A Question of Conscience

Is 'self-loathing' dealt with in the Bible?

We hear quite a lot these days about people who are troubled by 'self-loathing', or 'self-hatred'. It is observed that some have a particularly low opinion of themselves. They question whether anyone really likes them, or think that if their friends 'really knew' what they were like, they would not remain friends. In Christian circles, it is advocated that this is addressed by the command to 'love your neighbour as yourself'. The suggestion is that in order to love others as we should, we first have to learn to 'love ourselves'. It is added that Jesus Himself emphasises this. For when He is asked which is the greatest commandment, He replies:

"The most important one is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.” (Mark 12 vs 29 - 31)

This, it is said, is how we deal with self-loathing. The self-loather is not loving himself as he should.

The trouble with this is that it stretches the plain reading of the command out of proportion. It is almost beyond question that the focus here is not on the love of self at all. The point is to live so that the needs of others are equally ranked with our own, and this was to be fundamental to the Jew, living with fellow-Jew, in Israel. It is assumed that each person, by nature, looks after himself.

Of note in our 'sophisticated'. modern society is the way 'psycho-speak' has become a part of common language. Concepts which were once reserved for those specialising in such areas are now bandied around ad lib. To further 'empower' our medical self-awareness, the world-wide web allows endless exploration of symptoms large and small, and although this can be of great benefit in providing useful information, it can also lead to partial knowledge, which distorts the picture. There evolves an 'urban understanding' of who and what we are, which is caught rather than taught, swallowed wholesale, and then determines how we live. The Christian learns to examine and challenge such things, bringing them into the spotlight of God's revealed word, the Bible. So my question is, if self-loathing is anything like a common metal ailment in the human condition, how is it approached Biblically?

A Rose, by Any Other Name ...

The first challenge here is to identify what we are really talking about. And I think what has happened is that we have seen a massive re-labelling of quite common conditions with this infiltrated, psycho-speak terminology. That, stripped down, what we term 'self-loathing' is, in fact, guilt. Now that, the Bible does speak of. Let me expand.

The 'self-loather' finds a haunting, nagging, condemning voice within, which constantly reminds him/her of past faults and failures and present lacks and inadequacies. The reaction to which is a kind of despairing despite. The self-loather is drowning in these believed, accusing voices. In essence, this is raw guilt. But the picture it represents isn't always straightforward.

The solution often posed by modern counselling methods is simply to retrain the mind to ignore guilt. Way back in 1968, Frances Schaeffer said:

“Few [today] believe in guilt anymore. There is only ‘sickness’, or ‘guilt feelings', or ‘sociological non-conformity’. There is no such thing as true [moral] guilt.” – Francis Schaeffer (The God Who is There, 1968)

The 'self-loather' must learn to 'self-love'. To gain an appreciation of his/her competence and worth. After all, he/she is no worse than anyone else, when all is said and done. The problem with this from a Christian perspective is that no such advice is ever given in the Bible. And, practically, from where does such profound conviction come, if the self-loather is to accept it as other than self-delusion? Or simply the imposed view from somewhere else? The origin of such mind-training must have credence and authority if it is to be persuasive at all.

A Question of Conscience

In order to get a handle on this, if we are to arrive at Christian answers, we need to frame the problem in Biblical terms. Then, we stand some chance of arriving at a Biblical answer which has God's authority behind it. It is, surely, to be expected that the Creator of humanity would have something - and something useful - to say about this. First, let's consider the inner, accusing voice - what is it? Well, we don't have to look too far to see that this is the human faculty of the conscience. And Paul, very helpfully, talks about how it works. He does so in Romans 2:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." (vs 12 - 16)

Paul is comparing Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews). He wants to explain that every human being is accountable to God for the way they live, and will be judged accordingly. The Jew - the Israelite - has received and lives under the Law of Moses, given on Mount Sinai. In it, God gave specific commands as to how His chosen people were to live in the promised land of Canaan, before Christ came. And ultimately, they would be judged by the law they had received. But Gentiles had not been given God's law(s). So how will they be judged and called to account? Paul's answer enlightens. Let's break it down.

The Inner Compass

1. God's judgement will be on the basis of lifestyle, not on religious privilege. His judgement will be on moral grounds.

2. Gentiles, who do not have God's Law, nevertheless have an 'inner compass', which indicates to them what is right and what is wrong.

3. Paul describes this is a kind of 'self-law'. It arises from within the human heart. We can conjecture where it came from. Is it a remnant of mans' having been made in God's image? Or of the drastic change which took place when Adam, the first man, ate of the tree 'of the knowledge of good and evil', in disobedience to God's command? Paul does not say what he means by 'by nature'. Created nature? Or sinful nature?

4. Whatever he source of this natural, law-like capacity, Paul says it indicates that those things which the Law, given later, required are written on the human heart. We can observe this in our world. In any society, there are accepted maxims of behaviour - for example, against murder. Where do such things come from? We see Paul's answer.

The Inner Policeman

Then, Paul goes on to speak of an additional 'inner policeman' - the conscience. Conscience is a second, natural function of the human heart which attends the first. It bears witness'. Within the individual, it passes its own judgement on decisions and actions - things done, said, or even thought. Or things which we propose to do or say. Conscience says 'you should have' or 'you shouldn't have'. It can be retrospective, or it can be forward-looking. And sometimes it justifies us, and other times it condemns us. Now here is the clue.

When conscience condemns, we experience guilt ...

When we knew what was right to do, but didn't do it, or
When we knew what was wrong to do, but we did it anyway

Paul says that conscience can behave in two ways. It can either accuse us or it can excuse us. And he seems to infer that because this is just a human thing, it is, to a greater or lesser extent, arbitrary. It is not perfect, not infallible. The judgements of our conscience are not always right. It can accuse when it should not, and it can acquit when it should not. Nevertheless, outside of Christ, it will be sufficient to condemn - rightly condemn - sinners on the Day of Judgement. No man or woman will be able to say, "I didn't know".

So, when our conscience approves, we feel self-justified, and when our conscience disapproves, we feel self-condemned.

True Guilt and False Guilt

But the picture needs more detail. There is 'true guilt' and there is 'false guilt'.

• True guilt is when we are justly accused by or conscience - we should have behaved differently. 
• False guilt is when we are accused by our conscience of that which we were not at fault in. 

So with true guilt, the conscience is working as God intended.

With false guilt, however, something has gone wrong, it is malfunctioning. Self-loathing can be as a result of things which happened to us in the past - child abuse, for example - over which we had no control. Our conscience, however, convinces us that what took place was somehow our fault, and we are blameworthy.What results is an ongoing lack of self-esteem which can be crippling and produces misery.

Fearfully, Wonderfully Made

Let us take a moment to reflect how astounding these human faculties are. That within the human heart; whatever it is that 'I' know as 'me', there is not only self-awareness, but also a kind of parallel awareness that allows 'me' to stand alongside 'myself' and evaluate 'my' actions. Nevertheless, this 'second me' part is also 'me'. This self-critical aspect does not result in fragmentation of my being. It is vitally and intimately connected, integrated and useful. It allows my mind to modify my behaviour, so that my living in this world is not purely reactive. It results in a consciousness that not only have 'I' done something, but also an awareness of why I have done it. And it measures the worth of that action on some kind of scale of values.

Some will say that all of this just happened - it evolved completely by chance. But our Bibles tell us that it was designed. It is a part of what makes humans so distinct from other animals. It points to a 'right-ness' which is outside of ourselves and not determined by us at all. And this is true despite the fact that we are unable to maintain a consistency by it. It raises human behaviour above anything and everything around us. "We are fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139 vs 14). And that which we esteem as noble and proper amongst our kind comes from elsewhere. We live, not according to our own devised measure, but by that of Another. This all points to the God who made us, our Creator. Who is, Himself, perfectly all that we are imperfectly, but desire to be. And we know, deep down, that we fall short of our own standards so often, and of His. Conscience, then, has a purpose. It may have been damaged when man rebelled against God and chose his own way. But it is not to be discarded as if it is unnecessary.

How Does Conscience Operate?

Consider that you are driving in a built-up area of your local town. All around you are houses where people - families - live. You pass schools and shops. There are pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other drivers on the road. And you are aware that there is a 30 mile an hour speed limit in force. You know that this has been set by law. And you understand that the reason it is there is to protect those who also inhabit this space. It determines the time it will take you to bring your vehicle to a halt if it is necessary to do so - say, for example, that a dog or a child runs out in the road in front of you. But your observing the speed limit does not depend on your being persuaded of its legitimacy. Whether you agree with it or not, or whether or not you think it should be greater or lesser is irrelevant. The law has set it where it is, and you are expected to comply, to obey.

Now let's say that in the course of your drive, you happen to look at your speedometer, and you notice that you have inadvertently allowed your speed to climb above 30mph.

First, imagine that you see that you are travelling at 31mph. What is your reaction? Perhaps a little twinge of guilt - a kind of 'oops' moment, but you excuse yourself - after all, it wasn't much over, and 'anyone could do that'. It's a simple mistake. You ease back and drop your speed below the limit.

Now lets say that your current speed is 35mph. Reaction? Its an 'argh' moment. You realise that, although inadvertently, you are breaking the law. You don't just 'ease back, you firmly brake to bring your speed down. And you most definitely, now, feel guilty. What happens in your head? Were there, according to your thinking, acceptable reasons? Had you accelerated to get out of the way of something, or to overtake another slower moving vehicle? If so, maybe your reflection justifies your action. But you have, nevertheless, broken the law.

Third scenario. Your speed is in excess of 30mph. An elderly person steps off the curb as you approach, and there is a collision, resulting in injury. Now what happens? You blame yourself. Whatever the reasons, you were going faster than you should have been.

These are all examples of the activity of our conscience. But can you see how changeable the conclusions are, depending on a whole range of factors. Mitigating factors argue for excusing, whereas disastrous outcome pushes the other way. But all are instances where we have done something 'wrong'. Conscience, then, is not a consistent tool, even though its 'persuasion' is towards 'doing what is right'.

States of Conscience

Seared Consciences

The Bible talks about 'seared consciences:

"The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." (1 Timothy 4 vs 1 – 5)

These are those who have deliberately ignored their own consciences so that they can not only live just as they please without being bothered by the inner, nagging voice, but they teach others that its perfectly OK to do the same. They have cauterised the nerve endings so that the 'alarm' signal is no longer a response in situations where it should be sounding loudly. And we thus learn the dangers of persistently suppressing the voice of conscience. The response to the burglar alarm should not be to simply see it as a nuisance, and learn to ignore it, thus allowing the burglar to roam free and get away with whatever he wants!

Weak Consciences

The word of God also speaks of 'weak' consciences:

"Be careful, however, that the exercise of your rights does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, with all your knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, won’t that person be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother or sister, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." (1 Corinthians 8 vs 9 - 13)

Paul argues that:

1. There is legitimate knowledge of the freedoms from the shackles of the world, that Christ brings to those who are His. In the issue he is addressing, concerning meat that has been offered to idols, specifically, he says:

"So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.""

Thus, this freeing knowledge is that an idol is nothing, for there is but one true God. Therefore, meat that has been offered to these non-existent beings remains precisely what it was - meat. It is impossible for a 'nothing' to leave any taint or power as residue in anything that has been used in the worship of it. Nothing evil to adversely affect the believer in Christ.

This amazing truth has far-reaching effects. Nothing in the pagan, non-Christian world can affect those who are safely within the stronghold of the Saviour. We need have no fear that anything created by God and hailed by Him as 'good', even though it has been misappropriated by the world or the evil one, and twisted to serve purposes God never intended - nothing in God's good world can 'absorb' malevolent power. No symbol or object used in Godless worship. No written text. No idolatrous priestly tool. It is not just that the power of God is greater than evil powers. It is that what is inanimate has no ability to be affected by evil. Matter remains matter, pure and simple. We are not to be 'superstitious Christians'. This is 'strong faith'.

2. However, Paul says, "not all possess this knowledge".

"Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat sacrificial food they think of it as having been sacrificed to a god"

By 'not possessing', Paul surely means that there are believers who are not convinced by this truth. Because of their former attachment and practice, there is a kind of 'residue of faith' belonging to the past - their hearts are telling them that these old things still have power. They do believe they are under the Lordship of Christ. But they have not yet come to the fullness of faith, in this particular respect, which assures them of the utter impotence and emptiness of what they once did. They have, in this area, only 'weak faith'.

3. If such believers - and believers they undoubtedly are, for they are those 'for whom Christ died', and they are brothers - are encouraged to do that about which their conscience accuses them, they do not act 'in faith'. Effectively, they say, 'I'm unsure whether this action is acceptable or pleasing to God, but I'm going to do it anyway'. They are 'emboldened' - pushed - to copy what their 'stronger' brother is doing, but without being convinced themselves. And such a motive is sinning!

Positively, then, we can say that our actions should proceed from our being thoroughly persuaded, from God's authoritative word, how we should live. Thus we should be diligently reading our Bibles and being schooled in what God says. Our minds should be 'being transformed' - retrained in our outlook on the world in which we are, so that our behaviour is modified by that. God's intention for His children is that they grow in freedom. He wants weak faith to grow into strong faith; weak consciences to become strong consciences.

4. Thus, Paul says, there is another, associated state of conscience here - the 'wounded conscience'. Believers, who are holding that their found freedoms in Christ are their 'rights', and that no-one has the right to take them away, should be aware that their perhaps-blase, overriding attitudes can cause those who are newer Christians, with 'baggage' to stumble. Doing this is not the action of love. And thus the perpetrator, himself, sins against his brother, and against Christ:

"When you sin against them in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ"

In Romans 14, Paul identifies other area where this can be in play:

* Eating anything vs eating only vegetables
* Regarding all days as blessed vs regarding 'special' days (holy days)

Ready For Battle - a look at Ephesians

Subscribe in a reader

If you are asked to think of the best known passage in Ephesians, I'm guessing that high on the list would be the 'armour of God' section in Ephesians 6. It's very graphic, isn't it? Paul is telling us that Christians are engaged in a spiritual battle, for which we need God's spiritual equipping. We can imagine the Apostle Paul in prison, guarded by one or two Roman soldiers, using the picture of what is before his eyes to give a symbolic sketch of what we are given by way of protection from our heavenly commander. Paul, of course, is speaking to a world, to churches, who would be extremely familiar with the sight of the occupying military uniform. This was something they would readily relate to - less so for us. So, in our minds, we have to reconstruct that image in order to grasp what the passage is teaching us.

But, increasingly, I am seeing that this was not just a good way for the Apostle to wind up his letter. I think ALL of the letter was intended - is intended - to be a call to arms. ALL of it addresses and informs our spiritual warfare in what Michael Heiser calls 'the unseen realm'.

Not just Ephesus!

Five times in Ephesians, Paul uses the term which gets translated as 'the heavenly places' or  the heavenly realms' - literally 'the heavenlies'. No other letter he wrote uses that word. So why would he single out the church at Ephesus to address in this manner? The lesser-known answer is - he probably didn't. Many of the early manuscripts don't have 'to the saints in Ephesus' in ch1 v1. It's left blank. So most scholars think that the letter was an 'encyclical' - a kind of circular that was intended to be sent to not one but many churches. The destination name was left blank to be filled in as appropriate. This conclusion is supported by the observation that many of the specifically personal greetings and mentions of individuals' names, which was Paul's usual style, aren't there in Ephesians. Neither are there any of the terms of familiarity or endearment that he usually included. And the closing benediction is written in the third person, instead of the usual second person.

So we took can read it as written to us - 'my church' in my world. Opening our eyes to the cosmic war in which the church of Christ plays a crucial part. And all the more so as we get ever nearer to the Lord's return.

... But definitely Ephesus !

It helps to know something of the world in which these early believers were living. Paul had spent three years in that city. Ephesus was the leading city of Asia, situated on a major trade route, a flourishing coastal town at the mouth of the Caster river. It's religious fame included the worship of fifteen pagan gods, and a commitment to the Roman imperial cult, involving two deified Roman Emperor's. Large temples abounded. And the largest of them all was the temple of the goddess Artemis which drew thousands of pilgrims each year to the annual festival in her honour. The temple of Artemis ranked as one of the seven wonders of the world, measuring a staggering 130 by 70 metres and sporting 127 20m high pillars. (If you visit the ruins of Ephesus today, you will see that only one of those proud pillars remains standing).

Paul spent three years in Ephesus' - recorded in Acts 19/20. It was here that he made the critical move to base his ministry in the public arena rather than in synagogues, due to the vehement and stubborn resistance of the Jews.

Magic!

Many of the new converts were formerly deeply involved in the worship of idols and the occult. The change that Christ brought to them resulted in public renunciation of those practices. Acts 19 Vs 17-20 records a massive, expensive bonfire as those who had found faith in Christ rid themselves of the trappings of their former life. This is important for our appreciation of what Paul is addressing. Occult practices were everywhere throughout the Roman Empire. Paul tells us in 1Corinthians that, far from being the ignorant worship of passive inanimate objects, idolatry was in reality commitment and allegiance to powerful demonic beings who oppose the true God. 

In our Western world, it is easy to dismiss these ideas as supernatural nonsense. Yet, not more than two centuries ago, spiritualism was rife in Victorian Britain. Table-rapping seances, and attempts to converse with the dead abounded. Occult phenomena were sought after and explored with vigorous interest. The Bible, of course, forbids such things, teaching that they are dangerous and nothing short of rebellion against God. But we should not think, in our arrogance, that we have come far from pagan Ephesus. There are supernatural entities at play in our world today, however much it is in vogue to dismiss such ideas as rubbish. They just wear different masks to be more acceptable.

This Means War!

What Paul is not doing is setting up a scenario where there is a dualistic war going on between God and Satan, or angels and demons, where humans are just pawns being caught in the middle. Or where we sort of lend our weight in special kinds of ministry to the side of the angels, detecting and dealing with 'the demonic' by detecting where they are and what they are doing.

Ephesians is all about how the believer is following Christ. The 'quality' of our spiritual life. It's why the majority, the 'middle' bits are all about how we behave. In effect, Paul is saying that we - and this means you! - are the battleground. What the enemies of God, the 'spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenlies' chiefly want is for the image of God in us to be spoiled. They want to disrupt our walk with Christ. 

So Ephesians 6 is not merely a 'nice' way of ending the letter. It is the climax of all that has been written before. The armour of God is how we protect against the devil's devices; how we frame our walk with Jesus. Oh, and you might notice that we are told to 'put on' the whole armour. But we are NOT told to take it off! There is no spiritual 'night stand' where you stow it ready for the next day. The analogy is intended to make us mindful of the various components in order to make us conscious of them. The armour is not an optional extra. Do you ever stop wearing your 'helmet of salvation' for example?

I intend to explore this further. Watch this space!

... And another thing! Revisiting Galatians 6:2

Hot on the heels of my previous blog, I thought I might as well visit the only other verse in the whole of the New Testament which even alludes to 'the law of Christ' - Galatians 6:2. Those who argue that this verse indicates that believers are, in any sense, under law are really tearing this one reference right out of its context. At best, it is really, really shaky to develop a doctrine from one verse. Yes, the proponents tie in other references. But if you do that, you end up with a doctrinal patchwork quilt effect - bits and pieces from all over the place stitched together by your preconception thread! Not a good way to handle God's word.

Galatians 6 and all that!

I'm going to back up into Galatians 5 to get the whole picture here:

"For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another. 

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 

And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.  

If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. 

Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. 

Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. 

For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 

But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load. 

Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches. 

Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. 

For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 

And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. "

Galatians 5:13–6:10

I've bolded those two references to pull out two clear points:

1. Christ's new covenant teaching is that all of the Law (Mosaic) is fulfilled in his re-iterated 'love' command.
2. The law - any law - becomes unnecessary in the new life of walking by the Spirit. The Spirit 'grows' his fruit in us

Thus we see that the old system and the way it worked - of being given commands to obey -  is fundamentally NOT the way that the new covenant works. It isn't that we now have new laws to replace the old ones. It is that in the Christ-covenant, the 'modus operandi' is completely other - it is a covenant 'not like' the previous one. Indeed, all of the previous five chapters have been an argument designed to protect the Galatians against the teaching that in order to be 'real' Christians, Gentiles had to embrace all of the old covenant Jewishness. In the 'new commandment' Jesus has given to his followers (John 13:34) all of the old Law is FULFILLED - completed; finalised. No more needs to be added to it.

I have argued elsewhere that (in my view) the 'new commandment' to love one another as Christ has loved us may well be what Paul has in mind when he refers to 'the law of Christ'. It is the one place where Jesus specifically speaks of a given commandment. And the timing is significant. When doe it occur? AT THE INSTITUTION OF THE NEW COVENANT. In other word, the Upper Room, on the night before the cross, in the context of the visual representation in the bread and wine of the body broken and the blood poured out (this is all covenant-making language), God's Son gives to his appointed 'Moses equivalents', the Apostles, not ten, but one commandment. The Upper Room is the new covenant Sinai!

So when we arrive at ch6 v2, Paul has established that life in Christ consists of

1. Living and walking by the Spirit
2. Serving one another in love
3. Exhibiting Christlikeness (the fruit of the Spirit) in behaviour and attitude

No law is required to modify or regulate such lifestyle. It glorifies Christ fully.

And then Paul adds something else. This 'law of Christ' will be completed (fulfilled) by one more thing - bearing one anothers' sin burdens. Look at the context:

"Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ"

 Paul is talking about what we should do if we see another believer 'caught' (trapped) by sin. Condemn? No. Disfellowship? No. Give up on him? Never. Draw alongside and help him through it. Bring him back to the Lord. Is not that why the immediate caution is given that we don't fall into the same trap? And look at the glorious description of what this is doing - it is fulfilling the new commandment. Jesus said 'Greater love has no man than this - that he lay down his life for his friend' (John 15:13) The Lord is not just talking about what he would do - he is showing us what we should do. At cost to ourselves, we commit to doing everything in our power to rescue the sinning prodigal from his state. Of course we don't die for anyones' sins. Jesus has done that once and for all. But this is the heart of our Saviour, is it not? This is 'loving one another as he has loved us'.

Well, that is my comments. Here is what AI returned!

***

 In Galatians 6:2 what is the law of Christ, and in what sense is it fulfilled by us bearing each others burdens?

The “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2 is equated with fulfilling the whole law by loving one’s neighbor[1]—specifically, the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14) This is not a new law unique to the Christian era, but rather the singular divine demand that has always bound humanity, though the means of fulfilling it have changed with Christ’s coming and the gift of the Spirit.[1]

Bearing one another’s burdens fulfills this law through concrete action. Since the entire law is summed up in the command to love your neighbor as yourself, carrying each other’s burdens is simply love in action and the fulfillment of Christ’s command.[2] The exhortation represents a general call to help with various struggles—not limited to moral failures, but encompassing persecution, financial difficulties, sickness, and other burdens believers face.[3]

The connection operates through Christ’s own example. The “law of Christ” echoes the teachings of Jesus and is exemplified in his life, with his self-sacrificial example particularly emphasized as the model for how believers should treat their neighbors.[1] The “law of Christ” is to love one another as he loves us—the new commandment he gave.[4] When you bear someone’s burden—whether emotional, physical, or spiritual—you embody this sacrificial love and thereby fulfill the law that Christ both taught and lived.

Jesus commanded his disciples to “love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another,” (John 13:34–35) and love fulfills the law, for the commandments are summed up in the word “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Rom 13:8–10)

[1] Abraham Kuruvilla, Privilege the Text! A Theological Hermeneutic for Preaching (Chicago, IL: Moody, 2013), 201–202.
[2] Tommy C. Higle, Journey into Believer Building, The Journey Series (Marietta, OK: Tommy Higle Publishers, Inc., 2007), 48.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 358.
[4] David Platt and Tony Merida, Exalting Jesus in Galatians (Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 2014), 127.

Explain why this phrase cannot mean that in the new covenant there is a 'new law' by way of a 'suite' of commands to obey. And how does this relate to what Jesus himself said about 'keeping my words'.

The search results clarify this distinction sharply. The words of Jesus do not constitute a new Torah for Paul—nowhere in Galatians or in the near context of 1 Corinthians 9:21 does Paul cite the words of Jesus as a new law for the Christian.[1] Rather, the law of Christ is not the new covenant version of the Mosaic law in which the hundreds of commands can now be kept through the Spirit; it is the manifestation and fulfillment of the law of love.[2]

This distinction matters because it addresses a fundamental shift in how divine authority operates. The law must be understood as part of the old creation and old covenant—the past age that is no longer normative. Paul’s argument is not only anthropological but also salvation-historical: the time period in which the Mosaic covenant was in force has passed away with the coming of Christ.[3] A “suite of commands” would reinstate that old covenant structure, which Paul explicitly rejects.

When Jesus speaks of “keeping my words,” he means something fundamentally different. The phrase “keeping Christ’s word” refers to the observance of the whole revelation in its organic completeness—the opposite of disregard or disbelief. He who “keeps” Christ’s “word” first attends to it, lets its significance sink into his mind, and then appropriates the revelation it brings by faith.[4] More specifically, these “commands” encompass all of Jesus’ words and teachings, which are God the Father’s words: “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching... These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.”[5]

The connection to bearing burdens emerges here: the commandments of the Old Testament have not been abrogated but rather internalized and reapplied through the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. All commandments of God are now internalized—written by the Spirit not on stone but on human hearts.[6] Obedience flows from transformed hearts responding to Christ’s revelation, not from external legal compliance.

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Law of Christ,” in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P. Martin, and Daniel G. Reid (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 543.
[2] Brian Vickers, Justification by Grace through Faith: Finding Freedom from Legalism, Lawlessness, Pride, and Despair, ed. Robert A. Peterson, Explorations in Biblical Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 178.
[3] Thomas R. Schreiner, Galatians, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010), 397.
[4] A. B. Macaulay, “Keeping,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Aaron–Zion, ed. James Hastings (Edinburgh; New York: T&T Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906), 1:926.
[5] Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered (Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021). [See here, here.]
[6] B. Ward Powers, First Corinthians: An Exegetical and Explanatory Commentary (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 205.

***

The 'Law of Christ' debate revisited

Introduction

It got quite heated! 

Amongst those who regard themselves as holding the position of New-Covenant Theology, some few years ago there was vigorous debate between two variants of the approach to God's word.

Briefly, for those not conversant, New-Covenant Theology (NCT) outlines how the 'system' of theology which is the framework of God's revelation through his word is the series and progression of God's covenants. And that all of them are fulfilled by the final Christ-covenant, instituted by the Son of God and  intiated at the Acts 2 Day of Pentecost, when the crucified-risen-ascended Christ poured out the promised Holy Spirit. Most significantly, NCT argues that it is the process of covenant which determines sections of history, not 'Dispensations' which external thought has imposed upon the Bible. Further, NCT proclaims that the Bible should define and determine its own terminology. Thus we cannot impose upon the word 'covenant' what a systematic theology - such as Covenant Theology - requires.

A summary of this straight approach to God's word might be stated in two sentences:

1. Let the Bible be its own system, and
2. Let the Bible determine its own dictionary

Thus far so good! But what derived from this common base was a consideration of the 'mechanics' of life in Christ. Under grace, not Law (the old covenant Law of Moses). Living in the Spirit. But did that mean that no 'law' at all was to be regarded as applying to believers? Some said "in the new covenant, we are under the 'law of Christ'". Others argued that even this did not adequately grasp the degree of freedom which walking in the Spirit brings; that Paul argues clearly that the new covenant is not a law covenant at all. Accusations of 'anti-nomianism' were levelled. If following Christ was not regulated by given commands, how was the believer to know anything about how to please God? Appeal was made to the one verse in the New Testament - Galations 6:2 - where Paul speaks of 'the law of Christ'. Oh, and the other verse in 1 Corinthians where he says in 9:21 that he is not without law, but is (as many translations have it) 'under the law of Christ'.

This debate I have covered in other posts on this blog. But subsequent to that, we are now in the age of AI - a massively powerful tool, which, if used wisely, can very quickly accomplish research which would take us far longer, and can draw from sources we might not have been aware of. As an avid user of Logos Bible Software, I make regular use of their own AI, knowing that the parameters are already there to confine sources to Biblical and Christian ones. So I decided to see what additional light might be thrown on this old debate.

'Ennomos' in 1 Corinthians 9

In this post, I'm going to be looking at the 1 Corinthians verse. I am increasingly aware of the importance of understanding what we have written in our Bibles in terms of the minds of its writers and its audience. WHO wrote this particular passage? And to WHOM? WHY did they write specifically 'that' in the way it was written? Purpose drives it. And must be understood if we are to accurately hear what the Holy Spirit had it recorded for us. We seek the:

Them - There -Then purpose

in order to grasp the

Us - Here - Now purpose

So let's remind ourselves of Paul's context. Here is the passage:

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.

• To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews.
• To those under the law I became as one under the law
  (though not being myself under the law)
  that I might win those under the law.
• To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (
  not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ)
  that I might win those outside the law.
• To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. 

I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.

I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings. "
(1 Corinthians 9:19–23)

I have addressed Paul's primary purpose in this passage (not insisting on his 'rights' and freedom in Christ) in other posts. Thus the reference to his position with regards 'law' is illustrative - secondary. It is not a major doctrinal assertion. If we are looking for that, we must look elsewhere.

Today, I want to look at the phrase 'under the law of Christ'. It translates the Greek which says that he is 'ennomos' to Christ - the words 'under the law' come from our translator's efforts. And noble though they undoubtedly are, I think it misrepresents something quite powerful. The Corinthians would have got it because they were living in the Roman world. This is where I got AI involved. What follows is what it returned in response to specific questioning, and I think it completely lifts the lid off that mysterious phrase. The first question helps us understand the background against which the church was living, and from which many of those now Christ's had been saved.

***

Tell me about the religio in the Roman world

Roman religio fundamentally meant aligning one’s thoughts and actions with conventional prudence, emphasizing practices over beliefs. This wasn’t primarily about personal conviction. For most Roman citizens, religion functioned as an expression of ethnic and geographical identity rather than private faith. 

The Roman system incorporated foreign cults within a syncretistic framework, requiring all religious practices to receive official state authorization1. Religions that rejected Rome’s law, order, and authority—or encouraged others to do so—faced violent suppression. 

The Romans understood religio broadly. Anything that called to mind one’s bonds and obligations—whether oaths, omens, laws, or traditions—could constitute a religio. The emotional dimension of religio encompassed fear, anxiety, and caution, as well as the guilt and shame resulting from breaking sacred bonds. 

A crucial distinction emerged between religio and superstitio. Religio was the official state cult binding the state to the gods, while superstitio referred to private faith that was tolerated unless it involved harmful actions or neglected official state religio. 

--- 

How did the idea of ennomos function in Roman religion, as authorised and licenced sacrifice to a god

The term ennomos means “legal” or “customary; within the law.” In the Roman religious context, this concept functioned as a crucial mechanism for legitimizing sacrifice and maintaining divine favor through proper procedure. 

Roman religious practice was characterized by an exacting legalism: ceremonies required precise execution according to exact prescriptions, and if errors occurred, the entire ritual had to restart from the beginning—a practice called instauratio—with these ceremonies recited from written texts. This procedural rigor meant that sacrifice operated within a framework of authorized, lawful practice. Only authorized cults could be practiced within Rome’s sacred boundary, the pomerium, and only there could the civil divinations be performed.

The authorization dimension was essential. Roman ancestors established fixed and customary ceremonies regulated by pontifical knowledge, with sacrifice functioning as a customary rite performed when proper authorization and procedure were observed. Sacrifice thus became a communication act—the worshiper appealed to the god through proper procedure and attitude—but only when conducted ennomos, within the legal and customary bounds established by state authority. 

Critically, the god’s acceptance remained unpredictable despite proper procedure; accepting sacrifice was a matter of divine choice, and sometimes the god declined to be gracious. Ennomos sacrifice thus represented the worshiper’s fulfillment of obligation—performing the legally prescribed ritual—but could not guarantee divine reciprocation. The term encapsulated Rome’s distinctive approach: religion as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to the divine order, rather than as a matter of personal conviction or assured divine response. 

How does this help our understanding of Paul's singular use of the word in 1 Corinthians where he describes himself as ennomos to Christ 

Paul’s use of ennomos Christou in 1 Corinthians 9:21 becomes strikingly innovative when read against the Roman religious background. Where Roman religio functioned as a system of authorized, procedurally correct obligations binding the state and its citizens to divine order—performed with exacting legalism and state sanction—Paul inverts the framework entirely. 

Paul appears to have created this term ennomos to describe his own position toward the law after his encounter with Jesus. Rather than positioning himself under Mosaic law or outside God’s jurisdiction altogether, Paul refuses to identify God’s law with the law of Moses, and more fundamentally, his obedience to God’s law occurs within the context of his relationship with Christ. 

The contrast illuminates Paul’s theological move. Roman religio demanded external compliance with prescribed forms—the correct words, the proper sequence, the authorized sacrifice. Yet Paul’s adherence to the law through Christ constitutes a spiritual experience of that law, avoiding both legalistic rigor and arbitrary anarchy through the internal action of the Holy Spirit. Where Rome’s ennomos meant “within legal bounds set by state authority,” Paul’s ennomos Christou means “bound to Christ’s authority”—a personal, relational constraint rather than an institutional one. 

If Paul is ennomos Christou, he is bound not only by certain teachings of Jesus but by all that Christ accomplished and represents, and within this submission to Christ’s law lies perfect freedom. This represents a radical recalibration: the procedural precision of Roman religion becomes the transformative relationship of Christian obedience. Paul is not bound by Mosaic jurisdiction but is bound to obey God as one living under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. 

 ***

So 'ennomos', in Roman life, was the sanctioned activity by which a citizen would interact with whatever god they were appealing to. A kind of official licence, without which the act of worship or petition - including sacrifice - was not authorised. It was the permitted bond between the supplicant and the deity. Note that last paragraph. Paul is not declaring that he is 'under a law'. He is announcing the new relationship to his living Saviour.

 

 

The Lord Jesus Christ is MY Good Shepherd - Psalm 23 through new covenant eyes!

What remains to be said about probably the most famous and well-known Psalm in the Bible - Psalm 23? And there is no doubt that so many have done the job much better than I ever could. Nevertheless, It is these six verses that have been speaking to my heart recently. The trouble with Scripture which is so well-known and familiar is that we can somehow look past it. The Lord often uses the same parts of his word in new and fresh ways, applying them to our specific circumstances in that wonderful way that His Holy Spirit has of speaking to our hearts. If I had to give this short and inadequate comment a more succinct title, perhaps it could be "A sheep's view of the Good Shepherd".

You see, I have tended to read these wonderful words with a kind of technical and analytical perspective. I am not a shepherd, neither do I have any natural knowledge of that world he would move in. And so I must enquire as to how what is said here works. First, to see it from the point of view of the man in that particular walk of life. Then to see how it reflects God's relationship with me. David, of course, grew up as a shepherd and knew all about it. What I attempt here is to see things from the sheep's view.

It is very special that shepherd David writes about his Shepherd. We know so much more about who He is - we see plainly the One who was promised. We have a fuller picture. So it is no surprise to find the Lord speaking of Himself in such a way, in John ch 10. We must remember that the chapter divisions are artificial. What has just taken place? A healed blind man has just been thrown out of the synagogue for the dreadful offence of having been healed on the Sabbath.  It is to the Pharisees who have brought this about that Jesus begins to speak about shepherds. Oh, and of thieves and robbers and hired hands who care nothing for the sheep.

Think of this poor man, who is disfellowshipped because of his leaders' blindness. In the closing verses of chapter 9, we find Jesus speaking to him again and plainly telling him just who it was who laid His hands on his eyes. The man has been thrown out. But in the place of that flawed community, he has found ... the ultimate One to follow. The Good Shepherd. First, he has heard the Shepherd's voice, when he had no sight. Now, he looks on the One who had spoken to him.

How lost the people of our world are. Such busy lives, filled with all manner of things, all kinds of different voices, giving so many garbled messages - but no solace for the soul. What a lonely busy-ness that is! And what a thrill to discover the Voice of the Shepherd. "My sheep know my voice", He says. And He calls them. And they follow Him. Psalm 23 is all about the results of that discovery. The song of the sheep!

Christ Alone!

- revisiting the Law of Christ debate

I can hear restless sighs and exclamations of 'oh no, not that again'! I understand. It is tedious to revive dispute long after it seems that things have settled - not least the clouds of dust raised by the to-and-fro of ongoing argument. Perhaps (I hope and pray) I have mellowed, at least in my 'passion' over the subject. But I haven't had my view altered. Not one bit.

The question in dispute was "are we as believers in any sense 'under law'?" What is this 'law of Christ' which Paul mentions in Galatians 6 vs 2?

"Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks they are something when they are not, they deceive themselves. Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else, for each one should carry their own load."

This is the only verse in all of the New Testament where that phrase is used (the 1 Corinthians 9 verse says something totally different, in a completely different context. Not helpful to string two verses together and elaborate them into a whole 'system'). I still contend that in the context of the whole of Galatians, with Paul's considerably strong insistence that believers should not consider themselves as living 'under law', we simply cannot make this one verse reverse (sorry!) his whole argument's direction. 

'Fulfillment Theology

Second, I argue that the word 'fulfill' here is vitally important. We know that Christ has 'fulfilled' the Mosaic law. And thus what has resulted means that that Law is obsolete - redundant. Jesus states that He upholds all of it. It is not a write-off. But it has been exceeded; superceded; transcended by a greater and more glorious principle. A new dynamic by which the believer's life in Him now operates. We no longer live by law-obedience. We live by keeping in step with the Spirit. And in this final section of Galatians, Paul argues that we mirror the sin-bearing aspects of our Saviour in helping our brothers and sisters who are struggling with 'a sin'. Not that we in any way do for them what Christ alone does - has done. - He alone died for sins; we have no need to But we have His heart, His mind, in that we set ourselves to 'seek and to save' our erring brother. We work to 'carry' his burdens, sharing the weight (but not the sinning). So, in the language Paul so ably employs, we do not 'keep' this law of Christ, we 'fulfill' it. This is the action of the loving heart which is created in the child of God. It disposes us to go far far further than any commandment could require us to. When the believer behaves in this way, in every sense he or she completes the new commandment of Jesus that we love one another 'as I have loved you'. Effectively, we are laying down our lives for them.

Illustrations

My simple mind looks for ways to see this. 

Here is a caterpillar. A crawling grub, earthbound, mono-coloured. Now consider what it will become. In a few short weeks its being is transformed. One would not easily link it with its former state. Now it is a beautiful, graceful coloured-winged marvel. Now it rides the breezes above the ground to which it was once bound. But look more closely. Examination shows that you can still make out the previous form - of the caterpillar. 

Life in the Spirit - is that in complete ignorance of the righteous requirements God commands in the lives of the former testament?  No, that former law pointed towards what would be the ultimate shape of what would come - it was a shadow. Everything the former scheme was aiming at is now achieved - and exceeded - by what God has brought about in the effusion of His own Spirit - Christ is the substance.  The believer is being transformed daily to become more like the Saviour himself.  The seed - the shape of 'law' has died. What grows from it is vibrant, sun-seeking and vigorous. It bursts into the light - and keeps going upwards. It has the power to crack concrete. But first, the seed must die.

To attempt to restrict the 'style' of the transformed life in Christ to mere law-living is precisely what Jesus himself describes when he refers to the futility of trying to contain new wine in old wineskins. To attempt it will result in disaster. We need new theology to search out and explore new covenant.

Greater Glory

 This is the same comparison Paul makes in comparing the 'glory' (revealed splendour) of the Law to the appearing of the Son in 2 Corinthians 3:

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!"

Here is how we are to place 'law-living' by the side of Christ-living'. The former does not have the vocabulary to define toe latter. It is all Christ, and Christ alone. To reduce living in Him to a set of rules, in the place of the freedom of the Spirit detracts from that focus. 

And that, my friends, is why I contend so passionately for the theology of the Christ-covenant.

In wide-eyed wonder ...

Have you ever visited a stunningly awesome and immense and majestic building? Perhaps with the knowledge of all the major historic and current events which it has seen, and the important figures who have walked within it's walls. And as you meander through, taking it all in, the sound of your own footfall seems so small and tentative in the light of the such great, world-changing events it has witnessed.

Sometimes my praying, my feeble effort to walk with Christ feels bit like that. The echo of my own steps being dwarfed by the cosmic nature of what I'm now included in. But then I suddenly realise where I am in Him. That this - all this - is no mere monument. This is my home.