The Unity of the Law and Christian Duty

It has been the custom of some to frame the opinion that the Old Testament law can have no prescriptive significance for the New Testament believer, on the basis of such passages as Galatians 3:23-25, which states, “… 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.” On the other hand, many Christians, recognizing that some Old Testament prescriptions must have continuing force, and acknowledging as well that certain prescriptions, particularly as they relate to the worship cult, retain no overt prescriptive force for the Christian, have posited a threefold division in the Mosaic law, treating all commands under the headings of Civil, Ceremonial, and Moral; of which the latter alone remains prescriptive. Both of these viewpoints have difficulties. With the first, we must come to odds with New Testament passages such as Ephesians 6:1, which enjoins certain Christians to obey an Old Testament command simply by virtue of the fact that it is indeed a command. If all prescriptive force in the Old Testament law were done away, Paul would be inconsistent to adduce a specific command and a promise with which it was linked, and use that Old Testament command to prescribe duties for the New Testament believer. The difficulty with the latter is that, we can find no New Testament evidence that the law is to be divided into different portions, each of which relates differently to the modern believer. The issue is not so much whether or not the law may be logically divided in the traditional Reformed manner – on the contrary, it is self-evident that certain Old Testament prescriptions relate more to the worship cult and certain of them relate more to one’s moral conduct. But the logical division may be detrimental to the unity that the law as a whole was intended to possess when the different categories of the law are said to relate to the believer in entirely different ways. My contention is that, the law could never have been correctly understood by the Old Testament believer unless he perceived it with respect to all of its various parts. If he viewed it with respect to the moral part alone, he would be tempted to works righteousness; but when he coupled the moral prescriptions with the truths taught in the ceremonial part – e.g. that when the moral law is broken it brings a curse; that this curse can only be removed by innocent substitutionary blood; that without this blood, there could be no favorable relationship with God, etc. – then he was able to use every part of the law in its proper intent. Each part of the law interprets the other parts, so that, without the whole, the parts cannot be used to good effect. So it was with the Old Testament believer; but if this was the case with him, one could argue that, unless all the parts of the law retained the same, mutually-interpretive relationship to each other, as they came to apply in a different way to the believer after Christ, then he could no more use the law correctly than the saints before him. In other words, the law in its entirety must apply to the believer with a uniform force, or else what does apply will lack the necessary internal interpretation of the whole. Which brings us to our problem: can we frame an understanding of the law which allows both the essential unity of its component parts, and some sort of prescriptive force for the New Testament believer? I think the answer to this question will become more clear as we examine three ways in which the believer’s status has changed with respect to the law, subsequent to the completed work of Christ.

1. The Law as a Condemning Force has been Abolished

The basic thrust of the New Testament on the relationship of the law to the post-cross believer is one of freedom from its condemnation. Before the law had been fulfilled by Christ, it was hanging over the heads of all worshippers, demanding a curse. But now, Christ having become that curse for us (Galatians 3:13), it no longer condemns. And even beyond this, now that Christ has merited the law’s blessing through a perfect obedience, the life which it is said to offer to him who fulfills it has become ours by faith (Galatians 3:7-14; see Hebrews 5:8-9). So then, the law has no more authority to condemn him who believes in Christ; he is freed from the law. However, we must make clear that this freedom is not a freedom from the outworking of righteousness, but instead a freedom to live a life characterized by true practical righteousness (see Romans 6:1-7). Insofar, then, as the law reflects an absolute practical morality, our freedom with respect to the law is a freedom which enables us to live by faith in the reality prescribed by that which had formerly condemned us. Which indicates, at the least, that Calvin’s so-called “third use” of the law has some legitimacy; the believer may be instructed by the law as to what constitutes a life in alignment with the immutable nature of God, and having been freed by grace, he may now pursue that practical righteousness in faith. However, we must be clear that this practical righteousness does not spring from the law, but from the one who kept it for us; and therefore, that the ability to live in the law’s essential reality comes, not by meditating on the commands themselves, but by looking to Christ, the vision of whom is able to transform the soul of faith into that same image (2 Corinthians 3:18).

2. The Law has Gone from Outward Manifestation to Subjective Internalization

A second way in which the relationship of the law to the believer has changed with the coming of Christ is that of which we read the prophecy in Jeremiah 31:33: “…this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” The law as an external list of criteria was impotent because of the weakness of human flesh; therefore, its primary function was to illustrate the great sinfulness and desperate need of all mankind (Romans 7:7-13). Once it had accomplished this primary task, it left men dead and hopeless; and so, if life was to come at all, there was a necessity for internal righteousness to come through some other means than external commandments. This different means was faith in Christ, which is powerful through the grace of God to change internally that which the external law could never change; hence, the law, which truly offered life, could in reality hold forth only death. However, in showing the death-meriting sinfulness of all humanity, it taught mankind of the absolute need for an alien righteousness. This alien righteousness, received through faith, is powerful by the operation of the Holy Spirit to work itself out practically in one who had formerly been impotent to practice true righteousness. This brings us to a vital point: because the law served primarily to display the lack of essential righteousness in mankind, it comprised a great many specific regulations, the failure to follow which evidenced an internal opposition to the law. In other words, the law was designed with an intentional specificity, to make clear the lack of essential righteousness. However, when the law had fulfilled its condemning task, the essential righteousness of Christ, received by faith, moved to the forefront, to the minimization of the previous concrete specificity. We will now consider that point in a little more detail.

3. The Law has gone from Concrete Specificity to Underlying Essence

As soon as Christ began to proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom, he made clear the truth that, the concrete commandments of the law served merely as pointers to the underlying essence of righteousness; and that, without this essential righteousness, there would be no inheritance in the kingdom of heaven (see Matthew 5-7). He explained, by way of example, that by hatred, the essence of the command not to murder is violated; and that by lust, the essence of the command against adultery is violated. In this way, he moves from the concrete to the underlying essence, until he is able to sum up the law essentially as loving God foremost and loving one’s neighbor as himself (Matthew 22:35-40). In so doing, Christ is bringing to an end the function of the law which made necessary its concrete specificity. The law had hopelessly and permanently condemned all who were minded to earn their own righteousness; and now Christ is teaching, first, that true righteousness must come through humility and faith; and second, that the law should no longer be viewed as a set of criteria, but rather as a glass through which to observe the fundamental essence of true righteousness – which is wrapped up in a love that corresponds to the nature of the God who is love (1 John 4:8). This teaching is reiterated throughout the New Testament; for example, Paul, in Romans 13:8, admonishes us to “owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loves another has fulfilled the law.” It is not sufficient, therefore, for the believer to labor for practical righteousness by attempting to follow the concrete prescriptions of the law. This method of pursuing righteousness has been shown to be impotent, and has been abolished. Now, it is vital, when one uses the law as an instructive force, that he move beyond the concrete specificity to determine the underlying essence; which essence will reveal to him the nature of the God into whose image he is being conformed by grace through faith.

Conclusion

Hopefully, in reflecting on the changes in the law’s relationship to the believer after Christ, we have stumbled upon a way in which we might retain the law as an instructive force while allowing for a unity in the manner in which all of its parts relate to the Christian. The key idea to keep in mind is that, concrete specificity was largely useful in carrying out the law’s condemning function, a function which has been done away for the believer; and that, for the effective operation of its instructive function, the underlying essence to which the concrete specificity gives witness must be apprehended. This is a method which gives equal instructive force to all parts of the law. Just as the specific moral command not to kill points to an essence of love for one’s neighbor, an essence which must be internalized through faith in Christ; so the specific ceremonial command to offer up a blood sacrifice on the day of atonement points to an essential truth that no one can approach God in worship apart from innocent, sacrificial blood – which is also an essential truth which must be internalized in the heart of the Christian. We are freed from slavery to the concrete specificity of the law – which slavery always led to condemnation – and we are freed to live out the underlying essence of the law, using the law to instruct us of the nature of God, and being changed into the image of God as we behold his nature by faith. It is only when the ongoing instructive function of the law is seen with respect to its underlying essence that we are able to make sense of the entire New Testament gamut of teaching on the subject. For instance, as long as the instructive force of the law is viewed with respect to concrete specificities, it becomes morally binding for the Christian to observe the fourth commandment, and sanctify a day of rest. But this is at odds with such clear statements as Colossians 2:16: “let no man therefore judge you with respect…of the Sabbath days.” However, when the underlying essence of the law is seen as primary in its instructive functioning, we can understanding that the essential truth underlying the fourth commandment is that, we must labor for a time, and ultimately find our rest in Christ alone (see Hebrews 3-4). Therefore, the appropriate fulfillment of that commandment today consists of laboring to enter our rest in Christ, finding our rest and satisfaction in him, and not looking to any earthly refreshment as the reward of our labors.

10 Responses to “The Unity of the Law and Christian Duty”

  1. Chris Poteet says:
    June 19, 2006 at 10:35 am

    Wow, I have a lot to say on this issue. I agree wholeheartedly that the traditional division of the Mosaic Law is exegetically unfounded. I would agree with the Reformed conception that whatever is not abolished remains, but that is not how the writers of the NT deal with the Law.

    I have found solace in works by Douglas Moo, D.A. Carson, and Thomas Schreiner on a “Modified Lutheran” view of the Law. Although the three of them disagree on minor points, they all believe that [Mosaic] Law was fulfilled and abolished through the ministry, death, and resurrection of Christ. The Law on Christian believers being “The Law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21; Gal 6:2). Although I disagree with Moo that the Mosaic Law was ever meant to be a hypothetical means of salvation; I see the Mosaic Law as a means to which Israel could retain material blessings while in Canaan.

    I believe Paul utilizes a redemptive-historical look throughout Gal 3/4. His point in Gal 3:24-26 is that the Mosaic Law served a pedagogical role (2nd use of the Law) in Israel’s history. I see that passage as a strong one to support the fact that the whole of the New Covenant economy is not under the Mosaic Law.

    Here are a few resources.

  2. pitchford says:
    June 19, 2006 at 10:51 am

    Chris,

    Thanks for the thoughts. Actually, the reason I’ve been thinking through this issue is largely because of some things I’ve read that you have written. I have to confess, I still feel as though I’m toddling, very ungrounded on the subject — and so I appreciate any help that anyone can give me. Everything you said makes sense, but I would just add the clarification that the law of Christ (I Corinthians 9:21; Galatians 6:2) seems to me to be the law that Christ taught (subjective genitive); and so, the law of Christ is identical to the underlying essence, but not the concrete specificity, of the Mosaic law (as Christ taught in the sermon on the mount). However, I’m open to changing my opinion, if someone convinces me otherwise.

  3. Pitchford says:
    June 19, 2006 at 11:10 am

    Sorry, I just read your comment again, and I disagree with your idea that the Mosaic law was a means for Israel to retain physical blessings. This seems to run counter to the great gravity of the universal condition of law-failure. Consistently in the New Testament, failure to keep the law is said to be the cause of eternal death, not just the cause of the forfeiture of physical blessings. When Christ became the curse of the law for us, he was removing an obstacle to our eternal life in him, not just removing the Jew’s obstacle to living in physical Palestine.

    I do agree with the redemptive-historical context of the schoolmaster anaology in Galatians 3, and with the resultant conclusion that the New Testament is not under the Mosaic law. I still think we may be instructed by the Mosaic law, by employing the same hermeneutic to uncover its essence which Christ employed for us in his sermon on the mount.

  4. Chris says:
    June 19, 2006 at 3:51 pm

    I’m glad that we can encourage and challenge one another! I would agree that the Law of Christ are the teachings of Christ Himself, but I would also say that it includes the apostolic authority of the epistles (where most of the Decalogue is repeated) according the “binding and loosing” command.

    Here is an excerpt from Karlberg’s book I linked above (I would highly suggest the read):

    “In Rom 10:5-13 Paul sets Moses’ teaching against Christ’s. In terms of their proper offices, Moses preached the law and Christ the gospel. These are not two contrary ways of salvation. Rather, they are two contrary means to the attainment of divine blessing and reward. These contrary means were ordained by God. Under the Sinaitic arrangement obedience to the law (i.e. works) was the means of inheriting temporal reward: prosperity in the land of Canaan. Justifying faith was and is the means of inheriting the antitypical, spiritual reward (fellowship with God through divine reconciliation). Accordingly the Mosaic law served a subordinate role in the history of redemption. This, I submit, is the only consistent and viable explanation of the legal contrast between the Old and New Covenants.” (pg. 213)

    Lastly, I wonder whether Matthew 5 served as finding the true essence of the Torah or if it in and of itself is a new Torah. Heb 7:12 and other OT expectations of the changing Torah with the advent of the Messiah leads me to see the Old/New, law/gospel contrast as one that is very distinct. That is why I think, fundamentally, Luther had the right idea.

  5. Chris says:
    June 19, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    Also, feel free to perouse through my de.licio.us links of articles I have found helpful in this (particularly Covenants, Law, and Dispensationalism).

  6. Pitchford says:
    June 20, 2006 at 10:36 am

    I’m definitely enjoying the interaction as well. I agree that the inspired apostolic teaching should be included in the law of Christ. I’m still not sure, however, if we should see the sermon on the mount as a new, contradistinct torah; if that were the case, why would Christ state in unequivocal terms on that occasion, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, ‘Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law…’”? On the other hand, the fulfillment is the basis for a new “law-giving,” as you pointed out from Hebrews 7. At the least, I think you would have to say that the law of Christ has organic connections to, albeit significant advances over, the Mosaic law.

    I’m still a little skeptical of saying that the Mosaic law originally intended only the securement of physical blessings — or else, how could it have taught the impotency of mankind to find life except through faith in Christ? It may have taught him that he could only merit land blessings through faith in Christ, but nothing more. But I guess I really can’t debate that point until I’ve read Karlberg’s arguments (which I’m not sure when will happen, due to the old plague of too much to do and too little time). I’ll at least try to glance through a few of your recommended articles.

  7. pitchford says:
    June 20, 2006 at 12:15 pm

    I have done a little reading in Karlberg now — and although I’m not 100% certain yet, his explanation of law and gospel in the Mosaic Covenant as relating, respectively, to typological blessings and essential, salvific blessings has much appeal. I’m inclined to agree with him. Thanks for the link.

  8. Chris Poteet says:
    June 20, 2006 at 12:30 pm

    I would read Matt 5:17 in terms of the fulfillment He accomplished in His life, death, and resurrection. That is an important verse, but I would intepret the “until all is accomplished” as, not eschatological, but in terms of His active/passive obedience. I think the Law of Christ definetly has connections to the Mosaic Law as both contain the eternal moral nature of God. The moral commands in both certainly aren’t contradictory (and I’m not saying that you’re implying that).

    The Mosaic Law can function as the means to physical blessing and it served a pedagogical function as well which Gal 3 and Rom 10 divest time to uncovering. Remember the role of Canaan and ethnic Israel: it had a typological role (see chap. 8 ). The whole point was that they couldn’t keep the Mosaic Law and retain the land of Canaan. This puzzles me that Dispensationalists consistently say that God will return to that defunct system of righteousness.

    I completely agree with you that it increased the knowledge of transgressions until the advent of the Sin Bearer.

    Karlberg isn’t the only one that holds that position. Walter Kaiser enunciates it well, but I wouldn’t agree with most, if not all, of his other theological and hermenuetical conclusions.

  9. Pitchford says:
    June 22, 2006 at 6:35 am

    I like everything I’ve been hearing, but I want to add a clarifying comment on Romans 10 — I think it’s vital to recognize that Moses did not merely proclaim law. He certainly did that — but Romans 10 quotes Moses as teaching gospel truths as well — truths pertaining to Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and justification by faith in him — truths which Christ would later proclaim so much more fully that John could say, “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” I guess my basic point is that, even though Christ proclaimed gospel much more fully than Moses, yet Moses proclaimed the gospel as well, in a more shadowy form, even at the occasion of his giving of the law. He said of the law, “the man that does these things shall live by them,” but he also spoke of the descent and victorious ascent of Christ, and said of those gospel-truths “The word is in your mouth and in your heart…”; and Paul makes clear that word Moses is announcing is the same word he proclaims, i.e., “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus…”

    In other words, when Moses proclaimed the law, he made clear that he was not making void the gospel-promise given to Abraham.

    I’m about to head up into the mountains for a few days, so I won’t be able to comment for awhile. But if anyone has further discussion, I’ll get back to it as soon as I can.

  10. Chris Poteet says:
    June 28, 2006 at 11:18 am

    Agreed and Agreed.

Leave a Reply