A "Killing
Instrument" and Not The Gospel? Romans 9:32
by Mark McCulley
- Wherefore? Because they sought it not by
faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that
stumblingstone;
In order to perform its killing function, the
Mosaic covenant was law demanding perfection with the power to condemn... Law
(mosaic or new or whatever law) is not simply a tutor that "reveals"
sin or makes people aware of sin. Romans 5:20 says that the law (Mosaic for sure
here) entered that sin would increase, not simply knowledge about sin. The law
does not merely "kill" by making us thinking of things we should not
do that we would not have thought of before; the main way that the law kills is
that it is used by
idolaters (us all by nature) to try to justify ourselves before God (I did it,
or I did enough of it...)
So the law kills, leads to death, and if no gospel, only that. But the elect
while still under the law are taught by the gospel to see that they are dead. I
think this is the meaning of Romans 7 verse 9: "I was alive once without
the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died." We were
dead by nature, and already sinners: Romans 3:20 by deeds of law no flesh
justified.
But this "I died" is something besides the death we were born with
under the law. It's life to see that you are dead and to see that any and all
righteousness found BY US in the law (Phil 3:9) is insufficient to stand before
God. Only Christ can (and has for the elect) satisfied the requirements of the
law and found a righteousness there, so that the law now demands that the elect
be given every blessing of salvation.
But did the Mosaic law announce clearly that it was a "killing
instrument" and not the gospel? If it didn't, who could blame any Jew for
using the law wrong to be saved? The central text discussed in this connection
is Romans 9:32--They did not seek if by faith, as it were by works of law.
The "new perspective" says that there is no difference between law and
gospel, but only a right way and a wrong way of pursuing the law, and that the
gospel is the right way of pursuing the law. The most interesting rebuttal to
this I have recently is an essay by David Gordon in WTJ (Spring 1992): "Why
Israel did not obtain Torah Righteousness; A note on Romans 9:32."
Gordon writes that the verse should be translated not "as if it were",
but "because the law is not of faith" in line with Gal 3:12. "The
qualification works-and-not faith in Gal 3:10-13 is parallel to the
qualification works and not faith in Romans 9:32."
"If one group attained what the other did not, the difference between them
might lie in the manner in which they pursued it...This is now what Paul says
however. The two groups did not pursue the same thing (the gentiles pursued
nothing)...Paul's point therefore is NOT that the Gentiles pursued righteousness
in a better manner (by faith) than the Jews. Rather, God's mercy gives what is
not even pursued."
Mark: But then what will we do if we can't tell "carnal Christians"
that their "future justification" depends on 1. their pursuing and 2.
how they pursue? Surely, we would not want to go back to that old dangerous
teaching of Bunyan that God justifies the ungodly and does it before sinners
even take the first step. So that justifying faith means that righteousness has
already been imputed!
Gordon: "When Paul asks why the Jews did not attain unto the Torah, his
answer addressed the NATURE of the covenant (Torah demands perfect obedience),
not the nature of the PURSUIT of the Torah."
The Arminians who say "we do it the right way, with the faith and not
works" do not understand the gospel. We don't do it ANY way. God did it.
God did it at the cross, for the elect.
|