Actually, Paul’s argument is even more radical than saying that the Law was just temporariy restraining sin. He says that sin itself was part of the temporary arrangement. This is a difficulty for commentators. But the most straightforward understanding is that the idea of sin is in fact temporary. That is, being in Christ doesn’t just keep us from sinning, faith removes the whole system of controlling behavior by classifying things as sins and then punishing them. Without the law there is no sin, as Paul says explicitly, because our behavior is no longer controlled that way.
This does not, of course, mean that there’s no difference between right and wrong. But the question we should ask is no longer, is this a sin, i.e. a violation of the no longer existent law, but is it how Christ wants us to act. Does that make a difference? I think so. Focusing on rules tends to produce a different result than focusing on Christ’s example.
(No, I am not suggesting situation ethics. I think that approach failed.)
This does not, of course, mean that there’s no difference between right and wrong. But the question we should ask is no longer, is this a sin, i.e. a violation of the no longer existent law, but is it how Christ wants us to act. Does that make a difference? I think so. Focusing on rules tends to produce a different result than focusing on Christ’s example.
(No, I am not suggesting situation ethics. I think that approach failed.)
Upvote
0