The Death of Legalism

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?  For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.  Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.  ( Romans 7:1-4 )

From the second chapter forward Paul has been reasoning with the Jewish contingency in the Roman church.  It is quite likely that the false accusation raised against Paul in the third chapter originated with these people.  Before we become too hard on them, we should consider the legalist that thrives within each of us.  We did not grow up in Old Testament Judaism, but we grew up with certain deeply ingrained values that follow us through life.  When someone (or some circumstance) challenges those values, we immediately and zealously react in defense of our ingrained values.  For this reason Paul's introducing the concept of the death of the law would have been incredibly difficult for the Jewish Christians in Rome to embrace.  In their minds he was challenging something far more fundamental to them than "motherhood and apple pie."  In first century Jewish culture for anyone to question the law of Moses was equivalent to blasphemy.  Factually Paul didn't question the Mosaic code's divinely inspired intent, but he distinctly challenged its authority to govern religious life after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

While Paul uses the analogy of marriage and the death of one spouse, this is not the best passage from which to teach the Bible's posture on marital ethics.  Paul's purpose here is to expose invalid legalism and an errant use of the Mosaic Law, not marital ethics.

When God introduced His law through Moses, He included ten core moral principles around which the people were to order their lives.  Indeed the Mosaic code enlarges and refines those principles, but these Ten Commandments remain at the core of God's moral code.  From the strictest interpretation of the Mosaic code marriage was intended for life, though Moses injected a permissive provision for divorce, an allowance which Jesus described as growing out of the "hardness of your hearts."  ( Matthew 19:8 )  Interpreting the Mosaic code according to the strict intent in the Ten Commandments, Paul builds his spiritual lesson on the premise that marriage is terminated only by the death of one's spouse.  However, upon the death of one's spouse, Paul makes an emphatic point that the surviving spouse is then free from the marriage vow and is also free to marry another person.

 What was Paul's point in framing his lesson around this analogy?  He states the point in the text, "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another…."  For Paul the death of the Lord Jesus Christ ended the domain of the Mosaic code.

If you want to engage people in an energetic discussion, ask the question, "Are Christians today under the Law?"  In the sixth chapter of Romans Paul actually answered the question in a way that many Christians find difficult to accept.

The issue in this context of Scripture is not at all that Christians today are free from the ethics of the Mosaic code, the Ten Commandments, so that they may live life without any ethical constraint.  Paul distinctly teaches us in this lesson that the ethical authority of the Mosaic code ended and was replaced by the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.  The error of believing that Jesus ended the Ten Commandments, but replaced those commandments with nothing is called antinomianism.  The word literally means "against the law," or "without law."  Surprisingly some Christians in our time believe that the only binding moral principle to which they must answer is their own sincerity.  According to their view, you can believe just about anything you wish-and live just about any way you wish-so long as you do so sincerely.  For these people their own conscience becomes the only binding ethics to which they must answer.  What about the problem of one believer's sincerity embracing a certain idea, while another sincere believer with equal sincerity embraces the mirror opposite idea?  Ask the antinomian Christian this question, and you'll get a rather revealing answer.  "What is wrong with that?  Christians are not under the law anymore."  Logically this idea rejects any fixed moral code in Scripture and replaces Scripture with wholesale relativism.

In terms of the moral principles that God imposes onto all of humanity, the Ten Commandments express a timeless ethical authority.  In a very short time a studious Christian can discover that every one of the Ten Commandments is restated as a binding moral code in the New Testament.  Neither Jesus nor Paul intended to terminate the Mosaic code and leave future believers free to live with nothing more than their personal sincerity to guide them.  Periodically I talk with Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witness missionaries who come to my door to talk with me.  I have yet to meet one of these people who do not exude sincerity.  Are we then to conclude that God is just as pleased with Mormonism or Watch Tower theology as with New Testament teaching?  Such an idea can claim no logical or Biblical ground whatever!

When Jesus reminded the disciples in the Sermon on the Mount that He did not come to destroy but to fulfill the Law ( Matthew 5:17 ), He was teaching the same truth that Paul affirmed in our study passage.  If Jesus fulfilled the Law, we are now accountable to Him, not merely to our conveniently trained conscience.  If you ever encounter a person who claims that conscience alone is the only authority for what they believe and how they act, suggest that they read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapters five through seven).  Repeatedly throughout these chapters, Jesus referred to "You have heard…" only to follow up the point with "But I say…."  The pattern is unavoidable.  The moral framework of the Law was to be replaced by the moral framework of the life of the Lord Jesus Christ.

On the Mount of Transfiguration the three disciples heard a voice from heaven saying, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."  ( Matthew 17:5 )  How can we miss the emphasis, "Hear ye him"?  The voice did not say, "Listen only to your sincere conscience."  It emphatically said, "Hear ye him!"

The consistent pattern of Scripture is clear.

1.         "But I say…."  At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, the disciples "…were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes."  ( Matthew 7:28-29 )

2.         "…hear ye him."  As Moses and Elijah (the "law and the prophets") were the moral authorities in the Old Testament, even so the life and words of Jesus are the moral authority in the New Testament.

 "…ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another…."  What ended the ethical supremacy of the Mosaic code over the people of God?  Paul affirms that the death-and by implication the resurrection- of Jesus ended the era of the Mosaic Law.  Replacing that code now is the Lord Jesus Christ, "…even to him who is raised from the dead…."

"… that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."  Dr. Tom Constable makes a wise observation regarding this verse.

Every believer not only died with Christ but also arose with Him (6:14). Thus God has joined us to Christ. The phrase "might be joined to another" does not imply that our union is only a possibility. God did unite us with Christ (6:5). The result of our union should be fruit-bearing (cf. John 15:1-6 ; Gal. 5:23-23 ).[1]

A. T. Robertson agrees with this point.

Purpose clause with [eis to] and the infinitive. First mention of the saints as wedded to Christ as their Husband occurs in I Cor. 6:13 and Gal. 4:26 . See further Eph. 5:22-33 . That we might bring forth fruit unto God ([hina karpophor?s? men t?i the?i]). He changes the metaphor to that of the tree used in 6:22.[2]

In this study we have briefly examined the underlying principle that rejects legalism as a valid basis for the Christian life, along with antinomianism, whether it appears as "sincerity is sufficient" or any of its other insidious forms.  In the next chapter we will examine the application of this principle to our attitudes and conduct in life.

[1]Tom Constable, Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible (Galaxie Software, 2003; 2003), Ro 7:4 .

2A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 7:4 .