What is the meaning of Romans 6:15: "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace?" Is being under law speaking simply of the rules, such as the 10 Commandments? This is obviously not so. In Matthew 5 Jesus actually expands on some of those laws. He also said; "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven" (vs. 19). Is it simply changing our focus to the great law of love? Well, no, that doesn't seem to be the case either. In pointing out things the Gentile believers should comply with, in Acts 15:20, the church leaders enumerate four: things polluted by idols, sexual immorality, things strangled and blood. So it does not appear that all rules were simply set aside (Rm 3:31) or that only those directly relating to love remain valid.
So what does, "we are not under law but under grace" mean? The significance of this is often missed. Many Christians, in speaking to this issue, refer to the covenants of law and grace. This is appropriate (Gal 4:21-26). However, we often fail to see the implications of what that means. We limit the meaning of the covenants simply to two methods of salvation rather than taking them to their logical end.
The covenants do indeed speak of two methods of salvation, works and faith, but it goes beyond that. They deal with very practical psycho/spiritual issues. The covenants of law and grace are two methods of relating to moral law. The covenant of law establishes the authority of God and the law, empowering our conscience, thereby placing us under law. However it does not give us the power to truly comply with that law. The new covenant of grace empowers us to truly obey.
In defining that law we must avoid sinking into moral relativism, holding that some of the commandments apply only to the Jews. Indeed, we are released from those things tied specifically to the ceremonial law, (see below) but the moral law, as in the 10 commandments, must be upheld or we end up diminishing the authority of law, the foundation upon which grace stands.
The issue can be simplified if we look at the 10 commandments. As stated in Exodus 20 they involve aspects of both the old and new covenant. Therein lies the potential for confusion. Both covenants are methods of relating to moral law. It is simply the hard line legal atmosphere of commands, in the context of judgment that is eliminated in the new covenant (Heb 12:18-24, II Cor 3:16). The truth of the commandments is unaffected.
That it is not the rules, truth, or law, that creates the experience of being under law, should be clear as we look at the following texts. "Do we then make void the law through Faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law" (Rm 3:31). "If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you do well; … For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty" (Jas 2:8-13). "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Rm 7:12). "What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not!" (Rm 7:15). And how do we define sin? "Sin is lawlessness" (I Jn 3:4). Either God is confused, or under law refers to something besides simply accepting the validity of laws or rules.
Not being under law refers to our relationship
to it, not its validity. If we do not accept this perspective, so much of what
is written about law becomes confusing. We end up saying the law, or at least
some of the law, is set aside, while at the same time we seek to uphold its
authority. This attitude toward our moral responsibility then insidiously permeates
our thinking.
Were there laws that were set aside? Yes there were. "Having abolished
in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances"
(Eph 2:15). "Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was
against us" (Col 2:14). Here we need to make a distinction between the
Laws of Moses and the 10 commandment, moral law. Does the Bible lend itself
to that perspective? Absolutely! The 10 commandments were written by the finger
of God (Ex 31:18) on tables of stone. The ceremonial law, also called the "book
of the law" (Deut 31:26), was written by Moses hand (Deut 31:9). The 10
commandments were in the Ark of the Covenant (implying that they should be internalized)
while the ceremonial law was placed on the outside (Deut 31:26) (indicating
that they were imposed in a civil manner, not as intrinsic moral issues). The
ceremonial law was the structure for the theocracy of Israel. It was not moral
law, but rules to support the nation. Many of them are not bad ideas, they are
simply no longer binding for the Christian.
I would like to expand a little more on Ephesians 2:15 (see above) for many use it as a basis for setting aside the law. The key word here is ordinances, and the key to that is the statement at the end of that verse "so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace". Who are the two that he is referring to here? "Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh - who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision" (vs. 11). This is the circumcision issue again and it refers to the ceremonial laws, or ordinances, of which circumcision was the most important to the Jews. It had become a dividing issue between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul points out that it was abolished at the cross. This could not refer to the moral law or the cross would also abolish the injunction against stealing and adultery, thus making them an acceptable practice in the church.
Why must this be so? The Bible does not contradict itself. All the verses that hold to the validity and appropriateness of law are not contradicted by one verse. When there appears to be a contradiction we must look for that which eliminates the apparent conflict. We should not simply talk out of both sides of our mouth.
The law is not the source of legalism. Law is simply a vehicle used by legalism. It is our legally functioning moral make up that creates legalism out of law. Admittedly the Bible taps into that, in the old covenant, to restrain evil and impress upon us our moral obligation (I Tim 1:9). However, it is also a foundation upon which grace itself depends.
Our society is rapidly being converted to moral relativism.
"Do your own thing" is preached as its gospel. Many churches have
unwittingly joined this number. It is time we accepted the implications of our
schizoid attitude toward moral law.
Copyright Patrick Fagenstrom, 10/03: edited 12/05