Biblical law in Christianity

Biblical law in Christianity generally refers to a discussion as to what and how the biblical law applies in a Christian context. There are diverse views of the issues involved.

Although Christianity by tradition affirms that the Five Books of Moses are the inspired word of God, Christian tradition, like Jewish tradition, denies that all biblical law (Mosaic Law) applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which laws, if any, apply.

The predominant Christian view is that Jesus Christ established a new covenant relationship between God and his followers, according to the New Testament (; ; ; ; ). Christianity, almost without exception, teaches that this new covenant is the instrument through which God offers mercy and atonement to mankind. However, there are differences of opinion as to how the new covenant affects the validity of biblical law. The differences are mainly as a result of attempts to harmonize biblical statements to the effect that the biblical law is eternal (for example , ) with New Testament statements that suggest that it does not now apply at all, or at least does not fully apply. Most biblical scholars admit the issue of the Law can be confusing and the topic of Paul and the Law is still frequently debated among New Testament scholars^[3] (for example, see New Perspective on Paul, Pauline Christianity); hence the various views.

Some conclude that none is applicable, some conclude that only parts are applicable, and some conclude that all is still applicable to believers in Jesus.

Although F. F. Bruce was fairly representative of an earlier epoch of biblical scholarship, there has been a general scholarly shift since the work of E. P. Sanders. The views of earlier Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin have had lasting influence.

Historical background

Hellenism

There was a general deterioration in relations between hellenized Jews and religious Jews, leading the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes to ban certain Jewish religious rites and traditions. Consequently, the orthodox Jews revolted against the Greek ruler leading to the formation of an independent Jewish kingdom, known as the Hasmonaean Dynasty, which lasted from 165 BCE to 63 BCE. The Hasmonean Dynasty eventually disintegrated in a civil war. The people, who did not want to continue to be governed by a corrupt and hellenized dynasty, appealed to Rome for intervention, leading to a total Roman conquest and annexation of the country, see Iudaea province.

Nevertheless, the cultural issues remained unresolved. The main issue separating the Hellenistic and orthodox Jews was the application of biblical laws in a Hellenistic (melting pot) culture.^[7] One issue was circumcision, which was repulsive to a Greek mind.^[8] Some theorize that the early Christians came largely from the group of hellenized Jews who were less attached to Jewish rituals, philosophies and practices.^[9]

Council of Jerusalem

A Greek language inscription from Herod's Temple, late 1st century BCE. It warns gentiles to refrain from entering the Temple enclosure, on pain of death. Gentiles were restricted to the Court of the Gentiles

The Council of Jerusalem () of about 50 AD was the first meeting in early Christianity called upon to consider the application of Mosaic Law to the new community. Specifically, it had to consider whether new Gentile converts to Christianity were obligated to undergo circumcision for full membership in the Christian community, but it was conscious that the issue had wider implications.

At the time, the Christian community would have considered itself a part of the wider Jewish community, with most of the leaders of the Church being Jewish or Jewish proselytes.

The decision of the Council came to be called the Apostolic Decree () and was that most Jewish law, including the requirement for circumcision of males, was not obligatory for Gentile converts, possibly in order to make it easier for them to join the movement.^[10] However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and idol worship.^[11] Beginning with Augustine of Hippo^[12], many have seen a connection to Noahide Law, while some modern scholars^[13] reject the connection to Noahide Law () and instead see as the basis. See also Old Testament Law directed at non-Jews and Leviticus 18.

The Apostolic Decree may be the first act of differentiation of the Church from its Jewish roots^[14], see also List of events in early Christianity. Although the outcome is not inconsistent with the Jewish view on the applicability of Mosaic Law to non-Jews, the Decree created a category of persons who were members of the Christian community (which still considered itself to be part of the Jewish community) who were not considered to be full converts of the wider Jewish community. These partial converts were welcomed, a common term for them being "God fearers" (similar to the modern movement of B'nei Noah), but there were certain rituals and areas in the Temple from which they (Gentiles) were excluded, just as, for example, only the Kohen Gadol could enter the Kodesh Hakodashim of the Temple. This created problems especially when the Christian community had become dominated by new Gentile members.

Marcion

In the middle of the second century, bishop^[15] Marcion proposed rejecting the entire Jewish Bible, indeed he considered the God portrayed there to be a lesser deity, a demiurge. His position however was strongly rejected by Proto-orthodox Christianity, notably Tertullian and Irenaeus.^[16] The term Old Testament is traditionally ascribed to Tertullian, but some scholars^[17] instead propose Marcion as the source.

The Roman Catholic view

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant(The proper interpretation is the Renewed Covenant) (see ). Depicted is his famous Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Law.

Christians believe that Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant(The proper interpretation is the Renewed Covenant) (see Hebrews 8:6). Depicted is his famous Sermon on the Mount in which he commented on the Law.

The Ten Commandments on a monument on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The third non-indented commandment listed is "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy".

Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there is a threefold division of the precepts of the Law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. The moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature,^[18]. The ceremonial precepts (dealing with forms of worshipping God and ritual cleanness) and the judicial ones (such as those in ) came into existence only with the Law of Moses,^[19] and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ".^[20] Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind,^[21] and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin.^[22]

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Apostles^[24] instituted the religious celebration of Sunday, without transferring to it the ceremonial obligations associated with the Jewish Sabbath,^[25] though later some of these obligations became attached to Sunday, not without opposition within the Church.^[26] The Roman Catholic Church thus applies to Sunday, the Lord's Day, the Third^[27] Commandment about keeping a particular day holy, see also Sabbath in Christianity.

The evangelical counsels, which, as the phrase itself indicates, are not precepts but counsels that Jesus gave in the Gospels, are unrelated to the distinction between the permanent moral and transient ceremonial and judicial precepts of the Law of Moses or to any distinction that may be made among its precepts.^[28] Not being part of the Law of Moses, they were not precepts of that Law, whether or not a distinction among its precepts is admitted.

Some who dispute the view that the moral precepts of the Law of Moses are permanent, while the ceremonial and judicial precepts were temporary, say that a division of the Law into moral, ceremonial and judicial precepts is nowhere explicitly mentioned in the Bible, which in their view says rather that the Law is indivisible; they also say that it would be practically impossible to sort its commands by these types. But in Paul the Apostle speaks of commandments about food, drink, new moon festivals and sabbaths as having been merely a shadow of things to come, while elsewhere he speaks of commandments such as "Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment" as still valid (). They also say that the Law is described in the Bible as "everlasting", and so, they say, none of it can terminate or expire, nor can anything that an unchanging God called "righteous" and "good" become sinful. But regarding sacrifices "offered according to the law", says Jesus "takes away the first, that he may establish the second", and says: "When there is a change of priesthood, there is necessarily a change of law as well."

Church of England

Lutheran Church

The distinction between Law and Gospel is that Law demands obedience to God's will, while Gospel refers to the promise of forgiveness of sins in the light of the person and work of Jesus Christ. Between 1580 and 1713 (considered the age of Lutheran Orthodoxy) this principle was considered of fundamental importance by Lutheran theologians.

The Reformed/Covenant Theology view

The Reformed, or Covenant Theology view is similar to the Roman Catholic view. It holds that under the new covenant, the Mosaic Law fundamentally continues, but that parts of it have "expired" and are no longer applicable.^[31] The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) divides the Mosaic laws into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. In the view of the Westminster divines, only the moral laws of the Mosaic Law, which include the Ten Commandments and the commands repeated in the New Testament, directly apply to Christians today.^[32] Ceremonial laws, in this view, include the regulations pertaining to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical Priesthood.

While the view affirms the Sabbath in Christianity like the Roman Catholic view, some advocates hold that the Commandment concerning the Sabbath was redefined by Jesus (, ).^[33]

In a revival of ideas established in the Puritan period, starting in the 1970s and 1980s, a branch of Reformed theology known as Christian Reconstructionism argued that the civil laws as well as the moral laws should be applied in today's society (a position called Theonomy) as part of establishing a modern theonomic state.^[34]

Advocates of this Reformed view hold that, while not always easy to do and overlap between categories does occur, the divisions they make are possible and supported based on information contained in the commands themselves; specifically to whom they are addressed, whom or what they speak about, and their content. For example, a ceremonial law might be addressed to the Levites, speak of purification or holiness and have content that could be considered as a foreshadowing of some aspect of Christ's life or ministry. In keeping with this, most advocates also hold that when the Law is spoken of as everlasting, it is in reference to certain divisions of the Law. Some advocates, usually Theonomists, go further and embrace that idea that the whole Law continues to function, contending that the way in which Christians observe some commands has changed but not the content or meaning of the commands. (For example, they would say that the commands regarding Passover were looking forward to Christ's sacrificial death and the Communion mandate is looking back on it, the former is given to the Levitical priesthood and the latter is given to the priesthood of all believers, but both have the same content and meaning.)^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38]

Those in disagreement with this view claim that nowhere is a division of the Law mentioned in the Bible, but rather there is evidence that it is indivisible, and it would be practically impossible to sort commands by these types. Others in disagreement claim that the Law is described in various places as "everlasting" and none of it can terminate or expire.

The Dispensational view

The Dispensational view holds that under the new covenant, the Mosaic law has fundamentally been terminated, or abolished (antinomianism), because, in this view, Scripture never describes the Law as divisible ? it is one unit (James 2:10?11). Therefore, because portions of New Testament Scripture (such as Heb. 8:13) are understood in this view to annul at least parts of the Law, then the whole Law must be terminated.^[39]

Furthermore, this view holds that the Mosaic laws and the penalties attached to the laws were limited to the particular historical and theological setting of the Old Testament, described in this view as a different ?dispensation;? a stage of time in which God dealt with humanity in a fundamentally different way than he does now. We are now living in the ?dispensation? of the church/grace, which is a ?parenthesis? or ?intercalation? in history that is outside of God?s over-arching plan for Israel, and thus the Law given to Israel doesn?t now apply.

Replacing the Mosaic Law is the ?Law of Christ? (), which holds definite similarities with the Mosaic Law in moral concerns, but is new and different, replacing the first Law. Despite this difference, Dispensationalists may seek to find moral and religious principles applicable for today in all parts of the Mosaic Law.

Those in disagreement with the Dispensational view point out that nowhere does the Bible define a series of ?dispensations? that this theology propones, and point out that God said that he does not change. Furthermore, opponents point out that the Mosaic Law is described in various places as ?everlasting? and must fundamentally continue in some form. Others hold that, for this same reason, none at all can terminate or expire.

The New Covenant Theology view

New Covenant Theology believes that God has maintained one eternal purpose in Christ, which has been expressed through a multiplicity of distinct historical covenants; that prominent among these are those designated the Old Covenant (also known as the Mosaic or First Covenant) and the New Covenant; that the former, confined to the people of Israel alone, was established while that nation was assembled before Mt. Sinai and was later made obsolete through its fulfillment by the life and death of Jesus the Messiah; that it was comprised largely of shadows pointing ultimately to Jesus and His body, the Church; and that, therefore, the age in which it remained operative was at all times a period of immaturity as compared to the age of fulfillment, which was inaugurated with Christ's first advent.

The Old Covenant, containing a single, unified law code, was a legal, conditional covenant requiring perfect and complete obedience of all those under it; that, on the one hand, it promised life to all who obeyed it, and, on the other hand, it pronounced a curse upon all its transgressors; that it, therefore, inescapably brought death to all who sought to be justified by it ? not because of a deficiency in the law (itself "holy, just, and good"), but because of the sinful inability of those under its charge; and that, for this reason, it is variously described as a "killing letter," a "ministry of death,? and a "ministry of condemnation" ? its distinct purpose being to illumine sin so as to make manifest the Israelites' and, by implication, all men's need for a redeemer.

In contrast to the Old Covenant, the New Covenant (by virtue of Christ's perfect obedience to the law, as well as His bearing of its curse) promises only blessing to all those who belong to it; and that this second covenant, the "everlasting covenant" enacted upon better promises, has thus brought to realization all that was anticipated in the covenants made with Abraham, Moses, and David.

Under the New Covenant, God's people, having entered the age of fulfillment, now stand as mature sons; that having been set free from the tutelage and bondage of the law code written upon tablets of stone, they have subsequently been placed under the Spirit's management ? having the new and greater Lawgiver's own law now written upon their hearts.

As a result, though many of the individual commandments given in the decalogue and the eternal principles upon which the Mosaic Covenant was founded still apply to those under the New Covenant, God's people are now totally free from the Old Covenant as a covenant; that the usefulness of the Mosaic commands is not therefore to be denied, only that these are now understood to come to us through Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant; and that, in particular, with the obsolescence of the Old Covenant, the fourth commandment, the seventh day Sabbath observance, is no longer obligatory ? its relevance now pointing to that rest enjoyed by all those in Christ.

The Torah Submissive view

Torah-submissive Christians view Mosaic Law/Torah in Christianity as of continuing validity and applicability for Christians under the new covenant (see also Christian view of the Law). This view is based on the idea that Jesus, as the Son of God and Messiah, could not and did not change the standard of Godly obedience, but rather affirmed both the "weightier" and "lesser" matters of Torah for those who have put their faith in him (, e.g. See also Biblical Understanding below). Adherents of this view pursue a lifestyle that is both fully dedicated to Jesus Christ and also submitted to obeying God?s commands found in the Torah (which includes the Law of God given to Moses on Mount Sinai). There are both ethnically Jewish and Gentile Torah-submissive Christians.

Other views

While some Christians from time to time have deduced from statements about the law in the writings of the Apostle Paul that Christians are under grace to the exclusion of all law (see antinomianism, hyperdispensationalism, Christian anarchism), this is not the usual viewpoint of Christians.

Law-related passages with disputed interpretation

The Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament describes a conflict among the first Christians as to the necessity of following all the laws of the Torah to the letter, see Council of Jerusalem.

Some have interpreted Mark's statement: "Thus he declared all foods clean" ( NRSV) to mean that Jesus taught that the pentateuchal food laws were no longer applicable to his followers, see also Antinomianism in the New Testament. However, the statement is not found in the Matthean parallel and is also a disputed translation: the Scholars Version^[40] has: "This is how everything we eat is purified", Gaus' Unvarnished New Testament^[41] has: "purging all that is eaten." See also Strong's G2511.

Others note that Peter had never eaten anything that was not kosher many years after Acts 2 (Pentecost). To the heavenly vision he announced: "Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean." () Therefore, Peter was unaware that Jesus had changed the Mosaic food laws. In Mark 7, Jesus may have been just referring to a tradition of the Pharisees about eating with unwashed hands. For example, the insertion found in many translations concerning his declaration that all foods were clean is not found in the King James Version: . The expression "purging all meats" may have meant the digestion and elimination of food from the body rather than the declaration that all foods were kosher. The confusion primarily centers around the participle used in the original Greek for "purging". Some scholars believe it agrees with the word for Jesus, which is nearly 40 words away from the participle. If this is the case, then it would mean that Jesus himself is the one doing the purifying. In New Testament Greek, however, the participle is rarely that far away from the noun it modifies, and many scholars agree that it is far more likely that the participle is modifying the digestive process (literally: the latrine), which is only two words away.

Still others believe a partial list of the commandments was merely an abbreviation that stood for all the commandments because Jesus prefaced his statement to the rich young ruler with the statement: "If you want to enter life, obey the commandments". Some people claim that since Jesus did not qualify his pronouncement, that he meant all the commandments. The rich young ruler asked "which" commandments. Jesus gave him a partial list. The first set of commandments deal with a relationship to God. The second set of commandments deal with a relationship to men. No doubt Jesus considered the relationship to God important, but Jesus may have considered that the young man was perhaps lacking in this second set, which made him obligated to men. (This is inferred by his statement that to be perfect he should sell his goods, give them to the poor and come and follow Jesus ? thereby opening to him a place in the coming Kingdom.)

Several times Paul mentioned adhering to "the Law", such as , , , , , , and preached about Ten Commandment topics such as idolatry (, , , , , , , , ). Many Christians believe that the Sermon on the Mount is a form of commentary on the Ten Commandments. In the Expounding of the Law, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it; while in Marcion's version of Luke 23:2 we find the extension: "We found this fellow perverting the nation and destroying the law and the prophets".^[42] See also Adherence to the Law and Antithesis of the Law.

Recent scholarship

Leading scholar F. F. Bruce was typical of most scholars of his generation. Unlike his denominational affiliation, he did not support dispensationalism. Other recent scholars influential in the debate regarding the law include Rudolf Bultmann, Heikki R�is�nen, Klyne Snodgrass, C. E. B. Cranfield and others, as well as those involved with the New Perspectives movement (see below).

Krister Stendahl argued in "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West"^[43] that since Augustine, Western commentators have misunderstood Paul, due to an overly active conscience.

New Perspective on Paul

The "New Perspective on Paul" is a controversial and substantial shift in New Testament scholarship within Protestantism, particularly regarding Paul's writings on Judaism, justification by faith, and imputed righteousness. It become prominent with the work of E. P. Sanders, particularly in Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), and has also been described as the "Sanders Revolution". It claims that Protestants have read Paul and Judaism in the light of sixteenth-century Catholic-Protestant debates. It claims Judaism is not a religion of self-righteousness whereby humankind seeks to merit salvation before God, and that Paul's argument with the Judaizers was not about Christian grace versus Jewish legalism.

N. T. Wright believes the Reformed (Calvinistic) tradition is more faithful to Paul than the Lutheran tradition, and does consider himself to be legitimately within the Reformed tradition.