Are Christians Ever Under Law? A short response to Peter Ditzel's Article

Being aware that some readers may not be acquainted with Theonomy I cannot help but keep this critique at the root level. Also, as Peter Ditzel’s article ‘Are Christians Ever Under Law?’ is primarily a continuing discussion within New Covenant Theology on whether believer’s are ‘in’ or ‘under’ law my response is a bit outside of the debate hall. One thing Theonomists and New Covenant Theologians have in common—well, there are many actually—is that they are both easily misunderstood and cast aside without much investigation. Theonomists are legalists and NCTers are licentious. One side is all about law and the other is all about no law. So, for anyone interested in actually understanding Theonomy I hope this short blog helps (you may read my other blogs also or ask for recommended readings). But for anyone wanting to forsake balanced scales and righteous judgment here are some coals to put on your head. As I see the situation, I believe New Covenant Theology is in error. “Right back at you!” says its defender. But let me be clear that as I have interacted with dozens of its defenders I am not persuaded that they are a bunch of cheap grace, licentious, pagans seeking book sales and a new reformation—some do wish for the latter no doubt. Only in a few instances have I exchanged with individuals that after careful discussion seemed to be crossing back and forth on the edges of heresy. Yet, I’m sure you can find individuals within many Orthodox camps who would raise the hair on the back of your neck after hearing some of their convictions. So what is really the issue? What caused this recent phenomenon? Well, I hope to offer a brief answer.

A Baptist Theology

New Covenant Theology is an outworking of Baptist Theology. I’ve yet to come across a single paedobaptist who holds to NCT. Why? The system, pardon my language, is baptistic at its roots. It is inherently individualistic in its focus. This itself may be the reason a confession of faith will not likely be developed anytime soon. I believe it is also a reason for such a confusion on the relationship of law and grace.  The Scriptures teach not individualism, not communalism, but both individuality and community. Christ did not die for a bunch of busy fingers to bounce around on keyboards he died for a bride, a whole body. As Athanasius said many ages ago “…even in death he preserved his body whole and undivided, so that there should be no excuse hereafter for those who would divide the Church.” Adam’s sin passed to his progeny, the promise given to Eve was to her progeny, Noah was put on an ark with his family, Abraham was circumcised with his family, Moses was called to serve God with his family, the Israelites put the blood on their doorposts to save themselves and their family, Rahab let down her scarlet cord to save herself and her family, Job would pray and offer sacrifice for his family, Peter told that the promise is to you and your children and all those afar off, Lydia was baptized with her household, both Peter and Paul said to believe in Christ and you and your household will be saved. More examples could be given but I find that without this discussion all talks about what is binding on believers misses a vital component as to why such binding takes place at all. Not only this fact of individualism, but our doctrine of man will greatly influence our understanding of our relationship to God. A discussion I have had several times without satisfactory, or at least consistent, answers is the discussion of Church discipline. Without an objective standard there are no grounds for Church discipline. Not only that, there are no grounds to confront a brother who has sinned against you. “Ah, but he is being unloving” you say. By what standard? “Christ is the standard.” Amen and fair enough but if we are to suggest that by not being loving like Christ is grounds for correction or discipline (please note the context of my usage) who could withstand one second without being liable to discipline? How shall he who knew no sin be your sin standard? But there is a way around this. “We submit to the teachings of Holy Spirit as given in Scripture.” And here is where that happy inconsistency lies. Scripture broadly applies and it teaches about grounds for discipline. I’m happy with that, I suppose. You may not wish to call it law, or boundaries, but at least are willing to practice it. I see this as inconsistent within the Theology. Let us consider an example. A man defrauding his brother is liable, upon due procedure, to discipline. But what about a man who simply doesn’t offer a service to his brother? Christ was a teacher. Should a man who does not teach be liable to discipline? Isn’t teaching a Christ-like, loving thing to do? Is it not the case that only upon boundaries being crossed, broken, that correction and discipline apply? Adultery is wrong because God is faithful and he wants us to be faithful. A man that commits adultery is not being like Christ. But what about a man whose love is not comparable to Christ’s love for the Church? Is it proper to entertain the idea of excommunicating a man because he doesn’t massage his wife’s feet? Surely Christ would have done such. Silly, I know, but without objective boundaries—God given boundaries—we are left to arbitrariness in such matters. A person’s desires and needs become the grounds for correction rather than God’s law. Christ feeding five thousand people doesn’t give me permission to complain to pastor that brother Joe won’t bake me a cake. But enough of this for now. I do have a few words for the article.

Are Christians Ever Under Law?

I want to put forth an exercise. Let us see if we reduce Paul to absurdity. For practice, let us look at a passage in Galatians: “Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (Gal. 5:2). If we misunderstand the Law we reduce Paul to absurdity. Let us place instead of circumcision something else from the Law and see if Paul makes sense. I will paraphrase as needed. "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you [honor your father and mother], Christ will be of no advantage to you." True or false? Well, it is true if the reason is justification but false if it is not (even Paul had Timothy circumcised for ministry purposes). Let’s try another. "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you [do not commit bestiality], Christ will be of no advantage to you." True or False? Right. The same as before. One last time. "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision [of the heart], Christ will be of no advantage to you." True or false? Well? There is no justification without such a circumcision and this was taught and commanded in the Law. “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn” (Deut. 10:16). “And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deut. 30:6). (Notice that familial application again.) I want this to be fresh in our minds as we consider an example given in the article to support the idea of not being ‘under’ law. Honestly, my concern is one of obligation not of being ‘in’ or ‘under’. Love fulfills something, and we are to love. What usage, then, is that thing which love fulfills? Here is the text:

“Paul is saying that he has as much right as the other apostles to not have to have other employment to survive. The brethren should be supporting him for his work in the Word.

Paul supports his position by quoting Deuteronomy 25:4: “You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.” He also speaks of how the farmer plows in hope of the harvest (1 Corinthians 9:9 and 10). He then asks, “If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your fleshly things?” (verse 11). Paul further supports this by pointing out that the priests in the Temple have a right to a portion of the sacrifices. He next plainly states, “So also the Lord ordained those proclaiming the gospel to live from the gospel” (verse 14).”

Ditzel explains how because of Paul’s refusal to use this right we have an example Paul laying aside his rights as an Apostle so as not to offend the weaker brother. Remember our exercise? Does this apply to the entirety of the Law? When Paul is later speaking of his ministry to Jews and Gentiles and the way in which he interacts with them, do we reduce him to absurdity by thinking the Law (God’s Law given to the Israelites which was for the nations Deut. 4) is not obligatory? Let’s try a similar exercise as before on this passage:

Paul supports his position by quoting [Exodus 20:14: “You shall not commit adultery.”] He also speaks of how [Christ loves the Church and such is an example for us to follow in marriage.] He then asks, [“If we were not covetous towards your wives,] is it a great thing if we [do not have our wives taken from us?”] Paul further supports this by pointing out that [Christ spoke of Adam and Eve as an example from the beginning concerning the sanctity of marriage.] He next plainly states, [“The sexually immoral and adulterers will not inherit the Kingdom of God”] (6:9).”

Would it make sense for Paul to set aside this right so as not to offend a weaker brother? Obviously no. What is going on then? Well, this is an interesting case. First, Paul is the one being offended by not receiving what was rightfully his—he said it was a right. He allowed such to happen. What of the Corinthians? Were they in the wrong? Should they have given remuneration? Doesn’t Paul say it was Christ’s command? “In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel” (v. 14). What does Paul quote to demonstrate this command? The Law! Let it be clear that when Paul quotes the Law he contrasts it with man’s authority. “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned?” On whose authority is Paul relying? Himself, Moses or God? Which one is not a human authority? Indeed he calls it the “Law of Moses” but who is it that Paul contrasts against the authority of man by the authority of the Law? God or Moses? The divine authority of the Law is what Paul is using to defend his teaching. However, he is doing something more. Paul is doing exactly what Christ did in the ‘you have heard it said but I tell you’ statements in Matthew. Paul is teaching the heart of the Law, how to fulfill it. For example, divorce is not required but permissible. Paul, being the offended party, saw it fit to not bring up such a charge against infants in the faith (3:1). Notice that the other Apostles were receiving pay. Notice also that Paul was an Apostle to the Gentiles. The Jewish churches would be well acquainted with such a practice as Paul eloquently demonstrated. The point I wish for the reader to consider is not so much that Paul gave up his rights, which is commendable, but that it is God’s command as spoken in the Old Testament and understood spiritually that should not be overlooked. We as believers should not be afraid of the Law. For it has no power to condemn those in Christ. However, those who live their life as the Law warns should not presume they are in Christ. Why? Because the natural man does not submit to God’s Law. But! But you are not natural but spiritual, if the Holy Spirit is in you. And since the Law is spiritual, and you are spiritual, and you are to judge all things spiritually, doesn’t it make sense that the Law just might be a good place to learn a few things concerning faith and practice? So for Paul it was good for him to not take up a charge against the church in this setting. This does not mean that it is at all times or at any time a good work for congregants to not pay their ministers. Remember, it is a command to pay them. How liberating God’s Law is to those who have his Spirit. We mustn’t continue to look at the Law as natural men, seeing nothing useful of it but condemnation, after having the Spirit of God born in us. Such an attitude misses so much God desires to teach.

Peter Ditzel’s Article: http://www.wordofhisgrace.org/wp/under-law-of-christ/