Law in the New Testament
The importance of law in the Old Testament is easily accepted even though its exact implications may be debated. It is the subject of God’s law in the New Testament that has been much misunderstood. The question affects not only the totality of the Christian life but also how the New Testament –– and its relationship with the Old Testament –– is understood. It would be out of place in this section to attempt to take up the entire New Testament teachings on conversion, salvation, morality, conduct and so on. (Many of these points are discussed in detail under other major headings.) Here we will therefore concentrate on the background situation in New Testament times, the reason why certain new approaches to law are emphasized, and why some contrasts are made with the Old Testament position.
The New Testament is very much rooted in the Judaism of the time. The picture of Judaism in the first century is only now becoming clear as a result of recent scholarship, while many old assumptions (unfortunately widespread in many of the major reference works) are no longer tenable. The reconstruction of early first-century Judaism that emerges from new methods and documents is quite different from that of Judaism after the period 70-135 A.D.
The Judaism of New Testament times was rooted in the Old Testament. The Hebrew Bible was the major traditional literature (even if read only in Greek translation, as it was by many in the Diaspora). The religious center was the Temple and its sacrificial system. There were also many different popular preachers and religious sects of diverse persuasions. However, actual membership in the sects was quite small. The vast majority of Jews were not members of any sect and were not overly scrupulous or religious in conduct. That is, despite a general piety which undoubtedly characterized most of them, they were too busy making a living to devote their time to sectarian taboos, religious harangues or denominational disputes.
This does not mean that certain of the sectarian leaders and teachers were not looked upon with a certain respect or that the temple worship was neglected. But the picture of a populace dominated by strictly observed Pharisaic rules of purity and halakah is not accurate. This is not to say that the Pharisees did not have considerable prestige or that they were without influence. On the other hand, there were only a few thousand Pharisees, and their rules and opinions were not dutifully followed by the people and were emphatically not followed by most of the temple priests.
Yet we must also keep in mind the previous centuries of Jewish history. The destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in 587 B.C. were very traumatic experiences. With the return of the exiles, there was a determination not to repeat the original causes of that exile. One of the major causes was considered to be Sabbath-breaking (Neh. 13:16-18; Ezek. 20:24). In the centuries that followed, the Jewish faith had its ups and downs. The one episode which threatened to submerge Judaism entirely came in the middle of the second century B.C. The Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, waged war against Judea, allying with the renegade Jews, defiling the temple and stopping the temple service.
At this time the Jews waged a long war to preserve their religion and autonomy. Although Jerusalem was retaken and the temple services restored after three years, the Maccabean state continued to fight with the Syrians for decades. The priesthood was combined with the political leadership in the Hasmonean (Maccabean) dynasty which ruled Judea for the next century. This autonomy came to an end in 63 B.C. when Rome intervened in civil strife resulting from rival claims to the high priesthood.
Nevertheless, under Roman rule, with the Herodian family as the major figure of political control, the Jewish state still maintained a considerable amount of freedom. Not only was worship not restricted but Herod the Great even began a lengthy process of beautification and restoration of the Temple. Objections to Rome were primarily of a political and not of a religious nature. The Jewish religion was a thriving concern. The main thing to remember is that Judaism was a pluralistic phenomenon of many differing aspects with the Temple as its focus; it was not a Pharisaic or rabbinic monopoly.
It was onto this stage that Jesus stepped –– the stage on which He began His teachings. It was on this same stage that the early Church began. The apostle Paul concentrated his efforts in the Diaspora. The Jews in the Diaspora, despite some differences, seemed to cover the same basic religious spectrum as the Jews in Palestine. As a people and as a religion, the Jews and Judaism were very well known in the first century throughout the Roman Empire. This is borne out by many historians of the period. Preaching the gospel in the Gentile world meant building upon a Jewish, and hence Old Testament, foundation.
The New Testament teachings presume the Old Testament and the Judaism of that time. This is clear to anyone who studies the historical and cultural background as well as the New Testament itself. Thus, what sometimes appears to be a radical statement about Judaism or the law or the Old Testament, is really either a spiritual modification or an amplification or both, rather than a rejection or repudiation of it. In other words, the New Testament writers –– including Paul –– did not reject the Old Testament or the law or even their Jewish background. They rejected a few things, they modified or changed the emphasis of many things, and they especially taught the newly revealed spiritual meanings involved. It is critical for a full understanding of God’s law in the New Testament to realize that the apostles assumed a great deal as intuitively and publicly obvious, without seeing any need to discuss it specifically.
To take one example, perhaps the heart of the New Testament, we can look at the “Sermon on the Mount.” Much within this vital section is not new; that is, it can be paralleled with sections in the Old Testament. The Old Testament law is presupposed: “Think not that I have come to abolish them but to fulfill them . . . Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great” (Matt. 5:17-20).
What is revolutionary about the “Sermon on the Mount” is its complete emphasis on matters of the heart rather than just on external practice. Here is the ultimate in the complete rejection of egotism; the highest form of absolute concern for others and for God. Many Old Testament commands are made more strict by becoming matters of the spirit: sexual desire, divorce, repayment for wrongs, swearing, murder and hate, to name some of the major ones. Jesus was making things harder, not easier. As the disciples said about the subject of divorce in another context, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” Jesus’ answer was that, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:10-11).
Jesus was not doing away with the law; He was, rather, magnifying and lifting it to a spiritual plane, revealing its full spiritual intent. He was making it a matter of the spirit rather than only of the letter. He was showing the laws intent and purpose as opposed to its bare physical statement. The basic overall result was the introduction of a system of law which could be kept only by means of the Holy Spirit. Old Testament law could be kept in the letter by any ordinary physical individual with character and self-discipline. New Testament law in its spiritual form could in no way be kept without divine help.
In the Old Testament, righteousness was primarily judged by what one did, by external conformity to the laws. This does not mean that there are not many statements about the attitude and intent of the heart and its importance –– there are. But the emphasis is nonetheless on adherence to the letter of the law, something that was possible for the ordinary person. The New Testament goes much further, stating that external obedience is not enough. Despite all one’s attempts, full service to the spiritual demands of the law is unattainable in the flesh. No one can be completely righteous without perfect obedience. Since this is impossible, no one is, by himself, righteous.
This view was, of course, quite contrary to the then current view of things. To persons such as the Pharisees who put great emphasis on their scrupulous observance of their own ritual laws of purity, it was rather galling to be told that their faithful practice was so much dung (cf Phil. 3:8). Paul is not castigating obedience; he is not denigrating the Old Testament law. Rather, he is showing that the real source of forgiveness and salvation is Jesus Christ. That His sacrifice for our sins and His resurrection are the really important things, as opposed to the less important do’s and don’ts of the law.
Paul is often misunderstood in this regard simply because his teachings are not understood against their background. He himself strictly conformed even to what were considered ritual observances (Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:17-26). On the other hand, some things which are often relegated to the level of ritual were not ritual but essential parts of worship which Paul observed and taught (such as the Sabbath and the Annual Holy Days).
Furthermore, Paul was teaching not just Jews but Gentiles. The Old Testament promises were purely physical, made to a physical Israel that did not understand the spiritual intent of circumcision, even though Old Testament writings speak of an inward circumcision not of the flesh (Jer. 4:4; Deut. 30:6; Joel 2:13). The requirement of physical circumcision for males was a major problem in the early Church, with the decision being made that such circumcision was not for the Gentiles. The message Paul took to the Gentiles was that they no longer needed to become Jews outwardly, in the flesh through circumcision, to gain salvation. Membership in the Israel of God was a matter of the heart.
Paul’s epistle to the Romans is replete with vigorous statements in full support of the law. The law is not void by faith, but fully established (Rom. 3:31). Christians are admonished not to continue in sin (Rom. 6:1-2), but to become “servants of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). The law is good (Rom. 7:7), it is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), and “holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good” (Rom. 12:7). The carnal mind that leads to death (Rom. 6:23; 8:6) is defined as being “enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God” (Rom. 8:7).
Paul’s statements in Romans 2:25-27, while often quoted, have been somewhat neglected as a powerful affirmation of the fact that Gentiles need to be lawkeepers. In this passage Paul is showing that the issue of circumcision is irrelevant for the Christian, in contradistinction to the issue of keeping “the righteousness of the law” which is extremely relevant. If the uncircumcised Gentiles fulfill the law, they are immeasurably superior to circumcised Jews who transgress the law. So a Gentile in the Church who keeps the law becomes a true Jew inwardly, because he is fulfilling what God wanted all along. The condition is to keep God’s law. Paul’s use of the term “law” cannot mean the entire Sinaitic covenant, since circumcision itself was a part of that covenant and therefore it would be logically impossible for an uncircumcised person to keep the “whole” law. Paul must be referring to the moral law, the Ten Commandments, in Romans 2:25-27.
Paul knew that some would conclude that, because he continually stressed that salvation cannot be earned by law-keeping, the law was annulled or worthless. “Do we then void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law” (Rom. 3:31). This is important because, if the law were done away or became invalid, then sin would be dead (Rom. 7:8), no transgression would exist (Rom. 4:15), and God could not impute sin to make the sacrifice of Christ meaningful. “The strength of sin is the law” (I Cor. 15:56): the law is the standard of what sin and what righteousness are. If that standard is removed, there is no need for Christ. So by accepting Jesus, the true Christian is indeed establishing the law, by admitting its full empowerment in condemning him (Rom. 6:23). As a result, the true Christian, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can fulfill the righteousness of the law (Rom. 8:4) and with Paul shall “delight in the law of God after the inward man” (Rom. 7:22).
The book of Galatians is often used as support in an attempt to do away with God’s law. This is not the issue dealt with in the epistle at all. The focal point of Paul’s letter to the Galatians does not deal with the abrogation of the law but rather with the question of how one is justified. Justification means forgiveness for past sins –– being counted as just and pure through Jesus’ blood. That is what Paul is dealing with. In other words, there are two systems. One began with the covenant at Sinai. The other is the system of faith in Christ. The one system, of relying on the fact that you are circumcised, etc. for justification does not lead to eternal life. Paul shows that this only condemns –– brings bondage –– because no provision exists for real forgiveness and pardon for sin. So the system of the first covenant will not save anyone. Some were denying that to the Galatian Church. They were looking to their physical adherence to the way of life of the Sinaitic covenant, especially to circumcision, to earn salvation.
But the question was not whether Gentiles could covet, or kill, or steal, or break the Sabbath. Rather, the question was whether a Gentile had to be physically circumcised (Gal. 2:3-4). Paul categorically denied this. Galatians 2:14 portrays the problem further: the Jews were even practicing racial discrimination for religious reasons. They felt superior to their Gentile brethren because they were physically a part of the heritage of Israel. But Paul showed in Romans that this should only have made them see their sins more, since they knew God’s law so well. So the question has to do with circumcision and the manner or customs that one follows.
Why, then, is Paul so upset over this? Because carried to their logical conclusion these requirements would mean that Jesus’ death was not necessary. If being a Jew could save a man, if being physically circumcised could bring favor with God, then Christ died in vain. It would mean that just having the law would be enough. But having the law –– having the whole system of the Sinaitic covenant –– was not enough to attain eternal life; in fact, it only pointed out sin more and more. To rely fully on the law, one would have to keep all of it perfectly, which is impossible. So when Paul uses “law” in Galatians he means all that is involved in being a Jew; the whole system of the Sinaitic covenant, especially the ceremonies and rituals which were “added because of transgressions” until Christ should come (Gal. 3:19), and he specifically singles out circumcision as an issue.
Justification must be by faith (Gal. 3:11) and the law of the Sinaitic covenant was given not to save us, but as a schoolmaster or “pedagogue,” to teach us the meaning of obedience, to bring us to Christ.
This, then, is the core of Galatians. Much of Paul’s reasoning is the same in Romans as in Galatians. But in Romans, Paul is dealing with moral law –– sin and grace –– whereas in Galatians, the problem is circumcision and understanding the place of the Sinaitic covenant, the whole system called “law.” But the same conclusions are arrived at by complementary arguments.
In Romans, Paul uses as an example the law of God concerning coveting (Rom. 7:7ff). Why cannot that law save us? Because it only emphasizes the sin. If we rely on works of the law –– our keeping of this law –– we will fail. We are sinners and have all coveted. The only solution is justification by faith. But after justification we must keep the law through God’s Spirit. The law is holy, just and good; it is spiritual and eternal.
In Galatians, Paul deals with the law of circumcision. We cannot be saved by being circumcised, because if we go to that whole system of which circumcision is a part for salvation we receive no grace or pardon, only condemnation. We cannot, with our natural human strength, keep the law (i.e., the Ten Commandments. We can keep circumcision; it is painful, but possible). So the only solution is again Jesus and justification by faith. What about after justification? Are we then to follow circumcision and the system of the Sinaitic covenant? No, that would be to deny Jesus and our need for Him.
Once again, the reasoning in Romans and Galatians is basically the same, but the issues are different. The first is universal: the question of sin and morality. The second is the question of the historical place of the Sinai covenant in God’s plan. Remember that the Ten Commandments did not originate with the Sinaitic covenant but with God at Creation and since. So they are not affected when the covenant is changed. They are universal and tell us what sin is.
Ephesians 6:1-3 is a very significant statement concerning the position of the Ten Commandments in the Gentile churches. Here, the fifth one is cited. Notice the comment in verse 2. It is “the first commandment with promise.” Not just that it was, it still is. And what does Paul mean by “the first”? He is obviously referring to a set of commandments –– a group of them. And they still apply. This simple statement by Paul gives us an important insight into the attitude of the Gentile churches towards the Ten Commandments. He does not have to introduce them or say that, “Honor your father and mother” was once a commandment with promise, for it is a commandment at this time.
If Gentile Christians were indeed taught to honor and keep the Ten Commandments, why, then, does Paul make certain mitigating comments about “law”? The answer is rooted in the historical reality that Christianity at this time was viewed as a Jewish sect in the general public opinion. And therefore, much of what has been taken as a castigation of the Old Testament law in the New Testament is actually an antidote to the idea that Gentiles had to become Jewish Proselytes before they could become Christians. This idea probably gained credence simply because Gentile Christians were taught and read their Old Testament, and various proselytizing Jewish groups were spreading the message that Gentiles had to follow the whole system of first-century Judaism in order to partake of the salvation offered by the God of Israel. Certainly to Gentiles who had never heretofore been taught the Holy Scriptures, apostolic Christianity and contemporary Judaism must have seemed extremely similar (much as Methodism and Seventh-Day Adventism might seem similar to a Buddhist today). Paul therefore had to take great pains to show how Christianity differed from Judaism. He had to do this because the two religions clearly had so much in common.
Nearly everybody knew what Judaism and the Old Testament taught. The Sabbath and annual Holy Days, for example, were commonly known. What Paul had to do was not reemphasize the Old Testament laws already known, but rather teach the new revelations about Jesus Christ and His spiritual magnification of the law that nobody knew.
No attempt was made by the New Testament writers to repeat everything of relevance in the Old Testament. To have done so would have made the Old Testament redundant. It would also have been utterly ridiculous, since the Old Testament was commonly presupposed to be inspired Scripture, the Word of God. It was the only Scripture then in existence.
Converts from paganism were, of course, tempted to revert to the religious culture from which they had come. They were influenced by various popular religions, syncretistic cults and astrological clans. But the contrast between Christianity and paganism was fairly clear. What was not so clear was the difference between Judaism and Christianity. Thus, even though Paul has to fight the influences of paganism and the contemporary culture, he seems to have found many problems from the Jewish side as well.
When this is understood, most of the presumed antinomian, anti-Jewish and anti-Old Testament sentiment in Paul’s writings evaporates. Despite some differences because of his specific mission to the Gentiles, Paul suddenly looks a great deal like James and Peter and John in teaching what Jesus taught. Paul was no longer a Pharisee, but he remained a faithful Jew as well as becoming a Christian.
The book of James has been a perennial problem for those who would have the New Testament discard God’s law. James calls the law of God “the royal law” in 2:8. He quotes Leviticus 19:18: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” which is the epitome of the last six of the Ten Commandments (Rom. 13:9-10). James goes on to show that if you break one point of the law –– meaning any one of the Ten Commandments –– you are guilty of all (James 2:10-11). God’s law is at the same time the “law of liberty” (2:12), since it frees man from the bondage of sin.
But it is the last half of the second chapter of James, verses 14 to 26, that gives antinomian Christians their biggest problem. James repeatedly emphasizes that “faith without works is dead” (vv. 17, 20, 26), that the best way to show real faith is by works (v. 18), that by works faith is made perfect (v. 22), and “that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (v. 24). James 4:11-12 is a proper conclusion to this theme, putting the question directly to any who would do away with God’s law: “if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”
In the epistles of John, the subject of keeping the commandments comes up several times. I John 2:4 is direct: “He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” I John 3:4 is powerful in its blunt assertion that, “Whosoever committeth sin trangresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.” Likewise, John 15:10 (cf. I John 3:22-24), where Jesus tells His disciples before His death to keep His commandments as He had kept His Father’s commandments.
Certainly these commandments included all of Christ’s commandments, but the expression clearly includes the only set of commandments, the Ten Commandments. Compare Matthew 19:16-19 in this context. Here Jesus tells a rich young man, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” The young man asks, “Which?” And Jesus responds by enumerating five of the Ten Commandments.
The necessity to keep God’s commandments is reemphasized in the book of Revelation. The Church –– “the rest of [the woman’s] offspring” –– is identified as keeping the commandments of God in 12:17. The saints are defined as those “who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” in 14:12. And finally, those who shall be in the incomprehensibly awesome new heaven and new earth of chapter 2l shall be only those who “do His commandments.”
All the New Testament writers presuppose the Old Testament and often quote or allude to it. It was decades after the founding of the Church before Holy Scripture comprised more than the Old Testament. Furthermore, since Jesus Christ was the very personality who had given His law to humanity in general and to Israel in particular at Sinai. He would scarcely have discarded (and He did not discard) in the New Testament the very law He had established in the Old.
The Old Testament is an essential part of the biblical canon. It is as much the Word of God as the New Testament. However, to New Testament Christians, the Old Testament has a special status in that it is not to be taken alone: it must be read in the light of the New Testament.
Summary: Read these scriptures in your own Bible:
1 Corinthians 15:56 – The strength of sin is the law.
1 John 2:4 – He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth not His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him.
1 John 3:4 – Sin is the transgression of the law.
Ephesians 6:1-3 – Paul tells the Gentiles to keep the commandments.
Isaiah 42:21 – …the Lord will magnify the law and make it honorable.
James 2
John 15:10 – Jesus tells the disciples to keep the commandments as He did.
Luke 24:44 – Jesus accepts the authenticity and inspiration of the entire Old Testament including the Law.
Matthew 19:16-19 – Jesus tells a rich man to keep commandments.
Matthew 22:36-40 – The two commandments on which all the law and prophets hang.
Matthew 4:4 – Man shall live by every word of God.
Matthew 5:17-20 – Think not that I (Jesus) came to destroy the law.
Psalm 119:97-99 – Meditate on the law.
Revelation 12:17 – Church identified as keeping commandments.
Revelation 14:12 – Saints defined as those keeping commandments.
Revelation 14:21 – Those in new heaven and new earth will be those who keep the commandments.
Romans 2:25-27 – Paul referring to the moral law, the 10 commandments.
Questions (Answers Below):
1) Divine law is the totality of the means or way by which God instructs man on how to live most abundantly in this physical life. True or False?
2) New Testament writers express a [positive, neutral, negative] attitude towards God’s law.
3) According to 1 John 2:4 a person who says, “I know Him,” and keeps not His commandments is a ____ [what?].
4) The New Testament teachings presume knowledge of the Old Testament and the Judaism of the time. True or False?
5) It is critical for a full understanding of God’s law in the New Testament to realize that the apostles assumed that a great deal of the law and the Old Testament was publicly obvious, and therefore saw no need to repeat it all in the New Testament. True or False?
6) Jesus was…
a) not doing away with the law
b) was magnifying and lifting it to a spiritual plane
c) making it a matter of the spirit rather than just the letter
d) was showing the law’s intent and purpose
e) introducing a system of law which could be kept only by the Holy Spirit
f) all of the above
7) No one can be completely righteous without perfect obedience. Since this is impossible, no one is, by himself, righteous. True or False?
8) Paul…
a) never spoke of the law
b) was in full support of keeping the law
c) preached the law done away
9) If there is no law, there is no need of Christ. True or False?
10) The Law is…
a) Holy
b) just
c) good
d) spiritual
e) eternal
f) all of the above
11) The 10 Commandments originated with the Sinaitic covenant. True or False?
12) In Ephesians 6, Paul tells the Gentiles to keep the 10 commandments. True or False?
13) Faith without works (of faith) is dead. True or False?
14) The book of Revelation never mentions the keeping of the 10 Commandments. True or False?
15) Since it was Jesus Christ who established the law in the Old Testament, He would never have discarded it in the New Testament church. True or False?
16) The Old Testament is an essential part of the biblical canon. True or False?
Lesson Sixteen – Answers
1. (True)
2. (positive)
3. (liar)
4. (True)
5. (True)
6. (f)
7. (True)
8. (b)
9. (True)
10. (f)
11. (False)
12. (True)
13. (True)
14. (False)
15. (True)
16. (True)
