Is the Law for Today?

The sphere of discussion surrounding the questions of the existence and function of law and gospel in the Mosaic administration has long been a hotbed of theological debate. And among hotbeds of theological debate, this one is rendered more interesting by virtue of its being a very salient point of distinction between Lutheran and Reformed/Calvinistic theologies. On the one hand, we have Lutheran theologians positing a diametrically opposed relationship between (1) the law, which served as the non-negotiable condition for remaining in the old covenant, and which was utterly abolished at the coming of (2) the gospel, which replaced law as the unmeritorious mode of entrance into the new covenant, in continuity with the Abrahamic promise. Law and gospel, therefore, are essentially unlike methods of entering into a covenantal relationship with God, the one being a method of entrance by works into a covenant which is entirely conditional; and the other being a method of entrance by faith into an unconditional covenant. The Calvinistic theologian, on the other hand, sees the Mosaic covenant as unconditional, and the law functioning (among other things) as a guide for those who have already entered into the covenant by faith. The law has been abolished in that it no longer condemns; however, in its “third use” (instruction in moral living) the law remains normative for believers today. Both of these viewpoints have elements of New Testament teaching to commend them: in support of the Calvinistic understanding of the ongoing usefulness of the law, we may adduce such passages as Matthew 5:17-19:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

And Romans 13:8-10:

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

But in support of the Lutheran understanding of the complete negation of the law, we may adduce such passages as Galatians 3:10-12;17-19;23-25:

For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them…. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator…. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Romans 3:19-21:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

And Colossians 2:14-17:

Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

In examining these passages, we find some very negative assessments of the law: it offered righteousness to the man who followed its precepts: but as no man could perfectly keep the law, it served rather as a sentence of condemnation, revealing sin and justifying no one. It was a pedagogue, leading us to Christ; but it is now no more necessary, for Christ has come, bringing with him the righteousness of God which is without the law; which is by faith; and which was testified by the prophets. Again, the law came after the gospel-promise to Abraham, and was only temporary, unlike the Abrahamic promise itself, and its new covenant fulfillment in this age of grace/gospel. Of utmost importance in our study is the testimony of Colossians 2 that when the law was “taken out of the way,” it lost all of its forcefulness as a means by which to point a finger of condemnation, not just against those who fail to follow its “ceremonial” mandates (in keeping with the threefold division suggested by Calvin in his Institutes); but even in the particular of Sabbath-keeping, which was a requirement of the Decalogue, supposed to express the basic moral requirements of the law — that is, the part of the law which remains, in Calvin’s assessment, in force today. If the fourth word of the Decalogue, Sabbath-keeping, is no longer an essential requirement for believers today, then the ongoing instructive use of the moral law as it was given to Moses is by no means so clear-cut an issue as the Calvinistic tradition makes it.

However, we are left with certain passages which should cause us to question the almost entirely negative perception of the Lutherans. Christ did not come to abolish, but to fulfill the law; and the law, in its purest essence, is to be kept by believers today as they love God and their neighbors. In this sense, the law is not entirely negated, but must be fulfilled even today.

How are we to account for these different emphases in the Calvinistic and Lutheran approaches to the law and its function today? In other words, how are we to reconcile these approaches into a unified understanding that accommodates the whole gamut of scriptural teaching? The immediate question we are dealing with is this: In what sense (if any) does the law remain in force today? But behind this question, we have a more fundamental issue to deal with: Is the Mosaic administration of the covenant conditional or unconditional? The answer to this question, to a large degree, will shape our answer to the previous question. To the extent that the Mosaic covenant was conditioned upon keeping the law, the law is abrogated today; for the covenant which we have today is entirely unconditional, entered into by faith and the sovereign grace of God. But to the extent that the Mosaic covenant was unconditional, or rather to the extent that the law played a role in the economy of an unconditional Mosaic covenant, to that extent it may continue to function in the unconditional economy of the new covenant. Our purpose in this article is to determine in what sense, if any, the law remains in effect today; But in light of these preliminary considerations, we will first examine the questions, (1) Is the Mosaic covenant conditional or unconditional? (2) What is the place and relationship of law and gospel in the Mosaic covenant? And only on the basis of these two questions will we address our primary concern, (3) In what sense, if any, does the law remain in effect today?

Is the Mosaic Covenant Conditional or Unconditional?

Any cursory reading of the inauguration of the Mosaic covenant leads to an understanding that it is, in some manner, conditional. In Exodus 19:4-6 we read, “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” The conditional aspect of the covenant is here very clearly stated: being God’s peculiar people is expressly made contingent upon obeying his voice and keeping his covenant. A little later on, at the official establishment of the covenant, we read the people of Israel assenting, “All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.” So at the commencement of the Mosaic administration we see by the testimony of the Lord that the relationship between himself and his people was possible only by a keeping of the law. And to this testimony the people gave voluntary assent, promising to obey all that the Lord had commanded them in the giving of the law. It is therefore undeniable that the law must be kept for the covenant relationship to remain firm. However, we have in these very passages a hint of the sovereign assurance of the covenant, in that it was established on the basis of God’s bearing his people on eagles’ wings, and drawing them to himself. This God did on the basis of his elective choice alone, without consideration of the keeping of the law, which had not in fact been kept by any Israelite. Furthermore, the establishment of the Mosaic covenant was explicitly declared to be in remembrance of the promise made unconditionally to Abraham and the fathers, as we read in Deuteronomy 7:6-9, “For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;” This testimony makes very clear that God’s covenant was established sovereignly and unconditionally on the basis of his elective love and the promises made to the fathers; and furthermore, that God’s covenant loyalty remains by virtue of his faithfulness and mercy alone. This leads us to a situation which, to misunderstand on one side or the other must have necessary consequences in how we understand the very nature of God’s covenant dealings with mankind. We must first acknowledge that God’s covenant is unconditional; second, that this unconditional covenant serves as the foundation for the Mosaic administration, as Deuteronomy 7 makes clear; and third, that the covenant cannot be maintained apart from the keeping of the law. As Moses elsewhere declares, “Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.” (Leviticus 18:5). God’s holiness demands that his law be kept for the meriting of life; but God’s faithfulness demands that his covenant be sure forevermore, and this by virtue of the fact that he had sworn by himself that he would be God to Abraham and his seed. And having sworn by himself, he could not allow the covenant to fail without allowing reproach to come upon his name. So the covenant was therefore both unconditional and conditional: unconditional in that the Lord had sworn by himself that it would not fail; and conditional in that he could not allow his law to be abrogated in the continuance of the covenant. His mercy could not be irrespective of his justice.

This understanding of the covenant as both conditional and unconditional leads us to our second question, which is,

What is the Place and Relationship of Law and Gospel in the Mosaic Covenant?

If the continuance of God’s covenant is sure; and if his law must be kept for the enjoyment of it; and if, moreover, the law itself taught that no man could keep it flawlessly; then that very tension must have led a believing Israelite to understand that there must be a flawless substitute in which he must trust to merit the covenant blessings for him. This substitute must bear the curses of the law, as the holiness of God demands, “If thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish” (Deuteronomy 30:17,18). He must also fulfill the demands of the law, as God states, “If a man does these things, he shall live by them.” And finally, as the law showed that there is no man capable of fulfilling the law perfectly, or yet of bearing satisfactorily its just demands for death; and as God had sworn by himself that he would keep covenant forever; therefore, the substitute for the believing Israelite must have been God himself. God had sworn by himself that he would establish the covenant; therefore, God himself would meet its demands. The gospel therefore inhered in the very nature of the Mosaic administration, and was closely intertwined with the righteous demands of the law. Moses preached a law that must be fulfilled for life — a law that was holy, just, good, and unable to be abrogated without causing reproach on God’s holy name; and yet at the same time, Moses preached a gospel that promised a divine, flawless substitute who would both perfectly fulfill the obligations of the law, and fully bear the curses which it demanded. In the very fabric of Moses’ demand of the keeping of the law for life, he adds the blessed promise of the gospel, saying, “For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it” (Deuteronomy 30:11-14). This gospel promise is interpreted by Paul in Romans 10, where he explains how the true Israelite must have understood it: “No one can say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to accomplish the positive demands of the law?’ because Christ himself would come down to accomplish them. Neither could anyone say, ‘Who will descend into the abyss and come back up, having satisfied the negative demands of the law?’ because Christ, having suffered the curse for those infractions would rise victorious from the dead.” In other words, when the believing Israelite recognized the impossibility of meriting life through the keeping of the law, he had no excuse for saying, “Who then will accomplish it for us?” Because the heart of faith embraced the expectation of Christ’s absolute fulfillment. Faith in Christ as the one who would come down from heaven and rise from the abyss apprehended the blessings of law-fulfillment, so that the gospel (i.e. “the word” of faith) was “in [their] mouth and in [their] heart, that [they] might do it.” The Israelite of Moses’ day could rest assured of the life promised by the law not through his own work, but through faith in the substitutionary work of Christ, both positive and negative. In this way, the law is written on the believer’s heart, its fulfillment is imputed to him, and the rewards that it promised are merited for him through the promised Messiah. This was the gospel as it appeared in the Mosaic administration. And it is the same gospel which Paul preached, the gospel of justification by grace through faith in the promised Christ. The law, therefore, led to Christ in that it showed believers their utter need of one to fulfill the impossible demands of the law vicariously. Which is precisely the point of the sacrificial system, as well. As long as it was seen as an added system of obligatory requirements whereby the worshipper could merit grace to compensate for his failings, it was powerless. It was only as it instructed the worshipper of the necessity of a spotless substitute for those who believe that it could lead to life. Not through works, in carrying out the function of the cult; but by faith in looking to Christ through the lens, as it were, of the sacrificial institutions.

On the basis of this preliminary understanding we will address our primary concern, which is,

In What Sense, If Any, Does the Law Remain in Effect Today?

In laying the foundation of an Old Testament biblical theological perspective on the law we are better equipped to understand the New Testament, and in particular the Pauline, teaching on the status of the law in the present economy of grace. A quick perusal of Paul’s teaching on the law in his epistle to the Romans proves enlightening in this respect. Initially, we find Paul laying the groundwork that the law is of no avail to the one who hears, but the one who does it (2:13). However, Paul demonstrates that no one can fulfill the law satisfactorily (3:20). This reality does not compromise the faithfulness of God to the covenant promises however (3:3; 9:6); instead it teaches the necessity of faith in a substitutionary law-fulfiller for righteousness (3:21,22). This is in continuity with the justification of the fathers who likewise trusted in Christ (4:2-8). Christ’s work, therefore, does not essentially change the way of salvation, it merely validates the grounds of faith for those who believed in the past, and further affirms the legitimacy of the faith of present believers after Christ actually fulfilled the law (3:24-28). In this sense, the coming of Christ did not at all negate the law, but fulfilled it (3:31). This was accomplished by Christ’s grace abounding where the law had made sin to abound, so that the law could no more accuse those who trusted in him (5:19-21). Because of this fulfillment of the law, believers are freed from its demands, which have already been satisfied, and able to obey its essence, being no longer condemned by it (6:14,15). We have in this way died to the law by virtue of his death, which satisfied its demands, and have been freed to live holy lives apart from its dominion (7:4); therefore, we are no longer impotent because of sin, but able to fulfill the intention of the law, being freed from its demands by the work of Christ, who changed us so that we are by nature law-keepers through the Spirit (8:2-4); (in accordance with which, cf. the new covenant promise of Jeremiah 33, that God would write the law on our hearts). In conclusion, being freed from the demands of the law, and having our natures changed through the law-satisfying work of Christ, we fulfill the law as a fruit of Christ’s work in us, even though we are no longer under obligation to fulfill it because of Christ’s fulfillment being laid to our account. So in what sense is the law done away with? First, positively, we are no longer under obligation to fulfill it, because Christ has fulfilled it for us. Second, negatively, we are no longer condemned by the law, because Christ has taken its curse upon himself for us. And third, we are no longer bound by sin and unable to keep its essence, because we have died to sin in Christ’s death, and in our new life, as we walk by the Spirit, we fulfill by our new nature that which the law demanded. So our death is twofold: we have died to the law, and are hence freed from its dominion (7:4); and we have died to sin, and are hence freed from our inability to keep the law (6:2). Thus, in the manifold wisdom and grace of God, when we are no longer obligated to keep the law, in that Christ kept it for us, we are at that point enabled to keep it; because the very act of Christ in which he freed us from the law (justification) was an act by which he freed us from sin (sanctification) so that we are now able to keep that which we could never keep when we were constrained to do so. In summary, the law as a condemning force is done away in Christ; the law as a pedagogical force is done away in Christ (for the one of whom it taught us that we had need of has appeared and has indeed accomplished that which we learned we could never do); and finally, the law as an instructive force has largely been done away with, because now we do those things that the law required by nature, when we walk by the Spirit. In all of these things the law is done away with not by its being abrogated, but by its being fulfilled in Christ.

Conclusion

Now that we have laid a biblical foundation of law and gospel in the Mosaic administration, and on that foundation have posited an understanding of the place of law in the age of grace, it remains for us to go back and assess the Lutheran and Calvinistic understandings of the same. As regards the Lutheran, we must mention two cautions: first, we must beware that the absoluteness of the Lutheran distinction does not lead to a negative view of the law. The law has been thoroughly done away with for the believer, who is no longer under its demands or its curse; but that must not color our view of the law so that we see it in any way as flawed or unholy. It is thoroughly good and righteous, and it has been done away with not because anything amiss inhered in it from the beginning; but because Christ has fulfilled its righteous demands. Second, we must not let our understanding lead us to the belief that the Mosaic administration of the covenant was in any way more conditional than the present administration. The Israelite of old remained in the covenant not by keeping the law but believing in the one who would keep it for him. The radical change in the new covenant is not that what was attained by works is now attained by faith; but rather that what was promised and believed in is now fully accomplished. We no longer look ahead to the fulfillment of the law, but look back to when it was in fact fulfilled. The law no longer hangs over our heads, demanding satisfaction; so we are in a vastly more joyous situation than the old believers. But with them, as with us, justification was only to be found through faith in Christ. As regards the Calvinistic understanding we must add this caution: the so called “third use” of the law is essentially different in this covenant than in the old. In the old covenant, the believers were commanded to labor to obey all of the specific precepts of the law, and this taught them of their own insufficiency and their need for Christ. When Christ appeared this most basic instructive purpose of the law was done away. Now we no longer look to the specific commandments of the law, but labor to live according to the essence underlying those commandments as we walk by the Spirit. This essence is summed up both by Christ and Paul as loving God supremely and loving one’s neighbor as himself. This may at first glance appear to be an artificial distinction, because the specific outworkings of that essential demand may be presumed to be consistent from one covenant to the next. For instance, the old covenant command, “Love your neighbor,” had a specific manifestation in the command, “Do not kill,” which is also an appropriate manifestation of love in the new covenant. However, a too rigid adherence to following specific law commands as they appear in the old covenant administration may lead to a misinformed application of the law’s essence as believers strive to live by the law of Christ in the new covenant administration. This is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by observing the fourth law of the decalogue, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” The essential reality behind this law is that believers must labor for a time; but in the end that labor finds its goal in a final resting in God himself. And as the fourth chapter of Hebrews makes clear, Jesus himself is our Sabbath rest. A philosophy that demands that Christians abstain from work one day out of the week substitutes a temporary old covenant expression for the essential truth behind it. This error may be avoided by recognizing that the law does not serve to instruct believers of this era by a mere catalog of its demands; but rather, it points to an essential reality which is clearly interpreted by the new covenant teachings. The shadow of what a righteous life looks like, as it was engraved in tablets of stone, has disappeared to make way for the reality, God’s essential law engraved on the hearts of believers. What this essence is must be determined before the application of any specific old covenant commands may be established as normative for believers today. And this essence is more fully revealed by the teaching of Christ and his new covenant apostles than it was in the old Mosaic administration.

Leave a Reply