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. Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13-16)?

            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 End of the Mosaic Law

            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 Israel consists of three parts: the Moral, the Civil that regulates it, and the Ceremonial.  So when the Scripture says that the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant "obsolete" through the completed work of Christ on the cross and the reception of the Holy Spirit (cf. Rom. 10:1-13; II Cor. 3:4-18; Gal. 3:10-26; Col. 2:9-17; Heb. 8:6-13), it means that the whole Old Covenant has been replaced or superseded, and is not binding on Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles.  What I mean to say is that you cannot do away with part of the Mosaic Law without doing away with all of it.  This does not mean, however, that most of the Ten Commandments and some of the civil laws cannot still be utilized in other societies.  In the same way, just because an English word may become obsolete, it does not invalidate the use of some of its individual letters in order to make new words.

            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 Israel (i.e. the Twelve Tribes) while in the Holy Land between the time of Moses and Christ.  [To accept this view may mean a paradigm shift in the thinking of many Christians.]  The following are my reasons for believing this:

            1. The whole Mosaic Law given by YHWH-God through Moses at Mount Sinai was mainly given to regulate the twelve tribes of Israel until the Messiah came.  They were to be a nation set apart from all the other nations.  They were commanded to keep "all the commandments of the LORD" in order to continue living in the "Promised Land," and also leave it as an inheritance to their children (e.g. Exod. 20:1-24:3; Lev. 26:1-6; Deut. 4:1-6:15; 7:1-8:2; 27:9-26; I Chron. 28:8).  Yet they continued to disobey God and were dispersed on two occasions.  The making of laws is only so good as the means to enforce some kind of punishment on those who break them. The heavenly "Jerusalem" is now our "mother," whereas the earthly Jerusalem under the Old Covenant was likened to Hagar and Mount Sinai in Arabia that was in bondage with her children (Gal. 4:21-31).

            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, St. Paul said: "...if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law (Gal. 3:19)."  Christians are to be constrained or compelled by the love of Christ, not the Law (cf. II Cor. 5:14).

            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 Israel to live by while they remained in the Promised Land.  The Covenant was conditional, and would remain in effect so long as Israel obeyed.  Moses said: "Cursed is he who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them (Deut. 27:26)."  God had commanded the people to obey the whole Law.  All the people said that they would obey.  The problem is that no one has ever been able to keep the whole Law. In fact, James said: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all (James 2:10)."  In reality, instead of saving anyone, the Law actually curses or condemns everyone. St Paul went so far as to call the Mosaic Law, "the law of sin and of death (Rom. 8:2)."  The Christian believer, however, is delivered from that curse through Jesus Christ, Who became "a curse for us (Gal. 3:13)."

            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 Mount Sinai) has been superseded and virtually done away with for Christians because the New Covenant has come. (Cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Isa. 59:20-21; Ezek. 36:24-27; 37:20-28; Matt. 26:28; I Cor. 6:29; 3:16; II Cor. 3:6; 5:17-21; 6:16-18; Gal. 4:21-31; Eph. 2:11-22; Heb. 3:1-6; 6:19-10:22; 12:18-29.)  Hebrews 8:6‑13 is clear, Jesus is the mediator of a new and better covenant because it was established upon better promises. Verse 13 says: "When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first one obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."  The writer of Hebrews clearly points out that the better New Covenant made the Old Covenant obsolete because it replaced it.  As part of the Mosaic Covenant, the Aaronic priesthood had been replaced by Jesus Who became our "high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 6:20)."  The Old Covenant certainly included the moral Law (Torah) or Decalogue which was written on the "tables of stone", and placed in the Ark of the Covenant (cf. Exod. 24:3-12; 25:16,21-22; 31:18; Deut. 9:5-10:5; I Kings 8:9; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:10; 9:1,4).  The prophet Jeremiah even went so far as to say that the Ark which housed the Ten Commandments would be remembered no more (Jer. 3:16).  This being true, why are so many Christians still promoting the Old Mosaic Covenant of Law?  One cannot say it is "obsolete", and at the same time say it is still valid!

            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 land of Palestine and the physical descendants of Abraham, the Mosaic Covenant is separate from the other three covenants.  The Mosaic Covenant was conditional and temporal (cf. Lev.26 and Deut. 28-30). Notice the word "if" in Leviticus 26:3,14,18,21,23,27,40, and Deuteronomy 28:1 and 28:15.

            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 Israel), which is called "the body of Christ".  God now represents Himself by His indwelling Spirit.  We (i.e., our bodies) are called the "Temple" of God where God now resides, dwells, or "tabernacles" Himself by His Spirit (cf. Exod. 29:45; Ezek. 11:19-20; 37:26-28; I Cor. 3:9,16-17; 6:15-20; II Cor. 6:16).  With the indwelling Spirit, the moral laws of God are now within, and "written" upon believer's hearts (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:21-29; II Cor. 3:3; Heb. 8:6-13).  In addition, St. Paul said that Christians 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. 3:4-18)."  Paul goes on to say that even though the Decalogue or the "letters engraved on stones" came with glory, nevertheless, it was actually a "ministry of death."

            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 Israel is not (cf. Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Rom. 2:17-29; Phil. 3:1-3; Col. 2:11).  The true circumcision worship God in or through the Spirit of God and put "no confidence in the flesh."  (Cf. I Pet. 2:4-10.)

            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 Israel's civil and ceremonial laws.

            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 Israel (cf. Exod. 16:23-29; 20:8-11; 23:12; 31:12-18; 35:1-3).  All those things were only shadows or types, but the real substance or antitype belongs to Christ, and the types were dispersed or annulled at the cross.  Unlike the command to all mankind concerning capital punishment for pre-meditated murder (Gen. 9:5-6), nowhere in the Bible (i.e. Old Testament or New Testament) is there an obligation for Gentiles or Christians to: “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy.”

The following reasons from the Bible also declare the ending of Sabbath-Day observances:

(i) St. Paul said in Galatians 4:10-11: "You observe days and months and seasons and years. I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain."

(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 Israel did, no Sabbatarian can live consistently under the Mosaic regulations.  I ask: "If one is not allowed to light a fire on the Sabbath, then how is a man to heat his home if he lives in Edmonton, Alberta during the month of January when the temperature often gets to minus forty?"

(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 Israel was to remind them that God brought them out of Egypt where they were slaves (cf. Deut. 5:1-6,12-15).  According to Deuteronomy 5:3, the Old Covenant was only given to the sons of Israel; it had not been given to their "fathers."  Also, it was never given to the Church to observe.

(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. Israel as a nation did not enter that rest.

            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, St. Paul said that those who are of faith are the true children of Abraham.

            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.) St. Paul warned Christians to beware of the Judaizers and those of the "false circumcision" who taught that you were justified by keeping the Mosaic Law (cf. Phil. 3:2; Gal 2:11-21; 5:6-12)."  The writer of Hebrews gives a severe warning to those Christian Jews who were tempted to fall back into Judaism and the Law (cf. Heb. 10:19-39).

            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 Israel at Sinai and the New gracious Covenant that replaces it) in Scripture (Jer. 31:33; Heb. 8:6-13; Gal. 4:21-31).  This view sees Christ establishing a distinctly New Covenant in His blood and inaugurating a new age with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.  However, it also insists that this present "new age" in which we now live is the inauguration of the kingdom promised in the Old Testament Scriptures.  We now live in the "times of the Messiah" envisioned by the Old Testament prophets.6

            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 Israel and the Church, and that is not possible in Covenant Theology."12  Concerning Greg Bahsen's book Theonomy in Christians Ethics, and his covenantal view of the Sermon on the Mount, Reisinger writes:

              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 Israel with God. The "eye for eye" law dealt with sin against God not just crime against a neighbor. This is why mercy was not even allowed, let alone commanded, in this legislation.

            ...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 Israel under the Law of Moses. The primary purpose of the "eye to eye" law was to punish sin against God and not just to be sure that punishment was not extreme.15

            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 Jerusalem with Him in order that "all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished (Luke 18:31)." (c), Jesus is our High Priest, and He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."  As the “second Adam," Jesus was the only one who lived the perfect righteous life. (d), The sinless Christ "redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us... (Gal. 3:13)" In other words, my sins were laid on Christ at the cross, thereby taking my penalty for breaking the Law upon Himself.

            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; Rom. 3:9-31.)  St. Paul calls Jesus "the last Adam" (I Cor. 15:45-47: Rom. 5:14).  Although the first Adam was in some aspects a "type" of Christ, the first Adam sinned against God in contrast to the last "Adam" Who lived the perfect life in obedience to the will of God.

            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; Rom. 3:9,19‑20; I Cor. 9:20-21).  Punishment for breaking the law promotes justice, (e.g., I Tim.1:8-11).  This being the case, can (or should) all the Ten Commandments with Israel's civil penalties for their disobedience be imposed or forced upon any non-Jewish, multi-racial, and multi-religious country?  I do not believe so.  Apart from it being impossible to implement the whole Decalogue on any non-Jewish society, I believe only Commandments 5 to 9 should possibly be the basic moral standard for all nations, and enforced in promoting law, order, and justice.  (Other laws against such things as drunk driving, overt homo-sexuality, abortion, and child abuse would also apply.)

            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 Israel and YHWH as their God.  Please note the words "your God" found in such verses as Exod. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; and Deut. 5:11; 6:13-19.  In addition, concerning the tenth commandment, how can any government charge fines, or exact corporal punishment upon its citizens who just desire or envy another person's property, or "covet" in their minds?  Where would the "thought police" come from in order to enforce it?

            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, St. Paul said: "For through the Law I died to the Law, that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ ...(NASB)."  Christians have been "united" with Christ in the likeness of His death and resurrection (Rom.6:3-14; II Cor.5:17; Col.2:11-17; 3:3). As Christians, we are "not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14)."  In other words, as Christians, we (i.e. our inner sinful natures) have been identified with the death of Christ and are free from our previous "marriage" to the Law, so that now we (as the bride) have been brought into a new marriage relationship with Christ (cf. Rom.6:3-14; 7:1-8:17).

            Some Christians, however, do not believe that it was the whole Mosaic "Law" including the Ten Commandments which St. Paul said he died to in Romans 7:6.  I say it has to be the Ten Commandments because:

(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 (Rom. 8:4)?"  (Compare Gal. 5:18.)

(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 Jerusalem council and declared that the Gentiles were only obligated to "abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood (v. 20)."  Although this may have been a compromise, it was clear that Gentile Christians were to live differently from both the immoral Pagans and the legalistic Jews.  Paul addressed the other issues in such passages as I Corinthians 6:9-20; 8:1-13, Romans 14, the whole book of Galatians, Philippians 3:1-3, and Colossians 2:8-17.  Paul declared that salvation is God's free gift by grace alone.  In fact, he taught that man by nature is unable to accomplish self-salvation or self-sanctification.  Instead, justification before God is by faith plus nothing, and sanctification is by the Holy Spirit, not through trying to keep the Mosaic Law.

            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.

Not Under Law But Under Grace

            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 Israel as being under a law-relationship with God. The law was not given to the Egyptians, it was given to Israel. The law was not given to the Canaanites, it was given to Israel. The law was not given to the Greeks, it was given to Israel. The law was not given to the Romans, it was given to Israel. And I repeat myself because I want to build up to the fact that may startle some: the law was not given to the Americans, it was given to Israel. The law was not given to believers in Christ, it was given to Israel. When we comprehend this fact we shall be free from the bondage which comes from living under a cloud of commandments, and enter into the freedom -- the glorious liberty -- of the children of God.

              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

By What Standard?

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; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:13-14; James 2:8-9.)  A question arises: "How do you love yourself?"  I deal with this question somewhat in a sermon entitled "Love Contrasted", dated September 26, 1998.

            (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 Mount Sinai) has been abrogated for Christians since the death of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit with the New Covenant (see A, #8 above).  We have been born again (John 3:3; II Cor. 5:17).  Christians are the true "circumcision" of the heart, and where God's law is now written (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 36:26; Rom. 2:28-29; Phil. 3:2-3; Heb. 8:6-13).  God's Spirit has also been put within to help the Christian obey God and live the godly life.  That is why the Christian is to be led by the Spirit (cf. Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7-8; Acts 2:38; 10:44-48; Rom. 6,7,8; 8:1-17; 12:1-2; 13:8-14; I Cor. 6:9-20; Gal. 1:19-21; 3:1-5,14; 5:16-26; Eph. 1:13; 2:1-2, 18-22; Phil. 3:3; I Pet. 1:2-5).  We are saved by the Spirit, and also sanctified by the Spirit (eg. Rom. 15:16; I Cor. 1:30).

            (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 (Rom. 5:8).  Therefore, we do not obey God out of obligation to keep the law, but out of a response of love and gratitude with the help of the Spirit for what Christ has done for us (eg. I John 4:19).

            (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, St. Paul said the Sabbath days were a "shadow of things to come (Col. 2:16-17)."

            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 Israel.

            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 Mount Gerizim instead of Jerusalem.  The closest account of this in the Old Testament seems to deal with the stranger (cf. Ex. 23:4-6,9; Lev. 19:10,18; 25:35; Deut. 10:16-20; 26:12).  Jesus tells us to love even our enemies (Matt. 5:43-48).

            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 (Rom. 5:8), then in response from me to God, me to my biological family, to my Christian brother (John 13:34-35; 15:12-14), to my neighbor, enemy, and finally to myself.  However, our natural sinful tendency and desire is to put ourselves first by doing what we think is best for ourselves (Eph. 5:29).  This is why we need to be led by the Holy Spirit.  This kind of agapé love is an action, not an attitude.  According to Philippians 2:3-4, each of us is to regard one another as more important than himself or herself, and also look out for the interest of others.

            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. Rom. 13:8-10.]  [p.12]

            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 Dallas Theo-logical Seminary, Lewis Sperry Chafer said:

              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 Israel (Ex. 19:5) when He "took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake" (Jer. 31:32). The law covenant was strictly a conditional agreement which conditioned divine blessings upon human faithfulness. The official and final statement of this covenant is recorded in Deuteronomy 28... the Mosaic Law was an ad interim divine dealing until the Seed--Christ--should come... In passing, it is important to observe that this Mosaic rule, or governing code, did not exist before it was proclaimed by Moses at Mount Sinai; it was never under any circumstances addressed to Gentiles; and as certainly it is never addressed to Christians, though Christians and unsaved Gentiles may, because of ignorance of God's will for them, assume the obligations of the law system. These are reminded that, when thus assuming any portion of the Law of Moses, they are under self-committal to do the whole law.27

            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 Israel returns to the land under Messiah's reign, be re-established. Of those requirements and concerning the return of Israel to the land, Moses said, "And thou shalt return and obey the voice of the Lord, and do all his commandments which I command thee this day" (Deut. 30:8). Though it is the very law which Moses commanded that Israel will do, their situation will be altered. Christ will be on the throne of David reigning over Israel and the whole earth; Satan will be in the abyss; and this law, rather than being merely addressed to Israel, will be written on their hearts (Jer. 31:33); but its legal character is not changed.  It is that law which Moses commanded them.28

            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 Israel's return was still future in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 30:8, Dr. Chafer either neglects, or else lessens the importance of the return of a faithful Jewish remnant under Ezra and Nehemiah after the Babylonian captivity. [Refer to my essay entitled "Implications Of Dispensationalism," dated April 1997.]

            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?"

Conclusion

            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 Israel when they were about to enter the Promised Land.  We have seen that the Mosaic Law as a whole had not been given to their forefathers (cf. Exod. 20:1-26; Deut. 5:1-3,22; 8:1-2; 10:12-15; Jer. 31:31-32).  Basic moral laws against such things as stealing, lying, adultery, and murder, however, have been included in most of the moral codes of people throughout the history of the world, whether for the Patriarchs (e.g. Gen. 4:8-15; 9:5-6; 31:19; 44:1-17), pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, unloving Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, or atheists (e.g. Rom. 2:1-3:20; I Tim. 1:9-10). Another example of a law code is the Code of Hammurabi.  The Mosaic Law was to be a temporary law-code until the time of the Messiah Who is “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4).”  (Cf. Gal. 4:1-11; Heb. 1:1-4.)  The Law was given as a “schoolmaster” to lead people to Christ (cf. Gal. 3:16-29).  Churches that promote strict adherence to the Mosaic Law put Christians back under a schoolmaster or tutor.  The Apostle Paul teaches that Christians were “made to die to the Law through the body of Christ (Rom. 7:4; cf. Heb. 9:13-10:25).  It is obvious that the Apostle is speaking of the moral part of the Mosaic Law because he says in Romans 7:7: “…for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COVET’.”  He further states in I Timothy 1:5-11 that “…law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching…”

            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.

Addendum A

            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. Rom. 6:3-14; 7:1-6; Gal. 2:15-21; Acts 13:39), and therefore, are released from it.  Because of these, some legalists accused him of preaching antinomianism.  That is why he responded in Romans 6:1-2 by saying: "Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase?  May it never be!..."  He also said in Romans 3:31: "Do we then nullify the Law through faith?  May it never be!  On the contrary, we establish the Law."  Since Paul did not go around promoting the Mosaic Law, what does he mean that Christians uphold or "establish the Law"?

            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. Rom. 10:4-11; I Cor. 1:30.)  The third thing discussed was that the Mosaic Law is virtually abrogated, fulfilled, and superseded when Christians truly love their neighbors as themselves. (See point #18. Cf. Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14; Luke 10:25-37.)  Christians are admonished to obey the commands of Christ, not Moses (cf. John 13:34-35; 14:15; 15:9-14; Gal. 6:2).

            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. Rom. 12:9-21.)

            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 kingdom of God.  Christians are to obey God with an attitude of humility, not through pride, as did the Pharisees.  In fact, about three thousand years ago, King David correctly said: "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise (Ps. 51:17)."  When Christians live and walk in the Spirit, they automatically go beyond the letter of the Law.  They put relationships above ritual.  They seek the good of others instead of just for themselves.  This involves forgiveness of those who have wronged them.

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. Rom. 13:1-7; Titus 3:1; I Pet. 2:12-17).

            I strongly oppose any state religion such as Islam in Iran, or a state church such as the Roman Catholic Church in various countries, the Lutheran Church in Germany, the Christian Reformed Church in the Netherlands, the Anglican Church in England, the Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and the early Puritans in Massachusetts.  Tyranny has resulted, not only from evil dictators and despots, but also from state churches that have enforced their religious views in the name of God on private and morally upright citizens.  We all know what the Roman Church did to millions of true believers during the dark ages.  (Compare Foxe's Book of Martyrs.)  We all know of the early Calvinists in Europe who murdered Anabaptists.  In addition, many state churches have required all their citizens to support their clergy.  Also, magistrates under church authority have waged war on so-called heresy.  Freedom of conscience was squelched.

            The Puritans left England to escape religious persecution by the state church of England.  The problem is, they came to North America and set up their own state church in Massachusetts.  They then began to persecute other dissenters like the Baptist Roger Williams, who ended up founding another colony in Providence, Rhode Island.  Williams said: "Magistrates may decide what is due from man to man. But when they attempt to prescribe a man's duties to God, they are out of place."  I agree with Williams.  The free colony in Providence later became the blueprint for the American Constitution.

            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. Rom. 13:8-10), not by the power of the "sword" from any government or state church.  Governments, however, have the right and responsibility to enact laws that protect human life and property etc. (cf. Rom. 13:1-7).

            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.

Addendum B

            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 (Rom. 10:4; Col. 2:14). The importance of this fact is related to (1) justification and (2) sanctification, the former being much easier to see than the latter. The reason is simply that the law could not justify a sinner (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20); therefore, if men are to be justified, another way must be provided. The law can show man his need but it cannot provide the answer to that need (Gal. 3:23-25). Thus the death of Christ provided the way for justification by faith in Him alone.

              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 (Rom. 8:2).

              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, Israel's national leadership during the early theocratic period was responsible to punish any person who broke any of God's laws.  The Torah makes no real distinction between the ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects of the Mosaic Law. For example, four of the Ten Commandments deal with religious laws (Exod. 20:1-11), and many moral laws are dealt with beyond the Decalogue (e.g. Lev. 18:1-20:27).  As I understand it, the Mosaic civil laws regulated both the moral and religious laws.

            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 Israel as a theocratic state, then our civil laws that regulate them should be the same. (If laws cannot be enforced, then they should not be made.)  This would mean that our American and Canadian governments must execute anyone who blasphemes God's name.  This also applies to the breaking of other commandments such as the Sabbath day, adultery, and cursing one's parents (cf. Exod. 31:14; 35:1-3; Lev. 20:7-16).  It does not matter that we happen to live in liberal democratic and pluralistic societies which are multi-cultural, multi-racial, and multi-religious.  And it does not matter if those people are Jews, Christians, Moslems, Sikhs, Hindus, or atheists.  Do we want to become a theocratic state like Iran under the Ayatollah Khomeini?

            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 Israel as a theocracy just before the twelve tribes entered the Promised Land.  Deuteronomy 5:1-3 records that it had not been given to their forefathers (cf. Exod. 20:1-23:33; Deut. 5:1-6:25; 10:12-15; Neh. 9:13-15).  Except for some common basic moral laws such as those against lying, stealing (Gen. 31:19), adultery (Gen. 2:24; 20:1-18), and murder (Gen. 9:6), the Mosaic Law was not given to the Gentiles (cf. Rom. 2:12-16).  As a Jewish Christian, even the Apostle Paul said that he was no longer under the Law (cf. Acts 13:38-29; I Cor. 9:20-23; Gal. 2:19; 3:10-29).  The New Testament with the commands of Christ, His ethical teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, and the fruit of the Spirit were given for Christians to follow; they were not given to the unsaved.  The New Testament, however, is the highest standard upon which all societies should base their moral laws.

Addendum C

            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 Geneva, it has frequently been said that, while the man in Christ is not under law as a means of salvation, he remains under it as a rule of life [cf. Calvin's Institutes, ii.7].  In its own right, this distinction may be cogently maintained as a principle of Christian theology and ethics, but it should not be imagined that it has Pauline authority. According to Paul, the believer is not under law as a rule of life - unless one thinks of the law of love, and that is a completely different kind of law, fulfilled not by obedience to a code but by the outworking of an inward power...

  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

Addendum D

            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 Babylon (circa 18th century B.C.), the Mosaic Law code in Israel, Roman law, East Indian law, Japanese law, and the British Magna Carta and Bill of Rights.  Today there is the Constitution of the United States, and in Canada there is the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian Criminal Code.  Although there are many differences between each law code, there are also a number of similarities, especially in the moral area.  For example, all of them would have laws against murder and stealing.  Laws against graven images and regulations of the Sabbath Day are quite different issues.  In other words, the state is to protect freedom of religion, not promote any one religion.

            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 land of Israel, a theocratic form of government regulated not only moral and civil laws, but also religious laws. The first four commandments in the Decalogue deal with religious (i.e. divine) issues, whereas the fifth to ninth deal with human or civil issues.  The tenth commandment concerning coveting is not enforceable, unless modern science can somehow manufacture "thought police".

            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 Canada and the United States.  Israel lived under a theocracy.  It would be wrong for our Canadian government to force my Hindu neighbors to eliminate their graven images, or to force me to worship on the Jewish Sabbath.  I believe I have demonstrated that the Decalogue as a whole should not be forced or imposed upon all mankind.

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

Endnotes

            1. Samuel Pestes. Christian Be Free. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1981, pp. 26,38,39.

            2. Rev. John G. Reisinger. But I Say Unto You,.... Southbridge, Mass: Crowne Publications, Inc., pp. 11-12.

            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. Jefferson, MD 21755: The Trinity Foundation, Post Office Box 700, Feb. 1992, pp.1-4.

            21. Merrill F. Unger. Unger's Bible Dictionary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957, 1966,  "Pharisees", pp. 855-856.

            22. Donald Grey Barnhouse. Romans, Vol. III, "God's Freedom", (Rom. 6:1-7:25), Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1958, Reprinted 1977, pages 133-139.

            23. Ibid. p.153.

            24. Dudley Hall. Grace Works: Letting God Rescue You From Empty Religion. Ann Arbor, MI: Servant Publ., 1992, pp.174, 178, 182, 191, 196.

            25. Dr. M. R. DeHaan. Law or Grace. Booklet No. 5. Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, May, 1965, pp. 1, 3, 7-8.

            26. Ibid. p. 9.

            27. Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. Vol. III. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948, p.77.

            28. Ibid. p.77.

            29. Charles Caldwell Ryrie. The Ryrie Study Bible. (NASB) Chicago: Moody Press, 1978, pp. 1964-1965.

            30. F. F. Bruce. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977, pp. 192-193.

            31. W. Gutbrod.  Article on the law ("vόμoς"), in Gerhard Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley.  Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967, Vol. 4, pp. 1069, 1072.

            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. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999, pp. 414-416.

            34. Frederic Bastiat. The Law. NY: The Foundation For Economic Education, Inc., Irvington-on-Hudson, (June 1850) Reprinted 1950. pp. 6-7, 10, 13, 24, 67, 28-29.

Bibliography

Anderson, J. N. D. Morality, Law and Grace. Tyndale Press, 1972.

Anderson, Leith. "The Trouble With Legalism", in Moody Monthly magazine, October 1994, pp. 13-15.

Bahnsen, Greg L. By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today. Tyler, TX: Institute For Christian Economics, 1985.

Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1977.

Barker, William S & Godfrey, W. Robert. Editors. Theonomy: A Reformed Critique. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1990.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Romans. Volume 3, "God's Freedom" (Rom. 6:1-7:25). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1958, Reprinted 1977, pp. 130-260.

Barron, Bruce. Heaven On Earth?: The Social and Political Agendas of Dominion Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1992, 238 pgs.

Bastiat, Frederic. The Law. Reprinted by The Foundation For Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York, 1950, 1972.

Belleville, Linda L. "‘Under Law’: Structural Analysis and the Pauline Concept of Law in Galatians 3.21-4.11", in the Journal for the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986). [JSNT] pp.53-78.

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. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1977. (esp. pp. 173-211.)

Bruce, F.F. New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969.

Bultmann, R. "Christ the End of the Law," in Essays, Philosophical and Theological. London: SCM, 1955, pp. 36-66.

Bunyan, John. The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded. Swengel, PA.: Reiner Publications, 1974 (Reprint).

Campbell, Alexander. "Sermon on the Law", delivered at Cross Creek, Va., 1816. Published in The Millennial Harbinger, Series III, Vol. III, No. IX, Bethany, Va., Sept., 1846, pp. 493-521. (Or Internet at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/mh1846/sotl.htm )

Canright, D. M. Seventh-Day Adventism Renounced. Grand Rapids:     Baker Book House, 1961 (Reprint from 1914).

Carson, D. A. Editor. From Sabbath To Lord's Day. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1982.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Dallas Seminary Press, 1948. Vol. III, pp. 76-86, 240-241, 342-345. Vol. VII, pp. 225-226.

Chantry, Walter J. God's Righteous Kingdom: The Law's Connection with the Gospel. The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980.

Chappell, Clovis G. The Sermon on the Mount. Pocket Pulpit Library series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, Reprint 1958.

Clapp, Rodney. "Democracy as Heresy", Christianity Today mag. Feb. 20, 1987, pp. 17-23.

Clowney, Edmund. "The Politics of the Kingdom", Westminster Theological Journal. 41 (1978-79) p. 306.

DeHaan, M. R. Law or Grace. Booklet No. 5, Grand Rapids: Radio Bible Class, May 1965.

Eidsmoe, John. God & Caesar. Biblical Faith and Political Action. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1984.

Ellul, Jacques. The Theological Foundation of Law. The Seabury Press, 1969.

Fairbairn, Patrick. The Revelation of Law in Scripture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1957 (Reprint from 1869).

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. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1973.

Geisler, Norman L. Ethics: Alternatives and Issues. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publ. House, 1971.

Geisler, Norman L. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999.

Gladwin, John. God's People in God's World. Biblical motives for social involvement. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1980.

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. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967, Vol. 4, pp. 1069-1076.

Hall, Dudley. Grace Works: Letting God Rescue You From Empty Religion. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Publ., 1992. Chapter 16, "Married and Miserable", pp. 173‑199.

Heffren, H. C. The Relationship Between God's Law and Love. (Booklet) Camrose, AB: Bible Lover's Correspondence School, Box 1448, T4V 1X4. 1977.

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. St. Thomas Press, 1962.

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr.  Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

Kevan, Ernest F.  Keep His Commandments. London: The Tyndale Press, 1964.

Kevan, Ernest.  Moral Law.  Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1991.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn.  Studies in the Sermon on the Mount.  Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1967.

Masters, Peter. "World Dominion: The High Ambition of Reconstructionism."  Sword and Trowel magazine, published by Peter Masters, pastor of Spurgeon's Tabernacle, England.

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," Westminster Theological Journal 45. (1983), pp. 73-100.

Murray, John. Principles of Conduct. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1957, pp. 115-265.

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. Tyler TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990.

Pestes, Samuel.  Christian Be Free. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers, 1981.

Pink, Arthur W.  The Christian Sabbath. Forest City, NC: Truth For Today, Reprinted 1995.

Pink, Arthur W.  The Ten Commandments. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994 (Reprint from 1976).

Poythress, Vern S.  The Shadow of Christ in the The Law of Moses. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 1991.

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,.... Southbridge, Mass: Crowne Publications Inc., P.O. Box #688, 1989.

Reisinger, John. G. Tablets of Stone. Southbridge, Mass: Crowne Publications, Inc., P.O. Box 688, 1989.

Robbins, John W. "Theonomic Schizophrenia", in The Trinity Review, Number 84, Feb. 1992. Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, P.O. Box 700.  pp. 1-4.

Rushdoony, Rousas John.  The Institutes of Biblical Law. Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973.

Rushdoony, Rousas John.  Law and Liberty. The Craig Press, 1967.

Schaeffer, Francis A. The Mark of the Christian. Downers Grove, Ill: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.

Schreiner, Thomas R. The Law and Its Fulfillment. A Pauline Theology of Law. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993.

Scott, Gary. "Theonomy and the New Covenant". Three messages given in March 1993 at the John Bunyan Conference, c/o John G. Reisinger, 507 Buffalo Rd., Box 70, Lewisburg, PA 17837.

Steele, David N and Thomas, Curtis C. Romans, An Interpretive Outline. Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1963.

Stott, John. Decisive Issues Facing Christians Today. Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1984, 1990.

Strickland, Wayne G.  Five Views on Law and Gospel. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, 1996.

Thielman, Frank.  Paul & the Law: A Contextual Approach.  Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Yancy, Philip. What's So Amazing About Grace? Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Westerholm, Stephen.  Israel's Law and the Church's Faith. Paul and His Recent Interpreters. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Wright, Christopher J. H.  An Eye for An Eye, The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today.  Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

[See also website: http://www.ids.org/

See also http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/nct.html ]