Law and Grace,
or Law Versus Grace?
By Gerry W. Webb.
Email: redemption86@hotmail.com
November1998.
Revised March 1999.
Introduction
Are Christians
obligated to keep part of the Mosaic Law along with the commandments of
Christ? To what extent is the Mosaic Law
binding upon all the citizens of any country, even if a country is
multi-cultural and multi-religious? The
Reconstructionists (including Theonomy and Dominion theologians) are a group of
modern Postmillennialists who believe in the wedding of church and state; and
if they had the power, they would not only get the government to impose the Old
Testament Moral Law (i.e. the whole Decalogue) on all its citizens, but also
Israel's theocratic civil laws and the consequences for their
disobedience. Capital punishment would
be re-instituted for minor offenses.
Some of the key names in this movement are Rousas John Rushdoony, Gary
North, Greg Bahnsen, and David Chilton.
There is much disagreement among the Reconstruction-ists as to the
extent the Old Testament civil law should be imposed upon Christians and
non-Christians alike.
The main concern in
this paper, however, is (a), whether or not the New Testament teaches the
imposition of Old Testament Law upon Christians and non-Christians alike; and
(b), what does Scripture mean when it says that Christ came not to abolish the
Law or the Prophets, but to fulfil them (Matt. 5:17)? What does it mean when the Apostle Paul said:
"Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes
(Rom. 10:4)?" What did the Apostle
mean when he said: "Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he
that loveth another hath fulfilled the law" (cf.
I do not believe Christians
can, or should, impose any kind of an Old Testament theocracy with its
particular harsh civil laws upon any nation, whether Christian, secular,
multi-racial, multi-cultural, or multi-religious. As Christians, we are called to be "salt
and light"; not call upon the civil magistrates to use the power of the
"sword" in order to enforce the Mosaic Civil Law and all of
the Ten Commandments. This paper
contrasts the Old Covenant Mosaic Law with Christ's New Covenant of love and
grace. Christians are not under both
law and grace; they are under grace alone.
The English word
"no" consists of two letters.
When a woman says "NO" a number of times to a man who is being
unreasonably persistent against her wishes, she may finally say to him:
"What part of NO do you not understand?" Although we know what she means, her
statement implies that the two letters of the word are inseparable. In like manner, the whole Mosaic Law (Torah)
or Old Covenant (eg. Exod. 21:1-23:33; 31:12-18; Deut. 10:1-5) given to the
nation of
Although it may sound
radical, I believe the New Testament teaches that the whole Mosaic Law is not
binding on Christians. Christians are accountable to Christ, not Moses. In other words, I believe the commandments of
Christ and the teaching of the Apostles supersede the Mosaic Law. This
even includes the Moral part of the Law (i.e. the Ten Commandments or
Decalogue), along with the Civil and the Ceremonial. They are interconnected, and were given to
1. The whole
Mosaic Law given by YHWH-God through Moses at Mount Sinai was mainly given to
regulate the twelve tribes of
2. The Law
was our schoolmaster (tutor or guardian) to lead us to Christ (cf. Rom.
7:1-8:17; Gal. 3:15-26; 4:1-11).
"But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Gal.
3:25)." In other words, Christians
are no longer obligated to that old schoolmaster. Law is for the lawless (I Tim. 1:9). The use of God's Law is also to make mankind
conscious of sin, confess it, and turn to Christ in faith (cf. Rom. 3:20,31;
4:13-15). Law can never impart
life. In fact,
3. We are
saved by grace, through faith, not works of the Law (cf. Rom 3:19-30;
4:1-5; Gal. 2:16; 3:11; Eph. 2:8-10; II Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5). We are also kept by grace. We are not only justified and made righteous
in Christ Jesus, but we are also sanctified as well. In fact, Christ is our sanctification (cf. I
Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9). Christians are
commanded to be lead by God's Spirit and obey Christ's commandments (John
10:27; 14:15-26; 15:8-17), not the commandments of Moses. Some Christian groups
falsely teach, or at least imply, that although they are saved by grace,
nevertheless, they maintain their salvation by obeying the Law. Since no one has been able to reach total
perfection, I ask: "What sin would cause a Christian to lose his
salvation?"
4. The Law
of Moses actually condemns, judges as guilty, and brings a curse on mankind
because no one can keep it. (Cf. Deut. 21:22-23; 27:26; Gal. 3:10-14;
5:3; Matt 5:20,22, 28-30; Rom. 2:17-29; 3:19-20.) At Mount Sinai God gave the Law (or Old
Covenant) to Moses for the children of
5. The
Mosaic "Law made nothing perfect (Heb. 7:18-19)." It never could, and never will. Although Jesus was perfect from the
beginning, He is the only one who has perfectly kept the whole Law (Heb.
4:14-16).
6. John 1:17
says: "For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth were realized
through Jesus Christ." Grace is
the unmerited favor of God and it is the basis of our faith, our election, our
salvation, and our justification. (Cf. John 1:14; Rom. 3:24; 5:21; 11:5-6; Eph.
1:7; 2:8-9; Titus 2:11.)
7. Romans 6:14
says: "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law,
but under grace." It seems to
me that those who want to keep part of the Mosaic Law are in fact saying that
we are now under both law and grace. This teaching clearly contradicts
and goes against the teaching of Romans 6:14.
8. The Old
Covenant (i.e. Mosaic outward Law given at
The New and Everlasting
Covenant is not an extension of the Old as many Christians suppose it to
be. Many also believe that the Abrahamic Covenant of Promise, the Old Mosaic
Covenant of Law, and the Davidic Covenant of the Kingdom are all part of the
same covenant, but they are not.
Although there are many similarities and things in common relating to
the
The Abrahamic Covenant
of Promise related to the Messiah Who was to be an individual descendant from
Abraham's genealogy through Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and David (cf. Gen. 12:3;
17:19-21; 18:18; 21:12; 49:10; Rom. 4:1-25; Gal. 3:13-19,29; Rev. 5:5). He was to bring blessing to the whole
world. The same is the case with the
Davidic Covenant through the kingly line (cf. II Sam. 7:12-16; 23:5; I Kings
8:20; II Chron. 6:14-17; 21:7; Ps. 89:3-4; 132:11-18; Isa. 9:6-7; 11:1-5,10-12;
Jer. 23:5-6; 33:14-22; Dan. 2:44; 7:13-14; 9:24-27; Zech. 6:12-13; Matt.
1:1-25; 28:18; Luke 1:30-33; Acts 2:22-36; Heb. 1:8). The nation of Israel in the Promised Land was
only the temporal means in order to help accomplish it (cf. Gen. 22:15-18; I
Kings 9:1-9; Ps. 147:19-20; Matt. 21:12-45; 23:34-38; Rom. 3:1-2; 9:1-8; Gal.
4:3-5; Eph. 1:10; 2:4-22). In fact, the
physical promises given by God to Abraham concerning the nation of Israel and
the land of Palestine (cf. Gen. 12:2; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-14; 22:17; 26:4),
were actually fulfilled by the time of Solomon (cf. Deut. 1:10; 10:22; 28:62;
Josh. 21:43-45; I Kings 4:20-25; 5:4; 8:56,65; 9:26; Heb. 11:12). In addition, the ultimate or eternal promises
given by God to the patriarchs concerning the land related to the antitype
which are the "Jerusalem above," and the "new heavens and a new
earth" (cf. Gen. 15:7-8; Isa. 65:17-25; Rom. 8:16-25; I Cor. 15:50-58;
Gal. 4:21-31; Heb. 11:1-16; 12:18-28; II Pet. 3:10-13; Rev. 3:12; 21-22).
The New Covenant,
however, has been bestowed upon the Church (or true spiritual
The
law demands perfection. In essence it
says: "Do this and you shall live."
The problem is that no person except Jesus has ever lived up to the
whole Law. The law actually brings
condemnation and death. Instead, life
comes from the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ and the indwelling
Spirit of God.
Christians are the true
"circumcision of the heart" made without hands; but as a whole,
unbelieving
9. The whole
Mosaic Law was a "certificate of debt" and was taken out of the way
by spiritually being nailed to the cross of Christ. (Cf. Gal. 3:10-14; Eph.
2:15-16; Col. 1:20; 2:9-17.) One
cannot say that only the civil and ceremonial parts of the Law constituted the
"certificate of debt." It was
the moral part of the Mosaic Law which mainly indebted mankind to God. This obligation or "debt" we could
never pay. In fact, disobedience to the
Law of God brings judgment and death.
Because of the death of Christ on the cross, however, God cancelled
those decrees that were against us.
Colossians 2:11-14 relate to a variety of other passages in Paul's
writings which discuss our sinful state as a result of our breaking God's moral
laws (eg. Rom. 6-7; Eph. 2:1-18; Phil. 3:3).
Our previous state of being "dead in trespasses and sins" was
the result of breaking God's moral laws, not the result of our disobeying
The old Mosaic
"certificate of debt" also included what one ate or drank, and how he
or she regarded the religious feasts, or new moon, or a Sabbath day. The English translations of Colossians 2:16
generally read "... or a Sabbath day." The literal translation from the Greek,
however, reads: "... or of Sabbaths."
The word "Sabbaths" is plural and means more than the
feast days (cf. Exod. 16:4-33; 20:8-11; 23:10-12; 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Lev.
19:1-8; 23:1-44; 24:8; 25:1-55; 26:2; Num. 15:32-36; Deut. 5:12-15; II Chron.
2:4; Ezek. 20:9-24; 23:38; 45:17; Matt. 12:1-13; Mark 2:23-28; Acts 1:12). I believe it included the seventh day that
was a Sabbath day of rest given only to
The following reasons from the Bible also
declare the ending of Sabbath-Day observances:
(i)
(ii) Romans 14:1-23: "... One man regards one day above another,
another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own
mind... and whatever is not from faith is sin."
(iii) The early Christians began to worship God on Sunday (or the Lord's
Day) because the first day of the week became associated with Christ's
resurrection (cf. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10).
(iv) Christ fulfilled all the requirements of the Mosaic Law including
observance of the Sabbath. For example, according to Luke 4:16, Jesus entered
the synagogue on the Sabbath which "was His custom."
(v) As the Son of Man, Jesus not only said that He was "Lord of the
Sabbath (Matt. 12:8; Luke 6:5);" but also that "The Sabbath was made
for man, and not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28)." If the harsh Mosaic restrictions concerning
the Sabbath-day were still in force today for all Christians, then one would
have to contradict Christ and say that man was indeed made for the Sabbath.
(vi) If the Sabbath-day laws were still in affect today, then according
to Exodus 31:12-18; 35:1-3; and Numbers 15:32-36, anyone who profaned the
Sabbath, worked, gathered sticks, or kindled a fire in his dwelling on
Saturday, is to be put to death. Since
we do not live under a theocratic state as ancient
(vii) In order to get around the problem of the "Sabbath-Day"
observance as being part of the Ten Commandments, some Christians teach that it
was part of the ceremonial law, not the moral.
(viii) The whole Mosaic Covenant of Law was only given to the sons of
Israel in order to regulate them while in the Promised Land under theocratic
rule (e.g. Exod. 20:2; Lev. 26:1-46; Deut. 5:1-33; 6:1-25; 10:12-15). This included God's "seventh-day Sabbaths"
which were to be "a sign" between God and them throughout
their generations, and also to set them apart from all other nations (cf. Exod.
20:8-10; 23:10-12; 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Lev. 19:1-4,30; 23:1-3; 26:2; Deut.
4:40,44-46; 5:12-15; Neh. 13:15-22; Ezek. 20:1-32). According to Leviticus 25, the land was to
have a "rest" every seven years, and it was also called "a
Sabbath to the LORD." The main
reason the Sabbath-day observance laws were given to the sons of
(ix) According to Matthew 11:28-30, and Hebrews 3 and 4, the antitype
"Sabbath rest for the people of God" is a relationship with God, and
it is entered through faith. That is
where we find rest for our "souls."
In other words, we are to cease from our own works, and instead, rest in
God and the completed work of Christ on our behalf. This is true for both our salvation and our
sanctification.
In his book Christian
Be Free, a former Seventh-day Adventist minister comments:
Only by accepting
the death and resurrection of Jesus as sufficient to redeem us can we again
worship God as Creator. Either we accept the righteousness of Jesus as
sufficient or we are in as deep trouble as were the Jews who, while observing
the Jewish Sabbath, failed to enter into God's Rest. God does not redeem us
from the curse contained in the Mosaic Sabbath commandment only to put us back
into bondage to that same law again, as Galatians 3:1-4 shows very clearly.
...God's real Rest was the kind offered by Jesus when he
said, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give
you rest" (Matt. 11:28)... As one looks to Jesus, and trusts him to guide,
and is willing to be disciplined and matured through trials and hardships,
Jesus will give his Rest.1
This concurs with such
verses as Philippians 4:4-9 and I Peter 5:6-7.
(x) My tenth and final reason for the end of Sabbath observance is found
within the Decalogue itself. If one
looks carefully at Exodus 16:22-30; 20:10; Leviticus 23:3, and Deuteronomy 5:14
(NASB), he or she will see that the seventh day was to be "a" Sabbath
day of the LORD, meaning only one of at least two kinds of Sabbaths. Another Sabbath was also the seventh or
"sabbatical year" within which the land was to rest (Lev. 25:1-7). The root of the Hebrew word Shabbat is
"to sit," and it primarily means "to rest," or to take an
intermission from work (cf. Exod. 35:2).
These are the Sabbaths included in the Sabbath days mentioned in
Colossians 2:9-17 which were merely shadows of things to come through Christ.
In addition to the
seventh-day Sabbath, there were other days which were to be "holy" and
set apart for rest and worship. They were also "holy convocations" or
high Sabbaths, and were celebrated as part of the Jewish Feasts (cf. Lev.
23:4-44; I Chron. 23:25-32; II Chron. 2:4; 8:12-13; 31:3; Isa. 1:13-15; Hos.
2:11). These other Sabbath days are included in the festivals mentioned in
Colossians 2:14-17, and were also merely "shadows" of greater things
to come.
10. Romans
10:4 declares that "Christ is the end (Gr. telos = goal or result)
of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (NASB)." (Compare John 3:16-18; Acts 13:39; Rom.
3:20-31; 4:1-25; 10:4-6; 7:1-6; Gal. 3:10-29; 4:4-11; and Eph. 2:8-9.) God's Word translation of this verse
says: "Christ is the fulfillment of Moses' Teachings so that everyone who
has faith may receive God's approval."
Jesus is the end result or termination of the law. Law can never provide
full righteousness based on merit or good works. In fact, everyone has sinned and come short
of the glory of God. Instead, Jesus
provides righteousness for us based on God's grace in response to faith.
Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). In Galatians 3:5-9,
In the context of
Romans 10:1-13, Paul is contrasting law with faith. By quoting from Leviticus 18:4-5, he is
saying that no one can ever obtain righteousness and real life by obeying the
Law (or statutes) of Moses. True
righteousness and salvation only comes as a result of belief in the Lord Jesus
(cf. Rom.1:16-17; I Cor.1:30).
11. As with the
Orthodox Jews today, the Pharisees had 613 laws based on the Torah. Based upon
Talmudic Judaism, however, the Pharisees also made laws that went beyond the
Mosaic Law. In fact, many of them were actually contrary to the true spirit of
the Mosaic Law and they became the traditions of men. (Cf. Matt. 15:1-11;
23:1-38; Mark 7:1-23; Col. 2:20-23.)
12. Since
mankind cannot keep or obey the whole outward written moral Law of Moses, they
certainly cannot keep the greater inner or true spirit behind and beyond the
law that Christ spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and 6. For example:
(a) A person who is
angry with his brother is, in God's sight, a murderer (cf. Matt. 5:21-22,
38-48; I John 3:15).
(b) A person who lusts
has, before God, committed adultery already in his heart (cf. Matt. 5:27-30;
Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18).
Reverend John G.
Reisinger is a Reformed Baptist minister, author, and conference speaker. In
his book But I Say Unto You,..., Reisinger says: "The Ten
Commandments cannot be viewed as the highest moral standard in the Bible
without everything else, including the Sermon on the Mount becoming
lesser."2 I highly
recommend his book in which his purpose is to demonstrate that:
One: The Sermon
on the Mount is an integral part of the Christians' rule of life today and not
the rules for a future kingdom... Two: Christ never contradicts Moses in the
sense that Moses was in any way wrong.
We believe in the unity of the Scriptures. Christ does, however, give
the Church new and higher standards, or rules of conduct, than Moses ever gave,
or could have given, under a covenant of law, but this in no way means or
implies that Moses was wrong. It means
that Christ is literally a new and superior Lawgiver than Moses because He
administers a new and "better covenant based on better promises ..."
(Heb. 8:6). Three: Under a system of
covenant law, we cannot legislate and punish the thoughts of the heart... Under
the New Covenant, the Holy Spirit is the personal pedagogue of every believer
and He can deal with the heart in a way that the magistrate could not under the
Old Covenant through Moses.3
Reisinger fears that
"some well meaning people have lost the unique and final authority of
Christ as Lord and Lawgiver of the Church in their zeal to protect their view
of the `unity of the covenants' and also their particular view of the
‘perpetuity of the moral (Old Covenant) law.’"4 He says that:
We must see that
Moses is finished. He has been replaced with Someone greater and better.
The covenant of Moses was done away simply because it was obsolete (Heb.
8:6-13)."... Our Lord, the Son IN Whom God has fully spoken FINAL
truth (Heb. 1:1-3), has replaced Moses, the servant THROUGH whom
God spoke PARTIAL and PREPARATORY truth. Christ supersedes and
replaces Moses as the true and final Lawgiver in the same way that He
supersedes and replaces Aaron as the true and final High Priest.
Christ does not
contradict Moses any more than He contradicts Aaron even though He replaced
both of them and their ministries.5
Reisinger lists the
major approaches to understanding the Sermon on the Mount:
1. The SOCIAL
GOSPEL view: Jesus is teaching us how to live so we can "earn the
mercy and grace of God and become Christians."...
2. The LIBERAL
view: Jesus is contrasting the true "Christian view of a loving God"
with the "tribal concept of the Old Testament God of vengeance."...
3. The HISTORIC
DISPENSATIONAL view: This view states that the Sermon on the Mount is not
given to the Church but is purely Jewish. It is the "Law of the
Kingdom" (millennial reign of Christ in the future). The laws in the
Sermon on the Mount are the "legal" rules for the future kingdom age,
or millennium. The Jews rejected this earthly kingdom when Christ offered it to
them and it was "postponed" until after the Second Coming of
Christ...
4. The view of Classical
Covenant Theology: This view agrees that the Sermon on the Mount contains
the "rules of the kingdom," but insists that the kingdom is here and
now and not in the future. Covenant Theology insists that Christ was not in any
way contrasting Himself, His teaching, or His authority with Moses. He was only
contradicting the wrong interpretations and additions to Moses. Christ was
merely giving us the true spiritual meaning of Moses as contrasted with the
Rabbinical distortions.
We agree that
this view is partially true, but it is not nearly all of the truth. It simply
does not go far enough. It never touches the heart of the issue. Like
Dispensationalism, this view interprets the new in light of the old and cannot
allow many statements in the New Testament Scriptures, especially those
passages that contrast law and grace, to be taken literally. This view confuses
the unity of the covenants with the true unity of the Scriptures...
Covenant Theology insists that when Christ and His Apostles talk about a New
Covenant (I Cor. 11:25 Heb. 8:6-13) they don't mean there actually is a
literal New Covenant with any new or different laws; they really mean a new
administration of the same covenant and same moral laws that Israel
was already under. This is why Covenant Theology can claim that the Old
Covenant written on the tablets of stone is higher and more important than even
the Sermon on the Mount...
5. The PROMISE/FULFILLMENT,
or New Covenant, view. This view starts with the New Testament Scriptures and
allows them to mean exactly what they say. Christ is seen as asserting His
unique and final authority as the New Lawgiver by giving a new and higher canon
of conduct to the Church. He is most assuredly correcting the perversions of
the Pharisees, but He is also clearly giving new and higher truth that Moses
never taught...
This fifth view
sees both truth and error in Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. It is based on an understanding of the nature
and relationship of the two major covenants (the Old legal Covenant with
Concerning the outward
aspect of the Mosaic Law, Reisinger points out that:
We simply must
see that Law can only measure and punish outward acts of behavior. It cannot deal with the heart and inward
motives. This is the heart of the issue
that we are discussing in this book.
This is always the real question when there is an honest discussion of
"law and grace."...7
When we say that the
Decalogue has been superseded by the higher law of Christ, some Christians
automatically respond by falsely accusing us of antinomianism. In fact, one Seventh-day Adventist woman
responded to me by saying: "Well then, I guess it is okay to commit
murder." I replied by saying to
those around her: "Since when does Christ's command to love your neighbor
as yourself imply that it is okay to murder him?" After saying that "Moses has been done
away and replaced by the new and final Lawgiver", Reisinger adds:
"... We do not minimize or cast off a moral law by allowing Christ to
raise that law to a higher level.8
The higher spiritual aspects of Christ's commandments are more positive
and go beyond any "letter" of the old Law. In fact, if we were still under the
"letter of the Law", we would still be under its condemnation when we
broke any part of it (cf. Deut. 27:26, Rom. 10:5; Gal. 2:16; 3:10-12; James
2:10).
Reisinger asks:
"Are we so married to Moses that we must insist on making him equal to
Christ?"9 In a footnote
he develops the concept of the "moral law" of God:
Every "moral
law" that God ever gave is a revelation of His holy character and that
character never changes. However, every
law does not equally reveal God's holy character. Christ's words in the
Sermon on the Mount are a fuller and higher revelation of God's holy character
than anything that preceded it, including the Ten Commandments. The holy character of God is identical in
every age, but more and greater revelation reveals more of His holiness. The personal life and works of our Lord Jesus
Christ are far more than just an example of "living out the Law of
Moses." It surely does that, but it
does far more. It reveals both God
himself and His moral character in a way that makes the Ten Commandments appear
as a dim outline or shadow.10
Reisinger
goes on to explain the "But I say unto you..." statements made by
Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. He
states that the view that Christ was only "giving the true intention of
Moses" is not sufficient to explain a number of verses in Matthew 5-7. For example: "In Mt. 5:38-42 Christ has
to be contrasting Himself and His teaching with Moses and the Law. However, it
is a contrast that is not a contradiction. In this passage,
Christ is neither correcting a faulty interpretation of Moses nor is He
pointing out an additional text in the Old Testament Scriptures. In Mt. 5:38-42, Christ is clearly contrasting
Himself with Moses!..."11
Reverend Reisinger
points out that if Jesus gave any laws which were essentially different
"from the Law of Moses, then we have two different canons of conduct
for
Bahnsen's book
contains 619 pages and not one time [only twice] in the whole book does
he say "Old Testament." He always, as in the above quotation, says,
"Older Testament law." Bahnsen does this deliberately to demonstrate
as forcefully as possible that there is no such thing as a new and an Old
Covenant. There is only an older and a newer version of
the one and same covenant of grace. We wonder why the writers of both
the Old Testament Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures never once use either
the word "Older" or the phrase "Older Testamental law" when
they talk about the Old Covenant? ...And where does the Word of God even one
time talk about "two (an "older" and a "newer") administrations"
of one and the same "Testamental law"?
Bahnsen assumes
that Christ's "primary purpose" in the Sermon on the Mount is to give
the true understanding of the Mosaic law and refute the Pharisee's
distortions of that law. Christ is not asserting Himself as a new lawgiver
but only enforcing the law as already given by Moses...13
... Covenant theology is telling us that there is nothing
that we need to know in order to be truly holy that is not found in a correct
understanding of Moses. Every moral duty of a Christian must be a direct
outgrowth and application of one of the Ten Commandments.
The texts in the
Sermon on the Mount are saying something entirely different. Our Lord is doing
more than just rubber stamping Moses and planting Moses' authority in the
Christian's conscience as a Pedagogue...14
Reisinger goes on to
discuss the real meaning of the "eye for an eye" law found in such
passages as Exodus 21:22-25; Leviticus 24:10-23; and Deuteronomy 19:16-21:
... The primary point of the "eye for eye" law
was not first aimed at protecting the offending party from the anger and
revenge of a fellow man. The "eye for eye" law was given to make sure
that the offending party was justly punished for his sin against God and His
law. This law was more than "social justice." It was part of the
legal covenant that established the special relationship of the nation of
...we must not lose sight of the fact that the primary
reason for the prison's existence is the punishment of crime and the protection
of society and not the right or rehabilitation of the criminal. The same was
even more true in
Concerning Matthew
5:38-48, Reisinger says that Christ is:
(1.) telling the individual Christian not to live
according to the Old Covenant "eye for eye" law of retaliation;
(2.) taking the responsibility for these actions totally
out of the hands of the court and the judges;
(3.) placing the responsibility for the correct response
entirely on the conscience of the individual Christian;
(4.) forcing the Christian as an individual to
think and to respond in terms of pure grace instead of law.16
Reisinger continues to
explain more of the "but I say unto you" statements made by Jesus.
Concerning the issue of divorce, the verses in Matthew 5:31-32,
...clearly prove that Christ changed and added to
the law of Moses. ...This does not constitute a contradiction in the sense that
Moses was wrong and needed to be corrected. It does mean that Moses was
perfectly correct for that particular time and situation because he was
dealing with lost sinners on the basis of law. Under the New Covenant there are
different rules simply because Christ is dealing with regenerate saints on the
basis of grace...17
The whole point
of Mt. 19:1-9 [and Mark 10:1-12] is this: Christ very emphatically states that
the Law of Moses in Dt. 24:1-4 legislated and allowed certain moral conduct for
an Israelite that could not possibly be tolerated under the New Covenant in the
life of a Christian today!... Did Christ change the Law of Moses concerning
marriage and divorce? A comparison of Dt. 24:1-4 and [Mt.] 5:31,32 forces
us to answer, "Yes." And the new Lawgiver had every right to make the
change.
... The moment we take Christ's words of contrast
seriously we see that He is contrasting His teaching with the Law of Moses in
Dt. 24:1-4 and not with the Pharisees supposed distortion of that law. Moses, not
the Pharisees, wrote the legislation in Dt. 24:1-4 allowing divorce for
uncleanness, and it [is] that specific law that Christ refuses to allow in the
Church...18
From the beginning of
creation, the ideal for marriage is one man for one woman in a "one
flesh" union for life. Under the Old Covenant, Moses allowed polygamy,
divorce for "some uncleanness", but commanded stoning to death for
adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Under the New Covenant, however, Jesus did
not allow polygamy, He sanctioned divorce and remarriage only on the ground of
fornication, and He abrogated the death penalty for adultery (cf. John 8:2-11).
Our North American societies recognize the Christian view of marriage and do
not allow bigamy or polygamy. Also, the "eye for eye and tooth for
tooth" kind of social justice found in the Old Testament has been changed
to the individual Christian "turning the other cheek" and dispensing
mercy.
At the end of his book
Reisinger states: "The victory of grace by the power of love is greater
than the victory of law by the power of the sword."19
13. Above we quoted John Reisinger who stated
that Greg Bahnsen deliberately uses the term "Older Testament law" in
order to drive home his false belief "that there is no such thing as a New
and an Old Covenant. There is only an
older and a newer version of the one and same covenant of
grace." I find Bahnsen's view hard
to believe, especially in light of certain New Testament texts as Colossians
2:9-17; Hebrews 1:1-4 and 8:6-10:25. It
is wrong for Bahnsen to try to obliterate the clear distinctions between the
Old and New Covenants.
In his book, Marx's
Religion of Revolution: The Doctrine of Creative Destruction,
Reconstructionist Gary North rightly points out the contradiction in Marx's
arguments when Marx jumps back and forth between the opposite philosophical
views of determinism and free will. In
his article entitled "Theonomic Schizophrenia", John Robbins
similarly points out the contradiction in Bahnsen's arguments (in the book,
By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today) when Bahnsen says
that: "...not one stroke of the law will become invalid until the end of
the world", then, within the same page adds: "all Old Testament laws
are presently our obligation unless further revelation from the Lawgiver
shows that some change has been made."
Two pages later Bahnsen further states: "What is of permanent moral
authority is the principle illustrated, and not the cultural detail...
Thus we ought not to read the case laws of the Old Testament as binding
us to the literal wording utilized (p.5)."
On pages 26 and 27, however, Bahnsen reverts back to the Theonomist
position and says: "we must take the whole Bible as our standard of
ethics, including every point of God's Old Testament... Christ's coming
did not abrogate anything in the Old Testament law, for every single
stroke of the law will abide until the passing away of this world;
consequently the follower of Christ is not to teach that even the least
Old Testament requirement has been invalidated by Christ and His
work." It seems Dr. Bahnsen argues
either position when it suits his purpose.
No wonder there is so much disagreement among the Reconstructionists as
to the extent the Old Testament civil laws should be imposed upon Christians
and non-Christians alike.
Robbins further points
out that the idea of "dominion" in Reconstructionst literature:
...means rigorous political rule. In fact, the recons
identify the so-called cultural mandate and the great commission. Yet Christ
himself condemned dominion theology: "You know that the princes of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over them. But it shall not be so among you..."
(Matthew 20:25-26). Dominion over men is an anti-Christian notion. [The
Trinity Review, Feb. 1992.]20
14. Jesus has
fulfilled the Law on our behalf (cf. Matt. 3:13‑17; 5:17-20; Luke
18:31-34; II Cor. 5:18-21; Gal. 3:10-14; 4:4-5; Heb. 4:14-16; 10:1-25). The Reconstructionists are fond of quoting
Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18 which says:
Think not that I
am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the
law, till all be fulfilled.
Concerning the fulfillment
of the Law mentioned in Matthew 5:17, Merrill F. Unger writes:
...to "fulfil", not to confirm, as too many
suppose it to mean... It was a leading aim of the redeemer to teach men
that true piety consisted not in forms, but in substance; not in outward
observances, but in an inward spirit; not in small details, but in great rules
of life. The whole system of Pharisaic piety led to exactly opposite
conclusions.21
Jesus
did not destroy the Mosaic Law, He was the only one who actually fulfilled it.
The organized Church was never meant to fulfil it. Instead, believers are called to live by
faith. The above passages declare that:
(a), Jesus was baptized in order "to fulfil all righteousness (Matt.
3:15)." (b), Jesus told His disciples to go up to
Jesus Christ is also my
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption (I Cor. 1:30; Phil. 3:9; Jer.
23:5-6). Christ became "sin" on my behalf (II Cor. 5:21; Isa.
53:6,10-12). (Cf. Dan. 9:24; I Pet. 3:17-21;
Rom. 5:19; 6:23; Heb. 9:13-26.) In other
words, the sinless Savior took our sins upon Himself at the cross in order that
we might have God's righteousness bestowed upon us. From God's perspective,
"all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags (Isa. 64:6)." (Cf. Jer. 17:9; Matt. 15:19;
Jesus went on to say in
Matthew 5:20, "that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven." In saying this, Jesus was not saying that
anyone could keep the whole Law. Instead, He often criticized the
self-righteous Pharisees (cf. Matt. 23).
Also, entering the kingdom of heaven (or God) is not obtained by our own
"works of righteousness", but by God's mercy through the new birth
from above (Titus 3:5; John 3:3-7).
Jesus not only
"fulfilled" the Old Covenant, but He also superseded it when He
"confirmed" a better New Covenant.
Many Christians, however, do not understand this because of the
preconceived belief that the fulfillment of "the Law or the prophets"
is still future. I ask the question, "If
Jesus has not already fulfilled the Law, then when, how, and by whom will it be
fulfilled?" If the Church with
the help of the Holy Spirit has not been able to reach perfection after two
thousand years, how are we to expect the unbelieving world to do it? Even if the State could legislate the outward
part of the moral law, it cannot control the evil thoughts of its
citizens. Perfect and complete
righteousness will not be accomplished until Jesus returns in great power and
judgment, and finally destroys sin, Satan, and death (cf. Rom. 8:18-25; I Cor.
15:50-58).
15. The Law
reveals sin (cf. Gal. 3:19-25;
These are the same five
commandments Jesus questioned the rich young ruler in Luke 18:18-30: Honor thy
father and mother, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not
bear false witness (cf. Matt. 19:16-26; Mark 10:17-30). It seems that the rich ruler's main problem
or sin was that he loved (or "idolized") his possessions more than he
loved God. Although this sin may be seen
as breaking the intent or spirit of the first commandment, it is, however, a
sin only against God, not against a fellow human being. It is a religious matter, and relates to the
condition of the heart. I do not see how any government can legislate against
it. Having money is not sinful; it is
"the love of money" which is a root of all sorts of evil (I Tim.
6:10).
Is it
right for the Jewish Saturday Sabbath, or the Christian Sunday Lord's Day, to
be imposed upon Moslem, Hindu, and atheistic societies? I do not think so! Keep in mind that the Moslems worship Allah,
and Friday is their holy day. Is it
right for any so‑called "Christian government" to impose the
first three commandments on a Hindu subculture that possibly has 330 million
gods? I do not think so! The first four commandments are strictly
religious matters and relate to a person and his God; they do not relate to
moral issues that promote order and justice in human societies. The Ten Commandments written on "tables
of stone" were given to the twelve tribes of Israel just before they entered
the "Promised Land" (cf. Exod. 20:2; Lev. 26:1-6; Deut. 5:6,15;
6:1-2). The third commandment concerning
not taking God's name in vain more specifically related to the children of
16. When one
looks at New Testament passages such as Romans 5:20-8:17; II Corinthians
5:14-15; and Galatians 2:11-21, he will see that the Mosaic Law is not
ultimately binding upon Christians because, in their identification with
Christ, they are "dead" to the Law. For example, in Galatians 2:19-20,
Some Christians,
however, do not believe that it was the whole Mosaic "Law" including
the Ten Commandments which
(i) There are at least seven passages in Paul's writings where he says
he either "died" to the Law (meaning also the Decalogue), or else
that he was crucified with Christ. They
are: Romans 7:1-7 (cf. 6:2-11); II Corinthians 3:4-18; 5:14-21; Galatians
2:16-21; 3:24-27; 4:21-31; 5:1-6; and Ephesians 2:11-18. As a Christian Jew and previous Pharisee,
Paul meant the whole Mosaic Law.
(ii) It is the same Law that brought "death" which he mentions
also in Romans 4:15; 5:20; 7:5; 8:2; II Corinthians 3:2-18; and Galatians
3:10-13.
(iii) In Romans 7:1-14, he clearly mentions the tenth commandment,
"You shall not covet (v.8)."
(iv) It is the same Law from Mount Sinai which the Old Testament calls
"statutes, ordinances, judgments, and commandments" (cf. Lev. 18:4-5;
26:1-3; Deut. 4:40,44-46; 5:1-6:2; I Kings 2:1-4; Neh. 1:7; 9:13-14, 28-31; and
Ezek. 20:1-32).
(v) If it does not include the Decalogue, then what Law is
"fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to
the Spirit (
(vi) According to Romans 13:8-10, it is clearly the moral part of the
Ten Commandments which is fulfilled when we love our neighbors as ourselves
(cf. Gal. 5:14).
17. Acts 15:1-29
is another passage relating to this issue of law and grace. The main problem had to do with some
Christian Judaizers who taught that Gentiles could not be saved unless they
were also circumcised and followed the dietary laws "according to the
custom of Moses (vs. 1, 5)."
Sabbath laws would likely have been included in those customs. According to the Apostle Peter, the Gentiles
were saved in the same way as the Jews, which was by faith "through the
grace of the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:1-18; 15:8-11)."
After hearing the
Apostles Peter and Paul speak about the Gentiles coming to faith, James stood
up before the
18. When one
looks at such passages as John 13:34-35; Romans 13:8-10; I Corinthians 13:1-13;
Galatians 5:1-26; and James 2:8-13, he can see that when a Christian truly
loves as Jesus loved, and also loves his neighbor as himself, then he
automatically fulfills the whole Law. In other words, the Mosaic Law is
virtually nullified, fulfilled, and superseded when a Christian truly loves his
neighbor as himself.
Dr. Donald Grey
Barnhouse was a Presbyterian minister, radio preacher, theologian, and
author. In his commentary on Romans,
Dr. Barnhouse stated:
We Gentiles never
were under the law of Moses and were therefore in total despair until God
established a new constitution, a new covenant, a new birth. He saw to
it that the temple was overthrown, the priesthood destroyed, the blood
sacrifices abolished, and the door flung wide to all members of the human race.
Sin shall not have dominion over the children of this new covenant, for we are
not sworn to obey a set of rules; we are set free from all rules in order to be
possessed by the Lord Jesus Christ, who gives to us freely what we could never
acquire by ourselves. Only now, under the new covenant, do we obtain as a gift
that to which we could never attain. Within our hearts and lives the Lord Jesus
Christ becomes our great high priest, not according to a legal requirement as
did Aaron, but by the power of an endless life, through His resurrection from
the dead...
...It was a tragic hour when the Reformation churches
wrote the Ten Commandments into their creeds and catechisms and sought to bring
Gentile believers into bondage to Jewish law, which was never intended either
for the Gentile nations or for the Church.
Many true
Christians honestly believe that they can grow in obedience to God by some
system of law-keeping. This is not the case. First, nobody under the old
covenant was able to keep the law given through Moses...
...How foolish to think that righteousness can come by
the law! Does anyone still believe that prohibition can prohibit!...
Prohibition has never prohibited, and law has never been a deterrent to sin.
The human heart will go to any length to satisfy its desires. Law is necessary, not to prevent the lawless
from sinning but to provide for their punishment and our protection. True
righteousness comes not from law but from the love of Christ under Grace.
Let us note this
difference in a practical illustration. A man is left a widower with two small
children, so he hires a housekeeper to be his servant. He tells her what to
cook, how to keep house, how to dress and care for the children. He goes about
the house from time to time to see that all is in order and that she is obeying
his instructions. He watches her management of the children and corrects her in
a manner suited to the relationship of master and servant. After a year or two,
he marries this woman. The relationship is now entirely changed. He no longer
follows her around to oversee her work, nor does he tell her what to cook for
dinner. She is his in a relationship of love and she delights to do his will.
She asks what he would like for dinner, and goes to some trouble to prepare it.
She is no longer under law but under grace...
...In other words, Paul knew that the Gentiles had no
sense of law toward God. They were ruled only by the law of the state. How
could he reach them? He never presented the demands of the Mosaic law, since
Gentiles were not under the law and certainly could not produce the
righteousness under the law. Paul, therefore, acted toward the heathen as
though the law of Moses did not exist. Yet he did not partake in their
lawlessness because he was enfolded into the law through Christ...
We see,
therefore, that God took us from under the law to live in grace and produce a
righteousness which is impossible in a legal relationship...
And the believer,
who himself is united with Christ, knows that he has been lifted above all the
law of this world and even above the laws given to mankind in its earliest
stages. He has been made one with Christ so that righteousness flows from his
heart to produce a holiness beyond the law, which only grace has the power to
bring forth.
... We are not under law. What confusion has arisen
because Christians have read the Bible and put themselves in the place of
Those who preach
this truth are frequently accused of proclaiming lawlessness, but this is the
Devil's lie. Freedom from law is not lawlessness, but holiness under grace.
The Gentiles have a moral responsibility to God, but they are under no set of
rules, and neither are those who have believed in Jesus Christ and His atoning
work. Free from legalism, they are to live the life of grace.22
"Under
law" means to be governed by law as the principle of an agreement or
covenant established by God on the basis of works. Law demands what it is
powerless to provide -- the fulfillment of that agreement. If the
individual lives up to it, he is to receive a reward because he has earned it.
If he fails, he must suffer the penalty. Consequently, any individual under law
is cursed and dead. Grace, on the contrary, makes available all that the law
demands but cannot provide. Grace takes us from the justice of God into His
love and makes us partakers of the divine nature. Grace gives strength for the
inner man and makes it possible to obey the righteousness of God.23
1. If
the Decalogue has been done away with for Christians, then by what standard are
they to live? I believe it is by the
higher law or rule of LOVE. Jesus' life
is our example; His words and the rest of the New Testament are the standard
for our conduct. Christians are
to evidence the fruit of the Spirit, "against such there is no law (Gal.
5:22-26)." Along with the Sermon on
the Mount, Jesus gave three main commandments:
(a) "You shall
love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your mind (Matt. 22:37)."
(Compare Deut. 6:4-7; 7:9; Ps. 51:16-17.) Note the context of Matthew 22:34-40. A certain lawyer asked Jesus a question to
test Him: “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus partly responded by quoting from
Deuteronomy 6:5, a verse that is not part of the specific Ten Commandments. He pulls out a greater command or principle
for mankind to live by. Note also, that
from the lawyer’s question, the lawyer expected an answer from the whole Mosaic
Law, which is the Torah or Pentateuch.
(b) "You shall
love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:39)." (Compare Lev. 19:16-18,34;
Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-37;
(c) "A new
commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you,
that you also love one another. By this
all men will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another
(John 13:34-35)." (Compare John
15:4-17.)
2.
The following Scriptures relate how we are to love others as ourselves:
Matt. 5:38-48; 7:12; 19:19; 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34; Luke 6:27-38;
10:25-37; John 10:27-28; 13:34-35; 14:15-26; 15:9-17; Rom. 8:28; 12:9-21;
13:8-14; I Cor. 8:3-6; 10:24; l3:1-8; 16:22; II Cor. 5:14-15; Gal. 5:6,13-18,
22-26; 6:2; Eph. 4:1-3,15,28-32; 5:1-6,25-28;
Phil. 2:1‑8; I Thess. 3:11-13; I Tim. 1:5; Heb. 10:24;
13:1-3,15-21; I Pet. 1:7-9; James 1:12; 2:5-13; I John 3:10-24; 4:7-21; 5:1-5;
II John 5-6; Jude 21-23; Rev. 2:4-5 (cf. Acts 15:19-21; Luke 14:26).
The life and witness of
Jesus is our light and standard (banner, model, objective). Compare Isaiah 11:1-6,10,12; 49:22; 59:19-21;
60:19; John 1:1-18; 8:12; and Rom. 15:12.
Jesus is the love of God manifested in the flesh.
(i) The Old Covenant
(i.e. the Mosaic Law given on
(ii) Christians are the
true children of Abraham through faith in Jesus Christ, God's Son (cf. Rom.
3:21-5:2; Gal. 3:6-9; Phil. 3:2-3). We
are saved by grace through faith, not as a result of works (Eph. 2:8-10). While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us
(
(iii) Nine of the Ten Commandments
have been repeated by Christ and His Apostles in one way or the other in the
New Testament (cf. Matt. 5:21-22,27-30,38-48; Mark 7:17-23; I Cor. 6:9-20; II
Cor. 12:21; Gal. 5:16-26; Eph. 5:1-5,18; I Thess. 4:1-8; II Tim. 2:22; Heb.
13:1-6; I John 3:15).
Christians are not
commanded to obey the Jewish Sabbath, but instead, are admonished to gather
together and worship God on the Lord's Day, which is the first day of the week
(cf. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Heb. 10:25; I John 2:19; Rev. 1:10). The Sabbath law is regulated by both the
Jewish civil and ceremonial laws. It is
not inherent in mankind to rest only on Saturdays (cf. Romans 2), although, as
a principle, it is wise for every person to set aside one day a week to rest
from his labors. More important,
however, Christians are admonished to rest relationally in God (Heb.4:1-16).
Hebrew grammar renders
Exodus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 5:14 as: "but the seventh day is a
Sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work...
(NASB)". The first mention of a
Sabbath in the Bible is Exodus 16:22-30.
The seventh day of rest for the Israelites was only one kind of
Sabbath. Other "Sabbath days"
of rest are mentioned in Leviticus 16:30-31; 19:3; and 23:1-44. These other Sabbaths, which were to be set
apart unto God, are also called "holy days" or feast days. (Compare
Lev. 26:21-46; I Chron. 23:31; II Chron. 2:4; 8:12-13; 31:3; Neh. 10:31-33;
Isa. 1:13-14; Ezek. 20:12-24; Hos. 2:11.)
The following New
Testament Scriptures declare the end of all these Sabbath days which were
peculiar to Israel under the Old Covenant: Matt. 12:1-21; Mark 2:23-28; 3:1-6;
Luke 6:1-11; 13:10-17; 14:1-6; John 5:1-18; 7:14-24; Acts 15:1-21; 20:7;
Rom. 14:1-23; Col. 2:9-17; Heb. 4:1-16. The legalistic regulations of the Sabbath
laws were a burden. Jesus took away that burden when He said: "The Sabbath
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord
also of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28)."
In addition,
If non-Jews are
required to obey the Mosaic Sabbath laws as Israel's theocratic society was,
then capital punishment should still be imposed for doing any kind of work on
that day, including picking up sticks and lighting a fire (cf. Exod. 31:12-18;
35:1-3; Num. 15:30-36). Seventh-day
Adventists, and others who promote the Jewish Sabbath Day, are not consistent
when it comes to imposing the Mosaic civil and ceremonial regulations that go
along with it. There is also a
logistical problem in that the beginning hour of the Sabbath around the world
is different than in
Just because the New
Testament repeats or reiterates most of the Mosaic Moral Law (or Decalogue) in
one form or another, it does not necessarily imply that the Mosaic Law is still
binding upon Christians. An example of a
home mortgage might apply here to explain what I mean. Many people sell one home and buy another. The mortgage on the first home is paid off,
and a new one is taken on the second home.
Because many of the legal terms are repeated on the new mortgage, it in
no way implies that the old mortgage is still in force.
(iv) A corollary of
Christ's command to "love your neighbor as yourself" is found in John
13:34-35; 15:12-14. Jesus commanded that
believers love one another as Jesus had loved them. He concluded by saying: "By this all men
will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another."
(Cf. Jer. 31:33-34; Eph. 5:2; I Thess. 4:9; I John 3:11; 4:7-21.) [Compare The Mark of the Christian, by
Francis A. Schaeffer.]
(v) The main point I am
trying to make is that if we truly love God and our neighbor as
ourselves, then we will automatically obey the Commandments by doing what is
morally right to our neighbor, and also keep any other moral law that is
good. If we love, then we will honor and
obey our parents, we will not murder, commit adultery or fornication, steal,
bear false witness, nor covet anything we shouldn't. These particular laws are standard for all cultures,
not only because they pre-date the Mosaic Law (eg. Gen. 2:24; 4:8-15;
9:6,18-27; 31:19; 39:7-9), but because they protect human life, property and
the family. These laws are fulfilled
automatically when you "love your neighbor as yourself." When we truly love other human beings as we
love ourselves and treat them with dignity and worth, when we love them with
the love of Christ (and with the help of the Holy Spirit), then we will not
have to worry whether or not we are sinning against them by breaking one of the
Ten Commandments.
(vi) Love not only
fulfills the Law, but also goes beyond it.
In other words, the kind of loving deeds Jesus talks about actually
supersede or replace the Law. Even
if a person could keep the whole Law, it would only bring him up to absolute
zero, although his past sins would still not have been dealt with, or been
forgiven. If the Good Samaritan in
Jesus' parable had kept the whole Law, he still would not have been constrained
to go beyond and help the man who was beaten and robbed, especially if it was
on the Sabbath. By keeping the Law, the
Samaritan would not have harmed the man any more, but neither would he have
helped him (cf. Luke 10:25-37). The
Samaritans were despised by the Jews because of their mixed Gentile blood, and
their different worship that centered at
Love ‑ above Law e.g. the Good Samaritan
Law ----------------- (zero)
‑ under Law
Biblically speaking, I
think the practical order of this love relationship goes from God to me (
From
the above understanding, it seems that most of the moral Law would come back
into affect for the Christian only when he ceases to be led by the Spirit, and
does not continue in the higher God-given law of Love.
3. In his book Grace Works, Dudley Hall
says:
... Imagine being married to someone whose very existence
is predicated on pointing out your failures.
But this is exactly the purpose of the law. It defines sin for us and shows us ourselves
with brutal honesty. More specifically,
it defines the boundaries of "right" so we will know when we
trespass. [p.174]
...So Susan dies with Jesus is resurrected, and is united
with him in covenant love. She is dead to the law. [p.178]
... The law defines sin in terms of violated
"rules", but grace defines sin primarily in terms of violated
"relationships". [p.182]
... The whole purpose of the new covenant is to build up
the inner person so that the believer operates first of all out of the spirit
in obedience to God's promptings. [p.191]
What is the gist
of that new covenant? God wrote his laws
on my heart. He makes me to know and desire his ways. The cross is our victory;
there, sin is forgiven, self is crucified, Satan is defeated, and Jesus is
crowned Lord of everything. God, my heavenly Father, has totally identified
with me. The law has been satisfied and
has no further claim on me. [p.196]24
4. In
his radio sermons on "The Liberty of Grace" (May, 1965),
Dispensationalist and founder of the Radio Bible Class, Dr. M. R. DeHaan said:
... The Law is the declaration of God's justice, while
the Gospel is the declaration of God's mercy and grace. Both the law and the
Gospel are perfect, but they have entirely different purposes and results, for
the law condemns the sinner, while the Gospel justifies, and offers salvation
for sin. The law and the Gospel are mutually exclusive. It cannot be partly law
and partly grace. There can be no mixing of the two in salvation. [p.1.]
...we are not only saved by grace, but also kept by grace
without the works of the law. [p.3]
If the believer
were under law, he would be lost again every time he came short of its perfect
demands... Jesus not only delivered us from the curse of the law by dying on
the Cross, but He keeps us delivered from the condemnation of the law by His
presence as our interceding High Priest at the right hand of God. [pp.4-5] [Cf. Gal. 2:19; 3:10-13; Rom. 6:1-2,14-15; I
Tim. 2:5-6; I John 2:1.]
... Now we do not teach that the law is not active today
in declaring God's righteousness, and in condemning the sinner. But we do teach
that those who trust in the finished work of Christ are not only "redeemed
from the curse and penalty, but from the law itself." A law without penalties
is powerless, and since the penalty of the law was fully borne by Christ, the
believer is forever delivered from its power... [pp.7-8]
The Christian is
under a different law, a more powerful law, the law of love, instead of the law
of commandments. The true believer seeks to keep the law of God, but it is from
an entirely different motive. The believer is still obligated to observe God's
law, but not as an effort to keep himself saved, or out of fear of punishment.
The believer has a moral obligation to live a holy life, not because the law
demands it, but because grace produces it...
The believer is
under a new law given to us by the Lord Jesus Himself. It is indeed called the
Law of Christ. It is the law of Love in contrast to the law of commandments.
Paul says in Galatians 2:19, "I am dead to the law, that I might live unto
God." [p.8]25
What are the
commandments of Jesus mentioned in John 15:10‑17? Dr. M. R. DeHaan
explains:
Certainly not the
Ten Commandments, as so many imagine. He is speaking about a different law of
commandments, and explains it in verse 12:
"This is my
commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" (John 15:12).
This
is called by Paul, the law of Christ, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and
so fulfil the Law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2).
The law of Christ
is the law of Love, the fruit of the new nature and the Spirit of God. We read
again:
"For all the
law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt Love thy neighbour as
thyself (Gal. 5:14)". [p.9]
... we are not lawless, but are placed under another
higher, more glorious law -- the law of love, called also the "perfect law
of liberty" (James 1:25). [p.9]26
Where love is the
motive for service, no laws, rules or regulations are ever needed... [p.10]
Love then is the
fulfilling of the law; the more love, the less law; and the less love, the more
law is needed... [p.12]
Where this rule
of love is practised, there is no more need for any laws... If you love your
neighbor as yourself, you will not commit adultery; if you love your neighbor
as yourself you will not kill him; if you love your neighbor as yourself you
will not steal from him... [cf.
Concerning Matthew
5:17-18, Dr. DeHaan said:
Of course, Jesus
did not destroy the law, nor do we. Instead, we preach that Christ FULFILLED
the law by meeting its demands and paying its penalty for the believer and now
that believer is, "... delivered from the law..." (Romans 7:6). [p.17]
Concerning Luke 16:17,
Dr. DeHaan stated:
But the law has
not failed. It succeeded in doing what it was intended to do -- reveal sin as a
transgression and condemn the sinner. It did its perfect work, and having done
its perfect work, left all men under condemnation; but Jesus Christ came to do
what the law could not do. [p.17, cf. Gal. 3:10-26; 4:4-5.]
No one in his
right mind teaches men to break God's laws. The law still condemns the sinner
and exalts its penalty, but for the believer Christ has borne the curse of the
law, and now the grace of God teaches us holiness, obedience and godliness. The
believer desires to keep God's will perfectly, even though he too often is
overcome. [p.18]
... The believer has within him another guide, a new
teacher. When the sinner receives Jesus Christ as Saviour, he is born FROM
ABOVE, born of the Spirit... [p.18]
Nowhere in the
New Testament is the law said to be the guide for the believer. He has a better
guide, even the GRACE OF GOD... [p.18, cf. Titus 2:11-12; Gal. 5:18]
Dr. DeHaan continued by
saying that the Apostle Paul:
...was not free to do as he pleased, but he was free to
please God. The law of love has no limitations. It does more than the law of
commandments ever required. [p.27]
5. Theologian,
Dispensationalist, and founder of
The Law of Moses
is that rule for conduct which God gave to Israel at Mount Sinai, which law ran
its course for 1500 years and was then superseded by "grace and
truth" (John 1:17). It is that covenant which God made with
Although I agree with
the above statements by Dr. Chafer, I strongly disagree with his Dispensational
statements found on the same page:
...Nevertheless, though the legal principle is now done
away--and of necessity, because of its incompatibility with the rule for
conduct which grace provides--it will, when
The doctrine taught in
the above paragraph is not only intellectually schizophrenic, it is also
heretical and overlooks much of the New Testament concerning historical
fulfillment and the completed work of Christ.
First of all, for Chafer to say that the Mosaic Law will be
"re-established" in the "yet future [millennial] kingdom age,"
he infers that the Old Covenant (i.e. the Mosaic Law) is superior to the New
Covenant because the Old will replace the New.
Second, to say that
Jesus will return to sit upon David's restored physical throne in Jerusalem is
to deny Messiah's current reign in Heaven seated on David's eternal antitype
throne at the right hand of the Father (cf. Ps. 110:1; Acts 2:22-36; Matt.
28:18-20; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 1:1-13; 10:1-22, etc.).
Third, if the New
Covenant has not been fulfilled to whom it was first promised (i.e. to Israel),
how can we benefit from it (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2:1-21; Heb.
8:6-13; 10:14-22, etc.)? Actually, the
Church was started by 3,120 Jewish souls on the day of Pentecost (cf. Acts
1:15; 2:41,47; 3:12; 4:4; 6:7). They were
the first ones to be "born again" and indwelt by the Spirit of
God. They were the first ones to be
"circumcised of the heart" (cf. Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:24-29; Phil. 3:3;
Col. 2:11). They were the first ones to
have the "law written on their hearts." It was not until a few years later that the
first uncircumcised Gentiles, actually an Italian centurion named Cornelius and
his family, believed in Jesus and were incorporated into the Jewish Christian
Church (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18; I Cor.12:12-13; Eph.2:8-22).
Fourth, by stating that
The New Covenant takes
Christians from bondage under the Law to liberty in Christ (cf. II Cor.
3). With the Apostle Paul, we are not
under the Law of Moses; rather, we are under "the law of Christ (I Cor.
9:20-21)." We obey the higher
commands of Jesus out of love, not fear. As "salt and light" in the
world, Christians are not only to promote law, order and justice, but we are
also to be people of integrity who exhibit truth, love, and mercy. I believe
the Law is automatically fulfilled in us when we display the "fruit of the
Spirit" as recorded in Galatians 5:22-26.
No laws are needed if Christians truly live according to the standard
set out in the New Testament. An example
is found in Ephesians 4:32 that reads: "And be kind to one another,
tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven
you."
Jesus is our model on
how to live, not Moses. When we are in situations where we are not sure on how
to act, we need to ask ourselves two basic questions: (i) "What would
Jesus do?" (ii) "How would I
like others to treat me?"
The way a person builds
character and grows in sanctification is by doing what is right and good in
response to God and his neighbor. Moses
said: "Do not steal." With the
Good Samaritan parable as our example, however, Jesus goes beyond and virtually
says: "Give your time and money in helping your neighbor, and expect
nothing in return." (Cf. Luke
10:25-37; Eph. 4:28-29.) I believe
Jesus' words is a better standard to live by.
The New Covenant has come through Christ; the Old Mosaic Covenant has
passed away. The Old Mosaic Law-Covenant
was a covenant of works, whereas the New Covenant through Christ is a covenant
of grace. Unlike the Old Covenant that
was faulty and conditional, the New Covenant is based upon better promises and
is faultless, unconditional, and eternal (cf. Isa. 55:3; Jer. 32:36-40; Heb.
8:6-13; 13:20). We are to keep our eyes
on Jesus, not Moses (John 1:17; Heb. 2:9).
We are to live by grace through faith, not by trying to keep the old
Law. In fact, grace and mercy supersede
law and judgment (James 2:13). We must
keep in mind that Jesus did not come to confirm or ratify the Old Covenant. Instead, He personally fulfilled the Old, and
ratified a better New Covenant (cf. Matt. 26:28; Heb. 8:6-13; 10:8-25).
We love God and obey
Him because He first loved us by sending His Son, and then His Spirit to
indwell us (cf. John 14:15-21; Rom. 5:8; Eph. 5:2; I John 4:9-11). We are motivated to obey Christ's
commandments and do good deeds in response to His love for us (II Cor.
5:14-15). We should also be motivated to
obey Christ and do good works in gratitude for His free salvation, not out of
fear in order to maintain that salvation.
Living by Christ's law of love is only possible with the help of God's
Spirit Who indwells every believer.
Obeying negative
commands like the "Thou shalt nots", should not be the issue any
more. Obeying the Law of Moses and dwelling on the negative does not change
what we are, but only what we do. By
teaching a child the Ten Commandments as the basis on how to live, you
primarily teach a child not to be bad, you do not really teach the child how to
be good. I believe it is easier for a
child to learn to be sensitive and caring if he learns Christ's commands, and
the New Covenant standard on how to love others as oneself. We are to obey Jesus Who is the new and final
Lawgiver. In fact, whatever we do in
word or deed we are to "do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ",
not Moses (Col. 3:17). When we are being
led by the Spirit of God, we do not have to worry whether or not we are
breaking any negative laws (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:18). The whole Law is fulfilled when we truly love
our neighbors as ourselves (cf. Matt. 7:12; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). In addition, when we bear one another's
burdens, we "thus fulfill the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2)." Since this is the teaching of the New
Testament, it should now become clear to the reader that Christians are not
under both the Law of Moses and the grace of God, instead, they are under grace
alone.
The New Covenant of
grace and the teachings of Jesus have superseded or replaced the Mosaic
Covenant or law code. John Calvin was
wrong when he separated the Decalogue part of the Mosaic Covenant from the
civil and ceremonial parts, thus making it absolute. By doing so, it makes the Mosaic moral code
equal to the absolute New Covenant moral code.
By doing so, it lessens the importance of the higher and better standard
that is revealed in the New Covenant. By
doing so, it implies that observance of the Sabbath Day is also absolute as the
Seventh-Day Adventists are saying.
It is not that the Decalogue part of the Mosaic Covenant is morally bad,
it is that it has been replaced by something better and more positive (cf. II
Cor. 3:4-18; Heb. 8:13; 10:9). (Besides,
the Decalogue fails to address a number of other important moral issues such as
homosexuality, fornication, and polygamy.)
If our government enforced the whole Decalogue upon people of all
faiths, then it would be illegal for anyone to work on the Sabbath. It would be immoral for anyone to use YHWH’s
name in vain (Exod. 20:7). It would also
be immoral for Hindus to privately or publicly worship their idols. I wonder what punishments would be imposed?
God gave the Mosaic
Covenant to the twelve tribes of
We have also seen that Jesus
abrogated and went beyond the Mosaic Law when he used the “But I say to you”
phrases in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:22,28,39,44). Finally, we have seen that the Mosaic Law
written on stone became a “ministry of death” (cf. Gal. 3:10-14; II Cor.
3:7). Through Christ we are “servants of
a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but
the Spirit gives life (II Cor. 3:6).”
(Cf. Gal. 5:1-26.) We conclude
that Christians are not under both law and grace; they are under grace alone.
There are three more
relevant things I would like to add to this paper:
1) The
Apostle Paul not only promoted the grace of God, but also the doctrine that
Christians were justified by faith alone apart from works of the Law (cf. Rom.
3:19-4:8; Titus 3:5). In addition, he
taught that Christians legally "die" to the Mosaic Law (cf.
In the books of Romans and Galatians the Apostle Paul contrasts law and grace. Under divine inspiration, he taught that Christians are not only saved by the grace of God through faith in Christ, but are also kept by the grace of God. Even if one could keep the whole Mosaic Law, it would still not save him (cf. Titus 3:4-7). No one is saved by keeping the Law. After coming to faith in Christ, Christians are then commanded to live by faith (cf. Gen. 15:6; Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; 4:1-5:2; Gal. 3:5-9; Heb. 11:6). I believe the answer to Paul's statement in Romans 3:31 is found in comparing Romans 3:20; 4:15; 5:20; and 7:7 with Galatians 3:19-25. The purpose of the Law is to reveal sin, and show men their need of a Savior. This is confirmed by everyone who acknowledges his sin, and turns to Christ in faith. Once we have turned to Christ, we are to live by faith, and then in loving response, obey the commands of Jesus and the Apostles, not Moses.
2) Under
section A, "The End of the Mosaic law", we discussed three
specific things which fulfilled the Law and the Prophets mentioned by Jesus in
Matthew 5:17-20. One thing was that
Jesus personally fulfilled them by fulfilling Bible prophecy and living the
perfect life. (See point #14.) We also
quoted Romans 10:4 that declares: "Christ is the end of the law for
righteousness to everyone who believes." (See point #10. Cf.
There is a fourth thing
which I believe fulfils the Law, and that is when Christians truly walk
according to the Spirit of God. Romans
8:3-4 states: "... in order that the requirement of the Law might be
fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the
Spirit." (Compare Gal. 5:18.) This is evidenced in the fruit of the Spirit
(Gal. 5:22-26), and Christians living out the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7;
cf.
According to Matthew
5:20, Jesus said: "... that unless your righteousness surpasses that of
the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven (or
God). If Jesus' words are taken at face
value, then very few people have entered the kingdom, because very few of them
could ever keep the outward regulations of the Law as the Pharisees did. Jesus' statement cannot be taken this way,
especially in light of His criticism of the self-righteous Pharisees (cf. Matt.
23). Besides, according to John 3:3, we
know that unless a person is born again by the Spirit of God, he will never see
the
3) The
third relevant thing I would like to discuss has to do with the
Reconstructionists' teaching that the State is to enforce both the Mosaic moral
and civil laws on behalf of the Church.
I have a problem with this, because as an Anabaptist, I believe in the
separation of Church and State. Please
note; I am not talking about the State's right to administer law, order, and
justice (cf.
I strongly oppose any
state religion such as Islam in
The Puritans left
Baptists primarily have
no major creeds. The Scriptures are
their only source of religious truth.
They believe in the priesthood of all believers, and the autonomy of the
local church. Baptists believe in
religious freedom, and agree that no person has the right to choose religion
for another person. They also believe in
the separation of church (i.e. religion) and state (cf. Acts 5:28-29). Motivation to keep God’s laws is to come from
within (cf.
I believe the State has
been given the right under God to protect religion, not to promote it. History demonstrates that whenever the religious
views of any one group are imposed upon society as a whole, persecution always
results. Our religious freedom is at
stake. Many Anabaptists have died
defending their beliefs. I, for one,
will continue speaking out against any religion, including the
Reconstructionists, that tries to get the government to impose its particular
theological views on the rest of us. As
far as the Reconstructionists are concerned, they cannot even agree among
themselves which of the Mosaic civil laws they would enforce if they were in
power.
At the end of the Ryrie
Study Bible (NASB), Dr. Charles C. Ryrie has a section entitled, "Some
Accomplishments of Christ's Death."
One of those accomplishments he puts in a sub-heading entitled, "It
Brought the End of the Law." He
explains:
The fact that the death of Christ brought an end to the
Mosaic law is quite clearly stated in the New Testament (
But the relation
of the end of the law to sanctification is more difficult to comprehend simply
because portions of the Mosaic law are repeated in the New Testament in
relation to the believer's sanctification.
Furthermore, those specifics which are repeated are not from just one
section of the law (like the Ten Commandments).
As a matter of fact, nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated, and
other parts of the law are too (Rom. 13:9).
This makes it impossible to say that the law is done away with except
for the Ten Commandments.
Furthermore, 2
Corinthians 3:7-11 states quite clearly that the Ten Commandments ("that
which was written and engraven in stones") were done away with. How do you
put all these facts together? Is the Christian under the Mosaic law in relation
to sanctification or not?
The only
realistic solution that has ever appealed to the present author is that which
distinguishes a code and the commandments contained in that code. The Mosaic law was one of several codes which
God has given throughout history, and as a code it is finished. The code under which the believer lives today
is called the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2) or the law of the Spirit of life (
As one code ends
and another is instituted, not all of the commands in the new one will
themselves be new and different. The
permission to eat meat in the law of Christ (1 Tim. 4:3) was also part of the
code under which Noah lived after the Flood (Gen. 9:3). Likewise, some of the specifics that were
part of the Mosaic code have been incorporated into the law of Christ and some
have not. But the entire code, as a
code, has been done away with.29
[pp. 1964-1965.]
I agree with Dr. Ryrie
on this issue, and in that context, I will address one final thing. In obedience to the third commandment (Exod.
20:7; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 5:11), the Jews so revere the divine name YHWH, they will
not even speak it. Leviticus 24:10-23
describes a young man with an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father who
blasphemed God's Name. God told Moses to stone the man to death. In other words,
Except for the
Reconstructionists, most Christians I know rightly believe that the Mosaic
civil laws are not binding on Christians.
On the other hand, they not only wrongly believe that all the Ten
Commandments are binding and absolute for all Christians, but many of
them also believe they are absolute for all nations. I see a number of major problems resulting
from this view. I give two:
(i) Forcing the whole
Decalogue on any nation promotes the false doctrine that seeks to unite Church
and State. One of the reasons for this
is because the Ten Commandments contain both moral and religious commands. If the whole Mosaic Moral Law was intended
for Gentile nations, and not national
This view negates the
priesthood of all believers, and also lessens the importance of the New
Covenant in which Christians are motivated to obey God from the heart. This view leaves the door open for tyranny,
where a small group of people are given the authority to literally force their
particular views on the majority. In
fact, the sword is wielded along with the call of the Gospel. Religious freedom
would not be tolerated. Dispensing mercy
would not be allowed because punishment must always be carried out for breaking
the Law. Although Jesus forgave the
woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11), the Mosaic Law would still be carried
out, and both the woman and the man who commit adultery today would be stoned
to death (Lev. 20:10-12; Deut. 22:22).
Homosexuals would also be executed (Lev. 20:13).
(ii) Forcing all the
Ten Commandments with their accompanying punishments on any nation would also
be a major problem for Christians. While
Old Testament Jews worship only one God with the names YHWH, El, Elohim, and
Adoni, Christians worship Jesus, not just YHWH.
The New Testament announces "that at the name of Jesus every knee
shall bow of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and
that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God
the Father (Phil. 2:9-11)." In
addition, it states "there is salvation in no one else; for there is no
other name under heaven that has been given among men, which we must be saved
(Acts 4:12; cf. Matt. 28:17-20; Rev. 3:8)." Christians believe Jesus is God and worship
Him also. On the surface, this seems to
contradict Isaiah 42:8; 43:11-13; 44:6; and 45:5-6. To a Jew and a Moslem,
however, this is not only considered blasphemy, but it goes against the first
commandment (cf. Exod. 20:3-5; Deut. 6:4,13-15; II Kings 17:34-39). In addition, instead of worshipping the Lord
on Sunday in commemoration of Christ's resurrection, all Christians would be
forced to worship on the Sabbath day, which is Saturday. Thank God we do not live under the strict
rule of a theocratic state, or a government controlled by the
Reconstructionists. If we did, then
freedom of religion would cease to exist.
Law would again supersede grace.
Not only that, but mercy would not be an option, and some forms of
punishment would become greater than their crimes.
We must remember that
the Mosaic Law as a distinct law code was given to the nation of
From whatever source
outside of the Bible, there is a common teaching that the Mosaic Law is divided
into three parts: the Moral (i.e. the Decalogue), the Civil, and the
Ceremonial. From this artificial
division, many Christians believe that the civil and ceremonial laws have been
done away, but the limited moral part of the Mosaic Law code (i.e. Decalogue)
is absolute. If this is true, why are the
Mosaic civil laws no longer valid since they were given by God to regulate the
moral? In addition, why not obey many of
the other moral laws given by God in the Pentateuch? If part of the Mosaic Law is still binding,
then according to Scripture, all of it is still binding (cf. Deut. 6:1-2; 27:26;
Gal. 3:10-13)! I might also ask: Why
should Atheists and Hindus in our multi-religious democratic society be forced
to obey the first four commands of the Decalogue that are more religious in
nature?
F. F. Bruce wrote:
In the
Reformed tradition derived from
Again,
it is sometimes said that Christ is the end of the ceremonial law (including
not only the sacrificial cultus but circumcision and the observance of the sacred
calendar) but not of the moral law. Once
more, this is a perfectly valid, and to some extent an obvious, theological and
ethical distinction; but it has no place in Pauline exegesis. It has to be read
into Paul, for it is not a distinction that Paul himself makes.30
The Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament correctly states:
In Paul...no basic distinction is made between the Decalogue and the rest of the legal material in the OT.
In
content Pl. [Paul] does not make any fundamental distinction between cultic and
ethical commandments, or between the Decalogue and the rest of the Law...31
Each sovereign state
creates laws to regulate its citizens.
Biblically speaking, governments have been ordained by God in order to
administer law, order, and justice.32 Evildoers must be stopped and either pay
restitution, or be punished in some way.
Each country throughout history has had its own tribal customs and
specific law codes. For example, there
has been the Code of Hammurabi in
Philosophically
speaking, there are four different kinds of law: eternal, natural (Rom.
2:12-15), human or civil, and divine.
Norman Geisler writes:
... Divine law is binding on the church, but natural law
is binding on all society. Natural law is directed toward temporal good, but
divine law is directed toward eternal good... In general, God's purpose for law
is to regulate human activity. Each kind of law, of course, has its own kind of
regulation in mind. By eternal law God regulates the entire universe; by divine
law he regulates the church, and by natural law he regulates all rational
creatures...33
Religions have their
own specific laws to regulate their members.
The problem with those who want to impose the Mosaic Law, and more
specifically the whole Decalogue, is that within the
Laws are written to be
obeyed, and there are consequences for disobedience. In other words, there are punishments for
disobeying laws. After all, why have
laws if they cannot be enforced?
Frederic Bastiat was a French economist, statesman, and author. He spoke
out against socialism. In 1850, he
wrote:
What then is law? It is the collective organization of
the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a
natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.
These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one
of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For
what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our
faculties?
If every person
has the right to defend--even by force --his person, his liberty, and his
property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and
support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right--its
reason for existing, its lawfulness--is based on individual right. And the
common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any
other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute.
Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person,
liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force--for the same
reason-- cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of
individuals or groups.
... generally, the law is made by one man or one class of
men. And since law cannot operate
without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be
entrusted to those who make the laws... The nature of law is to maintain
justice... Law is organized justice... Law is the common force organized to
act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice.
Now this must be
said: When justice is organized by law--that is, by force--this excludes the
idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it
be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or
religion. The organizing by law of any
one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization--justice.
For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens
without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper
purpose?
When law and
force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a
mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They
violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard
all of these.
... It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law
is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice,
instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only
when injustice is absent.
But when the law,
by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor,
a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed-- then the law
is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will
of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for
their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss,
to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes
a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their
personality, their liberty, their property.34
One's religion is a
personal and internal matter between himself and his God or gods. It is contingent upon one's liberty with the
freedom of choice. Where there is
coercion, not only is justice destroyed, but also faith becomes
unnecessary. Therefore, it is wrong and
unjust for any state to force a specific religion upon its citizens. This is especially so in countries that are
multi-cultural and multi-religious like
Refer to the following four websites:
http://www.ids.org/ids/reading_room.html#jgr
http://www.kindredminds.org/new_covenant_theology.htm
http://www.solochristo.com/nctindex.htm
http://www.soundofgrace.com/ and http://4himnet.com/bnyberg/law_vs_grace.html
1. Samuel Pestes. Christian
Be Free.
2. Rev. John G.
Reisinger. But I Say Unto You,....
3. Ibid., p.3.
4. Ibid., pp.4-5.
5. Ibid., p.5.
6. Ibid., pp.7-13.
7. Ibid., p.20.
8. Ibid., p.23.
9. Ibid., p.27.
10. Ibid., p.45.
11. Ibid., p.25.
12. Ibid., p.27.
13. Ibid., p.29.
14. Ibid., p.30.
15. Ibid., pp.33-34.
16. Ibid., p.39.
17. Ibid., p.55.
18. Ibid., pp.59-60.
19. Ibid., p.79.
20. John W. Robbins.
"Theonomic Schizophrenia", in The Trinity Review, Number 84.
21. Merrill F. Unger. Unger's
Bible Dictionary.
22. Donald Grey
Barnhouse. Romans, Vol. III, "God's Freedom", (Rom. 6:1-7:25),
23. Ibid. p.153.
24. Dudley Hall. Grace
Works: Letting God Rescue You From Empty Religion.
25. Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Law
or Grace. Booklet No. 5.
26. Ibid. p. 9.
27. Lewis Sperry
Chafer. Systematic Theology. Vol. III.
28. Ibid. p.77.
29. Charles Caldwell
Ryrie. The Ryrie Study Bible. (NASB)
30. F. F. Bruce. Paul:
Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
31. W. Gutbrod. Article on the law ("vόμoς"), in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
32. Refer to Gen. 9:6;
Exod. 19:1-24:18; Prov. 21:1; 24:21; Jer. 25:9; Dan. 3:1-30; 6:1-28; 9:4-19;
Matt. 22:15-22; Acts 4:1-22; 5:12-42; Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; I Pet. 2:12-17.
33. Norman L. Geisler. Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.
34. Frederic Bastiat. The
Law. NY: The Foundation For Economic Education, Inc.,
Anderson, J. N. D. Morality, Law and Grace. Tyndale Press, 1972.
Bahnsen, Greg L. By
This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics.
Barker, William S &
Godfrey, W. Robert. Editors. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique.
Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Romans.
Volume 3, "God's Freedom" (
Barron, Bruce. Heaven
On Earth?: The Social and Political Agendas of Dominion Theology.
Bastiat, Frederic. The
Law. Reprinted by The Foundation For Economic Education,
Bock, Darrell L.
"Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New", (Part 1),
Bibliotheca Sacra. Vol. 142, No.567,
July-September, 1985, pp. 209-223.
Bolton, Samuel. The True Bounds of Christian Freedom. The Banner
of Truth Trust, 1645, 1964.
Bowman, Robert M. Jr.
"THE NEW PURITANISM: A Preliminary Assessment of Recon-structionism",
Christian Research Journal. Winter/ Spring, 1988, pp. 23-27.
Brinsmead, Robert D.
"Sabbatarianism Re-Examined", in Verdict, A Journal of
Theology, Fallbrook , CA., June, 1981, pp. 6-70.
Brinsmead, Robert D.
"Jesus and the Law", in Verdict, A Journal of Theology, Box
1311, Fallbrook, CA., October, 1981, pp. 5-30.
Bruce, F.F. Paul:
Apostle of the Heart Set Free.
Bruce, F.F. New Testament
Development of Old Testament Themes.
Bultmann, R. "Christ
the End of the Law," in Essays, Philosophical and Theological.
Bunyan, John. The
Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded.
Campbell, Alexander.
"Sermon on the Law", delivered at
Canright, D. M. Seventh-Day
Adventism Renounced.
Carson, D. A. Editor. From Sabbath To Lord's Day.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic
Theology.
Chantry, Walter J. God's
Righteous Kingdom: The Law's Connection with the Gospel. The Banner of
Truth Trust, 1980.
Chappell,
Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy", Christianity Today
mag. Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 17-23.
Clowney, Edmund.
"The Politics of the Kingdom",
DeHaan, M. R. Law or Grace. Booklet No. 5,
Eidsmoe, John. God
& Caesar. Biblical Faith and Political Action.
Ellul, Jacques. The Theological Foundation of Law. The Seabury
Press, 1969.
Fairbairn, Patrick. The
Revelation of Law in Scripture.
Frame, Randy. "The Theonomic Urge," Christianity Today. April 21 1989, pp. 38-40.
Fuller, Daniel. Gospel
& Law: Contrast or Continuum. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co.,
1980, pp. 69-120, 143-145, 151,161, 199-204.
Geisler, Norman L. The Christian Ethic of Love.
Geisler, Norman L. Ethics: Alternatives and Issues.
Geisler, Norman L. Baker
Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.
Gladwin, John. God's
People in God's World. Biblical motives for social involvement.
Gundry, R.H. "Grace,
Works, and Staying Saved In Paul", in The Best in Theology,
(published by Christianity Today), pp. 81-100.
Gutbrod, W. Article on the law ("vόμoς"), in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.
Hall, Dudley. Grace
Works: Letting God Rescue You From Empty Religion.
Heffren, H. C. The
Relationship Between God's Law and Love. (Booklet)
House, H. Wayne and Ice,
Thomas. Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?, An Analysis of Christian
Reconstructionism. Multnomah Press,
1988.
Hybels, Bill. Laws that Liberate.
Victor Books, 1985.
Ice, Thomas D. "An
Evaluation of Theonomic Neopostmillennialism." Bibliotheca Sacra. Vol. 145, No.579,
July/September, 1988, pp. 281-300.
Ingram, Rev. Robert T. The
World Under God's Law.
Kaiser, Walter C.
Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics.
Kevan, Ernest F. Keep His
Commandments.
Kevan, Ernest. Moral Law.
Lloyd-Jones, D.
Martyn. Studies in the Sermon on the
Mount.
Masters, Peter.
"World Dominion: The High Ambition of Reconstructionism." Sword and Trowel magazine, published
by Peter Masters, pastor of Spurgeon's
Montgomery, John Warwick.
The Law Above The Law. Dominion Books, Bethany Fellowship, 1975 (Why the
law needs biblical foundations.)
Moo, Douglas, J.
"`Law,' `Works of the Law,' and Legalism in Paul,"
Murray, John. Principles
of Conduct.
Murray, John.
"Law", New Bible Dictionary. Second Edition. Edited by J. D.
Douglas. Tyndale House Publ., 1982, pp. 682-687.
North, Gary. Tools Of Dominion. The Case Laws of
Exodus.
Pestes, Samuel. Christian Be
Free.
Pink, Arthur W. The Christian
Sabbath.
Pink, Arthur W. The Ten Commandments.
Poythress, Vern S. The Shadow of Christ in the The Law of
Moses.
Ramm, Bernard L. The Right,
The Good, and the Happy. Word Books, 1971, pp. 13-65.
Redpath, Alan. Law &
Liberty. Pickering & Inglis, 1978.
Reisinger, John. G. But I Say Unto You,....
Reisinger, John. G. Tablets
of Stone.
Robbins, John W.
"Theonomic Schizophrenia", in The Trinity Review, Number 84,
Feb. 1992.
Rushdoony, Rousas John. The
Institutes of Biblical Law.
Rushdoony, Rousas John. Law
and
Schaeffer, Francis A. The Mark of the Christian.
Schreiner, Thomas R. The
Law and Its Fulfillment. A Pauline Theology of Law.
Scott,
Steele, David N and
Thomas, Curtis C. Romans, An Interpretive Outline.
Stott, John. Decisive
Issues Facing Christians Today. Old
Strickland, Wayne G. Five Views on Law and Gospel.
Thielman, Frank. Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach.
Yancy, Philip. What's
So Amazing About Grace?
Westerholm, Stephen.
Wright, Christopher J.
H. An Eye for An Eye, The Place of
Old Testament Ethics Today.
[See also website:
http://www.ids.org/
See also http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/nct.html
]