(this was not written by me but I believe it to be true)
Romans 3:31: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Those who preach law inevitably use this single verse at the end of the chapter of Romans 3 to try and prove that Christ is NOT the end of the law; that those who believe in Jesus Christ are still under the law; that even though people believe, they are still under the supervision of the law.
The first mistake is surgically removing a single verse from its proper setting. This is a favorite technique of SDAs and others who preach law, and, indeed, most of the "unique" doctrines of SDAism are created using this "cut-and-paste" type of bibliology. Some verses of Scripture are, indeed, independent, and their meaning remains the same in or out of context--such as "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." This verse means the same thing in or out of context. But the 31st verse of Romans 3 cannot be separated from its context, or else it appears to take on a different meaning. But, unfortunately, it is used more often out of context than in.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
And those who quote it immediately set their own interpretation on what it means to "uphold the law," which is nearly always that we keep the law by faith.
It should be a red flag for any serious student of the Scriptures when someone consistently offers only isolated proof texts without any consideration of the context. Sometimes only a few verses of context is required. Sometimes much more is needed. In this case, how can someone address what it means to "uphold" the law if one does not take into consideration what the purpose of the law actually is?
Paul says this about using the law in I Timothy:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
So what is the "proper" use of the law? Let's look at this verse itself:
We also know that the law is not made for the righteous..."
This not only answers the question as to whether Jesus was subject to the law, but also those who trust in Him. Are we not "righteous through faith" when we believe in the salvation that He offers? Are we not accounted holy before God? This, I believe, is exactly what Paul meant when he wrote:
Christ is the end of the law that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Christ is the end of the law so that there MAY be righteousness for all who believe.
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness because we are ALREADY righteous before God in Him, and the law was not made for the righteous.
To place the believer back under the law is not a proper use of the law. It is also an abrogation of that faith which tells us that Christ is, indeed, the end of the law.
In summary:
1. The law is good if it is used properly.
2. The law was not made for the righteous. Those who are in Christ are righteous--by faith.
3. Thus, to place those who are righteous by faith under the law is an improper use of the law.
4. One cannot "uphold" the law if one uses it improperly.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gospelchat
Romans 3:31: Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Those who preach law inevitably use this single verse at the end of the chapter of Romans 3 to try and prove that Christ is NOT the end of the law; that those who believe in Jesus Christ are still under the law; that even though people believe, they are still under the supervision of the law.
The first mistake is surgically removing a single verse from its proper setting. This is a favorite technique of SDAs and others who preach law, and, indeed, most of the "unique" doctrines of SDAism are created using this "cut-and-paste" type of bibliology. Some verses of Scripture are, indeed, independent, and their meaning remains the same in or out of context--such as "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." This verse means the same thing in or out of context. But the 31st verse of Romans 3 cannot be separated from its context, or else it appears to take on a different meaning. But, unfortunately, it is used more often out of context than in.
31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
And those who quote it immediately set their own interpretation on what it means to "uphold the law," which is nearly always that we keep the law by faith.
It should be a red flag for any serious student of the Scriptures when someone consistently offers only isolated proof texts without any consideration of the context. Sometimes only a few verses of context is required. Sometimes much more is needed. In this case, how can someone address what it means to "uphold" the law if one does not take into consideration what the purpose of the law actually is?
Paul says this about using the law in I Timothy:
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers–and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
So what is the "proper" use of the law? Let's look at this verse itself:
We also know that the law is not made for the righteous..."
This not only answers the question as to whether Jesus was subject to the law, but also those who trust in Him. Are we not "righteous through faith" when we believe in the salvation that He offers? Are we not accounted holy before God? This, I believe, is exactly what Paul meant when he wrote:
Christ is the end of the law that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Christ is the end of the law so that there MAY be righteousness for all who believe.
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness because we are ALREADY righteous before God in Him, and the law was not made for the righteous.
To place the believer back under the law is not a proper use of the law. It is also an abrogation of that faith which tells us that Christ is, indeed, the end of the law.
In summary:
1. The law is good if it is used properly.
2. The law was not made for the righteous. Those who are in Christ are righteous--by faith.
3. Thus, to place those who are righteous by faith under the law is an improper use of the law.
4. One cannot "uphold" the law if one uses it improperly.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gospelchat
