:09 AM, Ron Amnsn said:

I agree.  Context is very important.  When the New Testament was being written, the Greek-speaking Jews and believers already had an Old Testament written in Greek (the Septuagint) that had been around for a couple centuries.  So the Greek words found in the Septuagint already had established Scriptural usages.  For example, if the New Testament writers wanted to refer to Gods' instructions, statutes, or ordinances, they would use a word that was already used that way in the Septuagint.  If we want to know what the word entole (commandment) means in the New Testament, we need to find out how it was used in the Greek Old Testament. Likewise for the word ekklesia (often mistranslated as "church").  Ekklesia had already been used to refer to the assembly of Israel at Sinai for a couple centuries before it was used by the New Testament writers.

The Decalogue was referred to in the Old Testament as the "Ten Words" in both Hebrew and Greek.  That is the literal meaning of the term "Decalogue" in Greek-- "Ten Words" rather than "Ten Commandments".  There are far more than ten commandments found in the Books of Moses.

It's interesting that you say that John used "commandments" to refer to the teachings of Jesus.  John also teaches that Jesus was YHWH that created the world and interacted with the Israelites (John 1:3. John 8:58. etc).  It was the pre-incarnate Jesus that taught the Israelites the Old Testament instructions and statutes found in the Law of Moses, including the Decalogue.  So according to John and according to the writings of Ellen White, the words of YHWH in the Old Testament would be the teachings of Jesus himself.

"I agree.  Context is very important." The context of passages such as "If you love me keep my commandments" has been ignored by proof texting legalists whose burden is not Christ and Him crucified but the Decalogue and our obligation to obey it. Jesus also said "If a man love me, he will keep my words/sayings. In the context, Jesus is not referring to the 10 words spoken as Sinai but to his gospel teachings. 

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

Jesus also said "If a man love me, he will keep my words/sayings. In the context, Jesus is not referring to the 10 words spoken as Sinai but to his gospel teachings. 

Ron Amnsn had just said:

"It was the pre-incarnate Jesus that taught the Israelites the Old Testament instructions and statutes found in the Law of Moses, including the Decalogue."

Jesus' gospel teachings included the Sermon of the Mount, in which He not only upheld His own Ten Words from the Old Testament, but enlightened His hearers as the breadth and depth of their meaning and application. The effect of the gospel is not to make people more careless in regard to the moral requirements of the Ten Words. Rather, it has the effect of creating in the heart a love for that law, in all of its implications, and a natural desire to honour God by living out its principles.

[GHansen]

3 hours ago, R. G. White said:

Jesus' gospel teachings included the Sermon of the Mount, in which He not only upheld His own Ten Words from the Old Testament, but enlightened His hearers as the breadth and depth of their meaning and application.

RG, That's typical SDA apologetic. If it works for you, that's fine. The gospel is not about the Decalogue, it's about the death and resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness of sin. It's about making one blood of all nations. Romans 3 is not about the Decalogue. It's about recognizing the spirituality of the OT teachings regarding Jesus. Romans 4 illustrates Paul's narrative in chapter 3. Abraham becomes the model man. He lived before there was a law and had a direct faith relationship with God. He related to God by faith, not by keeping laws. Of course most SDA try to thwart Paul's plain gospel teaching be referencing a Genesis passage which talks about Abraham's obedience. For salvation purposes, the NT says there was no law until Moses. To pull a single passage from Genesis to overthrow Paul's plain statements in the NT is just rank legalism. The Sabbath, for example, isn't properly observed because of the Decalogue, because it's required of us. The Sabbath was established in Eden as a holy day, that's why it should be respected. Jesus moved way beyond the Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount. We should too.

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, GHansen said:

RG, That's typical SDA apologetic. If it works for you, that's fine. The gospel is not about the Decalogue, it's about the death and resurrection of Christ, the forgiveness of sin. It's about making one blood of all nations. Romans 3 is not about the Decalogue. It's about recognizing the spirituality of the OT teachings regarding Jesus. Romans 4 illustrates Paul's narrative in chapter 3. Abraham becomes the model man. He lived before there was a law and had a direct faith relationship with God. He related to God by faith, not by keeping laws. Of course most SDA try to thwart Paul's plain gospel teaching be referencing a Genesis passage which talks about Abraham's obedience. For salvation purposes, the NT says there was no law until Moses. To pull a single passage from Genesis to overthrow Paul's plain statements in the NT is just rank legalism. The Sabbath, for example, isn't properly observed because of the Decalogue, because it's required of us. The Sabbath was established in Eden as a holy day, that's why it should be respected. Jesus moved way beyond the Decalogue in the Sermon on the Mount. We should too.

The Decalogue, correctly understood in all of its principles and ramifications, defines sin. The gospel, if it is to have any meaning at all, is about salvation from sin. Forgiveness is absolutely huge, but it would ultimately be of no use to us if the plan of salvation did not also envision our redemption from the pit of corruption into which we have sunk ourselves, and our restoration to the kind of holiness without which we'd be so unfit for heaven that just being there would for us be supreme torture.

Jesus did indeed move way beyond the mere letter of the Decalogue. If that's your point, I'm all for it. Lowering the standard of righteousness to a mere forced outward compliance with the letter of the law is indeed rank legalism, and that kind of religion will never save anyone.

Unless you have a problem with some one of the Ten Words in particular, or its implications, it's hard to see where we disagree, as a practical matter. Why should we be at swords' points over semantics?

[GHansen]

3 minutes ago, R. G. White said:

The Decalogue, correctly understood in all of its principles and ramifications, defines sin.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin because they  "believe not on me." 

[R. G. White]

38 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would convict the world of sin because they  "believe not on me." 

Indeed. Defining sin is one thing. Finding how to get rid of it is another. Unless we believe in Jesus, in the fullest sense, there is no hope for us to do anything but to die in our sins, regardless of whether or not we manage to maintain an outward compliance with the Ten Words.

[Ron Amnsn]

7 hours ago, GHansen said:

The context of passages such as "If you love me keep my commandments" has been ignored by proof texting legalists whose burden is not Christ and Him crucified but the Decalogue and our obligation to obey it.

Your statement puzzles me.

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where the authors share your poor opinion of "proof texting legalists".  The Bible verses that are often brought forward as evidence to condemn "legalism" do not mention legalism, but instead are concerned with disobedience or pride or self-sufficiency.  The Bible doesn't provide a method for humans to correctly discern in others whether obedience is motivated by love, or motivated by legalism or fear.  We know that children obey for different reasons depending on their level of moral development.  Presumably, the God of the Bible is well aware of how humans develop as they mature.  That's probably why the Bible encourages obedience regardless of the person's level of moral development or motivation. Where in the Bible do we see anyone rebuked or denigrated for obedience?  Where does the Bible call into question a person's motivation for obedience?  As far as I can find in the Bible, obedience is always superior to disobedience.  In Scripture, it appears that obedience is always considered a good thing regardless of the motivation for obedience.

An important part of the context of Jesus' teachings regarding the gospel is that the whole time that Jesus taught the gospel Jesus was living not only by the Decalogue, but also according to God's instructions given in the Books of Moses.  So, when a person looks completely to Jesus and gladly carries the burden of Jesus, wouldn't that result in the same obedience that was demonstrated by Jesus?  How can a follower or disciple of Jesus not actually follow and teach the religion and lifestyle that Jesus lived?  In the Bible that existed at the time of Jesus (the OT), God revealed that loving God with one's whole heart and following God with one's whole heart are both directly correlated with obedience to the instructions that God gave in the Books of Moses.  How could a follower of Jesus possibly separate Jesus from obedience to the teachings that Jesus gave to Moses which Jesus himself lived by?

[GHansen]

13 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Your statement puzzles me.

In the NT, faith in Christ = obedience

[Ron Amnsn]

21 minutes ago, GHansen said:

In the NT, faith in Christ = obedience 

That could be taken two ways.

On one hand, you could be saying that everyone in the New Testament who has faith in Messiah is also faithfully obedient to God's Word as they follow the example of Messiah.  I agree with that.  When such people put on the garment of righteousness provided by Jesus, it fits.

On the other hand, you could be saying that everyone in the New Testament who thinks certain thoughts in their head regarding Jesus is automatically considered obedient by God even if they don't care whether their own actions emulate the lifestyle of obedience lived by Jesus.  The meaning of the word "faith" in Greek would be significantly abused by such a statement.  Although in English the word "faith" is related primarily to one's thoughts, in Greek (and Hebrew) the word "faith" encompasses both one's thoughts and the faithful actions that result from those thoughts.  This is amply demonstrated by the people of faith who are commended in Hebrews 11 for their actions rather than for their thoughts.  James clarifies explicitly that "faith without works" is dead.  In Scripture, the thoughts of faith and the actions of faithfulness are the two sides of the coin of faith, which cannot be separated.  Without the actions of faithfulness, which in English might be called "faithing", faith that is comprised of only thoughts would be "dead" faith, which is not equivalent to obedience.  Dead faith is of no value.  The garment of righteousness provided by Jesus is not merely a "Jesus costume" to be warn by people living a lifestyle that mocks the teachings of Jesus and his own faithful obedience to God's Word.

[R. G. White]

1 hour ago, Ron Amnsn said:

Where in the Bible do we see anyone rebuked or denigrated for obedience?

One example would be the elder brother of the prodigal son. It might be a bit subtle, but we should not miss it. The man has obviously been behaving himself well, outwardly, in order to try to benefit from whatever his father can do for him. He doesn't love his brother. Clearly, he doesn't love his father either. His good behaviour is really worthless, unless he is going to repent and change his attitude.

[Ron Amnsn]

1 minute ago, R. G. White said:

One example would be the elder brother of the prodigal son. It might be a bit subtle, but we should not miss it. The man has obviously been behaving himself well, outwardly, in order to try to benefit from whatever his father can do for him. He doesn't love his brother. Clearly, he doesn't love his father either. His good behaviour is really worthless, unless he is going to repent and change his attitude.

So he is not being rebuked for his obedience, but rather for his jealousy, lack of forgiveness, and lack of love.

[GHansen]

37 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

That could be taken two ways.

Ron, The second scenario you describe is the straw man typically pilloried by SDA. I have actually never met anyone who holds to a view like that, except perhaps some sociopaths in prison. It's often imputed to "Calvinists"  but it is certainly alien to the actual teachings of Calvin. True faith has transactional value. When Hebrews defines faith, it says it is the "substance" of things hoped for. As Deissman pointed out, the "substance" is actually a title deed to property. Romans 9-11 clearly attacks those who held out for obedience to the law contra faith in the promises. Paul argues that "obedience" or the works of the law was actually the major problems the Jews had. They did not believe. Christianity itself, not any particular denomination, inclines toward legalism. In 1969, Woody Allen hosted Billy Graham on his variety show. In response to Allen's question, Graham went into a spiel about the necessity of obedience and ethics rather than a discourse on the death and resurrection of Christ. He offered his audience nothing that they couldn't have derived from Allen's Judaism. 

In the mid 809s I heard Graham again preaching, this time the gospel of a crucified and risen Christ. That's the message people might have heard in '69

[R. G. White]

42 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

So he is not being rebuked for his obedience, but rather for his jealousy, lack of forgiveness, and lack of love.

He is being rebuked for the evident motive behind his obedience. We may not have any way of seeing people's motives, but God sees it all. Yes, He is very gracious as He wins our hearts over to Himself more and more, but I don't think it would be fair to assume that obedience is where everyone needs to start. Let God do His work in His own inscrutable way. Meanwhile, we need to guard against legalism because pride and self-sufficiency are some of the most potentially fatal errors we can make.

[Ron Amnsn]

13 hours ago, GHansen said:

Ron, The second scenario you describe is the straw man typically pilloried by SDA.

Actually it's not.

Very few Christians today fall into the first scenario I described because most Christians have internalized a number of man-made theories that supposedly explain why Christians today should not follow the example of Jesus himself, who lived according to his own Old Testament instructions as Jesus had originally intended them to be lived.

Instead, Christians seem to have chosen to follow a subset of the New Testament, interpreted largely without the context of the Old Testament.  Thus we have re-created "Jesus" as an idealized image of our own selves, based not on the Scriptures, but on our own version of morality that we have derived from the parts of the Bible that we personally approve of.  We end up with a "Jesus" which is very much like ourselves and thus very comfortable to love, worship, follow, obey, and have faith in.  That's probably the "Jesus" that you imagined when you read the second scenario that I described above. With that "Jesus" in mind, the scenario would indeed seem like a straw man, because virtually everybody likes the "Jesus" that they've created in their own image, and thus they actually do care whether their own actions emulate the "Jesus" that is imagined to be like their own idealized self.  That's not the Jesus I was referring to.  I was referring to the Jesus of the Bible who lived according to his own Old Testament instructions, without being legalistic.

 

[Ron Amnsn]

15 hours ago, R. G. White said:

He is being rebuked for the evident motive behind his obedience.

Ok. Perhaps his cultural expectations regarding the rewards for obedience did need correcting.  Yet I don't think the intent of the parable was to show that the prodigal's disobedience was superior to the older brother's poorly motivated obedience.  The love of the father in spite of the unloving actions of both sons seems to be the focus of the parable.

[R. G. White]

14 minutes ago, Ron Amnsn said:

The love of the father in spite of the unloving actions of both sons seems to be the focus of the parable.

Of course it is, but the outwardly model behaviour of the elder son, utterly without love, had an immediate application to the Jewish nation at the time, and it's not something that I believe we should miss, today. Jesus left the outcome open, to see whether or not the elder son (the legalistic Jews) would respond to the appeals of the Father. Sadly, they crucified the One who said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

[GHansen]

3 hours ago, Ron Amnsn said:

"Actually it's not.

Very few Christians today fall into the first scenario I described because most Christians have internalized a number of man-made theories that supposedly explain why Christians today should not follow the example of Jesus himself, who lived according to his own Old Testament instructions as Jesus had originally intended them to be lived."

Not sure if we have a fundamental disagreement or simply a communication problem. Faith is reckoned as righteousness. Abraham went of for many years as a justified man through faith in God's promise, before he was circumcised. Circumcision served as a sign of justification, not a cause. He was justified without works. Romans 4 is pretty clear that we contribute nothing to our justification. If we did, God would owe us and it wouldn't be by grace.

People, through the ages, have tried very hard to explain away "faith alone" when it comes to justification but the concept won't go away. Of course, SDA lean heavily upon James, a legalist, whose perspective flatly contradicts Paul. Men from James with their Judaizing troubled the Galatians. His sympathizers brought about Paul's death with their bad counsel and warped perspective that Paul was zealous for the law. He was, only in the sense that the law i.e., torah was a revelation of Christ. I agree with F.F. Bruce who described Paul's gospel as a "law free" one. Luther's "Christian Liberty"  also fits.

 

 

[R. G. White]

6 minutes ago, GHansen said:

Of course, SDA lean heavily upon James, a legalist, whose perspective flatly contradicts Paul.

Something is not quite right when we begin to assert that the Bible flatly contradicts itself. As I understand James, he was merely pointing out the vapid impotence of a "faith" that is falsified by one's own actions (or inaction). Paul never intended to suggest that we can be justified by merely saying that we believe. Coming to genuine faith means giving ourselves unreservedly to God. In Luke 14:33, Jesus Himself said:

"So likewise, whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple."

Is the forsaking of all an act of merit that contributes to our justification? Absolutely not! It is merely the natural fruit of our faith, to the glory of God alone. The same goes for Abraham offering Isaac on the altar. There is absolutely no place for creature merit.

[GHansen]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2019 at 7:22 AM, R. G. White said:

Something is not quite right when we begin to assert that the Bible flatly contradicts itself.

Seems right to me. Better than lying to myself or going through mental contortions to reconcile the passages. 

[R. G. White]

4 hours ago, GHansen said:

Seems right to me. Better than lying to myself or going through mental contortions to reconcile the passages. 

If, as it claims to be, the Bible is the word of the infinite God, then there are going to be things that are beyond human comprehension. There will be very much that will stretch our finite minds to their limit, as well as the ability of the Bible writers to express them in imperfect human language. If we take at face value the claim of Scripture that the thoughts and ideas of its writers were "God-breathed," then we have to assume that there will be an underlying harmony despite any apparent surface contradictions. We also have to assume that we shall struggle to understand its teachings in all of their depth and complexity.

In other words, a humble and awed approach to the Scriptures is incumbent upon us.