No Longer Under the Law (Part 3)
February 21st, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Today we will continue looking at our first proposition: That New Testament believers are no longer under (or bound to) the Mosaic Law.
As we’ve noted previously, this proposition is based on for premises, two of which we have already considered: (1) That the biblical saints saw the Mosaic law as a solitary unit, and (2) That Christ fulfilled the law perfectly and completely.
Today we will consider the third: (3) That Christians are under a new law, the Law of Christ.
Based on the fact that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law completely, those who are “in Christ” (a phrase often used by Paul to speak of Christians) are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law. What Christ fulfilled, the Christian no longer needs to fulfill. [1] Instead, New Testament believers are subject to the Law of Christ (also called the Law of the Spirit—Romans 8:1).
With this in mind, Robert Lightner identifies six passages that discuss the New Testament believer’s relationship to the Old Testament Law. [2] We will consider each of these passages briefly:
Acts 15:1-29. The fifteenth chapter of Acts details the decision of the Jerusalem council regarding what parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile Christians were required to observe. In verse 29, the apostles determine that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the whole Mosaic Law, but rather to avoid only a few things (including eating food offered to idols, eating blood, eating animals that were strangled, and practicing sexual immorality). But do these few restrictions indicate that the Jerusalem council thought that all Christians were still subject to some of the Mosaic restrictions?
In light of Paul’s later teaching (in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14), the answer is clearly no. Instead, they placed these restrictions (specifically the first three) on the Gentiles so as not to be a stumbling block for their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ (1 Cor. 8:7-13). Thus, the teachings of the apostles in Acts 15 (where Paul was present) and the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 do not conflict. While the apostles understood dietary restrictions to have been ended (cf. Acts 10-11), they nevertheless encouraged Gentile Christians to be considerate of their Jewish counterparts.
(It is significant to note that the Jerusalem Council makes no mention of the Ten Commandments in this passage.)
Romans 6:14. In this passage, Paul is specifically discussing the process of sanctification in the Christian life. After all, those who have been buried with Christ (vv. 1-10) are also dead to sin (vv. 11-23). Verse 14, then, contends that sanctification cannot come from following the Mosaic Law, but rather by grace through Christ. The fact that Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law in verse 14 is evidenced in 7:4-7. As Lightner points out, “Rather than basing progressive sanctification on the deeds of the Law, Paul stressed that believers are not under the Law. For him the Law was not a means of sanctification any more than it was a means of justification.” [3]
2 Corinthians 3:6–13. Paul spends significant time in these verses contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant found in Christ (see v. 5). In fact, the Law of Moses is that which “kills” (v. 6), a “ministry of death” (v. 7), a “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9), and that which is “passing away” (v. 11). Clearly, the apostle leaves no room for even partial adherence to the old legal system. Thus, Gleason argues:
The use of this passage to advocate the end of the Mosaic Law for Christians fits well with Paul’s argument against the Judaizers. They were attempting to place the Corinthians under bondage to the covenantal stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. Paul’s discussion of the fading glory of the Old Covenant was designed to show that those stipulations were temporary and were replaced by the New Covenant. To ignore this fact as some do is to assume erroneously like the Judaizers that Gentiles need to observe part or all of the Law. Such an assumption violates the temporary function of the Mosaic Law within the framework of a covenant established between God and the nation Israel. [4]
Galatians 3:17–25. As in 2 Corinthians, Paul (in this passage) is arguing against the teachings of the legalistic Judaizers. Again, the apostle condemns those who would seek some sort of heavenly merit through their strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. In verse 24, Paul makes it clear that the Law was only temporary, serving as a tutor that pointed to Christ. When He came, the Law’s tutorial purpose was completed. Furthermore, because Paul references the entire Sinaitic event (v. 17), he must have the entire Sinaitic Law in view. Thus, the entire Mosaic Law passed off the scene with the death of Christ.
Galatians 5:18. Not only is the Law unable to save (as seen in Gal. 3), it is also unable to sanctify (as was also evidenced in Rom. 6). Thus, Paul argues that those who are living in accordance with the Spirit are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law. The fruit of the Spirit (listed in vv. 22-23) is not the by-product of the Old Testament Law. Rather, for the Christian, it is the by-product of the Law of Christ (Gal. 6:1-2).
Hebrews 7:11-12. In discussing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical system, the author of Hebrews also implies that Christ’s Law is superior to that of Moses. In fact, the writer directly says that if “the priesthood [is] changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (v. 12). After all, “the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood were inseparable. The one without the other would have been meaningless.” [5]
Charles Ryrie takes this passage to its logical conclusion:
If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law. . . . [Thus] the evidence of the New Testament forces to the conclusion that the law—all of it, including the Ten Commandments—has been done away.” [6]
Tomorrow we will conclude this first proposition, by looking at a fourth premise and then by summarizing the discussion up to this point. Again, for those who feel the series has been lopsided so far (leaning in an antinomian direction), please remember that our second proposition is coming—and that it will bring some balance to the discussion. We will introduce that second proposition at the end of our article tomorrow.
* * * *
ENDNOTES:
[1] This contrast is made especially clear in Galatians 3:19-4:7 and 6:1-2. In denouncing those who cling to the Mosaic Law, Paul upholds those who live by the Law of Christ. Clearly, the latter has replaced the former. See, Richard N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7,” JETS 25:1 (Mar. 1982): 71.
[2] Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy—Part 3: A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” BSac 143:571 (July 1986): 241-43.
[3] Ibid., 242.
[4] Randall Gleason, “Paul’s Covenantal Contrasts in 1 Corinthians 3:1-11,” BSac 154/613 (Jan. 1997): 79.
[5] Lightner, “Part 3,” 243.
[6] Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” BSac 124/495 (July 1967): 244.
* * * *
Its interesting to see what Hebrews 12 says about chastening, a valuable aid in sanctification:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/sanctification.html
Eric:
Please stop promoting Adventism. Most of the readers of this blog know better than to embrace that viewpoint.
“That New Testament believers are no longer under (or bound to) any part of the Mosaic Law.”
~ It is the lack of qualification here that tends to frustrate my agreement with you. New Testament believers are no longer under the yoke (Matt 11:28-29) or tutoring (Gal. 3:25) of the Law as it was applied in the Old Testament. We are bound to the same principles found in the Mosiac Law. So when you say we are no longer bound to “any part” of the Mosiac Law, I’d prefer to say we’re no longer bound to the application of the Law under the Mosiac dispensation, but that New Testament believer are still bound to the abiding principles of God’s Law found in both the Mosiac Law and the Law of Christ.
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?
Eric:
Adventism is kind of relevant to this discussion. Adventism not only upholds clearly nullified portions of the law (dietary)but adds requirements that were never part of the law, such as totally abstaining from alcohol (which makes one wonder why deacons, elders, etc. are exhorted to not use too much..if it’s grape juice, who cares?) I was given a pamphlet by an adventist pastor (The Repairing of Sam Brown) which stated that one cannot go to heaven unless they observe the Saturday sabbath. (Also a bunch of nonsense about God being the life-giver and not the life-taker. He is unabashedly BOTH) That sounds like a cult to me.
See Colossians 2
David, I see what you are trying to protect against and the concern that you have. However, to conclude that the believer is no longer under the Law, does not mean he is not bound to another, in fact, more glorious law. Romans 7:1 says that “the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives.” But notice verse 6 tells us that we are no longer bound by the law of Moses because we have died. The law of Moses can’t have jurisdiction (in any form) over someone who has died. Also, in the verse we see that to die to the law of Moses is the ONLY way that we can “serve in newness of the Spirit.” Then he goes on to explain the law’s purpose so people won’t come to wrong conclusions about it. The law served its purpose, but according to verse 3, to be joined to the law of Moses and the law of Christ would make one an adulterer. Lastly, Galatians 3 shows that neither justification nor sanctification takes place by the Law.
New Testament believer are still bound to the abiding principles of God’s Law found in both the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ.
Principles and Law are two distinctly different things. Christ says clearly that there are but two laws. He states that upon these two laws all else hinges. That is pretty clear to me. If you Love God and you Love your fellow man as yourself, then you will be within the Law of God. To argue otherwise is pretty much arguing with Christ.
Paul talks about sin and our inability to conquer it power over us. The old Law was to prevent sin, which of course it could not. The new Law can not prevent sin, but it can prevent the destructive power of death unto sin.
We live in the world and we on our own are powerless to do anything about our sin or our salvation. If that is true is it not also true if the old law was to prevent sin that being cast under it is a futlie effort. The old Law has no power for followers of Christ. If we beat ourselves up and followed every part of the Old Law we are no closer to salvation as if we did not, if we have not turned our lives over to Christ. Then when we turn our lives over to Christ we would have to follow Him and not the old Law for we can not be servant to two masters. The Old Law is of the Flesh even if it is trying to overcome the power of the flesh.
Being a human is a very insecure thing. We want the concrete not the abstract. It takes huge faith to let Jesus work his Love into our lives and change us. We want rules, schedules, and quantifiable results. Jesus works slowly and with permanent power if we let him. He is not offering a Spiritual “Lose 10 pounds of sin in 10 days”.
We turn our lives over to God and then put him on a time table and when he does not move as fast as we want we take our lives back.
We are in no way under any Law but the Law of the Love of God through Jesus Christ. If we are we are not Christ Followers.
In Love,
Roy
Well said, Roy.
Roy said
Being a human is a very insecure thing. We want the concrete not the abstract.
I think that’s what gives rise to legalistic cults. They want ‘tangible’ evidence.. “see what I’m doing/not doing for the Lord…”
They don’t get that the fruit of the spirit and good works (after the fact) ARE the evidence. Good comment.
David and Nathan,
Somehow I get the feeling that you don’t really disagree with each other, but it’s a more about semantics. Anyway, I do wonder what it means when it says the Law has been done away. Clearly, we as christians, do abide by the principles set forth in the 10 commandments even today, but we don’t observe the Levitical system. Is that what is meant? I look forward to reading tomorrow about this.
Personal Favorite, thought it fit in the discussion.
Romans 13:8-14 (ESV)
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11 Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. 12 The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
Rommans 7:7-25,
- Jeff
(Eric)
You might be a cult if…
1. your domain name has to try and convince people you are not a cult
2. spam blogging is considered evangelism
3. you believe Christ’s final work of atonement on the cross was not really his final work of atonement
4. you think Christians have to keep the Sabbath to go to heaven
5. your domain name has to try and convince people you are not a cult
“Principles and Law are two distinctly different things”
~ True, sort of. Principles inform our laws. Think about it like this. “Thou shall not kill”. That is a law. The law here is not to murder somebody, the principle is that murder is wrong.
Therefore, I might have a set of laws against BOTH shooting someone and drowning someone. Both are laws manifesting the same principle; murder is wrong in any form.
So, as we view the OT Laws, they were one manifestation of God’s abiding principles, and as we come to the NT they are a different manifestation UPHOLDING the very same eternal and unchanging priciples as well.
Just as shooting or drowning someone breaks a specfic law and the abiding principle that murder is wrong, the laws of the OT and the NT illustrate for us the same thing.
God has given us His abiding principles in the “Big 10″. The rest of the OT laws are outworkings of these ten commands. Likewise, in the NT, the principles have not changed, only our relationship to them, through Christ has. In other words, what has been abolished is the specific application of God’s Law, not the principle Law in and of itself.
It has been an enjoyable and enlightening discussion. One that I will refer to others. Thanks to you all.
In Love,
Roy
I’m really appreciating this series.
David McCrory,
Perhaps you will consider this semantics, but I see a “law” or “code of laws” as the application of the principle. While the principles never change, the laws can and do.
Thus (and I’ll tip my hand a bit here), I see the Mosaic Law as one application of God’s immutable character — an application that was binding on Old Testament believers.
The Law of Christ, however, is a different application of that same character, and it is binding on New Testament believers.
Is there overlap? Absolutely. Because both applications are derived from the same Lawgiver, and His character never changes.
But we are not required to apply the Mosaic Law today, because that application was for Old Testament believers. Rather, we are commanded to apply the Law of Christ, a law which is derived from the same unchanging principles that undergirded the Law of Moses.
… But now I’m getting ahead of myself.
Again, please hang in there. In the end, I think you’ll see that my view is not far from what you’ve been saying up to this point.
Thanks for your comments.
- NB
P.S. I should note (and will do so at the beginning of tomorrow’s article) that my explanation of these things is not the only view held by other pastors at Grace Church. This is a complex issue and one on which many godly theologians throughout church history have disagreed.
Wow! Quoting a couple of former DTS professors. I think you might be a bit dispensational
That’s o.k. because I would be thinking along those same lines too. How interesting to see some different perspectives on the Mosaic Law in relationship to the believer (from the comments the last few days). I still could never swallow the pill of Covenantal Theology, but it makes for some interesting dialogue.
Since gentiles have been grafted into the Jewish olive tree should the gentile then look and act like the olive tree? On the surface I might have taken allegory too far. Thoughts?
“Is there overlap? Absolutely. Because both applications are derived from the same Lawgiver, and His character never changes.”
~ Not only this, but we can study how God’s Law was applied in the OT and use that to guide our ethic today as Christians under grace, not the burden of the Law. Your right though Nate, I think you’re going to end up, after a long winding trip, close to the same place I am… I just took the shortcut.
I don’t know what Website you want? Do I have to have a blog or something?? I don’t understand these types of things as I just go to Christian sites and print out the truths of the men that I believe are led of God in their thinking - J. Macarthur, Pink, Tozer, Havner, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moddy, etc.
Please let me know what type of website you want me to list.
Thanks.
Darlene Bailey