Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
The New Morality In Its Place
One of the proofs that Paul declared the Law abolished is how Paul explains a new morality exists for Christians. If Paul intended us to view the Law of Moses as abolished, then we would expect Paul to utter a new standard to guide us in our ethical conduct. We find that Paul does provide a replacement ethical system. Paul teaches a new morality based on what is "obvious" as wrong to a person led by the Spirit. (Gal. 5:19). The general test is: "All things are lawful but not all things are necessarily expedient." (1Cor. 6:12, ASV). "All things are lawful for me." (1Cor. 10:23). "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in that thing which he allows." (Rom. 14:22). Issues of whether to observe Sabbath at all are reduced to sentiment of what feels best to you: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom. 14:5).
This new morality is another proof that the Law is done away with. As one commentator notes:
As we have said, one of the three aspects of our 'liberty in
Christ' is our freedom from the Law of Moses. So, when Paul says
'all things are lawful for me' he is simply referring to the fact
that we are free FROM the Law of Moses. 7
Thus, if you are in Christ, Paul teaches anything is allowed that conscience pennits. The Torah no longer applies. If your conscience allows you to think something is pennissible, it is pennissible. It is as Bob George-a modem Christian radio personality and author of numerous books- said one day in response to whether fornication was prohibited:
And as Paul said, 'All things are permissible, but not all things are profitable." So is committing fornication permissible? Yes. Is it profitable? No, it is not. 8
Accordingly, Paul's repeated axiom "all things are lawful for me"
was not some pagan truth that Paul was mocking, as some prefer to
think. It arose from Paul abolishing the strict letter of the
Mosaic Law "which kills."
-
"Liberty, (1Cor. 10), and Idolatry," Christian Bible Studies, at http://www.geocities.com/biblestudying/libertyl4.html (accessed 2005).
-
Bob George, People to People (Radio Talk Show) November 16, 1993.
The proof that this is Paul's viewpoint is how Paul analyzed actual issues. He repeatedly used an expediency test to resolve what is right and wrong. For example, this expediency principle had its clearest application in Paul's reinterpretation of the command not to eat meat sacrificed to idols. He says he is free from that command. Paul kn ows an idol is nothing. However, it is not necessarily expedient to eat such meat if someone else you are with thinks it is wrong. So when in the company of this "weaker" brother, Paul will not eat meat sacrificed to idols. The test depends upon who may be benefited or harmed by your behavior. In a word, the test is its expediency . 9
Paul's expediency test is evident again in his lack of concern for the letter of the original Law of the Sabbath. This was God's command to rest on the "seventh day" of the week-sunset Friday to sunset Saturday. (Ex. 20:10). On this point, Paul says in (Rom. 14:5:) "One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." It's all relative to how you feel about it.
Paul thus clearly identifies a new moral law divorced from the written precepts of the Law. Paul made the new morality depend on the circumstances. It also depended on its expediency. There are no strict moral rules to follow.
Paul's doctrines are what traditionally we would call antinomianism. If your conscience "led by the Spirit" is your guide, and you reject the Law of Moses in its express moral precepts, then you are antinomian. You are using your own decisions "led by the Spirit" of when and how to comply, if at all, with any of the express commands in the Law of Moses.
This aspect of Paul is what makes him so attractive to the world. Paul gave flexible guidelines about what is sin. Paul also established a system where a believer is allowed to sin without risk of eternal damnation (Rom. 8:1) as long as you follow some simple steps. You are eternally secure if you confessed Jesus and believed in the resurrection. (Rom. 10:9).
- For a full discussion on this, see "Paul Permits Eating Meat Sacrificed to Idols" on page 118 et seq.
Jesus' teachings are not so attractive as Paul's teachings in this regard. Jesus required you live a good life according to the commandments in the Law. Anyone who taught against the validity of the Law given Moses by God was least in the kingdom of heaven. Not one jot or tittle from the Mosaic Law would pass away until heaven and earth pass away. (Matt. 5:18). Jesus told the rich young man that if you would "enter life," obey the Ten Commandments. (Matthew 19:16-26); (Mark 10:17-31); Luke 18:18-26). 10 If you violate the commandments, Jesus required severe repentance from such sin to avoid being sent to hell. ((Matt. 5:29), Matthew 18:8, and Mark 9:42-48). Jesus described the repentance needed as 'cutting off the body part ensnaring you to sin.'
Paul is much easier, and far more attractive. For Paul, by contrast, when you sin against the Law, the issue is whether your conscience can allow you to live with it. "Happy is he who does not condemn himself in that thing which he allows." (Rom. 14:22).
Most of those in the world coming to Christ opt to follow the message of Paul. They can even boast of their lack of perfection and bask in the feeling of being forgiven. Based on Paul, they are confident they are destined for heaven regardless of never truly repenting from their sin against the Law. They are sure they are heading for heaven despite blatant disobedience to the Law of God, e.g., the duty to rest on the true Sabbath. Paul has become a magnet for the modem Christian. Jesus' message of righteousness in action, obedience to the Law, and severe repentance after failure has lost all its appeal.