[responsivevoice_button]

I’d like to first thank Chris Matthew for his helpful editing and sharing his thoughts on the article itself. It is often discussed whether the Law has any moral authority for Christians. The debate is amongst those that view the covenant’s differently and because of such they view the issue of continuity and discontinuity differently as well. We have passages with debatable meanings about the use of the Law in our time period. I think it will be helpful for me to go through some of the prooftexts from both sides in order to give an explanation of what I think the New Testament is really advocating. Let’s start with helpful distinctions that allow us to make sense out of these things:

Intrinsic goods: These are deeds that are done because they are good in and of themselves.

Instrumental goods: These are acts done to achieve some other good.
Typology: The study of OT types as anticipating NT persons or occurrences (Rom. 5:14; 1 Cor. 10:2; Heb. 6:19–7:28; 1 Pet. 3:21). Types are An example or figure. In biblical interpretation, a type is a person or event that foreshadows or symbolizes another (Rom. 5:14). For example, the book of Hebrews shows Melchizedek as a type of Christ (Heb. 6:19–7:28).

So, in contemporary discussions of the Law, a distinction between the moral, ceremonial, and civil laws are brought to bear in discussing the role the OT Law has in the Christian life. The moral law is thought to be the laws believed to reflect God’s moral character. These laws apply for all times and all places. The civil laws are considered to be indexed to the government of Israel. But that is debated whether the civil laws carry over as rules for all nations to follow. The last one is known as the ceremonial laws. These have to deal with the OT sacrifices, ceremonies, and dietary prohibitions that are no longer necessary given God’s people have extended out from Israel and they were signs that pointed to the reality(Jesus the Messiah). When the reality is here, we no longer need the shadows.

The Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial distinctions have been discussed recently and I think it is helpful to quote something that helped me:

The threefold distinction is valid as a beginning point (not an endpoint–the ceremonial law continues to apply typologically, 2 Cor 6:17). Nearly everyone believes that it is inappropriate to offer animal sacrifice. So they believe in the ceremonial law that is now obsolete with respect to its direct observance. Nearly everyone believes that “you shall not steal” expresses a permanent moral principle based on the character of God. So they believe in the moral law. Nearly everyone believes that the Ten Commandments are literarily and theologically distinguished from casuistic law and instructions about ceremonies.  So the people who say there are no distinctions end up making distinctions anyway.  The positive take-away is that there are these three things, but also that it is not always easy to see what is a permanent moral principle and what is temporary, typologically crafted ceremony and what is judicial instruction appropriate only for Israel as a holy nation. Nor is it right to exclude the possibility that sometimes typologically a single law may have multiple implications–for ceremonies, for moral principles, and for judicial procedures. But granted that the lines of distinction are not precisely drawn everywhere, the distinctions are valid.

Our task now is to take the various passages relevant to this debate. Now, let’s look at some passages and try to adjudicate these issues.

Matthew 5:17-20

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The historical interpretation of this section is that Jesus is teaching that he has come not to set aside the Old Testament authority but rather to uphold and fulfill it. That the antithesis is actually Jesus correcting the Pharisee’s additions to the Laws and to teach basic ethical principles through vivid imagery.

Contrary to that understanding, it is the idea that Christ does set aside the Law as the New Moses. That he has fulfilled it in such a way, that these principles have faded away. The antithesis is Jesus correcting the OT law for the Christian age.

It is forgotten that the audience of this letter would have been an early Jewish-Christian community. These readers have an interpretive background and would have an interpretive grid for understanding the letter. These Jewish Christians probably are lower or Middle-class citizens. The classical interpretation is that Jesus is correcting the people’s understanding of the Old Testament that was corrupted by the Pharisaical traditions. It may not explicitly say that these are Pharisaical traditions, but that ignores what the audience of the sermon on the mount would’ve thought those meant. The other important thing to realize that Jesus in Matthew 5 is communicating with Jews. Take for example what we know about the Pharisees:

By and large, the Pharisees had three major characteristics. First, they represented primarily the middle and lower classes. Second, and perhaps as a consequence of their social status, they were really not Hellenized and seem to have remained primarily Near Eastern in culture. To be sure, they may have adopted Greek words or intellectual approaches, but they viewed as authoritative only what they regarded as the ancient traditions of Israel. Third, they accepted what they termed the “tradition of the Fathers,” nonbiblical laws and customs said to have been passed down through the generations. These teachings supplemented the written Torah and were a part of what the rabbis would later call the oral law. They are said to have been extremely scrupulous in observing the law and to have been expert in its interpretation.
– Lawrence Schiffman “From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple Judaism” (pg. 105)

The Pharisees had a reputation for being the most exact or precise interpreters of the law (though this does not mean they always gave it the most rigorous interpretation). They were specialists in defining precisely what the law required in daily life. They also treated as binding a body of oral traditions handed down from Pharisaic teachers of the past. Evidently they were influential. Many people who were not Pharisees respected them and followed their interpretation of Torah to some extent. They were not, like the Essenes, who also interpreted the law very precisely, a separatist sect content to cultivate their own holiness in isolation. The Pharisees seem to have been more like a movement with a programme of holiness for the nation. In the time of Jesus, they had no institutional power base from which to impose their interpretation of Judaism, but they were teachers widely respected for their own consistent practice of their interpretations of Torah.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus: A Short Introduction (Kindle Locations 593-599). Kindle Edition.

It would have only naturally followed for these Jews that Jesus would be referring to the Pharisees’ use of the Old Testament. The audience is made up of Jews still under the Mosaic Covenant and thus are obligated to keep its statutes. The passage lack any reference to the New Covenant. It is good to distinguish the receivers of the narrative and the perspective of those in the narrative.

The chapter opens up with using Moses typology. Moses goes up a mountain and gives his people the Law and this is similar to Jesus that goes up into a hilly terrain and speaks to the issue of the Law.

These parallels between Matt. 5 and Mount Sinai do not seem to be merely accidental. Remember that Matt. 5 is placed immediately after the events in Matt. 1-4 that introduce the themes of fulfillment and the parallels with Israel’s experience of deliverance and testing in the wilderness. Since Matt. 1-4 has already prepared us to expect parallels, we can say with some confidence that Matt. 5 is indeed to be understood as picturing a kind of new giving of the law from a new Mount Sinai. At Mount Sinai the voice of God spoke directly from heaven, and further revelations were mediated through Moses. In Matt. 5 the revelation comes through the voice of Jesus who is both God and the final Moses.

Vern S. Poythress. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Kindle Locations 4533-4538). Kindle Edition.

That leaves room to speculate upon the typology’s emphasis because it isn’t conclusive. Some think that the typology is to reflect that Jesus is a “New Moses” in order to give a “New Law” and that goes on to be the Laws of the New Covenant. Some think that the Typology is to reflect that Jesus is able to “fulfill” the Law of Moses. Some think that we forget that one mountain isn’t the only one with which Moses is attributed. So, some wonder where the typology really is in reference to whether to the foothills of Horeb or the foothills of Nebo? Some think the beatitudes are referring back to the beatitudes of Moses in Deut 33:1-19(statement of covenantal renewal). The typology won’t be enough in and of itself to show the meaning of the passage.

The issue with reading this passage in the light of discontinuity is that the chapter and context seem to be set towards continuity. The first verse set abolishment as something against what the author means by saying fulfilled. But most discontinuity readings seem to entail that fulfillment is just abolishment. The meaning of the verse has been debated. Dr. Greg Bahnsen thought pleroo meant to “establish” or “confirm” and thought it should be rendered that way. But that is implausible based on Matthews usage of pleroo:

1. The Greek word πληρόω does not normally have the sense “confirm.” 8 Though the theological idea of fulfillment implies confirmation, it is richer than mere confirmation. Induction from other instances where the New Testament speaks of fulfilling the Scriptures indicates that the bringing to realization of forward-pointing aspects of Old Testament revelation is in view. 9
2. Literal confirmation of the law, in the sense that every letter of the law still requires the same form of obedience as in Old Testament times, is in tension with what the rest of the New Testament and Matthew as well indicates about changes in the observance of the law (Matt. 5:33-37).10
3. It is difficult under this view to explain why the text uses the Greek word πληρόω (“fulfill”) rather than the words βεβαιόω or ἵστημι (“establish, confirm”), since the latter words would be less confusing.11 The use of πληρόω with the sense “confirm” would be all the more confusing because elsewhere Matthew repeatedly uses this same word πλψρόω as a significant keyword to state his theme that Jesus fulfills the whole Old Testament.12
4. The meaning “fulfill” is more compatible with the One major alternative is to interpret “fulfill” as meaning simply “confirm” and nothing more. In such a case it would imply maintaining the law in place, but would not imply any sense of advance or transformation of the law. But there are major objections to this alternative. 1. The Greek word πληρόω does not normally have the sense “confirm.” 8 Though the theological idea of fulfillment implies confirmation, it is richer than mere confirmation. Induction from other instances where the New Testament speaks of fulfilling the Scriptures indicates that the bringing to realization of forward-pointing aspects of Old Testament revelation is in view. 9 

Vern S. Poythress. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses

Most commentators think that the meaning of pleroo is that the Law and Prophets are eschatologically fulfilled. This is the position of most commentators from the way the word is used in Matthean usage and in the LXX. This is to say that the Law and the Prophets are pointed, was completed, and find their culmination in Christ. Dr. Dale Allison (Sermon on the Mount, 59.) explains this as:

Matthew usually uses the verb in question (“ fulfill”) with reference to prophetic fulfillment (1: 22; 4: 14; 12: 17; etc.) and because our sentence refers not just to the Law but also to the Prophets. So Jesus’ new teaching brings to realization that which the Torah prophesied. And that realization does not set the Law and Prophets aside. Fulfillment rather confirms the Torah’s truth.

This is taken even farther by commentator D. A. Carson. He argues that Jesus’ ethical teachings fulfill the OT law by his teachings. Carson believes we are no longer under the law since John, but that it has some continuing authority. Dr. Greg Welty critiques Dr. Carson on his interpretation:

Thus, it appears that Carson’s proposed meaning for pleroo in Mt 5:17, vital to his subsequent interpretation of the antitheses, is without parallel to any other usage of pleroo in the NT (including Matthew’s)! Exegetically, the notion that laws pleroo laws appears to be a total innovation on Carson’s part, for the very concept is foreign to the NT. If, with respect to Carson’s argument for the basic eschatological sense of pleroo, “the lack of background for pleroo (‘fulfill’) as far as it applies to Scripture requires cautious induction from the NT evidence,” then surely Carson should have been equally cautious with respect to his extension of that eschatological meaning to include ethical teaching, given the total lack of Scriptural evidence supporting that extension! Indeed, I reject Carson’s extension of the meaning of pleroo for the same reason I accept Carson’s argument for the basic eschatological meaning of pleroo: the quality and amount of the NT evidence. … In rounding off his exposition of v. 17, Carson makes a number of confusing applications of his view of the pleroo of v. 17, which I want to briefly consider. First, he says that, “As in Luke 16:16-17, Jesus is not announcing the termination of the OT’s relevance and authority (else Luke 16:17 would be incomprehensible), but that ‘the period during which men were related to God under its terms ceased with John’ (Moo, ‘Jesus,’ p. 1); and the nature of its valid continuity is established only with reference to Jesus and the kingdom.”
It’s hard (for me at least) to know what Carson thinks here. On the one hand he assures us that “Jesus is not announcing the termination of the OT’s relevance and authority.” But on the other hand he says (following Moo) that “the period during which men were related to God under its terms ceased with John.” I find it difficult to understand how the authority can continue when men are no longer “under its terms.” How does it possess authority apart from the continuing relevance of at least some of its terms? Isn’t being under something’s terms precisely what we mean by being under its authority?

Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law (A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48)- Dr. Greg Welty

In the passage, we have two antithetical notions pitted against one another. The ideas of ‘fulfilling’ and ‘destroying’ are set against one another. The idea is that Christ is not here to destroy or render to no effect that Law and the Prophets, but rather to fulfill them. I think Richard Barcellos rightly states the issue below:

First, notice the antithetical relationship between the concepts of “destroying” and “fulfilling” in verse 17. Christ did not come to obliterate the law, but to fulfill the law. This obviously means that “the Law or the Prophets” are not done away with [destroyed] as authoritative ethical directives for Christ’s people.

It is particularly important to remember that Jesus is speaking to OT Jews and that the common charge of the Jews to Christians was antinomianism. So, it would be a bit odd if Jesus concedes the charge here. Furthermore, the simplicity of this view not only fits the traditional understanding but demands it. Thus, we have good reason to believe that Jesus did not mean anything like antinomian ‘abolishment’ with his saying ‘fulfillment’ but meant something consistent with continuity.

Other Jewish people consequently charged the early Christians with antinomianism (cf. Justin Dial. 10; b. Shab. 31a; Ex. Rab. 47:1); thus Jesus’ words in 5:17-20 would provide reassurance to Jewish Christians locked in polemic with synagogue leaders. Many commentators note here that Jesus comes not to abolish the law, but to expound its true sense, to fulfill its spirit. …
Matthew declares that nothing will pass from the law ” until all is accomplished ” (5:18), meaning until the consummation of the kingdom, when heaven and earth pass away (24:34-35; cf. Jer 31:35-37; Ps-Philo 11:5; Sib. Or. 3:570-72). The idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection is the ” goal of the world, ” thus allowing the law to be set aside as fulfilled,55 violates the whole thrust of the passage (Mohrlang 1984: 8); Overman 1996: 77 rightly calls ” such hermeneutical gymnastics … excessive .. . tortured ” and ” contrived. ” And though the passage fits Matthew’s Jewish Christian theology quite well, it is clearly dominical teaching; though perhaps limiting its force for his Gentile audience by other means, Luke preserves the saying intact (Lk 16:17; Vermes 1993: 19).

Craig S. Keener. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Kindle Locations 5452-5480). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.

The other argument is to say that the Old Testament didn’t focus on the heart, but rather focuses on the external actions. That this one of the distinctive to the New covenant compared to the Old. Notice the proponent who objects to my reading this as a correcting of Pharisaic traditions of the OT law as eisegesis read the New Covenant into the passage. The other issue is the Old Testament did deal with the heart( Deut. 6:6, 10:16, 30:6-14, Lev 26:41, 1 Sam. 15:22, Ps. 37:31, 40:8, 119:11, Jer 4:4, 9:24-25, 31:33, Ezk 36:26-27, 44:7) and not merely external actions.

Another feature of the passage is that it lacks anything resembling a law code. It is more about social situations instead of being a law code. So, it makes me rather skeptical that that was the focus of the typology previously discussed. It is slightly poetic as it paints many paintings with its words. This I suspect isn’t God giving us a formal law code. As Dr. Dale Allison states in “The Sermon on the Mount. Inspiring the Moral Imagination” (pg. 11)

One must reckon seriously with the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is partly a poetic text. By this is meant that it is, unlike codes of law, dramatic and pictorial. The reader sees a man offering a sacrifice in Jerusalem (5:23), someone in prison (5:25-26), a body without eye and hand (5:29-30), someone being slapped (5:39), sun rising (5:45), the rain falling (5:45), someone praying in a closet (6:6), lilies in a field (6:28), a log in an eye (7:4), wolves in sheep’s clothing (7:15). These images and the comments upon them hardly add up to anything that can be called legislation_ The Sermon does not offer a set of rules-the ruling on divorce is the exception-but rather seeks to instill a moral vision. Litera! (mis)interpretation accordingly leads to absurdities.

The Beatitudes reflect not a break with the Old Testament but rather it seems to bring up Old Testament concepts. Jesus is alluding to the prophets to get his statements:

“Comfort, comfort my people” (Isa 40: 1) is God’s response. These first two beatitudes deliberately allude to the messianic blessing of Isaiah 61: 1– 3 (see Lk 4: 16– 19; cf. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 134– 35), confirming them as eschatological and messianic. The Messiah comes to bestow “the oil of gladness instead of mourning, and a garment of praise instead of a spirit of despair” (Isa 61:3). But these blessings, already realized partially but fully only at the consummation (Rev 7: 17), depend on a Messiah who comes to save his people from their sins (1: 21; cf. 11: 28– 30). Those who claim to experience all its joys without tears mistake the nature of the kingdom.

Carson, D. A.; Carson, D. A.. Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6182-6187). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

The other connection of us being “peacemakers” is found in the Old Testament as well (Ps. 34:14; 37: 35-38; 120: 1-7; Isa. 52:7, and Prov. 10:10; 12:20). The antithesis reveals Jesus is challenging the authority of the Pharisees. The Pharisees would appeal to the authority of Rabbi’s of the past in order to establish their argument. Jesus states that he says these things on his own accord. Jesus in verse 18 continues to build on his prior statement:

Second, Jesus illustrates the eternality of God’s law with a popular storyline from contemporary Jewish teachers (5:18). Although the prophets had already affirmed the immutability of God’s word (Is 40:8; Zech 1:5-6), Jesus here underlines this point in a graphic, hyperbolic manner (5:18; cf. 24:34-35). Jesus’ ” letter ” (NRSV), ” smallest letter ” (NIV) or ” jot ” (KJV) undoubtedly refers to the Hebrew letter yodh (Manson 1979: 154; Vermes 1993: 19-20n.l 1), which Jewish teachers said would not pass from the law. They said that when Sarai’s name was changed to Sarah, the yodh removed from her name cried out from one generation to another, protesting its removal from Scripture, until finally, when Moses changed Oshea’s name to Joshua, the yodh was returned to Scripture. ” So you see, ” the teachers would say, ” not even this smallest letter can pass from the Bible ” (b. Sanh. 107ab; p. Sanh. 2:6, §2; Gen. Rab. 47:1; Lev. Rab. 19:2; Num. Rab. 18:21; Song Rab. 5:11, §§3-4). Likewise, sages declared that when Solomon threatened to uproot a yodh from the law, God responded that he would uproot a thousand Solomons rather than a word of his law (p. Sanh. 2:6, §2; cf. Ex. Rab. 6:1).54 Jesus makes the same point from this tradition that later rabbis did: even the smallest details of God’s law are essential (cf. Barth 1963: 65). Matthew declares that nothing will pass from the law ” until all is accomplished ” (5:18), meaning until the consummation of the kingdom, when heaven and earth pass away (24:34-35; cf. Jer 31:35-37; Ps-Philo 11:5; Sib. Or. 3:570-72). The idea that Jesus’ death and resurrection is the ” goal of the world, ” thus allowing the law to be set aside as fulfilled,55 violates the whole thrust of the passage

Craig S. Keener. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Kindle Locations 5464-5475). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.

The Isaianic background continues to bolster the case for the continuing authority of the Law. Dr. Andrew Fulford has unpacked that in his work:

The Isaianic background to the Sermon noted above provides further support for Welty’s argument. For Isaiah depicts a future for the Law, with two aspects. Firstly in Isa. 21: 1-4:
It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore. The Law shall go forth and discipline the rule the nations. Yet at the same time, in the future, God will not treat some individuals exactly the same as he did in the Mosaic system (Isa. 56: 3-5): Let not the foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord say, “The Lord will surely separate me from his people”; and let not the eunuch say, “Behold, I am a dry tree.” For thus says the Lord: “To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off.

Fulford, Andrew. Jesus and Pacifism: An Exegetical and Historical Investigation (Davenant Guides Book 1) (Kindle Locations 646-681). The Davenant Press. Kindle Edition.

We shall look at the antithesis and see if the discontinuity interpretation makes sense of the passage. First, we should notice what has been argued. The ideas have been the Beatitudes represent a break with OT ethics has been challenged. The term “pleroo” has been discussed and it has been shown to mean something that prophetically points to Jesus Christ. That it doesn’t mean he has accomplished for termination of the Old Testament. We have pointed out the OT doesn’t undermine the ideas the problem with humanity is internal to the heart. The Moses typology was discussed and the idea that Jesus was delivering a New Law. We also have set contextual background from the audience with Keener and Fulford/Carson provided the Messianic/ Isaianic background points to the continuing authority of the Law.

Keener’s quote already touches upon the continuity of the binding authority of the Law upon Christians. The Law is set to be an authority till all is fulfilled. Some think that it teaches that the Law has a termination date and that once its purpose is met, then its relevance fades. This understanding isn’t convincing given the verse prior and the verse after. Jesus states that he isn’t here to abolish the “Law and Prophets” and that the one that puts away the least of them is least in the kingdom of heaven. So, it hardly seems that the Laws time to fade away has occurred. For those convinced, it is only the eschatological focus of the Law that remains, that thesis is dealt with in the Welty article. I think R. T. France rightly states:

They are not lost, but taken up into the eschatological events to which they pointed forward. The second “until,” then, is not speaking of the time of their abandonment but of their intended goal. The double “until” is admittedly awkward, but we might paraphrase the whole saying as follows: “The law, down to its smallest details, is as permanent as heaven and earth, and will never lose its significance; on the contrary, all that it points forward to will in fact become a reality.” Now that that reality has arrived in Jesus, the jots and tittles will be seen in a new light, but they still cannot be discarded.

France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew (NICNT). Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.(Kindle Locations 4090-4094). Kindle Edition.

We will be taking a very brief look at the antitheses to point to some of the evidence that Jesus is dealing with Pharisaical interpolations to the Law.

Dr. Greg Welty in the critique of D.A. Carson makes this observation:

Thus, Carson understands by Jesus’ antithetical refrain (“You have heard that it was said… But I say unto you…”) that “Jesus is not criticizing the OT but the understanding of the OT many of his hearers adopted.” I find this remarkable, because this understanding is clearly contradicted by Carson’s specific interpretation of some of the antitheses in which that refrain is used. For Carson holds that Jesus is criticising the OT. Indeed, Jesus goes so far as to “revoke at least the letter of the law”! (See below.) Once again, Carson simply cannot have it both ways.

There are reasons to suppose Jesus is not criticizing the OT Law. In his criticisms, he phrases them as “You have heard that it was said” is different from the common way Jesus references the OT “It is written”. This phraseology is more dependant upon what they have heard. That fits better with the idea that they have heard from religious authorities in their time. The other issue is Jesus’ quotation, for example shows an interpolation to the OT command added by the Pharisees. Jesus states 5:43 ” You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ The Old Testament never states that one is to hate their enemy. That is added to the end of the Old Testament command to love one’s neighbor. For further expansion of this interpretation to be found in the article by Dr. Greg Welty.

Therefore, we have seen that Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5 strongly supports the abiding validity of the law. The discussion of the Pharisees lends to the fact that Christ was correcting pharisaical distortions. Consideration of the antithesis between abolishment and fulfillment, the lack of clarity from the part of opposing interpreters such as Carson, the Jewish charge of antinomianism, the Old Testament emphasis on both action and heart-attitude, the absence of law code features in the largely poetic sermon, discussion of beatitudes, “peacemakers”, and the Isaianic background illustrated by Dr. Fulford all counts against any notion of Jesus’ ethical teachings somehow “fulfilling” the antecedent type of Mosaic legislation. Jesus upheld the law in its fullest sense, emphasizing every “jot and tittle” whilst not neglecting the “weightier matters of the law”. He did not abolish the law of the Old Testament.

Romans 6:14-7:1-6

For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? 2 For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. 3 So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Most miss the point of how Rom. 5 plays a helpful part in the oncoming chapters because it seems to be mainly focused on original sin. The issue is that Rom. 5 isn’t truly focused on Orginal Sin but rather the focus is on Christ that features a mentioning of Orginal Sin. It is about the accomplishment of Christ, but chapter 6 starts off with a question that follows from what Paul pointed out in the prior chapter that he labored to unpack. In verse 20 Paul states “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,”. So, should we sin so more grace can increase? The answer of Paul is “May it never be!”. He goes on to use baptism to show how we are dead to sin and that it has no power over us. These objections come up on the end of Paul explaining the results of his doctrine of justification by faith alone. The Law has no condemning power over the Christian because Christ has done what we couldn’t do because of the weakness of our flesh. Here, Paul is saying that those of us in Christ are not under the penalty of law (the curse) but grace. The active obedience of Christ is imputed to us believers as righteousness. But this, in no way, entails that the immutable moral standards expressed in the law has been abrogated. We are not free to do as we please; we are “not to sin more so that grace may abound.” Notice that Paul emphasizes that the law isn’t sin but rather, “the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good ”(verse 12). In Rom. 8, Paul goes on to show how God has changed us to walk in his statutes by His special grace.

Ephesians 2:13-15

13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,

The first issue with reading this as Jesus abolishing the OT law in entirety is that is the very thing he has denied doing in Matthew 5. The contradiction should allow us to reject the understanding of the passage. The other issue is that another interpretation is plausible according to other scholars. The Law here stands for “Jewish boundary markers” or laws that separated the Jews from the Gentiles that gave the Jews(in their minds) ethnic superiority to that of the Gentiles. This was annulled in the apostolic Council of Jerusalem (cf. Acts 10). It is not an expression of God’s moral requirements.

τὸν νόμον τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐν δόγμασιν καταργήσας (ton nomon tōn entolōn en dogmasin katargēsas), “by invalidating the law of commandments in its ordinances.” While Paul does not specify it here, it is clear that the commandments Christ “invalidated” are those that kept Jew and Gentile apart—the teachings on purity and separation (cf. Col 2:14).416 These particular commandments were tied to Israel’s theocracy and were part of that typological purity legislation that led God to command Israel to exterminate the Canaanites from the holy land in preliminary judgment.417 This whole body of “legislation” or “ordinances,” the referent of δόγμα (dogma) here, was invalidated by Christ as part of his work of new creation.418 ἵνα τοὺς δύο κτίσῃ ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ἕνα καινὸν ἄνθρωπον ποιῶν εἰρήνην (hina tous dyo ktisē en autō eis hena kainon anthrōpon poiōn eirēnēn), “in order that he might create the two in himself into one new human race by making peace.” Christ invalidated the typological separation regulations both by fulfilling them and by removing believers from the law’s condemnation (see Matt 5:17; Rom 8:1; Heb 9:11–14; 10:1–10). The result is a “new man,” i.e., a new human race. Paul could have said, “new people” (καινοὶ ἄνθρωποι, kainoi anthrōpoi; or καινὸς λαός, kainos laos), but the focus here is on a new human race that is unified as “one new man.”419 This “single new man” is the bride of Christ (e.g., 5:23–32; 2 Cor 11:2), created out of both Jews and Gentiles who were formerly dead (vv. 1, 5) and at war with each other (v. 16; cf. Barth, 309–10). The new creation “man” is both corporate and individual as the church as “one person” (εἷς, heis; Gal 3:28) has been created anew in Christ in one body on the cross (again v. 16 and on 4:22–24), while individual believers experience this corporate reality in the church spanning regeneration (above 1:13–14) to resurrection (Phil 3:21) through renewal day by day (2 Cor 4:16) from glory to glory (2 Cor 3:18).

Steven M. Baugh. Ephesians: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 6303-6324). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

1 Cor. 9:21 and Galatians 6:2

19 For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. 20 To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul is teaching about what he does so that people hear the Gospel message. In the ancient world, a slave would accept the religion of his master. Paul isn’t saying that but rather that he does these traditions in order to win people to Christ. It is a metaphor for him willing to subject himself to these people’s cultural thoughts in order to bring them salvation. He adapts to his cultures and context in order to bring them the Gospel. These are in fact practiced in Acts 16:1–3 and 21:20–26. The “Christ’s law” refers not to a new set of demands but rather it refers to the commands of Christ. Even commentators that reject my thoughts on the Law grant that:

He is not bound by the law of Moses but is bound to obey God as one living under the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. As Fee explains, “This does not mean that in Christ a new set of laws has taken the place of the old, although in terms of specifics it would certainly refer to those kinds of ethical demands given, for example, in Rom. 12 and Gal. 5–6.”

Ciampa, R. E., & Rosner, B. S. (2010). The First Letter to the Corinthians (p. 428). Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

The idea is rather we aren’t identified with being Jew or Greeks. We aren’t to be divided but our societal structures but we are to be identified as being in Christ. Paul is fine with doing the ceremonies of the Jewish culture. Holding on to their ancestral conditions as long as they don’t cause him to sin. Reformed Christians don’t believe that these laws are able to save. So, perspective is about the Jewish perspective about the law and not that of the reformed Christian. Commentators carry that this is the same thought in Galatians 6:2, for example, Leon Morris said in his commentary (pg. 179):

The law of Christ is an unusual expression(found here only in the New Testament, though cf. Rom. 3:27;8:2; 1 Cor. 9:21). The article with Christ perhaps adds a touch formality, as it directs attention to the messianic function of Jesus. We generally associate grace and forgiveness with Christ, but we must never forget that he demanded wholeheartedness in those who followed him. He called on any who wanted to be his disciples to take up their cross if they would follow him. This is not a law in the sense of part of a legal code, but it points to the necessity for lowly service if we truly be followers of Jesus(cf. the demand for the washing of other people’s feet, Jn. 13:34).

We know that Christ is the Christ of the Old and New Testaments. He gave those Old Testament laws and he showed that they have bearing on how we are to live our lives as well. The two verses about the law of Christ are not going to give us all the moral contents of the Bible in themselves. The simple implication is that we should obey Christ. But God the Son along with the Father and the Spirit is the author of the entire Old Testament. God has ordained all of history to reveal to us his will. Filling the Old Testaments with typological symbols to point us to that which was to come.

If Paul understands the moral core of the law to continue to bind believers under the New Covenant, then how are we to understand such phrases as “the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2), and “the commandments of God” (1 Cor 7:19)? Rosner sees both such phrases as indications that Paul has indeed replaced the Mosaic law with a “substitute,” namely “the law of Christ/faith/the Spirit” (p.120; cf. p.42). But surely the fact that Paul has retained the term “law” should give us pause. Paul’s point is not that one body of legislation has been replaced with another standard, whether following “Christ’s example” (p.117) or “living under Christ’s lordship” (p.119). Paul’s point is that the law, in its concrete Mosaic form, has undergone redemptive-historical transformation in light of the finished work of Jesus Christ. Ridderbos addresses the point most comprehensively:
[I]f one asks himself what the material content is of the expression ‘bound to the law of Christ’ (1 Cor 9:21), the answer will lie in the fact that Christ suo modo represents the law of God and thus the law of Moses. Not only does Christ by his Spirit bring about a new bond to the law in the hearts of believers, whereby the law retains its force as the expression of the will of God in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33; cf. 2 Cor. 3:3), but Christ also represents the new standard of judgment as to what “has had its day” in the law and what has abiding validity (Col. 2:17). Finally, one should point out the interpretation of the law given by Christ, to which Paul appeals in more than one place (cf. 1 Cor 7:10ff.), which determines the expression of Galatians 6:2 as well … There can thus be no doubt whatever that the category of the law has not been abrogated with Christ’s advent, but rather has been maintained and interpreted in its radical sense (“fulfill”; Matt. 5:17); on the other hand, that the church no longer has to do with the law in any other way that in Christ and thus is ennomos Christou (Paul, p.285).

Dr. Guy Waters – Paul and the Law

Hebrews 7:12

For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

The law has been changed because of the historical redemptive acts of Christ. This is how Christ has affected the Law by becoming of High Preist. The author of the letter to the Hebrews maps out the changes that have occurred because of the acts of Christ.

Next, the priesthood. According to Heb. 7:1-8:6 the Aaronic priesthood by its imperfection showed the need for a new and greater priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. Christ has now become a high “priest forever in the order of Melchizedek” (5:6). …
Next, the law. Heb. 8:5-13 and 10:15-18 draw a connection between the “new covenant,” enjoyed by Christians, and the Mosaic covenant of Heb. 8:9. The Mosaic covenant includes all the elements just listed above, but prominently among them it includes law. In the new covenant, “I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts” (Heb. 8:10). “My laws” in this verse refers back to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, which had been violated by Israel (8:9). The new covenant thus continues the standards of righteousness of the Mosaic covenant. Yet radical transformation is also in view. The first covenant as a whole, with tabernacle, sacrifices, priesthood, land, and law, is “obsolete” and “will soon disappear” (8:13; cf. 7:12, 18-19). Hebrews does not go into detail about what results from this transformation of law. But we see hints of the implications not only in the radical alteration of the total institution of priesthood (7:18-19) but in sacrifices (13:15-16), food regulations (13:9), and promised land (13:14; 11:10, 16; 12:22-29). The transformation does not mean lawlessness, but love (13:1-6) and obedience to authority (13:17). At the heart of obedience is the constancy of Christ’s righteousness and love (13:8).

Vern S. Poythress. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Kindle Locations 2161-2179). Kindle Edition.

This was also the conclusion of Dr. Greg Welty in response to Mike Adam:

Adams makes heavy weather over Heb 7:12, “For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.” In context, this verse is obviously referring to the ceremonial law which tied the priesthood to descent from Levi, and thus imposed a particular ancestry upon Old Covenant priests. The argument is that since there has been a change of priesthood, from Levitical to Melchizedekian, the law requiring Levitical ancestry of all priests must have been repealed. And a good thing too because, as the author points out, Jesus did not descend from Levi. But rather than actually focus upon the writer’s argument in context, Adams chooses to generalise: “the law” which must be changed with the change of priesthood must be “a change in the entire system of law.”[26] But he doesn’t come close to giving an argument for this conclusion. He says some true things about the priests deciding disputes, and about the Old Covenant picturing the gospel. How this obviates the obvious ceremonial context of Heb 7:12, and its focus upon the specific law concerning priestly descent which is at the heart of the writer’s argument concerning the Levitical/Melchizedekian transition, is left unsaid.

Dr. Greg Welty-A Response to Mike Adams’s “In Defense of the New Covenant”

Romans 2:13-15
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Another Translation from Dr. Colin Kruse:
For when Gentiles who by nature [as Gentiles] do not have the law do what the law requires, these, though not having [the] law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their consciences confirming [what the law says] and their thoughts among themselves accusing or even excusing on the day when God judges men’s secrets according to my gospel through Jesus Christ.

This is a debated passage as to whether it refers to the Pagan Gentiles or Christian Gentiles. I prefer the Christian Gentile interpretation. That Paul is scalding the Jews by showing them how they are not doing the Law but Christian Gentiles have(by being in Christ). Thomas Schreiner defends this interpretation. The phrase “by nature” could modify the statement about the Jews not having the Law as some commentators state:

The γάρ (“for”) of v. 14* indicates an argumentative connection with the foregoing thesis concerning the impartial judgment of God in v. 11*.204 It is significant that Paul refers here to ἔθνη (“Gentiles”) without the article, implying that some but not all Gentiles are in view. The expression τὰ μὴ νόμον ἔχοντα (“those that do not have the law”) refers to the absence of the Jewish Torah within the cultural tradition of Gentiles, whereby the word φύσις should be taken as qualifying their identity rather than their behavior.207 It refers to Gentiles whose birthright lacked exposure to the Torah. Yet they do the “deeds of the law,” a claim that in the experience of the Roman audience could only have referred to converted Gentiles.

Jewett, R., & Kotansky, R. D. (2006). Romans: A commentary. (E. J. Epp, Ed.) (pp. 211–218). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

These verses present the interpreter with several problems. First, the NIV’s translation, ‘Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law’, is open to question. What is the significance of ‘by nature’ in this clause? Does it qualify the verb ‘do’, thus yielding a translation like that of the NIV: ‘Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law’. Or does it qualify ‘Gentiles’, thus yielding a translation like ‘Gentiles, who by nature do not have the law, do the things required by the law’. There are good reasons for adopting the latter option, including the fact that when Paul uses ‘by nature’ elsewhere it always qualifies a state of being, never an action, and the fact that in 2:12 he speaks of those ‘who sin apart from the law’ (Gentiles) perishing ‘apart from the law’ and so characterizing the Gentiles as those who do not have the law by virtue of being Gentiles. In 2:14, then, it is better to see ‘by nature’ qualifying what the Gentiles are (those who do not have the law) than what they do (the things required by the law). So Paul’s point is that these Gentiles who, as Gentiles, do not have the privilege of possessing the law nevertheless do what the law requires.

Kruse, C. G. (2012). Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (D. A. Carson, Ed.) (p. 131). Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos.

The other issue discussed is what the referent is for the statement “work of the law is written on their hearts”. Before we move on to that we should look at the text where it says that these gentiles “do what the law requires”. The common idea is that through this innate law of conscience man does some good things(clearly it isn’t about doing the entire law). The issue is the language in Romans 2 doesn’t represent merely some or a few laws but the law comprehensively. As Kruse states:

However, Gathercole rightly points out that while the scope of the phrase ‘the things of’ is general in its NT usage, it is also nearly always inclusive and comprehensive in meaning. Thus, for example, the contrast between ‘the concerns [lit. ‘things’] of God’ and ‘the concerns [lit. ‘things’] of men’ referred to in Matthew 16:23/Mark 8:33 is comprehensive in meaning. Even when a contrast is not implied Paul uses such phrases in a comprehensive way (cf. 14:19; 1 Cor. 13:11; 2 Cor. 11:30). There is, then, nothing to suggest that the meaning of ‘the things required by the law’ is anything but comprehensive here in 2:14, and that it therefore should be understood to denote generally the demands of the Mosaic law.

Kruse, C. G. (2012). Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (D. A. Carson, Ed.) (p. 131). Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos.

The last thing is this ‘work of the law’ that is on the hearts of Gentiles has clear overtone to the promise in the prophets that God would put his Law on the Hearts of his people:

Jeremiah 31:33
“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 36:26-27
“Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances.

Isaiah 51:7
“Listen to Me, you who know righteousness, A people in whose heart is My law; Do not fear the reproach of man, Nor be dismayed at their revilings.”

Romans 8:3-4
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

It would seem a bit pointless to even have this mentioned as a special promise to Christians if everyone ended up with the Law written on their hearts. The difference between the Law and the “works of the Law” is not apparent. The phrase is used interchangeably with the Mosaic Law(Gal. 2:16, Rom.3:20).

2 Cor. 3
Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? ² You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; ³ clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. ⁴ And we have such trust through Christ toward God. ⁵ Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, ⁶ who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.⁷ But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, ⁸ how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? ⁹ For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. ¹⁰ For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. ¹¹ For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

Certain individuals argue that this passage shows that New Covenant has abolished(antinomian) or replaced the Law. The Law or Old Covenant is looked at as the “ministry of death” and that the glory of the Old Covenant has passed away.

Well, it is true that the Old Covenant has passed away, but that doesn’t imply the Law isn’t relevant anymore. This passage itself teaches the ongoing authority of the Law. The Law is not being put on tablets of stone, but on the human heart. This echoes the promise of the New Covenant in Jer. 31 and Eze. 36 we discussed in Romans 2:14-15. Secondly, we shouldn’t consider the Law of God as only bringing death. Welty in response to Adams mentions plenty of other functions of the Law:

To be sure, “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2Co 3:6). But does the letter only kill? No, the law has manifold ministries of guidance, insight, delight and reward that are distinct from its ministry of condemnation:

• “The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes” (Ps 19:8);
• “Moreover by them Your servant is warned, And in keeping them there is great reward” (Ps 19:11);
• “I will run the course of Your commandments, For You shall enlarge my heart” (Ps 119:32);
• “Make me walk in the path of Your commandments, For I delight in it” (Ps 119:35);
• “And I will walk at liberty, For I seek Your precepts” (Ps 119:45);
• “And I will delight myself in Your commandments, Which I love. My hands also I will lift up to Your commandments, Which I love, And I will meditate on Your statutes” (Ps 119:47-48);
• “Unless Your law had been my delight, I would then have perished in my affliction. I will never forget Your precepts, For by them You have given me life” (Ps 119:92-93);
• “Oh, how I love Your law! It is my meditation all the day” (Ps 119: 97);
• “Great peace have those who love Your law, And nothing causes them to stumble” (Ps 119:165);
• “The commandment is a lamp, And the law a light; Reproofs of instruction are the way of life” (Pr 6:23);
• “The law of the wise is a fountain of life, To turn one away from the snares of death” (Pr 13:14).

And does the Spirit only give life? No, he also convicts “the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment” (Jn 16:8).

https://www.proginosko.com/welty/adams.htm

We have seen, then, that the Scriptures do not speak of the law being abolished in the New Testament. We have examined Matt. 5:17-20; Rom. 6:14-7:1-16; Eph. 2:13-15; 1 Cor. 9:21 & Gal. 6:2; Heb. 7:12; Rom. 2:13-15; and 2. Cor. 3. The authority of the law is continually upheld as the perpetual moral standard to which all men, believers and unbelievers, are held accountable. Nevertheless, believers need neither fear the penalty for breaking the law, nor keep the explicitly rescinded ceremonial regulations that were bound up in the Old Covenant.