you refer to “Christ’s law” and quote
1 Corinthians 9:21,
Galatians 5:14,
Galatians 6:2, and
Romans 13:10—all of which are Pauline texts. However, Christ Himself never used the term “Christ’s law.” What Jesus
did do was affirm the existing moral law, including the Ten Commandments (
Matthew 5:17–20), and summarized them into two core principles: love for God and love for neighbor (
Matthew 22:36–40). But He never divorced these principles from the commandments themselves.
Christ's law is an appropriate title that can be used as a reference to Christ words irregardless of who coined the term. If you don't like it, feel free to used a different term like "Royal Law" that James uses and that I also include as a reference. However the terminology "Christ's law" is still biblical, I use it in the OP to easily reference Christ's words
Christ does not summarize the 10 commandments, he says "all the law and prophets hang upon these two" to reduce this to the 10 would be an injustice to what he said. He does not reference it himself as "Christ's law" which would be silly and it is a post ascension terminology, however in John 13 & 15 he does speak of "my commandments". But again I use the terminology not controversially but to reference Christ's words.
Moreover, referencing Paul as a primary source to define Jesus’ law is theologically risky, especially when Paul’s letters can be complex and are sometimes misused to contradict Christ’s plain words. As Peter warned, Paul's letters "contain some things hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (
2 Peter 3:16). Jesus’ own teachings must remain central and foundational.
I do not use Paul as a primary source, I tried to find more verses that seem to be directly speaking of Christ's words regarding the 2 greatest commandment and I have adopted Paul's terminology of Christ's law but do not dwell on his words, I merely list the verses in question as a reference. Paul wrote a quarter of the NT and that percentage goes to 50% if we are just looking at the epistles. So it is of no surprise Paul gets quoted lots, however I also quote James who only wrote one letter and Peter who wrote 2 letters. The primary source is Christ's words in the gospels.
Your issues with Paul are your issues. We cannot treat Paul as uninspired, if you don't accept Paul as an apostle or reject what he says this is not the place for that discussion. By participating in this forum you implicty accept Paul and his teachings as inspired and cannot promote anything to the contrary.
your argument implies that acts of love somehow stand above the law or replace it. But Jesus clearly said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (
John 14:15). The love of God and neighbor is not an alternative to God's law—it is the motive and spirit behind it. He did not say that love
nullifies the commandments, but that love is the
means by which they are fulfilled (
Matthew 5:19;
Matthew 19:17–19). Love does not replace the law but fulfills it's requirements.
And what commandments are those? 13:34 (the context before he says keep my commandments) he says "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another" 15:12 he repeats it "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you". Christ doesn't speak of any other commandment in the context but repeats this twice, as well as repeats twice to keep his Commandments.
"Commandments" if undefined are ambiguous and to say what Christ actually meant was the 10 commandments is irresponsible as the text does not make that connection. What we do know he meant includes the direct commandments Christ's charges us to keep, specifically the ones in the immediate context that are consistent with the 2 greatest commandments. Christ says all the law and the prophets hang on those two. NT authors (not just Paul) also affirm this.
NT teaching emphasises, starting with Christ's words, this foundation of love and goodness as the core of our following in lieu of an emphasis on the letter of the law. This is just not with the OPs examples but passages like Mat 5 Christ even calls out 2 of the 10 and then begins to show a better way.
In this sense this concept of love and goodness that Christ's presents is shown as a mechanism of lawful action that covers all law. So by aligning ourself which Christ in this sense, the outflow will always be lawful.
You seem to claim that loving one’s neighbor is an implicit way of loving God. However, Jesus taught both love of God and love of neighbor as distinct yet inseparable duties (
Matthew 22:37–40). We cannot reduce the first (love for God) to a by-product of the second. True love of neighbor
flows from the primary love for God, which includes obeying Him—including His Sabbath command.
And I qualified it that way too, you seemed to have misunderstood it. Love of God is the primary motivation behind our other acts of goodness and love. Otherwise we are just following humanism. If we love God we do not worship other things, or use his name in vain, or have other gods. These are natural products of love through servitude that should be implicit. But our love to others also is an outflow from our love to God. Since love can be relative it needs to be grounded so that it's motivation and definition doesn't flip flop. God is that anchor and I love my neighbour because of and through the love that I have with God.
About the sabbath, you seem to distort it's meaning, your text leans on Jesus’ healing and the example of rescuing a sheep on the Sabbath (
Matthew 12:11–12) to imply that doing good always overrides Sabbath law. But Jesus’ point was not that
any action deemed “good” by human judgment is lawful on the Sabbath. Rather, He showed that
merciful necessity, acts to preserve life or health, are within the spirit of the Sabbath. He did
not abolish the command to rest (
Exodus 20:8–11), nor did He encourage people to treat the Sabbath as optional or redefine it through subjective goodness.
I never spoke of human judgment. I speak only of Christ's words that doing good on the Sabbath is lawful.
The law demonstrates things very physical but that point to spiritual matters. For example clean/unclean is not really about dirt, separating grains and thread is not really about grains or thread, the sabbath isn't really about physical rest, etc... Even though the physical product was still beneficial the benefit was only physical and not spiritual. In like manner Jesus uses physical metaphor to identify spiritual matters. Sheep trapped in pits is not really about sheep trapped in pits, although if you see one by all means pull it out (even on the Sabbath)
Lost sheep is one of the most used metaphors for spiritual states of people that doesn't actually mean physical states of animals. Does this really need to be spoon fed like this? I'm talking about salvation of the lost which is the primary focus of sabbath or spiritual rest. If Christ says how much more important are people than sheep then how much more is the spiritual state over the physical? Both are valued, our physical states will not endure but our spiritual state have more enduring qualities.
The 4th mentions even the animals need to rest. This is a power salvation metaphor, because animals have no authority to rest and must be given that rest in order to take it (they cannot just take it themselves) and it needs to be given by one with authority. How many are without this spiritual rest? How many bleating sheep are around us before we stop and help to pull them out of their spiritual pits they cannot get out of themselves? Or are we too busy keeping law?
The question “how many sheep may I pull out?” is used rhetorically to imply the Sabbath command becomes irrelevant when goodness is at stake. But this undermines the purpose of the Sabbath: a holy day, sanctified by God, for rest and worship (
Genesis 2:3;
Isaiah 58:13–14). Doing good does not erase this command; it clarifies
how to honor it properly.
The creation account can be read as a salvation metaphor. We start formless empty and in darkness then light is spoken into us that starts a transformation ending in rest where we are called holy. Day 7 is the antithesis to the state of before light is spoken; it is the answer to the darkness. So if I am already a recipient of that rest through the grace of Christ, then my purpose should be to spread that rest as far and as wide as possible so that others can also enjoy it. I know you hate Paul, but his missional motivation states it well "I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings". (1 Cor 9:22-23)
If we hoard the rest then we've missed the point.
The phrase "passing by goodness in the name of law-keeping is not lawful" introduces a dangerous subjectivism. While it is true that the Pharisees wrongly elevated tradition above mercy, Jesus never said that obedience to God's law, Sabbath included was defiling. Instead, He rebuked those who
added to or
twisted the law for their own power or convenience (
Mark 7:6–9).
Wrong obedience is not obedience at all. If we do not murder but hate out brother we do not keep law. If we do not commit adultery but lust after another we do not keep law.
This is addressing the heart over the action where the action can be superficial but the heart exposes or reveals our motivations. By saying goodness is lawful Christ shows us a correct motivation of Sabbath law is also goodness. But why be good only on the Sabbath? Why not always be good then you will always be lawful, now we are back to Christ's law. There is intention and consistency to this teaching through out the entire NT that doesn't start with Paul, it starts with Christ.
To say that ignoring an opportunity to “do good” makes one guilty of defiling the law risks turning God's commandments into a matter of individual moral feeling. This opens the door to spiritual error, where one may override God's direct instruction with emotional or situational ethics. Yet Jesus said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (
Matthew 4:4).
Does man also only rest by ceasing alone? Christ highlights the spiritual goals of the law, it is not in the superficial physical state, despite that's how the letter presents it, but in the spiritual state (even if it has physical benifits). Please just don't keep goodness on the Sabbath, keep it every day. We are to be led by the spirit so I have a confidence that the spirit can navigate goodness so that it goes beyond the superficial. I seek this goodness. if it were a Monday it would be commended but does goodness all of a sudden become evil on the Sabbath? I should think not, if it is still goodness then it is still good to do.
superficial goodness is just as problematic on a Monday as it is on Sabbath (and just as sinful) yet we don't seem to be discouraging goodness on these days, so why discourage it on the Sabbath?
While the parable of the Good Samaritan (
Luke 10:25–37) beautifully illustrates mercy toward others, it was not given as a redefinition of the law, but as an illustration of the second great commandment: love your neighbor as yourself. It teaches compassion, not a reinterpretation of Sabbath holiness. Jesus did not imply that the Sabbath can be violated if one simply feels morally justified. Instead, He showed that mercy is always lawful when it aligns with God’s principles—not when it opposes them.
I don't speak of fleshly desires, I speak of a spirit led focus. The good Samaritan account doesn't reinterpret sabbath, it shows us the limits of goodness. But Christ also tells us goodness is lawful on the Sabbath. These goals are not in competition with each other, they are complimentary, Christ addresses the same goodness/love in all cases.
In summary, Christ’s teaching does not dismantle the Sabbath nor place “doing good” in opposition to God’s law. The Lord taught that mercy is always part of lawful obedience, not a substitute for it. Love fulfills the law (
Matthew 22:40), but it never replaces or redefines it. The Sabbath remains holy, and lawful acts of mercy do not nullify the command to rest, they clarify how to honor it.
Indeed, it is always a part of lawful obedience. When a sheep is rescued on the Sabbath no matter how much pushing or pulling is required the work inherits the goodness and is lawful. You seem to agree with this yet refuse to commit to it. Is it true or is it not ture? If it is, than goodness is good on the Sabbath. Not a fleshly superficial goodness, a spirit-led Christ defined goodness (the same goodness that should be motivating us on a Monday)
True love for God is shown by obedience (
John 14:21), and true love for neighbor is guided by that same obedience. Christ calls us not to pick and choose which parts of His word to follow under the banner of love, but to live by every word God has spoken—including the Sabbath. Any theology that suggests otherwise risks making human goodness the standard instead of God's holiness.
then let's agree, don't bring your superficial goodness to the Sabbath (or for that matter any day of the week) let's just do God's goodness.
You seem to be caught with a logical problem claiming superficial goodness is only wrong on the Sabbath or that goodness itself is defined differently than any other day on Sabbath. Leaving your human goodness strawman out of this, if it is defined as goodness on a Monday (and as Christians we deem we can responsibly navigate this) then why isn't it goodness on the Sabbath too or why all of a sudden it's called irresponsible?
