Gospel Imperatives Do Not Equal the Old Testament Law
Today’s post is a tad “deep.” Stay with me. We’ll be talking about theology related to our salvation and our sanctification (daily growth in Christ).
At the same time, today’s post is quite introductory. I want to start a conversation, not close down communication. Here’s what I want to discuss:
• What is the relationship between “Gospel Imperatives” and the Old Testament Law?
The Christian Blogosphere
Lately on the Christian blogosphere there has been much discussion about “gospel indicatives” and “gospel imperatives” (see Tullian Tchividjian, Kevin DeYoung, and Rob Green communicating-the-balance-of-gospel-indicatives-and-gospel-imperatives/ among others). It’s an important topic with great relevance to:
• Our daily life and relationships.
• Our daily ministry.
It’s not a simple topic, but I’ll try to simplify it without becoming simplistic.
Gospel Indicatives
We might summarize gospel indicatives as:
• Salvation.
• Our salvation in Christ by faith through grace.
• Justification, reconciliation, regeneration, and redemption.
• Who we are in Christ (our new nature) and to Christ (our new nurture) by grace.
• Ephesians 1-3: The “indicative” sections of Ephesians where Paul describes what Christ has done for us.
Gospel Imperatives
We might summarize gospel imperatives as:
• Sanctification
• Our progressive growth in Christlikeness through dependence upon the Spirit and active obedience.
• Christian living, putting off (mortification), and putting on (vivification).
• Living out and increasingly becoming who we already are in Christ.
• Ephesians 4-6: The “imperative” sections of Ephesians where Paul describes how Christians are to live for Christ.
My View: Both/And Not Either/Or
Anyone who reads my blog or my books knows that God designed my DNA as a both/and thinker. That’s true with this topic.
• We run into problems when we make gospel indicatives or gospel imperatives either/or rather than both/and.
• We run into problems when we overemphasize gospel indicatives while underemphasizing gospel imperatives.
• We run into problems when we overemphasize gospel imperatives and underemphasize gospel indicatives.
• We run into problems when we fail to see the biblical relationship between the indicative and the imperative (between our salvation in Christ and our progressive sanctification toward Christlikeness).
For a much fuller treatment of my views, see pages 323-500 of Soul Physicians: A Theology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction.
My Concern: A False Equation
Those who emphasize the gospel indicatives seem to be equating gospel imperatives to the “Old Testament Law.” I think this is a theologically inaccurate equation that confuses the discussion. I think it also prejudices the discussion because it inaccurately implies that those who insist on the gospel imperatives are law-based rather than grace-based.
Here’s my point in sum:
• In the discussion of gospel indicatives and gospel imperatives we should stop saying that NT imperatives are the same as the OT Law. They are not.
I have a theological problem with equating NT imperatives with OT Law/works.
• Paul would shudder at the thought that anyone was saying Ephesians 4-6 is filled with OT Law/legal system/self-sufficient works/living by the power of the flesh.
• Theologically, Paul did not equate NT imperatives (Eph. 4-6, put off, put on) with the OT Law as a legal system.
• NT imperatives are commands to live the Christian life by grace through faith via the power of our new nature (regeneration and redemption) based upon our awareness of our new nurture (justification and reconciliation).
• When Paul talks in Ephesians 4-6 about the specifics of putting off and putting on, those imperatives are not “OT Law.” Those are principles of Christian living based upon our newness in Christ.
• Paul’s view was clearly both/and: gospel indicatives (Ephesians 1-3; Romans 1-11) as a foundation for gospel imperatives (Ephesians 4-6; Romans 12-16).
Someone might ask, Are NT imperatives the same as “the law of Christ” or the “law of love”? That’s a bit of a different question, but one worth clarifying.
When Paul uses phrases like “the law of Christ/love,” he is using “law” as a “principle” on which we base our motivation, behavior, thinking, and relationships. So, in that sense, I would not take issue with using “law of love/Christ” as somewhat similar to “principles of Christian living.” However, I do not equate “a NT command or imperative” or “the law of Christ/love” to the OT Law as a legal, works-based system.
Even More Technical and Theological
For some readers of my blog, what I’ve said thus far may be theological enough. For others, I want to raise an additional two issues and invite continued conversation.
1. The Theological Usage/Meaning of “Law”
I understand that in theological circles, there are several (at least three) common usages of “Law.” I won’t detail them each now. But I would simply ask:
• How do the various theological usages of “Law” contribute to today’s discussion?
• When those who equate gospel imperatives to “the Law,” which use/definition of “Law” are they implying?
2. The “Law” and Covenant Theology Compared to Dispensational Theology
Again, volume after volume has been written on covenant theology and dispensational theology. In this post, I will assume people know what I mean by these terms, rather than defining them. But here’s what I’m wondering and thinking:
• I’m wondering if equating OT Law and NT imperatives relates to covenant theology compared to dispensational theology?
• If this is a covenant theology issue, I’ve never heard covenant theologians equate gospel imperatives with the OT Law in any systematic theologies or commentaries. Yet, I’m reading bloggers who do this rather consistently. Could it be that this is a pejorative and polemical device used to imply that people who emphasize the imperatives are guilty of putting people back under the Law? That’s why I think it is important to clarify that NT imperatives do not equal, for Paul, the OT Law/legal system.
Join the Conversation
Are the NT imperatives the same as the OT Law/legal system?
I do not disagree with anything you say here, however I could read your article and determine the law no longer applies. It may be valuable to add in some thoughts from Romans 3:31 and Romans 13:8-10 for example.
I am a new friend of the Biblical Counseling Coalition and of RPM. Even so I wish to thank you all for all that you do. God Bless.
Gary, That’s a very good point and a needed clarification. You raise the issue of the use/application of the Old Covenant Law to New Covenant believers–a vital issue. This particular post focused on the more specific question: Is the OT law to be equated to NT imperatives? There’s overlap in the two questions and I directed readers to ponder the broader theological issues toward the end of the post: the various definitions/usages of the “Law” and the impact of dispensationalism versus covenant theology on the answer to these questions. By the way, I would not equate Romans 13:8-10 and the “Law of Love” or the “royal law” as “The OT legal system.” As I noted in the post, I think Paul is using “the royal law/law of love” in a broader sense thant “the OT legal system.” That could warrant a separate blog post (it has warranted 1000s of books), but for this post I wanted to highlight the casual way some are using “the Law” as identical to NT imperatives without carefully clarifying what they mean. Thanks. Bob
From my understanding of scripture, Paul quite clearly delineates the NT imperatives from the OT law. In Galatians he says quite clearly that the OT law was a tutor to showcase our need for Christ and to be made right with God via grace. Furthermore, Paul would be guilty of insane contradiction if he were to say that the NT imperatives are the same as the OT law. Romans 5:20 and Romans 6:14 clearly show that the law cannot be the same as the NT imperatives. While the OT law is good, its main purpose is to highlight our sinfulness whereas the NT imperatives help us to live out the new identity we’ve already been given in Christ (see entire book of Ephesians).
Excellent summary, Ryan. I agree 100%. Your last sentence captures the point of my whole blog post perfectly. Thanks! Bob
Just a “tad deep,” huh? Much deeper than I get on my blog. To equate NT imperatives to OT law would, quite simply, be adding a works component to salvation. OT law was to say, “hey, if you want to be saved by your own righteousness, here’s what you have to do,” which, of course, nobody could completely live up to. This was to show us our need for grace, because we can’t be “good enough.” Even under the law, pre-crucifixion, justification was by grace through faith, as clearly laid out in Romans 4 and Hebrews 11. NT imperatives are things that should flow from a willing desire to obey because we have been set free from the law. They are evidence of our salvation as we seek to become more Christ-like, not a means of our salvation.