Thrust statement: The Old Testament reveals the will of God for ethical behavior.
Scripture Reading: Matthew 5:17-19; 2 Timothy 2:15
Many Christians do not study the Old Testament writings? It is not uncommon for some believers to assert that the Old Testament Scriptures were nailed to the Cross—nailed in the sense that no part of it is any longer relevant. Today, many believers view the Old Testament as an antiquated book. Every Christian should seek an answer to the question, what weight does the Old Testament have within the Christian community? Again, one must also deal with the following question: is the Old Testament an out of date book that is no longer appropriate to Christians? These two questions also generate a third, is it necessary for believers to study the Old Testament, as did the early church? As one reflects upon these three questions, one must rethink his or her attitude toward the Old Testament. The most crucial question one must consider in seeking a proper decision to this interrogation is: what did the men who wrote the New Testament think about the Old Testament?
Christians are confronted with two issues concerning the bearing and importance of the Old Testament in the life of the Christian community: (1) does the Old Testament have authority, or importance, for Christians? and (2) how does one apply the Old Testament to the Christian church? The most common understanding, among many Christians, about the Old Testament is that Christ nailed it to the cross. In other words, He annulled, or abrogated, the law—period. Thus, many saints do not read the Old Testament writings. Numerous Christians have adopted the downbeat position of Adolf Harnack (1851-1930):
To reject the Old Testament in the second century was a mistake the church rightly resisted; to retain it in the sixteenth century was a fate from which the Reformation could not escape; but still to preserve it in the nineteenth century as one of the canonical documents of Protestantism is the result of religious and ecclesiastical paralysis.[1]
Harnack’s solution was summarily to reject the Old Testament. Even though Christians would not express their disapprobation of the Old Testament with his phraseology, nevertheless, it amounts to practically the same view. But this outlook was not unique with Harnack. In fact, in the second century, Marcion (c. 160) also rejected entirely the Old Testament from his Bible.[2] Marcion concluded that the God of the Old Testament could not be the God of the New. One finds difficulty in squaring Marcion’s observation with the facts. For instance, over three-fourths of the total Bible is found in the Old Testament. This point alone is sufficient ground to cause one to pause before rejecting this most extensive record of God’s written Revelation. Everett Ferguson aptly remarks in defense of the weight of the Old Testament canon within God’s community of the Resurrected One:
According to one count, there are 239 acknowledged quotations of the OT, introduced by some kind of formula, in the NT; there are 198 quotations not introduced by any formula; there are 1,167 instances of OT passages reworded or directly mentioned. This makes a total of 1,604 NT citations of 1,276 different OT passages. There are many allusions to the OT and borrowings of its phrases. Most of these passages represent a straightforward, literary use of the OT. The NT uses the old in many ways; for vocabulary and phraseology to express its own ideas, for illustration, for proof of its statements, for moral instruction, for predictions of the new situation. Each of these and other uses could be discussed, but suffice it to say that problems in the NT use of the Old should not obscure the tremendous indebtedness of the later canon to the older, nor should they make that entire usage more problematic than it is.[3]
Beginning with the New Testament, the permanent value of the Old Testament is repeatedly affirmed with explicit statements about its importance. For example, consider the words of Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount:
Do not think
that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish
them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth
disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any
means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one
of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be
called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these
commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of
the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-20)
Once more, Paul also sets forth the validity
of the Old Testament in his Epistle to the Romans: “For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so
that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have
hope “(Romans 15:4). Yet again,
Paul zeros in on the legitimacy of the Old Testament in his Letter to the
Corinthians: “These things happened to them as examples and were written down
as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come”(1 Corinthians 10:11). Or, consider Paul’s
admonition to Timothy as he drives home the necessity of reflecting upon the
Old Testament writings:
But as for you, continue in what you have
learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you
learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are
able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All
Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and
training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped
for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-17)
These Scripture citations are passages that many Christians have not
come to grips with. What does it mean,
for example, to say, “Whoever practices
and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19)?
How can the sacred writings be useful “for teaching,
rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness” (1 Timothy
3:16)? How can Jesus
and Paul say these things if the Old Testament is no longer relevant? Again, it is significant that when Paul wrote
these words to Timothy, he had reference to the Old Testament. What did Paul mean when he encouraged
Timothy to “continue in what you have learned” (2 Timothy
3:14)? Remember, this Scripture was written about thirty-five
years after the crucifixion. The inclusion or exclusion of the Old Testament
affects every area of theology. The author of Hebrews specifically wrote that
the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament were to be found in the
same God, despite the later arguments of Marcion: “In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at
many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by
his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the
universe” (Hebrews 1:1-2). Believers
during the Old Testament and New Testament eras shared the one and only God.
MORAL
AND CEREMONIAL ASPECTS OF THE LAW
Part of the problem with the rejection of the Old Testament stems, so
it seems, from one’s failure to consider the various aspects found in the title
Law, which, at times, appear to be used for the whole. Some features of the Law
are still binding upon Christians as a way of life—instructions about ethical
behavior. On the other hand, there are other pieces of the Law that are no
longer essential for the believer, especially the ceremonial aspects of the
Law. Is every aspect of the Law still in effect? The answer is a resounding NO!
It is in this vein that Walter Kaiser
very succinctly states this problem:
It must be
conceded that the OT contains parts that were indeed temporary and, therefore,
time-bound by their very nature (e.g., the ceremonial and ritualistic laws and
the once-for-all aspects of its historic episodes). But our contention is that there was also built-in warning with
each of these temporary parts that alerted us to the fact that they would
become obsolete. Accordingly, all the
tabernacle instructions were given as a model, or “pattern” (Exod 25:9, 40; Heb
8:5), of the real, which remained separate from the ceremonial institutions
themselves. Nevertheless, behind the
temporal and historical lay a principle—a truth meant to outlive its temporal
or historical illustration. Too
frequently the church has incorrectly assumed that when it had seen the
collapse of the temporal institution, it had also thereby witnessed the end of
all truth or obligation to any undergirding principles that the institution or
historical event illustrated for a former age.[4]
Perusals of the Old Testament Scriptures indicate the temporal nature
of certain portions or instructions, but, on the other hand, it is obvious that
certain elements have abiding authority.
The Scriptures must give its own signals in distinguishing what is
temporal, cultural, and historically conditioned. Is the moral Law of God temporal,
cultural, or historically conditioned?
How does one explain the many references in the New Testament to the Old
Testament that speaks of the permanent force of the Law? How does one account for the eternal
righteousness of the Law in the messianic age?
For example, both Jeremiah (627 BC) and Isaiah (739 BC) speak of the unshakable importance of the Law in
the Christian age. If this is not the
situation, then one wonders what Isaiah and Jeremiah refer to when they spoke
of “the law” going forth from Jerusalem and “the law” being written upon the
heart? Isaiah foresees the messianic
age and tells Israel that
Yet again, Jeremiah also speaks of the Law
written on the hearts of God’s people in the messianic age:
“The time is coming,” declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of
Judah. It will not be like
the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to
them,” declares the LORD. “This
is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares
the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people. (Jeremiah
31:31-33)
Both of these citations (Isaiah and Jeremiah)
are messianic in tone. How does one reconcile these Scriptures with the current
interpretation that the “law was nailed to the cross”? In what sense is the Law
nailed to the Cross? Is it possible
that Christians have misread the statements of Paul in his letters to the Ephesians
(2:15-16) and Colossians (2:13-15), which seem to indicate, at least
on surface reading, that the Law was nailed to the cross in the sense that it
no longer relevant in the life of the Christian community?
|
Ephesians
2:15-16 |
Colossians
2:13-15 |
|
For he himself is our peace, who has made
the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by
abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making
peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the
cross, by which he put to death their hostility. |
When you were dead in your sins and in the
uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He
forgave us all our sins, the law with its commandments and regulations,
that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
to the cross. And having
disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them,
triumphing over them by the cross. |
What does Paul teach by saying, “the law with
its commandments and regulations”? What
does Paul mean by announcing, “the law with its commandments and regulations”
to the Colossians? One must be careful
not to bring one’s theological heritage, one’s ecclesiastical traditions, one’s
cultural norms, or one’s existential concerns to the Epistles as he or she
reads them. If one’s interpretation of
these two Scripture citations makes the text mean something God did not intend,
then one is abusing the texts. Remember
that the text serves as a window through which one can glance into a historical
period. The following extract from Greg
Bahnsen may explain these two Scripture citations (Ephesians
2:15-16 and Colossians 2:13-15)
more clearly:
The ceremonial observations no longer apply,
but their meaning and intention have been eternally validated. The earlier sacrificial ritual was a
foreshadow pointing to Christ (Heb. 10:1), and no repetition of a mere shadow
can amount to the substantial reality!
That which is the foundation of the new economy, in which the outward
performance of the ceremonial ritual is not observed, is the obedience of
Christ (cf. Heb. 10:8 f.). His
obedience makes it no longer necessary for us to obey the ceremonial law in the
way which the saints living in the period of expectation did. Ephesians 2:14-16 says that Christ has put
the principle of commandments contained in ordinances “out of gear.” Christ has broken down the barrier between
Jews and Gentiles of which the dividing wall in the temple was the symbol. It should be quite clear that the law which
represents enmity and separation between Jews and Gentiles is the ceremonial
law, for the moral law does not distinguish between these groups (all men are
responsible to the moral law and are condemned under it: Rom. 1-3). It is this ceremonial system which Christ
has made ineffective.[5]
In seeking to draw attention to neglected truths, repetition is
unavoidable. It is a popular error to
suppose that “commandments contained in ordinances” refers to the Law as
a whole. But it seems that the
stipulations that Paul addresses has to do with “the law of commandments contained
in ordinances,” that is to say, the principle, order, policy, or system of
commandments, not the moral Law of God. In other words, the “commandments contained
in ordinances” are “decrees,” thus, referring to the ceremonial law. Even in Colossians 2:14,
the “ordinances” are the “shadow of things to come” (2:17),
and in verses 11 and 16 specific ceremonial illustrations are
given. If the Law of God is nailed to the Cross, it can only be in the sense
that the Law of God no longer condemns; one is now under grace. Paul writes to
the Romans the following pertinent statement about the Law: “Do we, then, nullify the
law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31).
SERMON
ON THE MOUNT
The Sermon on the Mount is quoted by many Christians to substantiate
the abandonment of the Old Testament.
Part of the confusion lies within the phrases, “You have heard that it
was said to the people long ago” (Matthew 5:21) and “But I tell you” (Matthew 5:22). The Greek text
is: ῾Ηκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις (Hdousate Joti
erreqh tois arcaiois).[6] (“You heard that it was said to the ancients”)
[Mathew 5:21], and ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν (egw de legw Jumin).[7]
(“But I say to you”) [Matthew 5:22]. The phrase, “You heard that it was said to the ancients” is not
what the Law said, but rather, the interpretations placed upon the Law by its
religious leaders. Jesus sought to
correct the erroneous explanations piled upon the Law through the tradition of
the elders; He did this by calling attention to the correct teachings of the
Law with the phrase, “But I say to you.”
To illustrate the above statement, a cursory look into Jesus’
temptation by Satan should clarify the distinction. For example, in the preceding chapter (Matthew 4),
Jesus’ confrontation with Satan resulted in His quoting the Old Testament. Observe that Jesus, in His response to
Satan, did not say, “You heard that it was said to the ancients,” but rather, “It is written” (γέγραπται, gegraptai) [Matthew 4:4].
On the one hand, the first statement (Matthew 5:21) refers to the forefathers, but, on the
other hand, the second statement (Matthew 4:4) refers to the written Revelation of God
through the prophets. One must learn to reevaluate and reinterpret what has
been handed down from generation to generation. Above all, never make a decision on what you would like the
passage to say. Seek to be faithful to
the way in which the Holy Spirit structured the original text. Only through a careful reading of the text
itself can one understand the original meaning of the text without reading into
it one’s own ideas drawn from the present.
Proof-texting has no place in exegesis. Verses are only a part of a
larger context.
The Scriptures
in Ephesians 2:15-16 and Colossians
2:13-15 must be interpreted in light of the larger context, that is, the whole
of God’s Revelation. For example, the
preceding Scriptures must be interpreted in light of the Sermon on the Mount. A
brief analysis of certain aspects of the Sermon on the Mount will help to shed
light on Jesus’ viewpoint concerning the validity or worthlessness of the Law
for the Christian community. Did Jesus uphold
the Law or repudiate the Law? Did Jesus
abolish the Law of Moses and give another law that is more demanding than
Moses’ Law? What can one learn from the
Sermon on the Mount concerning Jesus’ position toward the Law? Does this Sermon invalidate the Law? As one
approaches the Sermon on the Mount, one must decide, based upon the context,
whether or not Jesus gave a “new law” or simply explained the original intent
of His law as it was revealed to Moses.
A lot will depend upon the application that one attaches to the words, “You have heard that it
was said to the people long ago,” and “But I tell you.” Was there a contrast between Moses
and Jesus’ teaching? Perhaps, John R.
W. Stott cogently expresses this best:
It is widely
supposed that Jesus was now inaugurating a new law, and that in doing so he was
contradicting and repudiating the old.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the suggestion that he should do this is antecedently so
improbable as to be impossible. Not
only would this run counter to His lifelong attitude of reverent assent to
Scripture, but He had just asserted that he had not ‘come to abolish the law
and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them’ (v. 17). . . . No. What Jesus was contradicting here was not
Scripture but tradition, not what ‘is written’ but what ‘was said,’ not God’s
word but the false interpretations of it of which the scribes and Pharisees
were guilty.[8]
Christ was evaluating not the Older Testamental Law, but rather the
pharisaical interpretations placed upon the Law. Jesus affirmed the solemn authority that not even the least
commandment of the entire Old Testament was to be taught as without binding
validity today:
Anyone who
breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same
will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and
teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:19)
Surely, after such a strong declaration,
Jesus would not immediately proceed to loosen a commandment of God’s law with “You heard,” but “I say” (Matthew
5:21-48). For Jesus, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Accordingly, Jesus reaffirmed elements
of the Decalogue in His response to the rich young man: ‘“Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do
not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,’ and
‘love your neighbor as yourself’” (Matthew
19:18-19).
Jesus, in His Sermon on the Mount, speaks of the abiding authority of
the Law: “Do not think that I have come
to abolish (καταλῦσαι, katalusai) the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Did Jesus give
us a New Torah, as suggested by many, and abolish the Old? Is it possible that an individual’s
prejudice is so deep-seated that one-sidedness negates the possibility of
understanding this text? One seldom asks
what this text means; rather, one wants to know how to answer his or her
opponent. Have Christians, in general,
approached the Bible to prove what they already believe rather than observe
what it teaches? These are questions
that everyone must consider in order to be honest with himself or herself.
Not
to Abolish but to Fulfill
Another stumbling block to many believers is the infinitive phrase, “to
fulfill” (πληρῶσαι, plhrwsai).
This group of words is an enigma to many believers. Just what is meant by the infinitive
utterance, “to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17)?
Also, how should one interpret Christ’s statement: “I tell you the truth,
until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
accomplished” (γένηται, genhtai,
“might become”) [Matthew 5:18].[9] The NIV uses “fulfilled” (πληρῶσαι) in verse 17, but “accomplished”
(γένηται) in verse 18. On the other hand, the KJV employs
“fulfilled” in both verses, but is the meaning the same? Matthew uses two different Greek words for
our English word “fulfill” in the KJV.
The current interpretation attached to the word “fulfill” is generally
understood in the sense of “relaxation” or “invalidation.” But is this interpretation correct? Greg Bahnsen seems to have shown
conclusively that the Greek words convey distinct meanings:
The explicit and
emphatic affirmation of the law’s authority does not allow one to take
“fulfillment” in verse 17 as any sort of euphemism for “relaxation” or
“invalidation.” At the same time in
which God promised a new covenant He indicated that, far from being different
from the first covenant, the ethical stipulations of that new covenant would be
the same as the original law; God says he will write the law on His people’s
hearts, not change the law.[10]
Jesus says He came to “fulfill” (πληρῶσαι, plhrwsai), not “to abolish” (καταλῦσαι, katalusai). Failure to distinguish between the two words (“fulfill” and
“accomplish”) employed by the Holy Spirit can lead to an erroneous
understanding of the Sermon on the Mount.
Ignorance of these words can lend an air of plausibility to one’s
interpretation. Just what does this
aorist infinitive mean (“to fulfill,” πληρῶσαι)? For example, does it indicate that Jesus put
an end to,[11]
replaces,[12]
supplements,[13] to
actively obey,[14] or
enforcing or confirming?[15] The most detailed study of this infinitive
phrase is that of Bahnsen. He draws
attention to this (“enforcing,” or “confirming”) neglected aspect of “to fulfill”:
The
establishment of God’s will as the work of Christ plays an important part in
Matthew’s Christology; accordingly, Matthew Henry writes that the gospel is not
the repeal of the law, but its reestablishment. Jesus says in Matthew 5:17 that he came to confirm and restore
the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law. He sees the process of revelation deposited
in the Older Testament as finding its validation in Him—its actual embodiment
(cf. John 1:17). Jesus’ own teaching represents a proclamation of the full
implications of the commandments God delivered in the Older Testament in
opposition to the legalistic scribal interpretations; His teaching demonstrates
that God’s law is more exacting and comprehensive than the current shallow and
externalistic interpretations would lead people to think. Pleerroo should be taken to mean “confirm
and restore in full measure.” We must
not think that the coming of Christ has invalidated the previous law of God,
for the “word of the Lord abides forever” (1 Pet. 1:24-25).[16]
One’s understanding of the Sermon on the Mount plays a central role in
one’s application of the Old Testament to the Christian era. What is the central focus of Jesus in His
Sermon? Is He propounding a “new law,”
or is He refuting the traditions of the Pharisees and teachers (scribes) of the
Law? The context seems to indicate that
Jesus addresses the nullifying attitude of the religious leaders toward the Law,
not the Law itself. In other
words, the leaders of Israel were making the Word of God ineffective through
their traditions. In this Sermon, Jesus
makes it clear that the model for Christian obedience to God’s Law is not
Pharisaical legalism, but obedience from the heart.[17]
The religious leaders’ behavior excludes one from the kingdom of
heaven: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the
Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom
of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). This
righteousness relates to righteous deeds, not imputed righteousness. To
illustrate the forcefulness of Jesus’ teaching about inward righteousness versus outward righteousness, it
will be helpful to reflect upon Jeremiah’s graphic portrait of Israel’s reliance
upon the “Temple of the Lord” in contradistinction to proper conduct, which
behavior Jesus also addresses in His Sermon on the Mount.
This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of
Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in
this place. Do not trust in
deceptive words and say, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the
LORD, the temple of the LORD!” If
you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly,
if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed
innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own
harm, then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your
forefathers for ever and ever. But
look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless. Will you steal and murder, commit
adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not
known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name,
and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name,
become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 7:3-11)
This same attitude toward God’s Law is also reflected in the writings
of Isaiah. Listen to God as He
addresses the leaders in Israel for their lack of concern for the things that
really matter:
‘Why have we fasted,’ they say, ‘and you have
not seen it? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?’ “Yet on the day of your fasting, you do as
you please and exploit all your workers. 4 Your fasting ends in
quarreling and strife, and in striking each other with wicked fists. You cannot
fast as you do today and expect your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is
this the kind of fast I have chosen, only a day for a man to humble himself? Is
it only for bowing one’s head like a reed and for lying on sackcloth and ashes?
Is that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD? 6 “Is not
this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the
chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the
oppressed free and break every yoke? 7 Is it not to share
your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from
your own flesh and blood? (Isaiah 58:3-7)
Many of the religious leaders, in Jesus’ day,
reflected the same mindset that existed in Israel. Their religion consisted in outward
rituals, but not with inward righteousness. The words of Isaiah
are very similar to the words of Jesus in His renunciation of the religious
leaders in His judgment scene (Matthew 25:31-46).
This parable of Jesus is an analysis of those condemned in Matthew 23
(seven woes against the leaders of Israel). In the Sermon on the Mount, as
Jesus concludes the true interpretation of God’s Law against the traditions of
men, He warns His disciples with very vivid language about the ethical behavior
of the teachers of the Law and Pharisees:
Watch out for
false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are
ferocious wolves. By their
fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs
from thistles? Likewise
every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and
a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and
thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will
recognize them. “Not
everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only
he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord,
Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and
perform many miracles?’ Then
I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!.’
(Matthew 7:15-21)
Why must individuals practice inward
as well as outward
righteousness and teach the details of God’s Law? Is it not because one’s righteousness (good works) must include
the whole person? Jesus says, “Love the Lord your God
with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37; Deuteronomy 6:5). In other words,
the righteousness of the believer must exceed the external righteousness of
the scribes and Pharisees. What is
Jesus’ concern? Is it not about Law
abuse? Is it not about neglect of the
true intent of the Law? In the Sermon
on the Mount, Jesus goes to the very heart of the matter. In other words, Jesus
repudiates the perverse externalistic interpretations of the Pharisees and
their exegetical distortions of the Law.
Not only were the Pharisees mistaken in this area of the Law, but they
were also incorrect in their scheme of justification; the religious leaders
sought salvation through works. To state more clearly, the religious leaders
not only invalidated the intent of the Law by their disregard for the inward,
but they also used the Law as their means of right standing before God.[18]
The Sermon on the Mount zeroes in on the external versus the internal
intent of the Law. For example, this famous Sermon is rounded off, as stated
above, with an earnest appeal to beware of false prophets and a petition to put
into practice His teachings. The first
truth that our Lord Jesus Christ drives home in this Sermon is the authority of
the Old Testament (Matthew
5:17-19). Again, in concluding this
Sermon, Jesus sums up the essence of the Law with what is now commonly called
the “Golden Rule”: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them
do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6;31;
Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:14).
PAUL’S ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE LAW
As one contemplates
the writings of Paul, one should be conscious that the Holy Spirit used Paul as
an instrument to communicate His truths. There can be no contradiction between
Paul and other statements of Holy Scripture.
It appears, at least on surface reading, that Paul’s negative statements
about Law depreciate its authority in the life of the believer. For many believers, Paul’s diversified
“point of view” toward the law is one of the most baffling enigmas in biblical
studies. At the very center of this
problem is a statement of Paul to Christians in Rome: “Christ is the end of the law so that there may be
righteousness for everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4). How does one harmonize this statement of
Paul with the statement of Jesus in His Sermon (Matthew
5:17-19)? Heikki
Raisanen captures this dichotomy of Paul’s theology this way:
Paul has two sets of statements concerning
the validity of the law for Christians.
According to one set the law has been abrogated once and for all. According to the other the law is still in
force, and what it requires is charismatically fulfilled by Christians.[19]
Paul’s objection to the Law must be seen in
its illegal use, that is to say, the use of the Law as a means of
justification, not in its proper use, that is to say, the Law as an expression
of God’s will for humanity. For Paul,
the Law is always explicitly the “law of God.” Thus, Paul could express his delight in the Law: “For in my inner being I delight in God’s law”
(Romans 7:22). Again, Paul expresses his abiding status to
the law in its relationship to his way of life: “Thanks be to God—through Jesus
Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law,
but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:25).
The one who does not submit himself or herself to God’s Law is hostile to God:
“the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it
do so” (Romans 8:7). Over again, Paul speaks of the abiding power
of the Law as the thing that really counts: “circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Corinthians 7:19). From these Scriptures, one can see at a
glance that Paul delights in God’s Law, serves God’s Law in his mind, and subjects himself God’s Law.
One writer explains one’s subjection to the Law in these terms: “The
nature of the Law is summed up in the statement that the Law is the good will
of God. Hence not to be subject to the
Law is enmity against God, R. 8:7.”[20] Also, Paul’s comments to the Corinthians is
quite revealing: “To those not having the law I became like one not having the
law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law),
so as to win those not having the law” (1 Corinthians 9:21). Is one “under law”? Or is one “subject to law”? If one is under law, then, one is still
under condemnation. But what did Paul
mean by his statement in 1 Corinthians 9:21?
In verse 20 of this same
chapter, Paul stresses that the Christian is not under Law, but in verse 21, Paul appears to contradict what
he had just stated. How does one
respond properly to this apparent contradiction between the two verses? Perhaps, a parallel chart from the English
and Greek text will clarify part of the dilemma:
1 Corinthians 9:20 |
1 Corinthians 9:21 |
|
To
the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like
one under
the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those
under
the law. |
To
those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am
not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those
not having the law. |
|
20καὶ ἐγενόμην τοῖς Ἰουδαίοις ὡς Ἰουδαῖος, ἵνα Ἰουδαίους κερδήσω· τοῖς ὑπὸ νόμον ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον, μὴ ὢν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον, ἵνα τοὺς ὑπὸ
νόμον κερδήσω· [21] |
21τοῖς ἀνόμοις ὡς ἄνομος, μὴ ὢν ἄνομος θεοῦ ἀλλ᾿ ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ἵνα κερδάνω τοὺς ἀνόμους· [22] |
In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul says “under
law” (ὑπὸ νόμον, Jupo nomon) four times; on the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul does not
employ “under law” (ὑπὸ νόμον), but rather,
“subject to law” (ἔννομος, ennomos). In the chart above, “under law” is
highlighted in both the Greek and English texts, and, also in 1 Corinthians 9:21, “under law” is
highlighted in both the Greek and English texts. Paul forcefully states that he is “not under law” (v. 20). If this is so, and it is, one wonders why he
would say that he was “under Christ’s law” in the next verse (v. 21). In verse 21, Paul does not write “under law” (ὑπὸ νόμον), but “subject to
Christ’s law” (ἔννομος). No Christian is
“under law,” but every Christian is “subject to law” under Christ or “within
law to Christ.” Again, Paul says, “I am not free from God’s law” (ἄνομος θεοῦ, anomos qeou) but “within law to Christ” (ἔννομος Χριστοῦ, ennomos Cristou).[23] There is no contradiction between these
two verses. Did Paul ever consider
himself without law to God?
Paul’s negative
statements about Law concern the use of the Law as a means of justification,
that is to say, an illegal use of the Law.
Whenever one resorts to the law (any law for that matter—old or new) to
justify one’s standing before God, then, one is using the Law in a way that God
never intended. Paul calls attention to
a righteousness that is from God through faith, not law: “But now a righteousness from God, apart
from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness
from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:21-22). The religious leaders of Israel were seeking righteousness by Law
rather than by faith. Thus, Paul nails
the coffin shut, as it were, for those who rely upon the Law as the means of
justification: “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by
observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:20). It is in this vein that John
Murray explains:
The person who is ‘under law’ in the sense of
Rom. vi. 14 is in bondage to sin in its guilt, defilement, and power. But this was not the consequence of being
under the Mosaic economy during the period from Moses to Christ. Nor is ‘under law’, in this sense, to be
confused with a similar term as it applies to a believer in Christ (1 Cor. ix.
21). Of the same force as ‘under law’,
in this depreciatory sense is the expression ‘of law’ (Rom. iv. 14; Gal. 3.18,
iii.16, iii. 2, 5, 10) refers to the same notion. ‘apart from works of law’ (Rom. iii.21), he means a righteousness
apart from works of law and therefore antithetical to a works-righteousness. When he says that we have been put to death
to the law and discharged from the law (Rom. vii.4, 6), he refers to the
breaking of that bond that binds us to the law as the way of acceptance with
God (cf. Also Gal. ii.9). Law as law,
as commandment requiring obedience and pronouncing its curse upon all
transgression, does not have any potency or provision for the justification of
the ungodly. The contrast between
law-righteousness, which is our own righteousness, and the righteousness of God
provided in Christ is the contrast between human merit and the gospel of grace
(cf. Rom. x.3; Gal. ii.21, v. 4; Phil. iii.9).
Paul’s polemic in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians is concerned
with that antithesis.[24]
Even though justification is by faith in
Jesus, nevertheless, Paul submits the following question to cause reflection
upon the Law’s relevancy in the life of every believer: “Do we, then, nullify
the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (Romans 3:31). The written Law is an
expression of God’s righteousness. Again, Paul reinforces this truth when he
writes: “Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one
another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law” (Romans 13:8). In other words, Paul is
saying that love expresses itself in obedience to the commandments. Immediately
upon his explanation that love is the fulfillment of the Law, he pens:
The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,”
“Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment
there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
Love does no harm to its
neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans
13:9-10)
JAMES’ ATTITUDE
TOWARD THE LAW
Just a perusal of the Book of James reveals the significance of the Law
in one’s life. No New Testament writer is more zealous for the fruits that
accompany faith than James, our Lord’s brother. In fact, James speaks of the Law as “the perfect law that gives freedom” (James 1:25). According to James, every
believer who continues to look “intently into the perfect law that gives
freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing
it—he will be blessed in what he does (James 1:25).
Not only does James call the Law “the perfect law,” but he also speaks of it as
the “royal law” (James 2:8). Is James
talking about the Law itself? Listen
once more to James as he explains his “royal law”:
If you really keep the royal law found in
Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and
are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one
point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do
not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have
become a lawbreaker. (James 2:8-11)
James cites Leviticus 19:18: “Love
your neighbor as yourself.” Yet again, James calls attention to the teaching
that the Law also judges one’s relationship to his brother: “Brothers, do not
slander one another. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks
against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it,
but sitting in judgment on it (James 4:11).
Why such reliance upon the Law? Does
James’ dependence upon the Law reflect the words of Jesus—his Lord and brother
in the flesh (Matthew 5:17-20)? Over
again, why such admonitions? Is it not
that the believer is to be holy in his or her manner of life? The Law reflects the character of God. It is for this reason that Paul writes, “the
law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).
PETER’S
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LAW
Peter also echoes upon the character of God
in the Old Testament and appeals to the Old Testament writings for right
behavior: “But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for
it is written (γέγραπται, gegraptai): “Be holy, because I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15-16). This citation is taken
from Leviticus: “The LORD said
to Moses, ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: Be holy
because I, the LORD your God, am holy’” (Leviticus 19:2). It is also significant that the
Hebrew writer concludes his Epistle with a reference to the Old Testament:
Marriage should be honored by all, and the
marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually
immoral. Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what
you have, because God has said, “Never will I leave you; never will I
forsake you” So we say with confidence, “The Lord is my helper; I will
not be afraid. What can man do to me?” (Hebrews
13:4-6)
The author of
Hebrews cites two Old Testament Scriptures to give validity to his statements (Deuteronomy
31:6-8 and Psalm 118:6). This writer of the Book of Hebrews
cites two Old Testament passages (Joshua 1:5 and Psalms 118:6) to illustrate the
presence and help of God. Every
Christian must be free from the love of money and be content with what he or
she has. The believer needs nothing
more because he or she always has the presence and help of God. One should reflect upon the following chart
of the above two Scriptures:
Deuteronomy 31:6-8 |
Psalm 118:6 |
|
The Lord
will deliver them to you, and you must do to them all that I have commanded
you. 6 Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified
because of them, for the Lord
your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.” |
The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can man do to me? |
JOHN’S
ATTITUDE TOWARD THE LAW
For one to be relieved of the demands of the Law would contradict one’s
relationship to God, which grace establishes.
Salvation is freedom from sin, not freedom to commit sin. The Christian has respect and love for God’s
Law. One is now a servant of
righteousness; one is no longer a servant of sin; one is concerned about God’s Law.
John puts it this way: “Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Once more, John goes right to the heart of commandment keeping:
The man who says, “I know him,” but does not
do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But if anyone obeys his word, God’s
love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: Whoever
claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did. (1 John 2:4-6)
CONCLUSION
The principle concern of this essay is to set forth the relevancy or significance of the Old Testament in the life of the Christian community. Many scholars deny the Law any significance since believers are under grace, not under Law. On the other hand, one finds an equal number of scholars who appeal to the Old Testament as authoritative. Generally, the negative arguments are based upon negative statements of Paul—statements not viewed in context. It appears that expositors, or teachers, who repudiate the Old Testament fails to understand the emphasis of Paul in refuting the Judaizers’ use of the Law as a means of right standing before God. One must never use the Law as a means of justification. On the other hand, one should employ the Law to assist one in one’s progressive sanctification, that is to say, holiness in one’s walk with God. Also, one should read and study the Old Testament to understand something of the richness of God’s mercy in His reaching out to fallen humanity. A perusal of the teachings of Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, and John advance the weight of the Old Testament for the believer.