|
Romans 3:20-22
The book of Romans contains some of nominal Christianity's favorite lines. Nominal Christianity really belts out those parts of the book. During other parts, though, where the lyrics are not as familiar, it hums and does a little head-nodding to get through those lines until it returns to familiar lyrics, at which point it sings with gusto once again. Yet, if nominal Christianity really grasped the song's meaning, it would sing a different tune. Like a song by a skilled musician, some lines are memorable, but their full meaning comes from their place in the overall work. One stanza does not make a song. While Peter's caution extends to all of Paul's writings (II Peter 3:14-18), it is common within nominal Christianity to use select verses in Romans to support the idea that God's law has been “done away”—or at least certain parts. Indeed, hardly anyone argues that idolatry, adultery, or murder are acceptable since Christ died for our sins. Charges of legalism are rarely laid when considering most of the Ten Commandments. For example, when men and women consistently uphold their marriage vows, we call them “faithful” or “committed.” When a man is careful about honesty, we consider him “trustworthy”—and wish there were more like him! However, when the fourth commandment is under discussion, the tune changes. The seventh-day Sabbath—which Jesus and the apostles clearly kept—quickly brings out the hostility to God's law in the carnal mind (Romans 8:7), which often uses various verses in Romans to defend breaking it. Further, the carnal-minded frequently call those who keep the fourth commandment “legalistic” or “Pharisaical” or accuse them of trying to earn salvation. These allegations are never made about the other nine commandments. Why the double standard? Due to how Paul arranges the material in Romans, he sometimes appears to contradict himself. Yet, such is not the case because God's Word cannot be broken (John 10:35). What he does is explore one side of the issue in one passage, then in the following passage, he switches to another side of the issue and explains it before returning to the first side. But what commonly happens with the untaught and unstable (II Peter 3:16) mirrors what we experience when singing a song we do not know well. Nominal Christianity will jubilantly belt out those sections that sound as if Paul says the law is done away (Romans 3:28; 4:2-3; 5:1-2), but when the apostle changes keys and upholds God's law, it hums and mumbles and looks around uncomfortably. Later, when the lyrics sound like they might indicate it can ignore the fourth commandment, nominal Christianity cranks up the volume and resumes singing. It lasts until Paul again upholds God's law (Romans 2:12-13; 6:1-2; 7:12), at which point worldly Christianity gets quiet and fidgety, waiting for the next line that sounds like he asserts that God's law no longer applies. Peter was right to say some things Paul wrote are hard to understand! Despite some considering it to be so, the apostle who wrote so much New Testament theology is not contradicting himself. On the contrary, all he writes is true; otherwise, God would not have included it in His Word. However, such things as timing, context, and purpose, among others, are critical factors in properly understanding Paul's arguments and explanations, aspects that many misunderstand or miss altogether.
David C. Grabbe
How Does Faith Establish the Law? (Part One)
|
