The Law and Sabbath in the Life of the Modern Christian: Part 2
The Application of the Mosaic Law to the Life of the Christian
With such agreement on the essential function and purpose of the law, from where do the wide-ranging stances on the applicability of the law spring? Incredibly enough, the interpretation of two words - nomos and telos - have far-reaching implications in this important theological debate. Does nomos denote the law as a whole or characterize its misuse, legalism? Does telos, as applied to Christ, signify a cessation of the Mosaic Law or is its other use, “goal,” more likely the intent?
When using the term nomos, with or without the definite article, Paul is quite clearly referring to the entire Mosaic Law (Rom. 5:20; 1 Cor. 9:20; Gal. 3:23).[7] Furthermore, in characterizing Christ’s fulfillment of the law, telos in Romans 10:4 is best understood as a “cessation” or “termination” of the law.[8] Thus, the entire Mosaic economy was terminated when Christ fulfilled all that was foreshadowed in the law. According to Strickland:
The Mosaic law naturally ended when God suspended his
program with Israel (Rom. 9-11) and inaugurated his
program with the church. God’s moral law in and of itself
does not change, but its specific application and structure
in the Mosaic code ended with the repeated violations of
the Mosaic covenant and the beginning of the church
dispensation…the law of Christ is the new covenant
counterpart to the Mosaic law[9]…[and] it consists not of
a concrete corpus of demands, but rather of basic princi-
ples, for each believer is promised permanent indwelling
by the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit ministers in the
life of the New Testament believer on behalf of Jesus
Christ, there is no need for any lengthy, detailed, codified,
external means of restraint as in the Mosaic Law.[10]
Reformed theologians Willem A. VanGemeren and Greg L. Bahnsen disagree rather pointedly with the dispensationalist interpretation. Understandably, as Reformed theologians, each is similar to the other in both their interpretations of Scripture and their critique of Strickland. VanGemeren interprets nomos in Romans 10:5 as Paul rejecting legalism, not the law.[11] Bahnsen, too, takes this position citing Romans 6:14.[12] Walter C. Kaiser, presenting an Evangelical view, agrees that the law is binding today for the same reason, citing Philippians 3:6 and 3:9.[13] However, each of them has to jettison part of the law to make this work. VanGemeren and Bahnsen divide the law into three components - moral, civil and ceremonial - claiming that only the moral law, especially the Decalogue, is still binding today.[14] Kaiser points to distinctions in the “one law” of God, giving priority to the “weightier” matters of the law to reach the same conclusion that the law cannot be viewed as a unity.[15]
Similarly, all three reach the same conclusion concerning telos related to Christ’s fulfillment of the law. In viewing telos (Rom. 10:4) as meaning “goal” versus “termination,” the law is incorporated into the Gospel and therefore still applicable. I believe concluding the law was still in effect forced their hand in this respect; “telos” has to mean Christ was the goal and not the termination of the law if one regards the law as still applicable.
Douglas J. Moo, with his modified Lutheran view, alone affirms Strickland’s interpretation with minor differences. He concludes the law was given to a people already in a covenant relationship with God, that the law must be viewed as a unity, and that the Sinaitic covenant was abrogated in Christ.[16] But Moo is not alone. Concerning unity, Albert Baylis confirms, “It is so com-mon to divide the Law into the moral, civil and ceremonial that many are surprised to find out Moses did not outline it that way!”[17] And D. R. de Lacey and A. T. Lincoln weigh in on the unity issue as well in From Sabbath to Lord’s Day. De Lacey tells us that the “distinction between moral and ceremonial law can-not be upheld.”[18] Lincoln emphasizes that, “In all of his discussion and terminology Paul treats the law of Moses as a total package and makes no distinction between moral and ceremonial elements within it.”[19]
And how should we view Christ’s fulfillment of the law? The character of Christ’s fulfillment of the law must be seen in the light of “terminus” as primary, with “goal” as a secondary connotation at best. “Since the law was a temporary provision,” Lincoln points out, “Christ brings its period of validity to an end, so that the believer in Christ is not under law as a rule of life. Instead the believer walks by the Spirit, and though no longer under the law, he or she in fact finds that the requirements of the law are fulfilled through the Spirit in his or her life (Rom 8:4). ” [20]
Next, we'll look at the Sabbath and what place, if any, it occupies in the life of today's believer.
[7] Ibid., 265-266.
[8] Ibid., 270.
[9] Ibid., 276-277.
[10] B. Wintle, “Paul’s Conception of the Law of Christ and Its relation to the Law of Moses,” RTR 38 (1979), 43, in Strickland, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 277.
[11] Strickland, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 281-82.
[12] Ibid., 291.
[13] Ibid., 307.
[14] Ibid., 30, 291-292.
[15] Ibid., 186, 305-307.
[16] Ibid., 309-310, 375.
[17] Baylis, From Creation to the Cross, 126, author’s format and punctuation maintained.
[18] D.A. Carson, ed., From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical and Theological Investigation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 173.
[19] Ibid., 370.
[20] Ibid., 370, applies to entire paragraph.