Negative Implications of the Mosaic Law for the Christian
I believe that a person’s sanctification and growth in grace is harmed when we place a believer back under the Mosaic Law. The death of Christ at Calvary has fulfilled the entire Mosaic Law and ushered in the Law of Christ as the new rule of life for the Christian today. If we fail to recognize that there are distinct differences between these two “laws” we run the risk of hindering a Christian’s walk with the Lord. According to Dr. Sherlin:
“Teachers of the word violate the freedom of Christians in Christ by arbitrarily picking which laws from the Old Covenant Law of Moses to apply to the Christian. Furthermore, since the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled in Christ, to place the believer back under the Law of Moses leaves him with a lower standard. The Law of Moses is not the highest ethic of Scripture. The Law of Christ is the highest ethic of Scripture.”1
In addition, Dr. Sherlin continues:
“If the shift from the Mosaic Code to the Law of Christ is not fully accepted, as in the Dispensational/Discontinuity perspective, the believer can be falsely required to follow demands of Scripture that Christ does not intend to govern the saint. This application of the Mosaic Law to a New Covenant believer, who because of the death of Christ and the internal working of the Spirit does not live under the Mosaic Law’s authority, creates havoc and retards the growth of the Christian to live under the rule of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Instead of living in the Spirit, which is a central theme in the writings of Paul for the sanctification of the believer, the Covenant/Continuity scheme of the Mosaic Law places the heavy burden back onto the people of God that the apostles and elders of the Jerusalem Conference alleviated in Acts 15. In turn, this theological perspective damages the grace of Christ and the walk of the believer.”2
Believing that the Mosaic Law is not a single unity and that it can be divided into moral, civil, and ceremonial as Greg Bahnsen and Walter Kaiser contend I believe damages the freedom of the Christian and places the believer under a certain bondage that Christ never intended.
Christians and the Sabbath
Keeping the Sabbath was absolutely essential under the Mosaic covenant. To transgress this commandment was punishable by death (Exodus 31:13-17). And what should we make of the fact that these verses also tell us that the keeping the Sabbath is “a lasting covenant” and “a sign forever?” If we understand that the Sabbath commandment was given to a specific people, national Israel, and for a specific time, until it received its fulfillment through the dead of Christ, then I believe it becomes clear that the Christian today is no longer required to keep the Sabbath. But how can we believe that the Sabbath commandment was meant to be temporary when we just said that it was to be “a sign forever?” Moo helps understand this apparent dilemma when he says:
“The Old Testament claims the commandments given to Moses are eternally valid (e.g., Lev. 16:24, 24:8). But these texts cannot be used to demonstrate the eternal applicability of the Mosaic commandments in their original form to the people of God. For one thing, the English words “eternal” and “everlasting” translate Hebrew words that mean “lasting for an age” (olam). Thus, for example, the Levitical priesthood is said to be “eternal” (Ex. 40:15), but Hebrews claims explicitly that it has been done away with under the new covenant.”3
We read in (Colossians 2:16-17): “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.” Again, the temporary nature of the Sabbath is highlighted here. According to Paul the Sabbath was just a shadow that found its substance in Christ. In addition, Paul in his epistles never prescribes obedience to the Sabbath command. Strickland in his response to VanGemeren shares this view when he says:
VanGemeren and other covenant theologians argue that the moral aspect of the Mosaic law is expressed in the Decalogue. Thus, the Sabbath commandment is a binding ethic. Yet this commandment is dissimilar to the other nine commandments, thus creating special problems. It is the only Decalogue imperative that is not reissued in the New Testament. Also, Paul discusses the controversy in the church surrounding Sabbath observance several times and never prescribes obedience to the Sabbath command or even to Sunday as the recipient of the Sabbath shift (Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10-11; Col. 2:16-17).4
Since the Sabbath regulations of the Mosaic covenant were never intended to be an eternally binding law upon the people of God just how then should the Christian relate to the Sabbath? Many people today contend that the commandment to worship God on the Sabbath that we find in the Old Testament now applies to Sunday for Christians in the New Testament age. I believe Sherlin accurately concludes when he says: “First, the Sabbath is not Sunday. Sunday is simply the first day of the week. No one-day has any more inherent holiness over the other. Second, because the Mosaic Law was rendered inoperative as the authority over the believer’s life, the Christian is not bound to worship on the Sabbath or Sunday. Each Christian church may determine its own time to meet and worship God.”5 Andrew T. Lincoln adds:
“Though in the postapostolic period the first day was occasionally compared to the Jewish seventh day, and though it was regarded as a festival of the Resurrection to be celebrated, there is no clear evidence of any Sabbath transference theology, whereby the first day of the week was to be observed as a day of literal rest and such observance associated with obedience to the fourth commandment.”6
Since we are now under the Law of Christ we are no longer bound to a particular day or to a specific code of conduct that we must obey. Under the Mosaic covenant people were commanded to cease from all activity on the Sabbath. While Sunday is called the first day of the week in the New Testament we are not commanded to either rest or worship on that day. As Christians pursuing rest in the Lord and corporate worship on Sunday is a good idea but shouldn’t we rest in the Lord at all times and find time for private worship every day? Lincoln sums up well what our relationship to the Sabbath should be:
“God’s concern for the whole person and for all His creatures being able to have regular rest from their work surely instructs us that although the literal Sabbath day of rest has been abrogated and has not been transferred to Sunday, we should share this concern for regular periods of rest both for ourselves and for others in our society. From this perspective this essay is not advocating that Christians should not rest on Sunday. Rather its position suggests that they should take regular rest, that this rest can be any day or extended part of a day, including Sunday, but that there is no biblical or compelling theological reason why it has to be Sunday.”7
Conclusion
While the Mosaic Law was a wonderful tutor to lead us to Christ it can be a hard taskmaster for the Christian today to live under. While the Mosaic Law was never intended to be permanently binding on the believer this does not mean we have a license to not heed to the principles of its moral laws. The difference is that now that we live under the Law of Christ we allow the love of Christ that flows in us through the power of the Holy Spirit to direct and train us on how to live. God’s grace and our new relationship in Christ give us a new incentive and a powerful motive to live in our new Christian liberty. The Holy Spirit produces love and it is this love that turns out to be the fulfilling of the law. For the New Testament believer duty is replaced by delight and it is now the love of Christ that constrains us to carry out and obey God’s eternal moral laws.
1 Keith A. Sherlin, The Law of Christ Has Replaced the Law of Moses: A Dispensational Analysis of The Law of God, Essential Christianity Ministries website. http://www.essentialchristianity.com/pages.asp?pageid=20617
2 Ibid.
3 Stanley N. Gundry, series editor, Five Views on Law and Gospel. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1999), 344.
4 Ibid., 81.
5 Keith A. Sherlin, The Law of Christ Has Replaced the Law of Moses: A Dispensational Analysis of The Law of God, Essential Christianity Ministries website. http://www.essentialchristianity.com/pages.asp?pageid=20617
6 D. A. Carson, editor, From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation. (Eugene: Wipf and Stock, 1999), 386.
7 Ibid., 404.