Piper’s 12 Theses #4

This fulfilling of God’s law in loving others through the Spirit is rendered by faith, that is, by being satisfied with all that God is for us in Christ and him crucified—the perseverance of the same faith that justifies (Gal. 3:5; 5:6; 1 Tim. 1:5; Heb. 11:6, 24–26; 10:34).

Yes, it is rendered by faith and through faith, but it is critical to recall that the Hebrew word for “faith” and for “faithfulness” is emunah. One of the ways that the fulfillment of God’s law is rendered in us is by our obedience to it, in our walking.

…that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

according to the Spirit, who is after all writing that very same law on our hearts.

Piper’s 12 Theses #1

Pastor John Piper wrote:

Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law in Romans 8:4 refers to a life of real love for people (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:13–18; Matt. 7:12; 22:37–40).[i]

[i] From the list of some of the Ten Commandments in Romans 13:8–10 we may infer that the law that love fulfills is primarily thought of as the moral law of God, which finds its chief historical summary in the Ten Commandments, which are tailored for Israel’s situation. The focus of our fulfilling the law is not on all the Jewish-specific laws, such as circumcision and sacrifices and food laws and feast days. However, when Jesus says in Matthew 22:40 that “all the Law and the Prophets” hang on the love commands, he may indeed see love as, in some sense, the source and goal of even the more Jewish-specific laws. Either way, the point is that the law was pointing to Christ and to a life of love lived in dependence on him. 

I would have written:

Fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law in Romans 8:4 refers to a life of real love for God and for people; the first of which cannot be accomplished absent the second.

God indicates in Scripture that our relationship with Him is demonstrated through our relationship with our neighbor (1 John 4:21). So far, so good. I’ve clarified Pastor Piper’s statement, but otherwise we are saying the same thing. However, in his footnote a serious oversight appears; an oversight that will color subsequent statements, in such a way that I agree with the statement but find myself worried by the language chosen and not chosen.

The 10 Commandments may have been tailored for Israel’s situation but that does not in any way lessen their universal application. Certainly I agree that the law pointed to Christ and to a life of love for God and love for man lived in dependence on Messiah. Also, I would readily affirm, where Piper hesitantly affirms, that the entire law can be summarized in Yeshua’s quoting of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: i You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  Matthew 22:37-39 (ESV)

What concerns me is the labeling of certain laws as “Jewish-specific.” The feast days in particular are not called the Feasts of the Jews, but “The feasts of the Lord.” These are “my appointed feasts,” God says (c.f., Lev 23:2 and others). Furthermore this seems to ignore broad statements found in multiple places but notably in reference to the Passover and in Numbers 15 where the topic of sacrifices is under discussion.

14 And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the Lord, he shall do as you do. 15 For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the Lord. 16 One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.  Numbers 15:14-16 (ESV)

Since Ephesians 2 makes it clear that all who believe (to reference Galatians 3:7) are sojourning with Israel it seems evident that we are to consider there to be one statute for both Jew and Gentile in Messiah.

To summarize, then, I heartily concur with Theses 1, but I am suspicious of the attempt to lessen the theses’ impact by the caveat found in the footnote.