Chapter 20 - Return to Law for the Eternal Church
The well-intentioned believer, ignorant of his release from the law, often chooses to return to the rule of law. To his flesh, it can appear familiar, comfortable, and even somewhat empowering. However, any apparent benefit is short-lived.
The rule of law (law of sin and of death) cannot satisfy man’s fundamental need for life (zoe) (Romans 7:10; Galatians 3:21). It can only accomplish the function for which it was designed; to produce accountability to God by the revelation of sin.
The rule of law (law of sin and of death) cannot satisfy man’s fundamental need for life (zoe) (Romans 7:10; Galatians 3:21). It can only accomplish the function for which it was designed; to produce accountability to God by the revelation of sin.
Return to Law?
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored the foundational teaching of the Bible. He is demonstrating fundamental ignorance of the Gospel of grace.
In addition, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored the historic testimony of Scripture. It reveals mankind’s complete inability to obey the rule of law.
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has also ignored the biblical purpose of the law, its strict requirement, and the powerlessness of his sin weakened flesh. Instead, he has chosen to believe that his flesh is capable of perfect obedience to the rule of law.
Further, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has not recognized that law cannot produce intimacy with God. Therefore, he demonstrates a lack of awareness regarding the gracious rule of life (zoe) and intimacy of fellowship with God.
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law must also ignore the personal testimony of the “Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (zoe) (Romans 8:2, 16). The indwelling Spirit provides consistent testimony of the believer's status as a child of God under the gracious intimacy of the rule of indwelling life (zoe) (Romans 8:3-16).
Moreover, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored one of the most common schemes of the devil. He has believed the lie that the righteousness of Christ has not been imputed to the church and, therefore, it remains in bondage to the rule of law. As a result, the believer’s daily walk is not characterized by the intimacy and incomparable power of shared life but the deadness of religious devotion.
Too often, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has valued theological presupposition over Scriptural truth. Therefore, rather than depending on the Spirit of God to provide interpretation, he relies on his own personal understanding (John 7:37-39; 14:16-17; 26; 15:26; Romans 8:26; 1 John 2:27).
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law must not only choose to ignore all of the aforementioned evidence but also his personal history. The personal history of every believer provides a clear record of transgression both before and after salvation.
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored the foundational teaching of the Bible. He is demonstrating fundamental ignorance of the Gospel of grace.
In addition, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored the historic testimony of Scripture. It reveals mankind’s complete inability to obey the rule of law.
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has also ignored the biblical purpose of the law, its strict requirement, and the powerlessness of his sin weakened flesh. Instead, he has chosen to believe that his flesh is capable of perfect obedience to the rule of law.
Further, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has not recognized that law cannot produce intimacy with God. Therefore, he demonstrates a lack of awareness regarding the gracious rule of life (zoe) and intimacy of fellowship with God.
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law must also ignore the personal testimony of the “Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (zoe) (Romans 8:2, 16). The indwelling Spirit provides consistent testimony of the believer's status as a child of God under the gracious intimacy of the rule of indwelling life (zoe) (Romans 8:3-16).
Moreover, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has ignored one of the most common schemes of the devil. He has believed the lie that the righteousness of Christ has not been imputed to the church and, therefore, it remains in bondage to the rule of law. As a result, the believer’s daily walk is not characterized by the intimacy and incomparable power of shared life but the deadness of religious devotion.
Too often, the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law has valued theological presupposition over Scriptural truth. Therefore, rather than depending on the Spirit of God to provide interpretation, he relies on his own personal understanding (John 7:37-39; 14:16-17; 26; 15:26; Romans 8:26; 1 John 2:27).
The believer that chooses to return to the rule of law must not only choose to ignore all of the aforementioned evidence but also his personal history. The personal history of every believer provides a clear record of transgression both before and after salvation.
Law School
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Regardless of why the believer chooses to return to the rule of law, he is predestined to fail. However, his failure is not without purpose in the plan of God. Some have referred to the failure and how God can use it for good in the believer's life as “law school.”
The Apostle Paul provided personal insight into the privilege and pain of “law school” (Romans 7:14-25). As indicated, Paul’s early Christian life was characterized by the attempted fulfillment of the requirement of the rule of law. Unfortunately, he was ignorant of Christ’s perfect fulfillment of its righteous requirement. Thus, he continually subjected himself to the rule of law from which he had been graciously released (Romans 7:1-25).
Although Paul believed that the rule of law (law of sin and of death) would allow him to “bear fruit for God,” he soon discovered that it would only allow him to bear “fruit for death” (Romans 7:4-5). “…this commandment, which [I thought] was to result in life (zoe), proved to result in death for me” (Romans 7:10).
Paul’s spiritual fruitlessness was not related to a lack of willingness. While he was indeed willing to obey the rule of law, he discovered that the presence of his sin weakened flesh served to compromise his effort. “For we know that the [rule of] law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to [my fallen nature]. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the [rule of] law, confessing that the [rule of] law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but [my fallen nature] which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but [my fallen nature] which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Romans 7:14-21). Concerning his return to the rule of law and his subsequent failure to obey, the Apostle Paul concluded, “Wretched (miserable) man that I am!” (Romans 7:24)
“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28).
Regardless of why the believer chooses to return to the rule of law, he is predestined to fail. However, his failure is not without purpose in the plan of God. Some have referred to the failure and how God can use it for good in the believer's life as “law school.”
The Apostle Paul provided personal insight into the privilege and pain of “law school” (Romans 7:14-25). As indicated, Paul’s early Christian life was characterized by the attempted fulfillment of the requirement of the rule of law. Unfortunately, he was ignorant of Christ’s perfect fulfillment of its righteous requirement. Thus, he continually subjected himself to the rule of law from which he had been graciously released (Romans 7:1-25).
Although Paul believed that the rule of law (law of sin and of death) would allow him to “bear fruit for God,” he soon discovered that it would only allow him to bear “fruit for death” (Romans 7:4-5). “…this commandment, which [I thought] was to result in life (zoe), proved to result in death for me” (Romans 7:10).
Paul’s spiritual fruitlessness was not related to a lack of willingness. While he was indeed willing to obey the rule of law, he discovered that the presence of his sin weakened flesh served to compromise his effort. “For we know that the [rule of] law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to [my fallen nature]. For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the [rule of] law, confessing that the [rule of] law is good. So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but [my fallen nature] which dwells in me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but [my fallen nature] which dwells in me. I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good” (Romans 7:14-21). Concerning his return to the rule of law and his subsequent failure to obey, the Apostle Paul concluded, “Wretched (miserable) man that I am!” (Romans 7:24)
Wretchedness
God did not allow Paul to “graduate” from “law school” until it had served its purpose. It was intended to reveal the impossibility of fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law by human effort.
Weakened by his sinful flesh, Paul’s unsuccessful attempts to obey the rule of law led only to the wretchedness or misery of condemnation (cf. Romans 8:1). It was caused by an unending cycle of dead works and the consequent guilt of failure to perform according to the divine standard of perfection.
Returning to the rule of law leads to wretchedness or misery for the believer because it turns his attention from the Savior. Rather than the grace and glory of Jesus Christ, the legalistic believer is focused on duty, debt, and death.
The rule of law or the “law of sin and of death” demands performance. It condemns poor performance and rewards good performance. Therefore, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes performance or duty (cf. Romans 7:14-25). He is consumed with how to please God through personal effort rather than resting in the complete acceptance available in Christ. Instead of enjoying the glorious intimacy and fruitfulness of walking with God under the gracious rule of His indwelling life (zoe), he has chosen to subject himself to a walk characterized by performance for God.
In addition, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes debt. He lives as though the debt of his transgression has not been paid in full by Jesus Christ (cf. Colossians 2:14). Mistakenly thinking that he must pay what Christ apparently did not, the legalistic believer is consumed with working for God.
Further, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes death. According to the Apostle Paul, the rule of law is a ministry of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7, 9). It was designed to reveal the sinful, fallen nature of man that is dead to God, “hostile” toward Him” and not pleasing to Him (cf. Romans 8:7-8).
The legalistic believer emphasizes the religion of duty, debt, and death in his daily walk. Although gloriously chosen before the foundation of the world to be representational of divine life (zoe), he serves as little more than a failed representative of divine law. Consequently, he is not characterized by the joy of the Lord.
God did not allow Paul to “graduate” from “law school” until it had served its purpose. It was intended to reveal the impossibility of fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law by human effort.
Weakened by his sinful flesh, Paul’s unsuccessful attempts to obey the rule of law led only to the wretchedness or misery of condemnation (cf. Romans 8:1). It was caused by an unending cycle of dead works and the consequent guilt of failure to perform according to the divine standard of perfection.
Returning to the rule of law leads to wretchedness or misery for the believer because it turns his attention from the Savior. Rather than the grace and glory of Jesus Christ, the legalistic believer is focused on duty, debt, and death.
The rule of law or the “law of sin and of death” demands performance. It condemns poor performance and rewards good performance. Therefore, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes performance or duty (cf. Romans 7:14-25). He is consumed with how to please God through personal effort rather than resting in the complete acceptance available in Christ. Instead of enjoying the glorious intimacy and fruitfulness of walking with God under the gracious rule of His indwelling life (zoe), he has chosen to subject himself to a walk characterized by performance for God.
In addition, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes debt. He lives as though the debt of his transgression has not been paid in full by Jesus Christ (cf. Colossians 2:14). Mistakenly thinking that he must pay what Christ apparently did not, the legalistic believer is consumed with working for God.
Further, the daily walk of the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law emphasizes death. According to the Apostle Paul, the rule of law is a ministry of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7, 9). It was designed to reveal the sinful, fallen nature of man that is dead to God, “hostile” toward Him” and not pleasing to Him (cf. Romans 8:7-8).
The legalistic believer emphasizes the religion of duty, debt, and death in his daily walk. Although gloriously chosen before the foundation of the world to be representational of divine life (zoe), he serves as little more than a failed representative of divine law. Consequently, he is not characterized by the joy of the Lord.
Confession of Sins
Not understanding the biblical remedy for sin or the transgression of divine law, the believer who chooses to return to the rule of law often attempts to assuage the misery of duty, debt, and death through the confession of sins. However, it is a practice that is not only in disagreement with biblical teaching, but it is ineffectual for combating fleshly disobedience (cf. Colossians 2:23).
The confession of sins as a remedy for the transgression of the law is unbiblical. Nevertheless, it is a widespread practice derived almost exclusively from the writing of the Apostle John. He stated, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). First, it is important to note that John’s statement was not prescriptive for the believer. Therefore, the implication that the believer should confess his sins as a remedy for law-breaking is errant. It requires that John’s statement be removed from its immediate context and twisted to fit the ignorance of theological presupposition.
The Apostle John did not prescribe the confession of sins as a remedy for legal failure but to warn his Christian brethren about the false teaching of the Gnostics (1 John 1:5-10). Like most other unbelievers, the Gnostics believed that they were without sin (1 John 1:8). Thus, John’s correction in verse 9 was prescriptive for the Gnostics. However, it was also applicable to unbelievers in general.
Rather than sinless, the Gnostics were indeed sinful. Their immediate need was not to confess their sins to enhance their intimacy of fellowship with God. Instead, John exhorted the Gnostics to confess their sins unto salvation. Consequently, he promised that God would forgive their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. The unrighteousness from which they needed to be cleansed was derived from their obvious transgression of the rule of law. John clarified, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).
Not until 1 John chapter 2 did the Apostle John move beyond his warning about Gnosticism to discuss the believer’s walk with God. In contrast to 1:5-10, he said in 2:1-2, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world”. Thus, John taught the brethren that they should not commit acts of sin. If they did, however, he explained that God had a specific remedy. It was not inclusive of the confession of sins.
The Apostle John wanted his brethren to understand that Jesus Christ is the remedy of God for the transgression of His law. Therefore, he explained to his brethren in the Lord (“My little children”) that they had an “advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account are believers made righteous according to divine law. Therefore, the believer's righteousness is not achieved by the confession of sins but faith in the person and gracious work of God in Christ alone.
Forgiveness of sin committed by the believer is not received through confession of sins (emphasis on the plural) but by faith alone in the unfailing advocacy of Christ. While the believer cannot trust in the uncertainty of personal confession, he can confidently trust in Jesus as his unconditional “Advocate with the Father.” The imputation of His perfect righteousness and its continued advocacy is the believer’s only remedy for sin.
The writings of the Apostle Paul are directly applicable to the New Testament church. However, he never mentions the confession of sins as a remedy for the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law.
Paul’s “law school” experience did not lead him to the confession of sins but a walk of faith in the advocacy of the Savior. Thus, the rule of law (law of sin and of death) fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. It led Paul to dependence on Christ.
Through his “law school” experience, Paul was privileged to understand the clear distinction between law and life (zoe). As a result, he joyfully proclaimed, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25)
Not understanding the biblical remedy for sin or the transgression of divine law, the believer who chooses to return to the rule of law often attempts to assuage the misery of duty, debt, and death through the confession of sins. However, it is a practice that is not only in disagreement with biblical teaching, but it is ineffectual for combating fleshly disobedience (cf. Colossians 2:23).
The confession of sins as a remedy for the transgression of the law is unbiblical. Nevertheless, it is a widespread practice derived almost exclusively from the writing of the Apostle John. He stated, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). First, it is important to note that John’s statement was not prescriptive for the believer. Therefore, the implication that the believer should confess his sins as a remedy for law-breaking is errant. It requires that John’s statement be removed from its immediate context and twisted to fit the ignorance of theological presupposition.
The Apostle John did not prescribe the confession of sins as a remedy for legal failure but to warn his Christian brethren about the false teaching of the Gnostics (1 John 1:5-10). Like most other unbelievers, the Gnostics believed that they were without sin (1 John 1:8). Thus, John’s correction in verse 9 was prescriptive for the Gnostics. However, it was also applicable to unbelievers in general.
Rather than sinless, the Gnostics were indeed sinful. Their immediate need was not to confess their sins to enhance their intimacy of fellowship with God. Instead, John exhorted the Gnostics to confess their sins unto salvation. Consequently, he promised that God would forgive their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. The unrighteousness from which they needed to be cleansed was derived from their obvious transgression of the rule of law. John clarified, “If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:10).
Not until 1 John chapter 2 did the Apostle John move beyond his warning about Gnosticism to discuss the believer’s walk with God. In contrast to 1:5-10, he said in 2:1-2, “My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world”. Thus, John taught the brethren that they should not commit acts of sin. If they did, however, he explained that God had a specific remedy. It was not inclusive of the confession of sins.
The Apostle John wanted his brethren to understand that Jesus Christ is the remedy of God for the transgression of His law. Therefore, he explained to his brethren in the Lord (“My little children”) that they had an “advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” Only by the righteousness of Christ imputed to their account are believers made righteous according to divine law. Therefore, the believer's righteousness is not achieved by the confession of sins but faith in the person and gracious work of God in Christ alone.
Forgiveness of sin committed by the believer is not received through confession of sins (emphasis on the plural) but by faith alone in the unfailing advocacy of Christ. While the believer cannot trust in the uncertainty of personal confession, he can confidently trust in Jesus as his unconditional “Advocate with the Father.” The imputation of His perfect righteousness and its continued advocacy is the believer’s only remedy for sin.
The writings of the Apostle Paul are directly applicable to the New Testament church. However, he never mentions the confession of sins as a remedy for the believer that chooses to return to the rule of law.
Paul’s “law school” experience did not lead him to the confession of sins but a walk of faith in the advocacy of the Savior. Thus, the rule of law (law of sin and of death) fulfilled the purpose for which it was intended. It led Paul to dependence on Christ.
Through his “law school” experience, Paul was privileged to understand the clear distinction between law and life (zoe). As a result, he joyfully proclaimed, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25)
Jesus Christ is life (zoe) (John 1:4; 5:26; 6:34-35, 48, 51, 53; 11:25; 14:6; 1 John 1:1-2; 5:11-12; 20). “In Him was life (zoe), and the life (zoe) was the Light of men” (John 1:4).
Choosing to return to the rule of law (law of sin and of death) cannot lead the believer to the true substance and sustenance of eternal life (zoe). On the contrary, it can only accomplish the function for which it was designed, producing accountability to God by the revelation of sin. Thus, the believer's walk under the rule of law does not emphasize the glory of life (zoe) but only the misery of duty, debt, and death.
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life (zoe); it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life (zoe)” (John 5:39-40).
© 2018 James Hiatt
Choosing to return to the rule of law (law of sin and of death) cannot lead the believer to the true substance and sustenance of eternal life (zoe). On the contrary, it can only accomplish the function for which it was designed, producing accountability to God by the revelation of sin. Thus, the believer's walk under the rule of law does not emphasize the glory of life (zoe) but only the misery of duty, debt, and death.
“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life (zoe); it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life (zoe)” (John 5:39-40).
© 2018 James Hiatt
