Someone on facebook had sent me a couple of links to blogs posted by a ministry called Verse By Verse Ministry International. His purpose for sharing was to correct my biblical understanding of the Law of the Old Testament versus the liberty Christians have in the New Testament. Those links have sat as open tabs in my browser for months. I finally got around to cleaning up some of my many open tabs and read these two posts. Oh, my. I wasn’t even halfway through the first article and found so many errors that I decided to print them off and highlight everything that was wrong. I counted 22 problems with Part 1 and 18 problems with Part 2. Like a schoolteacher grading an essay, I have to give these two articles a failing grade. Because there are so many errors, I won’t go over all of them. But the topic fits nicely into this series on the end of the law, so I decided to address some of these errors in part 2 here.
These articles were written by the founder of Verse By Verse Ministry, Stephen Armstong. Sadly, Mr. Armstrong’s bio shows he passed away in January 2021. If you would like to read the articles, you can view them here (part 1), and here (part 2). To note: Part 1 links to Part 2 at the end of the article.
In part one of this series, we learned that Christ is the end of the law FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. We saw that the Law indeed provided righteousness for those who followed it with faith, but it was only temporary. It was not a perfect righteousness. Mr. Armstrong said, “The Law was given to reveal the penalty of sin, to reveal the need for atonement… – but not to produce nor promote righteousness among men.” That is not what the Bible says. Doing the Law did produce righteousness even though atonement was still needed. And the Law was promoted as producing righteousness.
Deuteronomy 6:24-25 “And the LORD commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as we are this day. 25 And IT WILL BE RIGHTEOUSNESS FOR US, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.”
Moses promoted the Law as being righteousness for the obedient. Luke said that John’s parents were righteous BECAUSE of their obedience. (Luke 1:6) And Paul said that the doers of the Torah would be justified/righteous. (Romans 2:13) Are they all wrong? The argument has been made that Moses and John’s parents lived under the Law (which is an upcoming part in this series), so they HAD to obey the Torah. But Paul was certainly writing about doing the Law after the cross. Not only that, in the same letter to the Romans, Paul said we would either be slaves “to sin resulting in death, or to obedience resulting in righteousness.” (Romans 6:16) Paul is clearly saying (after the cross) that obedience results in righteousness.
Mr. Armstrong also states that Paul said the Law came to reveal unrighteousness but it was not a means for obtaining righteousness. He references Romans 3:21 and Ephesians 2:8. Romans 3:21 says, “But now God’s righteousness apart from the Torah has been revealed, to which the Torah and the Prophets bear witness.” Paul is talking about the Messiah. He has been revealed, and His righteousness is apart from the Torah. This does not mean that there is no righteousness in obeying the commandments. There are a multitude of passages that say obedience does bring righteousness. Paul is talking about Perfect Righteousness that covers all sins. The Law cannot provide perfect righteousness, only the Savior can. But the Messiah does not negate obedience to the Father nor the righteousness we have for living obediently. Concerning Ephesians 2:8, Paul says we are saved through faith. Mr. Armstrong takes this to mean the Torah has been nullified because it cannot save us. This notion actually comes from the next verse that says salvation is not by works. The false conclusion is that we don’t have to obey the commandments anymore because we are saved by faith now. Nothing could be further from the truth. Salvation by faith is not a New Testament concept. Salvation by faith was included in the Torah. Hebrews 4:2 says, “For we also have had Good News proclaimed to us, just as they did. But the word they heard did not help them, because they were not unified with those who listened in faith.” Here, we see that some received the Torah from God by faith while others didn’t. Those who didn’t receive it by faith were not allowed into the Promised Land. Their entrance into the Promised Land was predicated on faith. The same is true now. Hebrews 4:6 says, “So then it remains for some to enter into [His rest]; yet those who formerly had Good News proclaimed to them did not enter because of disobedience.” And Hebrews 4:11, “Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through the same pattern of disobedience.” The writer of Hebrews is clear, faith and obedience are necessary to enter His rest in the Kingdom. James says the same thing about faith and works (obedience). James 2:17,24 “So also faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself. 24 You see that a man is proved righteous by works and not by faith alone.”
Mr. Armstrong makes the claim that the Law of Moses should never be considered a means to salvation or holiness because Paul told the Corinthians that the Law was a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation. He concludes that trying to seek justification and holiness through doing the Law brings condemnation and death. This is borderline blasphemy. Are we now to live as though obedience to God’s commandments brings us condemnation and death? We’ve already seen where Paul says doing the Torah is our justification and how obedience to the commandments is our righteousness, which leads to holiness. There’s more to this topic than can be explored here, so we’ll cover it in the next two installments.
To solidify the point that Mr. Armstrong is suggesting obedience to God’s commandments brings condemnation and death, we need to look at what he said about the 10 Commandments. In part one, he mentions James 2:10 which says, “For whoever keeps the whole Torah but stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” In part two, he points out that the Torah was given as a whole and cannot be broken into parts. And then says this, “A Christian can’t pick a few elements from the Law (e.g., the Ten Commandments) and place them in a special category apart from the rest of the Mosaic Law, especially if our purpose in doing so is an attempt to preserve them alongside the Law of Christ.” Mr. Armstrong just literally declared that Christians are NOT to keep the 10 Commandments. The opposite of that would be breaking the 10 Commandments. I don’t know if you know this, but breaking all of the 10 Commandments is the goal of Satanism. Are we still in the range of borderline blasphemy? Has Mr. Armstrong crossed the line? The greatest commandment in Satanism is “do what thou wilt.” That includes breaking all of God’s commandments. The Messiah said the greatest commandment is to love God will all of your heart, mind, and strength. Are we really showing our love for God by disregarding and breaking all of His 10 Commandments?
After making his ridiculous claim that Christians shouldn’t have anything to do with the 10 Commandments, Mr. Armstrong uses an example of a man who is trying to live a life of legalistic adherence to the Law. This kind of adherence to the Law was condemned by the Messiah many times when addressing the Pharisees, as well as spoken against by James, John, and Paul. That kind of Law-keeping is not by faith. Nor is it by love. John said, “For this is the love of God—that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.” (1 John 5:3) Legalistic Law-keeping is condemned, but John says loving God means keeping His commandments. Both positions involve keeping the commandments. You won’t find anywhere in the Bible where we are told that breaking the commandments is a loving expression to the Father. Mr. Armstrong’s example is a strawman argument against those who love God and desire to keep His commandments.
We’ll wrap this up with with one last critique of Mr. Armstrong’s articles. He wrote, “The real danger for any Christian’s misguided attempts to “keep” the Law is in its subtle and inevitable progression toward legalism, a lifestyle that views righteousness in terms of strict rules and limitations on freedom.” Is Mr. Armstrong suggesting that Christian liberty means there should be no limitations on freedom? Are Christians free to do whatever they want? He’s already said that we shouldn’t be keeping the 10 commandments. He has said that we are now to follow the Law of Christ, but he’s never defined the Law of Christ other than saying it is not the Law of Moses. And his definition of the Law of Moses isn’t even biblical. For instance, he says that if we believe we are to adhere to the Law of Moses, then we are returning to a yoke of slavery. Two points here. One, is the Law of Moses a yoke of slavery? God said that He brought them out of the house of slavery in Egypt to bring them into the Promised Land and bless them. Did God really take them out of Egyptian slavery just to enslave them to Himself by giving them the Law? Is that what Mr. Armstrong thinks of God? Does God desire His people to be in bondage and slavery? Second point. Paul was writing to the Galatian Gentiles when he mentioned returning to a yoke of slavery. If the Law of Moses is the yoke of slavery, how could Gentiles return to the Law when they never followed the Law prior to coming to Christ?
Another thing Mr. Anderson said about the Law is from Paul’s letter to the Colossians, chapter 2 verse 23. “These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” Mr. Armstrong says that Paul is speaking of the Law of Moses in calling it a self-made religion. Is the Law of Moses something that was made up by Moses? Is it self-made? I mean, I can’t even believe that he used this verse as an example for why Christians should not keep the Law. But on the other hand, he is not alone in this view. That is the nature of Christianity today. The are many Christians who believe that the Law is a yoke of slavery and a man-made religion. It might be from reading articles like these. They also believe the Law is a burden even though God said it was not too difficult (Deut. 30:11) and John said it is not burdensome (1 John 5:3).
There are many more things I’d like to say about Mr. Armstong’s articles, but this is too long already. In the next installment, we’ll look at the dual nature of law. Not the Law of Moses, but law in general. I think that’s where most of the confusion comes from when comparing the Law of Moses with the Law of Christ.
Click here to view part 3.
Romans 3:21-31 NASB95
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, [22] even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; [25] whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; [26] for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. [27] Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. [28] For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. [29] Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, [30] since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. [31] Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Ephesians 2:8-9 NASB95
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; [9] not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
You have totally misunderstood what Paul is saying in the above scriptures. In a nutshell Paul is saying that righteousness is now obtainable APART from the Law, i.e. through faith in Christ – for those who believe.
God is the Just and Justifier of all who have faith in Christ. Rom 3:26.
In Rom 3:31 Paul states clearly that the Law is upheld through faith in as much as it has led the believer to Christ in whom, he/she is justified through faith, not faith in the Law but in Christ to whom the Law points. Justification is ONLY, through Christ. No one is saved through the Law.
Throughout your article you are arguing against this simple truth that justification is obtainable apart from the Law. You teach instead a way of living which is an attempt at self justification through adherence to Mosaic Law. You have not understand that the ongoing life in Christ is a process of sanctification which is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer walking in that Spirit.
Armstrong is entirely correct in what he says. I’m glad you finally got around to reading the articles but sorry you don’t grasp what is being said.
I haven’t misunderstood Paul at all. Righteousness is indeed obtainable apart from the Law, through faith in Christ. One does not need to have faith in the Law. Salvation has never been through faith in the Law, and no one can ever be saved through the Law. Those are straw man arguments.
But those aren’t your only straw man arguments. I also don’t teach self justification through adherence to Mosaic Law. And I do understand that sanctification is through the Holy Spirit.
And I did grasp what Armstrong was saying. Part 2 was added to this series to refute his nonsense.
I’m quoting Paul. Are you suggesting then that he is making strawman arguments?
No. You are making the straw man arguments. You keep accusing me of believing things that I do not believe.
And these are things that I don’t recall being something that Paul said:
“You have totally misunderstood what Paul is saying in the above scriptures. In a nutshell Paul is saying that righteousness is now obtainable APART from the Law, i.e. through faith in Christ – for those who believe.”
“Throughout your article you are arguing against this simple truth that justification is obtainable apart from the Law. You teach instead a way of living which is an attempt at self justification through adherence to Mosaic Law. You have not understand that the ongoing life in Christ is a process of sanctification which is the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of a believer walking in that Spirit.”
“Armstrong is entirely correct in what he says. I’m glad you finally got around to reading the articles but sorry you don’t grasp what is being said.”
Those are your words. Those are your straw man arguments.