Monday, February 15, 2016

Jesus is the Only Way to God

Letter to the Editor

Dear Editors,
            Recently I read an opinion article in your newspaper wherein the writer referred to Christians as “narrow minded” because they claim Jesus is the only way to God. My concern is that this type of rhetoric left unchecked tends to marginalize and even demonize Christians. “Narrow minded” is rarely used to describe people of other faiths. I will attempt to provide a more constructive context for which Christians claim Jesus is the only way to God.
Americans live in a pluralistic society with many religions and different competing faith claims. All religions deem their way to be the true way. Muslims are candid in expressing their belief that there is no god but Allah. Their holy book teaches that non-Muslims have only three options: convert, be enslaved, or die. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses frequently go door to door sharing their faith with the goal of converting others. Catholics believe the only way to be saved is to be baptized in the Catholic Church. Radical Hindus in other countries have violently persecuted Christians. Even atheists condemn non-atheists. For example, atheist Richard Dawkins claims it is child abuse for religious families to teach children about their faith.
            It is obvious that Christianity’s exclusive claim, that there is only one way to God, is not unique. However, what makes Christianity unique is that this faith claim is not based on a philosophy, or religion per se, but on a person—the person of Jesus Christ. It was Jesus who made the exclusive claim about salvation when he said, “…I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (Jn 14:6 [NIV])
            A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Now, there are many non-Christians who enjoy some of the teachings of Jesus without calling themselves a Christian. However Christianity was never meant to be a buffet where one picks and chooses what they like about Jesus and avoids what appears undesirable. The key issue in Christianity is not the teaching of Jesus—although his teaching was wise and true—it was his identity. He claimed to be the Christ and the only way to God.
            This is a bold statement. So the logical question is: Was Jesus right about his claim? He was either right or wrong. If he was wrong, he either knew it or didn’t know it. If he knew he was wrong, he was a liar.  If he didn’t know he was wrong, but thought he was the only way to God, he was a lunatic. But if he was right, he is Lord, and the only way to God.
Some people argue that all religions are essentially the same, that is, “all roads lead to heaven.” However, different religions have different views of God, different views of salvation, and different views about what happens after we die. If they contradict each other, they cannot all be true.
Therefore, if all religions (including the “religion” of atheism) make exclusive claims and they can’t all be true, then it follows that anyone who expresses their religious/atheist exclusive belief must be “narrow minded.” 
The problem is the accusation against Christians being “narrow minded” is more frequently being used at a weapon to attack them. Christians who repeat Jesus’ exclusive claims are accused of hate speech. They are either dismissed or vilified. Ironically, the phrase is rarely used to describe people of other religious beliefs or atheists, even though their exclusive claims make them just as “narrow minded.”

In a pluralistic society, we should accept that competing faith claims each assert their way is the true way. And yet we should allow the free exchange of ideas and arguments to allow the best argument to prevail. We should take great care to restore civility in our religious discussions and disagreement with each other. We would do well to avoid ad hominem attacks meant to intimidate, silence and denigrate. Let’s choose civility.

Saturday, January 30, 2016


Inquiring minds should want to know. Recently one of my fellow attorney co-workers mentioned how she had grown up Catholic and later walked away from faith when she got older. She did not believe in miracles or the resurrection of Jesus. If given the opportunity to answer the question, “How do you know Jesus rose from the dead?” I would initially concentrate on just one of several historical facts, the empty tomb.[i] The truth of Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Christian faith is futile.[ii]
One of the most important pieces of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is his empty tomb. Historian and New Testament scholar Gary Habermas claims that approximately “75% of scholars on the subject accept the empty tomb as a historic fact.”[iii] The discovery of the empty tomb has multiple attestations from “very early independent sources,” such as the four Gospels, Acts, and 1 Corinthians.[iv] According to Christian apologist William Lane Craig, “Historians think they have hit historical paydirt when they have two independent accounts of the same event. But in the case of the empty tomb we have a surfeit of independent sources, no less than six, some of which are among the earliest materials to be found in the New Testament.”[v]
One of the numerous reasons the biblical account of the empty tomb is considered credible, is because it reports that women were the ones who first found Jesus tomb empty. This was actually an embarrassing fact since women were not seen as credible witnesses in Jewish society, because they were “second-class citizens.”[vi] If the empty tomb story was fabricated, the story would have had been more believable to say men arrived first on the scene to discover the empty tomb. To state an embarrassing truth makes it more credible.
            Although most scholars agree on the fact that Jesus’ tomb was empty, a variety of explanations for the reason the tomb was empty have been offered. The Bible’s explanation for the empty tomb is that God raised Jesus from the dead.[vii] However, scholars rejecting the supernatural Resurrection Theory have posited various natural explanations for the empty tomb, such as: the Conspiracy Theory, Apparent Death Theory, Wrong Tomb Theory, and Displaced Body Theory.[viii] Due to limited time, I will briefly discuss each of these theories in order to show which one is the best or most probable explanation of the empty tomb.
            The Conspiracy Theory explanation for the empty tomb goes like this: “the disciples stole the body of Jesus and lied about his postmortem appearances, thus faking his resurrection.”[ix]
There are many problems with this theory but we will just mention three: there is no evidence for this theory; it would be bizarre to make up that women arrived at the empty tomb first (as explained earlier); it fails to explain the conviction that the disciples believed in the resurrection and they staked their very lives on it.[x] Although this theory was popular by Deists in the eighteenth century, today it has been “completely given up by modern scholarship.”[xi]
            The Apparent Death Theory was promulgated by Heinrich Paulus and Friedrich Schleirmacher around the beginning of the nineteenth century. This view held that Jesus wasn’t dead when he was taken off the cross; he “revived in the tomb and escaped to convince his disciples he had risen from the dead.”[xii] The problems with this theory are similar to the problems with the Conspiracy Theory, but additionally: Jesus’ torture and execution was probably impossible to physically endure; this theory fails to explain how the executioner made sure Jesus was dead by thrusting the spear in his side before he was removed from the cross.[xiii] Fortunately this theory has “been almost completely given up” by scholars.[xiv]
            The Wrong Tomb Theory, suggested by Kirsopp Lake in 1907, held that the tomb was empty because the women went to the wrong tomb.[xv] There are significant issues with this theory, but just to name two: the location of the tomb was known to Jews and Christians in Jerusalem; this theory does nothing to explain why the disciples believed they saw the resurrected Jesus.[xvi] “Unlike the previous two theories considered, [this theory] generated virtually no following but was dead almost upon arrival.”[xvii]
            The Displaced Body Theory, offered by Joseph Klausner in 1922, states that Joseph of Arimathea moved Jesus’ dead body from the tomb to a criminal graveyard, and the disciples mistakenly believed Jesus was resurrected. This theory has similar problems as the Wrong Tomb Theory. Additionally, there is no evidence that the location of Jesus’ grave or body was ever an issue.[xviii] No scholars defend this theory today.[xix]
In conclusion, the resurrection is a real event that can be historically investigated. A key piece of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is his empty tomb. Most scholars accept that the empty tomb is a historic fact. When we considered various competing theories for the reason for the empty tomb in order to determine the best explanation for it, it should be clear that the evidence shows the Resurrection Theory is more plausible than the other competing naturalist explanations. Therefore, the best explanation for the empty tomb, and the one that I believe, is that God raised Jesus from the dead.

[i] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Trust and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), 360-361.
[ii] 1 Cor. 15:17 NIV.
[iii] Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2004), 70.
[iv] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 364-366.
[v] Ibid., 366.
[vi] Ibid., 367.
[vii] 1 Cor. 15:15 NIV.
[viii] Craig, Reasonable Faith, 371-377.
[ix] Ibid., 371.
[x] Ibid., 371-372
[xi] Ibid., 371.
[xii] Ibid., 373.
[xiii] Ibid., 374.
[xiv] Ibid., 373.
[xv] Ibid., 374.
[xvi] Ibid., 374-375.
[xvii] Ibid., 374.
[xviii] Ibid., 376.
[xix] Ibid., 376.

Friday, January 15, 2016

The Mosaic Law: Application for the Christian

Christians hold the belief that their Holy Scriptures are able to make them wise for salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.[i] Furthermore, the Bible says, “All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”[ii] Many Christians would like to improve their knowledge of the entire Bible (“all scripture”) to be better “equipped for every good work,” but are lost when it comes to understanding the Old Testament.[iii] Specifically they wonder if the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament should relate to their lives, and if so, how.
Unfortunately there is no simple and straightforward answer to this question because Christians disagree about the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the believer today.[iv] The New Testament itself contains statements that appear to be contradictory on the matter.[v] Scholars reach fundamentally different conclusions in their interpretations of the various biblical texts based on their numerous theological and hermeneutical approaches to interpreting the texts.[vi] Nevertheless, the aim of this paper is to help Christians gain a better understanding of how they are to relate to the Mosaic Law, especially the Sabbath Day commandment.

The Purpose of the Mosaic Law

The Mosaic Law of the Old Testament, often referred to as the “Mosaic Covenant,” was divinely given to Moses at Sinai after God rescued the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt.[vii] After God promised He would make Israel His nation, the Israelites entered into a covenant with Him and the Law became their constitution and national legislation.[viii] Clearly the Mosaic Law was given to the Israelites and for the Israelites.
Old Testament scholar Albert H. Baylis explains the Mosaic Law as three “ever-widening circles:” (1) Decalogue, (2) Book of the Covenant, (3) and Tabernacle and Worship.[ix] To better conceptualize this, imagine the Decalogue circle as the smallest circle inside the medium-sized circle of the Book of the Covenant. Then those two circles are situated inside the largest circle of the Tabernacle and Worship. The Decalogue (better known as the Ten Commandments as found in Exodus 20:3-17) is often understood as the moral law.[x] The Book of the Covenant encompasses the criminal and civil laws as found in Exodus 20:22-23:19.[xi] And the rest of Exodus and the book of Leviticus give direction for where to worship (Tabernacle) and how to worship.[xii]
Bible scholars suggest different purposes for the Mosaic Law. However, just two purposes will be discussed here—reveal God’s character to Israel and make Israel distinct by requiring the people to obey the Mosaic Law.
Bible scholar Douglas J. Moo summarizes how the various aspects of the Mosaic Law reveal the character of God:
…the law points to the character of God in different ways. Some laws rather directly relate human behavior to the character of God: for example, we are not to murder because God reverences and sanctifies human life. Others do so in an indirect way: the Israelites are not to eat certain kinds of food because God is holy and the people must be taught that there are “unholy” things from which they must separate themselves. The sacrificial laws teach still another truth about God, that he cannot tolerate sin without some kind of shedding of blood to compensate for that sin.[xiii]

Through the Mosaic Law God revealed Himself and demanded His people become like His character.[xiv] For example, God declares, “I am the Lord who brought you out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.”[xv] Additionally, God promised Israel, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession.”[xvi] By obeying the Law, Israel would demonstrate her distinctiveness and be set apart from other nations.[xvii] This gift of the Mosaic Law, the choosing of Israel to be a blessing to many, was not because Israel deserved it, but simply because of God’s grace.[xviii]
In summary, the Law was meant to reveal the nature of God, and to keep Israel safe and force a distinctiveness on the people so they could be “set apart” for God’s purpose until Christ should come.[xix] Next, we will discuss how Mosaic Law should apply to the Christian today.

Mosaic Law & Christ’s Law

The Mosaic Law prepared people for the coming of Jesus.[xx] Jesus referred back to the Law when He disclosed, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.”[xxi]
As stated earlier, Christians disagree about the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the believer today.[xxii] Biblical texts “appear to support opposite conclusions.”[xxiii] Several verses suggest the continuity of the Mosaic Law after Christ’s death and resurrection,[xxiv] while other verses suggest the discontinuity.[xxv] Three of the five contributors to Five Views on Law & Gospel, Willem A. VanGemeren (Reformed view), Greg L. Bahnsen (Theonomical Reformed view), and Walter C. Kaiser (Evangelical view) argue the Mosaic Law, or at least part of the Mosaic Law, continues to be directly binding on the Christian.[xxvi] They divide the Mosaic Law into three divisions: moral (i.e. the Decalogue), civil, and ceremonial laws.[xxvii] VanGermeren and Kaiser contend that only the moral law continues to directly bind the Christian.[xxviii] Bahnsen adds the civil law to the moral law as binding.[xxix]
            The other two contributors to Five Views on Law & Gospel, Douglas J. Moo (Modified Lutheran view) and Wayne G. Strickland (Dispensational view), take the opposite view—the Mosaic Law is no longer directly binding on the Christian today.[xxx] Moo opines that the “Mosaic Law as a whole was given to Israel for a limited time and purpose and is no longer immediately authoritative for the Christian.”[xxxi] Interestingly, Moo admits that the “bottom lines” of his view and VanGemeren’s view are similar.[xxxii] He does agree that part of the moral law as stated in the Mosaic Law continues for the Christian, not because the Christian is bound directly to any aspect of the Mosaic Law, but because Christians now live under “Christ’s Law,” which does include God’s moral law, some of which is found in the Mosaic Law and is reaffirmed by Jesus.[xxxiii] Moo disagrees with Bahnsen’s view that the civil law continues to be binding on the Christian, arguing that application is based on subjectivism, which suggests an arbitrariness making it difficult to justify the law as continuing.[xxxiv] Bahnsen admits many Old Testament laws cannot be applied today in the same manner that they were carried out in the Old Testament.[xxxv]
After pondering five different views on how the Mosaic Law relates to the Christian, the most compelling argument lies with Moo. There are many reasons for this conviction but just four are explained below.
First, Jesus fulfilled the Law. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says, “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.”[xxxvi] Moo asserts, “Jesus’ insistence that he had come not to ‘abolish’ (kataluo) but to ‘fulfill’ (pleroo) the law and prophets…deserves to be ranked among the most important New Testament pronouncements on the significance of the Law of Moses for the new Christian era.”[xxxvii] He explains that the word “fulfill” does not mean the exact opposite of “abolish.”[xxxviii] Instead, when Matthew uses the word “fulfill” elsewhere, it usually refers to Jesus accomplishing what was predicted and also reenacting Old Testament historical events.[xxxix] Therefore, Jesus was saying that He did not come to destroy the Mosaic Law, but that it is no longer needed because He satisfies the Mosaic Law.
Second, Jesus established the “Law of Christ.” Moo argues persuasively, “The entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge of, the conduct of God’s people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by ‘the law of Christ.’”[xl] This idea of the Law of Christ is found succinctly in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he says, “…To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”[xli] Moo provides this insightful explanation of the Law of Christ: “This ‘law’ is not a set of rules, but a set of principles drawn from the life and teachings of Jesus, with love for others as its heart and the indwelling Spirit as its directive force.”[xlii] Moo concludes that the Law of Christ incorporates within its teachings some of the Mosaic Law.[xliii]
Third, Jesus had authority to speak about the law. Although Jesus sometimes based His teaching on the Mosaic Law and observed the details of the Mosaic Law, He demonstrated that He neither just repeated nor expanded the law,[xliv] but rather, taught “as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law,”[xlv] One example of this is found in Matthew where Jesus is teaching a crowd and repeatedly says, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago…but I tell you…”[xlvi] Moo concludes that this formula “suggests that Jesus is comparing His teaching with the teaching that His Jewish listeners have heard in the synagogue.”[xlvii] This implies that Jesus’ authority is superior to other teachers. Moreover, Jesus refers to Himself as “Lord even of the Sabbath.”[xlviii] Lastly, Jesus confesses His divine authority, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”[xlix]
Fourth, Jesus makes love essential to the law.[l] When Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the Law, He replies, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all our soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”[li] Jesus demonstrated He has divine authority when He summarized all the Law and Prophets into two new simplified and yet all encompassing commandments.
To summarize, Moo’s view says that the Mosaic Law has been abrogated in Christ.[lii] As such the Mosaic Law is longer directly binding for Christians.[liii] Only that which is clearly repeated within New Testament teaching is binding.[liv] As for the Ten Commandments, Moo states that all of them except for one remain in the Law of Christ.[lv] “The exception is the Sabbath commandment, one that Heb. 3-4 suggest is fulfilled in the new age as a whole.”[lvi] 

The Christian and the Sabbath

If the Sabbath Day has been fulfilled, how is the Christian to relate to the Sabbath today? The Sabbath was created for Israel and was part of the Mosaic Law to be honored and obeyed. The fourth of the Ten Commandments says:
Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.[lvii]

The Sabbath Day, a seventh day of rest, was given to Israel as a sign of the Mosaic covenant[lviii] and continued until its fulfillment.[lix] The Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ because Jesus fulfilled the Law.
How did Jesus respond to the Sabbath? Moo says that although Jesus “scrupulously observed all the details of the Mosaic Law…His personal obedience of the law and his teaching of such obedience to others cannot, then, be automatically viewed as expressing his belief about what should be the case after his death and resurrection had brought the new era of salvation into existence.”[lx] Despite His obedience to the Law, Scriptures reveal that Jesus healed and carried out His ministry on the Sabbath, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees.[lxi] In the face of controversy over the Sabbath He declared, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”[lxii] British New Testament scholar Andrew T. Lincoln explains that Jesus “determines what is appropriate to the Sabbath…Jesus puts Himself in place of the law. As Lord of the Sabbath He is the law’s true interpreter in terms of mercy rather than legalism.”[lxiii] Therefore, the Sabbath is an example of how Christ’s Law supersedes the Mosaic Law.
After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul confirms this priority of Christ’s Law over the Sabbath: “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.”[lxiv] At the very least, Paul preaches that there is no longer a binding command to keep the Sabbath.
In the early Church, Christians celebrated the “Lord’s Day” on Sunday, the first day of the week.[lxv] Lincoln suggests they chose Sunday to remember the Resurrection of Jesus, which took place on the first day of the week.[lxvi] This may have helped to distinguish the Lord’s Day from the seventh day Sabbath because “[t]he majority of Jewish Christians in Palestine and many in the diaspora may well have kept the Sabbath and also met with their fellow believers in Christ for worship at some time on the following day.”[lxvii] Lincoln states there is no evidence in the early church that they substituted the seventh day Sabbath for the first day Lord’s day.[lxviii] In fact, the Lord’s Day was not observed as literal day of rest until Sunday became a day off from work during Constantine’s rule.[lxix] The Lord’s Day was for worshipping Christ as Lord and remembering His resurrection.[lxx]
In Christian communities today, many hold out Sunday as their Sabbath day of rest, promulgated in earlier years by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.[lxxi] This “Sabbath-transference theology” still exists among Christians,[lxxii] especially Seventh Day Adventists.[lxxiii] However, as previously stated, the Mosaic Law is no longer directly binding on the Christian. Although nine of the Ten Commandments were reaffirmed by Jesus, the Sabbath is the only one that was not. Christians may choose Sunday or any other day as a day of rest as a practical consideration, but not as a divine Sabbath commandment.[lxxiv]


            Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Mosaic Law has been fulfilled and is no longer directly binding on Christians. The Mosaic Law was replaced with Christ’s Law, which includes God’s moral law, and is based on love and grace. This view of the Mosaic Law in the New Testament era aligns itself better to the Scriptures than other views. Additionally this view is more profitable in Christian apologetics in answering questions about thorny commands in the Old Testament, such as harsh civil laws, complicated ceremonial laws, and commands regarding slavery, divorce and warfare practices. The study of the Mosaic Law and the entire Old Testament is useful for teaching Christians,[lxxv] especially about God and how He chose to relate to Israel, i.e. promises, blessings, and judgment. Christians are not obligated to keep the Sabbath, but are free to choose any day or days to rest, and free to choose to worship every day. Understanding that Christians are no longer under the Mosaic Law is both logical and liberating. Christ came to set us free—we should be free indeed.

[i] 2 Tim. 3:15. All scripture quotations from the New International Version unless otherwise noted.
[ii] 2 Tim. 3:16.
[iii] Albert H, Baylis, From Creation to the Cross: Understanding the First Half of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 11.
[iv] Greg L. Bahnsen, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, ed. Stanley N. Gundry, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 319. 
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Ibid., 320.
[vii] Baylis, From Creation to the Cross, 121. Moses is credited with writing the first five books of the Old Testament (Genesis through Deuteronomy), also known as the Torah, “instruction in knowing God.” Ibid., 25, 154.
[viii] Ibid., 122; Exod. 24:3-4, 7.
[ix] Baylis, From Creation to the Cross, 126.
[x] Ibid.
[xi] Ibid., 127.
[xii] Ibid. 
[xiii] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 336.
[xiv] Ibid., 335.
[xv] Lev. 11:45.
[xvi] Exod. 19:5.
[xvii] Baylis, From Creation to the Cross, 134.
[xviii] Ibid., 121-122.
[xix] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 338.
[xx] Ibid., 27.
[xxi] John 5:46.
[xxii] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 319. 
[xxiii] Ibid.
[xxiv] Ibid. Moo gives the following examples of the law’s continuing validity: “We uphold the law” (Rom. 3:31); “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12); “the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does” (James 1:25). Ibid.
[xxv] Ibid. Moo gives the following examples of the law’s complete cessation for the believer: “Christ is the end of the law” (Rom. 10:4a); “you are not under law” (Rom. 6:14; cf. v. 15); “when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change in the law” (Heb. 7:12). Ibid.
[xxvi] Ibid., 57-58, 141-143, 198.
[xxvii] Ibid., 29-32, 53, 189-190.
[xxviii] Ibid., 58, 198.
[xxix] Ibid., 141-143.
[xxx] Ibid.,  278-279, 375-376.
[xxxi] Ibid., 376.
[xxxii] Ibid., 89.
[xxxiii] Ibid.,  87-88, 376. “Christ’s Law” is discussed later in this paper.
[xxxiv] Ibid., 165-166.
[xxxv] Ibid., 166.
[xxxvi] Matt. 5:17; emphasis added.
[xxxvii] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, 350.
[xxxviii] Ibid., 351.
[xxxix] Ibid.
[xl] Ibid., 343; emphasis original.
[xli] 1 Cor. 9:20-21.
[xlii] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, 357.
[xliii] Ibid., 370.
[xliv] Ibid., 356.
[xlv] Matt.7:29.
[xlvi] Ibid., 347. Moo gives the following examples of Jesus using this formula: Matt. 5:21-22, 33-34; vv. 27-28, vv. 31-32, vv. 38-39 and vv. 43-44 abbreviate the same formula. Ibid.
[xlvii] Ibid.
[xlviii] Mark 2:27.
[xlix] Matt. 28:18.
[l] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, 353.
[li] Matt. 22:36-40.
[lii] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, 375.
[liii] Ibid.
[liv] Ibid., 376.
[lv] Ibid.
[lvi] Ibid.
[lvii] Exod. 20:8.
[lviii] D.A. Carson, ed. From Sabbath to Lord’s Day: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Investigation (1982; repr., Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 352.
[lix] Ibid., 353.
[lx] Bahnsen, Kaiser, Moo, Strickland, and VanGemeren, Five Views On Law and Gospel, 356.
[lxi] Matt. 12:1-14.
[lxii] Mark 2:27.
[lxiii] Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, 364.
[lxiv] Col. 2:16-17.
[lxv] Carson, From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, 382-384.
[lxvi] Ibid., 384.
[lxvii] Ibid.
[lxviii] Ibid., 385-386.
[lxix] Ibid., 386.
[lxx] Ibid., 385.
[lxxi] Ibid., 390.
[lxxii] Ibid.
[lxxiii] Ibid., 355.
[lxxiv] Ibid., 404.
[lxxv] See Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim 3:16-17.