VERDICT
	Duranbah Road, Duranbah NSW 2487, AUSTRALIA	October 1981

Jesus and
the Law

Robert D. Brinsmead

 

Chapter 1
The Law of Moses

The Law of Moses--Beneficial or Inadequate?

 

Chapter 2
The Law of Moses -- Abolished or Established by Jesus?

What Replaces the Law of Moses?

 

Chapter 3
The Basis of New Testament Ethics

The Law of Moses

The Law of Christ

New Wine in Old Wineskins

Summary

 

Chapter 4
The Superiority of the Law of Christ

Its Christocentricity

Its Liberty

Its Humanity

Its Catholicity

Its Ecumenicity

 

Excursus on
Matthew 5:17,

Romans 3:31 and

Romans 8:4

 

 

 

Chapter 1

 

The Law of Moses

The law was given through Moses. John 1:17.

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. Rom. 5:20.

The law introduced 430 years later (after Abraham, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God....

It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.--Gal. 3:17. 19.

Unless otherwise indicated. Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.

Beginning with Moses, the will of God was embodied in an elaborate written code. The heart of this legal system was the Ten Commandments, called "the words of the covenant" (Exod. 34:28; cf. Deut. 4:13). And the heart of the Ten Commandments was the Sabbath, called the "sign" of the Sinaitic covenant (Exod. 34:16, 17). It is clear from the following scriptures that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob knew nothing about this law-covenant given at Sinai:

He declared to you His covenant, the Ten Commandments. which He commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets.--Deut. 4:13.

The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the Lord made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. --Deut. 5:2, 3.

Prior to Moses there was a moral consciousness. Through general revelation all men know something of the law of God and of moral responsibility (Rom. 2:15). But it was not until Moses and the Exodus event that the will of God was embodied in a written code. For this reason the time from Moses to Christ is known as the age or dispensation of law. As far as Paul was concerned, this age of law was a parenthesis period in redemptive history. It was a temporary arrangement and an emergency measure which intervened until the coming of Christ (Gal 3:17-24).

Since Moses was the mediator of the Sinaitic covenant, the entire body of law which sprang from the Exodus event is called "the law of Moses" (Neh. 8:1: Mai. 4:4: Acts 15:5). It is also called "Moses" (Mark 7:10), "the law of the Lord" (Neh. 9:3: Luke 2:22-24), "the written code" (Rom. 2:27. 29: 7:6), "the written code, with its regulations" (Col. 2:14), and "the law with its commandments and regulations'' (Eph. 2:15).

But the most common designation for the law of Moses is simply "the law"--called the Torah in the Old Testament (Neh. 8:9, 13, 14)and the homos in the New Testament (Luke 2:22-27). With few exceptions, when the New Testament writers speak of the law, they mean the Torah--the law of Moses.1

In a broader sense the taw also meant Judaism's entire religious tradition (see John 5:10). This was because Judaism did not regard its religious tradition as something foreign to the law but simply as an application of what the written code actually meant.

In harmony with Old Testament usage as well as Jewish usage, the New Testament uses the word law in an undifferentiated sense. No distinction is made between what later theology called the "moral" and "ceremonial" laws. The law of Moses includes the Ten Commandments (Mark 7:9, 10; John 7:19) as well as laws about muzzling oxen (1 Cor 9:8, 9). While portions of the Ten Commandments are cited in the New Testament, they are not regarded as something distinct and separable from other parts of the law of Moses. The idea that the Decalogue occupies an independent place never seems to occur to the New Testament authors.

 

The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament correctly states:

In Paul . . . no basic distinction is made between the Decalogue and the rest of the legal material in the Old Testament. 2

In content PI. [Paul] does not make any fundamental distinction between cultic and ethical commandments.3

The Law of Moses--Beneficial or Inadequate?

Does the New Testament view the law of Moses as something beneficial or as something inadequate7 The only answer we can give is that the New Testament speaks both ways. Students of the Word have often puzzled over Paul's negative appraisal of the law in Galatians and his more positive appraisal of it in Romans. We should not use the positive statements to blunt the sharp thrust of his negative ones or vice versa. Neither should we stress one side of the paradox to the exclusion of the other or try. to resolve the tension by finding a median position. The plain fact is that the New Testament has both commendatory and critical things to say regarding the written code.

Beneficial Aspects of the Law. Paul declares that possession of the law was one of the great advantages of the Jews (Rom. 3:1). In Romans 9:4 he lists the law among the great benefits conferred on Israel.

1. The law dispensation "came with glory" (2 Cor. 3:7). Its inauguration at Sinai was accompanied by an impressive display of divine splendor.

2. The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12). This was guaranteed by its divine origin.

3. "The law was added so that the trespass might increase" (Rom. 5:20). This was seen by Paul as a beneficial function of the law (Rom. 7:7-12). As the law gave occasion for many infractions, so it multiplied sin. This prevented Israel from reverting to a pagan insensibility. By making Israel painfully aware of sin, it helped nourish her Messianic hope.

4. The law was a disciplinary, agent which prepared Israel for Christ's coming (Gal. 3:19-24). Luther spoke of Moses grinding the people down with laws so that the people might tire of works-righteous-ness and long for grace.4

5. The law preserved Israel's separate identity. It did this by mingling cultic regulations with profound ethical principles. (Leviticus 19:17-19 is a classical example of the way Moses mixes trivial cultic laws with timeless ethical principles.) It was not his moral principles which made the Jew distinct from all other people--for qualities like courage, chastity and honesty exist outside the religious cultus--but his observance of cultic taboos for which no justification in nature or in reason could be given. The Jew was distinguished by such requirements as circumcision, the Sabbath and food laws. By effectively preventing close social concourse between Jews and other peoples, these regulations kept Judaism alive. This was a necessary part of God's plan in redemptive history.

According to Galatians 3:19-25 the law was a temporary measure. It was a stern custodian to keep Israel under restraint until the time came for God to fulfill His promise to bless all nations through Abraham's seed. In a playful comment Krister Stendahl brilliantly captures the thought of Galatians 3:19-25 when he says:

The law came, says Paul, as a harsh baby sitter to see to it that the children of Israel did not raid the refrigerator before the great party at which the Gentiles should also be present.5

Inadequate Aspects of the Law. If we listen to all that the Bible has to say, we shall also hear some critical things about the dispensation of the written code. The prophets of the Old Testament yearn for something better and testify that in the new age of the Spirit the law will be written in the heart (Jer. 31:33). But it is in Paul that criticism of the law is sharpest.

It has been said that Paul's critique of the law was not directed against the law as if was originally given but against Judaism's perversion of it. This is partially true. In Judaism the law became detached from its grounding in the covenant and assumed an independent status. The psalmist had sung litanies of praise to the law, but it was always the law or commandments or judgments "of the Lord" (see Ps. 119). He did not glory in an abstract code but in the Lord of the covenant, whose commandments were tokens of His steadfast love. The psalmist's devotion was directed to a person, not to an abstract code. But in Judaism the tendency was otherwise. Even though the prophets had condemned adherence to the law for its own sake (Jer. 2:8), Judaism tended to exalt the law as a doorway to fellowship with God rather than recognizing that a joyous performance of the law was the outgrowth of covenantal fellowship with God.

However, Judaism's distortion of the law into a means of fellowship with God does not entirely account for Paul's critique. Some aspects of his critique extend to the giving of the law itself. There is tension between the Old Testament's positive view of the Sinaitic covenant and Paul's negative view of it. All attempts to remove that tension fail to do justice to the facts. Looking at Sinai from the perspective of the gospel, Paul could clearly see that the dispensation of the written code was inadequate and that it must give way to the new and better dispensation of the Spirit:

1. The written code was an inadequate vehicle to communicate the will of God. The rabbis had tried to absolutize the law as if it were God's final word to man. But God needed a better expression of His will than a mere legal code. No written code can adequately cover the entire range of human responsibility. For example, the Ten Commandments did not mention many sins of the spirit.

2. The law stimulates that which it forbids. This is what Paul declares in Romans 7:

For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.--Rom. 7:5.

But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law: but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin. seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.--Rom. 7:8-11.

The last verse above is an echo of Eve's words recorded in Genesis 3:13: "The serpent deceived me." Before the prohibition to eat the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve lived in a state of innocence. But the commandment, "You shall not," gave the serpent a foothold to arouse Eve's desire and lead her to sin. This is how the law was also used to deceive Israel. While it forbade covetousness, sin seized the prohibition to stimulate desire for the very things the law forbade. While the giving of the law appeared to promise life, it actually caused sin to multiply and brought death.6

Of course, what was true in Israel's history is repeated in personal experience. Mere prohibitions do not prevent sin but serve to make the "forbidden fruit" even more enticing.

3. The law is an inadequate agent for the conviction of sin. Instead of convicting people of sin, it readily becomes a vehicle of self-congratulation and self satisfaction. When moral responsibility is reduced to a written code, it becomes a form of checklist morality. When I have refrained from doing things proscribed and have done things prescribed--such as paying my tithe--I can easily imagine that I have done my duty. This is what the Pharisee did when he compared himself not only with the written code but with the (law breaking) tax collector. The rich young ruler was sincere When he told Jesus that he had always kept the Ten Commandments (Matt. 19:17-20). Saul of Tarsus did not feel wretched and guilty when he measured his achievements by the written code. His was not the troubled-conscience syndrome of "the introspective conscience of the West." 7 His "legalistic righteousness" was "faultless" (Phil. 3:6).8

Paul did not learn about his radical sinfulness at the feet of Gamaliel but at the foot of the cross. No one can understand what the law really demands until he sees it in the light of Christ.

Fulfilling or accomplishing the Law meant for the Jews what it still means for many people today--following a number of particular and concrete commandments ....

For St. Paul, accomplishing the Law has to do with the ultimate fulfilment of the Law. The Law itself was not a set of ultimately valid commandments that have to be obeyed. In the last resort the commandments and rules given in the Law serve to bring men face to face with the righteousness of God ....

This righteousness was fulfilled by Christ. 'who . . . counted it not a prize to be on equality with God but emptied himself .

and being found in fashion as a man . . . he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea. the death of the cross' {Phil. 2.6fl) .... Christ was the final purpose or aim of the Law ....

The real demand of the Law. its dikaioma could not ultimately be expressed in terms of particular concrete commandments. What it was that the Law really demanded did not become clear before it was fulfilled and accomplished .... The Law had to be fulfilled before it could be understood and explained ....

Thus Christ, who took upon Himself all the curse and condemnation of the Law. shows us how*'great and serious are the claims that the Law makes upon or rather against us. We cannot realize the seriousness of our condemnation at the hands of the Law. except through the Gospel. Only when life and righteousness have been revealed to us do we understand what death and sin are ....

That is why the seriousness of sin, the corruption of our nature and the fact that we have become estranged from the purpose for which we have been created, can be seen only in the light of the Gospel which tells us to what end we were created....

But this can never be set before us in terms of commandments or ethical rules for this life which men can follow.' 9

This raises a question about the tradition which says that the Ten Commandments must first be preached to induce guilt before Christ and the gospel are introduced. There is no evidence that the apostles used this method in their preaching recorded in the book of Acts. We also need to question whether the gospel is only for wretched, down-and-out sinners. Does not the gospel need to arrest brilliantly successful sinners (like Saul of Tarsus)? These will never see that they are estranged from life except they confront the real law or demand of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

4. The law too easily lends, itself to ethical distortions. We have already observed that Moses mingles important ethical demands with what appear (at least to us) to be trivial cultic regulations (such as not wearing garments of mixed fabric--Lev. 19:1.7-19). While this served the purpose of keeping the Jew separate and Judaism alive, it posed the risk of moral and ethical distortions. For example, it seems that the Old Testament man could treat sexual aberrations more lightly than breaking cultic taboos. Thus, Samson could spend half the night with a harlot and the other half doing exploits by the power of the Spirit. Apparently his moral aberrations did not quench the Spirit. But when he broke the Nazarite vow by cutting his hair, the Spirit left him.

The Pharisees attached enormous importance to cultic regulations such as washings and tithing, but Jesus charged them with being remiss concerning the weightier matters of the law--mercy, faith and social justice (Matt. 23:23). We could imagine that the priest and Levite in Jesus' parable left the man half dead by the side of the road because they were too fearful of cultic contamination. It was the despised Samaritan, not the zealous disciples of the law, who did the humane and moral thing.

Pharisaism is not extinct. Each Christian group tends to develop its own cultic taboos. Although it may not live by the Mosaic code (though some still try to do that), the group tries to live by strictly following its denominational code--in things ethical, cultural and theological. A member of the group may be stingy, unkind, insensitive to others and power hungry, but such things are "virtues" if he happens to be a fanatical defender of "our faith." Yet when another member who is generous, kind, humble and selfless breaks a cultic taboo, he becomes the devil incarnate.

We know of a Christian lady whose code forbade the wearing of cosmetics or jewelry. After she had demonstrated to her non-Christian fellow workers that she would not transgress that code at any cost, she had a $5000 face lift. Naturally, such an ethical anomaly puzzled and even amused her colleagues.

When a doctor advised another devout Christian woman to take a glass of wine at night instead of powerful drugs, she protested that drinking alcohol was against her religious principles. Yet she was able to indulge the greater "evil" with a "good" conscience. Such ethical anomalies and distortions are common in all sections of the church. The plain fact is that living by a code of "Christian" laws can lead to the same ethical and moral distortions as living by a code of Jewish laws.

5. The law tends to become impersonal. To the psalmist the !aw was always "the law of the Lord" (see Ps. 119). But in Judaism the law was detached from its grounding in the covenant and became an independent authority. The law of the Lord (which emphasizes personal relationships) simply became "the law" (which emphasizes the abstract code).

The same evolution from the personal relationship to the impersonal principle can take place in the Christian church. Justification by faith in Jesus becomes justification by faith. The emphasis falls on the work of faith rather than the work of Christ. People introspectively gaze on their faith rather than on the living Christ. Doctrines and Confessions which once expressed devotion to the person of Christ become abstract doctrines and impersonal traditions. If these rather than Christ Himself become the center of our life, we have exchanged Christianity for Judaism.

As a Jewish rabbi, Paul was "married" to the law. "The law" was his entire religious tradition. It was the center of his religion. But what is the difference between making that tradition the center of one's life and making the Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Adventist or Pentecostal tradition the center of one's life? Such devotion dehumanized the Pharisees and turned Paul into a persecutor. No matter how many Stephens had to be stoned or disciples of Jesus dragged off to prison, Paul was determined to protect the sacred tradition. His devotion to the law made him mistreat people. Serious religious commitment can also make us say, "To hell with people! We must uphold 'the truth.'" Whenever abstract law ("the truth") determines our relationship to other people, we will either neglect them or mistreat them in the name of devotion to "the truth." This led Roger Williams to say that he would rather live with Christian savages than with savage Christians. Luther once exclaimed, "Lord, deliver me from a church in which there are none but saints? It can be so difficult living among the righteous!

History records the pitiful story of English refugees who fled Catholic persecution and sought asylum in Lutheran territory. When found to be heretical in their sacramental confession, they were refused asylum and turned back to sea in the middle of winter. 10 The Lutherans kept their principles intact and actually gloried in their cruel orthodoxy.

We do not have to be subject to Jewish laws to become victims of Pharisaism. Devotion to any laws, principles, duties or doctrines can have the same consequences as devotion to Jewish laws. This is brilliantly illustrated by John Kleinig in an essay entitled "Moral Schizophrenia and Christian Ethics":

Suppose Jack visits Jill in hospital, and at the end, Jill expresses her appreciation to Jack for coming to see her. 'That's all right', Jack replies,

-- 'I thought it would increase the amount of happiness in the world' (hedonistic utilitarianism):

-- 'I was seeking to maximize my own personal pleasure (egoism):

-- 'It increases the species' prospects for survival' (evolutionism):

-- 'I was just doing my duty' (Kantianism):

-- 'I was doing it for God's glory'.

Each of these responses, although it is grounded in a recognizable ethical theory, serves only to diminish the moral value attaching to Jack's visit. It makes impossible the value Jill believed to be expressed in Jack's coming to see her.

Wherein does the failure of the traditional theories reside? Basically, it is in their impersonality. What is directly valued in the traditional theories is not the person of the other, but something else. The person of the other is essentially external to the act. It is the occasion but not the reason for one's behaviour. The other is. to all intents, replaceable by anyone else. If Jack's reason for visiting Jill is to be found in his desire to increase the amount of happiness in the world, anyone else in Jill's position might serve lust as well. for there is no particular relationship between Jack and Jill required to prompt Jack's visit. Normally we regard the external treatment of others as dehumanizing, as a failure to value them for the particular persons they are. And this. I think, locates the heart of the problem. Traditional moral theories leave persons out of account. They are dedicated to the realization of this or that value, but these values are conceived impersonally: and consequently they provide morally inadequate motivations for action ....

Where the language of morality is that of rules, principles . and laws, prescribing duties, asserting rights and enshrining obligations, we have moved out of the sphere of personal relations, with its emphasis on intimacy, attitudes and dispositions, and into the sphere of law. with its emphasis on generality, conformity and behavior. In law, as in legalistic morality, what ultimately matters is conduct, not character: as long as rules are obeyed, principles observed, laws followed, duties fulfilled and obligations kept, it does not particularly matter what manner of person does them.. 11

Any Christian group whose supreme devotion is to its ethical or theological laws and principles will prove to be psychologically lacking in love to dissenters or to rival groups. Fellowship in such a group is not based on the gospel alone but on the basis of compliance with the ethical or doctrinal taboos of the group.

6. The law is a middle wall of partition (Eph. 2:14. 15). While the law kept the Jew separate, it caused hostility between Jew and Gentile. The Jew despised the Gentile because he did not have the law, and the Gentile hated the Jew because he used the law to assert his privileged status.

The three principal elements of the law which separated Jews and Gentiles were circumcision, the Sabbath and food laws. These features of Judaism became instruments of its closed community. To Paul they constituted an insurmountable barrier which prevented the Gentiles from sharing in the blessing of Abraham--the unsearchable riches of Christ. It was as if he could now say, "To hell with the law--the tradition! It is people that matter."

But have not Christian groups also used their various traditions to isolate themselves within their religious ghettos and to shut others out? In principle the law is still used to draw a line between the elect and the non-elect. Rather than basing fellowship on the gospel plus nothing, it is based on adherence to the distinctive religious traditions of the group. If "the law" stood for a Jew's entire religious tradition, why cannot we recognize that our religious traditions could also fall into the category of law? Is it not then true that we often live by the law, judge others by the law and erect the law as a middle wall of partition between ourselves and others? How often are Christians divided over such matters as tongues, liturgy, the form of the sacraments, holy days, eschatology or allegiance to some religious organization?

7. Subjection to the law is a form of slavery. It is here that Paul's criticism of the law is sharpest. To the foolish Galatians who wanted to subject themselves to Jewish customs, Paul declared that the law was a child trainer (Gal. 3:24) and a guardian for infant children (Gal. 4:2). One who is under such protective custody is "no different from a slave" except that he is a prisoner of hope. Being under the law is "slavery under the basic principles of the world." It is confinement to the infants' class or kindergarten (Gal. 4:1-3). Peter called it "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10).

If one undertakes to learn the piano, he needs the discipline of elementary rules about finger movements, posture and other mechanical details. But a time will come when the accomplished pianist may have to transcend many of these elementary rules.

The Articles, Confessions and Statements of Fundamental Belief can serve a useful purpose as signposts and guidelines for the community of faith. But if they are given an absolute status to which members must yield their unqualified allegiance, they become instruments of coercion and slavery. And who can doubt that this is all too common in the Christian church?

 

1. Thus. Bandstra says. "In Paul's day vouog, had come to be the established Greek word for the designation of the Hebrew Torah" (Andrew John Bandstra. The Law and the Elements of the World: An Exegetical Study in Aspects of Paul's Teaching [Kampen: ]. Id. Kok. 1964]. p. ?5).

2. W. Gutbrod, art. on the law, in Gerhard Kittel, ed.. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1967). 4:1069.

3. ibid., p. 1072.

4. See Martin Luther. Luther's Works. ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann. American ed.. vol. 3.5. Word and Sacrament: I. ed. Theodore E. Bachmann {Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1900). p. 241.

5. Krister Stendahl. Paul among Jews and Gentiles. and Other Ac.says (Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1976l. pp. 20-21.

6. The view that Romans 7 is Paul's personal autobiography has been largely discredited. The 'T' of Romans 7 represents corporate Israel and is parallel to the "our" of Galatians 3:19-25. See F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publish-in& Co.. 19771. p. 197.

7. See Krister Stendahl. 'The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West." in Stendahl, Paul among !etas and Gentiles. pp. 78-96.

8. This is one evidence which indicates that Romans 7 is not autobiographical.

9. Ragnar Bring. *'Preaching the Law." Scottish Journal of Theology 13. no. 1 (Mar. I960): 2-.4. lO. 18.

10. See Will Durant. The Story of Civilization. vol. 6, The Reformation--A History of European Civilization from Wyclif to Calvin: 1300-1564 (New York: Simon & Schuler. 1957) p. 599.

11. John Kleinig, "Moral Schizophrenia and Christian Ethics." Reformed Theological Review 40. no. 1 Jan.-Apr. 1981): 16,.17.

 

 

Chapter 2

The Law of Moses--
Abolished or
Established by
Jesus?

"It [the law] was added . . . until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come" (Gal. 3:19). That little word "until" leads us to ask, Then what? Did Jesus come to abolish or establish the law? Actually, the New Testament speaks both ways.

Passages such as Ephesians 2:15, Colos-sian 2:14 and Galatians 3:19-24 speak of the law as being abolished. Texts such as Matthew 5:17 and Romans 3:31 speak of the law as being established.

We do an injustice to the New Testament when we try to weaken the force of those passages which speak of the law--the entire law--as being terminated. And we distort the truth when we do not acknowledge those scriptures which declare that the law is fulfilled and established by Jesus Christ. The Scripture must affirm both truths, just as it must affirm the act of Christ in terms of both death and resurrection. For the law itself (as well as all human history) participates in the death and resurrection of Christ. Just as Christ came to glory and honor by way of death and burial, so the law was established by being abolished.

The best way to explain the paradox of the law's being abolished and established is through the analogy of the death-resurrec-tion event. In death it was not the divinity but the humanity of Christ which died. Through death He put off the weak mortal flesh so that in His resurrection He could be clothed in the body of a glorified humanity. Thus it was with the law. The spirit and true intent of the law can never be abolished, but the temporal form of the law can be abolished. At Sinai the law of God came to Israel clothed in the garments of the law of Moses. This weak Mosaic form was abolished when Judaism was swept away. But the true spirit and intent of the law was then clothed in the garments of the new age of Christ.

We may simply illustrate how the law may be abolished and established at the same time. A father has a little son whom he wants to become considerate of others. He imposes upon his child arbitrary rules he is expected to perform (e.g., lights out at 8 p.m., ask permission to leave the yard, eat all vegetables before dessert, etc.). When his son reaches maturity, however, the father tells him that he is old enough to live by the principle of considering others and is no longer bound by childhood regulations. The son is now old enough to put out the lights and do many other things at his own discretion. We may ask, Has the father abolished the law or not7 With regard to its real spirit and intent, his law has not changed. But with regard to its form, it has changed.

So it was with the law of God. God's ideal for man was not changed by the coming of Christ. But the Mosaic form of the law, adapted to the needs of a community in its spiritual minority, was replaced by a form suited to the age of the gospel.

What Replaces the Law of Moses?

The law of Moses was a temporary measure. Paul likens it to a child trainer, a baby sitter or a guardian for a little son (Gal. 3;24; 4:1, 2). Although the law served a purpose in this parenthesis period, it was inadequate. God must have a better medium to express His will and to teach His people.

What replaces the old child-training regulations? At this point some have proposed two alternatives which are clearly false.

Some say that the law of Moses is replaced by "the law of Christ." But by "the law of Christ" they understand that Christ replaces the old rules with new rules. They try to use the New Testament to construct a new code of conduct which is then called "the New Testament pattern." But living by this so-called Christian code can become just as oppressive and Pharisaical as living by a Jewish code. The old baby sitter is sometimes replaced by a harsher baby sitter. So the entire idea of Jesus' replacing the old code with a new one misses the teaching of the New Testament.

Others think that a mystical spirit ethic replaces the Old Testament ethic. But living by mysterious voices within is far more risky than living by an objective written code. This is called "Enthusiasm" in historical theology and is a dangerous perversion of New Testament ethics.

If the Torah is not replaced by a new code or by a mystical ethic, how is it replaced? The New Testament teaches us that the Torah is replaced by Jesus Christ. The Torah was the instructor or teacher 1 until the coming of the great Teacher.

That Christ Himself takes the place of the Torah is evident from a number of scriptures. Moses, who was only a preparatory, servant teacher, foretold that God would raise up a prophet to replace him. "You must listen to Him," said Moses (Deut. 18:18). On the mount of transfiguration the heavenly voice declared that Jesus was the One to supersede Moses ("Listen to Him" --Luke 9:35).

In His Sermon on the Mount Jesus repeatedly affirms that He replaces Moses as the great Teacher (''You have heard that it was said to the people long ago [by Moses] ·.. But I tell you... "--Matt. 5:21ff). The law of Moses was a child trainer, custodian and guardian until the coming of Christ. Galatians 3:24 dearly implies that Jesus replaces the Torah:

So the law was put in charge [Greek. paidagagos, literally, a boy leader--i.e., a guardian or custodian tot a minor] to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
--Gal. 3:24.

All that the law was to Judaism, Christ was to the New Testament community. The law was the center of Judaism. The rabbis said that God spent the first three hours of every day studying the Torah. But Christ was the center of the apostolic faith. When the rabbis retold the story of the Exodus, they said that the manna from heaven, the water from the rock and the guiding pillar of fire were all symbols of the glory of the Torah. The Torah was said to be the bread and water and light of eternal life. But John's gospel deliberately takes these titles which had been applied to the Torah and applies them to Jesus Christ. He, not the Torah, is the Food of eternal life (John 6). He, not the Torah, is the living Water (John 7). And He, not the Torah, is the Light of the world (John 8).

Everything that the law was to Judaism, Christ was to apostolic faith. In Judaism a man's relationship to God was said to be determined by his relationship to the law. But in apostolic faith a man's relationship to God is determined by His relationship to Jesus. In Judaism the law was the door through which the Gentile had to pass in order to become a member of God's community. But in the apostolic faith Jesus is the only Door through which Gentiles are brought into the family of God. In Judaism whatever was contrary to the written code was sin. In the New Testament whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23).

Above all, Judaism elevated the law as if it were the final expression of God's will. The law was regarded as the supreme revelation of God's word. But John deliberately takes this glory from the law and ascribes it to Jesus. He is the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1-3, 3.4). Whereas the written code was an inadequate vehicle to express the will of God, Jesus is the full expression of the Father and is God's final word to the human race (John 1:18; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-3).

As a Pharisee, Paul had understood the Torah to be the highest revelation of the will of God to man. But in his vision of the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus, Paul recognized in him a fuller, eschatological revelation of God. In other words. Christ, the bearer of the image of the invisible God, has superseded the Torah as the revelation of God and of his will for mankind (2 Cot 4:4-6). 2

Whereas Judaism made the law their Christ. the New. Testament community made Christ their law. Ail that the Ten Commandments and the Sabbath were to Judaism, Christ Himself became to apostolic faith. This becomes clear when we make the following comparison:

The Sabbath assumed such importance in Judaism that the rabbis actually taught that the perfect keeping of one Sabbath would bring the Messiah. Whereas they made the Sabbath their Christ, the New Testament community makes Christ their Sabbath.

Thus, ample textual and typological evidence demonstrates the truth of this one simple thesis: Jesus Christ replaces the Torah. This is how the law is at once abolished and established. It is abolished because Christ becomes the norm and the rule of life for the believer. It is established because the believer stands under the law of God as revealed,in the Christ event.

In Galatians 3:19-24 Paul shows that the law as a written code had a function to perform until it was superseded by Christ. But the apostle does not suggest that Christ sends us back to the Torah for our instructions on the art of living the Christian life. In fact, Paul chides the foolish Galatians for thinking that since they had embraced Christ and become children of Abraham, they ought to subject themselves to the regulations of the Mosaic code. Is the baby sitter still needed after the parent arrives?

It is significant that the New Testament never exhorts believers to study the Torah as if it were a rule of life. Christ Himself replaces the old child trainer as the Rule of Life, Pattern, Guide, Teacher and Shepherd of His people.

The Spirit, given to the church on the day of Pentecost, replaces the law given on Sinai. This becomes clear when we realize that Pentecost was a Jewish festival commemorating the giving of the law on Mount Sinai:

Jerome has an especially elegant passage in which Pentecost is compared with the beginning of the Jewish national life on Mt. Sinai (Ad Tabiol, §7): "There is Sinai. here Sion; there the trembling mountain, here the trembling house: there the flaming mountain, here the flaming tongues; there the noisy thunderings, here the sounds of many tongues: there the clangor of the ramshorn, here the notes of the gospel-trumpet.3

Thus, Paul can say, "If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Gal. 5:18). That is to say, the new Pentecostal gift of the Spirit has replaced the old Pentecostal gift of the written code. In 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 Paul says that the covenant engraved in letters of stone has been superseded by the more glorious ministry of the Spirit. Therefore he who has entered the new age of the Spirit is led by the Spirit rather than by the Torah (Rom. 7:6). "Not under law" in Galatians 8:18 should be given the same natural meaning as it has in I Corinthians 9:20, where it obviously means not under the law as a rule of life.4 But as we will see in the next chapter, this teaching and leading of the Spirit is not the mystical leading of a "naked spirit." It is a leading of the Spirit who comes to us clothed in Christ's gospel.

We say again that the New Testament does not make ils appeal for proper behavior on the basis of Old Testament rules. It makes its appeal on the basis of the superior revelation of the will of God which has come in Jesus Christ. In the New Testament, Christ and His gospel are the standard by which all behavior is measured.

The idea that Christ sends' us back to the law of Moses for our rule of life has a long and hallowed tradition. But it needs to be challenged because it rests on tradition and not on any solid New Testament evidence.

At this point there is usually a flurry of objections: "Don't we still need the law for guidance?" To which Christ answers, 'I am the Good Shepherd .... My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of My hand" (John 10:14, 27, 28).

Another protests, "But don't we need the law as a guide for the right way?" To which Christ answers, "I am the Light of the world. Whoever follows Me will never walk in darkness, but will have the Light of life" (John 8:12). "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life" (,John 14:6).

Still another asks, "But are not the Ten Commandments the expression of God's will for man?" To which we reply, Jesus Christ, not the Ten Commandments, is the full revelation of the Father's will. Jesus is God's ideal for the human race. Who is the better teacher--Moses or Christ? Does anyone intend to say that Jesus' own "I tell you" statements are more obscure than the commandments of Moses? Did not Moses himself say, "You must listen to Him"? (Deut. 18:15). How can anyone say that we cannot secure instruction, guidance and direction from Him whose light is like the sun in its meridian strength, but that we must creep back to the shadows of Moses in order to discover our duty?

Suppose you decided to learn to play tennis and enrolled in Rod Laver's tennis camp. When you arrived you were rather disappointed that Laver was not your instructor. You found yourself on an outer court with a junior instructor to teach you the rudimentary principles of the game (cf. Gal. 4:2, 3). However, after you acquired a certain level of performance, your big day arrived. You were ushered onto the center court, where Rod Laver, the master coach himself., became your instructor. Would you then complain that you had lost your junior instructor? In Paul's illustration in Galatians 3, the law is like the junior instructor and Christ is like-the master coach.

Some may have another objection: "Don't we need the law to point out sin and to bring us to a true sense of our need of Christ's grace?" Yes, of course we do. But the law as it is revealed in Christ will do this much better than the old written code. Paul did not learn of his radical sinfulness at the feet of Gamaliel, the great teacher of the written code, but at the foot of the cross, where he saw the law as revealed in Jesus Christ. The question is not whether or not we still need law. Of course we do! The question is where that rule of life is supremely revealed. Returning to our illustration: When Laver becomes your instructor, will he not point out your technical defects much better than the junior instructor?

We therefore say that all that the Torah was to Judaism, Christ is to Christian faith. The Pharisees made the law their Christ, but we make Christ our law. The real spirit and intent of the Torah are not thereby abolished, but they are enshrined in Christ so that the will of God is mediated to us in a way far superior to its mediation through Moses. The law of Moses (i.e., Moses) has been superseded by the law of Christ (i.e., Christ). The New Testament places us under a much better Instructor. After all, this new Instructors is the law incarnate. 5 The way He gives us concrete, practical guidance will be discussed in the next chapter.

1. The word Torah basically means teaching or instruction. Hence. it is proper to call the Torah the teacher or the instructor.

2. Brian Wintle. "Paul's Conception of the Law of Christ and its Relation to the Law of Moses." Reformed Theological Review 38, no. 2 (May-Aug. 1979): 45.

3. Henry E. Dosker. art. "Pentecost." in James Orr. gen.ed., The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. 1939). 4:2319.

4. F. F. Bruce ,s correct when he says that "the believer is ,for under law as a rule of life" (F. F. Bruce. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. p. 192).

5. The Reformers complained that medieval theology had merely made a new law or new Moses out of Christ. When they made this criticism, they did not wish to deny that Christ replaced Moses as the supreme revelation of the will of God. Rather, they wanted to point out that the school. men had neglected to see that Christ was the rift of God's righteousness to be received by faith. Christ was not just another Moses who save more rules. Actually. Christ is both the will of Cod and the gift of God. Law and gospel are united (though not fused) in Him who is the Word.

 

 

 

Chapter 3

The Basis of New
Testament Ethics

Biblical law addresses the question, What should I do? But the Bible never answers this question in isolation from a more basic question--What has God done? The Bible is not a book of rules for human behavior. It is above all a record of the great saving acts of God. God has acted toward man in a way that demands a human response. No one can understand what he must do unless he first understands what God has done.

In the Bible, law is never given independent status. The Bible has no interest in presenting an abstract code of ethics. Its theme is God's saving deeds, to which man is called to respond in joyous performance of the law.

Two great acts of God dominate redemptive history--the Exodus in the Old Testament and Calvary in the New. These redemptive acts are called "covenants," for they are arrangements whereby God rescues man and takes him into a just and ordered fellowship with Himself. The one inaugurated at Mount Sinai is called the old covenant,, and the one inaugurated at Calvary is called the new covenant.

Since the redemptive acts of God always demand behavior proper to covenantal fellowship, law is always an inseparable part of the covenant. 'So close is this relationship between law and covenant that the two words are sometimes used interchangeably (Exod. 34:28; 2 Kings 18:12; Ps. 78:10). As Verne H. Fletcher says:

The law is the demand of the covenant God upon the covenant people and is concerned above all with the maintenance of the covenant relationship. This makes it clear that the law is not an after-thought but is essential to the covenant. Its 'aim and purpose is to maintain a standard of conduct which is consonant with membership of the covenant community' and which would 'protect the covenant from . . . violations which would jeopardize its continuance'. Thus the law and the covenant are integrally one. 1

Because Moses was the mediator of the old covenant (Gal. 3:19), its law is called "the law of Moses" (Mai. 4:4; Acts 15:5). And because Christ is the Mediator of the new covenant (Heb. 12:24), its law is called "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2).

The Law of Moses

The law of Moses must not be abstracted from its grounding in covenantal history. It was not a divine legislation handed down from God independently of His great redemptive act in the Exodus· The law of Moses grew out of the Exodus history. The great act of God demanded from Israel the kind of behavior which would be an appropriate response to His saving deed. The entire ethical system of the Old Testament was structured and colored by the Exodus event. It was the character of the Exodus event which determined the way Israel was obligated to live.

The Ten Commandments, called "the words of the covenant" (Exod. 34:28), are prefaced by a statement of God's redemptive act: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt" (Exod. 20:2). Because the mighty Creator has become the Father, Husband, King and Covenantal Partner of His people by an act of sheer love and kindness, because He stands as their Protector and the Guarantor that Israel shall have everything ("I am... your God"), there is an implied therefore· "You shall have no other gods before Me" (Exod. 20:3). Deuteronomy is replete with examples of this indicative-imperative relationship. "It was your own eyes that saw all these great things the Lord has done. Observe therefore..." (Deut. 11:7, 8; cf. 6:20-24; 7:7-11; 10:17-19; 27:9, 10).

In the Old Testament the essence of wot-. ship is to rehearse (recount, remember, recite) the mighty acts of God, especially in the Exodus (Judges 5:11; Ps. 66; 78; 105; 106; 111:4). Sin was always an expression of forgetting what God had done. To the Old Testament saint life was a grateful celebration of the Exodus. HIS religion was one of remembrance and gratitude· The law of Moses defined the concrete acts by which he could remember the mighty deeds of God and express his gratitude for his inclusion in that holy history. This is why he was to keep the Sabbath (Deut. 5:15), celebrate the yearly festivals (Exod. 12:27; 13:3-9; Lev. 23:41-43), observe the offerings of the first fruits (Deut. 26:1-10L redeem the firstborn child or animal (Exod. 13:2, 14-16) and forgive all debts on the year of Jubilee (Lev. 25). In essence the law was saying, "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm" (Deut. 5:15).

The Exodus determined the way Israel should behave in everything. They were to be kind to strangers because they too had been strange.rs in Egypt before God had delivered them· They were not to oppress the poor because they were to remember that they were a poor people who had enjoyed God's gracious deliverance. They were to act with justice, equity and mercy just as God had acted in the Exodus. Israel's ethics, therefore, were grounded in their redemptive history, colored by that history and expressive of that history. Such ethical behavior pointed away from itself and from the people to the gracious acts of God in their history.

Suppose we had visited a pious Hebrew family and asked them, "Why do you worship like this, why do you celebrate the Sabbath, why are you so kind to strangers, why do you care for the poor and the disadvantaged the way you doT" They would have answered, "Because we were bondmen in the land Of Egypt, and the Lord brought us out with a mighty hand. Therefore we do these things."

The Law of Christ

New Testament ethics halve the same character as Old Testament ethics because they grow out of redemptive history and are structured and colored by that history.In this there is continuity between the ethics of the Old and New Testaments. Because both are grounded in a great redemptive act, both demand an ethic of gratitude and a life of faith and love.

Yet there is also discontinuity between the ethics of the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament is "new" because it has a new historical reference point. In the death and resurrection of Jesus the great act of all saving acts has taken place. Here the entire history of the Old Testament is recapitulated and summed up in one mighty deed of redemption. In Christ the new creation and the new exodus of human history took place once and for all time.

Just as the law of Moses contained the moral imperatives which flow out of the Exodus-Sinai event, so the law of Christ embodies the moral imperatives which flow out of the death-resurrection event. The way the Christian community is called to live is structured, determined and colored by the Christ event. Just as Moses repeatedly accompanied his rehearsal of the Exodus to the children of Israel with therefores (e.g., "He brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery .... Therefore, take care to follow the commands"--Deut. 7:8, 11), so the New Testament repeatedly accompanies its recital of God's great deed in Christ with therefores e.g.:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God--which is your spiritual worship.
--Rom 12:1.

Since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit. perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.
--2 Cot. 7:1.

Since. then, you have been raised with Christ .... Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature.
--Col. 3:1, 5.

This intimate connection between God's saving act in Christ and our ethical response is highlighted not only by the therefores but by the little word as. ' An excellent example of this is our Lord's final discourse in the upper room:

It was just before the Passover Feast...

Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under l-Lis power, and that He had come from God and was returning to God: so He got up from the meal, took off His outer clothing, and wrapped a, towel around His waist. After that, He poured water into a basin and began to wash His disciples' feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around Him ....

When He had finished washing their feet, He put on His clothes and returned to His place. "Do you understand what I have done or you? He asked them. "You call Me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have clone for you ....

"A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."--John 13:1, 3-5. 12-13, 34.

A new covenant must have a new law. The command to love is not new, for Moses also commands us to love our neighbor. What is new in Christ's commandment is the command to love "as I have loved you." Love is given a new historical reference point. It is love defined by the cross of Christ. Moses could hot command this kind of love, and therefore his law is totally inadequate now that the new (and final) manifestation of love has been given in the Christ event.

Thus, Paul can say, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church" (Eph. 5:2S). What is new about this commandment is its historical reference point. This ethic does not flow from the love of God revealed in the Exodus from Egypt but in the love of God revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John says:

This is how God showed His love among us: He sent HIS one and only Son into the world that we might live th,rough Him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. De. ar friends, since GOd so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
--1 John 4:9-11.

Throughout the New Testament we may see that the Christian's behavior is to be determined, structured and colored by what Christ has done. The new moral imperative flows out of the new redemptive event. The law of Christ demands that believers forgive as they have been forgiven (Col. 3:13), accept one another as Christ has accepted them (Rom. 15:7) and place the same value on people that the blood of Christ places on them.

In the Old Testament a greater emphasis was placed on cultic commandments and the separation of Israel from other people. But in the New Testament the emphasis is on the sacred obligation of all human relationships. Sexual sin, for example, as well as those sins of the spirit which deeply affect human relationships, appear in a much more grievous light in the New Testament. The reason for this is that the incarnation has invested human life with infinite value. Cultic regulations are nothing compared with human need. The ethic of the New Testament does not withdraw from the world so it can practice its ascetic piety in a little holy enclave. It is an ethic which goes out into the real world and expresses itself in genuine solidarity with the human race.

The following diagram summarizes the pattern of biblical ethics:

New Wine in Old Wineskins

Puritan-Reformed theology goes to the Christ event for grace but returns to Moses for ethics. It says that Christ must structure our faith but Moses must structure our ethics. It sunders the dynamic relationship between the historical-redemptive event and the ethic which flows from it. In the classical tradition of Reformed theology the Ten Commandments are said to be the rule of life for the New Testament believer. But the Ten Commandments are the law of Moses or "the words of the [Mosaic] covenant" (Exod. 34:28; cf. Deut. 4:13). Because they flow out of the redemptive history of the Exodus, they are not adequate to express the nature of new-covenant life.

The law of Moses belongs to the old redemptive history, while the. law of Christ belongs to the new redemptive history. The New Testament does not send the Spirit-baptized community back to Moses to learn its duty. Nowhere is the post-Pentecost community exhorted to study the Torah as a rule of life. Throughout his Epistles Paul reasons from the gospel event to Christian ethics. He shows how the redemptive act in Christ must determine the way we conduct ourselves in all human relationships.

For example, when Paul confronted the problem of sexual immorality in Corinth, he did not condemn such conduct on the basis of the law of Moses. He reasoned from the fact that' {union with Christ means that our bodies are members of .Christ. How could a believer who was one spirit with the Lord become flesh with a prostitute? (1 Cor. 6:15-17). Then he said:

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God With your body.
--1Cor.6:19,20.

When Peter and his friends erred at Antioch and had to be publicly rebuked, Paul did not condemn their conduct on the basis of the law of Moses. He opposed them on the ground "that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel" (Gal. 2:14).

For paul, wrong behavior is anything "contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the God" (2 Tim 1:10, 11). For him it is "the grace of God," and not the Torah, "that brings salvation" and "teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" (Titus 2:11-13).

Paul only cites an Old Testament law on three or four isolated occasions. And when he does this, it is not the basis of his ethical appeal but a secondary appeal--and even then he uses the law of Moses with great prophetic freedom (see 1 Col. 9:9). A statement from the law did not have the same absolute authority for Paul as it did for Judaism.

Because the law of Moses called for holiness, gratitude to God and a life of faith and love, the spirit of the old law lives on in the new law of Christ. We can appreciate that the timeless ethical principles in the law of Moses live on in the law of Christ. In this sense the law of Moses, like a professor emeritus, may still be profitable for instruction in righteousness. But we cannot say that a thing is right or wrong just because it is in the law of Moses--and that includes the Ten Commandments. As a "covenant" (Deut. 4:13), the Ten Commandments have become obsolete (Heb. 8:13)--for that covenant has been superseded by the superior ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor.3:4-11).

At this point one may object, "How then are we going to say that lying, 'killing, stealing and adultery are wrong if the Ten Commandments are no longer the final authority for conduct?" To which we answer, The sanctions of the Ten Commandments against lying, killing, stealing and adultery are still valid today, but not because they are included in the Ten Commandments. In the first place, these sins are condemned by general revelation, which is known even among pagans (Rom. 2:15), and it is foolish to suggest that the Ten Commandments are needed to tell men that these sins are wrong. When Paul convicts Gentiles of sin in Romans, he does not appeal to the Ten Commandments but to the fact that "they know God's righteous decree" (Rom. 1:32). In the second place, these sins are clearly incompatible with the gospel, which shows believers how they ought to act toward others for whom Christ died. And finally, the sins condemned in the Ten Commandments are much more specifically condemned in the New Testament.

A number of laws in Leviticus 19 are obviously still applicable to us today:

"Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.

"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I ara the Lord."--Lev. 19:17, 18.

We do hot, however, say that we are morally obligated to do these things because they are in the law of Moses. There are other laws in Leviticus 19 that we would not feel obligated to obey (e.g., "Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"--Lev. 19:19). How then do we determine which laws are still valid today? To begin with, even the conscience of a non-Christian would quickly recognize the timeless ethical principles in Leviticus 19 on the basis of general revelation. Concerning the other laws, we need to examine them with the New Testament gospel and measure everything in the light of Christ.

If you were to convince a Mormon that the Book of Mormon was not an authority for Christians, you would not thereby reject the good ethical principles found in the Book of Mormon. But they would no longer be binding on the conscience because they were found in the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon aptly states a worthy principle, it would be legitimate to cite that statement as a self-evident truth. Paul even quotes pagan poets and Cretans when they' have stated a self-evident truth.

New Testament authors sometimes refer to isolated statements from the law of Moses as worthy of practice, but this does not prove that the law of Moses is still in force as a legal entity. As a covenantal code, it has been abolished; but the New Testament still uses and cites the law with prophetic freedom.

Puritan-Reformed theology has a tendency to construct its ethical system from the written code of Moses. We suggest that this is why so much Puritan-Reformed ethics looks suspiciously like a system of Christian Judaism. Some covenantal theologians are so anxious to stress the continuity between the Old and New Testaments (which is valid) that they do not do justice to the really new thing God has done in Christ. The new age of the Spirit means much more than an enabling power to fulfill regulations which were formerly too difficult. Christ inaugurates a freedom unknown in the age of law. Puritan-Reformed ethics do not do justice to that great apostle to the Gentiles whom F. F. Bruce beautifully called The Apostle of the Free Spirit.2 This synthesis of New Testament gospel with Old Testament law is like new wine in old wineskins.

Puritan (and Anglo-Saxon) Sabbatarianism is consistent with this synthesis of New Testament gospel and Old Testament law. The Sabbath regulations Of the Old Testament were the sign of the Sinaitic covenant. Like all the other religious forms and festivals in the law of Moses (e.g., Passover, Pentecost, Trumpets, Tabernacles), the Sabbath was a festival which commemorated the Exodus event (Deut. 5:15). (It also celebrated creation, especially since the creation of the Hebrew nation at the Exodus event was seen as a recapitulation of the creation event--Exod. 20:8-11: 31:14-17.) But how can these Old Testament forms, which grew out of the Exodus and which celebrated the Exodus, be adequate to celebrate the new thing God has done in Christ? Can the old Passover festival be used to celebrate our new Passover sacrifice? (1 Cot. 5:7). Is the old feast of Pentecost adequate to celebrate the new thing God has done in giving us the Spirit to replace the Sinaitic code? (Rom. 7:6; 2 Cot. 3:4-11). The new creation and the new exodus have taken place in Christ. How then can the institution of the Sabbath, designed to commemorate the old creation and the old Exodus, be adequate to celebrate the new creation and the new exodus?

Paul was indulgent toward those weak in faith who kept special days (Rom.14:1-5). Yet the Sabbatarian should seriously consider the possibility that maintaining the Old Testament forms in this new age of the Spirit might be a denial of what God really offers us in the gospel - just as observing the old Passover might be an expression of unbelief. Do we really believe that the new creation has taken place and that the new history of man has begun in Jesus Christ? The fact is that the Old Testament Sabbath, designed to commemorate the old creation, is not adequate to celebrate the in breaking of the new age of the Spirit. The old wineskins cannot contain the new wine.

Summary

Christian ethics are not determined by the Torah but by Jesus Christ, They are not structured and determined by the old redemptive event of the Exodus but by the new redemptive event in the death and resurrection of Christ.

1. Verne H. Fletcher. 'The Shape of Old Testament Ethics." Scottish Journal of Theology 34, no. 1 (Feb. 1971): 68.

2. Unfortunately, Bruce's American publishers changed the title of his great book to Paul: Apostle of th# Heart Set Free. This has more of the flavor of popular American piety. J. D. Douglas. "A Man of Unchanging Faith: An interview with F. F. Bruce," Christianity Today 24, no. 17 (10 Oct. 1980); 18.

Chapter 4

The Superiority of
the Law of Christ

Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.--Gal. 6:2.

Paul ends his letter to the Galatians by pointing his readers to a "law" that is superior to the law of Moses. It is superior in th