Wrapping Up the Law
February 28th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This will be our final post on the NT believer’s relationship to the Mosaic Law. This is our ninth post on this topic. Previous posts can be found at the following links: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3; Post 4; Post 5; Post 6; Post 7; Post 8.
In this post, we will seek to work through the implications of our proposed solution. In other words, based on our interpretation of the biblical data, how are Christians practically to approach the Old Testament Law?
Clearly, they are not to follow all of its restrictions, for the Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses. Yet, at the same time, they are not to completely ignore the Law. After all, the apostles often invoked the Law, appealing to it as a source of authority for many of their teachings.
In the opinion of this writer, David Dorsey’s four-fold approach best explains the biblical data, avoiding the pitfalls of some of the other interpretations (Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 [Sept. 1991]: 332-34. For a similar approach see J. D. Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Today,” BSac 158/629 [January 2001]: 21-35 [online here].)
Following these four steps allows the New Testament believer to find applicable instruction in any of the Old Testament laws—including those clearly abolished by the apostolic writers.
1) First, believers must recognize that the Mosaic Law is not binding for Christians. This includes all of the individual precepts that make up that Law. These commands, whether deemed moral, ceremonial, or civil, were part of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not part of His covenant with the Church. Thus, the Mosaic Law must be interpreted in the same grammatical-historical method as the rest of the Old Testament. Those who seek to understand it must begin by putting themselves in the shoes of an ancient Hebrew. After all, this is the audience to whom the Mosaic Law was originally intended.
2) Second, the interpreter must determine the original meaning, purpose, and significance of the individual command. Within the original historical context, why did God give the commands that He did? What were the apparent reasons or motives behind His various expectations?
3) Third, Christians must determine the theological significance of the individual command. In other words, what does this specific law reveal about the moral character, essence, and being of God (the Lawgiver). Dorsey explains:
What does this law reflect about God’s mind, his personality, his qualities, attitudes, priorities, values, concerns, likes and dislikes, his teaching methodologies, the kinds of attitudes and moral and ethical standards he wants to see in those who love him? In spite of the fact that these 613 laws were issued to another people who lived at another time under very different circumstances than ours (again, like the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah), they come from the God whom we too serve, and they represent a vast reservoir of knowledge about him and his ways. (p. 333)
4) Finally, New Testament believers must determine the practical implications (application) of the theological insights found in the individual Old Testament command. Granted, the New Testament application is often quite different than the Old Testament application. Nevertheless, the theological truth behind the command is applicable in any age because it reflects the moral essence of the immutable God.
In explaining this process, Dorsey gives an example from Exodus 22:25 (a civil law). The verse states: “If you lend money to one of My people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.” Does this mean that Christians should never charge fellow-Christians interest? Examining this law in lieu of Dorsey’s four-step process reveals the answer. First, Christians must remember that this law is not specifically for them, but rather for Old Testament Israel. Thus, just because it is mentioned in the Mosaic Law, it is not necessarily binding.
Second, the original purpose of the law is fairly straightforward: the Israelites were not to charge interest when assisting the poor by lending them money. Moreover, the law encourages those who are financially stable to be sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, willing to help them even when there is no personal financial gain.
Third, as far as theological insights are concerned, the divine Lawgiver is clearly concerned about the needs of the poor—both physical (financial) and emotional. Moreover, He desires that His people share this same concern, being willing to help those in need even when personal sacrifice is involved.
Finally, after moving through the previous three steps, the New Testament saint is ready for his own personal application. Rather than rejecting or ignoring the needs of others, the New Testament saint is reminded to reach out to others—financially, if necessary. Because the God of the Christian is the same as the God of the Hebrew, the Christian can be confident that he is being an “imitator of God” (Eph. 5:1) when he applies the theological truth of the Old Testament text. Although this principle (to be sensitive to the needs of others) is repeated in the New Testament (James 1:27-2:17), the Christian can confidently assert it based on the teaching of the Old Testament. Of course, the theological principles of the Old Testament must be applied in line with the New Testament. Nonetheless, the verification for the Old Testament principle (and subsequent application) is not merely that it is repeated in the New Testament but rather that it reflects the very heart of God.
Conclusion
This study began by asserting two propositions. They are: (1) the New Testament writers assert that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding for the Christian; and (2) the New Testament writers appealed to that same Law and embraced it as the basis for much of their apostolic instruction. While these statements initially sound contradictory, they are reconciled in that the God who gave the Law of Moses is the same God who gave the Law of Christ—thus there is great overlap between the two codes even though the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. The apostles understood that the Law of Moses was no longer binding, yet they appealed to the theological principles found in that Law because they also understood that the moral essence of the immutable Lawgiver was reflected therein. After identifying certain theological principles, the apostolic writers were able to apply them in accordance with the Law of Christ.
Christians today should do the same. In approaching the Mosaic Law as a reflection of the divine Lawgiver (revealing theological principles based on God’s moral essence), NT believers can then appropriately study the Law of Moses—being thereby trained and equipped for righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).
Nathan, thank you for the series. I view a number of things differently than you do (i.e. church vs. Israel), etc., so I come to some different conclusions, but there are some of the same conclusions as you, it’s just that we arrive there in different ways. For example, Israel and the church I believe are different in essence.
I view Israel as God’s people, the tree in Rom 11. Unbelieving branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off from Israel, not all, but some branches were left (believing Jews). Branches from a wild olive (believing Gentiles) were grafted into the same tree, Israel. So all believing Gentiles today are a part of Israel. I am part of Israel. The tree never changes, it is always Israel. A future day will come when unbelieving Jews are moved by jealousy to believe in their Messiah - (If I had to guess, this will occur by the mass conversion of Muslim Arabs to the Jewish Messiah! Imagine the jealousy there!) - and will be grafted back into the same tree - Israel. The church on the other hand, is ekklesia, or assembly. So the church is Israel assembled, or while assembled, a functional subset of Israel.
As to why much of the ceremonial law no longer applies, it is because it separated God’s people from the Gentiles (Canaanites originally). The Lord owns the earth and Adam was His steward. His authority over the earth was usurped by the serpent because Adam obeyd his word instead of God’s. This is why Jesus didn’t object to Satan’s claim that the kingdoms of the world were his to give. An analogy would be that Adam was given the family inheritance but hawked it at a pawn shop, owned by the devil. The inheritance was God’s, but in Satan’s control. The Canaanites were demon controlled people, and since the Spirit hadn’t come yet in the triumph of Christ’s resurrection, God’s people were separated from them by the law. This is why they were killed back then, but preached to today. WE have power over demons because of Christ’s resurrection. The OT people had no power over demons, which is why they needed to be separated. It was a heavy price to pay, but Christ redeemed His inheritance from the pawn shop.
Since Christ gained His inheritance back from the devil, WE now control the earth, not Satan and his minions. So the law that separated God’s people from Satan and demons is no longer necessary for us. This is why Paul said that the wall that separated Jew from Gentile was broken down and that the two are made one new man in Christ - they are both part of the same tree Israel! Okay, I know this is radically different than the many different views of the law, OT/NT, church/Israel that I’ve been taught, but it seems to me to reconcile things better. Anyway, I’ve learned that the various views of OC law have some things in common, but that ultimately it is written on our hearts, and that we shouldn’t wrangle over the law. Peace,
Disputes about the law are nothing new. Its interesting to see what the early church decided:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/disputes-about-law.html
Can anyone help this dense Aussie to see how Nathan’s view differs from NCT, please? Seems substantially the same to me.
Steve S,
Whilst the Romans 11 aspect of your view resounds with me (In a strange overlap of Covenant and Dispensational Theology), as a lay man.
I would point to the Scriptures affirming that albeit that Christ has overcome Satan at Golgotha, Satan operates still even NOW UNDER the Authority and Power of the LORD, as he has always done since the fall.
2 Corinthians 4:3-5
“But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus’ sake.”
Ephesians 2:1-3
“And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.”
There is no requirement or instruction for us to “tackle” Satan or his fallen angels in spiritual warfar, but we ought to “STAND AGAINST” him in the armour of the LORD (Ephesians 6), yet the Battle beongs to the LORD and not us, we are not heavenly beings yet we are involved in “STANDING” against the enemy. This would mean to say that we ought not to LOOK to ENGAGE Satan or his powers, but that we ARM ourselves with the Spiritual armour to “WITHSTAND” his attacks, leaving the Battle and ATTACKS tothe LORD and His Holy Angels.
Ephesians 6:13
“Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
1 Samuel 17:47
“Then all this assembly shall know that the LORD does not save with sword and spear; for the battle is the LORD’s, and He will give you into our hands.”
Job 1:12
“And the LORD said to Satan, “Behold, all that he has is in your power; only do not lay a hand on his person.” So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.”
Acts 26:18
“…to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.’”
2 Thessalonians 2:8-10
“And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The COMING of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
1 Peter 5:8
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
I hope that these few Scriptures on the matter of Satan’s power and influence helps calrify: We are not directly engaged against him, but that the LORD is actively engaged on our behalf, as we are setting ourselves about ARMING ourselves in DEFENCE against Satan’s influences, rather than in an OFFENCIVE battle.
Nathan,
I think it is a really difficult subject to explain clerly to all the brethren, but you have done well considiring the weight of this issue.
Your patience with us is much appreciated.
I would bring this thread to a close with reminding us, especially the stronger brethren in the faith, to be constanly aware of Romans 14 as a part of the application in this area.
Maybe I missed it, but can someone give me a definition of the Law of Christ specifically? Thanks.
Where do we go in scripture to find “the law of Christ”? Also, this is pretty much the same conclusion that New Covenant Theology presents. Finally, why are the Ten Commandments written in stone if they are to be considered simply a part of the entire Mosaic code?
Thanks
David McKay,
I would recommend listening to the faculty lecture series on NCT found here: http://www.tms.edu/audio.asp?ministry_id=3&dlyear=-1&dlcat=Faculty+Lecture+Series&dlcat2=-1.
Listen to the entire series and I think you’ll find several significant differences between what Nathan has presented and NCT.
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
David McKay,
I see the link did not work. Just go to the Master’s Seminary website, click on “Seminary Resources” then “Faculty Lecture Series Audio” and you should find the series on NCT.
Blessings,
Steve
Nate,
This has been a good series and certainly challenging. I do have a concern I would like to have you, or someone else, bring some clarity to.
I don’t quite buy the first proposition that “the biblical saints saw the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit”, but that is another issue. However, what seriously troubles me is the proposition that “New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching”. The kicker in that statement for me is the “an”. This can be clearly seen also in the statement today that “the apostles often invoked the Law, appealing to it as a source of authority”.
What other sources of authority are you indirectly referring to?
I would venture to propose that if these other sources of authority are not testified to in the law and the prophets, and confirmed clearly in the New Testament then they are not sources of authority.
Nathan,
Great series.
Have you read the book written by one of the Master’s Seminary grads, Richard Barcellos titled: IN DEFENSE OF THE DECALOGUE: A CRITIQUE OF NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY?
Would you recommend this book for further study on this issue?
Thanks,
Steve Lamm
Nathan,
One more question: It has been my practice not to declare any OT command as binding on NT believers unless it is repeated in some form in the NT. Is this a sound approach?
Steve
David McKay and Brian,
You asked as to how my view differs from NCT. The view I have presented here is a common dispensational view. Dispensationalism and New Covenant Theology clearly differ from one another, though their views do share some commonality when it comes to the Mosaic Law.
Also, where do we go in Scripture to find “the Law of Christ”? Gal. 6:2 would be one place (cf. 1 Cor. 9:21; also called “the Law of the Spirit” in Rom. 8:2).
Ryan,
Based on passages like Heb. 1:1-2 and 2 Pet. 3:2, I would argue that the New Testament is based on a 2-fold source of authority: 1) the Old Testament and 2) the teaching of Jesus Christ (and by extension, His apostles). The Lord told His apostles in the Upper Room that, through the Spirit, He would give them further revelation. That revelation is found in the New Testament.
Steven,
Thanks for your comments. I have not read Barcellos’s book, but I will look for it. NCT has many other distinctives other than their view of the Mosaic Law — and the TMS lecture series (to which you linked above) is helpful in showing how those distinctives separate it from both dispensationalism and covenant theology.
Also, you noted that it has been your practice not to declare any OT command as binding unless it is repeated in the NT.
I do know some men, in dispensational circles, who take that same approach. However, when you come to the Mosaic Law, I think it is helpful to teach it as an extension of God’s character applied for Israel. That way, you can really mine the didactic value of the Law (in teaching us about the Lawgiver) rather than simply dismissing it as that which is no longer applicable.
Does that make sense?
- NB
Nate,
Thanks for that clarification. I don’t think your 2-fold source of authority contradicts my proposition. The law and the prophets do testify both in context and written word of their incompletion and a necessity to wait for the one to come who is Jesus Christ. I was primarily concerned about extra sources of authority and wanted to make sure there wasn’t ambiguity in regards to this.
I have been taught that part of the job of the Holy Spirit is to convict people of their sin and draw them to repentance. If this view is correct, can this be the primary reason the OT folks were bound by the law and we are not? Since they did not have the Holy Spirit to convict them of their sin they needed a long list of dos and don’ts in order to know when it was time to go to the temple with their sacrifice to request forgiveness of sin. Since the Holy Spirit has come, He convicts us of sin, we repent and ask for forgiveness, we point to Christ as our sacrifice (without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sin), and forgiveness is granted (when genuinely sought). Because the Holy Spirit convicts us when we sin, we don’t need a long list of dos and don’ts to help us through this process - and so we are no longer bound by the OT law.
Is this view consistant with what I have read in this series? Or were my points assumed as understood when the series began?
Since Nathan hasn’t answered (and I know he can’t answer all questions), does anyone have a thought as to why the Ten Commandments were treated differently than the other laws?
I have been studying the Ten Commandments recently. I have not completed my study of the significance of the Ten Commandments. Yet, here is what I have. The Ten Commandments are what God spoke directly to Israel (Ex 20:1-21, Deut 5:4-22). The other commandments were given through Moses. Contracts at that time were commonly written on two stone tablets, one for each party. The two tablets were probably copies of each other. The two tablets containing the Ten Commandments were the covenant contract, the Tablets of Testimony (Ex 34:29). The other commandments were an extension of the Ten. God carved and wrote on the first set of tablets. Moses carved the second set. Most translations read that God then wrote the second set yet in the original it could be Moses (not sure if this has any significance). They were then placed in the Ark of the Covenant or Ark of the Testimony (Ex 25:16, 40:20). Then two tablets containing the Ten Commandments were written on stone because they were the covenant contract. Being carved in stone has no relevance to whether they are binding now. The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled. Therefore the Ten Commandments have been fulfilled regardless of how they fit into the Mosaic Covenant.
Nathan,
Thanks for your reply. I do agree with the approach you outlined regarding how to mine principles from the OT. This is what I have done in the past with regard to the Mosaic Law.
I also agree that the OT Law gives us tremendous insight into the character of God.
I’m going to be at Shepherd’s Conference next week. I hope to see you there and perhaps talk a bit more about some particulars.
I would like to study this issue further. Can you recommend one of two books on the subject?
Blessings,
Steve Lamm
“First, believers must recognize that the Mosaic Law is not binding for Christians. This includes all of the individual precepts that make up that Law. These commands, whether deemed moral, ceremonial, or civil, were part of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not part of His covenant with the Church. ”
That’s problematic. The Bible never talks about a covenant with the Church. There is only the new covenant, made with Israel, ratified by Christ on the cross, but yet to be fulfilled with its original recipients (Israel). Of this we gentiles are spiritual beneficiaries. There is no “Church covenant”. To distort this is dangerous, imho, and borders on the Covenantal view, which holds to replacement theology.
Brian,
You asked why the 10 commandments were treated differently than the other Laws. What did you have in mind? Do you mean that Biblical authors or prophets saw them as different than the rest of Torah or that Jewish tradition developed around them differently?
Inside the Scriptures, I’m not sure they are reflected on differently. In other words, prophets did not look back at them and call Israel to follow them in a particular way differently than they called people to follow other specific commands in the Law. If anything, you could make a case that that the most common elements of the Torah neglect that prophets addressed were idolatry (1st and 2nd commandments), failure to love the poor ((Exodus 22, Deut 10:18-19, 24:17-21, etc.), failure to drive out the foreigners (Deut 33:52), and others. While certainly the root of much of their failure is seen in their neglect of the first two commandments, it does not seem that the OT viewed the 10 commandments as especially distinct from the rest of the Law in application.
They were given differently, and Moses reflects on that fact in Deut 4. One could make a case that in that chapter Moses is saying that the rest of what he commands to Israel (Deut. though, not Leviticus) is going to flow from the first 10 words on the tablets that he was originally given. And this is where the Jewish custom of viewing them as the source for the rest of the Law developed. There have been Christian attempts to show that the all of Torah could be an extension of one of the ten commandments, but I have not seen this done persuasively. If anyone knows of a source that does that, I’d be interested.
Thanks,
Jesse
Wake,
In what sense do Christians participate then in the New Covenant? Do you take communion, which is the New Covenant in his blood?
Jesse
Jesse: Of course we participate in the New Covenant, without question. My point was that it is wrong to say there is some sort of “covenant with the Church”. No such thing is stated that way in Scripture. What Jesus does say at the inauguration of the communion of bread and wine, is that He is the mediator of the new covenant and is ratifying it by his blood. His disciples are being brought into the new covenant. (FWIW they were all Jewish so this had particular meaning for them and this is why he made it explicitly clear to them that what He was doing during his Advent was ratifying the new covenant promised to them in the Old Testament prophets.
My point is that it should be stated simply that we are in the New Covenant. That covenant wasn’t made “with the Church” (unless you can find such wording in your version of the Old Testament - I can’t), but the Church does take part in it. It’s perhaps a small, but extremely important matter of wording that we need to take care to state properly, especially as we contend against the evils of replacement theology.
Wake,
Thanks. That helps. I just chuckled when I read your first comment because you are probably the first person to say that Nate’s view boarders on Covenentalism, as the comments last week seemed to be labeling him as a foaming at the mouth dispensationalist.
wake;
i cant help also chuckling at the incredibly conflicted statements you make that i thought jesse was going to challenge, but didnt. you write:”..we are in the New Covenant. That covenant wasn’t made “with the Church…”” Do you not see a rational contradiction? you imply that we are in the New Covenant, but it wasn’t made with us? Then, how are we in it? The source of your error is your hermenuetic..revealed in your very next sentece: “unless you can find such wording in your version of the Old Testament - I can’t…” Progressive revelation dictates that the mysteries have been revealed to us…in the New testament…”in these last days He has spoken to us in His Son…” The OT, by PR dictate will not reveal anything, but the “picture” of things to come. Christ fulfills the “picture” of the: law (heb 9:9, 10:1); the feast days/sabbath (col 2:16); Israel (Hos 11:1/Mt 2:15; Psalm 80:8/John 15:1; Gal 3:16; hos 14:4-7; the Levitical preisthood (Heb 7:12); the sacrifice (heb 10:14); the temple (Jn 2:19-22)the manna from heaven; the water from the rock etc etc etc. Circumcision of the flesh is the “picture” of the real circumcision…of the heart by the Spirit (rom 2:28-29); the “Land” of palestine promised to Abraham is a “picture” of salvation/heaven/recreated earth (heb 11:8-16.) Unbelieving ethnic Israel of the OT is, likewise, the “picture” of the believing nation created BY the New Covenant (Mt 21:43; 1 cor 10:11; 1 pet 2:9…compare to Ex 19:4-5!) You will not find this info in the OT..the NT reveals the “mysteries” or “reality.” You dont read the NT epistle writers talking any longer in the “picture” language of the OT: land, circumcision, ethnic heritage..you read about the fulfillments of the “pictures”…salvation, the Holy Spirit, and a recreated earth for believers. You continued to write: “It’s perhaps a small, but extremely important matter of wording that we need to take care to state properly, especially as we contend against the evils of replacement theology.” There is more wrong than wording here. There is a failure to see that Jesus IS the culmination of God’s promises to Israel. True Israel “hear” the gospel message and believe in Jesus! He IS the Messiah. God’s plans are perfect and everything is going perfectly according to His plan. “All Israel” is being saved and has been for 2K years. the coming of the HS is the coming of the kingdom is the coming of the New Covenant and the establishment of “true” Israel. Replacemet theology truly distorts the Church as “replacing” Israel and wrongly places us under Mosaic law and assumes are babies are saved because they are “our” babies…so they baptise their children. Equally distorted and evil is the view that God’s plans have been thwarted by an unbelieving ethnic Israel and He has had to resort to plan b. all those chosen to believe are believing. He is sovereign and in control. Most ethnic Jews ever having lived are in hell right now (chosen to be there! 1 pet 2:8) and they will never, ever be the focus of God’s plans, inherit His promises or be His inheritance. They were just a “picture” the Church is the reality.
Wow! That was a lot hermeneutical gymnastics about whether the O.T. is still relevant or not today. Hebrews 10 pretty much takes care of the ceremonial law of sacrifice, so before we hold a position of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let’s remember what Paul wrote Timothy about O.T. teachings (sacred writings, Scripture):
14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3)
I hold Paul’s position that the O.T. is still applicable and yes, relevant in “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
I didn’t write it Paul did, and I believe Jude would concur that this faith has been “once and delivered”. Finally, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12).
Yes, the above passage includes the O.T. and it still today sharper than any two-edged sword. Remember, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Peace,
David
(2 Peter 3:17-18)
It is my understanding that Barcellos’ book “In Defense of the Decalogue…” approaches the subject from a Covenantal (1689 Baptist Confession) position. I know that Sproul’s Tabletalk published an article by Barcellos on the topic.