Studies in Scripture

𝗔𝗡 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗘𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗢 𝗥𝗘𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗡 𝗧𝗢 𝗣𝗥𝗔𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗖𝗛𝗥𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗡 𝗗𝗢𝗖𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗘: 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗕𝗘𝗧𝗪𝗘𝗘𝗡 𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧𝗘𝗢𝗨𝗦𝗡𝗘𝗦𝗦

Yesterday, I saw a post made by a brother seeking for clarifications on the difference between HOLINESS and RIGHTEOUSNESS. He noted the two were often used interchangeably, presumably by us Christians.

I was quite happy to see someone ask such a thoughtful and practical question. I thought it would provoke thoughtful and practical responses.

But as I read the supposed clarifications Christians gave, I was extremely disappointed. The answers were lame and evasive. They supplied nothing that could be tested or measured practically. The difference was reduced to academic and abstract things.

The clarifications I found most disturbing were those that defined holiness as something based on nature or inner constitution, while righteousness was defined as the externalization of this. The implication of this is that we are not responsible for holiness. God is. And even righteousness is also not our responsibility. We are simply to reflect it from the holiness God put in our nature.

Sadly, this is what many of our doctrine has become. In the name of the finished work and grace, we have redefined practical Christian truths to free ourselves from the divine responsibility placed on us to be holy and live righteous, making everything the responsibility of God to us.

To be clear, holiness and righteousness are things of nature for God. They define what and how he is in himself, which reflect in his actions.

God is intrinsically holy. He is also intrinsically righteous. The standards of holiness and righteousness are set by and derived from his being. He is the absolute. We are the comparative.

When it comes to us, holiness and righteousness have nothing to do with our nature. They are relative terms of alignment or association with him. They describe how we live practically or how God classifies us in relation to himself.

When God appoints a thing or person for association with or use for himself, the thing or person becomes holy by this act. This simply means the thing becomes separated to God from others of its kind.

This act does not change the nature of the thing. It simply classes it as set apart. It is like how certain utensils are set apart in a family for the head of the house or for special guests. The setting apart of the utensils does not change their nature into a set apart nature. It simply puts them in a set apart or reserved category. They are reserved for the head of the house or special guests, and so must not be used by or for any other.

Israel as a people are holy by class. Levites as a tribe are holy by class. Believers in Christ are holy by class. The Jerusalem temple was holy by class.

The holiness of all these things is not a quality pertaining to their intrinsic nature. It is a reference to their appointment by God as things he uniquely associates with or reserves for his special use and purpose.

Holiness by class is what obligates holiness by conduct. When God appoints a thing or people as separate to himself, it is not for the sake of the separation. It is so that the thing or person would no longer be used or operated like is typical of its kind but according to the standard set by God's appointment of it as separate to himself.

By God setting the temple of Solomon apart for himself as his dwelling place, it became obligatory to use it as separate to God. All activities therein were henceforth not to be like was done in any structure or building. They were to be according to the standard of separation that God defined for it.

Similarly, when God set apart Israel as holy, this made them liable to conduct themselves separately from the rest of human kind. This was why God gave them a unique set of codes to live by. The codes were to set them apart from the rest of the world.

Holiness by appointment is not for bragging or posing. It is great responsibility that comes with severe consequences when not lived up to.

Anything that God sets apart for himself that fails to live up to the setting apart will be destroyed by God. God does not immune things he sets apart from destruction by setting them apart. They are immune from destruction only as far as they are operated according to his setting apart.

When the temple of Solomon became extremely defiled, God destroyed it. Whenever the Israelites made themselves abominable in conduct, God judged them like other nations, and even more severely. The fact that they were a holy people notwithstanding.
Righteousness refers to right conduct or deeds. It also refers to the assessment or reckoning that God accords a person who does what is right in his sight.

Obedience to God is what defines righteousness. There is no righteousness without obedience.

I know this offends what most of us as Christians have been taught, especially those of us who pride ourselves in justification by faith and think faith is an alternative or substitute for obedience. In other words, instead of obedience, many of us think by believing, we become relieved of the requirement to obey God in order to be reckoned as righteous. Wrong!

The reason why faith justifies is because it is an act of obedience to God. To believe in Christ is to obey God.

Just as it is an act of obedience to God to repent because God commands us to repent, so it is an act of obedience to believe in Christ because believing in Christ is a commandment of God.

John the Apostle says:

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗦𝗼𝗻 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁
𝟭 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝟮:𝟮𝟯 𝗡𝗞𝗝𝗩

Since when we believe, we are obeying God's commandment, God reckons it for us appropriately as righteousness. This is what righteousness by faith is about. It is the righteousness reckoned based on obeying the commandment of God to believe in his son.

Faith in Christ does not exist to replace and obviate the need to do things that are right in God's sight as a means of justification before him. In other words, it is not what defines one as righteous to the exclusion of other acts. It is simply one among many acts of righteousness that God reckons as righteousness. Just as to humble oneself and repent is an act of righteousness, so is to believe an act of righteousness.

The same Paul that taught righteousness by faith also taught righteousness by works, that is, by obedience.

𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐲, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐧𝐞’𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐲, 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐬𝐢𝐧 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡, 𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬?
𝐑𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝟔:𝟏𝟔 𝐍𝐊𝐉𝐕

Note what he says leads to righteousness - obedience, that is, obedience to righteousness or God, which is doing what is right. He contrasts this with being slaves to obey sin. In other words, being obedient to God resulting in righteousness is the opposite of being obedient to sin resulting in death. Both are about doing things and not about nature.

This is the point that James was making when he said a man is not justified by faith alone but also by works.

𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗱𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲
𝗝𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝟮:𝟮𝟰 𝗡𝗜𝗩

His point was that believing is not the only thing that counts as an act of righteousness in God's sight. Doing other things that God commands also counts as righteousness. While Abraham believed God and God counted it for him as righteousness. He also obeyed other commandments of God and God counted this equally for him as righteousness. His faith was not a replacement for obedience to God's commandments.

Now as to the difference between holiness and righteousness, let us listen to Paul.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝘀𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀.
𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟲:𝟭𝟵 𝗡𝗞𝗝𝗩

The Apostle says just as we once presented our members as slaves of uncleanness and of lawlessness, which led to more lawlessness, we are now to present our members as slaves of righteousness for holiness. This establishes holiness as the result of us giving ourselves practically to the practice of what is right in God's sight. It is not what we produce righteousness from.

In other words, by making a practice of what is right by God, that is how we separate ourselves from the world to him. It is not by having our nature changed to a holy one that we can do righteousness.

This is what holiness is about. It is about being separate in the way we live and conduct our lives such that it aligns with and God's will and departs from the ways of the world. It is the high level view of a life that is lived in obedience to God.

Brethren, let us stop the teaching that shifts holiness from us to God, making it seem like it has nothing to do with our efforts or what we do, and assigning it passively to our nature. There is no truth in that. It has everything to do with what we do.

We are called to present our members as slaves to doing what is right. This is what leads to holiness or separation to God. Without this separation, no one will see the Lord.

Selah!

QUESTION:
𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗕𝗘𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗜𝗦 𝗔𝗕𝗢𝗨𝗧

ANSWER:
In order to answer this question, we have to step into the texts in which the expression: "new creation", is found in Scripture. The importance of context to properly dividing Scripture cannot be overemphasized.

How we fancy interpreting Scripture and may have been doing so for ages must never be elevated to the point of seeing it as beyond contextual scrutiny and realignment if found wanting after careful examination.

The expression we want to examine is Pauline, and it is found just twice in his writings.

The first place it is found is in his letter to the Corinthians. Below is a broad quotation of the context.

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹𝘀 𝘂𝘀, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱; 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗛𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗛𝗶𝗺 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗳. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗵; 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗵, 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘄𝗲 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗛𝗶𝗺 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗳 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗡𝗘𝗪 𝗖𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡; 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆; 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱, 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗚𝗼𝗱, 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗶𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝟮 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟱:𝟭𝟰-𝟭𝟴 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

If you look carefully at the context (I encourage you to expand it at your convenience as you wish beyond the extent I have done here and track what Paul was talking about leading up to this point and what he says going forward from here), you would observe that nothing in this text is about a change of spiritual nature. Paul was not discussing things involving such. What he was discussing was the obligation that falls on a man who has become identified with Christ based on the fact that Christ died for him.

From verse 14, he describes the heavy burden that Christ's act of love in giving his life as a ransom places on him in terms of how he thinks and behaves, that it constrains him, that is, restricts him from behaving just as he would otherwise have done. This restriction is not externally imposed. It is self-imposed.

He says he concluded, that is, reasoned the facts and arrived at an extrapolation, that if Christ died for all, then all were dead or that all died. In other words, he is exposing an understanding that dawned on him personally as he contemplated what Christ did, which is that by him being put to death for all men, the implication is that all men were dead men walking, or that they are accounted as having died.

From this he says he further reasoned that Christ's death can therefore not leave those for whom it was endured without responsibility towards him, that it actually makes them obligated to no longer live for themselves, that is, to no longer live their lives and conduct themselves as suits them, but to live their lives and conduct themselves as pleases him who died and rose again for their sakes.

So, you see, this is about responsible living obligated by the finished work of Christ and not about a new nature being given because of it.

Based on the foregoing, he then says: "Therefore from now on we recognize no one by the flesh; even though we have known Christ by the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer."

In other words, he is speaking about how this understanding affects his way of viewing or judging people. He says in the light of what he now understands about the implications of Christ dying for all men - all men, and not just believers, he no longer views anyone - believers and unbelievers alike - from a human or worldly point of view, that is, in the typical way that humans view other humans. In the middle of this point, he briefly admits to having viewed Jesus through this prism but now no longer does so.

It is in continuing with this point that he then says:

"Therefore," meaning, for this reason, "if anyone is in Christ, this person is a NEW CREATION; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come".

Note: It is "if anyone is in Christ," not "when anyone comes into Christ." This means that he is not looking at what happens at the point of conversion, but what being identified with Christ implies.

Now let's think together. What did he explain prior to this that justifies interpreting the expression "new creation", as used in this context, to mean "someone with a new spiritual nature"? Did you see any talk about nature in the text?

He was clearly not reasoning about a change of spiritual nature but about a change of moral responsibility and a change of how he views people.

He talked about the person who has received the opportunity to live die based on Christ's death being now obligated to change from living for himself to living for Christ. This is the newness he is referring to.

His point is simply that given what Christ has done, those who have benefited from the work are now persons with new obligations. They cannot afford to live like they lived before. All that is past. They owe all of their lives now, literally everything, to the one who died for them.

Paul alludes to this same point in a different way in the book to the Romans, saying:

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗛𝗶𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝗯𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵, 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗲.
𝗥𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟲:𝟰 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

Here he explains the purpose for which believers are identified with his death through baptism. He says it is so that just as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, they, that is, those for whom he died and rose, who have benefited from this work by being granted a new lease of life through justification, may (note: may, implying it is not automatic or definite; that it can be refused) walk (Hebraism for living one's life or conducting oneself in a specified way) in newness of life.

In other words, it is so that believers may go on from being justified to living a new life in righteousness and what pleases God. This is what being a new creation is about. It is about being someone who lives for Christ and not for self.

Move past this verse that talks about being a new creation and you would see that everything Paul says on the heels of it tallies with what I've just explained.

The Apostle moves on from the talk, and based on it, to plead with the Corinthians to be reconciled to God, which is an indirect way of telling them to align themselves in conduct with God. He cites again the suffering of Christ for sin despite not having sinned as the basis for making this plea. He then further begs them not to receive the grace of God in vain.

He reminds them that today is the day of salvation, and that now is the accepted time. He then goes on to denounce being unequally yoked together with unbelievers and how light and darkness, righteousness and lawlessness, Christ and Belial, the temple of God and idols, believers and unbelievers, have no business together morally.

Finally, he tells them that they are the temple of God because God has chosen to dwell among them. For this reason he says God commands that they must come out from among the people of the world and be separate. He says they are not to touch unclean things and God will receive them to himself.

All these things are pointing to conduct not nature. Once you read epistles in a flow without the distraction of the chapter breaks, their intent comes alive. You see how connected the thoughts are across chapters and sections. You are able to see how something you hitherto interpreted by itself is actually connected to something else which gives context to it.

If Paul's talk about being a new creation was about teaching that being a believer changes one on the inside such that one is naturally propelled to do what is right by this nature, why does he resort to pleading with the Corinthians on the heels of the point?

Have you ever heard anyone teach about the realities of the new creation in our days, and what they do after talking to saints about the subject is to plead with them to do what is right and not touch unclean things? Is it not rather used as an argument for not needing to tell the believer to do what is right? The logic is rather that his nature should be trusted, that he should not be given commands or instructions to obey because it is already in him by his new creation reality?

Is it not something talked about as something of power and authority for the believer? Is this not how it is explained?
But Paul speaks about it and turns to pleading. That should tell you that what he has in mind when he talks about being a new creation is completely different from what teachers today have in mind. He uses it to impose a sense of grave responsibility to live for God and pleads with those he spoke it to to not fail in living up to this responsibility. Our modern teachers use it to pump believers up with pseudo confidence and shield them from being taught, rebuked or judged. They present it like what makes the believer the next best thing after bread and butter.

To show that the way I have just contextualized and explained the expression is actually how Paul intended for it to be understood, let us look at the next place where he uses it. It is in the book of Galatians. There he says:

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗚𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟲:𝟭𝟱 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

In the above text, the words "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" function as metonyms for "Jewishness" and "Gentileness". So, his point is that both being a Jew (circumcised) and being a Gentile (uncircumcised) are worthless for good standing in the sight of God. He says what counts is a new creation, that is, being a new creation.

Once again, we are confronted with the term. But look again at the surrounding text, especially the thought Paul was engaged in leading up to it. Do you see anything referencing spiritual nature? The answer is no.

What led to him making the statement was the following:

𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗳𝗹𝗲𝘀𝗵. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁, 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗝𝗲𝘀𝘂𝘀 𝗖𝗵𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗰𝗿𝘂𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱.
𝗚𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟲:𝟭𝟯-𝟭𝟰 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

If you go before this you will still see that he was talking about doing good and not being weary in doing it. Before that it was about sowing to the Spirit so as to reap eternal life, and how sowing to the flesh would lead to the opposite. The surrounding talk always is about behaving well, not about being changed in nature. This is always the context in which Paul talks about being a new creation.

Verse 13-14 was about deprecating the pride of his countrymen in physical circumcision, which they viewed then as the ultimate token of divine connection because it was the sign of covenant relationship that God gave to Abraham and his descendants to keep as evidence of their separation from the people of the world to him as his peculiar people. They therefore looked down on physically uncircumcised people, that is, Gentiles, as not yet accepted at par with them as God's peculiar covenant people just by faith as long as they were not circumcised. So they set circumcision as an additional requirement for them to be justified like them.

The implication of circumcision however is that once a Gentile submits to it, he automatically comes under the law, that is, Jewish jurisprudence. He becomes legally obligated to observe peculiarly Jewish laws. He takes on unnecessary added burden of laws and ordinances that distracts him from Christ. This was what the book of Galatians was written by Paul to refute. It was to stop Gentile believers being converted to Jews as a requirement for justification as members of God's family.

Paul notes that his people's pride is not in keeping the law but in just being circumcised. The point being that they don't really care about what pleases God. What they really care about is just the boasting of having a covenant relationship by physical circumcision.

But physical circumcision is not an end in itself. It is the sign of being under bond to obey God. Those whom God has called to be separate to himself are those he asked to circumcise. It was to serve as fleshly reminder to them that they are separate from the world and therefore must live separate. The Jews missed this point.

Paul consequently repudiates the ways of his countrymen in boasting in their circumcision status and says instead, he would boast in the cross of Christ, noting that it is through it that the world has died to him and he has died to the world.

In other words, Paul sees the cross of Christ, that is, his death, as being the reason why he has ceased owing the world the obligation to live to please it and the reason why the world no longer has the obligation to arrange itself to please him. He is referring to his manner of living as obligated by the cross and taking pride in it as what makes him pleasing to God rather than his Jewishness.
It is to summarise the point of this that he then says:

"For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation."

To paraphrase, he means:

Neither being a Jew counts for being accepted and pleasing in God's sight as his own, nor being a Gentile. What counts is being a new creation. In other words, living for him and to please him, by being dead to the world and the world being dead to you.
If you remember, I recently put this passage side by side with its peers in a response I gave someone.

What Paul says here, he says in a different way to the Corinthians, where we get to have clearer insight into his intent with it.

There, he says:

𝗖𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗿𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗚𝗼𝗱.
‭𝟭 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟳:𝟭𝟵 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

This is saying exactly the same thing, but with clearer and explicit language. Instead of saying what matters is a new creation, he says what matters is keeping the commandments of God. This shows that when he speaks about a new creation being what matters over being Jewish or Gentile, he is looking at keeping the commandments of God as being more important that whether one is a Jew or a Gentile because, according to his words, also in Romans, doing the law is what justifies.

In summary, he uses the term to refer to behavioural newness in a person. Sinful living is being the old creation or old man. Godly living is being a new creation.

I hope this contextual analysis of the expression helps.

𝗦𝗘𝗧𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗢𝗙 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗢𝗦𝗣𝗘𝗟 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧

The attached memes are deliberately deceptive and misleading with regards to the teachings they compare and contrast against each other.

First, the teachings attributed to Legalism are straw man teachings that are caricatures of things that the Gospel actually teaches. They are subtle attempts to undermine things that the Gospel teaches rather than make the things that Gospel teaches clear from things that contradict it.

Then the supposed teachings of the Gospel that they are compared and contrasted with are a mix of a non-Gospel teaching and a Gospel teaching distorted.

While the Gospel really does not teach that we BECOME righteous by fighting against sin every day or that we have to fight harder to overcome it so as to BECOME righteous, it explicitly teaches that we have to practice righteousness to be righteous.

𝗟𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗻, 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂; 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗛𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗼𝘂𝘀;
‭𝟭 𝗝𝗼𝗵𝗻 𝟯:𝟳 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

While the practice of righteousness is mainly about doing righteousness, it is simultaneously about resisting or striving hard against sin on a daily and continuous basis.

𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘂𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝘀, 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗥𝗜𝗗 𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗦𝗘𝗟𝗩𝗘𝗦 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗥𝗬 𝗢𝗕𝗦𝗧𝗔𝗖𝗟𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗜𝗡 𝗪𝗛𝗜𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗢 𝗘𝗔𝗦𝗜𝗟𝗬 𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗨𝗦, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝘁’𝘀 𝗿𝘂𝗻 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝗻𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝘀...𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗩𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗚𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦𝗧 𝗦𝗜𝗡.
𝗛𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗲𝘄𝘀 𝟭𝟮:𝟭, 𝟰 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

It is therefore deceptive of the meme to say Legalism is what teaches that we have to fight hard and harder daily against sin to be righteous and present the alternative to this as a mere acknowledgement of some statement.

Jesus taught that a believer must continue in his word in order to be set free from slavery to sin (John 8:32). Accordingly, Paul taught that it is by presenting ourselves as slaves of obedience to God that we attain righteousness, and that it is by OBEYING the DOCTRINE of Christ from the heart, rather than by merely acknowledging some statement, that believers are set free from sin and made slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:16-18).

What this implies is that being made righteous is not something that happens in a moment. It is a continuing experience that requires the believer to make a practice of righteousness by walking in the teaching of Christ.

What many confuse as the believer's one and only decisive righteousness is the righteousness imputed based on initial faith. But imputed righteousness is just reckoned righteousness. It is not an impartation of righteousness or a transformation of moral conduct or nature.

Scripture says the person who believes in God, their faith, not they themselves, is counted as righteousness to them. It is their act of faith in God that is in focus.

The point is that for a sinner having no prior credit with God to start a relationship, God takes their initial act of faith and records it against their name as an act of righteousness. This paves the way for them to start a life of righteousness with God with that act as their first act of righteousness. It's a gracious reckoning. That's all.

The Gospel does not teach that a person will live effortlessly above sin simply by acknowledging that Christ has made them righteous. That is just pure balderdash. Neither does it teach that a person is made righteous by believing what Jesus has done for them on the cross. Both of these assertions are empty words that make a joke of the truth of the Gospel.

As shown above from the book of Hebrew, living above sin involves striving, which implies serious effort. The Scripture also teaches that we are to be separate and not touch the unclean thing for God to accept us.

❞𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲,❞ 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱. ❞𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗻; 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂. ❞𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗜 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂, 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘂𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗠𝗲,❞ 𝗦𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗼𝗿𝗱 𝗔𝗹𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘆.
𝟮 𝗖𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝟲:𝟭𝟳-𝟭𝟴 𝗡𝗔𝗦𝗕

Let God be true and every man a liar.