Love is the Fullfilling of the Law |
by David A. DePra |
| Paul the apostle was accused of many things during his |
| ministry. But no one could accuse him of being a hypocrite. If |
| Paul believed something was the Truth, then he dedicated |
| himself to it fully -- right or wrong. Before his conversion he |
| excelled above his peers in the traditions of the fathers. He |
| poured out his life in the study of the law, Pharisaism, and then, |
| in the persecution of the church. After his conversion, he fully |
| dedicated himself to Jesus Christ. He meant what he said, and |
| said what he meant. There was no duplicity in the apostle Paul. |
| It is remarkable, from perspective of natural thinking, that God |
| used Paul as He did. No one whom God ever used had been |
| more bound to legalism. Yet God used him as His chief |
| instrument to reveal the gospel of GRACE. God showed through |
| Paul that a person can, in Jesus Christ, be set free from all past |
| patterns. And He showed that the change which comes from |
| seeing the Truth can put a man at complete odds with what he |
| used to believe. |
| Paul's legalistic life before conversion might, to some people, |
| have disqualified him as an apostle afterwards -- especially as |
| an apostle who would preach freedom from the law. Some |
| individuals, upon reviewing his history, might have said, "This |
| man Paul teaches freedom from the law because he is reacting |
| to his old beliefs -- going to the opposite extreme. He has |
| become so tired of law that he now preaches against it. His |
| history proves he is not balanced enough to be an apostle." |
| Natural thinking cannot understand the ways of God. And |
| certainly if we seek to discredit any man because of the path he |
| has taken to find the Truth, we must discredit Paul. We are to |
| believe the Truth because it IS the Truth. Not because it is |
| coming through someone whose history, or path to Truth, |
| appeals to us. |
| In Paul we see a good example of how God may prepare a |
| man. In order to condition Paul's heart for the Truth, we might |
| have expected Paul's life before conversion to be filled with |
| grace. But we find exactly the opposite was the case. It was filled |
| with legalism. In order for Paul to truly grasp the Truth of grace, |
| God had to let him fully experience the futility of legalism. |
| God often does this with His people. He will allow us to utterly |
| exhaust ourselves along some religious or legalistic line. It may |
| take years for the process to run it's course. But because these |
| patterns are in us, that is, we are in bondage to them, we will only |
| get free if it is demonstrated that they cannot give us life. Then, |
| and often only then, will we be depleted and reduced enough to |
| be free of the bondage and receive the Truth. |
| Notice the key here. The issue of freedom is not a matter of |
| simply discovering "the right doctrine." It isn't a matter of merely |
| adjusting my belief system. It is a matter of issues being |
| resolved in ME. It is in MY heart and in MY character that the |
| keys to freedom reside. God starts there, not merely in some |
| external way. |
The Issue of Circumcision |
| So God called Saul, the Pharisee, and he became Paul, the |
| apostle. Saul, who persecuted the church as a Pharisee, had |
| become Paul, the persecuted. |
| Yet here is where some irony comes in. Paul is never said |
| to be persecuted by the Pharisees -- his former friends and |
| acquaintences. Rather, he was persecuted by those who called |
| themselves Christians. |
| The raging debate of Paul's day was the place of Moses' law in |
| the life of the Christian. The debate really hasn't changed all that |
| much in two thousand years. But the difference is that we have a |
| dissimiliar starting place today. Today most of us aren't Jews |
| whose entire lives have been immersed in OT practices and |
| law-keeping. We don't have to come out of that. Rather, we |
| have to keep from getting into it. Neither are we pagan Gentiles |
| in the conventional sense of the word. Most of us have grown up |
| in a Christian society. We have all heard the gospel to one |
| degree or another. Thus, when Paul writes about issues having |
| to do with the religious climate of his time, we might be apt to |
| think his teaching does not apply to us. But it does. It ALWAYS |
| does. God didn't waste any space in His Word. It always has an |
| application to us today. |
| One of the central points of contention surrounding Paul was |
| circumcision. Read the epistles and you sometimes get the |
| impression that it's all people wanted to argue about. Why? |
| Nobody even talks about it today. Why was it such a big deal |
| then? |
| The modern Christian can scarcely grasp the significance of |
| the issue of circumcision in Paul's day. It was not a "side-issue" |
| among God°s people in the days of Paul -- it was THE issue. |
| Going back to the OT tells us why. Circumcision was not merely |
| part of the Old Covenant. It was THE physical sign of the Old |
| Covenant. Get that. It was THE sign: |
| This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you, |
| and your seed after you: Every man child among you shall be |
| circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin. |
| And it shall be a token of the covenant between Me and you. |
| (Gen. 17:10-11) |
| To be circumcised meant you were identified as one of the |
| people of God. This entitled you to many rights before Him. |
| You were under all of the Old Covenant which God gave Israel. |
| In effect, circumcision and the Old Covenant were inseparable. |
| You could not be part of the Old Covenant unless you were |
| circumcised. |
| Now imagine Paul coming along and saying, "Neither |
| circumcision nor uncircumcision availeth anything, but a new |
| creation." (Gal. 6:15) This would not have been a problem for |
| the Galatians, or for the other Gentiles Paul taught. But it would |
| have been a huge obsticle for some of the other teachers in the |
| church of that day. They simply could not accept the fact that |
| the Old Covenant was finished. |
| These Paul sometimes referred to as "Judizers." These were |
| those who taught you must be "under the law," and must keep all |
| of the law of Moses to be saved. They tried to create a |
| Christianity which was a mixture of the Jewish religion of the Old |
| Testament, and the Truth found in Christ. Paul did not minch |
| words with them. He said, "You can't do that. It's all Jesus |
| Christ. It's all grace. You must leave the rest behind." |
| Thus, we have Paul's proclaimation, "Neither circumcision nor |
| uncircumcision availeth anything, but a new creation." (Gal. |
| 6:15) It was a unthinkable concept for those who insisted |
| otherwise. |
The Other Side of the Story |
| It is important, however, to catch BOTH sides of what Paul is |
| saying. He is clearly saying, first of all, that circumcision is NOT |
| necessary. It means absolutely nothing in the eyes of God if you |
| are circumcised. Rather, God looks at the heart. God has made |
| a new creation. He desires "faith working through love." But |
| notice what else Paul is saying: UNcircumcision doesn't matter |
| either. Just as being circumcised does nothing for a person |
| spiritually, so does being UNcircumcised do nothing. Being |
| UNcircumcised makes you no more special in the eyes of God |
| than being circumcised makes you special. |
| Some Christians in Paul's day considered themselves special |
| because they were circumcised. They were, in their own eyes, |
| "the special ones." But there were also those who considered |
| themselves special because they were NOT circumcised. They |
| thought themselves "special" because they "weren't deceived by |
| this circumcision business." Paul is saying neither condition |
| means anything in the eyes of God. |
| We see in the teaching of Paul a spiritual Truth. It is indeed an |
| error to believe that doing a certain thing gets you closer to God. |
| But it is just as big an error to believe that NOT doing a certain |
| thing gets you closer. In the former case, the law or principle you |
| keep is your "claim to fame." But in the latter, the law or principle |
| you refuse is your "claim to fame." Paul says, "Neither is to your |
| merit. Jesus is your claim to fame." |
| The fact is, if I am refusing to keep a law or principle, and |
| exhalting myself because of my refusal, I am under the law just |
| as much as if I exhalt myself because I DO keep it. How so? |
| Because I have created a NEW LAW which I am using to |
| establish myself before God: The law of refusing to keep laws. I |
| use this refusal to establish my own righteousness, instead of |
| relying solely upon Jesus Christ. |
| There have always been legalists -- those who will tell you |
| that you must do such and such in order to be saved. But there |
| have also been others who go to the opposite extreme. They |
| oppose everything. Their lives are wrapped up in pointing our |
| what is wrong with everyone else. They refuse to be a part of |
| anything in the Body of Christ -- and use this refusal to call |
| themselves "free." |
| Now notice: It isn't being a part of things, or not being a part |
| of things, that is the issue here. It is the fact I am using either |
| stance as a means of establishing myself before God. If I am |
| doing so from either end of the spectrum, I am "under the law." I |
| am NOT free. My faith is NOT solely in Jesus Christ. |
| To these, Paul would say, "The only means of freedom is |
| through faith in Jesus Christ. Then you will be truly free. You will |
| be free to do, or not do, according to God's will for you. But your |
| your freedom won't come from what you are doing or not doing. |
| It will come from where you place your faith." |
| So we see this Truth: What I do, or don't do, isn't what makes |
| me free. I am free in Jesus Christ alone. But if I am free, then I |
| can do, or not do, and it won't hurt me. I can discern and obey |
| the will of God in any matter and remain free. |
Paul's Example |
| Paul's stand for true freedom in Christ is the theme of his |
| letters to the churches. In the book of Galatians, for instance, |
| Paul not only gives teaching on this subject, but relates an |
| instance where he publically opposed Peter on the issue. Peter |
| had apparently been eating with the Gentiles. He, as did Paul, |
| knew that circumcision meant nothing, and that God had called |
| Jews and Gentiles alike. But when influencial Jewish Christians |
| arrived on the scene, Peter withdrew himself from eating with the |
| Gentiles. He was afraid of how the Jews would react if they saw |
| him. He wanted their approval and feared their criticism. It was a |
| clear cut case of misrepresenting the Truth. Paul publically |
| rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy because of the danger that it |
| would lead others astray. |
| Through this incident with Peter, as well as others related in |
| the book of Acts, we find that Paul was not ashamed of the |
| gospel. He gave no apology for it. He stood for freedom in |
| Christ at all costs. Yet in Acts 16 we find an interesting situation |
| -- one which might make us question Paul's committment. |
| Notice: Paul had just disputed, in Acts 15:1, with those who |
| claimed circumcision was a requirement for salvation. Yet in Acts |
| 16:3, we find Paul circumcising Timothy -- "because of the |
| Jews." Had Paul given into the same pressure that had briefly |
| overcome Peter? How could Paul argue that circumcision was |
| unnecessary, and then one chapter later, circumcise Timothy |
| "because of the Jews?" |
| Paul had reasons for doing what he did. He was not being a |
| hypocrite. He was actually practicing what he preached. He |
| had said that circumcision meant nothing. What was important |
| was "faith working through love." Now he was going to live out |
| that Truth. |
| Since the issue of circumcision was the central dispute in the |
| church, Paul knew Timothy°s state of uncircumcision would be a |
| continual point of controversy. Paul was therefore faced with a |
| dilemma, and with a choice: Should he refuse to circumcise |
| Timothy, claiming that his refusal was a stand for freedom in |
| Christ? Or should he circumcise Timothy? Of course, he |
| circumcised him. But why? |
| There are many ways in which Paul could have been wrong in |
| this matter. First, he could have said, "I know the Truth. And |
| because I know it I am not going to allow anyone to intimidate |
| me. Therefore, not only will I refuse to circumcise Timothy -- I |
| will make it a point to let these Jews KNOW I refuse to circumcise |
| him. Then they will see they cannot intimidate me." |
| Despite the fact that Paul knew circumcision meant nothing, |
| and despite the fact that we should not allow our conduct to be |
| the product of intimidation, Paul would have most assuredly |
| been wrong had he taken this attitude. His motivation would |
| have been spiritual pride -- a spirit of protest against the Jews |
| who insisted upon circumcision. Instead of "faith working |
| through love," Paul's attitude would have been no more than |
| personal, religious pride. |
| Knowing the Truth about something is not a license to carry |
| around a "spiritual protest sign" in our attitude against any who |
| would disagree with us. The Truth is supposed to set us free -- |
| not bring us into bondage to pride because we know it. Paul |
| knew that unless the love of God governed his actions he would |
| be worse than those who believed the error against which he was |
| preaching. |
| Paul could also have chosen to circumcise Timothy because |
| he intimidated. He could have said, "These Jews could cause |
| me much trouble if they see that Timothy is uncircumcised. I will |
| therefore sucomb to their wishes even though I know they are |
| wrong. I want them to think well of us. It will further our message |
| to them." |
| It is always easy for Christians, especially those in ministry, to |
| adopt the attitude that "the end justifies the means." But it never |
| does. In fact, with God, "the means" is just as important, if not |
| more, than the result. That's because "the means" is always a |
| representation of Jesus Christ. And it will, in time, affect the |
| "end." |
| Capitulation to pressure would have been wrong for Paul. |
| THAT was precisely what Peter had done: He had feared what |
| people would think. Paul would not repeat the error. He did not |
| circumcise Timothy because of pressure from the Jews. But then |
| why did he circumcise him? |
| Paul circumcised Timothy because he was FREE from the law |
| of circumcision! Paul was so free that he could either circumcise |
| Timothy, or not circumcise him, based on what the love of God |
| indicated for the situation. |
| It is vital to see this. Paul was FREE. The Truth that neither |
| circumcision nor uncircumcison meant anything had set him |
| free! Free to do what? To EITHER circumcise Timothy, or not |
| circumcise him. Paul was absolutely free to do whatever |
| equalled LOVE in that situation. |
| When you are free, you will not insist on your own way. You |
| will not insist on your point of view. You will not demand that |
| other people's relationship with Christ be according to your |
| pattern. You will not demand this even if you are right! Rather, |
| you will make yourself available to God on their behalf, and do |
| whatever God directs in the situation. |
| This is not hypocrisy. It is not misrepresenting the Truth. No. |
| You will stand at all costs in the Truth you know. And you won't |
| budge from it. But for the sake of other people, you may |
| relinquish your freedom in a situation. You may relinquish it |
| because doing so will remove obsticles which people have put |
| between themselves and Jesus Christ. |
| We are not talking here about misrepresenting Truth to |
| people. We are talking about representing Truth to them -- but |
| in another way. This is what Paul did. He discerned that he |
| could not teach these Jews the Truth about circumcision. It |
| would have stumbled them. So he bypassed the specifics about |
| circumcision and illustrated to them the Truth of love. |
| Note that. The Truth Paul represented to them was the Truth |
| of freedom. The Truth of love. He was saying to them, "I know |
| you can't handle the Truth about circumcision right now. So |
| instead of making an issue of it, I'm going to show you how free I |
| am. I'm going to show you how certain I am that neither |
| circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. I'll circumcise |
| Timothy." |
| True freedom is a two-way street or it is NOT freedom at all. |
| If I am free from a law then I am free from keeping it. That is |
| obvious. But if I am TRULY free from a law then I am also free TO |
| keep it -- if doing so constitutes the love of God for other |
| people. My motivation for keeping it in that case is not peer |
| pressure. It is love. I want to illustrate to people freedom in Christ |
| in a way which will not stumble them. |
The Need for Discernment |
| There is clearly a call for discernment in this principle. Paul |
| doesn't teach, nor does the Bible show, that just because |
| someone will be personally offended by our actions, that we |
| should accomodate them. Sometimes the only course of action |
| dictated by the love of God IS to offend them. Jesus did it all the |
| time to the Pharisees. Paul did it too. So where do we draw the |
| line? |
| The line is here: If offending someone stumbles them in their |
| walk with Christ, then I must not offend them. But if offending |
| them stumbles them in a walk AWAY from Christ, then they need |
| to be offended. They WILL be offended. But in that case, |
| offending them is love. |
| There is another way to say this: If offending someone puts |
| an obsticle between them and Christ, I must never offend them. |
| But if offending them removes an obsticle between them and |
| Christ, then God may use me to do so. It is His love. |
| Of course, I must NEVER be motivated by personal pride in |
| these matters. Consequently, I must make sure MY heart is right |
| before God before I can be used of Him in such matters. Unless I |
| allow God access to me FIRST, I will cause others to stumble. I'll |
| cause them to stumble because I won't be any more free in |
| Christ than they are free. It will be the blind leading the blind. |
| Paul was not a hypocrite and neither should we ever be |
| hypocrites. We are never to compromise with the Truth or |
| disobey God to please others. Neither are we adopt an attitude |
| of the superior person -- as if others are too stupid to see as |
| we see. Paul did not act from any of these errors. He KNEW |
| circumcision didn't matter. And because he knew the Truth, he |
| was free. He was free to either circumcise Timothy or refuse to |
| circumcise him. In this case, he discerned that the highest love |
| was to circumcise him. In some other instances, Paul chose not |
| to circumcise. He saw that the greatest love was to refuse to do |
| what others wanted him to do. |
| Walking in freedom never means insisting on my point of |
| view. It means doing whatever is necessary to make it easier for |
| people to find the Truth. If a person is free in Christ, he can |
| submit to many things he knows are meaningless. He will do so |
| because he will know that the real fulfillment of the law is love: |
| "For love is the fulfillment of the law." * |