The Heart of Modesty

Thank you, Jay, for taking the time to interact with what I have written. I mainly wanted to explain why I had heartburn with some of the previous comments that were made. I think this is a difficult subject and it can be hard to account for all the relevant passages. There is one thing you said, though, that I think merits push back because I’m not sure you meant exactly what you said.

[Quote=Jay] I think Paul’s point is that there is no inherent merit in obeying the Law, so we shouldn’t expect that to help us (Romans 2).

Actually, Romans 2 makes the exact opposite point. Verse 13 says it is the “doers of the Law who will be justified.” Later on in Romans 10, Paul will write, “Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the Law that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” The Law is the standard and if you obey the Law, then you will be justified. Of course, there is only one person who has done that or could do that – Jesus – but it is because there is inherent merit in obeying the Law that Christ’s righteousness is so valuable to us. So, it’s not that there is no merit in obeying the Law but that, as sinners, we have no ability to fully obey the Law — which is Paul’s point.

Here are a few articles from TGC that help explain what to do with some of the problem passages in Leviticus that have been referred to on this thread. As I said before, I think there are good answers to the questions that have been raised.

Making Sense of Scripture’s ‘Inconsistency’

Daring to Delight in Leviticus

The Bible and Same-Sex Relationships: A Review Article

I don’t have much time, but let me say this:

I think Paul’s point is that there is no inherent merit in obeying the Law, so we shouldn’t expect that to help us (Romans 2).

I don’t like the way this is phrased, and struggled with the best way to put it. This may not have been the best wording to use.

Next, I want to note that I’m being very general in this discussion in the use of the Law. I’m not speaking of particular details and applications because I’m making a broader point that the Law has been fulfilled and is no longer applicable for us.

I would like to add more, but these are some of the passages that are coming to mind regarding the Law:

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God. (Romans 2:25-29)

Paul’s point here is that the Jewish rite of circumcision has merit, but only if that circumcision is accompanied by strict obedience ot the Law. James also makes this point in James 2:10-12.

Next of all, Paul shifts his argument at the end of chapter 2 to the fact that righteousness is imputed through faith (in Romans 3):

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. (Romans 3:21-31)

And finally, in Romans 4, Paul shifts his polemic and talks about Abraham, with a cross-application to David:

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Romans 4:1-13)

Finally, Paul again shifts his argument in chapter five, making it crystal clear what he is arguing:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 5:1)

Even a few chapters later, Paul makes the point that we are no longer under the Law, explicitly comparing the rules on divorce to a woman whose husband has died:

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:1-6)

I’ll come back later, when I have more time. Hope this helps.

[AndyE]

Daring to Delight in Leviticus

This one is really outstanding. Thanks for posting. I agree with him about the best commentary on Leviticus, Gordon Wenham. I’ve preached through Leviticus twice, using Wenham and Lange mostly as my aides. I think understanding Leviticus is quite important for this discussion. I also think more preachers should do some work in this area for there overall Biblical Theology. All the rest of Scripture comes together much better if we see the connections with the OT.

BTW, I see that Sklar was a student of Wenham and has written his own commentary in the Tyndale commentary series. I probably should get that one.

I think you are trying too hard to dismiss the value of the Law. And I don’t think the passages you cite are saying what you think they are saying.

Romans 1-5 are about justification - the Law can’t justify, only Christ can. That’s Paul’s main point.

Romans 6-8 are about sanctification - the works of the Law can’t sanctify, only faith and dependence on the Spirit sanctifies. That’s Paul’s second point.

None of these passages are saying the Law no longer has value for the Christian, or that we shouldn’t educated our consciences by careful understanding of the Law.

I hope you will take the time to read Delighting in Leviticus, link posted by Andy above. Its very helpful.

[Jay]

I don’t have much time, but let me say this:

I think Paul’s point is that there is no inherent merit in obeying the Law, so we shouldn’t expect that to help us (Romans 2).

I don’t like the way this is phrased, and struggled with the best way to put it. This may not have been the best wording to use.

[Jay] Even a few chapters later, Paul makes the point that we are no longer under the Law, explicitly comparing the rules on divorce to a woman whose husband has died:

I’m not really a big Keller fan but I did appreciate how he approached this topic. I especially like his final rejoinder:

One way to respond to the charge of inconsistency may be to ask a counter-question: “Are you asking me to deny the very heart of my Christian beliefs?” If you are asked, “Why do you say that?” you could respond, “If I believe Jesus is the resurrected Son of God, I can’t follow all the ‘clean laws’ of diet and practice, and I can’t offer animal sacrifices. All that would be to deny the power of Christ’s death on the cross. And so those who really believe in Christ must follow some Old Testament texts and not others.”

Keller is coming from the position that the Law hasn’t been totally abrogated, just certain portions. But even if you don’t agree, doesn’t his overall approach help explain why certain laws reflect the unchanging character of God and are thus eternally binding and directly profitable for doctrine, and others have to be understood and obeyed in a different way because they no longer apply (due to their fulfillment in Christ)?

I noticed that this thread got a bit sidetracked on the subject of the law in the place of the believer. I think it is an issue that has not been dealt with enough. Around here we have started to run into a number of “Torah believers” who are essentially modern day Judaizers who are attempting to bring Christians back under the law. I am not suggesting that those commenting in this thread are doing that. I am simply saying that these are things we must be ready for. Greg Long summarized my position in his brief yet concise answer:

1. You cannot pick and choose which laws of a law code are still in effect and which aren’t. The Law of Moses is a code of law, and you are either under it or you are not. The tripartite division of the Law (civil, moral, ceremonial) is completely foreign to it (just ask any Jewish interpreter), and it breaks down completely once you start trying to categorize each law.
2. Just because certain laws are common to both the Old and the New Testaments doesn’t mean they “carried over” from one to the other, it simply means that they reflect God’s higher moral law that he has applied to both His people Israel in the OT and to NT Christians. The fact that murder is against the law in both the US and Zimbabwe does not mean that somehow I am under certain aspects of Zimbabwe law; it just means there is a higher moral law that is reflected in both law codes.
3. The New Testament says the Law of Moses has been abrogated. The “ministry of death, written and engraved on stones (Ten Commandments),” was “passing/fading away” (as pictured by Moses’ fading glory) (2 Cor. 3:7-16). NT Christians are “not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14; 7:4; Gal. 2:19; 4:4-7; 1 Tim. 2:8-9).
4. For people to argue that this perspective results in the OT becoming meaningless is just silly. There are so many reasons why the OT is important and helpful (showing us sin, showing us God’s moral law, pointing to Christ, prophecy, etc). Paul himself tells us why the OT is important, “Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11)

I would like to add another consideration to the discussion. As we consider that Christ did away with the law on the cross, we must remember that during His earthly ministry He had not yet died to abolish the OT Mosiac law. Thus the Jewish population that He was ministering to was clearly under that law. Further, after His death, the Jerusalem counsel of Acts 15 seems to appeal to the Law given to Noah rather than the law given to Moses. Both Jew and Gentile are the offspring of Noah and thus would be expected to obey what God had said in Genesis 9.

As we consider the law of Noah, there is a tradition that Gentile converts could either be proselyte of the gate or a proselyte of the temple. Those of the gate only had to follow the law of Noah, those of the temple had to also follow the law of Moses. I consider that Christians are only expected to act like a proselyte of the gate based on Acts 15.

Further, after His death, the Jerusalem counsel of Acts 15 seems to appeal to the Law given to Noah rather than the law given to Moses.

The Jerusalem counsel appeals to the Law, yes, but specifically sets aside the act of circumcision, which is as fundamental to the Abrahamic covenant (which predates Moses’ covenant) as it can get:

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Acts 15:5-11)

Paul also sets it aside later on in his writings as well:

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. (Galatians 5:1-6)

and in 2 Corinthians 3:

Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory. Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3:4-17)

Jesus specifically says that He is inaugurating the New Covenant in His blood, and the writer of Hebrews is very clear that the old has been abolished as well:

But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:6-13)

Some have asked about what the purpose would be for retaining the law in the Bible if we are no longer under it, to which I say this: How else could we talk about being freed from the Law if we weren’t familiar with it or the burden that it places on people? How would be ‘good news’ to be freed from what we don’t understand?

I am really, really surprised at this conversation, and it’s a little discouraging because it seems like such a basic topic. I’m not even writing my thoughts - just reiterating (a lot of) Scripture back to the readers.

God gave the Law to crush us under the knowledge of our sin and error. That Law was set aside by the death of Christ. We are no longer under any obligations to it. Any principles that emanate from it are gone, because we are under the principles of the New Covenant, not the Old. If the principles of the OT are still in force, it is because the NT has re-ratified or re-stated them. We do not, and should not, be looking to apply Mosaic Law as principles on NT living. We don’t apply the Mosaic dietary laws, or the clothing laws, or the worship laws, or the sacrificial laws. So why are we trying to apply pick out a couple of laws governing sexual ethics and cross apply them to modesty principles? Is the NT no longer sufficient for us? Do we need to lean on that which has been done away with?

[Jay]

God gave the Law to crush us under the knowledge of our sin and error.

Really? “Crush”?? God uses the Law as a schoolmaster, but was that his only purpose in giving it?

Another question. Are you confusing “covenant” with Law?

[Jay]

That Law was set aside by the death of Christ. We are no longer under any obligations to it. Any principles that emanate from it are gone, because we are under the principles of the New Covenant, not the Old. If the principles of the OT are still in force, it is because the NT has re-ratified or re-stated them. We do not, and should not, be looking to apply Mosaic Law as principles on NT living. We don’t apply the Mosaic dietary laws, or the clothing laws, or the worship laws, or the sacrificial laws. So why are we trying to apply pick out a couple of laws governing sexual ethics and cross apply them to modesty principles? Is the NT no longer sufficient for us? Do we need to lean on that which has been done away with?

All right, then, let’s take your argument as given and just look at the New Testament. Are there no passages in the New Testament that address how a man or a woman dresses? In what way are we obligated to those passages and what do we call those obligations? Are they just suggestions? Guidelines? Things that might be nice for us to do?

[Jay] God gave the Law to crush us under the knowledge of our sin and error. That Law was set aside by the death of Christ. We are no longer under any obligations to it. Any principles that emanate from it are gone, because we are under the principles of the New Covenant, not the Old. If the principles of the OT are still in force, it is because the NT has re-ratified or re-stated them. We do not, and should not, be looking to apply Mosaic Law as principles on NT living.

[Jay] We don’t apply the Mosaic dietary laws, or the clothing laws, or the worship laws, or the sacrificial laws. So why are we trying to apply pick out a couple of laws governing sexual ethics and cross apply them to modesty principles? Is the NT no longer sufficient for us? Do we need to lean on that which has been done away with?

One might wonder whether they got it wrong by saying that believers ought to abstain from blood in the meats they ate. I remember reading that right after trying blood sausage while I was in Germany.

Primary reason I didn’t try it again was that I didn’t go for the taste much, one of the few things that I ate in Germany that I wouldn’t repeat. :^) But seriously, it does illustrate the trouble we have understanding the Law today. I’ve personally, like JD, observed modern Judiazed “Christians” who cause great damage—some of them apparently holding to provisions of Oral Torah (Talmud/tradition) while ignoring significant provisions of written Torah (books of Moses) and even significant provisions of Oral Torah.

Put mildly, the hazards of picking and choosing which provisions of the Torah you’re going to apply is dangerous business. Look at it to contemplate why He put one laundry list of sexual sins in Leviticus 18 and not another, look at the same passage to ponder why He uses the particular Hebrew idioms He chose, use it to demonstrate that Christ and Paul were not doing anything new, that’s great. Back under the law, especially under the impression that it makes us more holy? Um, no.

I would recommend Law and Grace by Myron Houghton.

I have never heard anyone who says we are still under parts or aspects of the Law satisfactorily explain which laws we are still under and why.

Greg, thanks for the book recommendation that I’ll look for.

Has anyone read a similar book, Law and Grace, by Dr. Alva McClain? My hunch is they are similar in teaching. I have that a copy in the depths of my library boxes somewhere to find.