No Longer Under the Law (Part 1)
February 19th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
As we noted in yesterday’s post, our study will begin by attempting to establish two basic propositions. The first is this: The apostles taught that New Testament believers are no longer under any part of the Mosaic Law.
This proposition is based on four premises, the first of which we will consider today, namely that (1) the biblical saints saw the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit.
Practically speaking, the Mosaic Law was everything to the nation of Israel. As both a personal code of conduct (Deut. 31:12; 32:46) and a national constitution (Ex. 19:4-6), the Law distinguished them from the surrounding nations (Lev. 20:22-23; Deut. 28:1). It articulated God’s expectations for His people—detailing the proper guidelines for worship (Lev. 1:1-7:38), purity (Lev. 11:1-16:34), and holiness (Lev. 17:1-27:34). Moreover, it established the Hebrew justice system, explaining how specific crimes were to be punished in the theocracy (Ex. 19:1-24:18; Deut. 4:44-28:68). Every aspect of Jewish life, from the personal and religious to the public and municipal was affected.
Thus, for the Old Testament Jew, the Law was a single, all-encompassing way of life. And while it certainly covered moral (Ex. 20), civil (Ex. 21-24), and ceremonial aspects of life (Ex. 25-31), “it is wrong [for New Testament scholars] to divide it into three laws, or as is popularly done, divide it into two laws, the one moral and the other ceremonial.” [1] After all, “although this three-fold division of the law is quite popularly accepted in Christian theology, the Jews either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it.” [2]
Instead, the Jews divided the individual commands given in the Law (of which they counted a total of 365 negative commands and 248 positive commands) into twelve categories or families. Ryrie explains:
The twelve families into which the law was categorized were according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. These were further subdivided into twelve families of affirmative and twelve of negative commands. The affirmative families concerned: (1) God and His worship, (2) the sanctuary and priesthood, (3) sacrifices, (4) cleanness and uncleanness, (5) alms and tithes, (6) things to be eaten, (7) Passover and other feasts, (8) rule and judgment, (9) truth and doctrines, (10) women and matrimony, (11) criminal judgments and punishments, and (12) judgments in civil causes. The negative families concerned: (1) false worship, (2) separation from the heathen, (3) things sacred, (4) sacrifices and priests (5) meats, (6) fields and harvest, (7) house of doctrines, (8) justice and judgment, (9) feasts, (10) chastity, affinity and purity, (11) marriages, and (12) the kingdom. [3]
Yet, even in categorizing the Law as they did (for the sake of teaching and memory), the Jews nevertheless saw the 613 commands as a single unit (see Joshua 1:8; 8:30). After all, “the Law of Moses never divides itself into these categories, but views itself as a single unit. The prophets of Israel also viewed the law as a unit, not to be broken in any one particular.” [4]
Furthermore, the categories that were given often combine moral, civil, and ceremonial instruction into the same family. Any dichotomy between moral laws, civil laws, and ceremonial laws (while sometimes helpful for understanding) is without Old Testament precedent.
The New Testament also views the Mosaic Law as a single unit. “Paul argued that all who were circumcised were ‘under obligation to keep the whole Law’ (Gal 5:3). And James insisted that whoever proposes to keep ‘the whole law and yet stumbles in one point . . . has become guilty of all’ (James 2:10).” [5]
In Ephesians 6:1-3, Paul cites the fifth of the Ten Commandments and refers to it as “the first commandment with promise.” Since none of the other Ten Commandments have promises attached to them, Paul seems to be referring to the whole Law as a larger unit (and not just the Ten Commandments or “moral law”). First Corinthians 9:9; 14:34; Romans 7:7; Galatians 3:17; Colossians 2:14-17; and Hebrews 12:18-21 also evidence a similar understanding. [6]
Of course, scholars must be careful to identify exactly what the New Testament author is referring to when using the term “law.” Walvoord, for example, cites six different nuances of the word as used by Paul in the book of Romans alone. [7] Nevertheless, McClain maintains that the vast majority of New Testament references to “law” point directly to the Mosaic Law code. In each of these cases, he argues, the New Testament writer has the entire Mosaic Law in view. [8] Both the Old Testament and the New Testament view the Mosaic Law as a solitary whole. It cannot be artificially divided or categorized. As Aldrich aptly summarizes:
Thus orthodox Jewish tradition, able commentators, and the Scriptures themselves recognize that the law of Moses is an indivisible unit. This presents an insurmountable problem for any degree of Mosaic legalism. No modern legalist wants to climb to the top of Mount Sinai with its fire and thunder but many think it is a good thing to take a short hike up its foothills. But to touch the mountain at the bottom was as fatal as climbing to the top (Heb 12:18–21). The unity of the Mosaic law leaves only two alternatives — either complete deliverance from or complete subjection to the entire system. [9]
If part of the Mosaic Law is still binding today, then all of the Law is still binding today — and vice versa.
(To Be Continued Tomorrow)
* * * *
Endnotes:
[1] Alva J. McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” BSac 110/440 (Oct. 1953): 334-35.
[2] Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” BSac 124/495 (July 1967): 240.
[3] Ibid., 240-41.
[4] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology—Part 1 of 6,” CTSJ 5/2 (April 1999): 43.
[5] Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy—Part 3: A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” BSac 143:571 (July 1986): 238.
[6] See Roy L. Aldrich, “Has the Mosaic Law Been Abolished?” BSac 116/464 (Oct. 1959): 322-24. Concerning Galatians 3:17, Aldrich argues that Paul is referring to the whole Sinai event and thus the whole Law. On Colossians 2:14-17, he notes that “ordinances” must refer to more than just the ceremonial Law since Paul includes “Sabbath” in his description of “ordinances.” See also McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” 333-34.
[7] John F. Walvoord, “Law in the Epistle to Romans—Part 1,” BSac 94/373 (Jan. 1937): 20-23. See also Brice L. Martin, “Paul on Christ and the Law,” JETS 26/3 (Sept. 1983): 272.
[8] McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” 334.
[9] Aldrich, “Abolished?” 325.
Good post Nathan. I am interested in your methodology here as well as your points. I’ve never really thought about this issue before. I’m sure there will be some insightful comments on this topic.. . . Great work!
“If part of the Mosaic Law is still binding today, then all of the Law is still binding today — and vice versa.”
If the Old Covenant is obsolete for NT believers does that mean that none of the law is binding?
Is it plausible that the intent of OT laws are/contain one of the following:
1. Absolute Truth
2. General Principle
3. Obscure
I would go further to make the assumption that if there is an absolute truth within the intent of the law, the absolute truth itself is binding. This may or may not result in a particular law becoming binding for an individual.
It would possibly be nice to think that the law is no longer binding, but there are a lot of laws out there. Traffic laws? Still binding. All of the laws of health/nature? Obviously still binding. Disregard them, and heart attacks and cancer tend to follow on as punishments.
A nice reference is:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/01/adventists-get-new-light.html
It discusses a people who claim to have a health message, break most of the rules, and then pay the price.
Nathan:
Here is a question regarding this topic:
If the Ten Commandments are not meant to stand apart from the other laws, then why did God write them on tablets of stone and command that they be kept in the ark? Do they not transcend the civil and ceremonial laws and stand above as timeless and distinct?
I am studying this very topic so am eager to read your posts.
Thanks!
It is important in discussing the Law of God to understand the two various aspects in which the Scriptures speak regarding it. The first is the abiding principle of God’s Law and second is it’s relevent application.
The principle of Law is rooted and grounded in the character of God. God Himself is the standard by which holiness, goodness and truth are to by measured. In this way, the Law is an expression of God Himself, His will as revealed unto us. And since God never changes, this abiding principle of Law which reflects that unchangable character doesn’t either. This principle or summary of the law is, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind,” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Mt 22:40; 7:12) This is the unchanging duty resting upon all men in all places throughout all time and eternity.
Now the application of exactly how this takes place does change and reflects the progressive revelation of God to man in various circumstances. Under the old economy the expression of God’s Law was manifest in types and shadows. It was filled with physical realities for God’s people which had to labor strenously under (Rom 5:20). So that, what Christ lifted New Covenant believers out of was the weight or burden of the Law placed upon OT Jews. In other words, the abiding principles of God’s Law remain very much intact, while the application of God’s Law as under the OT has been fufilled in Christ ( Rom 8 ). Our burden is now easy and our yoke is light. Now Chirsitans experience the “Law of Christ”—as to the principle of God’s Law, it is one with the Law of Moses, but as to implications it is higher and clearer than either of these, and in that sense is called by the Lord “a new commandment.” (John 13:34)
Nathan,
I appreciated your handling of the big issue that divides the law into 3 classes. I also am glad to see that you pointed out that Israel would never have been able to set aside any of these “classes” of the Law. The real problem, which hasn’t been put on the table, is that many who struggle with upholding parts of the “Law” may also believe that the Church has become the “New Israel”.
Are you planning on tackling this issue in the discussion?
I am very anxious to see tomorrow’s post. I’ve always had discussions and arguements based around this idea. Especially with my parents. They believe that we are to still follow the OT laws and rules and that it is essential to our life as a believer and as our lives are to be in Christ. Mostly these discussions have come about becuase of my getting tattoos, and them telling me it’s against God’s Word and Will.
I believe the exact opposite. I believe that Jesus died and rose again so I don’t have to follow those laws and rules God gave to the Jews as His way for them to bridge the gap between God and Man that the Fall of Man brought on the earth. I do believe that they are good guidelines to follow though.
Jesus however does reiterate OT laws, specifically the 10 Commandments, in His discussion of The Greatest Commandment: Mark 12: 28-31 NASB
28One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” 29Jesus answered, “The foremost is, HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH. 31″The second is this, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Jesus was answering a question about the law in this discussion, while still letting people know He was God and that those are the 2 greatest commandments to follow. I feel that Jesus there sums up the fact that the OT laws and commandments are obsolete since He has been crucified and rose again. Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that Jesus’ death and resurrection replaces all of that. Instead of being ways to differentiate between other nations and as a way to be closer to God before the Messiah came, they are now obsolete with the death and resurrection of Jesus.
This is just my opinion. I’m not a Biblical scholar. I appreciate your replies.
Chad
In your last post on the topic, could you include links to all the other posts?
That makes it far easier to link to as a permanent single link in my blog - thanks
Thanks!
Thanks for all of these comments … really good stuff here.
David McCrory, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised as this series unfolds — since I’m ultimately heading to that same conclusion (though it’ll take me a little bit to get there).
To all: At this point, I am just establishing my first proposition — which is one that emphasizes discontinuity. For those who are worried that this is out of ballance, rest assured that my second proposition (which highlights more of the continuity) will help right the ship.
I will then conclude with my proposed solution for explaining how the two propositions (which initially seem contradictory) are, in actuality, perfectly harmonious.
I realize an extended series like this can be difficult on a blog. But I appreciate all of you who are willing to hang in there. Thanks, too, for your insightful feedback.
NB
On the proposition that ‘the biblical saints saw the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit’ I agree with one exception. I think careful study of what the Holy Spirit recorded as happening at Mt Sinai regarding what has come to be known as the 10 Commandments is appropriate. These 10 Commandments should probably be referred to as a distinct 10 Words, which is I believe what Jewish tradition as to what they were called for good reason. I think there is a very clear contextual distinctive regarding the delivery method of the 10 Commandments that clearly breaks until Jesus’ incarnation and transfiguration in which God stated, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” It is this break between God in auditory form speaking the 10 Commandments to the whole nation of Israel and Jesus’ incarnation in which the law is given for the specific reason that the people could not hear God’s words without dying.
Working back from Deuteronomy 18:16-18 we understand that the Israelites directly asked to not here God’s words anymore as they would die. God states it Deuteronomy 18:17 that they are in fact correct. The words, which God was speaking on Mt. Sinai known as the 10 Commandments, were in fact audibly heard by the Israelites although not spiritually heard with ‘ears to hear.’ These words are interrupted, so to speak, due to the Israelites request to hear no more lest they die.
God’s direct response to this condition of being unable to hear his words is twofold. One is clear from the context of Exodus 19 & 20 is that God did not directly speak to the Israelites his words lest they die and Moses was then a mediator between the giving of God’s law and the Israelites. The second direct response to this condition is given by God in Deuteronomy 18:18-19. “I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever will not hearken unto my words, which he shall speak in my name, I will require [it - his life] of him.”
Jesus Christ who is the incarnate fulfillment of the Prophet after His transfiguration, which affirms that He is the Prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18, continues the speaking of the words God was speaking on Mt Sinai. The 10 Words as they probably should be addressed need to be carefully looked at before quickly making too many assumptions regarding how they play into the Law as used by the New Testament saints and what a believers role in regards to the binding nature of the 10 Words. It is these 10 Words as given that properly set the scene for the fact that man can not spiritually hear God period. Christ is the mediator from amongst their brethren who continues the speaking of the words; those words are that which all judgment will rest upon.
John 12:48 “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”
I don’t find it hard to “hang in there” at all, this is gripping stuff, the potential to affect how one understands much of the Bible, even affecting one’s view of history and present worldview. I’ve been trying to sort through these thoughts for a long time and appreciate the help from this series. Thank you.
This is very helpful and something I have questioned and debated for a long time. I have recently come to the same conclusions you have already outlined, and so I am excited to see where you develop this. Thanks for doing this. This is an often misunderstood concept in our churches today, and judging by the feedback so far, it is evident many would appreciate a clear presentation of the Biblical facts.
Great discussion topic and series of articles, it is very interesting to study the Mosaic Law’s relevance to present-day Christians with such detail and insight. Some questions that could add to the discussion are:
What Law existed before Moses, the Exodus, and Mt Sinai?
When Jesus preached “Repent the Kingdom of God is near”, before the Gospel was fully revealed, in what way did he expect people to change? According to what laws?
I am looking forward to the rest of the series. The comments and responses are rich in biblical perceptive as well, great forum.
Thanks to all contributors,
- Jeff
It seems to me that if the law were binding on anyone (and I’m not saying it is, since it is repeatedly described as obsolete, inferior, etc.)then it would be on JEWS only since the Gentiles were told…in Acts 15: 19-20…
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, “but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Any thoughts?
“What Law existed before Moses, the Exodus, and Sinai?” Well we know murder and its judgment existed and was clearly revealed to mankind (Gen. 9:5-6). We could easily deduce adultery from Genesis 2. God judged the whole world based on violations of what is pure and righteous in the Great Flood. Did the Law invent anything new? S. Lewis Johnson said that many of the great doctrines of the Bible are revealed in germ form in the Book of Genesis. So pre-law we have much doctrine, and salvation by grace through faith alone (Rom. 4:9-16).
I too have been studying and dialoguing with people in my church on this subject. Some who want to hold all Christians to the law of Sabbath, tithing, lending and borrowing, etc. The accusation is that I am nullifying the Law (Mat. 5:17). I look forward to your teaching Nate.
Nathan,
Looking forward to the rest of this series, and the footnotes for resources I can read myself.
I trust that you will address the issue of how to properly use the OT in teaching and preaching.
I find that most of the moral commands in the OT are repeated in the NT in some form, indicating that the moral commands are not bound only to the Jews as were the ceremonial laws. Therefore, I think it proper to show this agreement between OT and NT when teaching on such issues. I know that MacArthur does this often in his own sermons. In fact, Pastor John seems to use the OT most often when illustrating a NT truth which seems to me the primary way to illustrate NT truth. Isn’t this what Paul was refering to in I Cor. 10:1-12?
Blessings,
Steve
I have the same curiosity as J. Budill above, but I would expand his question somewhat. In doing so, these questions are likely beyond the scope of this topic and would fare better in their own topic on some other day (hint, hint).
What Law existed before Moses, the Exodus, and Mt Sinai? I would expand that question to ask, what guided the spiritual life of everyone before Moses (e.g., Noah, Abraham). What guided the spiritual life of the Israelites in bondage in Egypt? Was there a communal worship, or was one’s spiritual life isolated and personal - depending on whether God spoke directly to the person or not? If the spiritual life was communal, was there a written or verbal dictate to gather together to worship God? If yes, do we have record of that dictate? Etc.
I don’t intend for these questions to be discussed here (hopefully this digression won’t change the nature of the ensuing comments), but these questions do pop out of this discussion.
Steve,
I recently listened/watched to Ligon Duncan give a message on preaching the Old Testament at last year’s Together for the Gospel conference. As a seminary student at TMS I can say that one of the hermeneutics professors would heartily agree with was Ligon says (MacArthur was at the conference too).
Here’s the link.
http://www.ligonier.org/launch_mediacenter.php?tabID=1&id=385
Gabriel,
Thanks. I’ll listen to is soon.
Steve