In fact, one of the big no-nos in the religion of the South is buying alcohol, especially in a place where you can be seen buying alcohol. Which reminds me of a joke: What’s the difference between a Baptist and a Presbyterian? A Presbyterian will say hey to you in the liquor store.

Joking aside, there is a serious reality underlying the brown-bagging / teetotaling disposition toward Christian practice in the religion of the South, and it all falls under the umbrella of “Preserving One’s Witness.” Scarcely have many bothered to define what this “witness” is, though it’s preservation could mean the salvation (or not) of one’s very soul.

It goes like this: Matt walks into the local Food Lion. Matt makes a beeline toward the beer aisle. Matt goes to the counter and purchases beer from the beer aisle. Unbeknownst to Matt, a person, who is considering Christianity and knows that Matt is a Christian, sees Matt purchasing the beer and is instantly turned away from the Gospel because of it. Matt, because of his beer purchase, ruins his witness and sends the person to hell.

The problem with this scenario is multi-faceted. First, Matt’s witness, as a Christian, is never toward himself. When a person bears witness to something, say in a court of law, it is concerning something that happened or concerning some reality with which the witness is well-acquainted. Having been saved by Jesus Christ, Matt’s witness should be solely about what Jesus Christ has done to save him from his sins, not about what Matt does or does not do. When we see the apostles bearing witness about Christ in the book of Acts, they do not go about flaunting their religiosity and piety, but they go about flaunting Jesus Christ–the one who died for sinners, who was raised from the dead, and who is now sitting enthroned as King over all. That is the weight of a Christian’s witness, not his ability not to buy a beer in front of sinners.

Secondly, this scenario misrepresents Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. Jesus Christ did not come into the world to keep people like Matt from drinking beer or to teach them how to conceal it. No, Jesus came, as the angel declares at his birth, to save his people from their sins. In fact, if Jesus’ mission were to keep Matt from buying and drinking beer, he started off poorly with his first miracle, viz. turning the water into wine (not grape juice). And if Matt is ruining his witness by buying beer at the local Food Lion, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus ruined his witness at the Wedding at Cana. And maybe Jesus did ruin his witness … toward the Pharisees at least. Of them Jesus says:

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds” (Mt. 11:19).

The fact is that Jesus’ tendency to drink alcohol publicly (which he did) created a barrier between himself and some, and the some that were offended by his drinking were those who already had everything worked out, religiously speaking. They were the ones who thought themselves right with God, and even went above and beyond what God commanded so as to make sure that they were hyper-right. In their blind dedication to Moses, they missed the greatest command of Moses, namely, “The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers–it is to him you shall listen” (Deut. 18:15). That “drunkard” whom they questioned and ridiculed was the prophet that they should have been waiting for, instead they were so blinded by their amended law and self-righteousness that they missed him altogether.

The lesson of the Pharisees should strike fear into those among us who seek to “witness” by bolstering our self-righteousness to a law that God did not give. Search and you shan’t find a law that says, “Thou shalt not drink nor purchase alcohol in the presence of thine enemies.” That is good ol’ timey Pharisaical religion, and believe me, it didn’t begin in the South. It has existed as long as men have tried to work and commend themselves to God by their good deeds, and it has only worked for one Man–Jesus Christ, who just so happened to drink alcohol. The Pharisees did it by their fasting, their alcohol-abstinence, and their perfect tithing; the Judaizers after them did it through circumcision–all to whom the apostle Paul screams, “Christ is no advantage to you!” (Gal. 5:2).

Third, and closely related to the second, such a “witness” detracts from the true Witness that we should presenting–Jesus Christ and him alone. Jesus did not come into the world to keep Matt from drinking beer, though he can save an alcoholic from his sins and his obsession. Jesus Christ came into the world to glorify his Father, and he accomplished it perfectly and completely. He glorified his Father when he turned the water to wine, when he fed the five thousand, when he died for the sins of his people, and when he was raised from the tomb. Every breath Jesus Christ breathed was unto the glory of the Father, as was every drink he drunk and every morsel he ate. To say or to even hint that Jesus acted unwisely in anything that he did, whether it was working on the Sabbath or drinking an alcoholic beverage is not simply unwise, it’s blasphemy. And to lay burden on his followers that Christ did not place upon them by calling certain behaviors “unwise” is tantamount to saying the same of Christ.

As followers of Christ and students of his Word, we must remain open to understanding him and his Word and be willing to change our traditions and presuppositions for his sake and ours. We must not be like the Pharisees who religiously and blindly followed after the traditions of their elders so as to miss Jesus Christ in his glory and thus found themselves his enemies and damned. In other words, “Life is short. Drink to the glory of God.”

Dear Dr. Sproul:

For many years I have benefited from your ministry. Your books present the reality of our sovereign, gracious God and his amazing love for undeserving sinners in clear, biblically accurate language. We have used your videos in Sunday School classes and youth groups and have encouraged many others to do the same. I was, therefore, greatly disappointed, but given your unreserved commitment to Covenant Theology, not at all surprised by your unjustified attack on New Covenant Theology in general and two other men and me in particular. Your magazine, Tabletalk, of September 2002 carried five articles against ‘antinomianism.’ One of those articles, “The Death of the Decalogue,” by Richard Barcellos, applied the odious label of theological antinomian to Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, co-authors of the book New Covenant Theology (page 55), and to me (page 16).

I have no doubt that your sincere concern is for the truth of the gospel. I believe that you, like my friends and me, are concerned to help the people of God to be more holy in their lives. The articles in your magazine make it clear that we disagree on the specific message that will best reach that goal.

We welcome all open discussion on the subject of law and grace. We are especially grateful to you for clearly defining, in the article by Morton Smith (pages 8-10, 54), what was historically considered antinomianism. We can only wish you had used that definition consistently throughout the entire issue instead of having it discarded for new and different definitions, especially the definition used by Richard Barcellos. In another article, “Dispensing with the Law,” by Keith Mathison (page 11), Dispensationalism is labeled as antinomian. If you agree with Mathison’s position, we can only wonder why you have Dr. John MacArthur, a man openly committed to Dispensationalism, and therefore, according to Mathison, an antinomian, as a speaker at your conferences. I have read nearly everything that MacArthur has written and I have not found any explicit or implicit antinomian statements despite the fact that he is an avowed Dispensationalist. Since I am not a Dispensationalist, I am not defending Dr. MacArthur on partisan grounds. For Mathison to automatically label MacArthur, or anyone else, an antinomian just because he is a Dispensationalist is wrong. Granted, a Dispensationalist disagrees with the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith on some points relating to the law of God, but since the Confession is not equal with the authority of Scripture, this does not automatically make Dispensationalism equal to being an antinomian, or against the Law of God. Rejecting Covenant Theology’s view of law and grace and rejecting the Law of God itself are two different things.

I agree with you that true antinomianism is a heresy and a failure by church leaders to label it as such is a sin against Christ and his Church. If Mathison is correct, then it would seem you are duty bound to condemn John MacArthur as an antinomian. However, to either falsely accuse someone of this heresy, or to use an inaccurate definition when labeling someone an antinomian is also a sin against Christ and a fellow believer. Morton Smith, on page 10 of Tabletalk, quotes a work entitled Antinomianism Discovered and Confuted by Thomas Gataker, a member of the Westminster Assembly, that lists six marks of antinomianism. Not a single one of the six things on that list are true of Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel or me. One of the six could conceivably apply, but only if our view was misunderstood. The other five are far off from our convictions. Your magazine’s articles, especially the one by Barcellos, that use our name in print, rest their case on two major points. First, we disagree with Covenant Theology’s view of the Sabbath (as does John MacArthur, and as did Calvin, Luther, James M. Boice, and others), and second, we believe Christ is a new lawgiver who, in revealing more fully and completely the character of God, not only raises the Law of Moses to a higher and more spiritual level, but also gives the church some new laws.

I do not at all enjoy writing in a public forum against a fellow believer whom I deeply respect. However, since you chose to use that setting to criticize me as a proponent of New Covenant Theology, I felt it appropriate to respond in kind.

Let me clearly spell out my view of the Ten Commandments. I ask you to show me what I believe that deserves your condemnation of me as an ‘antinomian’ heretic. Please show me where I am anti-law in any sense whatever in my understanding of the Ten Commandments. Apart from viewing the Sabbath as a ceremonial law, I hold to the same set of ethical standards, raised to an even higher level, than Covenant Theology holds. At the end of the day, I think the most that can be consistently claimed is that New Covenant Theology, as I understand it, is antinomian only because it presents the Sabbath as a ceremonial and not a moral law. The nature of the Sabbath commandment is the crux of the entire case. To be consistent with the basic charge against me, you would also have to charge Luther, Calvin, James Montgomery Boice and John MacArthur with antinomianism since none of them were or are Sabbatarians.

Here is my view of the Ten Commandments, compared with that of Covenant Theology. Please show me where my view is antinomian.

One: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the first commandment – “No other gods” – see Exodus 20:3. I believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the first commandment.’ (See also Acts 14:15 and 1 Cor. 8:6.)
Two: Do you believe that a Christian is duty bound to obey the second commandment – “No idols / images” – see Exodus 20:4-6. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the second commandment.’ (See also 1 John 5:21 and 1Cor. 10:7).
Three: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the third commandment – “Don’t take God’s name in vain” – see Exodus 20:7. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the third commandment.’ (See also James 5:12).
Four: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the fourth commandment – “Keep the Sabbath” – see Exodus 20:8-11. I believe and teach that Christ himself is our Sabbath and we “keep Sabbath with God” when we truly rest in Christ’s finished work of atonement. See our booklet, The Believer’s Sabbath (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002). I believe the Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 31:14-18).
Five: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the fifth commandment – “Honor your parents” – see Exodus 20:12. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘be against the fifth commandment.’ (See also Eph. 6:1-3).
Six: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the sixth commandment – “No murder” – see Exodus 20:13. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the sixth commandment.’ (See also 1 John 3:11-15 and Rom.13:9).
Seven: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the seventh commandment – “No adultery” – see Exodus 20:14. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the seventh commandment.’ (See also Eph. 5:3-7 and 1 Cor. 6:9, 10).
Eight: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the eighth commandment – “No stealing” – see Exodus 20:15. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the eighth commandment.’ (See also Eph. 4:28).
Nine: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the ninth commandment – “Don’t bear false witness” – see Exodus 20:16. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the ninth commandment.’ (See also Col.3:9 and Eph. 4:25).
Ten: Do you believe and teach that a Christian is duty bound to obey the tenth commandment – “No coveting” – see Exodus 20:17. I also believe and teach the same thing. Breaking that commandment was, is, and always will be a sin. I cannot possibly be an antinomian, or ‘against the tenth commandment.’ (See Eph. 5:3-7)1
Dr. Sproul, can my view, as expressed above, in any sense whatsoever, be considered against law in general or against the Ten Commandments in particular?

The catch question that is often posed is this: “Do you believe that the Ten Commandments written with the finger of God upon the Tables of Stone are the rule of life for a Christian today?” Our reply is this: “We believe that the Ten Commandments, as they are interpreted and applied by our Lord and his apostles in the New Testament Scriptures, are a real and essential part of our rule of life.” According to Morton Smith’s stated definition (page 10), the very most that I can be called is a 1/10 antinomian. The heart of the issue with New Covenant Theology and myself concerning the Ten Commandments boils down to whether the Fourth commandment, the Sabbath, is an eternal, unchanging, moral law, or the ceremonial sign of the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai (Exod. 31:14-17). As I understand it, the Sabbath alone is your real point of difference with New Covenant Theology. That one commandment alone is our only point of disagreement.

We feel we have much biblical evidence for our view. Exodus 31:16 specifically states that to keep the Sabbath was to actually keep ‘the covenant.’ “The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant,” and both verses 11 and 17 state that the Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. It is vital that we recognize that the Sabbath, like circumcision, the ceremonial sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was indeed the ceremonial covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant. To violate the ceremonial sign of a covenant was to disown the entire covenant. This is why both signs, circumcision and the Sabbath, even though ceremonial in nature, carried the death penalty for violation. Within the context of marriage, the worst thing I could do would be to take off my wedding ring, throw it at my wife, and walk out. That one act would be a deliberate and total rejection of our entire covenant relationship. That is exactly what the man did who ‘merely’ picked up a few sticks on the Sabbath. He threw the wedding ring in God’s face. That is what Moses was doing by not having his son circumcised. He was refusing to wear the wedding ring.

A particular day of the week cannot be intrinsically holy, in the sense of moral purity, any more than a spoon, an article of furniture, certain clothing, or a piece of land can be holy. The Most Holy Place ceased to be holy in any sense the moment the veil of the temple was rent from top to bottom. Everything that God in any way associates with worshipping him was always prefixed with the word holy. However, in most cases, the connotation of the word ‘holy’ is “separated unto God” and not “morally pure.” Holy days, including the seventh-day Sabbath, are in the same category as the Holy Place, holy garments, holy ceremonies, holy altars, holy furniture, etc. None of these things reflect the eternal, ‘moral’ character of God.

Dr. Sproul, please explain why your magazine labels New Covenant Theology as antinomian when we not only affirm just as strongly as you that the Christian is not only under clear objective ethical commandments in the New Covenant, but we also insist those New Covenant laws are even higher than those written on stone. How is it possible for our belief in a higher law to be turned into anti law? Your September issue of Tabletalk condemns us as heretics simply because we believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is a true lawgiver in his own right and, as such, gives higher and more spiritual laws than anything Moses ever gave. Why do we deserve the odious label of antinomian simply because we believe that Christ replaces Moses as the new lawgiver in exactly the same way he replaces Aaron as High Priest? Our view is completely consistent with the teaching of Hebrews 3:1-6. What is anti-law about binding a Christian’s conscience to obey the higher demands of grace found in the Sermon on the Mount and the Epistles? How do we in any way demean either Moses or the holy Law of God by insisting that the law of God under the New Covenant demands a higher and deeper spiritual response than that given through Moses? Does progressive revelation not in any way apply to ethical behavior? Do you really believe that law can demand more than grace? Why must the highest, fullest, unchanging standard of moral conduct that God ever gave be those laws written on the stone tablets of the Covenant (Deut. 9:9-15 and Heb. 9:4) that God made with Israel? Why do you insist that Moses must be the greatest lawgiver; the giver of the ‘eternal, unchanging, moral law of God,’ and Christ merely be the greatest exegete of that law that God gave Moses? If the Sermon on the Mount is really no more than the greatest Rabbi’s true exposition of the Ten Commandments, then would it not be correct to call that sermon “the Talmud of Jesus?” How is it unbiblical for us to insist that Christ is a greater lawgiver than Moses? How are we in anyway demeaning either Moses or the holy Law of God in any way by exalting Christ over Moses as the new Lawgiver?

I am especially grateful that your magazine made the real bottom line issue so crystal clear. After condemning my view as “more dangerous than explicit antinomianism” (I find it hard to believe that is possible), Barcellos then clearly states his own definition of antinomianism. He plays games with the words ‘against’ and ‘anti’ and then says the following. The emphasis is mine.

In other words, although NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense, if it denies that the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New Testament, and if it replaces the moral law with another, then it is antinomian on two counts. (page 15 )

Barcellos could not possibly have stated the heart of the issue more clearly. His position, as yours, grows out of his unconditional commitment to the perpetuity of the Decalogue or Tables of the Covenant. To change in any way the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments (Exod. 34:28), written on the Tables of the Covenant, the Decalogue (Deut. 9:9) is, in Barcellos’ eyes, to be antinomian. What an admission! It does not matter if ‘changing the law’ means raising it to a higher and deeper level, it is still antinomianism. It does not matter that our Lord himself raised the standards. Even that is immaterial; it is still antinomianism. In other words, the actual content of the law we preach may be built upon and go past the laws written on the stone tables, but that makes no difference, we are still antinomian! The fact that we changed, even by raising to a higher level, the “unchanging moral law of God” justifies Barcellos in accusing us of being worse than the worst of Antinomians. It does not matter what law we used to replace the law of Moses, even if we use the very law of Christ himself, we are still antinomian. Our teaching that Jesus Christ has raised the law of Moses to a higher level is heresy simply because we have dared to believe and teach that the Sermon on the Mount makes higher and deeper demands upon the children of grace than the Decalogue. We have dared to say that the law of Moses is not the highest law that God ever gave. We insist that our Lord’s law is higher than the law given to Moses.

When Barcellos declares that anyone who “replaces the moral law with another…is antinomian,” he is laying it all on the table. He is dogmatic that the Decalogue gives us the highest revelation of the moral character of God that has ever been given. We reply, no, our blessed New Covenant prophet goes past Moses and gives us a higher revelation of God’s moral character. Barcellos does not care if we replace the laws written on stone with the laws given us by our Lord himself; we are still more dangerous than explicit antinomians like Agricola. If believing that the sovereign grace of God and the authority of Jesus Christ our new Lawgiver demand a higher and deeper spiritual response than the law of Moses, then we plead guilty to the charge of antinomianism. In the name of Christ our New Covenant prophet, and, we trust to the glory of God and the good of his church, we will continue to insist that our Lord replaces Moses as God’s lawgiver over the church in exactly the same way he replaced Aaron as High Priest. We only ask that those who condemn us realize the true grounds upon which we are being condemned. We are labeled and condemned as ‘against law,’ not because we are at all opposed to any law, but solely because we believe the higher law of Christ replaces the Law of Moses. Barcellos has written a book entitled In Defense of the Decalogue. A response to that book could well be entitled In Defense of Jesus Christ, the New Lawgiver. The Barcellos quotation cited above demonstrates how these two titles define the heart of the issue.

Let me say again, I am grateful that your magazine has clarified the issues. The bottom line has nothing to do whether we believe in clear, objective, moral absolutes. We preach those as clearly as you do. The question concerns whether Jesus Christ is merely a true, full, and final interpreter of Moses or whether he is a new lawgiver who replaces Moses in exactly the same way he replaces Aaron as High Priest. Is he only a scribe, even the greatest of all scribes, or is he a true prophet who gives new and higher laws? That is the real issue.

Barcellos introduces his article in Tabletalk with a quotation from Ernest Kevan:

“The main object of the moderate Antinomians was to glorify Christ; but, failing to understand the true relationship between ‘law’ and ‘grace,’ they extolled the latter at the expense of the former.” (page 14)

I am sure there were some people who may have been guilty of Kevan’s charge. However, I also think that Tabletalk’s attempt to glorify Moses and his revelation of law has been at the expense of the greater glory of Christ and his new and higher revelation of law.

If Covenant Theology’s position that Jesus never changed any of the laws written on the Tables of Stone is true, we should not be able to find one unambiguous example where Jesus clearly and definitely changed one of the Ten Commandments. We can show more than one such instance. Before doing that, we may legitimately ask if Covenant Theology has indeed changed one of those unchanging laws. We might ask, “Where does any New Testament writer command that the seventh day Sabbath be changed to the first day, and observed for a totally different reason than the two reasons given in the two different versions of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5?” We must remember that an example does not constitute a commandment, especially when we are considering (1) changing one of the ‘eternal, unchanging, moral laws’ of God written in stone, and (2) that the particular commandment that we are changing is no less than the specific sign of a covenant document. When we read in the New Testament Scriptures of the furor that was created by the Jews because the apostles taught that circumcision was no longer necessary, can we possibly believe that the apostles could have changed the holy Sabbath of God from Saturday to Sunday and the Jews would have never said a word of protest? I submit that if the apostles had changed God’s holy day, the Jews would have created havoc and yet there is not a single word of that problem mentioned in the New Testament! Why? Because the New Testament does not command a change of days. The grounds upon which this is done are purely circumstantial and in reality, arbitrary.

Let me show some instances where Christ, the new lawgiver, changes one of the Ten Commandments written on stone. As stated earlier, one example only is necessary to refute the basic premise of the position you are not only defending, but are using as the grounds to condemn New Covenant Theology as heretical.

The seventh commandment says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod.20:14). We believe that commandment is just as binding on us today as it was when it was written on stone. However, we also believe that Jesus clearly changed the definition of what constitutes adultery. Under the Law of Moses, divorce was possible under different rules than it is for a Christian living under the new laws of Christ based on grace. The old rules allowed divorce for reasons other than adultery. Actually, they allowed divorce, according to some commentators, almost at the whim of the man. Here is what the Law of Moses says about divorce and remarriage.
1. If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house,

2. and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man,

3. and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies,

4. then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. (Deut. 24:1-4 NIV)

All agree that “something indecent” in verse one could not be, or even include, adultery. That would have been punished with death. Under the Mosiac law, remarriage after divorce for “something indecent” was not considered adulterous. In Matthew 19:1-9, Jesus said the Law of Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 concerning divorce was given because of the hardness of men’s hearts. It would also seem it was designed to protect women against that hard-heartedness. Regardless, it is clear that Jesus is saying, “In my kingdom, I am raising the standard and redefining adultery. ‘Something indecent’ is replaced with marital unfaithfulness as the only grounds for divorce.” Later on, Paul will make another change and add another ground for divorce (I Cor. 7:12-15). Both Jesus and Paul changed the definition of adultery as it had been expressed in the seventh commandment, and detailed in the explanatory correlating material. Jesus specifically forbids precisely what Moses allowed. This is in no way a contradiction. The old rules, or Law of Moses, were fine for hard-hearted sinners who lived under a covenant based on law, but members of the new kingdom of grace are not hard-hearted sinners as were most of those under the Old Covenant. Every person in the New Covenant has a heart of flesh; both God’s will and God’s love are written on those hearts (Heb.8:7-12; 10:15-17). That is the very greatness of the New Covenant based on grace over the Old Covenant based on law.

We might ask if the Old Covenant believer had Deuteronomy 24:1-4 ‘written on his heart’? One thing seems certain; he did not have Matthew 19:1-9 ‘written on his heart.’ It cannot be denied that there are clearly different rules under the Law of Moses and under the law of Christ concerning divorce and remarriage, and both sets of rules could not be applicable to the same person at the same time. Divorce, adultery, and re-marriage had different laws, or different canons of conduct, under the Old and New Covenants. I am aware that this proposition is impossible within the system of Covenant Theology. Just as there is one Covenant of Grace and one redeemed people under that one covenant, so there must also be only one unchanging canon of conduct for that one people. If there are two different canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the church, and I have just demonstrated that such is the case, then Covenant Theology is without a foundation in its view of law and grace.

The second change in the seventh commandment (as expounded in Deuteronomy 24) concerns the legitimacy of allowing a man to remarry a woman after he had divorced her. Under the Law of Moses that situation was not allowed under any circumstance. The very same thing is not forbidden in the New Covenant under which we live. It is obvious, in this case, that what was “detestable in the eyes of the LORD” under the Old Covenant is not detestable to him under the New Covenant.
A third change to the adultery commandment concerns polygamy. Under the Law of God given to Moses, polygamy was not considered adultery. In fact, the Law of Moses actually mandated that a man had to sleep with both wives if he took a second wife (Exod. 21:10, 11). I think any honest person will admit that a change from a law allowing, even if we make it a reluctant tolerance, polygamy to a law insisting on monogamy alone (Eph. 5:22, 23) is more than just a surface change in the definition of adultery and marriage. John Murray clearly saw this problem, and because he was an extremely honest writer, frankly admitted what was at stake. He wrote his treatise on ethics attempting to prove that Polygamy was just as sinful for David as it would be for us today.2 If that cannot be proven, and it surely cannot, then there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel and one for the Church, and Covenant Theology loses its foundation.
I repeat; if Covenant Theology’s position concerning the absolute “unchanging” character of the Ten Commandments as written on the Tables of Stone is correct, I should not be able to produce one clear specific change to a higher level in any of those commandments. I think I have done that without question. I also repeat that we insist that Christ is not in any way contradicting Moses as if Moses were wrong. Contrasting and raising a law to a higher level is not a contradiction. Laws to govern unregenerate rebels are not always the same as laws to govern regenerate saints.

In your own article “To the gallows with Moses!” you quote Johannes Agricola: “His full statement was this: ‘Art thou steeped in sin, an adulterer or a thief? If thou believest, thou art in salvation. All who follow Moses must go to the Devil. To the gallows…’” (page 5). If Agricola had changed the tense of his verbs to read, “If you will truly believe, you will come into salvation” he would have been preaching the gospel. However, his statement as it stands is the epitome of antinomian heresy because it teaches that a person can willingly live in sin and still be a child of God. Likewise, if he had said, “All who follow Moses in the hope of being saved by their obedience to him must go to the Devil”, he would have been telling the truth. Your readers, by implication, have every reason to believe that Wells, Zaspel and I believe the same thing as Agricola. However, we have preached, and will continue to preach, the absolute necessity and certainty of the final perseverance of the saints. We disagree with Agricola just as strongly as you do. You unjustly malign us by innuendo.

Your caricature of antinomianism by using a parody of a great hymn again lumps us into the same camp as Agricola:

Free from the law,
O blessed condition;
We can sin all we want
And still have remission.

If your parody is indeed the “theme song of antinomianism” (page 6), then I have never met a true antinomian. All the New Covenant people with whom I associate would, like you, totally reject the philosophy set forth in your parody. However, we would also unashamedly sing from grateful hearts the original words of the hymn you choose to use for your caricature.

Free from the law,
O happy condition,
Jesus hath bled,
and there is remission;
Cursed by the law
and bruised by the fall,
Grace hath redeemed us
once for all. (P.P. Bliss 1873)

If that hymn is talking about justification, and it most certainly is, then it proclaims the gospel in all of the purity of sovereign grace. It presents the blood of Christ our Lord as the sole grounds of remission of sin. This is precisely the point that Paul drives home in Romans 3:20-31. To mock that hymn is to mock the very gospel itself. Where is the theological flaw in this hymn that praises God’s grace alone for full, free and forever justification?

You mention how the Reformers correctly sought to qualify the truth of justification by faith and protect it against antinomianism. They said:

“Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.” Luther, in keeping with the epistle of James, argued that saving faith is a fides viva, a living faith that always yields the fruit of good works. (page 6)

Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel, I and all of our New Covenant friends have been faithfully and fervently declaring that very same thing for many years; even using those exact quotations. No one has fought ‘easy-believism’ and empty professions of faith any harder than we have.

I would like to believe that it was not the intention of Tabletalk to label us as true antinomians, but the facts seem to show otherwise. Barcellos wants to eat his cake and have it too. He first admits that we are not “morally antinomian” and then further also admits that we are not “typical antinomian.” However, he then says that New Covenant Theology is “more dangerous than explicit antinomianism” (page 15). So he actually labeled us as holding an even more heretical antinomianism than the worst of the explicit antinomians described in the rest of the articles. We are even more dangerous than Johannes Agricola. Unless you and Barcellos have adopted a very extreme ‘carnal Christian’ doctrine, your readers have absolutely no reason to believe that you consider those who hold to New Covenant Theology as truly converted.

Your magazine accepted and printed an article that publicly labels us as more dangerous than ‘explicit antinomians” which means we are outside the camp of true orthodox Christianity. I believe this draws a false line in the sand. An open discussion of issues involving law and grace, especially as they relate to the Sabbath, is long overdue. The September 2002 issue of Tabletalk has raised the issue, but does not promote such a discussion. You may, with the use of false labels, help to widen the present gap and create even more divisions among believers and churches. Surely this is not the outcome either of us would desire.

We have received many reviews of the Wells / Zaspel book, New Covenant Theology. Nearly every one, even those from people within your own camp, are far different responses than that expressed by Barcellos in Tabletalk. We would welcome your own opinion, based on your personal reading of the book. Perhaps you would agree with Barcellos, but it is just as possible that you would express a far different sentiment. It might, at any rate, open the door for further discussion.

Following are five quotes that contribute insight into Tabletalk’s view of antinomianism. These quotes clearly demonstrate John Calvin, Martin Luther (along with most early Reformation Churches) John MacArthur, Colin Brown, James Mongomery Boice all consciously rejected the Westminster Confession of Faith’s view of the Sabbath. In no sense whatever am I suggesting that any of these men would agree with my understanding of New Covenant Theology. What I am saying is that every one of these men deserves the odious label of antinomian if they are judged by the standard that was used to judge me. They all clearly affirm that our blessed Lord dropped one of the laws, the Sabbath, that Covenant Theology considers to be a part of the ‘eternal, unchanging, moral law of God.’ It is clear that Christ viewed the Sabbath as no longer in force but as fulfilled in Himself. As the new Lawgiver, he had every right to do so.

One: R.L. Dabney, an avowed Sabbatarian, in his Systematic Theology, gives a clear and honest statement of Luther’s and Calvin’s views of the Sabbath.

We find that, in theory, almost all Protestants now profess the views once peculiar to Presbyterians and other Puritans … (p. 366). The historical fact, of which many intelligent Christians are not aware—that the communions founded at the Reformation, were widely and avowedly divided in opinion as to the perpetuity of the Sabbath obligation. A number of the Reformation churches, including some of the purest, professed that they saw no obligation in Scripture to any peculiar Sabbath observation (p. 366). The second opinion [that the Sabbath is a moral commandment and not ceremonial] is that embodied in the Westminster symbols, and, to the honor of Presbyterianism be it said, first avowed in modern times, even among Protestants, by that party in England … (p.367)

On pages 368–371, Dabney shows that the Mennonites, Lutherans and Anglicans were all non-sabbatarian. He then says:

[Calvin's] views of Sabbath-observation are substantially those of Luther. (p. 372)

Dabney concludes:

On the whole, it may be said that the Protestant Churches of continental Europe… properly speaking, have never had the Sabbath; for it has only been to them a holy-day, ranking no higher than Christmas or Easter. (p. 373)

Two: John MacArthur’s view.

The MacArthur N.T. Commentary, MATTHEW 8-15, by John MacArthur, Jr., (Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, 1987).

Sabbath observance was at the heart of the Jewish legalistic system, and when Jesus violated the traditions as to how that day should be honored, He struck a raw nerve. (p.280)

But that law [Sabbath commandment] is the only one of the Ten Commandments that is non-moral and purely ceremonial; and it was unique to the Old Covenant and to Israel. The other nine commandments, on the other hand, pertain to moral and spiritual absolutes and are repeated and expanded upon many places in the New Testament. But Sabbath observance is never recommended to Christians, much less given as a command in the New Testament.

When Jesus began His ministry, the Old Covenant was still in effect and all its requirements were binding on Jews, the special people of that covenant. Jesus observed every demand and met every condition of Scripture, because it was His own Word, which He came to fulfill and not destroy (Matt. 5:17).

Because the Lord of the Sabbath had come, the shadow of His Sabbath rest was no longer needed or valid. The New Testament does not require Sabbath observance, but rather allows freedom as to whether or not any day is honored above others … The Lord’s Day is not the “Christian Sabbath,” as it was considered to be for many centuries and still is in some groups today. (p.287, 288)

Three: From: The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, edited by Colin Brown, Vol. 3, (Zondervan).

Sabbath observance is strongly emphasized in both versions of the Decalogue, though a slightly different form and with a different reason suggested. (p. 405)

The Sabbath was to be kept holy, because Israel was a redeemed people. The Deuteronomic version then includes a second reason for its observance. Creation and redemption are both [equal] motives for its observance, the one for all men, the other for Israel. (p. 405)

Galatians 4:10. Paul is addressing Gentile converts who now, after their conversion, are turning to a scrupulous observance of Jewish ritual, special days, new moons, feasts and the yearly observances [and weekly] enjoined in the Levitical regulation [note in Leviticus 23 that the weekly is the head of the list]. They are taking on themselves the Jewish law. Paul will not countenance a reversal to Jewish practices for Gentile Christians. (p. 410)

Colossians 2:16. Here Paul argues that the Jewish law (the legal demands) were canceled in the death of Christ (v. 14), and therefore the Jewish food regulations and religious calendar are not binding on the Christian. Included in this ritual was the Jewish sabbath observance. These observances, Paul claims, pointed to a spiritual reality fulfilled in Christ. (p. 410)

There remains one other passage bearing on the sabbath. This is Hebrews 4:9: “there remains a keeping of sabbath [sabbatismos] to the people of God.” Here the rest typified by the sabbath is seen as the rest of the heart, provided in Christ (cf. Matt. 11:28) as realized partially now and finally in the life to come. (p. 410, 411)

Four: J.I. Packer and the Reformer’s view of the Sabbath.

Taken from:

A Quest for Godliness, by J.I. Packer, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1990).

First, however, we must fill in the historical background of our study.

The Puritans created the English Christian Sunday—that is, the conception and observance of the first day of the week as one on which both business and organized recreation should be in abeyance, and the whole time left free for worship, fellowship, and ‘good works.’ This ideal was never generally accepted by continental Protestants [Luther's and Calvin's view - JGR]… ( p. 235)

James I’s Declaration of sports (1618) laid it down that apart from bull-and bear-baiting and bowls, all the popular games of the day might be played on Sunday after church. In fact James hereby ‘simply reiterated what had been the law of the State and the Church since the early days of the Reformation’… (p. 235)

Against this background of history we now turn to the Puritan teaching itself.

1. The meaning of the Fourth Commandment (Ex. 20:8-11). Here the Puritans advanced on the Reformers. These latter had followed Augustine and medieval teaching generally in denying that the Lord’s Day was in any sense a Sabbath. They held that the Sabbath, which the Fourth Commandment prescribes, was a Jewish typical ceremony, foreshadowing the ‘rest’ of a grace-faith relationship with Christ. (p. 236)

Packer then proceeds to show “the Puritans, however, corrected the [Reformers] inconsistency.” (p. 237)

Five: Dr. James Montogery Boice’s View:

Dr. Boice, in the April 1994 issue of his Bible Study Hour monthly magazine (pages 38-45) reviews the three basic views of the Sabbath. After stating the Sabbatarian view, Dr. Boice acknowledges that the “Westminster Confession of Faith takes this view, calling the Lord’s Day the ‘Christian Sabbath’” … There is no question that this was the view of the English and American Puritans. It is held by most Reformed churches today.

Dr. Boice than gives his own view which is “Sunday Worship as a new ‘Lord’s Day:’”

This view holds that the Sabbath has been abolished by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and that a new day, the Lord’s Day, which has its own characteristics, has replaced it … This is my view also.

Are differences on this matter divisive? Yes, in some cases. Speaking of my own denomination only, it is worth pointing out that the most serious conflicts within the Presbyterian Church of America, which is a conservative denomination, are between those who insist on a strict adherence to the Westminster Standard, with its Sabbatarian view, and others who hold to the Standards more loosely … In our denomination there are people who would like to get pastors such as myself excluded, because we think this is a non-essential matter on which the Westminster Confession of Faith has gone beyond what ought to be required of anyone.

Dr. Boice then gives his reasons for rejecting the “Sunday worship but as the Sabbath” view and accepting the “Sunday worship as the new ‘Lord’s Day.’” He shows how the first view can easily lead to legalism and the second view can lead to libertinism, and then warns against both dangers. The context in which Dr. Boice is discussing the whole Sabbath question is Christian liberty as set forth in Romans 14:5, 6. His conclusion would be ‘vile heresy’ to anyone who adheres, without reservation, to the creeds.

Let me say that I do not believe you are “breaking the Sabbath” by eating out on Sunday, playing ball with your children, going to a football game or even-horrors of horrors-going to a movie. When my wife and I lived in Switzerland we used Sunday evening for evangelistic work, and that sometimes included taking our non-Christian friends to movies. But even though the right approach is not legalism, surely you can see that you are somehow missing the boat if Sunday is not a day of spiritual refreshment, an evangelistic opportunity, hours of genuine worship, and a time of joy for you. If going to church is something you want to get over with quickly, I would almost rather have you think of Sunday in a legalistic fashion.

It is interesting that Dr. Boice pleaded for tolerance and acceptance because there are sincere Christians who hold both views. It is even more interesting that Dr. Boice realized that the strict Sabbatarian view of the Westminster Confession finds it essential, in most cases, to make its view of the Sabbath a test of fellowship. Tabletalk’s readers could infer from the September issue that its authors and editor would fall into the camp that labels any view but that of classical Covenant Theology as antinomianism. We would echo Dr. Boice’s plea for tolerance and acceptance, and above all urge all involved to openly discuss the biblical data instead of sticking an undeserved label on those who disagree with a creed.

Footnotes:

1 I am indebted to Pastor David Frampton for the above. It was taken from his tract, “Me, An Antinomian? You Must be Kidding!” (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media).

2 Principles of Conduct, by John Murray, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, pages 14-18.

Though Romans 7:14-25 does not deal directly with original sin and the imputation of Adam’s guilt to his offspring, it does offer clarification as to the scope of Adam’s sin and its punishment. Romans 5:12-21, like our present text, is a very difficult passage of Scripture with regard to its subject and its complexity. In it, the Apostle deals with the very difficult subject of original sin and the universal condemnation afforded by that sin. The Apostle complicates the passage exponentially by introducing Jesus Christ as the Second Adam and by comparing and contrasting the two God-ordained heads of the human race. The passage is complicated further by the Apostle’s seemingly free use of universal and particular language, making it seem at one point that Christ is the universal head of the human race and at another, the head of a particular race. Thus the passage reads:

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord (Romans 5:15-21, emphasis mine).

There are several terms to note when trying to understand this passage. First is the persons over whom Christ is head. At some points in the passage, Christ is said to be the head of “the many” and at other points, “all men.” Second is the grace afforded to those over whom Christ is head. For the many is the “abundance of grace” (vv. 5:15, 17, 20), and for all men, the “grace of God” (v. 5:15). Third is the state of those over whom Christ is head. For the many, is the state of “righteousness” (v. 5:17, 19, 21), and for all men, “justification” (v.
5:16, 18). Fourth is the life granted to those over whom Christ is head. For the many is “eternal life” (v. 5:21), and for all men, “life” (v. 5:18).

Through this passage alone, we can deduce that Christ’s headship and the grace that God gives through Christ is universal in one respect and particular in another. What is not so clear however is the scope of the condemnation (whether it be temporal or eternal death) of Adam’s sin imputed to all of his offspring. For this, Romans 7 offers a clearer insight. In v. 7:9, the Apostle writes, “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died.” In this verse, the Apostle clarifies what can be deduced in Romans 5:12-21, viz. that the death afforded by Adam is strictly temporal in nature, viz. that the punishment afforded to all men through Adam is physical death. For in v. 7:9, the speaker, being a descendent of Adam, is already condemned to physical death and yet is said to die when he encounters the law and transgresses it. Therefore, it can be said that spiritual death comes to the speaker when he first comprehends the law of God and transgresses against that law (cf. v. 1:20). The experience of the speaker of Romans 7 is identical to the experience of Adam, for God said to Adam, “On the day that you eat of the tree, you shall surely die,” and yet Adam remained physically alive after he ate. God’s word did not fail, for Adam, like the speaker of Romans 7, died spiritually the moment that he transgressed the commandment though he did not die physically until much later.

Was not the sin of Adam sufficient for both the physical and spiritual death of his offspring? It was indeed, but we see even from Genesis 3 the promised coming of the second Adam who would crush the head of the serpent and who granted Adam and his offspring, even prior to his coming, the grace of physical life though they deserved immediate, physical death. Paul puts it this way in Romans 3:23-25, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.” This divine forbearance that allowed God to pass over the sins of the human race and not to commit the race immediately to the judgment of physical death did not come without a price, but it came through the very blood of his Son, Jesus Christ. Here we see clearly how Christ is the universal head of all men and is also the particular head of the many. Christ is head of all men insofar as God through his death grants to all men a measure of physical life. Christ was offered up as a propitiation for the human race—a temporal turning aside of the wrath of God so that all men are temporarily justified in the sight of God so that they will not immediately bear the physical condemnation of Adam’s sin or their own transgressions. This is indeed a grace of God afforded by Christ for all men, for apart from this universal grace no man would live.

This grace of physical life that God grants to all men through Christ, the second Adam, has an even greater purpose, of which the Apostle speaks in Romans 9:20-24 when objections are made against the purpose of God:

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?

In this weighty passage of Scripture we see that God not only withholds his wrath from all men so that those who would believe in Christ would come to him in faith but also so that those who would be vessels of the abundance of God’s mercy would comprehend the riches of the grace of God granted to them through Christ. Christ’s universal headship that withholds the hand of God’s judgment exists ultimately to bring glory to his name through the realization of his great and particular mercy that he has shown to those over whom Christ is their particular head in the abundance of grace. Of this abundance of grace, the saints of God will sing forever, witnessing how God has sovereignly called them out of the world of common grace and into the fold of particular and abundant grace.

Going back to the testimony of Romans 7:9, the justification that Christ grants to all men is justification of the original sin of Adam that brings eternal condemnation. Though those who have not sinned after the likeness of the offense of Adam might fall under the physical curse and die without comprehending and volitionally transgressing a law (e.g. infants, mentally handicapped, etc.), their condemnation is not eternal death, for where there is no comprehension of the law there is no imputation of sin (v. 5:13). Thus it can be said that those who are children of Adam who have not comprehended the law of God, be it the Mosaic law or Natural law, are spiritually alive until they reach a point of comprehension of God’s law. This fact is clearly seen in v. 7:9 where the speaker says, “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive, and I died.” The sin that came alive in the speaker, viz. covetousness from the command, “You shall not covet,” was sufficient enough to kill the speaker spiritually thereby affording him enslavement to sin and eternal damnation. And though Christ is the speaker’s universal head, who relieves him from original sin’s eternal condemnation, the curse of original sin, that which indwells the speaker and remains dormant until cognition of the law of God, is such that it is certain to kill the speaker the very moment that recognition of the law of God occurs.

All this is to say that Christ’s universal headship is such that it justifies eternally those who have died apart from comprehension of the law of God, be it the Mosaic law or Natural law. This doctrine is commonly expressed as the “age of accountability,” but until studying Romans 5:12-21 in light of Romans 7:9, I have never encountered Scriptural warrant for the doctrine. Indeed, I was quite on the fence, as it were, with regard to the salvation of those who died apart from volitionally transgressing the law, for I have always heard it argued from texts that were never meant to express that truth. This doctrine, expressed from Romans 5:12-21 and Romans 7:9, places the salvation of those who have not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s offense in its proper light, viz. in the grace of God afforded by the work of Christ. For apart from Christ even those who have never comprehended the law of God are under the condemnation of Adam which is both temporal and eternal death. However, Christ’s work as the Second Adam has placed all men under his headship, justifying them from the eternal condemnation of Adam sin. All men are relieved of this judgment of eternal condemnation until they comprehend the law of God, which brings with it certain rebellion and death because of the sin that indwells all men and remains dead until the time of that cognition.

Therefore, the doctrine that is known as the “age of accountability” would be better named the “state of accountability,” for it is not a certain age that makes one accountable to God, but it is a state of comprehension. For the very moment that a person, no matter his age, comprehends a command of God and by his sinful nature rebels against it and thereby rebels against God, he dies spiritually, becomes enslaved to sin, and is condemned in the sight of God. This rebellion against the commandments of God can indeed come at a young age, therefore making the declaration of the Gospel to children of great import. No parent should withhold from his child the teaching of the Gospel, especially if he sees in his child the evidences of rebellion. The first thing that a child should learn from his parent is that his rebellion has a much weightier consequence than a rod on the back—condemnation in the sight of a holy God. Every spanking of a child for his rebellion must then be used as an opportunity for the Gospel, so that through that discipline a parent might save his child from eternal damnation (cf. Proverbs 23:14).

The true light, which enlightens all men, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:9-13).

In the opening verses to his Gospel, the apostle John gives us some of the most well-known verses in Scripture. And though they are well-known by themselves, they point to a text that is even more well-known, namely the first verses of the Scriptures found in Genesis 1. And what I believe the apostle is doing in writing these verses is that he is giving us a commentary upon the Genesis 1 account of the Creation in light of the revealed Person of Jesus Christ. And I say commentary and not revelation, because what the apostle is saying is not something that is new, but it is something that is seen more clearly in Jesus Christ.

To explain what I mean, let’s consider the first verses of the Genesis account in light of John 1. In Genesis 1, Moses writes, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). One thing I love about this text is the way by which the Holy Spirit had revealed it to Moses. For the phrase, “In the beginning” (which has been argued by non-Christian Jewish scholars before and after the coming of Christ), is a purposely ambiguous phrase in the Hebrew. For while it does convey the meaning of “In the beginning,” the same words are used later in the book of Genesis to refer to Jacob’s firstborn son, Reuben. These Jewish scholars, ironically, have shown that these first words in Genesis can be alternately rendered, “Through the Firstborn, God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, granting that is true and granting what the apostle Paul has written elsewhere concerning Jesus Christ, namely that he is the Firstborn of all creation, we have in the Genesis account precisely what the apostle John is saying in his Gospel, namely, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made” (John 1:1-3).

Furthermore, what is interesting is what the apostle John calls Jesus Christ in his preincarnate state, namely “the Word”. For when we consider how God created the heavens and earth, how did he do it? He spoke it into being. He used Words. (e.g. God said, let there be light, and there was light). Now does this mean that God said some magic words and that things magically popped into existence? Well considering John’s argument, I would say that is probably not a full understanding of what really happened. What is likely the proper understanding is that which can be seen in the Gospels, namely that God the Father decrees something and the Son carries out the will of the Father. And just as Jesus Christ when on this earth did everything in submission to the will of the Father, so too at the Creation the Father willed something to take place and the Son carried out his Father’s will. And so, when the Father willed that the universe and all that is in it be created, the Son, the Word, carried out the will of the Father, and thus through the Son all things were created.

The apostle goes on to say: “In him was life, and the life was the light of men.” In other words, in the Son–in Jesus Christ–everything that has life and being has it through him alone. The apostle Paul makes a more precise statement in his letter to the Colossians, writing: “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” “In Jesus Christ all things hold together” (Col. 1:15-17). In other words, if there is something that exists and maintains its existence, it is because Jesus Christ created it and holds its together. The apostle to the Hebrews says also, “Jesus is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds everything by the word of his power.”

Now, an interesting and geeky side-note concerning this reality, namely that Jesus Christ holds all things together by the Word of his Power is a theory in secular physics called the God Particle. Scientists have observed fascinating things at the molecular level, but the one thing that they cannot and have not figured out is why all these things hold together and do not fly out of control. Therefore, many have guessed that there is some yet undiscovered part of atoms (that which they call the God Particle) that has mass or weight, because mass (the same thing that causes gravity) is supposedly the force that holds all things together. And yet they have not found this particle. I doubt that they ever will find this supposed God Particle because this particle does not exist, because I believe what the apostle Paul says is true, namely that it is Jesus Christ (not some particle) who upholds everything by the Word of his Power, even every single atom in the Universe. That, brothers, is the greatness and the vastness and almightiness of the God we serve.

Therefore in this text, before John tells his account of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, he wants us to understand who Jesus is and who he has always been. Before he shows us that Jesus is the carpenter’s son, the man who turned water into wine, the man who beckoned children to come to him, and the man who died upon the cross, John wants us to know that this Jesus Christ is the God of the universe. And John wants us to know that Jesus is not a God who is like a watchmaker who created the world and spun it into self-existence, but he is the God who created all things and in him all things have life and existence, and, if he so pleased, he could let all things go and they would be annihilated into absolute nothingness. In him is life, and without him there is no life.

Now this life of which the apostle speaks, namely “In him was life, and the life was the light of men,” points to a life that is more than just purely existing. This life of which the apostle speaks is a life that is a light to men. Now, we know what the apostle is speaking of, and we’ll see that more clearly in our verses, that this life, this light of men, is what the apostle Paul calls in his second letter to the Corinthian church, “The light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2Cor. 4:4). In other words, this life is not simply breathing, but it is coming to the Father as his friend and his child and not as his enemy. The apostle John writes later the words of Christ, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to Father except through me” (John 14:6). And so Jesus Christ, being the life that holds all things together by the Word of his power, is also the life that is the light of men whereby men come to Father as justified and not condemned.

Despite these positive statements about Jesus Christ, the apostle John highlights two problems that exist in the world in these verses. The first is seen in the need of the life which is the light of men. In other words, something happened in time that made it so that men needed a Light that would grant them life. We know well what that was, namely Adam eating the forbidden fruit of the tree and plummeting the whole human race into sin and darkness and to judgment. A second problem is seen in v. 5, namely that “The light shines in the darkness (i.e. the darkness of men’s hearts and understanding), and the darkness has not comprehended it, has not understood it, had not perceived it.” In other words, the light has existed and it has been shining into the darkness that was created by sin, yet the darkness, namely those who lived in darkness, did not see it or understand it. And it is in this context that we come to our verses tonight.

The true light, which enlightens all men, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:9-13).

Now, this is a very deep and rich text, and so I am going to try to the best of my ability to unpack what the apostle through the Holy Spirit is saying in it. And because of its depth, we’re going to pay special attention to the different nouns and verb tenses that the apostle uses to compose it.

The apostle begins with what I believe is an introductory statement to this section. He begins saying, “The true light (which we know from v. 4 is the life of men, i.e. Jesus Christ and his Gospel) which enlightens all men, was coming into the world.” Now I believe it is an introductory statement because he clarifies everything that he is saying in this verse in the verses that follow. In the later verses, he clarifies what this “enlightenment” is, he clarifies what this “all men” is, and he clarifies what he means by saying that this light “was coming into the world.” Among these things, I think we can see from the text that the chief idea of this text is the nature of the enlightenment of this True Light, and everything else in the text hinges upon that enlightenment.

When we think upon the word “enlightenment” and what enlightenment is, we find that it has multiple meanings. First, enlightenment can have the idea an internal enlightenment, of a mental or spiritual type, whereby men understand things more clearly. What comes to mind is what we call the Age of Enlightenment which is called thus because it was supposedly a transition in human history from the Dark Ages of a lack of understanding to the Age of Science and Reason and Knowledge. Now, whether that is true or not in history can be debated, but that is one way which we understand the term. Another way is external enlightenment, like that of a light bulb enlightening a room, where light shines in and fills a room and has nothing to do with human perception. If a blind man were to walk into a room enlightened by a light bulb, the room would be no less enlightened simply because he could not perceive it. The light is there, he just does not have the ability to see it.

The apostle John, I believe uses both senses of this term, i.e. both external enlightenment and internal enlightenment. First, in these verses we see the external enlightenment of Jesus Christ. In v. 10, he writes, “He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him.” Now, to understand what the apostle is saying, I think it would be helpful to understand what he means by the terms that he uses. First, by using “world” I believe he is meaning to convey the notion of “all nations” or “Gentiles” because of the context here (“world” being set against “he came to his own people” in the next verse) and the way that John uses it in the rest of his Gospel. For example in John 3:16 which clearly parallels Psalm 2, the psalmist writes, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you, ask of me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession … Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled; blessed are all who take refuge in him,” and later the Pharisees say, “Look the world has gone after him,” when they see that even the Greeks are seeking Jesus.” So, what does it mean that he was (past tense) in the world before his incarnation and the peoples did not know him? Well, I think John is saying what the apostle Paul says in Romans 1, namely:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God his plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes namely his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made, so they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in there thinking and there foolish hearts were darkened (Rm. 1:18-21).

In other words, the state of existence of all men is such that they know God and yet do not know God. For the way that sin has so corrupted the world makes it so that everyone who is born of the seed of Adam can perceive God in the things that have been created since Jesus Christ is stamped upon everything that has been made, and yet they do not know him and therefore rebel against him and their foolish hearts are darkened. As Charles Spurgeon has rightly said, “The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay.” Those in the world think that they are wise, but in reality they are fools, and they exchange the glory of the immortal God for idols and are therefore hardened. For this reason, everyone is without excuse, for as the apostle writes later, “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law.”

Now the problem that is in the world because of Adam’s transgression is so great and so pervasive that it not only covers the Gentiles in darkness, but it also covers the Jews. The apostle John writes in the next verse, “He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him.” So we see in the flow of the text that the apostle John is saying that the natural state of man in Adam is such that the Gentiles who saw Christ clearly in the creation did not see him, and even his own people, the Jews, to whom he had given the law through Moses did not receive him but rejected him. In Matthew’s Gospel, the apostle quotes Christ quoting Isaiah concerning the Jews, saying, “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear” (Mt. 13:13). In other words, though they had the law and, as Christ said, the law’s chief purpose was to testify about him, yet those who had the law, even the Pharisees who had memorized it, did not see or receive Christ. In other words, the law by itself can never save a soul. It’s for this reason that the apostle John writes a few verses later, “The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

The apostle Paul in Romans addresses the same issue in chapter 3, considering the advantage that the Jew might have over the Gentile. His final conclusion is this: “What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all, for we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin. As it is written, ‘None is righteous, no not one. No one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have become worthless. No one does good, not even one’” (Rm. 3:9-12). Now if this is the state of everyone, namely that none is righteous, no one understands, and no one seeks for God, then what hope is there for any man?

The hope is in Jesus Christ and the second form of enlightenment. For all have received the first form of enlightenment, the external form, whether in the created world or in the law, yet all that enlightenment is able to do is to condemn men, for as we have already seen in the Romans, “All who live apart from the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law” (Rm. 2:12). When it boils down to it, it is just as the apostle Paul says in the preceding verse, God shows no partiality between men (cf. Rm. 2:11).

Therefore the only hope that men have is not in the revelation in created things or in the law, but it is in the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit of God. We see this in the following verse. The apostle begins that verse, saying, “Now to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to be children of God.” The problem is, as we have already seen, is that the Gentiles did not know him and the Jews did not receive him, and, as the apostle Paul says, “No one understands, no one seeks for God.” So, then, what good is this declaration if no one, not even Jesus’ own people are going to receive him? The good comes in the latter part of the verse. He writes, “Who were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. Concerning this same matter, Jesus says to Nicodemus in John 3:8, “You must be born again (or, alternately translated, you must be born from above). The wind blows where it wills, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” In other words, the hope that there will be those who believe in Jesus, that there will be those in a world where there is darkness that does not comprehend Jesus Christ or receives him, is being born again, being given new life from God. And as John has said before, Jesus Christ gives life, and that life is the light of men.

And this being born of God, this impartation of new life, is not accomplished by blood, or by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man, but it is accomplished by the will of God. In other words, this understanding that gives us the ability to believe in Jesus and to receive him–we who were of those do not understand and who do not seek for God–is not accomplished by our bloodline or our genealogy, it is not accomplished by the works of our flesh, and it is not accomplished by our wills, but it accomplished by God and his will alone. The apostle Paul says this same thing in his letter to Romans, saying “Not all Israel is Israel” or in other words, not everyone who is of the physical bloodline of Abraham are God’s people, and later in that same chapter, “So then salvation depends not human will or exertion but on God who has mercy.” John the Baptist says the same thing to the Jews, “Do not presume to say to yourselves ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham” (Mt. 3:9).

When we think about it, how could salvation be any other way? For if what the Scriptures say is true about our condition, namely that we are all naturally under sin because of Adam and our state in Adam is such that we are dead in our trespasses and are naturally blind to who Jesus Christ is, whether we have his Word and law or not, how could our salvation that is based upon believing in and receiving Jesus Christ not be anything less than a New Creation? The apostle Paul picks up this very idea in his second letter to the Corinthians. Answering the questions why he doesn’t peddle the Gospel as a salesman, why he doesn’t leave out the hard parts of God’s Word, or why he doesn’t dim the lights and play soft music at the end of a sermon, he writes, “And even if our Gospel is veiled (not seen) it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case, the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers to keep them from seeing the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2Cor. 4:3-6).

So in this, we are brought back to John 1 and the Word through whom everything was created. For the same Jesus Christ who created the heavens and the earth is the same Jesus Christ who says, “Let light shine out of darkness” in our hearts. For as the apostle John as shown, and others like him, the chief problem in the world is not that people haven’t heard of Jesus Christ, but it is that they haven’t heard Jesus Christ. Everyone in the world to some extent, no matter who they are or where they’re from, has heard and seen Jesus Christ. And yet by themselves they are all deaf and blind. The apostle Paul picks us this very topic concerning the unbelieving Jews in Romans 10, saying: “But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for ‘Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the earth” (Rm. 10:18). Here Paul quotes Psalm 19, which argues the same thing that John and Paul argue in their writings, namely that “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork; Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge; Yet there is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard” (Ps. 19:1-3). And so the chief problem, as the apostle Paul argues, is not that there is no faith, but it is that there is no hearing, for which reason he says in the preceding verse, “So faith comes from hearing, but hearing by the Word of Christ” (Rm. 10:17). In other words, our faith comes from us hearing the Lord and his Gospel, but where does our hearing come from? Our hearing comes from the Word of Christ. The very same Word that spoke the worlds into existence is the same Word who speaks our hearing into existence. As John records Christ later as saying to the Jews:

“I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice…” So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me” (John 10:14-16, 24-27).

Now these are some deep truths that go beyond what we typically call the simple proclamation of the Gospel. They are a behind-the-scenes look at the Gospel that God has revealed to us through his Holy Spirit. And we are not given these things so that we can see around with a cup of coffee and debate things, but they are meant to transform our lives. How does this teaching do this?

1. First, these things make us thankful people. In fact it should make us the most thankful people in the world. For if we understand that everything that we have in this life that is good is a gift of God, we should be thankful to God. Moreover, if we understand who we are, namely that we are wretched sinners who deserve nothing good but deserve nothing but death and evil, the very fact that we are still breathing is cause enough to thank God for the rest of our days. But even more than that, if we understand that our sin has afforded for us an eternity in hell and that we in ourselves could find no real escape from this hell, then the fact that Jesus Christ has shown himself to us by his power and the Father’s good pleasure and not only has saved us from judgment but has brought us into the family of God so that we are not only his children but we share in his Inheritance, well, brothers, that is life-changing.

2. Second, these things should make us humble people. Several times in their writings, the apostles talk about salvation in Jesus Christ and say immediately that because of this salvation all boasting is removed. In other words, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was designed by God in such a way that saved men would have no grounds to boast in themselves. One of my favorite expressions of this is at the beginning of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians:

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1Cor. 1:26-31).

Therefore, let us understand these things and boast in nothing except in Jesus Christ.

3. Third, these things should make us understand that no one is too far from God. No one. For if what the apostle argues is true, namely that there is no difference between the Jew who has the law of Moses and the Gentile who does not have it because they are both under sin, then we have no basis to judge whether or not someone is closer to believing the Gospel than someone else. There are no degrees of salvation–a person is either in Christ or he is not, and God, if he so pleases, can remove the veil of blindness from anyone he pleases.

I’ve heard a lot of people quote from 1 Timothy 2, but it’s not usually with the purpose I believe the apostle Paul is writing it. He says:

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time (1Tim. 2:1-5).

Well to skip any potential theological debate and jump directly into what Paul is writing here, what is he saying? Well, chiefly he is telling Timothy to tell the church to pray, to intercede, and to give thanks for all people, even those whom he describes as “kings and all who are in high places.” Why does he tell them this? Well, as hard as it may be to understand, it is possible that the Christians in Paul’s day lived under such a terrible government that it would make them not want to pray for, to intercede for, and to give thanks for their political leaders. Even more, not too long after Paul writes this letter, the greatest persecutor in the history of the church, Caesar Nero, would take the throne in Rome, and would kill thousands of Christians, crucifying them and feeding them to lions as Romans cheered in the Coliseum, and whose name in Hebrew just happens to add up to 666. But that is neither here nor there. Yet despite all this persecution and despite the wickedness of the kings and leaders, Paul urges the church to pray for them? Why? Because, first, he wanted Christians to treat their leaders in such a way that the church could “live a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” Secondly, they were to pray because God can save anyone. And while it can be argued that God does prefer to save the weak and the foolish and the nothings for the purpose of shaming the strong, the wise, and the somethings, God is not above saving anyone (cf. 1Cor. 1:27-29).

Therefore, when it comes to the grace of God, there is no lost cause on our side of the matter. For as the apostle Paul writes, “God has consigned all to disobedience [both Jews and Greeks], so that he might have mercy on all” (Rm. 11:32). Therefore, the nice lady who bakes pies for her neighbors and helps at the soup kitchen because she’s a Jehovah’s Witness is sitting in the exact same boat as the lesbian woman who volunteers at the Planned Parenthood clinic in San Francisco. Both are under sin, and both deny that Jesus Christ is the God of the universe because they are both dead, blind, and deaf to him and his Gospel. Therefore there is no prayer for any person’s soul that is prayed in vain, there is no preaching of the Gospel that is preached in vain, and there is no tear shed for a lost loved one that is shed in vain. No one is beyond the reach of the saving hand of God, for our God is not only a savior, but he is an Almighty Savior.

And yet we find that there is grace in Adam’s transgression, for in that transgression the knowledge of God was more deeply imparted. And while the knowledge of God is a curse and a judgment upon those who hear it naturally and rebel (cf. Rm. 7:7-8), to those to whom Christ has been revealed specially, it is the knowledge of the riches of God’s mercy (cf. Rm. 9:23). For while it can be said that Adam knew the Lord in the Garden, having walked with him in unbroken fellowship, there are things that Adam would not have known had sin never entered into the picture. It is for this reason that the sinless angels who dwell in the resplendent and matchless presence of the Thrice Holy God are said to peer longingly into those things which have been revealed to those who have been redeemed (cf. 1Pet. 1:12), and it is for this reason that the tree bearing the forbidden fruit was named, “The Knowledge of Good and Evil” (cf. Gen. 2:17). For I doubt there was some special substance in the fruit itself that lent itself to such revelation, but the single act of defiance, the act of transgressing the one command to which God had subjected Adam, was sufficient enough both to damn the human race and to instill in Adam’s offspring the seed of rebellion and of evil.

However, coupled with this new propensity toward evil was the heightened understanding of that which is good. For the tree of the forbidden fruit was not merely the “Tree of the Knowledge of Evil,” but it was the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” For when man took on his sinful corruption there became a clear defining line between who he is now and who he was. For when he was God’s sinless Image-bearer (ever how long that was) he was good and lived in complete goodness. He knew nothing apart from God’s goodness and the goodness that was instilled in him, therefore it may well be said that he knew little of goodness at all. For, as it were, if one wants to know what “wetness” is, he does not ask a fish, for a fish has known nothing but “wetness,” so too, to some degree, man in his prelapsarian state knew little of goodness for it was the ocean in which he swam. And though Adam perceived the goodness of God in the beauty of what he had made and the order in which he made it, there is little doubt that Adam’s comprehension of the goodness of God and his creation was deepened when the ground began to produce thorns that destroyed his labors and painfully pricked his hands.

It is in this context that we meditate upon morality. For we do not have the benefit of meditating upon this subject outside of who we are in Adam, and I doubt that little would be gained if it were otherwise. For when we consider the subject of morality and moral law, we are doing thus in a world that is not as it once was and as men who are not as we once were. And it may be rightly said that our morality and consciences, our sin-laden compasses that still in Adam’s offspring points toward that which is good, is among the few vestiges of God’s Image that are still upon us. And it is in our present context alone that morality has any meaning, for what meaning would morality have in an unfallen world? What would, “You shall not murder” mean in a world where there is no hatred and nothing dies? What would “You shall not commit adultery” mean in a world where the desire to lust after another man’s wife did not exist? What would “You shall have no other God before me” mean in a world where idolatry is inconceivable? Thus our study on the subject of morality will be upon that which is written upon the hearts of all sinful men that points toward the goodness of God and stands against the evil that has imprisoned the soul and corrupted the world.

Having taught through Romans, I know the potential response to this text, and I have heard responses outside of that context. Many times the initial response is not, “What does this text mean?” but it is, “Paul is not speaking of the Sabbath here.” Well, the text clearly says that some esteem one day better than another, and others esteem all days alike, yet the apostle’s response is not that one person is wrong and the other is not, but it is that each must be convinced in his own mind. Now if all in this text means every day, then that naturally would include the Sabbath. But if the argument is that Paul does not mean to include the Sabbath in this, then the burden of proof falls upon those who think that Christians are still obligated to keep the Sabbath.

For those who think that Christians are still obligated to keep the Sabbath, this is where your burden of proof lies:

1. For those who think that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath and that Sabbath is Sunday or “The Lord’s Day,” your burden of proof lies chiefly in that you must show a command in the New Testament that expresses that God’s Sabbath has been changed by God from the seventh day to the first day. For the command in Moses is clearly that the seventh day, and the seventh day alone, is holy, for it was the seventh day that God rested from creating the universe. Otherwise, if you observe the first day as holy when God has clearly shown that it is the seventh day, then you are necessarily breaking the Sabbath.

2. For those who think that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath and are to keep the Sabbath on Saturday, your task is bit more difficult (though this is also the burden of Group 1). You must show from Scripture why we—we who have died with Christ and thus have died to the law and are thereby freed from it (cf. Rm. 6:1-7:4)—are under the Mosaic law of the Sabbath. For while it is universally acknowledged that God rested on the seventh day, Sabbath-keeping was not commanded until Moses (cf. Ex. 16:23). If your argument tends toward its preceding the Ten Commandments, then you must also demonstrate why circumcision—which existed from Abraham and yet was denounced by the first church council (cf. Acts 15:6-11) and was condemned as anti-Gospel by Paul (cf. Gal. 5:2-6)—is not to be kept but the Sabbath is. If your argument tends toward the Ten Commandments being universal moral laws, then you must demonstrate that Scripture classifies the Ten in this way and that they transcend the laws that we who are in Christ have been freed from.

Happy digging.:) Comments and answers to the aforementioned questions are certainly welcome. By studying these things, I hope we all will become convinced in our own mind. Grace and peace.

Tom Schreiner’s 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law releases later this month. As I’ve said before, I think it’s now the go-to book for an accessible introduction to all the major issues related to gospel and law, the role of law in redemptive history, application of the law today, etc. I could not recommend it more highly.

Kregel has kindly given me permission to reprint some of the entries. I’ll do so throughout the week. I won’t reproduce the footnotes or the discussion questions, but other than that it’s the full entry.

Today I’ll reprint question #37, “Is the Sabbath Still Required for Christians?”

Believers today continue to dispute whether the Sabbath is required. The Sabbath was given to Israel as a covenant sign, and Israel was commanded to rest on the seventh day. We see elsewhere in the Old Testament that covenants have signs, so that the sign of the Noahic covenant is the rainbow (Gen. 9:8–17) and the sign of the Abrahamic covenant is circumcision (Gen. 17). The paradigm for the Sabbath was God’s rest on the seventh day of creation (Gen. 2:1–3). So, too, Israel was called upon to rest from work on the seventh day (Exod. 20:8–11; 31:12–17). What did it mean for Israel not to work on the Sabbath? Figure 5 lists the kinds of activities that were prohibited and permitted.

The Sabbath was certainly a day for social concern, for rest was mandated for all Israelites, including their children, slaves, and even animals (Deut. 5:14). It was also a day to honor and worship the Lord. Special burnt offerings were offered to the Lord on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9–10). Psalm 92 is a Sabbath song that voices praise to God for his steadfast love and faithfulness. Israel was called upon to observe the Sabbath in remembrance of the Lord’s work in delivering them as slaves from Egyptian bondage (Deut. 5:15). Thus, the Sabbath is tied to Israel’s covenant with the Lord, for it celebrates her liberation from slavery. The Sabbath, then, is the sign of the covenant between the Lord and Israel (Exod. 31:12–17; Ezek. 20:12–17). The Lord promised great blessing to those who observed the Sabbath (Isa. 56:2, 6; 58:13–14). Breaking the Sabbath command was no trivial matter, for the death penalty was inflicted upon those who intentionally violated it (Exod. 31:14–15; 35:2; Num. 15:32–36), though collecting manna on the Sabbath before the Mosaic law was codified did not warrant such a punishment (Exod. 16:22–30). Israel regularly violated the Sabbath—the sign of the covenant—and this is one of the reasons the people were sent into exile (Jer. 17:21–27; Ezek. 20:12–24).

FIGURE 5A: WORK PROHIBITED ON THE SABBATH

Kindling a fire
Exod. 35:3

Gathering manna
Exod. 16:23–29

Selling goods
Neh. 10:31; 13:15–22

Bearing burdens
Jer. 17:19–27

FIGURE 5B: ACTIVITIES PERMITTED ON THE SABBATH

Military campaigns
Josh. 6:15; 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Kings 3:9

Marriage feasts
Judg. 14:12–18

Dedication feasts
1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8–9

Visiting a man of God
2 Kings 4:23

Changing temple guards
2 Kings 11:5–9

Preparing showbread and putting it out
1 Chron. 9:32

Offering sacrifices
1 Chron. 23:31; Ezek. 46:4–5

Duties of priests and Levites
2 Kings 11:5–9; 2 Chron. 23:4, 8

Opening the east gate
Ezek. 46:1–3

During the Second Temple period, views of the Sabbath continued to develop. It is not my purpose here to conduct a complete study. Rather, a number of illustrations will be provided to illustrate how seriously Jews took the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day of feasting and therefore a day when fasting was not appropriate (Jdt. 8:6; 1 Macc. 1:39, 45). Initially, the Hasmoneans refused to fight on the Sabbath, but after they were defeated in battle they changed their minds and began to fight on the Sabbath (1 Macc. 2:32–41; cf. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 12.274, 276–277). The author of Jubilees propounds a rigorous view of the Sabbath (Jubilees 50:6–13). He emphasizes that no work should be done, specifying a number of tasks that are prohibited (50:12–13). Fasting is prohibited since the Sabbath is a day for feasting (50:10, 12). Sexual relations with one’s wife also are prohibited (50:8), though offering the sacrifices ordained in the law are permitted (50:10). Those who violate the Sabbath prescriptions should die (50:7, 13). The Sabbath is eternal, and even the angels keep it (2:17–24). Indeed, the angels kept the Sabbath in heaven before it was established on earth (2:30). All Jewish authors concur that God commanded Israel to literally rest, though it is not surprising that Philo thinks of it as well in terms of resting in God (Sobriety, 1:174) and in terms of having thoughts of God that are fitting (Special Laws, 2:260). Philo also explains the number seven symbolically (Moses, 2:210).

The Qumran community was quite strict regarding Sabbath observance, maintaining that the right interpretation must be followed (CD 6:18; 10:14–23). Even if an animal falls into a pit it should not be helped on the Sabbath (CD 11:13–14), something Jesus assumes is permissible when talking to the Pharisees (Matt. 12:11). In the Mishnah thirty-nine different types of work are prohibited on the Sabbath (m. Shabbat 7:2).

I do not believe the Sabbath is required for believers now that the new covenant has arrived in the person of Jesus Christ. I should say, first of all, that it is not my purpose to reiterate what I wrote about the Sabbath in the Gospels since the Sabbath texts were investigated there. Here it is my purpose to pull the threads together in terms of the validity of the Sabbath for today. Strictly speaking, Jesus does not clearly abolish the Sabbath, nor does he violate its stipulations. Yet the focus on regulations that is evident in Jubilees, Qumran, and in the Mishnah is absent in Jesus’ teaching. He reminded his hearers that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). Some sectors of Judaism clearly had lost this perspective, so that the Sabbath had lost its humane dimension. They were so consumed with rules that they had forgotten mercy (Matt. 12:7). Jesus was grieved at the hardness of the Pharisees’ hearts, for they lacked love for those suffering (Mark 3:5).

Jesus’ observance of the Sabbath does not constitute strong evidence for its continuation in the new covenant. His observance of the Sabbath makes excellent sense, for he lived under the Old Testament law. He was “born under the law” as Paul says (Gal. 4:4). On the other hand, a careful reading of the Gospel accounts intimates that the Sabbath will not continue to play a significant role. Jesus proclaims as the Son of Man that he is the “lord even of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28). The Sabbath does not rule over him, but he rules over the Sabbath. He is the new David, the Messiah, to whom the Sabbath and all the Old Testament Scriptures point (Matt. 12:3–4). Indeed, Jesus even claimed in John 5:17 that he, like his Father, works on the Sabbath. Working on the Sabbath, of course, is what the Old Testament prohibits, but Jesus claimed that he must work on the Sabbath since he is equal with God (John 5:18).
It is interesting to consider here the standpoint of the ruler of the synagogue in Luke 13:10–17. He argued that Jesus should heal on the other six days of the week and not on the Sabbath. On one level this advice seems quite reasonable, especially if the strict views of the Sabbath that were common in Judaism were correct. What is striking is that Jesus deliberately healed on the Sabbath. Healing is what he “ought” (dei) to do on the Sabbath day (Luke 13:16). It seems that he did so to demonstrate his superiority to the Sabbath and to hint that it is not in force forever. There may be a suggestion in Luke 4:16–21 that Jesus fulfills the Jubilee of the Old Testament (Lev. 25). The rest and joy anticipated in Jubilee is fulfilled in him, and hence the rest and feasting of the Sabbath find their climax in Jesus.

We would expect the Sabbath to no longer be in force since it was the covenant sign of the Mosaic covenant, and, as I have argued elsewhere in this book, it is clear that believers are no longer under the Sinai covenant. Therefore, they are no longer bound by the sign of the covenant either. The Sabbath, as a covenant sign, celebrated Israel’s deliverance from Egypt, but the Exodus points forward, according to New Testament writers, to redemption in Christ. Believers in Christ were not freed from Egypt, and hence the covenant sign of Israel does not apply to them.

It is clear in Paul’s letters that the Sabbath is not binding upon believers. In Colossians Paul identifies the Sabbath as a shadow along with requirements regarding foods, festivals, and the new moon (Col. 2:16–17). The Sabbath, in other words, points to Christ and is fulfilled in him. The word for “shadow” (skia) that Paul uses to describe the Sabbath is the same term the author of Hebrews used to describe Old Testament sacrifices. The law is only a “shadow (skia) of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities” (Heb. 10:1). The argument is remarkably similar to what we see in Colossians: both contrast elements of the law as a shadow with the “substance” (sōma, Col. 2:17) or the “form” (eikona, Heb. 10:1) found in Christ. Paul does not denigrate the Sabbath. He salutes its place in salvation history, for, like the Old Testament sacrifices, though not in precisely the same way, it prepared the way for Christ. I know of no one who thinks Old Testament sacrifices should be instituted today; and when we compare what Paul says about the Sabbath with such sacrifices, it seems right to conclude that he thinks the Sabbath is no longer binding.

Some argue, however, that “Sabbath” in Colossians 2:16 does not refer to the weekly Sabbaths but only to sabbatical years. But this is a rather desperate expedient, for the most prominent day in the Jewish calendar was the weekly Sabbath. We know from secular sources that it was the observance of the weekly Sabbath that attracted the attention of Gentiles (Juvenal, Satires 14.96–106; Tacitus, Histories 5.4). Perhaps sabbatical years are included here, but the weekly Sabbath should not be excluded, for it would naturally come to the mind of both Jewish and Gentile readers. What Paul says here is remarkable, for he lumps the Sabbath together with food laws, festivals like Passover, and new moons. All of these constitute shadows that anticipate the coming of Christ. Very few Christians think we must observe food laws, Passover, and new moons. But if this is the case, then it is difficult to see why the Sabbath should be observed since it is placed together with these other matters.

Another crucial text on the Sabbath is Romans 14:5: “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” In Romans 14:1–15:6 Paul mainly discusses food that some—almost certainly those influenced by Old Testament food laws—think is defiled. Paul clearly teaches, in contrast to Leviticus 11:1–44 and Deuteronomy 14:3–21, that all foods are clean (Rom. 14:14, 20) since a new era of redemptive history has dawned. In other words, Paul sides theologically with the strong in the argument, believing that all foods are clean. He is concerned, however, that the strong avoid injuring and damaging the weak. The strong must respect the opinions of the weak (Rom. 14:1) and avoid arguments with them. Apparently the weak were not insisting that food laws and the observance of days were necessary for salvation, for if that were the case they would be proclaiming another gospel (cf. Gal. 1:8–9; 2:3–5; 4:10; 5:2–6), and Paul would not tolerate their viewpoint. Probably the weak believed that one would be a stronger Christian if one kept food laws and observed days. The danger for the weak was that they would judge the strong (Rom. 14:3–4), and the danger for the strong was that they would despise the weak (Rom. 14:3, 10). In any case, the strong seem to have had the upper hand in the Roman congregations, for Paul was particularly concerned that they not damage the weak.

Nevertheless, a crucial point must not be overlooked. Even though Paul watches out for the consciences of the weak, he holds the viewpoint of the strong on both food laws and days. John Barclay rightly argues that Paul subtly (or not so discreetly!) undermines the theological standpoint of the weak since he argues that what one eats and what days one observes are a matter of no concern. The Old Testament, on the other hand, is clear on the matter. The foods one eats and the days one observes are ordained by God. He has given clear commands on both of these issues. Hence, Paul’s argument is that such laws are no longer valid since believers are not under the Mosaic covenant. Indeed, the freedom to believe that all days are alike surely includes the Sabbath, for the Sabbath naturally would spring to the mind of Jewish readers since they kept the Sabbath weekly.

Paul has no quarrel with those who desire to set aside the Sabbath as a special day, as long as they do not require it for salvation or insist that other believers agree with them. Those who esteem the Sabbath as a special day are to be honored for their point of view and should not be despised or ridiculed. Others, however, consider every day to be the same. They do not think that any day is more special than another. Those who think this way are not to be judged as unspiritual. Indeed, there is no doubt that Paul held this opinion, since he was strong in faith instead of being weak. It is crucial to notice what is being said here. If the notion that every day of the week is the same is acceptable, and if it is Paul’s opinion as well, then it follows that Sabbath regulations are no longer binding. The strong must not impose their convictions on the weak and should be charitable to those who hold a different opinion, but Paul clearly has undermined the authority of the Sabbath in principle, for he does not care whether someone observes one day as special. He leaves it entirely up to one’s personal opinion. But if the Sabbath of the Old Testament were still in force, Paul could never say this, for the Old Testament makes incredibly strong statements about those who violate the Sabbath, and the death penalty is even required in some instances. Paul is living under a different dispensation, that is, a different covenant, for now he says it does not matter whether one observes one day out of seven as a Sabbath.

Some argue against what is defended here by appealing to the creation order. As noted above, the Sabbath for Israel is patterned after God’s creation of the world in seven days. What is instructive, however, is that the New Testament never appeals to Creation to defend the Sabbath. Jesus appealed to the creation order to support his view that marriage is between one man and one woman for life (Mark 10:2–12). Paul grounded his opposition to women teaching or exercising authority over men in the creation order (1 Tim. 2:12–13), and homosexuality is prohibited because it is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26–27), in essence, to God’s intention when he created men and women. Similarly, those who ban believers from eating certain foods and from marriage are wrong because both food and marriage are rooted in God’s good creation (1 Tim. 4:3–5). We see nothing similar with the Sabbath. Never does the New Testament ground it in the created order. Instead, we have very clear verses that say it is a “shadow” and that it does not matter whether believers observe it. So, how do we explain the appeal to creation with reference to the Sabbath? It is probably best to see creation as an analogy instead of as a ground. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant, and since the covenant has passed away, so has the covenant sign.

Now it does not follow from this that the Sabbath has no significance for believers. It is a shadow, as Paul said, of the substance that is now ours in Christ. The Sabbath’s role as a shadow is best explicated by Hebrews, even if Hebrews does not use the word for “shadow” in terms of the Sabbath. The author of Hebrews sees the Sabbath as foreshadowing the eschatological rest of the people of God (Heb. 4:1–10). A “Sabbath rest” still awaits God’s people (v. 9), and it will be fulfilled on the final day when believers rest from earthly labors. The Sabbath, then, points to the final rest of the people of God. But since there is an already-but-not-yet character to what Hebrews says about rest, should believers continue to practice the Sabbath as long as they are in the not-yet? I would answer in the negative, for the evidence we have in the New Testament points in the contrary direction. We remember that the Sabbath is placed together with food laws and new moons and Passover in Colossians 2:16, but there is no reason to think that we should observe food laws, Passover, and new moons before the consummation. Paul’s argument is that believers now belong to the age to come and the requirements of the old covenant are no longer binding.

Does the Lord’s Day, that is, Christians worshiping on the first day of the week, constitute a fulfillment of the Sabbath? The references to the Lord’s Day in the New Testament are sparse. In Troas believers gathered “on the first day of the week . . . to break bread” and they heard a long message from Paul (Acts 20:7). Paul commands the Corinthians to set aside money for the poor “on the first day of every week” (1 Cor. 16:2). John heard a loud voice speaking to him “on the Lord’s day” (Rev. 1:10). These scattered hints suggest that the early Christians at some point began to worship on the first day of the week. The practice probably has its roots in the resurrection of Jesus, for he appeared to his disciples “the first day of the week” (John 20:19). All the Synoptics emphasize that Jesus rose on the first day of the week, i.e., Sunday: “very early on the first day of the week” (Mark 16:2; cf. Matt. 28:1; Luke 24:1). The fact that each of the Gospels stresses that Jesus was raised on the first day of the week is striking. But we have no indication that the Lord’s Day functions as a fulfillment of the Sabbath. It is likely that gathering together on the Lord’s Day stems from the earliest church, for we see no debate on the issue in church history, which is quite unlikely if the practice originated in Gentile churches outside Israel. By way of contrast, we think of the intense debate in the first few centuries on the date of Easter. No such debate exists regarding the Lord’s Day.

The early roots of the Lord’s Day are verified by the universal practice of the Lord’s Day in Gentile churches in the second century. It is not surprising that many Jewish Christians continued to observe the Sabbath as well. One segment of the Ebionites practiced the Lord’s Day and the Sabbath. Their observance of both is instructive, for it shows that the Lord’s Day was not viewed as the fulfillment of the Sabbath but as a separate day.

Most of the early church fathers did not practice or defend literal Sabbath observance (cf. Diognetus 4:1) but interpreted the Sabbath eschatologically and spiritually. They did not see the Lord’s Day as a replacement of the Sabbath but as a unique day. For instance, in the Epistle of Barnabas, the Sabbaths of Israel are contrasted with “the eighth day” (15:8), and the latter is described as “a beginning of another world.” Barnabas says that “we keep the eighth day” (which is Sunday), for it is “the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead” (15:9). The Lord’s Day was not viewed as a day in which believers abstained from work, as was the case with the Sabbath. Instead, it was a day in which most believers were required to work, but they took time in the day to meet together in order to worship the Lord. The contrast between the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day is clear in Ignatius, when he says, “If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord’s Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death” (To the Magnesians 9:1). Ignatius, writing about A.D. 110, specifically contrasts the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day, showing that he did not believe the latter replaced the former. Bauckham argues that the idea that the Lord’s day replaced the Sabbath is post-Constantinian. Luther saw rest as necessary but did not tie it to Sunday. A stricter interpretation of the Sabbath became more common with the Puritans, along with the Seventh-Day Baptists and later the Seventh-Day Adventists.

SUMMARY

Believers are not obligated to observe the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the sign of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant and the Sabbath as the covenant sign are no longer applicable now that the new covenant of Jesus Christ has come. Believers are called upon to honor and respect those who think the Sabbath is still mandatory for believers. But if one argues that the Sabbath is required for salvation, such a teaching is contrary to the gospel and should be resisted forcefully. In any case, Paul makes it clear in both Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16–17 that the Sabbath has passed away now that Christ has come. It is wise naturally for believers to rest, and hence one principle that could be derived from the Sabbath is that believers should regularly rest. But the New Testament does not specify when that rest should take place, nor does it set forth a period of time when that rest should occur. We must remember that the early Christians were required to work on Sundays. They worshiped the Lord on the Lord’s Day, the day of Jesus’ resurrection, but the early Christians did not believe the Lord’s Day fulfilled or replaced the Sabbath. The Sabbath pointed toward eschatological rest in Christ, which believers enjoy in part now and will enjoy fully on the Last Day.

For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake (Phil. 1:29).

The phrase, "faith for faith," is taken directly from the translation of Rm. 1:17 by the English Standard Version, expressly, "For in it [that is, the Gospel] the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith." I say, "translation," but I mean more "interpretation" for, though the literal interpretation of the passage is "faith to faith," I am thinking (though I am unsure of this) that the translators of the ESV are picking up on part of what the apostle is doing with this phrase, namely using it as an inclusio to bracket with Rm. 3:21, 22 the section of the epistle from Rm. 1:18-3:20. [An "inclusio," is a literary device used to set apart a particular section of literature, bracketing it with common phrases.]

This intention by the apostle becomes quite apparent when we look at this seemingly obscure statement by the apostle in Rm. 1:17, viz. "the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith," in light of the clear statement by the apostle in Rm. 3:21, 22: "But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it–the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ for all who [have faith]" (translation mine; compare with Young’s Literal). In other words, we see that the revelation of the Righteousness of God (which is the Gospel, mind you) is not merely transacted from God’s righteousness to human faith, but it is transacted from God’s righteousness to Christ’s faith granted to the elect manifested by their personal faith. In other words, this simple statement, "faith for faith," states what is said more explicitly elsewhere, namely that our faith is not our own but is a gift from God (cf. Eph. 2:8) and that Christ is the author and finisher of our faith (cf. Heb. 12:2). This simple phrase explains both how faith can be counted as righteousness and how dead men become alive in Christ to believe the Gospel, for even a man’s faith originates in God and in God alone. Second, in the immediate context, the phrase from Rm. 1:17: "The righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith" stands perfectly paralleled to the subject of the discourse of the section it brackets, namely "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth" (Rm. 1:18). In other words, as becomes quite apparent in the following discourse by the apostle, there are two places in which a person can stand, and only two—either a person stands in faith and is covered in the Righteousness of Christ, or a person stands under the wrath of God which shall be poured upon that soul when the temporal propitiation of wrath afforded for that soul by the work Christ is expired. His works will on that day be rendered unto him (cf. Rm. 2:6), and he will be judged and damned in accordance to the law that has been revealed to him, either in the written code or in that which has been written upon his heart (cf. Rm. 2:12, 14-16). Therefore, the apostle can say with absolute certainty the truth which he proclaims in Rm. 2:12: "For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law." I hope that this short overview of the phrase, "faith for faith," as found in Rm. 1:17 shows that the name of this site was not chosen in vain but was chosen because the heart of the Gospel lies therein. We are nothing apart from the work of Christ, and therefore all of our boasting is excluded since we are justified by a law of faith (cf. Rm. 3:27)–a faith that comes from God alone and imputes to us a righteousness that comes from God alone. To him alone be glory forever! Amen.

Some people do not have a problem with saying that the Scriptures contain contradictions. Some others believe in the traditional doctrines that they have been taught so much that they simply ignore or radically alter the meanings of texts that do not fit their particular beliefs. I, however, do not have the benefit of such convictions or their lack. I believe that every word, letter, and accent that was originally penned by the prophets and apostles are the very words of God and, being that God does not change and there are no contradictions in him, that which he inspires must possess his same attributes. Therefore, when I encounter a teacher who believes that contradictions exist in Scripture or one who values his traditions over the clear testimonies of Scripture, I react a little like Jesus did toward the Pharisees and Sadducees who did the very same things.

And being that it has been brought up (as it inevitably does) that the doctrines of Romans 9 “contradict” other doctrines in Scripture or that we who “interpret” Romans 9 interpret the text incorrectly (though the Apostle leaves little room for any interpretation in the chapter), I thought that it would be profitable to take a look at some of the texts that supposedly contradict the teachings of Romans 9.

1. John 3:16

For God thus loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life (John 3:16).

This text is a common starting point of those who object to the “vessels of mercy / vessels of wrath” statement that is made in Romans 9. They argue, “If God loved the world so much that he gave his Son for them, why then would he create some just so that he would destroy them for his glory?” This concern might be a valid one in this present understanding of John 3:16, but there are several underlying presuppositions that shape this understanding of this verse that are in fact contrary to the context.

First, is the idea that the term “world” means every single person who has ever lived since the Creation. If this is true, this is a very unique passage indeed for there is no other text in Scripture that refers to the world as such. We find elsewhere, especially in the Prophets, that God did indeed have a plan that was global, but the term was commonly “nations” instead of “world.” Perhaps the one that parallels Christ’s statement in John 3 the most is the prophetic statement by the psalmist: “The Lord said to me, ‘ You are my Son, today I have begotten you; ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession’” (Ps. 2:7, 8). We see the world with respect to Christ in this Psalm, but it has a very different meaning than “every person who has ever lived.”

To understand the use of the term “world” in John 3:16, we must also understand the context in which it is spoken. At the beginning of the chapter, we find that Christ is speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee and therefore obviously a Jew. When Christ declares to Nicodemus, “God thus loved the world,” he was saying something quite extraordinary. First, contrary to popular Jewish belief, Yahweh is not merely the God of the Jews, but he is the God of the Nations. Therefore, the Messiah, who many believed was to conquer the Romans and establish Israel as a world power, was actually the Messiah of the world. Second, this statement places Christ as the fulfillment of the covenant to Abraham: “Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed” (Gen. 22:18). For it is through Christ and the Gospel that God has ordained that the Nations would come to him and be blessed.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, there is this same agreement in the use of the term “world” or “kosmos” as parallel or synonymous to the “nations,” “gentiles,” or “ethnos.” The apostle Paul, in quite poetic fashion, writes in Romans 11 concerning the rejection of Israel:

Now if their trespass means riches for the world,
and if their failure means riches for the nations,
how much more will their full inclusion mean! (Rm. 11:12).

Here in this passage where Paul demonstrates his inclination toward Hebrew poesy, he creates in the Greek language what is often seen in Psalms and the Prophets, namely Semitic poetic parallelism. In this particular instance, Paul shows that in the least that it was not uncommon to equate the term “kosmos” with “ethnos,” i.e. the term “world” with “nations.” Therefore, given this testimony by the apostle Paul in the Greek, and the allusion of Christ in John 3 to Psalm 2, it is therefore most likely and sound to say that New Testament authors are reiterating the declarations of the Old Testament, namely that God is the God of the Nations and has ordained that the Christ of Abraham’s lineage would be bring the blessing of Righteousness to the Gentiles, just as the apostle testifies in Romans 3, “Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles (or nations) also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith” (vv. 3:28, 29).

Second, the phrasing, “So whoever believes in him shall not perish,” has been taken to mean that God through Christ has made it so that every person who has ever lived has an opportunity to consider the case of Jesus Christ and then believe or not believe. This, as well, is clearly not true in the context. At the beginning of Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus, we find that Jesus tells Nicodemus (without his asking, mind you) that a person cannot see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. Perplexed, Nicodemus asks in response the questions that has had him knocked about in Sunday School classes for centuries: “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

We have laughed at Nicodemus for his ridiculous response, but are we any less ridiculous with our responses? Clearly the picture of birth that Christ gives is to demonstrate that something outside of ourselves and without respect to our wills must happen in order for us to be born again, but we in our stubbornness choose not to see that. We say instead, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, and then you will be born again.” But is that really how our salvation happens? No, it is not, and we are no different than Nicodemus who looks to see what work he must do to be born again. We, like Nicodemus, in our folly try to make the new birth something that we cause, but in reality we do not cause it, for Jesus’ response to Nicodemus is not, “Accept me as your Savior,” nor is it do this and do that, but it is, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:8).

Therefore, in the context, he who believes in Christ in v. 3:16 is he who has been born again by the will of the Spirit in v. 3:8. It is in this same thought that Peter writes, “Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope” (1Pet. 1:3) and that the Evangelist writes later in his Gospel, “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44). Seeing this, we see that not only is the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 is in accord with Jesus Christ in John 3:16, but he is in accord with the Apostles John and Peter thereby defeating the misperceived contradiction in John 3:16.

2 Peter 3:9

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, now wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance (2Pet. 3:9).

Please allow me to skip my typical rambling and jump straight in (though if you would like an introduction, feel free to read the introduction to yesterday’s post and then come here).

The typical interpretation of this passage from the second letter of Peter is that God is not willing that anyone in the world who has ever lived should perish apart from Christ but that every person in the world should come to repentance. If this is true, this text is nestled quite precariously in a hostile context.

Before we come to this verse, we find the apostle exhorting the Church not to be discouraged by the seeming delay of the Lord’s Coming. We know that he is speaking to the Church because he calls them “beloved” in v. 3:1 and because he exhorts them to remember the predictions of the prophets and the commandment of their Lord and Savior (v. 3:2). He warns them that scoffers will come that will point out that the world in spite of Christ has continued just as it has since the Creation, but they deliberately ignore the fact that the world was destroyed by water in the days of Noah and that it will happen again, except this time it will be fire that destroys the ungodly (v. 3:4-6).

In the immediate context of v. 3:9, we find the apostle speaking of the Lord’s Return and how, to the Church, it seems a long time. Again the apostle demonstrates that he is speaking to the Church by calling them “beloved” in v. 3:8 and comforts them by telling them that the Lord is not slow to fulfill his Promise, for one day is as a thousand years to him and a thousand years is as one day. He then gives us phenomenal picture of the Coming of Christ:

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed (v. 3:10).

It is within this context that we find the statement: “The Lord is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance.” As we have already seen from the context, this “you” to whom he is speaking is the Church that is awaiting the Return of the Lord. The Lord’s patience towards the Church is manifested in his delayed Coming in order that none should perish but that all should reach repentance. This “none” and this “all” can be taken one of two ways—it can either be taken as none and all in the entire world at every point in time, or it can be taken as none and all in the Church. In the text it is quite clear that the latter option is the one that is to be taken.

What does it mean, then, that God delays his Return so that none in the Church should perish but that all should come to repentance? It means that God has a sovereign plan over the history of the world that has his saints providentially scattered all over its timeline. If the Lord were (this is theory, mind you) to return in the days of the Apostles, those who were elected by God before the foundation of the world in Christ Jesus who were to be born after this return would never exist though God had ordained that they exist (cf. Eph. 1). Also, if God were to Return before the fullness of his Church had come in, one who was ordained to come to repentance by the will of the Spirit the next day, would not come to repentance and would perish because of the Lord’s early return. Therefore, the apostle encourages the Church to be patient, for God has a sovereign plan over history and will not allow any of his saints to perish but will cause them all to come to repentance.

This text also demonstrates quite clearly that the Lord is willing that some should perish. The apostle mentions in v. 3:5 the event of the Great Flood in which many died and perished by the will of God apart from an opportunity to repent. Even now, God is willing that some should perish, for the apostle writes, “But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly (v. 3:7). Within two verses of the text that supposedly demonstrates that God is not willing that anyone on earth should perish is the declaration that the heavens and earth are being kept for that very purpose.

This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1Tim. 2:3, 4).

1 Timothy 2:3,4

As promised, I am continuing my survey of texts that supposedly contradict the doctrines taught in Romans 8-11, et al. Several weeks ago, we dealt with the texts of John 3:16 and 2 Peter 3:9 and how those classic texts supposedly portray God as a God who is, respectively, desperately in love with the world and is wringing his hands at the thought that any person on this planet should have to perish. We demonstrated through these texts’ context and through biblical theology that this is not the God that is portrayed in these verses, but instead we find a God who is quite the opposite.

Despite this clarity in context, we must realize that we live in a reader response society and among Christians who use the Bible as a reference book rather than the meat upon which they feast daily. Thus we find not Christians who read the Scriptures through and thoroughly in its own context, but we find Christians who google, “Why Calvinism is evil,” and find a website of some other person who also only uses his Bible as reference book and then compiled a list of verses and spouted the infamous lie that Calvinists do not believe in evangelism and missions, despite the fact that the greatest preachers and evangelists (e.g. George Whitefield, C. H. Spurgeon, etc.), the leaders of great revivals (e.g. Jonathan Edwards), and the one who is called the father of modern missions–William Carey–were all Calvinists.

It is in this context that we teach the ignorant. Most people who fill our churches have not been, as the apostle commanded, “transformed by the renewal of their minds,” but instead attempt to conform Scripture to their minds. For this reason, people hold to such doctrines as free will, not because Scripture teaches that men are free, but because they believe that they are free because their experience teaches them that they are free. They have no categories for being dead in their trespasses, enslaved to sin and death, blind and deaf to the truth, etc.–all of which Scripture declares of those apart from Christ. Thus, people in our churches presumptuously believe that if men are commanded to do something by God that they by their nature and strength have the ability to do it, and they strive, like foolish Nicodemus, to crawl back into their mothers’ wombs because God commanded them to be born again.

Please forgive me for the lengthy introduction, but I believe that it is necessary to understand the nature of the beast with which we have to deal. And now we come to 1 Timothy 2:4, where the apostle writes, “[God] desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” This text seems to be straightforward on the surface, and it seems pretty safe by its declaration to do what Sunday School literature has done for decades, viz. cut out Romans 9-11 from their literature. But again, therein lies the assumption that we saw in John 3:16′s kosmos, namely that “all” means every person who has ever lived since Adam to the telos despite class, race, etc. But let us step back a couple of verses in 1 Timothy 2 just to make sure this interpretation is the apostle’s intention.

In 1 Timothy 2:1, the apostle writes, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people.” Given that this verse is in the context of the “all people” in verse 2:4, it is probably safe to say and destructive not to say that Paul is speaking of the same persons in verse 1 as he is in verse 4. Now, let us add verse 2 to verse 1, “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, etc. … be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” Did you see what the apostle did? He clarified all people with “kings and all who are in high positions.” Why? So that Christians might live peaceful and godly lives in the state where they live.

As in John 3:16, where Nicodemus the devout Jewish Pharisee was told that Jesus the Messiah came not merely for the Jews but for all the Nations, so the impoverished Christians who are being addressed through the apostle’s letter to young Timothy are learning that Jesus did not merely come for the poor, but he came for all classes of men, even for kings and those who are in authority. Here in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, we find reinforcement that the Gospel is not a social gospel, nor is it a racial Gospel as Nicodemus thought in John 3, but it is a universal Gospel. Jesus came to redeem men from all tribes, tongues, social classes, and skin colors. Indeed, we find that this is the apostle’s intentions in this text for he writes in v. 2:7, “For this I [a Pharisaical Jew] was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher to the Gentiles in faith and truth.” In other words, God appointed Paul, a Jew of Jews, to be the preacher to the Gentiles to demonstrate that God’s Gospel is not for a single people, but for the whole world.

Is not this a better understanding of the text than a cheap proof text? I implore you, no matter your theological tendencies, read God’s Word as God intended for it to be read. The devil knows the Scriptures much better than you or I do, and he has twisted them from the beginning of time to serve his purposes. Please do not be like him.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – On September 28, Muslim extremists charged into the home of Christian lawyer and evangelist Edwin Paul and brutally murdered him, his wife, and his five children who were of the ages 6-17. His crime? For taking the legal case of Robin Mehboob, a Christian taxi driver, who received a hike in interest rate of a small loan (the equivalent of $1,725) from the original terms of 400% to 500% from a lender backed by Muslim extremists. The exorbitant interest rates, whether from the original terms or after, were based solely on the fact that Mehboob was a Christian.

Upon filing the claim, representatives of the lender went to Paul’s home, railing against him, “How dare you Christians go to the police; don’t you know we own the law here?” Upon that, Mehboob testifies, “They assaulted us, beating us with fists and clubs, and warned that if we try to seek any assistance, they will kill us.” Mehboob fled to his brother’s home, and Paul stayed at his home, pursuing the case of his Christian brother. Shortly thereafter, the same men returned and killed Paul, his wife, and his five children.

Such a story is almost surreal. To imagine that seven people, seven of our brothers and sisters in Christ, would be shot down in cold blood, because the father sought justice over a loan for $1,725 for a fellow brother. It takes your breath away. How did it transpire? It is heart-wrenching to imagine. Were the children killed first? Were they forced upon their knees and executed while their helpless parents watched in unimaginable horror? Or was Paul killed first, and his family left to watch as each subsequent one witnessed the successive and heartless murder of the persons whom they held most dear, ending with the 7 year-old child looking up at his family’s killers with devastation and tears streaming down his eyes as he viewed the last image of his short life—a gun barrel directed toward his head? O, the unspeakable horror!

And then we think upon what this great tragedy was over–$1,725! Robin Mehboob, a fellow brother and child of God, was so desperately in need of money that he was willing to accept the terms of a 400% rate loan and possible persecution to get it. What did he need it for? Was his family starving to death? Did he need a home to protect his wife and children? Was one of his parents deathly ill and needed medical care that he could not afford? We may not ever know the extenuating circumstances that drove this man to seek money from a Muslim-backed lender, but there is one thing that we can be sure of—he needed the money desperately.

When I think upon the sequence of events—a brother who needed money, a lender who changed the terms of the loan to something our brother could not afford, the brother who was willing to stand beside our brother to fight his case, and the subsequent beating of the two and then the murder of a family of seven—my heart cannot help but be torn within me. I ask myself, Could this have been prevented? Why was there not fellow Christians whom he could go to for aid? Why was the well of gifts dry? And then I think upon my situation and wonder what I possess that I paid $1,725 for. My LCD television was not so much less than that. The computers that our family owns does not total to much less than that. The car which we drive cost tens times that. Our satellite, internet, Netflix, cell phone and other luxury bills add to well over that in a year’s time. In all these things—all these things which I count as rights and privileges for being an American citizen—could I have prevented this slaughter by being generous and liberal with my giving? Could brother Mehboob have turned to the church for the $1,725 that he needed if I and other American Christians were not so ensnared by our luxuries? Would Paul, his wife, and his seven children still be with us today if we did not have to have our DirecTV and our iPhone data plans? My God, I feel damned by the weight of my luxury!

The sad reality is that this very thing happens to Christians around the globe all the time. What is sadder is that we who are blinded by our entertainment and our American Dreams will never see it. The world does not care, because they hate our Lord. Our government does not care, because Pakistan is not an area of civil interest. Our brothers and sisters in those areas do care, but they do not have the means to aid them, and they are in need of aid themselves. Who then does the weight fall upon? It falls upon us, the American church, because we are Christians, and we have the means to aid our brothers and sisters. Yet we will not, because we think that the American Dream is more important. We will not, because atrocities that happen to un-Americans are merely “unfortunate” and easily forgotten. We will not, because we think that having nice things is not a bad thing as long as we are reading our Bibles, praying, going to church, and going door-to-door on occasion. We will not, because we will not lift up our eyes to see the suffering of those whom our Lord has bought with blood, those whom he has loved before the foundation of the world, and those upon whom he peers down with tears, saying, “Well done, my good and faithful servants!” O, that God will tear open our hearts and tear us away from our stuff so that we can fulfill that which he has commanded us to do—to love our brothers as ourselves!

For I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened, but that as a matter of fairness your abundance at the present time should supply their need, so that their abundance may supply your need, that there may be fairness. As it is written, “Whoever gathered much had nothing left over, and whoever gathered little had no lack” (2Cor. 8:13-15).