Author, Roger.
Published, October 1, 2008.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Mt 5:17-18). Accordingly the New Testament writers make mention of the Law having no legal ground against us, as Christians, for condemnation. If it is not abolished, and we are encouraged not to overthrow but uphold the Law (Ro 3:31), how indeed is it the Word of God for today? A document so entrenched in its culture, so specific in its demands that a great many of the laws seem inapplicable to us, even ridiculous! The Law of Moses, otherwise known as the Law or the Torah, was enacted as part of a covenant the Lord had with Israel. That covenant had a finite time, and it ended. The Law was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ. Therefore the aim of the fulfilled law is our righteousness and devotion to the Lord which we are now fully enabled to achieve, unlike the first law which had its weakness in the flesh (Ro 8:3).

The announcement of the Old Testament Law, by Moses, to Israel, is clear; the Law was given to Israel (Cf. Ex 34:27, Dt 5:1-3, Ne 9:13-14, Ex 31:16-17). Israel was chosen to be set apart from other nations. When reading the Old Testament law it is important to remember that the recipient of these various criminal, civil, family, cultic and charitable laws was a nation in ancient Palestine. Because of this the laws are culture rich and it can be quite difficult to read and understand in our modern day context, especially if we are further removed from the situation by not sharing similar experiences in agriculture, climate, and geography.

If one wishes to interpret the Torah, properly an understanding of the cultural climate must be grasped. There are many aspects in the life of Israel which make interpretation difficult. Israel was nomadic, for the most part the society was agricultural, and they lived in a world full of cultic pagan rituals. This “cultural husk”¹ will take a little bit of work to remove, since, generally speaking, we understand very little of the context surrounding this environment.

The law was given to the nation of ancient Israel, by their covenant partner the Lord, because he had made a covenant with them, he had delivered them (Jdg 6:9, 1Sa 10:18) and he wanted to bless them, treasure them and make them into a “kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). The law was not given by a vengeful God demanding certain statues be performed, but a loving God who had made a covenant with them, and had chosen them to be a treasured people (Cf. Ex 19:4-6; Dt 30:6-10). These laws were not enforcing commandments, but they were a gift for Israel to love the Lord, and that through obedience they might live (Dt 30:6). So the law was not judicial, but relational, and within the bounds of a covenant. The law did not function as a means to salvation either; the law was given after Israel’s salvation from the hand of the Egyptians (Ex 19:4-6). Therefore these commandments operated as “terms of the agreement of loyalty that Israel had with God”². In fact, Osborne points out that the meaning of the Hebrew term “law” doesn’t really mean law but that it “refers to teaching or instruction, commands or general ethical guidelines”³. In this light, we also notice that these instructions were not supreme. They did not give detailed governance but rather images or illustrations of the character and qualities that the Lord wished for Israel to show. So we see that many of the laws are paradigmatic, and set a “standard by example”⁴. In this sense once the cultural husk is removed from the law therein lies many “ethical guidelines” by which we can apply to our Christian life⁵.

The Law of Moses also had an end. The Law was given to a specific people, for a specific time. It expired when John the Baptist heralded the coming of the Christ (Lk 16:16).
So we have established that the Law was exclusive, temporary, cultural, it holds many principles and that it ended with the good news of the gospel of Christ Jesus.

The Law was given to the Israelites as instruction to love the Lord their God, and for righteousness living. And we can see through the rest of the Old Testament that this is exactly the opposite of what did happen. The Lord promised blessings to Israel for obedience. The commandment was seen as something tangible and even a joy to undertake. However that which was initially “not hard” and “not far off” (Dt 30:11-14) became for Israel a list of rules. That which was meant to lead to devotion to God instead led to the legalism we see prevalent in the Jewish leaders that were contemporaries of Jesus. They understood that the Law aimed to make one right with God, but they missed, just as their fathers had, the reason. The Law was aimed at bringing about justice, loving kindness, walking with humility and a broken and contrite heart (Ps 51:17, Mic 6:8). It was a yoke that they were not able to bear (Ac 15:10). The stubbornness of Israel called forth the curses of the covenant the Lord had made, and it also called for the need for a better covenant, with a mediator, namely Christ. The Lord did not abandon his promise to Israel, but he enacted a new covenant (Jer 33:14), and an eternal covenant (Heb 9:15, 13:20).

What God could not accomplish through Israel in the Old Covenant, he established in the New Covenant through his Son, Jesus Christ (Mt 5:17). After the work of Christ on the cross (2Co 3:11,14, Eph 2:15-16; Col 2:14), the Law of Moses ceases to have any legal binding on us (Gal 3:35, 5:1, Ro 6:14). Jesus and the New Testament writers are very clear that the Law of Moses no longer applies to us in this context. The weakness of the law was the flesh, but this law now stands fulfilled in Christ. Therefore the righteous requirements of the Law of Moses might now be fulfilled in us (Ro 8:3-4a). Being now released from the law (Ro 7:6), it may seem to encourage an attitude of antinomianism. This is not so. Being released from the law doesn’t disqualify the purpose of the New Covenant, which is still righteousness with and devotion to the Lord. Paul shows us his attitude; “‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be enslaved by anything” (1Co 6:12).

Paul encourages us to “uphold the law” (Ro 3:31) and also states that the Law is “holy and righteous and good” (Ro7:12, cf. Ps 19). The problem with the old law was not that it was evil, but that sin seized its opportunity. The Old Testament is now an instrument for our instruction, that we might have hope. The Old Testament is now an instrument for our admonition, that we might not fall (Ro 15:4, 10:5, 3:21, 1Co 10:11-12). The through Moses the law was given, but in contrast in Jesus Christ we find grace and truth (Jn 1:17).

Since we have been set free from the legalism of the Law of Moses we must never think that salvation comes by the Law⁶ (Cf. Gal 5:1,4, 1Pe 2:16, 2Pe 2:19, Ac 4:12, Ro 1:16).
In the New Testament we see that it is not separate from the Old Testament. We have a covenant with the same God; it was not abolished by Christ but taken to its complete and logical end, its “intended eschatological climax”⁷. There is one major difference though; that now our sins are taken away “as far as the east is from the west” (Ps 103:12). We are now in a position where we can enact this law. These commandments given to Israel were a shadow of things to come. They point to Christ, and have their end in Christ (Lk 24:27, Ro 10:4). If the old laws are a shadow, then the new laws are the fuller substance, or “true form of these realities” (Heb 10:1).

Jesus shows us the extreme of the true form, when he proclaimed his sermon on the mount (Mt 5). Jesus’ teaching goes beyond that of the Law, it goes from the external to the internal, considering murder to be murder already if it is even only anger in the heart. Jesus gives the “sensus plenior”⁸, or fuller sense of many laws, laws regarding anger, lust, divorce, oaths and retaliation. In Christ the Law is fulfilled. Therefore we have become slaves to this righteousness (Ro 6:18-19). So we can see that in the teaching and example of Christ the sensus plenior of the illustrative principles found in the old law are extended and more is expected of us now that we are free from the Old Testament Law, and the law of sin and death (Ro 8:2). So in Christ we are free from the Law, however the fulfilled law now is written on our hearts (Cf. Jer 31:31-34) and we are slaves to its righteous requirements.

It is also important to note that Paul once quoted an Old Testament verse seemingly “out of context” (1Ti 5:17-18, 1Co 9:6-10, cf. Dt 25:4, Lk 10:7); Paul claimed that those who labour in preaching and teaching deserved honour and/or wages for their efforts. This helps us to understand that while many of the laws in the Torah may seem irrelevant to us, they help illustrate principles that can be applied to modern day experience. As I mentioned before it is important to understand how the principle functioned in the Old Testament context, and Paul’s use of this reference does not give license to the establishment of truths based on this as an hermeneutical principle, but rather Paul shows that the Old Testament can be used to illustrate a principle.

Tom Wright highlights the tendency for debates about the authority of scripture to turn into “unproductive shouting-match[es]”⁹. The authority of scripture is tied up intrinsically with the authority of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Biblical authority has a “trinitarian shape and context”¹⁰. Now if the Bible is an independent authority then it also stands that it alone holds the key to interpreting itself. A “skeleton key”¹¹ maybe to us, as McCartney indicates. However if we try to understand the Bible’s self-hermeneutic we see a pattern that is outside the grammatical-historical exegesis held by many evangelicals. This can cause “problems” for us, and these problems are worth being concerned about.

Wright also stresses the importance of reading the bible as a whole, a story that has obvious themes and obvious story, in contrast to scripture being just a “‘mere story’, that is, a cheerfully fictive account to be relegated to the world of ‘myth’”¹². I am very inclined to the view that the bible is an independent authority, and that it itself is the basis for proof.

Because of the vast difference in context and culture of our modern world and that of the ancient world it makes the correct interpretation of scripture a difficult and often debated task. McQuilkin outlines many of the theological and anthropological approaches to such interpretation¹³. While all of the approaches mentioned have a commonality about them, he is unwilling to accept a position where the independent authority of the scripture is compromised or the possibility of teaching is limited. McQuilkin holds the thesis “that a fully authoritative Bible means that every teaching in Scripture is universal unless Scripture itself treats it as limited”¹⁴. With this he is supported by scripture itself (2Ti 3:16).

The Law of Moses was given to the Nation of Israel, as part of their covenant with the Lord. Therefore the Old Testament law is no law unto us since we are now partakers in the New Covenant, and in Christ we find this law fulfilled. The Law of Moses then is a forerunner to the New Covenant we have in Christ. As such it is not legally binding on us, but it is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; the righteousness to which we are now slaves. The scripture is also an independent authority, taking interpretive cues from itself alone. This makes the reading of the scripture as a whole an important aspect to our understanding of the Law of Moses as the Word of God for today.

1. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. (Dallas: Word, 1993), 279. [↩]
2. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 154. [↩]
3. Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral. 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 185. [↩]
4. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 155. [↩]
5. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 199. [↩]
6. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 130. [↩]
7. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 199. [↩]
8. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible, 183, and Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 328. [↩]
9. Tom Wright, “The Bible and Tomorrow’s World,” Fulcrum, July 2008.
   http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=334. Cited 25 Aug 2008. [↩]
10. Tom Wright, “The Bible and Tomorrow’s World”. [↩]
11. Dan G. McCartney, “The New Testament’s Use of the Old Testament,” Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. ed. Harvie M. Conn (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988), 102. [↩]
12. Tom Wright, “The Bible and Tomorrow’s World”. [↩]
13. Robertson J. McQuilkin, “Normativeness in Scripture,” Hermeneutics, Inerrancy and the Bible, ed. Earl D. Radmacher, and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 222. [↩]
14. Robertson J. McQuilkin, “Normativeness in Scripture”, 224. [↩]