Chapter # 10 Paragraph # 2 Study # 1
July 8, 2018
Humble, Texas
(Download Audio)
<057>
Thesis: Paul's view of Moses' declaration of the foundations of life being "the performance of the dictates of Law" was that there was no such thing.
Introduction: In our last study we considered the ramifications of Paul's insistence that Christ is the end of Law for everyone who believes. The points that he was making are two: first, that the Jewish determination to establish their own righteousness was, in fact, a rebellion against the righteousness of God; and, second, that the righteousness of God, achieved in perfection by Jesus Christ, is the privileged possession of everyone whose faith in the Gospel has "settled" into its place as a "governor" of "hope".
This second point, that the righteousness of God is a grace-gift to everyone who believes, is rooted in the absolute fact that "believing" has its root identity in an active dependence upon God to act. "Faith" is actively anticipating God's action(s) to bring about the fulfillment of His own commitments to those who will cease to resist the most obvious fact about "faith": that it is the responsibility of the one making promises to fulfill them for those who entrust themselves to them. This is no small matter seeing that there are few who do not try to take the promises of God into their own hands.
Now, in this study we are going to look into why Paul was so determinedly insistent that Christ is the end of Law to those who believe. His determination was rooted in what he considered a non-negotiable fact: Law is deadly for everyone who has any residual remnant of the Adamic heritage within them, body, soul, or spirit. He said this in Romans 7:14 (in the context of the question of 7:7).
- I. Paul's "Interpretation" of Moses.
- A. Paul declares that Moses "is writing the righteousness which is out of Law" in respect to Leviticus 18:5.
- 1. It is important for us to recognize a basic fact about this quote: Moses does not even mention "righteousness out of Law" with his words.
- a. The words of Moses are the words of Yahweh, Himself (Leviticus 18:1).
- b. The words are words of demand for a certain kind of performance (Leviticus 18:2-4).
- c. The words contain a conditional commitment from God: "...if a man do them, he shall live...".
- 2. It, thus, becomes a fact that Paul was declaring an apostolic, inspired, interpretation of the words: that it was not only about "living", but was also about the foundations of "living".
- a. According to Paul's interpretation, the issue is about whether, or not, God would impart "life" to men.
- b. And this decision on God's part was going to be rooted in Justice.
- c. This means that "life" requires "justification" as a preliminary, and absolute, requirement.
- d. Thus, Paul was simply going to the bottom line: "life" would be given to those who were declared righteous by God and that declaration would be rooted in God's evaluation of the obedience of the children of Israel.
- 1) No "obedience", no "justification".
- 2) No "justification", no "life".
- 3) Thus, no "obedience", no "life" unless there was to be another basis for the extension of "life" to men.
- a) This "other basis" was given in the context of Nehemiah 9:28.
- b) This context quotes Leviticus 18:5 but is replete with a litany of failures on the part of the children of Israel (Israel "dealt proudly...hearkened not...sinned against...withdrew the shoulder...hardened their neck, and would not hear").
- c) Thus, the word "compassion" shows up in Nehemiah 9:28 and 31.
- 4) This text/context makes it as plain as can be that "life" can only come if "Justice" is met by a compassionate provision that is made in spite of the total failure of the performance of the people in regard to Law.
- B. Paul is making his point regarding Israel's rebellion against the righteousness of God.
- 1. Israel was going about to try to obtain "life" through obedience, but was making a complete mess of it (John 5:39-40).
- 2. Paul's use of Moses' words simply doubles down on Israel in his rebellion.
- II. Paul's "Complication" of His Use of Moses.
- A. In the earlier context of Romans 3:20, Paul flatly declared that no flesh would be justified by Law because 3:23 argues that all have sinned.
- B. James 2:10 makes the argument that it only takes one sin to corrupt the entire Law, making "justification by Law" absolutely impossible.
- C. So how is it that Paul claimed of himself that he was "blameless" in regard to the righteousness of Law in Philippians 3:6?
- 1. To properly understand this text, one must be clear on what Paul was addressing: some man's personal opinion of his own qualifications to "trust in flesh" (Philippians 3:4). This assumes all of the misguided "opinions" that are rooted in the pride of accomplishment.
- 2. This also assumes a uniquely "human" perspective that is completely absent the truth as God knows it to be as revealed by his earlier characterization of the true "circumcision" as those who "have no confidence in the flesh" (Philippians 3:3).
- 3. This also assumes the inevitable human arrogance that arises from "comparing ourselves among ourselves" ("If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more...": Philippians 3:4), which behavior Paul denounces as "not wise" (2 Corinthians 10:12).
- 4. This, therefore, has to mean that "blameless" is a term that only a fool applies to himself when he is indulging in self-righteousness through a competitive contrast of himself with regard to others.
- D. Conclusion: there is no real complication.