(Walter J.. Chantry I Banner of Truth, 1980, 149pp.)  

By John Zens

Banner of Truth announces that this book is a "painstaking exposition of the Scripture." The Scriptures are used to defend the Christian faith as summarized in the "noble creeds" regarded as acceptable (p.149). While Mr. Chantry says many good and Scriptural things in the course of his study, the core of his book is weakened by an utter failure to deal with the issues raised by the two "distorted parties" he attacks (p.11). His presentation of what both parties believe is not at all accurate, and therefore what he attacks is for the most part made of straw, not substance.

I cannot interact with this book without first briefly outlining some past history. After the appearance of my articles, "Is There A 'Covenant of Grace'?" and "Crucial Thoughts On 'Law' in the New Covenant," Mr. Chantry wrote and accused me - without any documentation - of "classic Antinomianism . . . . the view of Tobias Crisp. . . almost identical to more recent dispensational antinomianism" ( July 12, 1978 ). In a lengthy reply of August 1, 1978 , I tried to identify the marks of historical Antinomianism, and assured him that I did not believe these things. I sent him copies of both articles and requested that he isolate the portions that he thought taught "classic Antinomianism," so that I could see just how he arrived at that conclusion. No reply was ever received. (I printed most of my reply to Mr. Chantry in the Winter, 1978, Vol.7, #4, BRR, pp.50-51, in answer to the question, "Is your position in any way similar to historic Antinomianism, as found, for example, in the 17th century Baptist, Tobias Crisp?").

Then in June, 1979, at the Reformed Baptist Family Conference, Mr. Chantry presented four lectures on the Kingdom of God . In the course of these messages, he named names (Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Zens, etc.), and hurled accusations at these "two extremes." It was announced that the substance of these messages would appear in a forthcoming book. After listening to the tapes, I wrote Mr. Chantry, cited much of what he imputed to me, and pleaded with him not to go into print with such flagrant misrepresentations (August 22, 1979). In his reply of September 6, 1979 , he indicated no need to modify any of his accusations.

After the book God's Righteous Kingdom appeared I isolated fifteen accusations made therein, and asked Pastor Chantry to document such sweeping generalities as, "no moral law applicable to Christians may be found in the Old Testament" (p.73) [December 1, 1980]. In his reply of December 10, 1980 , he brushed aside the need for specific documentation by saying, "for substantiation of what I have to say, I could quote almost the entirety of the articles that you have printed in 'Baptist Reformation Review.'" Further, he viewed my pleas for documentation as "quibbling about words, a mere strife about terminology that has no point to it."

It is necessary to give this brief overview because in his book Mr. Chantry continues the trend in his 1etters: he makes many strong accusations, but does not back them up with any specific documentation. Further, he never identifies who he is attacking in this book, and thus the reader is given only the strawmen constructed by Mr. Chantry's presentation of the "two extremes." However, these representations cannot be trusted for they are grossly inaccurate.

Even though this book is filled with colorful rhetoric ("Those who spurn the bones of the Decalogue give their Bible students no ribs to support the moral flesh of Scripture," p.82), interacting with it provides an opportunity to work toward the teaching of Christ in a positive way.

"Introduction" (pp. 7-12)

Mr. Chantry states that' 'one department of pastoral duty is to watch over and warn the flock off God" (p.9). Since he believes men have arisen "in ranks that are called 'Reformed' speaking perverse things" (p.9), he feels constrained to sound notes of warning "lest the sheep stray to the right hand or to the left into paths of danger" (p.9).

While the concern Mr. Chantry expresses is commendable, his method is manifestly non-Pauline. Would Paul leave those speaking perverse things unnamed? Mr. Chantry, unlike Paul, refuses to identify "the distorted parties" (p.11). “Though it would not be wrong to identify them, it has been decided not to do so" (p .11). Mr. Chantry's pastoral concern would be manifested by naming those who he alleges threaten "the rising beam of God's glorious working in our day" (p.11).

At the end of his book, Mr. Chantry calls the churches to "return to the careful study of the law and the gospel" (p.149). But at the outset of this work, he discourages such study by stating, "if any reader has never heard of the counterfeits, he need not study them. Familiarity with the true currency of heaven should suffice him" (p.12). It remains to be seen if God's Righteous 'Kingdom is a presentation of heaven's "true currency," especially since he has neither identified the "counterfeits," nor convinced his readers by careful documentation that these parties are guilty of the "perverted thinking" he imputes to them.

"The Spirituality of the Kingdom of God " (pp.15-38)

In this section, Mr. Chantry makes many valid and accurate observations about God's kingdom. Perhaps the tension Mr. Chantry presents between the spiritual and the natural is overstated. His statement, "when man fell, he raised animal desires above a longing for spiritual realities" (p.20), sounds dangerously like the Roman Catholic doctrine that man was created with a propensity toward evil. I was not aware that before the fall Adam possessed latent "animal desires."

Another tension arises throughout the book. On the one hand, he rejects any political dimension in the gospel. On the other hand, he exults in the Puritan piety. Thus Chantry condemns in principle the very thing the Chalcedon movement points out was central in Puritanism: "they are calling for a closing of ranks into a solid union to make whole states or nations Christian. A few are blatantly suggesting that we pray and work for a new theocracy" (p37). Would Chantry openly condemn the Puritans for the "new Israels " they sought to establish? He must if he condemns the Reconstructionists for the same goal.

"Stages in the Coming of the Kingdom of God " (pp.41-62)

 In this section, Mr. Chantry discusses the relationship of the kingdom to the "past and present," and the "present and future."

“Our great Redeemer and the New Testament,” says the author, "never speak of the kingdom as being in existence before the Messiah's coming" (p.41). What about Matt.21:43? “Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof ." Does this verse not indicate that there was an administration of God's kingdom prior to Christ's coming (cf. R.C.H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel, p.844)? This does not detract from the newness of Christ's kingdom, but it does mean that there was apparently an administration of God's kingdom in the old age.

On pp.43-44, Mr. Chantry makes several accusations - the kind of undocumented accusations that characterize the whole book. "Others would jettison did Testament Scriptures entirely, making them merely amusing artifacts of another era, usefu1 only when the New Testament repeats them in full. . . . [These people] without 'warrant teach that when God makes a new covenant with men, he utterly cancels the terms of former arrangements.'1 I have nowhere made statements that would substantiate these sweeping generalities, and I have made positive remarks that contradict these ideas that Mr. Chantry imputes to me.

Mr. Chantry evidences massive confusion by saying, "He did not come to stamp 'cancelled' across the pages of the Old Testament but to bring that covenant to full fruition'" (p.44). The New Testament teaches that the old covenant (that is, the Mosaic covenant) was indeed "taken away,'" or “abolished" (Heb:10:9; 8:13 ; 1 Cor.3:11,13). But the Old Testament (that is, the Scriptures) remain, for they testify of Christ, the new age, and righteous behavior (John 5:39 ,46; Luke 24:27,44; 1 Pet.1:12; 1 Cor.10:11, 2 Tim. 3:16 ). The Abrahamic promise-covenant is not annulled by the addition of the Mosaic law-covenant (Gal.3:16-17). The law-covenant can be "taken away" by fulfillment without ruining the promise to Abraham. To equate Old Testament with old covenant is a serious mistake. The Scriptures obviously distinguish the two.

Mr. Chantry leads the reader to believe that the only alternative to covenant theology is dispensational ism. Further, he implies that the only way to affirm salvation by faith in all ages is to accept all that has been packed into the "covenant of grace" concept (pp.45-46). But one can deny dispensational ism and the "covenant of grace" (as defined variously by covenant theologians) without denying justification by faith in all ages. Mr. Chantry fails to deaf with the unjustified use of the "covenant of grace" by theologians to support infant baptism, "Holy Commonwealths," and other unbiblical doctrines (cf. my "An Examination of the I Covenant and Dispensational Theology," Sword & Trowel, Oct., Dec., 1980). The "covenant of grace" means much more to the system of covenant theology than just salvation by faith in all ages (p.46). One seminary student summed it up to me like this:

My basic concern is hermeneutics. . . . There seems to be one all embracing hermeneutical principle for them [covenant theologians] - covenant. I find this frustrating, since covenant is very definitely the model God has used to accomplish His redemptive purposes; but they seem to: (1) make a "general" covenant structure stand over all of Scripture; (2) ignore the genuine "newness; of the covenant in Jesus' own blood (cf. Jer.31; Heb.8); (3) fail to realize that there must be a more basic consideration than covenant. Covenant is a "model," or "means" of bringing about God's redemptive promise - but it is not that promise itself. The Scriptures center on Christ, not a covenant -even covenant itself must reveal Christ. In approaching the Scripture in this fashion, I think that "covenant theology" has forced Christ to .a position of secondary importance, and I believe the errors of Dispensationalism to not be a real threat - we still assert the unity of Scripture, but not by an artificial model, rather by the very heart of its message (Personal letter , Oct. 18, 1980).

Again, Chantry condemns those who "recently" have taught "that there is such identity between the Testaments, that Mosaic standards of life are the institutions of God for society in all ages'! (p.4l). But the Puritans taught this (cf. W.B. Selbie, "The Influence of the Old Testament On Puritanism," BRR, Vol.8, #3)! Is Pastor Chantry prepared to condemn the attempted "imposition of Biblical law" that characterized Puritan societies? Their close identity of the two Testaments is not "recent." The Reconstructionists are simply resurrecting the political dimension in Puritanism, which the Banner of Truth reprints have omitted.

"Righteousness in the Kingdom of God " (pp:65-138)

After laying the foundational aspects of the kingdom, the bulk of the book is concerned to deal with "law" in this kingdom. Mr. Chantry makes many valid observations in this section, but his "moral 'law" approach to ethics needs to be carefully examined.

Mr. Chantry is rightly concerned to answer such questions as "where is the moral perfection of our infinite Maker defined or summarized?" (p. 68). "Where do I learn my moral duty?" (p.69). "What are the righteous acts demanded of Christians in sanctified behavior?" (p.69).

But Chantry's use of Scripture to establish one moral law is questionable. He uses 1 John 3:4 to assert "that there is a moral code which defines righteousness and sin. 'Sin is the transgression of the law'" (p.69; cf. p.77). Literally, this reads "sin is lawlessness." The Greek word is anomia. It is a catch-word for all forms of wickedness. It is arbitrary on Mr. Chantry's part to automatically link this word to an objective code, the Ten Commandments. For example, in Matt.7:22-23, religious people mention that they have prophesied, cast out devils and worked wonders "in His name."

But Christ replies, "depart from Me, you who are working iniquity" (anomian). Is the wickedness mentioned here specifically related to the violation of some code? W. Gutbrod notes concerning the word anomia:

In the New Testament anomia has the same range as elsewhere. In the plural (only in quotations), it means the simple sinful act; in this connection no thought is given to its association with the law as the yardstick by which the deed in question is shown to be sin. . . . Service to sin .leads to a general condition of anomia… Since Paul is speaking here [2 Cor.6:14] to a. . . community which is not tied to the standard of the OT law, it is evident that here anomia does not derive its chief meaning from the OT, but means simply sin, unrighteousness. . . . {There is not in the use of anomia in 1 John, 3:4] a reference to the OT law inherent in the word (Law, Bible Key Words from TONT [London, 1962], pp.136, 137, 138).

1 John 3:4 is a crucial verse in Chantry's thought to establish that sin is conceived of in terms of violating the Ten Commandments. But exegetically this is a tenuous position.

Rom.3:20, "by the law is the knowledge of sin," is used by Mr. Chantry to prove that "repentance. . . requires a use of the moral law to designate sin and holiness" (p.70). While the Ten Commandments are part of "the law," Paul here in this context means the whole Old Testament by the word "law" (cf. John Murray, Romans, Vol. l, pp.240,105). Chantry says, "this moral law comes 'that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God’" (p.70). But in one of the longest quotations from the Old Testament, Paul had just cited, not the Ten Commandments, but the Psalms and Isaiah (vv.10-18). The "law" here cannot be equated with the Ten Commandments, which Chantry mistakenly does.

Mr. Chantry also narrows the word "law" in Rom.3:31 to mean the "moral law." Yet, it is quite natural to take this verse to mean that the "law of faith" ( 3:27 ) is not contrary to the law and prophets, but taught in them (3:21b). Paul goes on in Rom.4 to show that the Old Testament establishes justification "without law" (3:21a), using Abraham and David as examples.

On p.72 .Chantry presents the Reformed perspective on the law in the believer's life: in justification he is no longer under the condemnation of the law, but in sanctification he is under the law as a guide. But Paul teaches that the believer is not "under law" in sanctification (Rom.6:14- 15). One must be "under grace" in order for the non-dominion of sin to be a reality in his life. Chantry suggests that nothing but the moral law can define for us what sanctified behavior is" (p.72). That is simply not true. The writers of the New Testament feel at ease by referencing holy behavior to the person and work of Jesus Christ (Phil.2:5; Rom.15:3; 2 Cor. 8:9; 1 John 3:16; 4:10-11; 1 Pet.2:21-23). As Robert D. Brinsmead puts it so beautifully:

Paul virtually never appears to the law - "Thou shalt not kill.” When he demands certain behavior of the church, he appeals instead to the holy history of Christ, into which the church is incorporated, and from that standpoint then makes his ethical appeal (Judged By the Gospel, p.213).

This does not mean that Exodus 20 is worthless; but it does radically qualify the dogmatic assertion of Mr. Chantry that nothing but the "moral law" can define holy behavior.

Mr. Chantry asserts that "a neo-dispensational approach makes the coming of Christ the starting point of modern ethics. Such hatchet exegesis regards the OT only as an interesting history book" (p.73). I believe that my Lord Jesus Christ clearly asserted that indeed He is the starting point of ethics for the new age. Moses tells us to listen to the words of Christ (Deut. 18:15 ,18). God the Father tells us to hear His Son (Matt.17:5). The Son Himself tells us to fulfill His law (Gal.6:2), that is, the "new commandment" of love (John 13:34 ), "even as I have loved you" (cf. 1 John 3:16 - 18; 4:7-11). I have stated repeatedly that Jesus did not bring a new ethic which was completely divorced from the grand ethic of the OT - love to God and neighbor (Matt.7:12; Luke 10:27-28; Gal.5:14). However, just as the Egyptian exodus was the redemptive starting point for Israel 's morality, so the exodus of Christ in His death, burial and resurrection is the redemptive starting point for the new Israel .

Mr. Chantry seeks to show that the "moral law" has existed since Adam (pp.77-88). "Moral law was first inscribed on the very soul of man at creation" (p..78). Question: if the Ten Commandments, or the gist of them, were on man's heart, how do we account for the fact that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27 )? If Adam was created with an innate motivation for Sabbath-keeping, was he not then made for the Sabbath?

"The Book of God," Chantry says, ''as a whole delivers a great collection of moral statements. Thus the moral law may be recovered by a diligent search of the Bible" (p.79; cf. p.82). "What should we say about [systems] of 'propositional ethics'?" asks Robert D. Brinsmead. He replies, "the entire concept of a bare 'propositional revelation' (in either ethics or theology) is very unsatisfactory because it wrenches revelation loose from its redemptive-historical context" (Judged By the Gospel, p.209).

Mr. Chantry makes the amazing statement, "our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and definitive code of morality" (p.81). He goes on to say that in the Sermon on the Mount, "the greatest Prophet produced no new standard" (p.81). While it must be stressed that Jesus was in absolute continuity with the OT ethic, even in this Sermon there is a new standard: some of the OT policies are changed - "you have heard that it has been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth' [Exod.21 :24; Lev.24:20; Deut.19:21]: But I say to you, that you resist not evil: but whoever will hit you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt.5:38- 39). Furthermore, in John 13:34 , 15:12 -13, Jesus gives a new standard which is to be determinative for the Christian ethic - "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you." The Lord Jesus - His person, His work, and His 'mind' - is our reference point for holy behavior.

Even Mr. Chantry confesses this: "His perfect personal example is a crowning expression of the moral will of God for man. No higher exhibit of the righteousness of God may be sought. 'Follow me' from His lips sums up all the duty of man" (p.80). Yet he seems to subordinate Christ to the law-giving at Sinai by saying that it "is uniquely suited to serve a critical function for God's people, which all other engravings of the moral law could not perform" (p.80, emphasis mine). He seems to see Sinai as superior to one of these "engravings," namely, "the life .of our Lord Jesus Christ" which "was the first biographical inscription of the moral law" (p.79; cf. pp. 82-83).

"Once deny that the Decalogue is a synopsis of the moral law and men are sent into a haze of imprecise ethics. They are adrift, without a definitive objective standard by which to judge righteousness" (p.80). Is the "mind of Christ" (1 Cor.2:16; Phil.2:5) Imprecise? Further, if the Sabbath, the fourth commandment, is no longer a norm of judgment for Christians (Col.2:16), how can the Decalogue be an unqualified "definitive objective . standard" of righteousness?

"Those who snipe at the Ten Commandments never give their hearers an objective canon of moral law to follow. Thus the hearers of anti-law men are cast back upon the uncertain resources of a depraved conscience and a personal judgment arising from a perverse heart" (p.81). The person of Christ, the work of Christ, and the words of Christ constitute the "objective canon" set before Christians in the NT (1 Pet.2:21; Matt.7:24-29; Acts 3:22 - 23). Further, is it correct to refer to the believer's conscience as "depraved," and his heart as "perverse"'? I thought the new covenant brought a new heart and a renewed mind. Our hearts and consciences alone are certainly no safe guides; but all Christians have an inner disposition that is tuned in to the voice of Christ in Scripture (John 10:4,5,16,27). Thus, Paul had confidence that when he spoke Christ's commandments to them, they would respond positively (i.e., 2 Thess,3:4).

Mr. Chantry hesitates to make Christ our standard by saying that "a study of Jesus' life is complex. . . . nowhere in the Gospels is all of our Lord's righteousness gathered up into a condensed formula" (pp.82-83). However, he has previously admitted that it is an equally complex matter to figure out what is binding and what is not in the OT, which is where the Ten Commandments are located (p.43). So, in Chantry's thinking, the Ten Commandments end up being a more basic guide "to serve as a rule in our finite judgment" than the Lord Jesus Himself (p.83). Why must Christ's righteousness be gathered up into a "condensed formula," when he admits that "children are not prepared for the abstract. They must be confined to external, concrete, and elementary things" (p.108). Christians are mature sons, not children (p.109).

"Only those who have been unable to shake off the mental categories given them by the Decalogue have avoided dire heresies" (p.83). This is not true. Seventh-day Adventists, Herbert Armstrongites, and other legalistic groups, uphold the Decalogue but are trapped in a mire of heresies! Holding to the Decalogue will not insulate anyone from heresies.

"How varied are the systems which claim to imitate Jesus! But what defines his holiness? A golden rule? Tender moments with the children? Is there an objective expression of the righteousness of Christ?" (p.83). The objective expression of God's righteousness is found in the historical manifestation of Christ (Rom.3:21-26). It is the total self-giving of Christ on the cross that brings with it the most pervasive and comprehensive moral imperative that can be imagined: "in this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent His only begotten Son into the world. . . . Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another" (1 John 4:9-11). To imitate Jesus is not vague and foggy, as Mr. Chantry would lead us to believe. The NT writers believed that this objective manifestation of righteousness was sufficient to press home any duty upon the Christian conscience (cf. Dennis Winter, "Motivation in Christian Behavior," Law, Morality and the Bible [IVP, 1978], pp.211-212).

Mr. Chantry's language seems to take lightly the "golden rule" (p.83). We should keep in mind, and perhaps be amazed, that in Jesus' simple maxim, ''as you would that men should do to you, do also to them likewise," is the entire OT ethic: "for this is the law and prophets" (Matt.7:12; Luke 6:31). We do not need a manual' of morality to guide us in our relationships with others. If those "under grace" apply what is called the "golden rule" to interpersonal relationships, they simply cannot go wrong.

John 16:8-11 - The Spirit's Ministry

Pastor Chantry uses John 16:8 as proof that "in the task of bringing men into the kingdom, the moral law and the gospel are the two major instruments in the arsenal of the Spirit" (p.90). However, there is nothing in the text to indicate that the Spirit will take the law and convince men of sin. Rather, all three elements of conviction are Christ-centered: "it should not be overlooked that all three aspects of the work of the Holy Spirit dealt with in these verses are interpreted Christologically. Sin, righteousness and judgment are all to be understood because of the way they relate to Christ" (Leon Morris, Commentary on the Gospel of John, p.699). There is no example in the Book of Acts where any part of the Decalogue was preached in order to convict men of sin. Rather, the OT was used to preach Christ.

Thus James Buchanan in his book on the Holy Spirit states in regard to john 16:8-11: 'lit may be safely affirmed that it is by the Spirit's witness to Christ that he is first brought to see the magnitude of his guilt. . . . Christ's exaltation. . . is sufficient. . . to carry home conviction of sin" (p.64, emphasis mine).

Romans 7:7

Pastor Chantry says that Rom.7:7 refers to Paul's "conversion experience" (p.91). But what hint is there in this context that this experience "drove him to Christ"? Rather, it drove him to frustration, and only stirred up sin in his soul (7:8). The context would indicate that Paul is explaining what it is like to be "under law," while he was "in the flesh" (7:5). " Rom. 7:1-6 says John Murray, is to connected with what the apostle had stated in 6:14" (Romans, Vol.l, p.239). Here Paul shows that one must die to the law in order to be married to another (7:3). The\believer, Paul says, becomes dead to the law through union with Christ (7:4). Rom.7:5 describes a situation "under law": "for when we were in the flesh [not in the Spirit, ct. Rom.8:9]. the passions of sins, which were by the law [d. 7:8], did work in our members to bring forth fruit to death [cf.7:9-11,13]." Rom.7:6 describes 6:14: "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of Spirit, and not in oldness of the letter ." For a very helpful treatment on this subject, I refer you to Ronald Y.K. Fung, "The Impotence of the Law: Toward a Fresh Understanding of Rom.7:14-25," Scripture, Tradition and Interpretation, W. Ward Casque, William S. LaSor eds. [Eerdmans, 1978], pp.34-48.

I Cor .13:1-7 - "the greatest of these is love"

Referring to the two great commandments, love to Cod and neighbor, Mr. Chantry says, "the summary gives no outline whatever as to how love may be expressed to Cod or man. Though an important commentary on the Sinai code, even this cannot replace the Ten Commandments" (p.96, note 1). First, this comment reverses what Christ says. Jesus states that on these two great commandments "hang" everything in the OT, not everything "hangs'! on the Ten Commandments. The great commandments are not a commentary on the Ten; the Ten were a concrete expression of the two in the old covenant community.

Pastor Chantry says that though love is necessary for a proper keeping of commandments, "this does not mean that love is all that needs to be commanded" (p.96). With the backdrop of Calvary , Christ commanded us to love (John 15:12 -13). True love will fulfill anything required in the law (Gal.5:14; Rom.13:8,10). Love will do nothing contrary to what is "right." In this sense, Jove is more basic than law. Even if there were (speaking hypothetically) no written law-code anywhere, a loving man would still be "patient, kind, non-envious, non-boastful, not proud, not rude, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeping no record of wrongs, rejoicing in truth not iniquity, always protecting, trusting, hoping, persevering" (1 Cor .13:4- 7). Thus, in the final analysis, love is self-defining. The law does not tell love what it will be; love is patient, not self-seeking, etc. This does not eliminate the need for commandments in Cl1ristian experience, for "this is the love of Cod, that we keep His commandments" (1 John 5:3). But the "new," singular commandment of Christ is the very thing 1 Cor.13:4-7 describes: love (John 13:34 ). Jesus commands us to love! The "law of Christ," therefore, is "love" (Gal.6:2).

I fail to see how Mr. Chantry can say that the Ten Commandments are the "rule of life in the world to come" (p.98). They presuppose the existence of sin, and, as Jonathan Edwards pointed out, heaven will be a world of love. There will be no need for law.

Gal.3:15 - 4:11 - "The Covenant Administration of Moses"

In this section, Mr. Chantry unfolds his understanding of Gal.3:15-4:11 (pp.101"112). He suggests that Gal.: 3:24 - "the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ" - refers to the "Mosaic order," not to the "moral law." This conclusion means that the proof text (cited often in Puritan writings) for teaching that law must be preached before the gospel, is invalid. "This illustration is widely understood to mean that the moral law brings conviction of sin to a man's heart and thus was a schoolmaster to send him to Christ for grace. That is a truth taught in the Bible. Yet it is not the truth taught in Gal.3:24-25. To hold on to that interpretation will fog the entire passage" (p.101). Historically, Gal.3:24 stands as the central proof text for the necessity of law-preaching (cf. Charles Bridges, The Christian Ministry, pp.222-238). If this "truth" is not taught here, where is it taught?

"Paul repeatedly asserts that there is no conflict between grace in Abraham and the Mosaic order or covenant administration" (p.105). While justification by faith is a constant in redemptive history, Paul does unequivocally state, "And the law is not of faith; but, The man that does them shall live in them" (Gal.3:12). Is there not some discontinuity that Paul sees when comparing the Abrahamic promise and the Mosaic law-covenant? It does not appear that Paul has in view any Jewish perversion of the law; he is speaking about the essence of the Mosaic economy as a covenant administration.

I believe that Mr. Chantry would be hard pressed to prove that "both ceremonial and judicial statutes of the OT are firmly anchored in the moral law" (p.118). How would not sowing a field with mingled seed, or not wearing a garment mingled with linen and wool be rooted in the "moral law" (lev.19:19)?

"Is There An Abiding Sabbath in the Kingdom?" (pp.125-138)

As I have said before, "the whole matter really boils down to this: is the Sabbath commandment carried over into the New Testament?" (BRR, Vol.8, #4, p.46). While Chantry avers that I "would prefer to demolish the only Biblical summary of moral obligation, the Ten Commandments" (p. 125, emphasis mine), the fact is I have repeatedly stated that nine of the ten are obviously restated. But there is, and always has been debate over the nature of the Sabbath commandment.

Mr. Chantry's attempt to demonstrate a Sunday "Christian Sabbath" is hardly convincing. He argues that the Gospels are replete with Christ's teaching on the Sabbath (pp.125-126). However, this would only prove, that we should continue a Saturday Sabbath, for that was the "Sabbath" Christ observed.

Mr. Chantry cites the verses where the Sabbath is compared to "ceremonial" law (pp.127-128). But again I would observe:

Matt.12:5 seems to incisively challenge this sentiment [that the Sabbath is a "moral" law]. In this verse we are informed that the priests "profaned" the Sabbath days, yet were "blameless" (cf. Mark 2:23 - 28). Will Sunday Sabbatarians please explain how, if the Sabbath is a "moral law," it can be technically violated yet not bring guilt upon the v1olator? Which of the other nine commandments could be broken and yet the violator be held guiltless? Does this not highlight the fact that, as Col.2:17 states, the Sabbath was included among the "shadows" of the old era? I s the Sabbath not put on the same level as the ceremonial shewbread in Matt.12:3-4? If the Sabbath was a "sign" of the covenant relationship between God and Israel , then this accounts for its centrality in the Decalogue. If it is a "shadow," the "reality" of which is Christ, then this accounts for why it is no longer a binding commandment for Christians (BRR, Vol.8, #4, p.47).

"Any external stipulation which makes ridiculous and harmful demands of men was never a part of God's command .to cease from one's own labors on his day" (p.128). But is Mr. Chantry prepared to condemn the many Puritan Sabbatarian rules which fall into these categories? For example:

Captain Kemble of Boston was in 1656 set for two hours in the public stocks for his "lewd and unseemly behavior," which consisted in his kissing his wife "publicly" on the Sabbath day, upon the doorsteps of his house, when he had just returned from a voyage and absence of three years (Alice Morse Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England [New York, 1893], p.247; cf. p.246 for a list of Sabbath violations and accompanying punishments: .. A Plymouth man, for attending to his tarpits on the Sabbath, was set in the stocks. . . . A Dunstable soldier, for 'wetting a piece of an old hat to put in his shoe' to protect his foot. . . was fined, and paid forty shillings.").

"Labor has always pleased God on his sabbath when it is directed at his worship and service and at providing men with pressing necessities" (p.129). This statement fails to reckon with the historical fact that many Christians in the early church worked at their regular jobs on Sunday (cf. Paul K. Jewett, The Lord's Day, pp.71, 125, 145, 151). Thus, the Christian meetings were early in the morning or in the evening.

Mr. Chantry asserts that "no such suggestion is given that he [Jesus] is greater than the sabbath, or that he is the true sabbath, the weekly day being but a shadow" (p.131). However, does Mr. Chantry forget that the Sabbath is compared to ceremonial shewbread, and was a commandment which could at times be broken without guilt? "To the contrary, our King notified us of his lordship over the sabbath day. This speaks of his authority in regulating the abiding law of a sabbath day. It is a very small step for disciples to call the sabbath 'the Lord's day' (Rev.1 :10)" (p.131). But there is no NT evidence that Sunday is ever called the "Sabbath," and even in post-apostolic times several hundred years elapsed before the Sabbath was connected with Sunday (Jewett, p.50). The "first day" is distinguished from the Saturday Sabbath by the Greek phrase mia sabbaton, "first after the Sabbath." It is indeed a large step, lacking any exegetical support, to "call the sabbath 'the Lord's day"'!

Mr. Chantry chides those who designate the Sabbath as ceremonial "with a casual wave of the hand" (p.132). Yet with a casual wave of the hand he denies the connection of the Sabbath to the seventh-day (pp.132- 133). Honesty with the Old and New Testament data demands that a specific day, not a one-in-seven principle, be connected with the Sabbath (cf. Sakae Kubo, "Man's First Full Day," Ministry, Nov., 1980, p.17). The "Sabbath" day in the NT clearly refers to Saturday and never to Sunday. But Chantry believes that the seventh-day is not "of the essence of morality" (p.132), and that to hold to seventh-day worship defies "an apostolic example and command of first day worship (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor.16:2; Rev. 1:10" [p.132]. But these three texts are a weak case to establish mandatory Sunday worship, and to designate Sunday as the "Sabbath" (cf. Samuele Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath To Sunday, pp.90-131; D. Vincent Price, "Searching For the Imperative," BRR, Vol.9, #4, pp.12-31).

"In his resurrection, his personal communion with the saints from then until his ascension, and in his giving of the Spirit, care is taken to emphasize that all was done on the first day of the week" (p.132, emphasis mine). This is simply not the case. It is not at all clear that the resurrection itself took place on Sunday (cf. Matt.28:1; Price, p.22). Not all of His appearances took place on Sunday. "He was seen at least eleven times after He rose again," writes J .C. Ryle, "at different times of day, in different ways, and by different witnesses. . . . during forty days He was seen at intervals" (Expository Thoughts On the Gospels, Vol.4, pp.351-352,428). In the post-resurrection data, Chantry submits that the "lord Jesus Himself established the pattern of first day worship for the church," and sees an "insistence on the first day'} (p.132). Compared to the clarity of the revealed Saturday Sabbath, the Sunday Sabbath rests on a very tenuous case.

Mr. Chantry believes that under the new covenant "an entire day is to be kept holy unto God. . . . Only a seventh part of their time is claimed by the Lord for special worship" (p.133). 1 suggest that such a perspective does injustice to the passing away of "the rudiments of the world" (Gal. 4:3; Col.2:8,20). In John 4:20-24 Jesus teaches that the era when spatial- temporal considerations obtain is past. We no longer come to a temple; our bodies are the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor .6:19). We do not come to the "house of God" (a building); the congregation is the house of God (1 Cor. 3:10; Eph.2:21). We do not keep a Sabbath day; we enjoy the rest of the Sabbath reality, Jesus Christ (CoJ.2:16-17). We do not view a seventh of our time as special; all of our time belongs to the Lord (Eph.5:16; Rom. 14:8). Palestine is no more a "holy land" than the deserts in Barstow , California , where I was born. Sunday is no holier than Saturday – unless a brother personally wishes to regard a day to the Lord (Rom. 14:5-6). Vegetables are not holier then meat (Rom. 14:5-6). The December Christmas season is not holy. Buildings are not holy. Infants of believers are not "covenantally holy." There are no holy cities or nations. The water in baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper are not holy, even though Luther said they were (Martin Luther: Selected Writings, john Dillenberger [Doubleday, 1961], pp.229-233). The Christian is dead to the rudiments of the world (Col.2:20) so that he can serve his neighbor in love (Gal.5:13). Is it not the case that many dear people are hung-up on things like "touch not, taste not, handle not" (Col.2:21)?

With a casual wave of the hand, Mr. Chantry states, "surely it is these purely ceremonial 'sabbaths' that Paul speaks of in Col.2:16-17. He is not releasing Christians from the sabbath day over which the Son of man is Lord" (p.135). However, it seems clear enough in comparing Scripture with Scripture that Paul is including the entire Sabbath institution in his remarks (cf. Jewett, pp.44-45, note 20). The Sabbath was a shadow, and Christ is the substance. The Christian is not to let himself be judged with reference to any Sabbath. That is Paul's imperative.

I believe Mr. Chantry is absolutely right in noting that the seed of Sabbatarianism is present in the Reformers, which blossomed in Puritanism (p. 137; cf. Calvin’s Sermon on the Fourth Commandment, June 20, 1555).

Concluding Remarks

It is sad that Mr. Chantry has spent so much time attacking positions that the "two sides" (whoever they are) do not believe. He has not accurately identified the two extremes he is concerned to refute, and therefore he fails to come to grips with the real issues raised by those who dissent from his opinion.

I believe Mr. Chantry's position does not face the redemptive-historical shift from Moses to Christ, from Egyptian exodus to Christ's exodus, which shapes the NT approach to ethics. I have never seen a better brief summary of this ethic than that given by Richard Longnecker:

The Christian Ethic

The Christian life in Paul's teaching is. (a) based upon the fact of a new creation "in Christ," (b) directed through the correlation of the "law of Christ" and the "mind of Christ," (c) motivated and conditioned by the "love of Christ," (d) enabled by the "Spirit of Christ," and (e) expressed in a situation of temporal tension between what is already a fact and what has yet to be realized. Although they can be spoken of separately, all these elements must be combined and merged in our consciousness if the apostle's thought is to be rightly understood and the Christian ethic truly exhibited (The Ministry and Message of Paul, pp.100,101).

Mr. Chantry discourages people from studying the two extremes, which he regards as "counterfeits" (p.12). But I believe that if they are examined forthrightly, it will be apparent that this book fails to face the specific issues raised by them, and that it does not measure up to "the true currency of heaven" (p.12).

One does not have to hold to Pastor Chantry's form of narrow nomianism in order to maintain that God's kingdom is righteous. And it appears that an increasing number of believers are raising serious questions that rightly challenge the traditional answers given historically by the systems of dispensational ism and covenant theology. Our Christ-centered Scriptures will give us the answers we need.