Tabletalk, March issue, Dr. Sinclair B. Ferguson

[speaking of what sabbath meant from the beginning, Old Testament]

….Externally, that meant ceasing from his ordinary tasks in order to meet with God. Internally, it involved ceasing from all self-sufficiency in order to rest in God’s grace.

….And whatever was temporary about the Mosic Sabath must be left behind as the reality of the intimate communion of the Adamic Sabbath is again experienced in our worship of the risen Savior on the first day of the week — the Lord’s Day.
But we have not reached the goal. We still struggle to rest from our labors; we still must “strive to enter that rest” (Heb. 4:11). Consequently the weekly nature of the Sabbath continues as a reminder that we are not yet home with the Father.

[speaking of when our focus is on what we can and cannot do on the Lord's Day]

….”Is it ok to do….on Sunday?– because I don’t have any time to do it in the rest of the week?” If this is our question, the problem is not how we use Sunday, it is how we are misusing the rest of the week. This view of the Lord’s Day helps us see the day as a foretaste of heaven.

[speaking of the end effect of trying to keep the sabbath/fourth commandment/Lord's Day]

….Hebrews teaches us that eternal glory is a Sabbath rest. Every day, all day, will be “Father’s Day”! Thus here and now we learn the pleasures of a God given weekly rhythm, it will no longer seem strange to us that the eternal glory can be described as a prolonged Sabbath!

First, Fesko begins by examining the Prologue to the 10 Commandments (Ex 20:1-2), brilliantly demonstrating how this introduction is absolutely vital to a proper understanding of what follows –specifically because the prologue and a proper understanding of what it refers to in Israel’s history is a proclamation of the gospel before the Law is ever administrated. If we miss the prologue, we miss the gospel, we miss Christ, and we will misinterpret the Law that follows. Moralism/Phariseeism/antinomianism abounds because this prologue is neglected and ignored when so many come to interpret the 10 commandments.

From there Fesko breaks down each commandment in its historical, covenantal, and redemptive context, as well as its vertical dimension. Regarding this last perspective, Fesko stresses that although we may loosely identify the ‘two tables’ of the law as the first 4 being our duty to God and the last 6 being our duty to man, he rightly identifies that each one of the commandments has both vertical and horizontal dimensions. The 4th commandment, for example, is directed towards God but also has specific application towards man and animals. Another example would be the 5th and the 7th commandment, which David upon committing declares to God that “Against you, you only, have I sinned”.

But the redemptive context perspective is what makes this book so special. Christ is the focus from beginning to end. The believer’s trajectory of interpretation for each commandment must be through the lens of Christ’s accomplished work. We are not to look at Law-Application, but rather Law-Christ’s Work-Application to our lives.

God has saved us to reflect His image as His chosen and beloved people. Our looking into the law, in addition to it serving as a constant reminder and goad to see our need and fix our eyes upon Christ, is for us to reflect the righteousness of Jesus Christ in all our obedience, as He is the exact impersonation of the Law of God.

This is a very special book. It’s concise, easy to read, and its application reaches far and wide. It will make both the antinomian and the legalist sqirm with discomfort, which what makes it such a special treatment of this subject. Not only that, but this book will continually point people to the cross and to Jesus Christ, on every page and with every point made. The gospel-centered approach makes this book really a book about the gospel, even an expounding of the gospel at that, as the Christ-centeredness transcends and even swallows up at times the book’s main subject matter, the 10 commandments.

Also see:

• How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, by the great Ed Clowney
• Law of Perfect Freedom: Relating to God and Others Through the Ten Commandments, by Mike Horton

Update:

I made a comment in the meta below that I thought would be a beneficial part of this post. My thoughts here are related to the book recommendation only in that it’s a little of my own thinking on the subject. The author never explicitly comes to the conclusions I do below.

Let me give a further example of the love and Christ-centeredness of the Law:

The New Testament teaches that there is no greater love than laying down our lives for a friend. Pure love, as it were, is absolutely selfless, up to the point of death if necessary. And in the NT Jesus Christ is given as our supreme example in this sacrificial love. But when we look at His act of love, we understand first that He came to earth to ‘do the will of His father’. That is, His sacrificial death was in obedience to His father’s will, even as He wrestled in the garden with following through with it.

Thus, the 5th commandment commands us to honor and obey our parents. Jesus, in the greatest act of love in the history of the world, was actually obeying His Father’s will first and foremost (obeying the 5th commandment) in laying down His life. So if we look at the 5th commandment isolated from the rest of scripture, we will see nothing different than what pagan nations since the beginning of time have agreed with, and we will undoubtedly setup this command in a moralistic/legalistic/secularistic manner. But if we look at this commandment in light of Christ and how He fulfilled it, only then can we truly understand the ‘love’ that is at its root. In other words, Christ obeyed His father first and foremost, but it was through this obedience He subsequently performed the greatest act of love towards us as well. Therefore, the purest form of love always has obedience to God’s law (the Ten) at its root; and the purest act of obedience to God’s law always has love towards God/others at its root. The two are interchangeable, and cannot ever be separated, otherwise we will become legalists.

The issue of love and its relation to both God and man is explicit when we come to the 4th commandment (and even the 10th). For we not only obey our God in keeping the Sabbath holy, but we obey as an act of love towards our neighbors, family, foreigners, and even animals. This is one reason why the notion that the 4th is ceremonial cannot be biblically supported. Foreigners and animals don’t have anything to do with Jewish ceremonies/the covenant, and violating the command, per the text, is sinning against both God AND man. In other words, it is a failure to love God and a failure to love our fellow man when we break the 4th commandment. It’s not one or the other. Breaking the 4th commandment always results in a failure to love. And it is only when we throw out the notion that the Law=love do we then misunderstand and misapply (annul or legalize) the 4th commandment.

Thus, the Law serves as an explanation of the perfect life of Christ, as a demonstration of perfect love towards God and man. We don’t jump directly from the Law to application to our lives; we look at the Law, look at it in relation to Christ as an expression of love, and only then do we move towards application in our own lives.

Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.

Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.

Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.

Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.

Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by '--NW']

P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”

p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”

P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.

P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.

P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”

P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.

P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.

P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”

P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.

P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”

P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.

P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”

P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.

P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (“love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”

P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).

P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”

P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”

P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”

P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.

P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.

P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”

P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).

P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”

P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).

P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”

P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”

Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:

P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”

P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”

P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)

P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck.

P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”

P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.

Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:

P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”

P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”

P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”

P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”

P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.

P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”

Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:

Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).

P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”

P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.

P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.

P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here.

P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.

Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:

P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”

P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.

P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.

P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.

P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.

P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.

P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.

P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.

P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”

P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.

P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.

P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.

P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.

That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.

“Salvation is by works alone. But man is incapable of working his way to salvation. You need an alien righteousness, the works of Another”

If scripture clearly and emphatically declares that salvation is by faith (in Christ) alone, why would I say that salvation is by works? Let me briefly explain.

First, I am attempting to follow the model of our Lord in breaking up the fallow-ground of self-righteousness when presenting the gospel:

Matt 19:16 – “And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus broke this man’s self-righteousness by pointing him to the Law of God (the moral law of God, the Ten Commandments), and demonstrating to him his failure (inability) to keep it. He also upheld the necessity of a perfect law-keeping for eternal life (which is later explained to only be obtainable through faith in Christ, our substitute, who DID fulfill the law perfectly).

I am also attempting to follow the model of the Apostle Paul:

Rom 2:12 – “For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”

Paul has just shown the unrighteousness of the Gentiles in Romans chapter 1, and is now beginning to show the unrighteousness of the Jews in Romans chapter 2, which he brings to a head with ‘all have sinned’ in chapter 3. But important to Paul’s argument is how he demonstrates here in chapter 2 that the Jews had not really kept the Law at all –even in their zeal for outward observance. What a shock it must have been to the Jews to hear that perfect ‘doers’ of the Law are the only ones justified!

This type of groundwork is important, and I would argue, absolutely necessary for a faithful gospel presentation. Men must understand that they have broken the Law, and that God demands absolute perfection (not trying your best) in order to be justified. Oh, for more preachers of the Law in our day, who hold it up as a standard entirely impossible to keep by sinful man! Only then will men, in their despair, run to Christ for a covering, an atonement, indeed a righteousness not their own!

Secondly, I emphasize this need for ‘works’ because there is an intrinsic connection between the law of God in our justification that is often lost or undermined in our day.

Consider,

Matt 5:17 – “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Notice that Christ Jesus had to ‘fulfill’ the law in order to become a substitute for sinners. It wasn’t Jesus’ inherent righteousness as the second Person of the Trinity that approved Him before God as our substitute (by faith), but it also included His coming to ‘fulfill the Law’, in our place, where we haven’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t.

As I have argued here, This text *specifically* references how a person is *saved* in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For verse 20 clearly references ‘entering heaven’, and the righteousness needed to do so.

Also consider,

Rom 8:1-4 “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

In accordance with the the Romans 2 chapter I quoted above (“it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”), and Romans 3:31 (“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”), the Law of God is “FULFILLED” in us ONLY through Christ setting us free from the law of sin and death, and granting us His Spirit so that we may not walk by the flesh. This is where our justification (by grace/faith/Christ alone) and our sanctification (our obligation/duty/delight to obey the Law of God) meet perfectly, to the glory of God and not man.

Conclusion:
The works of the Law play an important role in salvation. That is, it is important to: presenting the gospel, our justification, and our sanctification. You may object and say ‘there is so much self-righteous, practical ’salvation by works’ in our day, the last thing we need is to mention anything about law-keeping!’. But I propose to you that Jesus and Paul lived in a far worse culture of self-righteousness and legalism, and yet they emphatically held up the true intention, purpose, and necessity of the Law.

We need to plumb these depths of our salvation more often! And we need to present the Law to men not as God grading on a curve or accepting imperfect conformity, but as the perfection necessary for salvation, only possible in running and throwing ourselves at the mercy of Christ by faith.

The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:

• Wayne G. Strickland: Dispensational
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: ‘Evangelical’
• Douglas J. Moo: ‘Modified Lutheran’
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: Reformed
• Greg Bahnsen: Theonomic

Because of the book’s length (416 pages of heavy material), I have decided to break up my review into 6 sections: this introduction post and 5 posts examining each position and their counter-points. This way there will be room for me (and you) to examine the claims and counter-claims.

Introduction

I have found the book fairly easy to read, but somewhat redundant. 400 pages is just too short of a space to present 5 different views. So because of the short space, there is not as much interaction as one would hope for. Basically, the author’s present their position based upon a number of proof texts, and the other authors don’t have the space to do much more than state broad counter-arguments and deal with one or two texts in depth. But as an broad overview of the respective positions, this book is a good introduction.

In reviewing this book, please note that I come at this discussion from a particular position, a Reformed Baptist position, you might say. You can cross-reference my confession for its statement on this issue if you like. Thus, my objective is not to present each position equally per se, but to simply cherry-pick a few statements where I agree or disagree, sharing a few thoughts of my own along the way. No matter where you come down on this issue, there are going to be stronger and weaker points of your position –and I hope to highlight some of these for each position, including my own.

Other important thing to remember about this book is that there are obviously strengths and weaknesses of each author and their ability to communicate and debate. This is unfortunate, in a way, because it can sway the reader in the direction of a particular position simply because the argument is better (rather than the truthfulness of scripture).

For example, I found the Reformed view, written by Willem A. Van Gemeren, to be the weakest in the book. Now on paper I agree with his view on just about every point, but he clearly did not write his essay from an apologetic or debate-like standpoint, and he is much less convincing than any of the other authors.

Another example with be Greg Bahnsen’s essay. I’m probably futher away from Bahnsen theologically, but he is a brilliant debator and I found his paper much more convincing than I anticipated.

So keep these things in mind, including the fact that we all approach this subject with presuppositions, when trying to be fair and objective in examining this book.

General Observations

When we get to where the rubber meets the road, I found that the authors had much more agreement than disagreement. Basically, from my perspective, they all agree with some continuity of Law between Old Testament and New Testament, thus they end up spending their time arguing over how much, and what theological perspective we use in determining this.

Bahnsen, Van Gemeren, and Kaiser are in almost 100% agreement, with Bahnsen’s theonomy being the only significant point of disagreement.

On the other side of the ring, Moo and Strickland are in almost 100% agreement, though they differ on how they each get there.

Thus, the book really ends up being 3 against 2, with Bahnsen kind of being the odd man in the middle (all disagree with him on theonomy).

Furthermore, I found Kaiser to be the most exegetical (which isn’t surprising), with Bahnsen and Moo close behind. Van Gemeren was clearly the most dogmatic and theological.

Note the length of each essay:

• Wayne G. Strickland: 50 pages
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: 22 pages
• Douglas J. Moo: 57 pages
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: 45 pages
• Greg Bahnsen: 50 pages

From a personal standpoint, I found myself aligning most with Kaiser’s view (his essay was the strongest, IMO, even though it was by far the shortest), followed by Van Germeren, then Bahnsen, Moo, and least of all, with Strickand. I certainly wish that some of the key texts were isolated and all 5 guys presented their own exegesis for us to review, but there is enough here to form some very clear opinions.

Conclusion

A good introduction to the Law/Gospel issue, though there are some pretty big theological words used throughout. I would recommend it to the semi-advanced student of theology and layman.

Next post: I will examine the introductory essay, the Reformed view, by Willem A. Van Gemeren, and the counter-arguments from the other men.

So the questions I ultimately come back to are: how do my studies ground in the Person and accomplished work of Jesus Christ? How does this doctrine find its ultimate fulfillment and truth in Christ? How does HE hold it together? Does this doctrine increase my awe and reverence for Him? Does it motivate me to humble myself and worship? Can I cry with Paul, ‘Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’?

A book that I continually come back to when I’m simply thirsting for Christ is the little puritan work, The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ. A phenomenal devotional read; in fact, it is the very best devotional book I have ever read, and one loaded with great puritan imagery on the beauty and awesomeness of our Savior.

“…you may know your love for Christ by your love of Christ’s image…

“Do you love the image of Christ on His word? As Caesar’s coin bore Caesar’s image and superscription, so the Word of the Scriptures, which is the Word of Christ, bears Christ’s image and superscription. Do you love the scriptures because of Christ’s image which is upon them? Do you love the Word of doctrine in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s truth and wisdom upon it? Do you love the Word of precepts in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s holiness upon it? Do you love the Word of threatenings in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s righteousness upon it? Do you love the Word of promises in the Scriptures because of Christ’s goodness, grace, and love upon it?

“You have Christ’s word in your Bibles, and sometimes sounding in your ears, but does the Word of Christ dwell in your hearts? You receive Christ’s word in the light of it; do you receive His word in the love of it?”

We see Christ’s image and word very clearly in the New Testament, but do we not also see Him clearly in the Old Testament?

“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.“

My friends, one reason why I hold to a Covenant Theology on the Law of God is because I see it as the only ’system’ that is truly Christocentric.

Do we believe that the OT Law speaks and details the righteousness of Christ, whom it was written about? Do we believe that God, albeit, giving baby steps, was teaching Israel how to truly worship God through Christ with all of the ceremonies, rituals, and explicit details? Do we not believe that the OT Law was completely sufficient and perfect for a regenerated Israelite to worship Christ, understanding that all of the typology was ultimately about Him? Do we believe that Jesus Christ is ‘the same yesterday, today, and forever’, and that His righteous, moral, image is revealed in the OT just as they are revealed in the NT?

Whatever view of the Law we take, let us deeply consider it in relation to Person and work of Jesus Christ, and that our view is grounded in the truth that it always has been and always will be all about Him.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I think the paragraphs below, particularly the last one, aptly demonstrates how biblical history is bound up and structured as a whole through God’s covenants with man. The structure and unity of the Bible from beginning to end, I believe, can only be properly understood by examining the covenants and their role in the final consummation of the Kingdom of God ruled by our Lord Jesus Christ.

“…I AM’s refreshing initiatives and these faithful leaders are usually associated with I AM’s epoch-shaping covenants, wherein He obligates Himself, sometimes unconditionally and at other times conditionally, to His people’s keeping the ethical obligations He imposes upon them. Moshe Weinfeld affirms that “the idea of a covenant between a deity and a people is unknown to us from other religions and cultures” and “the covenantal idea was a special feature of the religion of Israel.

“To Eve He unconditionally obligated Himself to give her an offspring who would crush humankind’s Adversary. To Noah, because he proved himself faithful, He promised unconditionally never again to destroy the earth. To Abraham, because he too obeyed God, He promised unconditionally to give him an eternal seed and land. Through the mediation of Moses, God obligated Himself conditionally to bless Israel. To David, also because of his prior demonstration of faith, He unconditionally covenanted to give an eternal house, kingdom, and throne.

“…As for the prophets, Israel’s memories of these epochs, personalities, and covenants lay the foundation for the prophetic expectation that Israel’s history will culminate in a greater epoch, which they often referred to as “in that day.” In that day, I AM, Israel’s covenant keeping King, promises to restore His universal rule through His covenant people. Through Jeremiah and other prophets, God indebted Himself unconditionally to make a new covenant whereby Israel would obey God from their hearts and so meet the obligations of the Mosaic covenant and be blessed…In that day, the prophets announced, all people will worship God on Mount Zion, learn His law, and beat their swords into plow tips.

“…The covenants attached to these epochal events are described in ways that bring out their continuity with the concerns, themes, and trajectories of the founding moment. As noted, the seed promised to Eve is foundational to all the covenants in making God’s kingdom [my note here: the author is referring to the Covenant of Grace]. The Noahic covenant guarantees a firm stage on which God can build His kingdom. The Abrahamic covenant identifies the covenant people and the land that will sustain them. The Mosaic covenant articulates the teachings or law that will bind the nation together under God’s rule. The Davidic covenant provides the nation with the unchanging political leadership necessary for God’s theocracy to be firmly established.” – Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, P148-149

“For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.” – Romans 2:12-29

There is a simplicity to this which even a babe in the faith can see from this text. Consider:

What ‘law’ is Paul talking about?
Because of the phrase “if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law“, among other things, it is clear that ‘the law‘ refers to the Law given to the Jews, the Mosaic Law. In fact, from the beginning of this passage to the very end, ‘the law’ refers to the Old Testament, Jewish Law. There is no other exegetical reason to say otherwise.

What law will be used to judge men on the final day?
Because of the phrase “will be judged by the law“, we can see that anyone who has ever read this Old Testament, Jewish Law will be judged by it on the last day. James 2:12, among other passages, teach this as well.

What about those who never hear this ‘law’; what ‘law’ will they be judged by?
Because of the phrase, “They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts”, we see that those who never hear of this Jewish Law will nevertheless be judged by it, and this because they prove by their actions that this same Jewish Law is written on their hearts.

How is one found righteous before God?
Because of the phrase, “it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law“, we know that those who obey this same law are pleasing and righteous in God’s sight. We also know from the continuation of Paul’s argument here in Romans, that no man can perfectly obey this Law so as to be perfectly righteous. However, there is one who has, the Man Christ Jesus, who’s obedience becomes ours by faith. Thus, we still keep this law, imperfectly when we obey and are pleasing in God’s sight; and perfectly, for justification and complete righteousness, through the merits of Jesus Christ.

But doesn’t this Jewish ‘law’ contain all sorts of ceremonies and cleanliness laws that we Christians are released from?
Yes, the New Testament teaches that Christians are released from obeying ‘ceremonial’ laws which were only given to the Jews for a period. However, by the phrase “For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision“, we can see that Paul is not speaking of the outward ceremonies of the law. Instead, he makes a clear distinction between ‘obeying the law’ and simply performing it’s outward ceremonies (which have since passed away).

So how do we know what aspects of ‘the law’ Paul is talking about here?
Because of three phrases: 1) “While you preach against stealing, do you steal?“, 2) “You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?“, and 3) “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?“, we see the 8th commandment, the 7th commandment, and the 10th commandment, respectively, alluded to by Paul.

Conclusion:
By the scripture here we conclude that ‘the law’ will be the standard judge on the last day, that this ‘law’ is written on the hearts of those who’ve never heard of it, that this ‘law’ details how one is righteous before God, that this ‘law’ doesn’t include the ceremonies clearly abolished by Jesus and the Apostles, and that this ‘law’ consists of precepts found in the Ten Commandments.

Given these plain facts, as well as other testimonies of scripture, we are bound to affirm that the Ten Commandments, not just 9 of the commandments as many try to argue in this day, are foundational to the ‘moral’ law of God that transcends time, covenants, culture, and even eternity. To allude to just one of the Ten Commandments is to allude to them all, as they are never divided in scripture, always being treated as a unit, and James 2:10, when referring to the Ten Commandments, confirms their unity by teaching us that breaking one of them is tantamount to breaking them all.

Paul doesn’t directly allude to Jesus and this so-called ‘law of Christ’; Paul doesn’t allude to the greatest commandments of Love to God and neighbor, even though both Jesus’ teaching and the greatest two commandments are certainly included in the ‘moral’ law. Rather, Paul clearly refers back to the Old Testament law, the law previously given and widely understood, and he clearly upholds the Ten Commandments as the foundational to all morality, ethics, and righteousness.

“Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.” – 3:19-25

Law
Let’s get something straight: ‘Law’ is any command in scripture. Doesn’t matter if it comes in the Old Testament, New Testament, in red-lettering, or before sin entered the world.

Some people think there is something inherently different between Old Testament Law and New Testament Law. It is, as if, the New Testament commands are somehow more gracious or more possible for us to attain, while the Old Testament commands are just too difficult, too condemning, and unrelated to the Church (which is, ironically, the Israel of God). But the Bible simply does not support these conclusions. On the contrary, the specific commands in the New Testament are *more* demanding, *more* revealing, and certainly *less* attainable in our flesh.

Have you ever actually considered how impossible the Sermon on the Mount is to obey? Turn the other cheek, sell all you have and give to the poor, love your enemy, and deny yourself daily and take up your cross? Anyone who thinks that these are easier or more obtainable than Laws given in the OT has clearly not understood our Lord, His righteousness, and our utter depravity.

Let me be clear: the scriptures clearly teach that we are not under the Old Covenant; that is, we are not bound by the law as a Covenant. But it’s not just the OT law that we are ‘freed’ from, as a Covenant, in Christ. For we are essentially ‘freed’ from the NT law as well, in Christ. I’m not talking about obedience and ethics here; I’m talking the ‘binding’ nature of the law to bind us and damn us for our disobedience. It doesn’t matter if we break on OT command (thou shalt not…), or if we break a New Testament command given by Christ or the Apostles, we are still equally guilty before God, and are hopeless in escaping judgment unless forgiven and covered by Jesus Christ.

Gospel
Gospel, on the other hand, is simply an announcement, a proclamation; it is good news. The gospel is a declaration of what Jesus Christ has accomplished on behalf of sinners. It is a pointing to Christ as the promised One of old, proving from prophecy that He is the Christ, and that salvation is to be found in no other name. It is the offer of salvation through grace and faith alone. And this announcement, proclamation, declaration, pointing to, and offering of forgiveness, is found in *both* Old Testament and New Testament scriptures.

The gospel is not necessarily about something we *do*, such as repent and believe, even though it most certainly demands a response from us. And in fact, every single time the gospel is preached, all who hear *will* respond in some manner; some in belief, and some in unbelief, but all will do something. We are to call them, of course, to the obedience of the gospel, but the call to obedience is not to be confused with the message itself. For the sinner cannot obey apart from the work of the Spirit, and the Spirit works in the human heart through the declaring Word of what God has done through Christ.

But, despite the gospel being a declaration, some believe that the gospel is some sort of attainable law. Exhortations to ‘follow these steps’, ‘pray this prayer’, ‘make this decision’, ‘read this book’, etc. This gospel, being proclaimed with all the proper buzz words of ‘place faith in Christ’, and ‘it is not by our works that we are saved’, unwittingly makes human merit the centerpiece of the presentation. The gospel becomes a means to obtain what ever our heart desires, and it is easily attainable by jumping through the prescribed hoops.

Balance
We are sorely mistaken when we fail to see the binding and damning nature of the Law in the New Testament, as well as failing to see the free and gracious offer of the gospel in the Old Testament. Even worse, we are more mistaken when we make the gospel all about us and what we do, instead of about God and what He has done.

But the root of this tendency, apart from natural sinfulness, is, I believe, because we have weak and misinformed preaching of the Law in our day. This week view of the Law leads to a weak and misinformed view of the gospel. Men do not see the Law, all of it –OT and NT– as a threat to them. The OT doesn’t apply to us, most in this land believe, and the New Testament law is supposedly more about grace and leniency. There are just too many who misunderstand the very basics of law and gospel, and the result is often a maimed gospel and confusion about how we are to then live.

If men properly understood the Law, then they would properly understand that they have absolutely no hope in obeying it, and they will be crushed by its weight and will, by God’s grace, look to the only Refuge, the righteousness and forgiveness found in Christ. And, let me add here for clarity, there is absolutely no reason why this despair (at least in some form or another) should stop at salvation. For we ALL need to be driven to Christ; whether saved or lost, mature or immature; we all need to feel the weight of the Law so as to feel the overwhelming beauty and transforming power of the Gospel.

So without question, we must preach the Law, plain and simple. We must let it cut, and cut deep. We must make it abundantly clear that human beings have absolutely no possible hope of even remotely obeying what it demands. Then and only then will we lay the proper groundwork to preach the gospel with the full intended force.

The gospel is an absolutely amazing thing; too good to be true; almost unbelievable, and pure antinomian to the legalist. But this amazing gospel has no force if the Law isn’t properly understood first. And for the Law to be properly understood, all of scripture, and all of the Law, must be brought to bear on the conscience of the sinner. We must proclaim what men need to be saved from if we expect them to care about what they are to be saved to.

I believe Michael Horton is one of the best in our day at distinguishing Law vs. Gospel. It is a topic he never seems to get off of, praise God:

“Two things are required for reformation in our church and the transformation of our society. First, the gospel. This comes when people stop trusting in any and every form of law-keeping, discipleship, or whatever they want to call it, as a means of establishing peace or fellowship with God. As we have seen, God’s demands for salvation-by-discipleship are so high that only the most self-deluded soul would attempt it. But having been saved by Christ’s discipleship, death, and resurrection alone, we do enter the high calling of discipleship ourselves. So first we need the gospel, to truly bring us into a right relationship with God. Apart from the gospel, the law can only condemn, oppress, and threaten. But once we are justified by grace apart from obedience, that same grace gives us the power to live a new life –not a perfect life, but a new life. What we need, then, is a recovery of the greatness of God’s law, first to cut our foolish pride off at the pass and cause us to despair of our own efforts at pleasing God, and then, second, to remind us of what true discipleship really is once we become God’s children by His free adoption. For both our justification and our sanctification we desperately need to recover God’s ideas of holiness, His standard for right relationships, because, quite frankly, it seems to bear only a slight resemblance to the personal and social piety of evangelicals in America today. ”

(From P173 of The Law of Perfect Freedom. 1993)

In this post, so that there is no confusion, let us qualify that statement and present some additional evidence for and explanation of this position.

1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. – Rom 8:1-4

This by no means is a full treatment of this passage, but I’d like to point out a few things here that relate to the previous post.

What is Paul saying here?

Verse 1: Those who by faith rest and trust in Christ are under no condemnation whatsoever for their breaking of God’s Law (follow Paul’s logic here from 7:24-25)

Verse 2: In Christ, by His Spirit granted to us at regeneration, we are freed, *not* from the duty of obeying, through love, the OT Law, but we are freed from ‘law of sin and death’, which is the wretchedness of sin dwelling in the unregenerate man (see 7:12;14, 18, 23-25).

Verse 3: The Law of God is powerless to regenerate. The Law has many functions, but because of the weakness of our flesh, it is powerless to justify or sanctify on its own. Instead, God through Jesus Christ condemned our sin in the flesh. Christ did what the Law could not.

Verse 4: What is the end of Christ’s work? What becomes of His condemning our sin in the flesh? So that the righteous requirement of the law… –Which Law? The OT Law? The NT Law? The ‘Law of Christ’? Clearly, without a doubt the context teaches us that is it the Old Testament Law which is fulfilled in us, who no longer walk according to the flesh. What does it mean to not walk according to the flesh? It means the Law no longer serves as a means of sin and death to us, but indeed, the Spirit provides the very power and freedom from condemnation necessary to properly obey the OT Law of God –indeed the only Law of God.

And who is this law fulfilled in? The text does not say ‘fulfilled FOR us’, but it says ‘fulfilled IN us’. In this text, Paul teaches that the fulfillment of the OT Law isn’t just regulated to Christ alone. We are the ones who fulfill this law and its righteous requirements!

Don’t be mistaken: no one would dare argue that the Law is not fulfilled in Christ, for it is in its entirety. But are we severed from our Living Head? Are we not His mystical Body? Would we not take part in His fulfillment? We most certainly do. One important aspect of Christ’s fulfilling of the Law is that His members follow down this same path of obedience to it.

Conclusion:
Those in Christ do not face condemnation by the Law. The Law is no longer a curse to us. The Law is no longer a binding covenant upon us. The Law is no longer rigorous to us. The Law no longer holds any eternal accusations over us. Indeed, we are freed from the Law in every way, and the bondage of every single command within, given that we are in Christ.

But freedom from the Law and its condemnation does not mean that we are not still called to obey it. As the Apostles says above, Christ has freed us from the condemnation of the Law so that we would fulfill the essence of the Law in our walking by the Spirit.

You see? Christ’s words in Matthew 5 fit perfectly with Paul’s words here. Not one word, not one letter of the Law has been set aside, but believers being freed from its bondage, now have been given the power to fulfill it entirely.

“…’with the mind I myself serve the Law of God’…with this agrees James 2:8 ‘if ye fulfill the royal law according to scripture…ye do well’. What Law this was, he (James) shows in the eleven verse to be the Decalogue…Therefore since Christ, who is the best expounder of the Law, so largely strengthens and confirms the Law (witness the Sermon on the Mount, and also Mark 10:19); since faith does no supplant, but strengthens the Law; since the Apostle so often presses and urges the duties commanded in the Law…I must conclude that the Law, for the substance of it, still remains a rule of life to the people of God.” Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom

We do not overthrow the law by our freedom from it in faith. By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. We establish the Law. And we dare not relax even the smallest of its commandments…