... 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.