Does Justification by Faith Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "Justification by grace through faith alone abolishes Sabbath observance."
True, Paul told the Galatians that:
"a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we
have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law; since by the works of the Law shall no
flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16).
But does being justified by faith mean a Christian is free to sin as much as he or she pleases? Paul didn't
think so:
"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never
be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:1-2).
How does this argument prove that Christians need not observe the Sabbath, but still avoid committing
adultery, theft, and murder? But just because obeying a law doesn't justify us doesn't mean we don't still have to obey it. Although the law
can't save us, it still has a valuable role to play: It tells us what to do and not do. It guides our Christian conduct. It defines "love"
so that we aren't making up our own rules to guide our conduct towards God and our fellow man. After all, couldn't a 60’s hippie define
"love" to include fornication and/or adultery? God doesn't leave it up to our own discretion to figure out what "love"
is. James explained that the law was a spiritual mirror that tells us how to improve our behavior:
"But the one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not
having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does" (James 1:25).
The law defines sin, thus telling us what it off-limits in our Christian walk. As Paul knew,
"I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about
coveting if the Law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’" (Romans 7:7).
If there was no law, there would be no sin, for:
"sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:12),
"through the Law comes the knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20), and
"where there is no law, neither is there violation" (Romans 4:15).
Hence, if Jesus’ death cancelled the whole law, not just the penalty of the law assessed for violating
it when one accepts His sacrifice by faith, no one would have sinned since His crucifixion in A.D. 31. Complaining that the law has no value because
it doesn't save us is like arguing that because a curling iron can't cook dinner, it’s totally useless. The law has a proper function, that of
guiding conduct and assessing sin, but it can't give humans eternal life. It’s necessary to carefully analyze soteriological
terms, such as "grace," "law," "faith," "repentance," "justification," and
"sanctification," and put them into their correct logical relationship with each other. True, obeying the Sabbath doesn't earn salvation.
Neither does avoiding adultery or murder. But God still wants us to obey all Ten Commandments nevertheless. Salvation theology shouldn't be
simple-mindedly reduced to bumper-sticker slogans like, "Christ replaces the law!" or "Being Christ-centered frees us from
obeying the law," which ignore both Scripture and sound theological conceptual interrelationships.
Does having the Mind of Christ Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "The mind of Christ replaces the law for Christians." But how do we know
that having the mind of Christ doesn't enjoin on Christians the need to observe the Sabbath and to tithe? Didn't Jesus himself observe the Sabbath
(Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28)? If He kept it in both mind and body, shouldn't we do the same? Where does it say in Scripture that having the mind of
Christ allows Christians to work on the seventh day, but still prohibits adultery, theft, and idolatry? It’s quite true that once a Christian
has the Holy Spirit he has the mind of Christ inside himself. Paul told the Colossians that the Holy Spirit in them was
"Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27).
A man or woman is a Christian only so long as the Holy Spirit remains in him or her:
"However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in
you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him" (Romans 8:9).
Nevertheless, having Jesus in us doesn’t mean we don’t need to make conscious efforts to overcome
sin. It’s utterly false to call all careful obedience to God’s law, meaning, following His revealed will for us, "legalism." It
requires conscious, willful effort to avoid committing sin. It isn’t an automatic process that the Holy Spirit makes us follow. A
demon-possessed person can be forced to do various things, but that isn’t how the Holy Spirit works within Christians. Although it’s also
wrong to think we have to use our willpower unaided by God’s Spirit to overcome sin, it’s equally wrong to accept the opposite extreme, and
think conscious, deliberate efforts to avoid sin are unspiritual or unfaithful. Paul told the Philippians to:
"work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12).
Similarly, Paul made conscious efforts in his own spiritual life to avoid sin in order to ensure he wouldn't
lose his own salvation:
"Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the
air; but I buffet my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1Corinthians
9:27).
Clearly, having the mind of Christ (i.e., the Holy Spirit) doesn’t abolish any Old Testament law,
considered by itself.
Does being under Grace and not the Law Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "Christians are not under law, but under grace." True, but how does this
principle release us from obeying the Sabbath, but not from avoiding adultery? Paul made a point of anticipating how this principle could be abused,
that it doesn’t authorize us to sin (i.e., to break the law):
"What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never
be!" (Romans 6:15).
Importantly, Paul does use the term "under the law" in places to refer to a state in which someone
hasn't been forgiven for their sins and is still not reconciled to God by accepting Jesus’ sacrifice by faith. This term doesn’t have to
mean believing one is under the jurisdiction of the law, i.e., believes in obeying it. After all, any conservative Evangelical Protestant would say
Christians have to avoid theft, murder, coveting, lying, idolatry, etc. By using the "jurisdictional" meaning of "under the law,"
rather than a dispensationalist (time period during which God works with humanity in a certain way) one, even Evangelicals would believe they are
still "under the[se] laws"! Notice how Paul uses the term "under the law" to mean "a state of being guilty of
sin" in Romans 3:9, 19:
"We have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin . . . Now we now that
whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under [or "in," lit. marg. NASB] the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all
the world may become accountable to God."
The comparison between the two terms, "under sin" and "under the Law," shows
that the law makes everyone guilty because they violated it, since it makes "all the world . . . accountable to God." The
"tutor" analogy of Galatians 3 is susceptible to the same interpretation, since the "tutor," the law, leads us to Christ because the
law itself can't forgive sin or give us eternal life. Notice that a key phrase in v. 22 helps explain another analogous phrase in v. 23 since they
effectively have the same meaning:
"But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ
might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law."
Before we had faith in Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins, we were kept in a state guilty of sin. But after
accepting Jesus’ sacrifice by faith, "we are no longer under a tutor" (v. 25). This obviously doesn’t mean we can sin with
impunity, and violate God’s laws against (say) having sex outside of marriage. After all, as explained above, the law defines what is and
isn’t sin, since
"Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness" (I
John 3:4).
It’s absurd to think that God abolished the law, which then would allow us to do anything we wanted
without sin being charged against us. Christians are to live a transformed life, and to stop sinning since
"the requirement of the Law [would] be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the
flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:4).
Instead, God removed the penalty inflicted by the law when we accept Jesus as our personal Savior,
since
"the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our
Lord" (Romans 6:23).
Although the "dispensationalist" definition of "under the law" does appear in Galatians 4:4,
21, the overwhelming point of Galatians was to prove that gentiles didn't need to receive circumcision (note the "bottom-line" conclusion
in Galatians 5:2, 11-12), not that (say) they were free to disobey the laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc. Clearly, being under grace and not the
law no more releases Christians from observing the Sabbath or paying tithes than from obeying the law against adultery or avoiding theft, since
it’s too general a principle just to abolish the former without wiping out the latter.
When Christ fulfilled the Law, did that end the Sabbath?
Argument: "Christ fulfilled the law." True, but how does this principle obliterate
(say) the clean/unclean meat distinction, but keeps in force the laws against idolatry or lying? After all, no conservative Christian would
dream of saying that because Jesus obeyed the laws against adultery and stealing, Christians are allowed to be adulterers and thieves after accepting
Him as their personal Savior. So why does the fact that Jesus observed the Sabbath (Luke 4:16; Mark 2:27-28) prove that we don’t have to
obey it today ourselves? On the contrary, the fact that He kept the Sabbath is evidence that we should also, since
"the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He
walked" (1 John 2:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:21).
Now consider: Exactly how did Jesus "fulfill" the law? Did he "fulfill" it prophetically,
by being the one to whom it pointed in type? No doubt, the abolition of the animal sacrifices could be explained in this manner, since they portrayed
His sacrifice in advance, such as when the Passover lambs were sacrificed in the Temple,
"For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" (1Corinthians 5:7; cf. Hebrews 9:9-14;
10:1-18).
Did he "fulfill" the law by literally obeying all its commands that applied to Him personally? Did
He abolish it by obeying it? He denies this kind of interpretation in Matthew 5:17:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but
to fulfill."
If the word "fulfill" means "abolish," or some other word that amounts to the same thing,
then Christ contradicted himself: "I did not come to abolish, but to [abolish]." True, it’s sensible to assume that all laws
which have only a prophetic/typological function, such as the animal sacrifices, could be abolished by Jesus becoming the sacrifice Himself for
humanity, thus replacing them once for all time (Hebrews 10:14). But how does Jesus’ obedience to (say) the laws against idolatry, stealing, or
coveting release us from having to obey the same laws? Furthermore, what text says that because Jesus obeyed the Sabbath, therefore, we don’t
have to today? Notice that the word "fulfill" can mean "obey." For example, in Galatians 5:16 (KJV):
"Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill [i.e., ‘carry out’—NASB] the lust of the flesh."
Likewise, there’s James 2:8:
"If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law, according to Scripture, ‘You shall love
your neighbor as yourself,’ you are doing well.’"
Now, was the Sabbath a law that pointed exclusively to Christ, and had no other typological or memorial
functions? Isn't the Sabbath a law that makes a continuous moral requirement of people, much like the laws against stealing, lying, and idolatry? It
isn’t only typological in nature, unlike the animal sacrifices (Hebrews 9:9-10). Since it is, Jesus’ acts of obedience to it (re: Luke 4:16)
can’t release us from it.
The Sabbath in type (predictive function) points to the salvation gained by saved in the kingdom of God and
the rest the world receives from sin and war that the millennium will be when Christ rules the earth (cf. Hebrews 4:1-11). Since the millennium is yet
in the future, and the kingdom of God has yet to arrive on earth (Daniel 2:35, 44; Revelation 5:10; 11:15-18), the Sabbath’s anti-type (fulfillment) has yet to come to pass, so it couldn't be abolished for that reason alone. Furthermore, Isaiah 66:22-23 makes it clear that the Sabbath will
still be observed even after the millennium ends:
"For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before Me . . . it
shall be from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all mankind will come to bow down before Me."
For since the Sabbath was created before sin entered into the world on the seventh day of "creation
week," it couldn't mainly have a typological function since there was no need yet then for a Savior to die for humanity’s sins. The Fourth
Commandment itself makes it clear that the Sabbath had a memorial function, and wasn't merely a way to mark off Israel as being different from the
gentiles surrounding them:
"For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them,
and rest on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy" (Exodus 20:11).
Therefore, since the Sabbath is a memorial of creation, any typological functions it has were added after its
creation in Genesis 2:2-3:
"And by the seventh day God completed His work which He had done; and He rested on the
seventh day from all His work which He had done. Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which
God had created and made."
Since the Sabbath isn’t typological mainly in meaning or in origin, and since it makes continuous
requirements of humanity as individuals, much like the laws against murder or adultery that Christ’s sacrifice couldn't fulfill (or do) for us,
Christ’s obedience to the Sabbath command (i.e., "fulfilling it") can’t be seen as a reason for its abolition.
Does being Christ-Centered Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "Christians should be Christ-centered, not law-centered." This vacuous
rhetoric is an excellent example of how, by invoking Jesus’ name, evangelicals throw into the wind all careful reasoning about soteriology and
the law. It’s quite true Christians should think carefully and continually about their personal relationship with Jesus. After all, didn't Paul
say, when discussing his initial efforts to evangelize the Corinthians (1Corinthians 2:2):
"For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified"?
But does knowing Jesus mean we’re free to disobey any and all of God’s laws and commandments? John
didn't think so (1 John 2:3-4):
"And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who
says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in
him the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him."
Hence, obedience to God’s commandments is a requirement to really know Jesus. Similarly, Jesus Himself
said:
"You are my friends, if you do what I command you" (John 15:14).
Likewise, he proclaimed to a crowd listening to Him:
"For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and
mother" (Matthew 12:50).
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared that those who said His name but who didn’t obey Him could
not be saved:
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord,’ ‘Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of
heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven."
Therefore, anyone who says, "I know the Lord," but routinely disobeys God’s law
without repentance really doesn’t know Jesus as their Savior. Furthermore, does being "Christ-centered," a term that per se
doesn’t appear in Scripture, release Christians from obeying the laws against adultery, coveting, or idolatry? Obviously not. Therefore, why
should it release Christians from having to obey the Sabbath or the Holy Days? What does the term "being Christ-centered" do that magically
changes the contents of the law’s requirements by itself? The conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premises. Merely uttering
Jesus’ name or mentioning His role as Savior doesn’t release us from having to obey any laws. Specific texts have to be cited to accomplish
this objective instead, such as Hebrews 9:9-10; 10:1-14, which abolish the animal sacrifices. A Sabbatarian who keeps the Sabbath or tithes is no less
"Christ-centered" than an Evangelical who keeps the laws against adultery or murder. (Whether instead we should be
"God-centered," or even "Father-centered," opens up a can of worms too large to pursue here).
Did the New Covenant Abolish the Sabbath?
Argument: "Since Christians are under the new covenant and not the old covenant, they
don’t have to observe the Sabbath." But doesn’t this argument bite off more than it can chew as well? Who believes that Christians
don’t have to obey the laws against murder or theft because of the new covenant? Why should the Sabbath be treated any differently then?
Consider carefully the central text about the new covenant prophetically, which the author of Hebrews quoted to show the old covenant had ended (Jeremiah
31:31-34; cf. Hebrews 8:8-12):
"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt. My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "But this is the
covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the Lord, "I will put My law within them, and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his
brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the Lord,
"for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
Now, so far as this text reveals, exactly how does the new covenant change the contents of the Old
Testament’s law? How does the phrase, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it," abolish any
requirements of the law? Couldn't someone who believes Christians should avoid eating unclean meat say, "The law against eating unclean meat was
written onto my heart by the new covenant"? All the new covenant does, so far as this passage in Jeremiah proves, is that the method of the
administration of the law has changed. Christians will have the Holy Spirit to help them to obey the law (Romans 8:4; Acts 2:38). But before Christ
died, most of Israel didn’t have such supernatural help (cf. John 16:7-14). Israel, except for a few inspired prophets and kings, had to try to
obey the law by their own physical strength. When agreeing to the old covenant (or the Ten Commandments as a possibly separate covenant) they said:
"All that the Lord has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 19:7; 24:3).
Their promise was shortly broken thereafter, when they worshiped the Golden Calf (Exodus 32). By trying to obey
God by their own strength, they failed, which was why the author of Hebrews said, the fault lay with the people, not the laws to which they had
agreed (Hebrews 8:7-8):
"For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a
second. For finding fault with them . . ."
One of the Galatians’ central errors was to try to obey God by fulfilling physical requirements of the
ceremonial law instead of using the Holy Spirit to become righteous (Galatians 3:2, 5, 14):
"This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of
the Law, or by hearing with faith? . . . Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law,
or by hearing with faith? . . . Christ Jesus [died so that] the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the
promise of the Spirit through faith." (See also Galatians 5:5).
But since Christians have the law written onto their hearts by the Holy Spirit under the new dispensation, the
law’s spiritual requirements actually have been expanded, as Jesus explained in the Sermon on the Mount, in which, for example, the law against
adultery became also a prohibition against a man lusting after a woman in his heart, not just a prohibition of the physical act (Matthew 5:27-28). Here
Jesus fulfilled His prophesied role to make the law greater, or to magnify it (Isaiah 42:19, 21). Far from abolishing the law, under the new
administration of the new covenant, its requirements actually have been intensified!
Are the Ten Commandments Identical to the Old Covenant?
Argument: "Because the Ten Commandments are identical to the old covenant, they were abolished,
including the Sabbath, when the old covenant ended." This argument harnesses Deuteronomy 4:13; 9:9-11; Hebrews 8:13 in order to argue its point. But
does anybody advocating this argument really believe it? Does anybody believe that the day before Jesus died, murder was a sin according to
God’s law, but the day after it was permissible because the Sixth Commandment was abolished? Actually, if somebody believes nine of the Ten
Commandments are still in force (besides the Sabbath command), and that the old covenant is identical to the Ten Commandments, then they believe
that the old covenant is still nine-tenths in force! If it were still 90% in force, it was hardly "becoming obsolete and growing
old" or "ready to disappear" (Hebrews 8:13)! Likewise, we find Paul and James quoting from this allegedly abolished law as if
it were still in force (Romans 7:7; 9:9; Ephesians 6:2-3; James 2:8, 11). They weren’t giving these laws authority by quoting them; rather, they
supported their own arguments by citing a pre-existing authority (the Old Testament’s law). After all,
"ALL Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction,
for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16)
Also, if the Ten Commandments are identical to the old covenant, then all the other Old Testament laws
outside of the Decalogue weren’t affected by the old covenant’s end. After all, neither circumcision and the animal sacrifices, nor
tithing, the Holy Days, and the clean/unclean meat distinction, are listed as part of the Ten Commandments. How does this argument prove that the
whole "Law of Moses" was abolished then after Jesus’ death? Likewise, if this argument is correct, any text mentioning the
"law" could have "old covenant" inserted into it as a substitute since the two are said to be identical. This produces many
absurd results, especially when examining Paul’s "pro-law" texts:
"Do we then nullify the [old covenant] through faith? May it never be! On the
contrary, we establish the [old covenant]" (Romans 3:31).
"Sin is not imputed when there is no [old covenant]" (Romans 5:13).
"In order that the requirement of the [old covenant] might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk
according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:4).
"So then, the [old covenant] is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and
good" (Romans 7:12).
"I agree with the [old covenant], confessing that it is good" (Romans 7:16).
"For I joyfully concur with the [old covenant] of God in the inner man" (Romans
7:22).
"Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the [old covenant] of God, for it is not even able to do so" (Romans 8:7).
"For not the hearers of the [old covenant] are just before God, but the doers of the [old covenant] will be justified" (Romans 2:13).
What could be more absurd? The real error in the "old covenant=Ten Commandments" argument is
that a covenant is really a contract (formal agreement) to keep the law, not the law itself. Even in the Deuteronomy 9:9, the "tablets of the
covenant" can’t be deemed the same thing as the covenant itself. After all, if the philosopher Aristotle had owned a chair, and so it was
"the chair of Aristotle," or Aristotle’s chair, the chair obviously isn’t identical to its owner! A genitive pronoun,
"of" in English here, indicates possession, or who "owns" what. It hardly proves the two are the same exact same thing!
Therefore, the old covenant’s end no more abolishes the Sabbath than the law against murder.
Did Christ end the Law, including the Sabbath?
Argument: "Christ ended the law." Of course, Paul did write,
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes" (Romans
10:4).
But does this text abolish the law against murder or theft? Even unbelievers might find that a mental
stretch! If this text does away with the Sabbath command, wouldn't it also abolish the laws against coveting or dishonoring our parents? Furthermore,
wouldn't Paul be contradicting himself? After all, as noted in the preceding paragraph, he wrote a number of "pro-law" statements. Why
would Paul say the law is "good," "spiritual," and "holy," and the commandment
"holy," "righteous," and "good," three chapters earlier, only to abolish it later in the same
letter? Two chapters earlier he wrote about Christians fulfilling the "requirements of the Law" by not walking according to the flesh, but
according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4). At this point, it’s necessary to engage in some systematic hermeneutics (methods of discovering the
meaning of Scripture). To quote Paul’s "anti-law" texts, but ignore his "pro-law" texts, is the sloppiest, most deceptive
form of Biblical exegesis imaginable. It can only convince and impress the ignorant. The basic solution to resolving Paul’s initially seemingly
contradictory views on the law is to note that Paul condemns the use of the law as a means to gain imputed righteousness, justification, or
salvation, but approves of it as a guide to conduct and moral actions. Hence, he tells the Romans,
"we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans
3:28).
He condemned the Galatians for
"seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Galatians
5:4)
when they sought to be circumcised, a rite in Judaism analogous to baptism for Christians, that marks the
initial stage of the conversion/salvation process. So when we turn to Romans 10:4, obviously enough it doesn’t say the "law ended" per
se, but that the law ended "for righteousness," a state of being judged innocent of sin. So even given the "termination"
interpretation of Romans 10:4, it can’t prove that a given law ended, but rather it ended a dispensation in which people (the Jews) sought to be
righteous by obeying the law. But did God ever intend that His people, in any time or place, ever to have the ability to justify themselves, to make
themselves free from guilt for violating the law, by obeying the law? Even this interpretation goes astray, since the Greek word translated
"end," which is "telos," can also mean "goal," as the NASB margin for this verse reminds us. Hence, since the
law can’t make us righteous (free from guilt for violating the law), it makes us turn to Christ for a solution to our existential dilemma. Only
through faith in Jesus’ sacrifice can our sins be taken off us (i.e., justified), and only through the Holy Spirit being placed in us can we
ultimately be given eternal life. Jesus is the solution for sin, which is what the law produces whenever we violate it. Notice that
"righteousness" can be both (1) actual, a sanctified state in which we have developed the habits of obeying God’s law, and (2) imputed, a justified state in which God has arbitrarily (by our faith in Jesus) judged us innocent of sin, although we’re really
guilty intrinsically. On the one hand, Paul wrote about actual righteousness in Romans 6:16:
"Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are
slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness."
Hence, Romans 10:4 couldn't mean that Christ ended a dispensation in which people obeyed the law in order to
become actually righteous, or else Paul contradicted himself. But then, Paul plainly believed in imputed righteousness as well:
"If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him
from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in
salvation" (Romans 10:9-10).
Plainly enough, Paul wasn’t contradicting himself about how righteousness is gained, but rather is
describing two kinds of righteousness, one of which is imputed, one of which is actual. Hence, Romans 10:4 doesn’t mean that the
law ceased to exist, which then would legalize adultery and murder, not just Sabbath-breaking, nor does it mean that Christ’s sacrifice ended a
dispensation during which people (the Jews) were actually authorized by God to gain righteousness (an innocent, guilt-free, justified state) by their
own efforts.
Was the Letter of the Sabbath Command Abolished?
Argument: "The letter of the law has been abolished, but not the spirit of the law. Therefore,
since we ‘rest in Christ’ spiritually, which allows us to keep the Sabbath command every day of the week, there’s no need for literal
obedience to the command enforcing resting from physical work on the seventh day." One of the main texts trotted out to prop up this kind of
argument is 2Corinthians 3:6-8:
"[God] also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of
Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, how shall the ministry of the Spirit fail to
be even more with glory?"
But can those spewing forth this argument swallow all of its consequences? If the law against working from
Friday sunset to Saturday sunset has been abolished in its literal letter so Christians can work on it, is it literally permissible to murder, steal,
lie, etc. likewise? Does the new covenant prohibit hating our brother in our heart, which is the spirit of the law that prohibits murder (Matthew
5:22-24; 1 John 3:15), but allow the literal murdering of others? Why does abolishing the letter of the law only seem to affect the four disputed Old
Testament laws listed above, not (say) the Nine Commandments no conservative Christian would dispute? Furthermore, the commandment against coveting
always concerned a prohibition of certain thoughts, not outward actions. So it’s wrong to say that the old covenant only concerned the
regulation of outward actions. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, spoken while the old covenant was yet in force, noted that the law against adultery
also prohibited a man lusting after a woman in his heart (Matthew 5:27-28), and the law against murder also prohibited insulting one’s brother,
not just physically ending his life (Matthew 5:21-22). Actually, the text cited above from 2Corinthians 3 merely is another way to state the truth of Jeremiah
31:31-34: The law no longer is written on tablets of stone merely, but on human hearts. Notice what Paul wrote earlier in v. 2-3:
"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that
you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tables of stone, but on tables of
human hearts."
So although the administration of the law changed such that the literal writing of the Ten Commandments on
stone no longer mattered (i.e., it was only an obsolete "holy relic," cf. Hebrews 8:5; 9:23), the law’s principles are now written
on Christians’ hearts through the Holy Spirit, thus fulfilling the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:33:
"I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it."
Again, both Jeremiah 31 and 2Corinthians 3 concern a change in the administration of the law, not a change in its
specific requirements, so far as these texts reveal. Notice also that Paul, even in 2Corinthians 3:6, still believes that the law is in force, because
"the letter kills" (present tense), not that it "did kill" (past tense). "The Spirit gives life" because
it’s by the Holy Spirit that salvation is given conditionally to converted Christians. The Spirit is a "pledge" (2Corinthians 5:6)
of the salvation to come:
"You were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our
inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory" (Ephesians 1:13-14; cf.
4:30).
It’s by the Holy Spirit that Jesus is within us, since "the Lord is the Spirit" (2Corinthians 3:17), and so is "Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Colossians 1:27). It’s actually Jesus in us who helps us to obey the law,
both in its spirit and in its letter. But, notice, having the Holy Spirit as a source of salvation by itself doesn’t change the specific
contents of the law. Does having the Holy Spirit abolish the requirement to avoid worshiping false gods or making graven images? Hardly! To
summarize, the end of the administration of laws without the Spirit as an aid doesn’t end the laws themselves, nor does the end of the death
penalty inflicted by the law end the laws themselves since the Spirit/Jesus gives Christians eternal life.
Written by: Eric Snow
|
