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.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe (Gal. 3:19-22).

To answer our present question, “Why then the Law?” the most obvious course is to unpack the answer that the apostle gives. However, before we begin to answer that question, it is good to reiterate what has brought us to this point.

In own journey, we have followed the same line of thinking to which the apostle is outlining to the Galatian church. We have witnessed the testimony given by the Law to Moses and to national Israel, and we have looked at the author’s design in writing the Pentateuch. Having looked at the Pentateuch, we have seen that there is a Promise given to Abraham and his offspring. That Promise given to Abraham is that through his Seed all of the nations would be blessed. The apostle takes this Promise and broadens it to its fullest implications in his letter to Romans, writing, “The Promise to Abraham that he would be heir of the world did not come through the Law but through the righteousness of faith.” He later intimates that the Roman church is partakers of that Promise, writing, “[You are] heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided you suffer with in order that you may also be glorified with him” (Rm. 8:16, 17). This is a great Promise indeed.

The seeming problem that arises is that this Promise that was given to Abraham was given 430 years before the Law was given (cf. Gal. 3:17). That’s 430 years before the sacrificial system, 430 years before the tabernacle, 430 years before the civil law, and 430 years before the Ten Commandments. Abraham not only received an eschatological Promise of a Great Inheritance, but he was while he lived counted as righteous by his faith. And granting that receipt of the Promise required a perfect righteousness, the fact that Abraham not only pursued righteousness but attained righteousness apart from the Law drives us to question, “Why then was the Law given?”

To this question, the apostle Paul answers, “[The Law] was added because of transgressions.” In other words, the Law was given to Moses to lord over Israel because of their sins. And to this point, I believe John Sailhamer offers great insight in his book The Meaning of the Pentateuch. There Sailhamer contends that the Law was not the way that God desired (read revealed will) that his people interact with him. He desired that Abraham’s children would come to him as Abraham had—by faith—and that they would be to him spiritual children as well as his physical children.

But what happened? Israel was a disobedient and obstinate people, and they repeatedly transgressed and broke God’s covenant with them. And thus, in order to keep his Promise to Abraham and his Offspring (read the coming Christ King), he had to preserve Abraham’s lineage by reforging the covenant every time it was broken. Thus, as Sailhamer observes, we do not merely see a continuous book of law given to Moses in the Pentateuch, but we see a pattern of Israel’s disobedience, law, disobedience, law, disobedience, law.

When we view the giving of the law in this light, the apostle’s statement is strikingly clear—“The Law was added because of transgressions.” In other words, the reason that the Law is a part of the Scriptures (other than God’s sovereign will) is because Israel repeatedly rebelled against God by transgressing his covenant. They were unfaithful and faithless. Thus, God in his mercy and faithfulness, continually relented his wrath from Israel through the giving of the Law so that the Promised Offspring would come.

Upon this, the apostle elaborates his meaning. He first asks the question, “Is the Law contrary to the Promises of God?” to which he answers, “Certainly not!” His meaning is not to defend the Law as a proper means or a particular dispensation by which God chose to bring men to himself, but to make the point that the Law was never intended to bring about the righteousness and life that faith brings. In other words, the Law was never intended to be stepladder to God. He writes, “For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law,” intimating that there was never a law given by God that could give life. He makes this same point elsewhere, writing, “For by works of the law no flesh will be justified in his sight, for through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rm. 3:20).

Now the apostle continues his point by intimating that Law, rather than serving as stepladder to God, served as a guardian and a slavemaster until the coming Faith would be revealed. The language that he uses is particularly strong, calling the law a guard and a prison, controlling its recipients for the sole purpose of preserving them until Christ came. It was instituted to preserve Israel and his children until that time when God’s people would be able to worship him in Spirit and in truth (cf. Jn. 4). In other words, it was brought into existence so as to preserve the line of Judah until that the time when the King from Judah’s line would come forth and would pour his Spirit upon all flesh.

Therefore, since that time as come, since that King has come and conquered sin and death and has ascended to the right hand of the Father in power, ruling and reigning until his enemies would be made his footstool, and since the promised Holy Sprit of God has been sent forth into the world, the Law has served its purpose and its power has been destroyed. As the apostle to the Hebrew puts it, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).

The apostle Paul in this line writes:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:23-29).

The sum of all these things is clear, namely that if one is in Christ, he is not under the Law of Moses. He has been set free by Christ from the taskmaster that held Israel, and the taskmaster has now been vanquished (think 70 A.D.). If we are Christ’s, we are so by faith and not by works of the Law, and, we, therefore, like the Galatians should not try to turn back to the slavemaster having now been set free. For that which the apostle writes duly applies to us, “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (vv. 3:2,3). No, indeed! and if Israel was not able to save himself by works of the Law, what benefit do we seek to find in its observance?

Next: The Christian Life and the Law

However, when we turn to the New Testament and especially in the writings of Paul, we find that the authors are not hesitant in the least to address the matter. Paul’s letter to the Galatian church, for example, is almost in full an explanation of the Law and a critique of the Galatian church’s view and practice of it. Since the New Testament writers (i.e. those who lived and wrote after the coming of Christ) are not silent on the Law, why have we become so? And even if we have not been silent, why is there a seeming disparity between our own interpretations and applications?

What follows then in not what one might consider a systematic treatment of the Law, but it is rather simple questions posed and answered. The aim is that in the end that the whole might be systematically and theologically sound, but it is more a step-by-step journey than a recapitulation of a journey completed.

What is the Law?
Even beginning with the most basic of questions, it is difficult to come to an absolute consensus on it. When it is asked, What is the Law? the definitions vary, and the lenses through which it is viewed are different. So where are we to begin?

In its simplest of forms, the Law is the instructions / commands given by God through Moses to national Israel. These commands are found in the first five books of the Bible commonly referred to as the Pentateuch. Some have equated the Law with the Pentateuch so that every time that they think Law they think Pentateuch. Here we find the first distinction that must be drawn. For when we look at the first five books of the Bible, they are not a book of Laws, but they are a book that contains laws. In fact, we find that most of the Pentateuch is narrative and that the first commands given in a corpus are not given until the twentieth chapter of the second book. Therefore it must be held that the Law are the commandments given in the book that Moses wrote (i.e. the Pentateuch) not the entire book itself. This distinction will become increasingly important as we come to think upon the author’s intent in composing the Pentateuch.

Now when the Law as found in the Pentateuch is discussed among some, it is not done apart from categorizing the laws given. In Reformed circles, these categories are most commonly labeled as moral laws, ceremonial / sacrificial laws, and civil laws. When they are given these labels, they are meant to communicate that there are laws that are universally acknowledged (the moral law, which is commonly applied to the Ten Commandments), laws that pertain to sacrifice and worship, and laws that were applied to the state of Israel only. In applying these labels, the law is dissected and applied to the church in a fashion that seems fitting to the dissector. And while there is indeed a great deal of logic behind such categories, we must admit that the Scriptures never convenience us with these labels.

Why is the Law Given in the Manner which it is Given?
This is a huge question, and its answer will only give rise to further questions that will need to be answered later. Even so, it is a question that I believe must be answered and answered with great care. Presuming that what I hold as true is true, namely that there is a certain design behind the construction of the Pentateuch and a Sovereign hand over its history, why do we encounter the Law where we do? Why does God call Abraham out of Ur to follow him and yet fails to give him the law that he gave Moses? Why do we find Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. among those who are considered to wholly and faithfully follow Yahweh and who did so apart from the Law given at Sinai? Many presume that these faithful saints had an archaic and oral version of the Law, yet we find that there is no Scriptural warrant for such a presumption. In fact, we find that the authors of the New Testament write against such a notion (cf. Rm. 4).

The implications of the Law given in such a manner are clear, and, though being so, they are huge. Simply put, the Law given to Moses four hundred years after the call of Abraham intimates that faithful worship and service to Yahweh can (if not should) exist apart from the Law, even the Ten Commandments. The apostle Paul picks up this very idea in his letter to the Roman church, saying:

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression (Rm. 4:13-15).

In other words, the very Promise (read covenant) given to Abraham that he and his offspring would inherit the world (cf. Mt. 5:5) did not merely come apart from the Law, but it came in spite of it. Indeed, the Promise is fulfilled in those who have faith apart from the Law and not in adherence to the Law.

Indeed, the apostle picks up on this very notion in his introductory purpose statement in the book, viz. “to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of [Christ’s] name among all the nations” (Rm. 1:5) not obedience to the Law. Have you have wondered why Jesus was always on the bad side of the Pharisees? Imagine those who sought the Inheritance through strict adherence to the Law dealing with a man who healed (read worked) on the Sabbath (cf. Mt. 12:9-14), was to them a glutton and a drunkard (cf. Mt. 11:19), and who declared unclean foods clean (cf. Mk. 7:19). Christ did not do all these things purposelessly, but he did so with the point of showing:

This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
In vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men (Mt. 15:8,9)

What is perhaps the greatest single example of Christ’s desire to separate law-keeping from love of and obedience to him is that of the rich, young ruler (cf. Lk. 18:18-30). The ruler came to Christ and inquired of him how he could attain eternal life (read the Promise given to Abraham and his offspring). First, Christ addresses him with the Ten Commandments (at least a portion of it), and the ruler responds that he had kept them all. Now, we are typically cynical to his response, but the later, alarmed response of the disciples should prevent us from being so. This man likely was very moral and kept the Law to best of his ability. He may very well have been like Paul who was able to say, “As to righteousness under the law, I was blameless” (Ph. 3:6). And yet, when Christ pushes him further and requires that he sell all of his possessions and give to the poor, the man is able to walk away to his destruction. Why? He had kept the Law of Moses so fully that the disciples responded in somewhat dismay, “Then who can be saved?” This man had kept the letter of the Law and yet was not able to trust Christ over his riches. He had not sought the Promise by faith, and thus he stumbled over the Stumbling Stone (cf. Rm. 9:32).

In other words, we are brought back to the apostle Paul’s declaration in Romans 4, viz. “For the Law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.” Salvation must come not only apart from the Law, but it must come in freedom from it. He writes elsewhere:

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith (Gal. 3:10-14).

So then we are left with further questions that shall be answered in due order.

Next: Why Then the Law?

The problem with such a belief is clear when seen in light of the salvific exclusivity claimed of faith in Christ by the Scriptures, but its root is a much deeper issue, namely a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel itself.

The root can be detected from the aforementioned statement in the phrase, “[Men] cannot be held accountable for that which they have not heard.” The key word in the phrase is “accountable.” “Men cannot be held accountable to the Gospel which they have not heard.” The problem with such a notion that men are accountable to the Gospel is that the Gospel is not a law to which one is accountable. The Gospel is not a new law that replaces an old law, but it is the remedy to transgressions against the unchanging law of God. To say that men are not accountable to God because they have not heard the Gospel is to say that men are not accountable to the law of God, whether revealed in Scripture or written upon the heart, but men are only accountable to the new law of the Gospel.

This point cannot be missed, for in declaring such, men have made that which is grace into works. For rather than the Gospel being the unmerited grace of God bestowed upon men by the Holy Spirit through the work of Christ, it is a new and singular commandment, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior, and thus make yourself right with God.” It says that if you obey this one commandment you will live, but if you disobey it you will perish. And thus when the matter of the unevangelized is considered, their fate is uncertain for they have not heard the one law of the Gospel and, “Where there is no law there is no transgression” (Rm. 4:15).

However, the problem is there is a law, and it matters not whether one is Jew or a Gentile, or whether he has heard the law from the Scriptures or not. For the apostle Paul writes, “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” (Rm. 2:12). And what the apostle is saying is not that there are some who are totally ignorant of the law and some who are not, but he is saying that all men, whether they possess the Scriptures or not, are accountable to God for transgressing the law. He explains it this way:

For when Gentiles who do not have the law [i.e. the Scriptures] by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus (Rm. 2:14-16).

In other words, God has written upon the hearts of all men enough of the law so that they are accountable to him when they transgress it. The evidence of this can be seen in such universal laws against murder, stealing, lying, adultery, etc. that are found even among people who have never heard the name of Yahweh or received the Scriptures. These people groups know a portion of the law, and all of them have transgressed that law and have been declared guilty by their own consciences.

For this reason, the apostle writes later:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin (Rm. 3:19, 20).

All this is to say that the Day of Judgment will be a very quiet day. For all men will come before God the Judge, all of their wicked deeds will be laid before them, and they will be silent because they have no excuse. For they knew the law, be it from the Scriptures or otherwise, and they deliberately transgressed it. The Gospel does not enter into it. Men who have not heard the name of Jesus Christ will not be condemned for not believing in him, but they will be condemned for willfully breaking the law of God that they knew. This is not to say that those who have heard the name of Christ will not be judged for rejecting him along with their other evil deeds, but it is to say that men who have not heard the name of Christ have transgressed the law of God enough to damn themselves.

Therefore, the greatest problem in the world is not that the unevangelized world has not heard the “new law” of the Gospel, but it is unrighteousness. For this reason, the apostle begins his discourse, writing:

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 know about God is 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 (Rm. 1-18-20).

And thus, after the apostle declares that all men will be silent before God and accountable to him for their willful lawlessness, he presents the Gospel. He writes:

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 believe. For there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are [made righteous] by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Rm. 3:21-24).

Therefore, the Gospel comes in, not as a new law to be kept, but as the remedy for unrighteousness. All have transgressed the law of God and are therefore unrighteous before God, and the Gospel comes in offering the righteousness of Christ to those who believe in him. And lest this be misunderstood as a new law to be kept, the apostle calls this righteousness a “gift.” It is not earned by keeping a law of acceptance of Jesus Christ, but it is a gift of imputed righteousness given by God. Therefore, all boasting is excluded (cf. Rm. 3:27), for men do not make themselves righteous through keeping the law of the Gospel, but God makes men righteous by his grace.

The Gospel is not a New Law, So What?
To some, the distinction between the Gospel being seen as the new law of “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” and being the gift of righteousness to those who believe in Christ may seem a bit trite. What does it matter if the Gospel is seen as law or gift, so long as one believes in Jesus Christ and is saved?

Though the distinction between the two may seem small in its words, the effects of believing one or the other are quite profound. In fact, I believe that the Gospel as law problem is the very root of our doctrinal problems as American Evangelicals, and it is seen quite clearly in the way we preach the Gospel.

First, because we as whole view the Gospel as the law, “Accept Jesus as your personal Savior,” we as American Evangelicals place a majority of our emphasis in our churches on getting a person to accept Jesus Christ as his Savior. And as such, church discipline has been replaced by altar calls, discipleship has been replaced by conversion prayers, and fruits of righteousness have been replaced by spiritual birthdays. We, because we have witnessed someone pray a prayer, sign a card, or write a spiritual birthday in his Bible, rejoice when his has made his decision to accept Christ. But when that person later falls into sin and leaves the fellowship, instead of searching after him to keep him accountable to the Gospel he professed to believe, we content ourselves with the fact that he prayed the “prayer of salvation” back in 1992.

Secondly, which is a result of the first, the Gospel’s requirement of righteousness in this life is a foreign concept to the American church. Such phrases of Scripture as the apostle’s opening declaration of his reason for preaching the Gospel, viz. “To bring about the obedience of faith” (Rm. 1:5), and the declarations of Romans 6-8, “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if, by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body you will live,” are incomprehensible to the American church. For the very moment that one declares that those who are saved are “slaves of obedience” (Rm. 6:17) and must fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rm. 8:4), he is labeled a Pharisee and a legalist. For the Gospel, instead of being viewed as that which transforms the entire life of a soul so as to conform him to the righteous image of Jesus Christ (cf. Rm. 8:29), it is viewed as a “get out of hell free” card so that one can live as he desires without fear of divine retribution. Thus, few “work out [their] own salvation with fear and trembling” (Ph. 2:12), but many live licentiously in the comfort of having fulfilled their contrived law of the Gospel.

Thirdly and quite obviously, we have made faith out to be a work of man rather than a work of God. It is for this reason that most in the American church despise the doctrines of Calvinism (or Scripture), because those doctrines rip away all boasting from men and places their faith rightly in the hands of him who created it (cf. Eph. 2:8). The American church prefers a Gospel that is a law, because a Gospel that is a law rests salvation upon human free will rather than upon God. To make the Gospel one of grace through faith that originates in God alone removes from men all reason for pride and boasting, and instead places the glory of salvation upon God alone. American Christians, however, are chiefly worshipers of self rather than worshipers of God, and they therefore despise any doctrine which takes glory away from themselves and gives it to Another.

Final Thoughts
Therefore, the belief that those who have not heard the Gospel will somehow escape judgment is not from Scriptural ambiguity or from a philosophical problem, but it is a symptom of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Gospel as law. For we in the American church have done precisely what other religions have done for millennia, namely conjured up law(s) that allow us to make ourselves right with God. The problem, however, is that the Gospel is not a secret law that we know and the world does not know, but it the Good News that God has given grace to men who transgressed his universal law through his righteous Son. Righteousness is a gift from God alone, and to make it anything else distorts Word of God and the salvation that he has provided.

And because of our focus on the physical ordinance of baptism and our neglect of the reality of baptism, we as Baptists are terribly confused by such declarations as that of the apostle Peter, who wrote, “Baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21). For we have so ritualized and despiritualized the practice of baptism that we have become unbiblical in our understanding of it despite our denomination’s title. And instead of doing as we ought and running to the Scriptures to discover what true baptism is, we do as many have done with other doctrines by forming our doctrines and then explaining away passages that do not fit our doctrinal understanding rather than explaining them.

And the reality of baptism is not a trite reality. For if what the apostle Peter says of baptism is true, namely that it saves us, we who claim to have salvation should be eager to understand it. And if we do not understand baptism, we should by way of the apostle’s declaration not be so eager to proclaim that we have understood our salvation. For if salvation comes by baptism, and we declare, as most Baptists do, that no one is saved by baptism, we have much explaining to do.

If then baptism is not merely the immersion of a person under water, what is baptism? To form my answer, I am going to use two sections of Scripture, Romans 6-8:17 and 1 Peter 3:18-22. For while these two passages were penned by two different authors, their testimony to baptism is singular, and it is not, as Peter writes, “The removal of dirt from the body” (1Pet. 3:21).

1. Baptism is Identity in the Death of Christ
The apostle Paul writes concerning baptism, “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Rm. 6:3,4). What the apostle is speaking of in this passage is not a physical occurrence in the life of the believer, but he is speaking of a spiritual reality of all those who are in Christ. All who are in Christ, irrespective of the depth to which they were plunged or the amount of water that was poured upon their heads, have been baptized into the death of Christ.

This baptism, this identification in the death of Christ, happened so that we who were once slaves of sin would be set free from our slavery to sin, for, “One who has died has been set free from sin” (Rm. 6:7). The apostle Peter calls this what Christ has done, “the preaching to the spirits in prison” (1Pet. 3:19), for apart from Christ all men are prisoners to sin and disobedience (cf. 1Pet. 3:20).

This slavery to sin has come through the Law of God, for men who are slaves to sin are at their core rebellious to God and therefore rebel when they comprehend the law of God. Romans 7 is a full exposition of this reality, and there the apostle writes:

What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin seizing an opportunity through the commandment produced in me all kinds of covetousness. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me (Rm. 7:7-11).

And the remedy for this condition brought about through sin’s utilization of the law is not law-keeping in the flesh, as the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 demonstrates the futility of such an attempt, but it is baptism into the death of Christ. For through baptism into the death of Christ we have been set free from our bondage to the law and therefore have been set free to obey God. The apostle puts it this way:

Do you not know, brothers … that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? … You also have died to law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code (Rm. 7:1, 4-6).

Therefore, our baptism into the death of Christ afforded for us two things, release from the slavery of sin and the ability to bear fruit for God. The apostle calls this ability to bear fruit to God slavery (Gr. doulein) in the new way of the Spirit (Rm. 7:8), and previously slavery to obedience (Rm. 6:16), to righteousness (Rm. 6:18), and to God (Rm. 6:22) leading to sanctification and eternal life (Rm. 6:22,23). It is for this reason that Peter is able to write, “Baptism now saves you” (1Pet. 3:21), for our baptism into the death of Christ sets us free from our bondage to sin and puts us into bondage to God, which is true freedom (cf. Jn. 8:36, where Christ speaks of slavery to sin).

In light of the fleshly inability of the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 to keep the righteous requirement of the law while bound to sin, the apostle writes:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done, what the law weakened by the flesh could not do, by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Rm. 8:1-4).

The seemingly ironic reality that we who have died to the law and set free from it participate in is that we have not died to the law in order to be rid of it, but we have died to the law so that we would be released from the bondage of sin and, by that release, obtain the ability to keep the law. For apart from baptism into Christ and transfer under the slavery of the Spirit, all men who esteem the law are as the speaker of Romans 7:14-25 is, desirous to do what is right, but unable to do it (cf. Rm. 7:18). But now, we who have been baptized into the death of Christ Jesus have the ability to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law (Rm. 8:4), and now are able, as the apostle Peter writes, “[To] appeal to God for good conscience” (1Pet. 3:21). For we who have been baptized have not been merely made wet, but we have been brought under the very Spirit of God so that we now do the requirement of the law that we desire to do, and we put to death the deeds of the body which we were formerly unable to do (Rm. 8:13).

2. Baptism is Identity in the Resurrection of Christ
Because of our union in the death of Christ, we who have been baptized have the hope that we will have eternal life. The apostle Paul writes, “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. … Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (Rm. 6:5; 8). This hope that we have in our identity with Christ in his resurrection is not some unfounded doctrine of “once saved, always saved,” but it is based upon our union with Christ in his death and our ability to keep the law and put to death the deeds of the flesh because of that union. For, “Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rm. 8:8), and, “If you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live” (Rm. 8:13). And, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rm. 8:9), and, “All who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God” (Rm. 8:14). Therefore our salvation and hope of resurrection rests in our baptism, for apart from baptism we are fleshly and unable to do the righteousness of the law (cf. Rm. 7:14; 18), for those who are fleshly are hostile to God and do not submit to God’s law because they cannot, and therefore they cannot please God (Rm. 8:7,8).

Final Thoughts: Baptism is Salvation
What is all this to say but that baptism is salvation? For no one is saved apart from baptism, for no one is united with Christ apart from baptism. That which we call baptism, be it by immersion, sprinkling, or pouring, is merely a shadow and a picture of the reality of baptism, and to focus so heavily upon the mode of the shadow and to neglect the reality is a great atrocity. Are some modes of physical baptism a better illustration of the reality of baptism than others? Of course, but at the end of the day, the picture is still a picture. It saddens my heart greatly that those among us who have been baptized into Christ feel as though we must divide over the mode of the picture when we all are partakers in the reality. The picture of baptism will one day pass just as the equivalent picture of circumcision passed, but the reality of baptism will remain forever. Why cannot we who will fellowship for Eternity in the presence of him who baptized us by his Spirit not fellowship now? I hope that by God’s grace we one day will, recognizing that despite our divisions there is yet, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all” (Eph. 4:5,6). Amen.

The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s (Rm. 14:6-8).

In Christian practice there exists two categories–that which is doctrine and that which is opinion. And though these two categories exist and have existed since the creation and more so since Christ fulfilled the ceremonial and civil requirements of the Law, their ends have ever been the same, namely to glorify God. Therefore whether one submits to doctrine or whether one submits to a certain opinion, it is to be done for the sake of the glory of God alone lest that which is not sin become sin.

For sin has never been rooted in particular practices, but it always has been rooted in a rebellious and self-glorifying heart. For when one sins, it is from the heart that he sins, for at that moment his heart’s desire is not to glorify God, but it is to please himself. Thus if anything is to be pleasing to God, it must be done from heart that seeks to honor him alone.

For this reason, the apostle writes elsewhere, “So, whether eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1Cor. 10:31). For the practice is not the end of itself, nor is its propagation, but the glory of God is to be its only end. So if one eats all foods, he is to do it to the glory of God; if he abstains from particular foods, he is to do it to the glory of God; if he drinks wine, he is to do it to the glory of God; if he abstains from wine, he is to do it to the glory of God. For around such things there is no law, for Christ has fulfilled the law concerning such things and has freed us from it, “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rm. 8:4).

The reason being, as the apostle says later in the chapter, “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rm. 14:17). In other words, these things over which we quarrel the most have no correlation with the kingdom of God. For God is not concerned about the practices of our particular cultures or our traditions per se, but he is concerned about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

The apostle Peter writes, “[By] his divine power [God] has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence” (2Pet. 1:3). What Peter is conveying is that God has fully given to us all things to be godly in his sight and to glorify him through the knowledge of God in Christ. This knowledge has been made known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and in his Word which he has spoken forth from before the foundation of the world. For this reason, we are to fully understand that which he has given to us, viz. his Scriptures, and they alone are sufficient for our godliness. All other matters that the Scriptures do not address or to which they explicitly give freedom–all these do not pertain to life and godliness in and of themselves, but they do so in the heart of him who practices them. Therefore, in these things, one’s heart must be inclined to glorify Christ alone, and he must practice all things to that end.

For this reason, the Christian must do as the Lord commanded Joshua, “Meditate on [the law] day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it (Jsh. 1:8),” so that he might do as David did, viz. “I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you” (Ps. 119:11). For the Christian’s aim must be to glorify God by “the renewal of [his] mind” (Rm. 12:2) by the Word of God and to conform himself to the instructions therein for God’s glory, and so that he might distinguish what is lawful requirement and what is opinion. And it is for this end that apostle instructs the stronger in the faith to suffer the opinions of the weak, for they in their infancy have yet to meditate upon the word of the Lord and to be transformed by it. Therefore, rather than casting those out for their ignorance and their convictions based upon culture and tradition, we are to accept them so that they too might have a chance to grow in godliness by being instructed from the Word of God.

Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law (Rm. 13:8).

While the interpretations of the apostle’s command to the church at Rome, “Owe no one anything, except to love one another,” are many, his purpose can be surmised in the verses that follow his exhortation. And though it is wise not to owe any man anything at all, e.g. lent money, etc., and to pursue such lack of indebtedness is a godly pursuit, that particular debt is not what the apostle is speaking about chiefly, though it cannot be discounted totally.

The debt about which the apostle is speaking particularly is the debt of sin or transgression. For the apostle’s command, “Owe no one anything,” is fulfilled by the command, “Love one another.” This is the same debt that Christ speaks about in his model prayer where he says, “Forgive us our debts as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Mt. 6:12). The idea is the same as that which the apostle presented in the previous section of his discourse, namely that we as Christians have an obligation to our fellow men to obey the law, be it God’s law or a government’s law, and we are to pay our debts according to the law, be it taxes or honor (cf. Rm. 13:7). Therefore, the Christian is a debtor in this life to the laws under which he finds himself.

But one will object, “We are not under law but under grace.” And this is indeed true. And the apostle does exhort, “Owe no one anything, except love.” However, in God’s ordinance, the debt of love is not disjoined from the law, but it fulfills the law. For the apostle writes:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

For the salvation that Christ brings is not freedom from the commands of law so that we might not fulfill the law, but it is to bring us under new ownership, as apostle intimates earlier in his letter, “You also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from dead, in order that we may fruit for God” (Rm. 7:4). Our death to the law through Christ is not so that we can cast aside the law, but so that our ownership might change. For our death to the law has taken us who were once under ownership of sin and death and has placed us under the ownership of Christ so that “the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rm. 8:4). For, the apostle writes, “While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now, we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code” (Rm. 7:5, 6). For the law has not changed, nor has its righteous requirement, but the means by which we fulfill it has changed from our former fleshly inability to our new Spiritual ability (cf. 7:14-25; 8:1-8).

Therefore, the law is to be fulfilled, but it is not to be fulfilled by negation, e.g. “You shall not commit adultery; you shall not murder, etc.” but by the positive fulfillment of “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” For, as the apostle writes, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.”

For this reason, we who are of the Spirit are to pay the debt of love to our neighbor, and, by paying that debt of love, fulfill the righteous requirement of the law. For if we love our neighbor as we love ourselves, we will do no wrong to our neighbor. And we shall do this by the power of the indwelling Spirit alone.

I emphasize these points that this truth is the greatest of all truths and it is the very core of the Gospel because I wonder how many in our churches who claim to have submitted to the Gospel can articulate this truth. This truth is not something that is merely nice to know about or is some meat that one learns later in one’s life as a Christian, but it is essential to one’s salvation. For in the verses preceding this declaration, the apostle writes, “I bear them [the Israelites] witness that they have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (vv. 2, 3). In the case of the Israelites (consequently, as it is with all people) their ignorance of the righteousness of God manifested in the work of Christ imputed to those who believe in him led them to establish their own righteousness. In other words, their disregard for the gift of Christ’s righteousness led them to a salvation by deeds, which is no salvation at all.

In the case of the Israelites, their ignorance of God’s righteousness was not ignorance based upon a lack of knowledge, but it was an ignorance based upon their suppression of knowledge. They knew the Scriptures and knew that the prophets declared that righteousness did not come from law-keeping or from sacrifices, yet they sought righteousness by these means anyway. They willfully neglected that the Law given to them by Moses was in its entirety a shadow of the person and work of Christ, and when the End of the Law manifested himself in human flesh and fulfilled the Law of Moses, they rejected and despised him, not because they did not know the Scriptures, but because they desired to boast in themselves and desired the esteem of men. If Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness received by faith alone, there can be no boasting or praise from men. It is excluded (cf. Rom. 3:27).

The application of this truth today is a question that we must ask ourselves even if we claim to name the name of Jesus Christ, and that is: “Do we believe that Christ is all of our righteousness and not merely a supplement to or ninety-nine percent of our own righteousness?” If we do not believe this simple truth that “Jesus paid it all, all to him I owe,” we have not believed the Gospel and are no more saved than the Jews who rejected the same righteousness from God manifested in Jesus Christ.