Law

II. In the New Testament

a. Jewish background

One of the most important features of OT religion was the law of Moses, which the Jews received when the Sinai covenant was ratified. Obedience to the law of Moses was not conceived as a way of earning God's favour but as a response to his grace in delivering Israel from Egypt (Ex. 20:1–17). Nonetheless, the basic storyline of the OT reveals that Israel failed to keep the law and forsook the God of Israel. Yahweh responded by sending his people into exile for their disobedience of the Torah (Lv. 26; Dt. 28; Jos. 23:14–16; 2 Ki 17:7–23; Dn. 9). In Paul's day the Jews believed that the promises of a glorious, national future were not yet fulfilled, since they were in subjection to Rome, and their servility continued to be ascribed to their failure to obey the Torah. The keeping of the law of Moses, therefore, was considered to be essential for the deliverance of the nation and the fulfilment of God's promises. Most Jews in Second Temple Judaism believed that by exercising their free will they had the ability to keep the law (Ecclus. 15:11–22; Psalms of Solomon 9:4–5; 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 54:15, 19; 85:7; ʿAboth 3:16). What was required was commitment to carry out its prescriptions.

b. The meaning of the term 'law' and 'works of law' in the NT

Given the OT background, it is not surprising that the term 'law' (nomos) in the NT usually refers to the law of Moses. In most cases the focus is on Sinaitic legislation, i.e. the commands and prescriptions of the law (e.g. Lk. 2:22–24, 27, 39; Rom. 2:12–27; 1 Cor. 9:8–9). The phrase 'the law and the prophets' also occurs (e.g. Mt. 5:17; 7:12; 22:40; Lk. 16:16; Jn. 1:45; Acts 13:15; Rom. 3:21; cf Lk. 24:44), denoting the OT scriptures as a whole. 'Law' in these cases refers to the Pentateuch, while 'prophets' designates the rest of the OT. The term 'law' also occasionally refers to the OT as Scripture and yet does not denote the Pentateuch, for Paul cites passages from Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah and labels them as 'law' (cf. Rom. 3:10–19; 1 Cor. 14:21). There are a few other instances in which the term 'law' may not refer to the law of Moses. The 'law of Christ' (Gal. 6:2; cf. 1 Cor. 9:21) is understood by most scholars to be distinct from the law of Moses, although some see it as the fulfilment of the Mosaic law. It has often been said that the word 'law' means 'principle', 'order', or 'rule' in Rom. 3:27; 7:21, 23 and 8:2, although this has been vigorously contested in recent scholarship, with some insisting that the reference is to the law of Moses in every case.
The meaning of the term 'works of law' (erga nomou), which occurs eight times in Paul (Gal. 2:16 [three times]; 3:2, 5, 10; Rom. 3:20, 28), has also been the subject of considerable controversy. It has been suggested that the term is shorthand for legalism (Fuller), or that it focuses on the requirements which separate and distinguish Jews from Gentiles, viz., circumcision, food laws, and observance of days (Dunn). More likely, the term refers broadly to all the works or deeds required by the law (Westerholm). This latter view is suggested by the Qumran literature (Floriiegium 1:7; Miqsat Maʾaseh Torah) where the term 'works of the law' denotes all that is required by the law. Even more germane is the context in which the term is found in Romans. Paul asserts in Rom. 3:20 that no one is right before God by 'works of law'. This statement functions as a conclusion to the sustained argument of Rom. 1:18–3:18, where it is demonstrated that all people—both Jews and Gentiles—have sinned and fallen short of God's standard. Indeed, the Jews are indicted in Rom. 2:17–19 for failing to keep the law which they so avidly proclaim. The fundamental argument against the Jews in Rom. 2 is not that they are legalistic, nor that they exclude Gentiles. Rather, they are criticized for failing to observe the law which they treasure and teach. Thus, when Paul concludes his case in Rom. 3:20 by saying that no one is right before God by 'works of law', it follows from the preceding argument that the law, as a whole, is contemplated and that human beings failed to keep it perfectly. It is likely that a similar understanding should be applied in Gal. 2:16 and 3:10. A reference to the whole law is suggested particularly by Gal. 3:10, for Paul says that a curse rests upon those who do not 'abide by all that is written in the book of the law'. The emphasis on 'all' (Paul uses the LXX text which contains the word 'all', not the MT where the word is lacking) intimates that the whole law is in view and that perfect obedience is demanded. If 'works of law' do not justify, then what is the means by which the curse of the law can be removed? Gal. 3:13 proclaims that the curse is removed through the cross of Christ by which he becomes a curse-bearer for believers. Rom. 3:21–26 contains a similar argument: righteousness does not come via the law, but is available through faith by virtue of the atoning death of Christ which turned away the Father's wrath and wiped away our sins.

c. The law and human inability

We have seen that in both the OT and Second Temple Judaism, Israel's failure to realize the promises of national glory was ascribed to disobedience to the Torah. Paul (Rom. 1:18–3:20) also indicts both Gentiles and Jews for their failure to observe the law (cf. Gal. 2:17–18; 3:10; 5:3; 6:13). Other NT writers concur that disobedience was the fundamental problem with the Jews (cf. Mt. 3:7–10 par.; Jn. 7:19; Acts 7:53; 15:10–11). Indeed, Jesus' most stinging criticism of the Pharisees is not that they are legalistic, but that they themselves do not keep the law (cf. Mt. 5:20; 23:3, 23, 25–26; Mk. 7:8, 13; Lk. 11:37–52).
NT writers do not depart from Second Temple Judaism in their conception that the promises have not yet been realized because of human sin. This would have been common ground between NT writers and their Jewish contemporaries. NT writers differed in their assertion that human beings are unable to keep the law (see Laato's work below). Paul is particularly emphatic on this point. He says that those who are in the flesh, i.e. unregenerate, 'cannot' keep God's law (Rom. 8:7). They are slaves to sin (Rom. 6:6, 17, 19, 20) and sold under the power of sin (Rom. 7:14) so that they are its captives (Rom. 7:23). Many Jews believed that the law could counter the 'evil impulse' (yēser hāro) in human beings. Paul countered that to be 'under law' was to be under the power of sin (Rom. 6:14–15; 7:14; Gal. 3:22). Those who are of 'works of law' are 'under a curse' (Gal. 3:10). They are enslaved to the elements of the world (Gal. 4:3–5), and can be freed from the tyranny of being 'under law' only when they yield to the leading of the Spirit (Gal. 5:18). This is not to say that the law is evil per se (Rom. 7:12), for the 'under' phrases denote an era of salvation history in which the law was given and yet the Spirit was withheld from most of Israel. Thus, the law of Moses was given to increase sin (Rom. 5:20; 7:7–11; Gal. 3:19), and the law apart from the Spirit kills and condemns (2 Cor. 3:6, 9), for 'the power of sin is the law' (1 Cor. 15:56).

d. Is Jewish legalism criticized in the NT?

Ever since the Reformation, scholars have understood NT writers, and Paul in particular, to be opposing Jewish legalism which taught that one could merit right standing before God by doing the works of the law. A few dissenting voices have been raised along the way, but the consensus basically held until 1977. The year 1977 marks a watershed in NT studies, for E. P. Sanders published in that year his massive and influential work Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Sanders contends that scholarship has read Paul and Second Temple Judaism through the lenses of the Reformation struggle between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism instead of from a historical perspective. When the extant literary evidence of Judaism is examined, he claims, no evidence of legalism can be supported from the Jewish texts themselves—with the exception of 4 Ezra. Thus, the idea that Judaism was legalistic is a serious misreading of the evidence.
Sanders has convinced many scholars of the validity of his case, and he rightly strikes a balance against a caricature of Second Temple Judaism. Nonetheless, the claim that Judaism was as free of legalism as he suggests is questionable. The failure of Second Temple Judaism to emphasize the covenant and the stress on the minutiae of the law are at least a recipe for legalism which could easily creep into the practice, if not the theology, of some Jews. Neither can NT evidence that points to legalism among the Jews be explained away. The parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Lk. 18:9–14) demonstrates that the Pharisee believed he was righteous because of his morality and devotion to religious practices. His religion had become a mask for self-exaltation (v. 14). The Lukan inclusion of this parable can scarcely be accounted for if no one suffered from the problem of legalism.
Several texts in Paul also take aim at merit theology. For instance, Paul explicitly contrasts someone who works for a wage that is owed to him with someone who receives the gift of justification simply by believing (Rom. 4:4–5). This illustration occurs in a context in which all boasting is excluded, since righteousness is obtained by faith instead of works (Rom. 3:27–28; 4:2–3). One must strain the text unduly not to see a critique of legalism here. Those who are convinced that they have done the requisite works (an illusion, of course, since no one keeps the law perfectly—Rom. 1:18–3:20) do not need righteousness as a gift. They believe they have merited righteousness as a wage that is deserved, since they worked to attain it. And thus they believe (vainly!) they have grounds for boasting in their achievement. Rom. 9:30–10:8 should be understood similarly. The problem with the Jews is that they did not pursue the law with faith 'but as from works' (Rom. 9:32). Instead of submitting themselves to God's saving righteousness, they tried to establish their own righteousness by works (Rom. 10:3). The assertion by some (e.g. Dunn) that Paul's criticism of the Jews is limited to their nationalism and ethnocentrism can hardly be sustained here. Not a word is breathed in this context about circumcision, food laws, or observance of days. The text refers to 'works' in general not even 'works of law'—and thus it would be illegitimate to conclude that the Jews are criticized for excluding Gentiles. The term 'works' should be interpreted in a broad sense, denoting their works-orientation rather than faith-orientation. Paul's critique of the Jews was not from an outsider's perspective, for he had suffered from the same tendency (Phil. 3:2–11). He attempted to obtain right-standing with God on the basis of 'his own righteousness from the law' instead of 'the righteousness of God on the basis of faith' (Phil. 3:9). The critique against legalism in the NT should not be understood as an attack against 'Jews' and an indication of anti-Semitism. Legalism is due to pride, and the desire for self-exaltation, which is a problem common to all humanity, not just the Jews.

e. Abrogation and fulfilment of the law

One of the perplexities in reading the NT is that it seems to say contradictory things about the law. In fact, Raisanen makes this his central plank in his book on Paul's view of the law, contending that Paul's theology of the law is inconsistent and contradictory. Raisanen's solution is unsatisfactory, and yet the difficulty is apparent to all careful readers of the NT, since the various statements made about the law are difficult to reconcile. This comes to the forefront in the matter of the abrogation and fulfilment of the law. Some statements imply that the law is still in force and fulfilled in Christ, while others teach that the law has come to an end. The solution to this vexing problem is paradoxical, for NT writers affirm that both are true, i.e. the law is abrogated and yet it is also fulfilled.
Matthew, for instance, emphasizes that Christ came to fulfil the law (5:17–20; cf. 5:21–48). What Matthew means by 'fulfil' is the subject of controversy, but it should be related to his christology, since he emphasizes that Christ fulfils OT prophecy (cf. 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17, etc.). Matthew hints (15:1–20) that the food laws of the OT are no longer binding. Mark, in the parallel text (Mk. 7:1–23), makes it explicit that all foods are now clean (Mk. 7:19). It is also possible that Matthew's words about the Sabbath suggest some change regarding Sabbath regulations (12:1–14). The fulfilment envisaged by Matthew, then, hints at some changes in the law. Food laws and perhaps the Sabbath laws are no longer binding in the same way (cf. also the texts on divorce in 5:31–32; 19:3–12). Nonetheless, the moral norms of the law are not jettisoned, but can now become a reality with the coming of the kingdom (4:17; 5:17–48).
Luke also emphasizes that Jesus fulfils prophecy (1:32–33, 54–55, 68–79; 4:18–19; 24:25–27, 44–49; Acts 2:16–36, etc.), and that the law is eternally valid (16:17). This does not mean that there is no shift in terms of the law, for Acts 10:1–11:18 communicates in unmistakable terms that food laws are no longer required. Moreover, at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, circumcision is not imposed on the Gentiles. Luke's perspective seems to be a salvation historical one in which the law no longer functions in the same way now that Messiah has come, the Spirit has been poured out, and the gospel goes to the Gentiles (cf. Blomberg). The letter to the Hebrews depicts the covenantal shift in a beautiful argument which is unfolded in chapters 7–10. The law of the old covenant is no longer binding, since there has been a change of priesthood (Heb. 7:11–12). Indeed, the very fact that a Melchizedean priesthood was predicted in Ps. 110:4 signals that the Levitical priesthood was destined to become obsolete. If the Levitieal priesthood has been superseded, the same is true of Levitical sacrifices. Ultimately, the blood of animals cannot atone for sin anyway, since they are brute beasts and unwilling victims. OT sacrifices actually anticipated and pointed forward to the sacrifice of Christ which is the fulfilment of what they adumbrated. Thus, the author of Hebrews does not criticize the OT law per se. He places it in salvation historical perspective, arguing that it must be interpreted in light of the fulfilment accomplished by Jesus Christ. The OT itself, in promising a new covenant, envisaged a day when the old would be dissolved.
Paul's theology follows the same basic paradigm. The gospel of Christ fulfils the OT scriptures (Rom. 1:2; 3:21). And now that Christ has come, circumcision, food laws and observance of days are not mandated for the people of God (Rom. 2:26–29; 4:9–12; 14:1–23; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 4:10; 2:3–5; 5:2–6; 6:12–13; Col. 2:16–23). The Mosaic covenant has come to an end upon the arrival of Christ (Gal. 3:15–4:7; 2 Cor. 3:4–18), for the promises given to Abraham that all nations would be blessed have become a reality (Gal. 3:6–9, 14–18, 29; Rom. 4:9–17). Circumcision, food laws and Sabbath are not required, because the days of separation between Jews and Gentiles have ended. And yet the deeper reality to which these laws pointed has now been fulfilled. Circumcision of the heart has become a reality through the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 2:28–29; Phil. 3:3) and the work of Christ on the cross (Col. 2:11–12). The purity laws of the OT are fulfilled in purity of life and in separation from all evil (cf. 2 Cor. 6:14; 7:1; cf. Peter's application of Lv. 11:44 in 1 Pet. 1:15–16). Paul himself does not enunciate how the Sabbath is fulfilled, but the author of Hebrews (Heb. 4:1–11) sees the Sabbath as coming to fruition in the Sabbath rest which believers now enjoy, and which will be consummated at the day of Christ's return. The fulfilment of the law for Paul (cf. also Jas. 2:8–12) also involves empowerment so that the moral norms of the law may be kept. Many scholars doubt that Paul operated with a distinction between the moral and ceremonial law, but texts such as Rom. 2:25–29; 8:4; 13:8–10; Gal. 5:2–6, 14; 1 Cor. 7:19, suggest that he operated with such a distinction. Of course, Paul never conceived that the law could be fulfilled in one's own strength. Fulfilling the law was due to the work of the Holy Spirit which enabled believers to obey God's commandments.


Schreiner, T. R. (1996). In the New Testament. In D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman (Eds.), New Bible dictionary (D. R. W. Wood, I. H. Marshall, A. R. Millard, J. I. Packer & D. J. Wiseman, Ed.) (3rd ed.) (675–677). Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

--
Regards,
Ryan Chia

It is not so much the case that God has a mission for his church in the world,
as that God has a church for his mission in the world.
Mission was not made for the church; the church was made for mission—God's mission.

From The Mission of God by Chris Wright