III. A RECONCILIATION IN RELATION TO THE WORLD

Reconciliation means a change of relationship from hostility to harmony and peace between two parties. People can be reconciled to each other (Matt. 5:24, diallasso; 1 Cor. 7:11, katallasso), and people have been reconciled to God (Rom. 5:1-11; 2 Cor. 5:18-21, katallasso; Eph. 2:16; Col. 1:20, apokatallasso).

A. The Need for Reconciliation—Why?

Because of sin God and man are in a relationship of hostility and enmity. Though this is not mentioned in 2 Corinthians 5, it is clear in Romans 5 We were enemies of God (v. 10). Does this refer to mankind’s enmity toward God or to God’s enmity toward man? The latter seems to be the sense, that is, God reckoned us to be His enemies. This is the sense of the same word in Romans 11:28 where God is said to reckon the people of Israel His enemies. Paul’s mention of God’s wrath in 5:9 supports the interpretation that the enemies were the object of His wrath. Our state of estrangement could not have been more serious, nor the need for a change, a reconciliation, more urgent.

B. The Cause of Reconciliation—How?

Clearly the testimony of the New Testament is that reconciliation comes about through the death of the Lord Jesus (v. 10). God made Him to be sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. The death of Christ completely changed man’s former state of enmity into one of righteousness and complete harmony with a righteous God.

C. The Object of Reconciliation—Who?

There are three main answers to this question: God is reconciled to man, man is reconciled to God, both are reconciled to each other.

Shedd taught that God is reconciled to man. He explained verse 10 which says man is reconciled to God this way: “Yet this does not mean the subjective reconciliation of the sinner toward God, but the objective reconciliation of God toward the sinner” (Dogmatic Theology [New York: Scribners, 1891], 2:396). His reasoning for the statement is that since it is God’s wrath that is removed, then God must be reconciled. However, effecting a change in God would seem to conflict with His immutability.

Walvoord (Jesus Christ Our Lord [Chicago: Moody, 1974], pp. 179-86) and others are equally certain that reconciliation affects only man. Second Corinthians 5:19 seems clear: God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself. The world of mankind is clearly the object of reconciliation. Romans 5:10 agrees by stating that we were reconciled to God. “God is the One who is active in reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19), and men are said to be reconciled (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:20); i.e., they are acted upon by God. Thus believers are said to receive reconciliation. They are recipients of a relationship of peace and harmony brought about by God” (A. Berkeley Mickelsen, “Romans,” Wycliffe Bible Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1962], p. 1197).

Still others see reconciliation as involving both God and man. Berkhof taught that the Atonement reconciled God to the sinner. “This is undoubtedly the primary idea, but does not imply that we cannot also speak of the sinner’s being reconciled to God. . . . And even when we speak of the sinner as being reconciled, this must be understood as something that is secondary. The reconciled God justifies the sinner who accepts the reconciliation . . .” (Systematic Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941], p. 373). Leon Morris, who also holds that both man and God are reconciled, carefully notes that “when we say that God can be thought of as reconciled to man, that does not mean that, with various imperfections, He alters completely His attitude to man. Rather it is our groping way of expressing our conviction that He reacts in the strongest possible way against sin in every shape and form, and that man comes under His condemnation accordingly; but that when reconciliation is effected, when peace is made between man and God, then that condemnation is removed and God looks on man no longer as the object of His holy and righteous wrath, but as the object of His love and His blessing” (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956], p. 221).

The central passages clearly state that man is reconciled to God. Man is the object of reconciliation. Yet there remains a sense in which, after man has received personally the reconciliation, both parties, man and God, may be said to be reconciled in that they have come together. Still the grievance against man and the initiative to effect a change were God’s; He acted on man to reconcile him to Himself.

D. The Provision and Application of Reconciliation

God’s provision of reconciliation is universal. Because of the death of Christ the position of the world was changed—people were now able to be saved. But that alone saves no one, for the ministry of reconciliation must be faithfully discharged by proclaiming the Gospel message. When an individual believes, then he receives the reconciliation God provided in Christ’s death (vv. 18-21). The world has been reconciled, but people need to be reconciled. The universal reconciliation changes the position of the world from an unsalvable condition to a salvable one. Individual reconciliation through faith actually brings that reconciliation in the individual’s life and changes the position of the individual from unsaved to saved. Then, and only then, are his sins forgiven, though they were paid for on the cross. Man “has been reconciled with God because the reconciliation by God of sinful men to Himself, effected once and for all in Christ, has lasting effects. It is not applicable merely to one period or to one group of people, but to all the world. Whenever the word of reconciliation is proclaimed by those to whom God has committed it, and whenever it is appropriated by an individual sinner, whoever and wherever he may happen to be, that person is reconciled by God to Himself, and his reconciliation means that God no longer imputes to him his trespasses; i.e., He no longer counts his sins against him” (R.V.G. Tasker, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958], p. 89).

To summarize: the need for reconciliation lies in God’s enmity against sinful mankind. God took the initiative and reconciled the world to Himself. This was done by the death of Christ, and that provision changed the world into a savable position before God. Yet though the world has been reconciled, man needs to be reconciled by changing his position about Christ. Then, and only then, is his condition before God changed.

IV. A PROPITIATION IN RELATION TO GOD

Propitiation means the turning away of wrath by an offering. In relation to soteriology, propitiation means placating or satisfying the wrath of God by the atoning sacrifice of Christ.

A. The Need for Propitiation: The Wrath of God

The reality of the wrath of God raises the need for appeasing that wrath or for propitiation. Though to the liberal such an idea is pagan, the truth is that the wrath of God is a clear teaching of both the Old and New Testaments.

1. In the Old Testament. Over twenty different words occurring about 580 times express the wrath of God in the Old Testament (2 Kings 13:3; 23:26; Job 21:20; Jer. 21:12; Ezek. 8:18; 16:38; 23:25; 24:13). Everywhere sin constitutes the reason for God’s wrath. Idolatry especially aroused His wrath (Deut. 6:14; Josh. 23:16; Ps. 78:21; Isa. 66:15-17). The effects of God’s wrath included general affliction (Ps. 88:7), pestilence (Ezek. 14:19), slaughter (9:8), destruction (5:15), being delivered to enemies (2 Chron. 28:9), drought (Deut. 11:17), plagues (2 Sam. 24:1), leprosy (Num. 12:10), and exile (2 Kings 23:26, Ezek. 19:12).

Ways of averting God’s wrath included purging sin (Deut. 13:15-17), repentance (Jonah 3:7, 10); intercession (Ps. 106:23; Jer. 18:20), and God’s own action in removing it (Ps. 78:38; Isa. 48:9).

At the same time the Old Testament also portrays God as loving His people and yearning for their fellowship. So the Old Testament concept is not a pagan one of an unreasonable God who demands to be placated, but of a righteous God who cannot overlook sin but whose love also provides avenues for fellowship with Himself.

2. In the New Testament. Though not mentioned so frequently as in the Old Testament, wrath in the New Testament is a basic concept to show the need for propitiation. The New Testament uses two principal words. Orge conveys a more settled anger (John 3:36; Rom 1:18; Eph 2:3; 1 Thes. 2:16; Rev. 6:16), while thumos a more passionate anger (14:10, 19; 15:1, 7; 16:1; 19:15). Together they clearly convey the divine hostility against sin in a personal way. His wrath is not simply the inevitable, impersonal result of the working of cause and effect, but a personal matter. To appease that wrath was not a matter of vengeance but of justice, and it required the sacrificial gift of God’s Son.

B. The Provision of Propitiation: The Sacrifice of Christ

Paul undebatably links propitiation with the death of Christ in Romans 3:25. His blood (that is, His death) made Him the propitiation. An interpretive question exists as to the shade of meaning in hilasterion in the verse. Since it is the same form as is used in Hebrews 9:5, many understand this to refer to Christ as the place where propitiation was made. He was the mercy seat. Others understand the reference to mean that Christ was the propitiatory offering as supported in Hebrews 2:17, 1 John 2:2; and 4:10. Perhaps we are to include both shades of meaning in this passage; that is, our Lord was the satisfactory sacrifice for sin and therefore the place where propitiation was made. Notice the interconnection of sin, sacrifice, blood, and propitiation in these passages.

The references in 2:2 and 4:10 both stress the fact that Christ Himself is the offering that turns away the wrath of God. He is not called the propitiator (note that He is named Savior in v. 14) as if to allow for the possibility that He might have used some other means of propitiation outside of Himself. He is the offering.

C. The Negation of Propitiation: The Teaching of C.H. Dodd

1. His background. C.H. Dodd (1884-1973) was a British Congregational minister and New Testament scholar. He held professorships at Manchester and Cambridge, and after his retirement served as general director of the New English Bible translation. He is primarily known for his work in “realized eschatology” and in the apostolic kerygma.

2. His view on propitiation. Dodd’s view was first stated in an article in the Journal of Theological Studies (1931, 32:352-60) entitled “Ilaskesthai, Its Cognates, Derivatives, and Synonyms.” In essence his view is this: “The rendering propitiation is . . . misleading, for it suggests the placating of an angry God, and although this would be in accord with pagan usage, it is foreign to biblical usage” (The Epistle of Paul to the Romans [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1935], p. 55). Though he cites elaborate philological and exegetical evidence, his principal reason for this conclusion appears to be theological. To him it is sub-Christian to think that God can be angry and therefore needs to be appeased; therefore, propitiation must be defined in some other way. He proposed expiation as the substitute word and concept for propitiation.

3. His evidence. Dodd cites the following. (1) At least two pagan contexts furnish examples of the meaning expiate and show that in pagan usage the meanings of expiate and propitiate were ambiguous. (2) The Old Testament word kipper is translated in the Septuagint by sanctify, purify, cancel, purge, forgive, and not by propitiate. Therefore, hilaskesthai will have those other meanings also. (3) Hilaskesthai is used to translate other Hebrew words as cleanse and forgive. (4) When the word is used to translate kipper, it does not mean appeasement but to remove guilt.

4. The response. Roger Nicole has offered the most comprehensive and persuasive reply to Dodd’s arguments (“C.H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” Westminster Theological Journal May 1955, 17:127-48). He points out (a) that Dodd’s choice of evidence is selective, since he omits consideration of a number of relevant words; (b) that he fails to include evidence from Philo and Josephus, both of whom understand propitiation as appeasement; (c) that he often ignores the contexts of passages which if considered would not support his conclusions; and (d) that basically his logic is faulty when he assumes that the root meaning of a word is changed or lost just because it is used to translate words other than the most directly equivalent ones.

Basically, the stumbling block to Dodd’s way of thinking is the idea of the wrath of God. He must eliminate that and goes to great philological lengths to try to accomplish it. However, he does not succeed either philologically or biblically. Romans 1:18; 2:5; Colossians 3:6; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; and Revelation 6:16 cannot be explained away by Dodd or anyone else. Yet his influence has been widespread (T.W. Manson, D.M. Baillie, Vincent Taylor, C.K. Barrett, and the Revised Standard Version).

D. The Distinction between Propitiation and Expiation

Propitiation, as we have seen, means the placating of the personal wrath of God. Expiation is the removal of impersonal wrath, sin, or guilt. Expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong; propitiation carries the added idea of appeasing an offended person and thus brings into the picture the question of why the offended person was offended. In other words, propitiation brings the wrath of God into the picture while expiation can leave it out. If one wanted to use both words correctly in connection with each other, then he would say that Christ propitiated the wrath of God by becoming an expiation for our sins.

E. An Important Practical Point

If because of the death of Christ God is satisfied, then what can the sinner do to try to satisfy God? The answer is nothing. Everything has been done by God Himself. The sinner can and need only receive the gift of righteousness God offers.

Before Christ died, it was perfectly proper to pray, as did the taxgatherer in Luke 18:13, “God, be merciful [lit., be propitiated] to me, the sinner.” Though provision for fellowship with God was provided under the Law, this man could not rely on a finished and eternal sacrifice for sin that would appease God once and for all So that was an entirely appropriate prayer for him to pray But now Christ has died and God is satisfied, and there is no need to ask Him to be propitiated. He is appeased, placated, and satisfied eternally. This is the message we bring to a lost world: Receive the Savior who through His death satisfied the wrath of God.

I. JUSTIFICATION

Justification is not only one of the great benefits of the death of Christ but it is also a cardinal doctrine of Christianity because it distinguishes it as a religion of grace and faith. And grace and faith are the cornerstones of the doctrine of justification.

A. The Meaning of Justification

To justify means to declare righteous. Both the Hebrew (sadaq) and the Greek (dikaioo) words mean to announce or pronounce a favorable verdict, to declare righteous. The concept does not mean to make righteous, but to announce righteousness. It is a courtroom concept so that to justify is to give a verdict of righteous. Notice the contrast between to justify and to condemn in Deuteronomy 25:1; 1 Kings 8:32; and Proverbs 17:15. Just as announcing condemnation does not make a person wicked, neither does justification make a person righteous. Nevertheless, condemning or justifying announces the true and actual state of the person. However the wicked person is already wicked when the verdict of condemnation is pronounced. Likewise, the righteous person is already righteous when the verdict of justification is announced.

B. The Problem In Justification

Since this is a forensic idea, justification is related to the concept of God as Judge. This theme is found throughout the Bible. Abraham acknowledged God as the Judge of all the earth who had to do what was right (Gen. 18:25). In the song of Moses God’s justice and righteousness were rehearsed (Deut. 32:4). Paul calls God the righteous Judge (2 Tim. 4:8). The writer of Hebrews calls God the Judge of all, and James reminds his readers that the Judge stood at the door (James 5:9).

If God, the Judge, is without injustice and completely righteous in all His decisions, then how can He announce a sinner righteous? And sinners we all are. There are only three options open to God as sinners stand in His courtroom. He must condemn them, compromise His own righteousness to receive them as they are, or He can change them into righteous people. If He can exercise the third option, then He can announce them righteous, which is justification. But any righteousness the sinner has must be actual, not fictitious; real, not imagined; acceptable by God’s standards, and not a whit short. If this could be accomplished, then, and only then, can He justify.

Job stated the problem accurately when he asked, “How can a man be in the right before God?” (Job 9:2)

C. The Procedure In Justification (Rom. 3:21-26)

God does put into effect that third option: He changes sinners into righteous people. How? By making us the righteousness of God in Christ (2 Cor. 5:21), by making many righteous (Rom. 5:19), by giving believers the gift of righteousness (v. 17). Five steps were involved in the outworking of this procedure as detailed in the central passage on justification, 3:21-26.

1. The plan (Rom. 3:21). God’s plan for providing the needed righteousness centered in Jesus Christ. It was apart from Law. The construction is without an article, indicating it was apart from not only the Mosaic Law which could not provide that righteousness (Acts 13:39) but also from all legal complications. It was manifested (a perfect passive form) at the Incarnation of Christ and the effects of that great intervention in history continue. It is constantly witnessed by the Law and the Prophets who testified of the coming of Messiah (1 Peter 1:11). Thus the plan centers in a Person.

2. The prerequisite (Rom. 3:22). Righteousness comes through faith in the now-revealed Jesus Christ. The New Testament never says we are saved because of faith (that would require dia with the accusative). It always makes faith the channel through which we receive salvation (dia with the genitive). But, of course, faith must have the right object to be effective, and the object of saving faith is Jesus Christ.

3. The price (Rom. 3:24-25). Quite clearly the price paid was the blood of Christ. The cost to Him was the greatest. To us the benefit comes freely (the same word is translated “without a cause” in John 15:25), that is, without any cause in us, and so by His grace.

4. The position. When the individual receives Christ he is placed in Christ. This is what makes him righteous. We are made the righteousness of God in Him. This righteousness alone overcomes our desperate, sinful condition, and measures up to all the demands of God’s holiness.

5. The pronouncement (Rom. 3:26). Not only does Christ’s righteousness, which we have, meet God’s demands, but it also demands that God justify us. We are in fact, not fiction, righteous; therefore, the holy God can remain just and justify the one who believes in the Lord Jesus.

Therefore, no one can lay anything to the charge of God’s elect, for we are in Christ righteous in God’s sight. And this is why God can justify us.

D. The Proof of Justification

Justification is proved by personal purity. “He who has died is freed [lit., justified] from sin” (Rom. 6:7). We stand acquitted from sin so that it no longer has dominion over us. Justification before the bar of God is demonstrated by holiness of life here on earth before the bar of men. This was the perspective of James when he wrote that we are justified by works (James 2:24). Unproductive faith is not genuine faith; therefore what we are in Christ will be seen in what we are before men. Faith and works are like a two-coupon ticket to heaven. The coupon of works is not good for passage, and the coupon of faith is not valid if detached from works.

One final thought: justification assures us of peace with God (Rom. 5:1). Our relationship with Him is right, legal, and eternal. This forms a sure foundation for peace with God.

II. THE JUDGMENT OF THE SIN NATURE

A second very important benefit of the death of Christ relates His death to the judgment of the believer’s sin nature (Rom. 6:1-14). Justification, we saw, will be seen in a life of holiness; and the basis for that life of holiness, like the basis for justification, is the death of Christ.

In the preceding chapter Paul used that startling phrase “the gift of righteousness” (5:17). This raises the question of 6:1. If righteousness is a gift, then would it not be better to continue in sin in order that grace may increasingly be seen? If salvation were by works, this question would never be raised, since one would have to keep on doing good works in order to merit salvation. But if salvation is by grace, then cannot one sin as much as he pleases and will this not actually display grace all the more? Paul answers the question with an emphatic no. He gives two reasons why the justified person will not continue in sin.

A. The Judgment Frees Us from the Domain of Sin (Rom. 6:2-10)

1. Its accomplishment (Rom. 6:2-4). Being joined to the death and resurrection of Christ is that which actually accomplishes our transference from the domain of the old life to that of the new life. Death to sin becomes, then, not a hope, but a reality, because Christ died to sin once and we were joined to Him in that death by baptism.

Death means separation, not extinction. So death to sin in this paragraph means separation from its domain or realm, but not the extinction of its presence. Baptism means association or identification with someone or something. Here it refers to our identification with Christ in His death so that we have been separated from the power of sin. Baptism cannot refer here to a ceremony or even a sacrament, but rather to a relational union to the Lord (similar to the Israelites being relationally united to Moses in the crossing of the Red Sea, 1 Cor. 10:2). Ritual or water baptism illustrates this union but cannot accomplish it. Thus this baptism unites us to Christ’s death unto sin (separation from its domain), to His burial (to demonstrate conclusively that His death was actual), and to His resurrection (to give us newness of life).

2. Its accompaniments (Rom. 6:5-10). Identification with Christ in His death unto sin brings (a) a uniting with Him in resurrection life (v. 5), (b) an annulling of the old self (v. 6), and (c) a freeing from the mastery of sin (v. 7). The future tense in verse 5 indicates what must inevitably occur (as in Gal. 6:5). Thus it refers to our resurrection to new spiritual living, not our future physical resurrection. The old man in Romans 6:6 relates to our place in the old creation under the sway of sin and death. Though removed from its domain, the old order still seeks to dominate through the old man in (Eph. 4:22) as it tries to express itself, using the body as a vehicle of sin (which is likely the meaning of “body of sin”). For a similar and instructive use of “destroyed” or “done away with” in Romans 6:6, see Hebrews 2:14 which relates the death of Christ to destroying Satan’s power.

B. The Judgment Frees Us from the Dominion of Sin (Rom. 6:11-14)

Now Paul appeals to believers to be free from the dominion of sin on the basis of Christ’s death unto sin. The appeal involves reckoning (v. 11), refusing (v. 12), and presenting (v. 13). Reckoning or considering means to calculate, to add up the truth of the facts presented in verses 1-10 and then act accordingly. In addition we must refuse to obey the evil desires of sin, and present ourselves, including all the members of our bodies, to God for His use. These phrases all appeal for a decisive and urgent break with the old life.

Godet put all these ideas together well when he wrote: “The Christian’s breaking with sin is undoubtedly gradual in its realization, but absolute and conclusive in its principle. As, in order to break really with an old friend whose evil influence is felt, half measures are insufficient, and the only efficacious means is a frank explanation, followed by a complete rupture which remains like a barrier raised beforehand against every new solicitation; so to break with sin there is needed a decisive and radical act, a divine deed taking possession of the soul, and interposing henceforth between the will of the believer and sin (Gal. 6:14). This divine deed necessarily works through the action of faith in the sacrifice of Christ” (F. Godet, Commentary on Romans [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.], 1:404).

III. THE BASIS FOR THE BELIEVER’S FAMILY FELLOWSHIP

No passage is more basic for understanding the believer’s family fellowship than 1 John 1:5-10. In it John lays down vital principles for daily Christian living, and this fellowship is based on the death of Christ (v. 7). Thus another benefit of His death is that it provides for enjoyment of fellowship within the family of God.

That this passage refers to family fellowship, not initial justification seems clear from the reoccurrence of the pronouns “we” and “us” sixteen times in the six verses. Also 2:1 continues the subject and addresses it clearly to believers. Salvation, of course, brings a perfect, complete, and eternal forgiveness (Eph. 1:7), but Christians sin and therefore need continual forgiveness in order to enjoy fellowship within the family relationships. Some have denied that this is necessary, claiming that since Christians are already forgiven, they need not ask for what they already have (for an excellent critique of this concept see Zane Hodges, “Fellowship and Confession in 1 John 1:5-10,” Bibliotheca Sacra, January 1972, 129:48-60). But believers do need to forgive and to ask for forgiveness (see Luke 11:4; 2 Cor. 2:10; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).

What are the conditions for enjoying family fellowship? They are two: conforming to the standard of light, and confessing sin. God is light—an impossible standard for anyone in a mortal body to meet, so thankfully that is not the requirement. The requirement is that we walk in the light. This places us in the same moral realm as the Father so we can share fellowship. The requirement is tailored to every believer, for no matter what his or her state of maturity, he receives some light from the Word to which he must respond. As he responds, then more light comes and with it more response. So fellowship grows as that circle of light expands.

Of course, response does not always follow. Sin enters and confession is needed to restore fellowship. What is confession? It is saying the same thing about sin as God does. It is having the same perspective on that sin as God does. This must include more than simply rehearsing the sin, for God’s perspective would also include forsaking that sin. Therefore, to confess includes an attitude of forsaking that sin.

Private confession to God is always necessary to restore fellowship. What about public confession as well? That depends. There are scriptural examples of public confession (James 5:16 gives a general exhortation and Acts 19:18 a specific example). Public sin would normally require public confession. Years ago I was discussing this matter of public confession with an elderly saint. He gave me two worthwhile guidelines to govern public confession. (1) Be sure God is prompting you to confess publicly. Satan, emotions, or public pressure can also urge you to do something that might not be of the Lord. (2) Before you say anything, ask whether or not it will edify those who hear, for all things in the public assembly should be done to edify.

When we confess to the Father, He is reliable and righteous to forgive and to restore us to family fellowship. This is true whether or not we feel it to be so. And notice that He does this because of the death of Christ who was the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:1-2).

IV. THE END OF THE LAW

Another important benefit of the death of Christ was the inauguration of the faith-righteousness principle to replace the law-works principle. However, Paul’s statement in Romans 10:4 that Christ is the end of the Law might be understood as either signifying termination or purpose. In other words, either Christ terminated the Law, or the purpose of Christ’s coming was to fulfill the Law (Matt. 5:17). However, termination seems clearly to be the meaning in this context because of the contrast (beginning in Rom. 9:30) between the Law and God’s righteousness. Paul’s argument that follows is not that the Jew was incomplete and needed the coming of Christ to perfect his position before God, but that his position under the law-works principle was absolutely wrong because it sought to establish righteousness by human effort rather than by accepting God’s gift of righteousness. Though it is true that our Lord fulfilled the Law, this passage is not teaching that, but rather that He terminated the Law and provided a new and living way to God.

A. The Nature of the Law

The Law which our Lord terminated was, of course, the Mosaic Law according to the contrast in the passage itself. In order to develop the importance of this benefit of the work of Christ, it is first necessary to observe some features of the Mosaic Law.

1. The Mosaic Law was a unit. Generally the Law is divided into three parts: the moral, the ceremonial, and the judicial. The Ten Commandments comprise the moral part (Ex. 34:28). The judgments begin at 21:2 and include a list of the rights between men with attendant judgments on offenders. The ceremonial part begins at 25:1 and regulated the worship life of Israel. Though this threefold division is almost universally accepted in Christian theology, the Jewish people either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it. Rather they divided the 613 commandments of the Law into twelve families of commandments which were then subdivided into twelve additional families of positive and twelve additional families of negative commands. Specific commands that fell into these various categories were drawn from many places within the Law simply because the Law was viewed as a unit.

Noticing the penalties attached to certain commands further emphasizes the unitized character of the Law. When the command to keep the Sabbath (one of the “commandments”) was violated by a man who gathered sticks on that day, the penalty was death by stoning (Num. 15:32-36). When the people of Israel violated the command concerning the Sabbatical Year for the land (one of the “judgments”), God sent them into Captivity where many died (Jer. 25:11). When Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord (one of the “ordinances”), they immediately died (Lev. 10:1-7). Clearly these commands from various parts of the Law were equally binding and the punishment equally severe. The Law was a unit.

James approached the Law as a unit. He decried partiality because it violated the law to love one’s neighbor as oneself, and this single violation, he said, made the people guilty of the whole Law (James 2:8). He could scarcely arrive at such a conclusion unless the Law were a unit.

2. The Law was given to Israel. Both the Old and New Testaments are unanimous in this (Lev. 26:46; Rom. 9:4). Further, Paul contrasted the Jews who received the Law with the Gentiles who did not (2:14).

B. The End of the Law

The Jerusalem Council settled this matter early and clearly (Acts 15). Debating the question of whether or not circumcision was necessary for salvation, the council said an emphatic no. Peter described the Law as an unbearable yoke. When the leaders wrote to the Gentile believers to curb their liberty in matters which were offensive to Jewish believers, they did not try to place the believers under the Law (which would have settled the problem quickly), for they realized the Law had come to an end.

In 2 Corinthians 3:7-11 Paul even specifies that the part of the Law which was written on stones (the Ten Commandments) was done away. He dares to label the moral part of the Law as a ministry of death and condemnation, but, thank God, this has been replaced by the New Covenant which brings life and justification.

In Hebrews 7:11-12 the writer demonstrates the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek over that of Aaron. He concludes that if the Aaronic or levitical priesthood could have brought perfection to the people, there would have been no need for another priesthood based on Melchizedek. And that change of priesthood necessitated a change in the Law. In other words, if the Law has not been done away, then neither has the levitical priesthood, and Christ is not our High Priest today. But if Christ is our High Priest, then the Law can no longer be operative and binding on us.

C. The Problem Raised

If Christ ended the Law, then why does the New Testament include some laws from the Mosaic Law in its ethic? How could the unit end and yet have specifics in it still binding on the Christian? If the New Testament included all the Ten Commandments the answer would be simple: the moral Law continues while the rest has been concluded. But the New Testament only includes nine of the ten, and it further complicates any simple solution by including some laws from parts other than the moral section of the Law (Rom. 13:9; James 2:8).

D. Suggested Solutions to the Problem

1. Calvin’s. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the Law had reference to liberating the conscience from fear and to discontinuing the ancient Jewish ceremonies. He distinguished between the moral Law, which he said was abrogated only in its effect of condemning people, and the ceremonial Law, which he said was abrogated both in its effects and in its use. In discussing 2 Corinthians 3 he only distinguished in a general way the difference between death and life in the Old and New Covenants. He presented a very fine exposition of the Ten Commandments, but did not consider Sunday to be a continuation of the Sabbath (as the Westminster Confession did). In other words, Calvin, as many who have followed him, considered part but not all of the Law as ended and the Ten Commandments as binding on believers today, except the Sabbath one which he took nonliterally (Institutes, II, XI, 4 and II, VIII, 33). Obviously this does not really solve the problem.

2. Murray’s. John Murray plainly states the Commandments were abolished, but sees them applicable in some deeper sense, whatever that means. He wrote: “Hence the abolition of these regulations is coincident with the deeper understanding of the sanctity of the Commandments. It is this same line of thought that must also be applied to the fourth commandment. Abolition of certain Mosaic regulations? Yes! But this in no way affects the sanctity of the commandment nor the strictness of observance that is the complement of that sanctity” (Collected Writings [Carlisle, Penn: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976], 1:212).

3. The Mosaic Law was one of several codes of ethical conduct which God has given throughout human history. That particular code contained 613 commandments. There have also been other codes. Adam lived under laws, the sum of which may be called the code of Adam or the code of Eden. Noah was expected to obey the laws of God, so there was a Noahic code. We know that God revealed many commands and laws to Abraham (Gen. 26:5). They may be called the Abrahamic code. The Mosaic code contained all the laws of the Law. And today we live under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2) or the law of the Spirit of life in Christ (Rom. 8:2). This code contains the hundreds of specific commandments recorded in the New Testament.

Now the Mosaic Law was done away in its entirety as a code. It has been replaced by the law of Christ. The law of Christ contains some new commands (1 Tim. 4:4), some old ones (Rom. 13:9), and some revised ones (Rom. 13:4, with reference to capital punishment). All the laws of the Mosaic code have been abolished because the code has. Specific Mosaic commands which are part of the Christian code appear there not as a continuation of part of the Mosaic Law, or in order to be observed in some deeper sense, but as specifically incorporated into that code, and as such they are binding on believers today. A particular law that was part of the Mosaic code is done away; that same law, if part of the law of Christ, is binding. It is necessary to say both truths in order not to have to resort to a nonliteral interpretation of 2 Corinthians 3 or Hebrews 7 and in order not to have to resort to some sort of theological contortions to retain part of the Mosaic Law.

An illustration of this idea: As children mature different codes are instituted by their parents. Some of the same commandments may appear in those different codes. But when the new code becomes operative, the old one is done away. So it was with the Mosaic Law when our Lord became the end of the Law for righteousness to all who believe.

V. ADOPTION

Our adoption into the family of God is another benefit of the death of Christ.

A. The Meaning of Adoption

Adoption is the act of God which places the believer in His family as an adult. In contrast, being born again emphasizes the idea of coming into God’s family as a babe with the attendant need for growth and development (John 1:12; 3:3). But adoption teaches the ideas of adulthood and full privileges in the family of God. Concomitant with adoption is the divesting of all relationships and responsibilities of the previous family relationship. Both being adopted and being born occur at the moment of saving faith, but they indicate different aspects of our relation to the family of God.

B. The Background of Adoption

Most cultures had some practice akin to adoption. Moses, a slave, was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter in Egypt. The Nuzu tablets reveal a custom whereby a childless couple could adopt a son who would serve them in life and be their heir in death. Hebrew laws did not include one which concerned adoption, and the Greek word for adoption does not occur in the Septuagint. This was probably due to the law of levirate marriage which provided a way for a family to have heirs to inherit the family property. Polygamy may also have been another way to overcome the problems of childlessness.

Adoption was a very common aspect of Greco-Roman life, and this is the background of the New Testament concept. Childless couples would often adopt a son who then became their heir. Even if the adopted son had living biological parents, they had no more claim over him after the adoption had taken place. Often parents were willing to let their sons be adopted by another family if it meant a better lot in life.

C. The Pauline Doctrine of Adoption

The doctrine is exclusively Pauline, and he used the term five times (Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5).

1. The adoption of Israel as a nation (Rom 9:4). See also Exodus 4:22.

2. The adoption of believers as individuals. This act of God was predestined (Eph. 1:5) so that it may be said that God’s predetermined plan included our destiny as adopted sons. It was made possible by the death of Christ (Gal. 4:5). It happened when we believed and became part of the family of God (Rom. 8:15), yet it awaits its full realization until we receive resurrection bodies (Rom. 8:23).

D. The Ramifications of Adoption

1. Adoption means placing us in a family to which we did not naturally belong (cf. Eph. 2:3). Children of wrath become sons of God.

2. Adoption means complete freedom from former relationships, particularly to the Law (Gal. 4:5). In other words, the other side of adoption is freedom from the Law.

3. Adoption is possible only because of a voluntary act of the One doing the adopting. Before the foundation of the world God’s plan included our adoption (Eph. 1:5).

4. Adoption means we have full rights to all the privileges of being in God’s family (Rom. 8:15). Spiritual growth may be involved in the enjoyment of those privileges, but every believer has the right to them from the moment of salvation on.

And this is all true because of Christ’s redemption (Gal. 4:5).