How Does the Christian Relate to the Law of Moses? [1]

Rev. Robert A. Lotzer

A good place to start in our discussion of the Christian's relationship to the law of Moses is to look at the traditional Reformed approach to the law in the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 19:1-7: [2]

1.  God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

2.  This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables: the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.

3.  Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.

4.  To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

5.  The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ, in the gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.

6.  Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin, together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin: and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve; and what afflictions, in this life, they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof: although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works. So as, a man's doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law; and, not under grace.

7.  Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

The Threefold Division of the Law

In the first paragraph of the confession (19:1), "a law" refers to the natural law of God's general revelation written on the heart of man (Rom. 2:14-15).  In 19:2, the confession goes on to say that this law continued and was given in the form of Ten Commandments to Israel at Mt. Sinai.  The fact that the confession limits the "perfect rule of righteousness" to the Ten Commandments is because the confession is going to go on to point out that almost all of the laws given to Israel have been either "abrogated" or have "expired" in the New Testament.  However, the confession sees the Ten Commandments as being the "perfect rule of righteousness" that "doth forever bind all" (19:5) to its obedience.  The confession argues that the Ten Commandments are given to Adam (as natural law, written on the hearts of all men; i.e. internal) and to Israel (now in written form, on tablets of stone; i.e. external) and it is the perpetual law that alone carries over into the New Testament.  The confession goes on to teach that the majority of the laws given at Mt. Sinai were either ceremonially applied to Israel alone (19:3) or specifically given for social justice only to the nation (19:4) so that once those laws were fulfilled and the nation of Israel ceased to exist an enormous collection of laws were swept away in Christ ("abrogated" and "expired").  If we were to list all the laws contained in the Old Testament (613 according to Jewish tradition), only 10 of those laws, according to the confession, continues into the New Testament as the "perfect rule of righteousness."  This means that, according to the confession, 603 commandments of the Old Testament have been "abrogated" or "expired" with the nation in the first advent of Jesus Christ and therefore, they are no longer directly applicable to the new covenant.

The Threefold Use of the Law

The confession goes on to speak how the moral law, or the Ten Commandments, is to be used now that Christ has come.  In 19:6, the confession mentions two uses (traditionally, the last two):  the pedagogical and normative use of the law.  According to the confession, the moral law of God, or the Ten Commandments, is used by God to make man aware of his sin and to drive him to Christ (pedagogical use, or second use of the law).  The confession points out that the believer is no longer "under the law" as a covenant of works to be either justified or condemned by the law (like Adam and Israel) [3] and that the believer is freed from the curse of the law.  The law acts upon the believer to remind him of his sin and to show him what his sin deserves, both to humble him and to make him thankful for the work of Christ on his behalf.  But the moral law of God, or the Ten Commandments, is also given to the believer to show him how to live unto God in Christ as he walks in the Spirit (normative use, or the third use of the law; cf. 19:6-7). 

The confession also mentions in 19:4 that all the judicial laws have expired except the "general equity" of those laws.  This language most likely comes from Calvin (Inst. 4.20.16) [4] and it simply means that all of the "civil" laws given to Israel, except for those laws that are both "general" and "equitable" (or "just") for all nations/peoples, have expired with the nation.  These "general" and "equitable" laws are normally called the "natural law" that is written on the hearts of all mankind (Rom. 2:14-15).  In other words, the confession mentions another use of the law of God (civil use; or the first use of the law), which is the natural law that would be contained in and common to all civil governments, including Israel as a nation.  Wherever this law is found in the Old Testament and can be found in laws of other nations then it could be said that the equity of the civil laws of Moses are being applied to other modern states. 

An example of the "general equity" of the Mosaic law would be those laws which are common to the laws of other nations.  For instance, Germany is under the laws of the German people and not under the laws of the Jews.  However, there will certainly be laws in both lands that are "common" to both and when these laws are similar we could say that Germany is applying the "general equity" of the law of Moses.  Israel had laws that forbade murder.  If you traveled to Germany you would find that they also have laws that forbid murder.  However, you do not say that when you refrain from murdering someone in Germany that you are obeying the laws of Israel.  You are simply obeying a law that happens to be "common" (or generally equitable) to both peoples and since you are dwelling in Germany then you are said to be obeying the German law.  Though no nation is required to apply those "common" or "generally equitable" laws to their citizens simply because they come from Moses, if they find something that would be helpful in the law of Moses and it is in agreement with natural law then they are free to apply the "general equity" of those laws.  However, it would be equally permissible to apply a law taken from the moral code of Hammurabi, or a law from another nation, if that law was deemed "equitable" by the lawmakers of the land.  Martin Luther said:

There are also other extraordinarily fine roles in Moses which one should like to accept, use, and put into effect. Not that one should bind or be bound by them, but (as I said earlier) the emperor could here take an example for setting up a good government on the basis of Moses, just as the Romans conducted a good government, and just like the Sachsenspiegel [5] by which affairs are ordered in this land of ours. The Gentiles are not obligated to obey Moses. Moses is the Sachsenspiegel for the Jews. But if an example of good government were to be taken from Moses, one could adhere to it without obligation as long as one pleased, etc. [6]

While the traditional threefold division of the law (moral, ceremonial, civil) has been helpful to "some" in systematically teaching the subject of the Mosaic law, I do not believe that it finds biblical support, and should therefore be discarded.  It is both too simplistic and it is not very sensitive or precise enough to a biblical-theological understanding of the law of God.  Also, the traditional threefold use of the law (civil, pedagogical, normative), which generally applies to the Ten Commandments, suffers from the same lack of biblical-theological precision.  While the threefold use (civil, pedagogical, normative) remains helpful, I would argue that the Ten Commandments should not be consistently applied throughout.  Rather, I would propose another way of looking at the law that I think more accurately interprets the scriptures.

A Redemptive Historical Evaluation of the Law of Moses

In order to understand how the Christian should relate to the law of Moses, we must ask how the authors of the New Testament understood the law.  Of all the writers of the New Testament, Paul has the most to say about the law and therefore I will give most of the weight to his writings.  There are three very important characteristics of Paul's understanding of the law:  (1) the law is a unique, historical covenant given to Israel as a nation, (2) the law is a unified whole, and (3) the law is legal in nature.

1.  The Law as a Historical Covenant. Though there are some rare cases in the New Testament where Paul uses "nomos" (law) to refer either (1) to the Pentateuch (1 Cor. 9:8-9; 14:34; Gal. 4:21b) or, (2) to the Old Testament as a whole (Rom. 3:19a [Psalms and Isaiah]; 1 Cor. 14:21 [Isaiah]) or, (3) to the "law and prophets" together to refer to the Old Testament (Rom. 3:21b) or, (4) to the "law written on the heart" (Rom. 2:14-15) [7] by far the great majority of uses (119 in all) refer to the Mosaic law given as a historical covenant (i.e. the Mosaic covenant; Gal. 3:17; Rom. 5:13; etc. cf. Ex. 34:27-28; Deut. 4:12-13; 5:1-3; 9:7-11, 15) with a specific beginning (Rom. 5:13, 20; Gal. 3:17, 19) and end (Rom. 7:4, 6; Gal. 3:23-25; cf. Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 9:4-5; 10:4). [8]  Paul does not speak of the law as a set of timeless, abstract commandments that can be applied to all peoples but rather as a redemptive historical covenant (Mosaic covenant), which functioned to govern the life of theocratic Israel in a typological republication of the covenant of works relating to temporal blessings and curses in the land of Canaan.  This is how the Old Testament itself speaks of the law (Ex. 34:27-28; Deut. 4:12-13; 5:1-3; 9:7-11, 15; Jer. 31:31-34 > Heb. 10:11-18). 

One minister has stated, "The degree and extent of the revelation of God's holiness through the law is directly proportional to the quality and magnitude of God's redeeming work." [9]  The very nature and quality of one particular period within redemptive history determines the level of God revealing his character through the law.  One would assume that as God reveals a greater degree of his character at a later period in redemptive history (i.e. by making a "new" covenant) that the revelation of his holiness will increase in direct proportion to that greater revelation.  Therefore, we should assume that when God perfectly reveals himself in Jesus Christ that in that revelation God (i.e. through a new covenant) will also reveal himself perfectly through his law. Even the prophets spoke of the new law (or torah) or Zion law (Isa. 2:3; 42:4; 51:4, 7; Mic. 4:2), which would come with the revelation of God's messiah. 

Also, when Paul refers to the time "before Christ" and the time "after Christ has come" he is using this terminology in a corporate sense, rather than in an individualistic sense.  For instance, when Paul speaks of our putting off the "old man" and putting on the "new man" (Eph. 4:22, 24; Col. 3:9, 10) Paul is not speaking individually of the believer but what is true of all believers who have been delivered from the federal headship of Adam, "the old man," and delivered into the new Adam, or Christ, "the new man."  We have been translated from out from under the headship of Adam, which led to our condemnation, and we have been united to Jesus Christ, which has led to our justification (Rom. 5:12-21).  Also, Paul speaks of this present age (or world, creation) as passing away (1 Cor. 2:6; 7:31; 10:11; Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Col. 1:13) and our entering into the eternal new age (creation; 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 6:5).  Paul will also contrast the old age with the new age by contrasting the flesh and the Spirit (Rom. 8:1-17; 1 Cor. 2:1-3:3; 5:5; Gal. 3:1-3; 4:29; 5:16-26; 6:8; Phil. 3:3) and the letter that kills and the Spirit that gives life (Rom. 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor. 3:1-18).  Paul's usage of the old Adam, the passing age, the flesh, the letter, and the law all refer to the entire historical period before the coming of Christ and generally referred to as the Mosaic covenant, or simply the law, that leads to death and condemnation. 

However, Paul's usage of the second/new Adam, the new age/creation, the Spirit, and the law of Christ all refer to the new historical period that was inaugurated at the first advent of Christ and will be consummated in the second.  Paul uses these terms in a redemptive historical manner to explain the nature of Christ's coming and what has been accomplished in our being united to Jesus Christ.  We are no longer considered to be under the power of this old creation (even though in this semi-eschatological age we continue to dwell here as pilgrims and aliens) that is under the condemnation of Adam's sin and is therefore passing away.  Rather, we have entered into a new creation in which our life is now in the Spirit, who has united us to Jesus Christ.  Paul places the law of Moses and the Mosaic covenant in the category of the old age that is passing away.  When Paul says we are no longer "under the law" or that we no longer have the external "letter of the law" Paul is referring to the fact that the Mosaic law/covenant is confined to that old age and now that the fulfillment of that age has come in Christ, then the believer is no longer directly under the Mosaic law/covenant.

Paul illustrates this redemptive historical transition in Romans 7:7-8:4 where he is not simply speaking individually of either his previous life as a Jew or his new life as a believer.  Rather, Paul is using "I" to refer to his life in solidarity with the people of Israel (all Jews) under the condemnation of the law.  When Paul speaks of being "apart from the law" (v. 9) and when the "commandment came" (v. 9), along with the constant struggle under the law (vv. 14-25), he is surely not referring to himself as an individual.  Paul was raised as a Jew and there was no time that he ever lived that he was "apart from the law."  Rather, Paul is speaking corporately, including himself, as a nation that was at one time apart from the law, but then came under the law at Mt. Sinai (cf. Gal. 3:17).  This giving of the law to Israel produced a new awareness of sin, and therefore, their condemnation.  However, what the law could not accomplish (i.e. righteousness) because it was weakened in Israel's sinful flesh, God has accomplished in his own Son and has given the believer Christ's righteousness by the Spirit's uniting him to Christ (Rom. 8:1-4).  

The New Testament often speaks of the law (or Mosaic covenant) as coming to an end (Rom. 10:4; cf. Matt. 5:17), that we are "not under the law" (Rom. 6:14-15; Gal. 3:23-25, 4:1-5, 21; 5:18; 1 Cor. 9:20-21), that we have died to the law (7:1-6) and that there is a change in the law (Matt. 19:3-12; Mk. 7:19; Acts 10:15; Eph. 2:14-15; Col. 2:13-14; 2 Cor. 3:7; Heb. 7:11-19; 8:7-13; 10:1-2).  The law is replaced because it could not provide forgiveness of sins and could not produce the fruit of righteousness (Rom. 7:4-5; 8:1-4; Heb. 7:18; Eph. 2:14-15).  It has been replaced by a new, better covenant/law.

Even the WCF speaks of at least part of the law as being "abrogated" (19:3) and "expired" (19:4).  Clearly, the writers of the New Testament, and the secondary, subordinate standards have agreed, that something about the Mosaic law has changed.

However, we read in some places where the law is said to be a "perpetual covenant" (Ex. 40:15; 31:16; Lev. 16:34; 24:8).  And Jesus says in Matt. 5:17-19 that he has not come to "abolish" the law and the prophets, but to fulfill it.  In vv. 18-19, Jesus stresses the fact that not even the least of these commandments will pass away until all of it is accomplished.  How does the law relate to Jesus' coming?  Is Jesus merely "confirming" or "reestablishing" the law by removing the abuses of the scribes and Pharisees or is Jesus "fulfilling" the law in the sense that something more radical is taking place in him?  Since this passage in Matthew has become a sort of locus classicus for the New Testament understanding of the law, we will look at this particular passage in greater detail. [10]

a.  Note that Jesus is not limiting or dividing the law between the ceremonial and civil (typological) categories of the law and the moral law.  In v. 17 he uses the phrase "the law and the prophets" to speak of the entire commanding aspect of the Old Testament (all-inclusive).  This is evident from the fact that in vv. 18-19 Jesus will drop the phrase "the prophets" and speak only of the "law" (v. 18) and the "commandments" (v. 19).  Also, Matthew goes on to focus upon Jesus' teachings or commandments and not certain stories about his life (5:21-7:27). 

If Jesus is keeping the whole law together and he is saying that he has not come to "abolish" the law (v. 17) in any degree (vv. 18-19), then we must ask if an interpretation of the word "fulfill" as teaching that Jesus merely continues or confirms the whole law (or even that Jesus is merely "restoring" the law's true meaning) is consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (see above on the scriptures that refer to the law as coming to an end; i.e. sacrifices, circumcision, food laws, etc.).  Jesus clearly does not go on to speak of the law as continuing unchanged (Matt. 15:1-20; 19:3-12; Mk. 7:1-23) and even points to his own teachings as normative for the church (Matt. 28:18-20).  We must seriously ask the question of whether or not Jesus came merely to die for a Jewish/Pharisaic misinterpretation/misunderstanding of the law or was there some actual, objective aspect to the law that condemned man (cf. Rom. 3:21-26; 7:4-6; 8:2-4; Gal. 3:13-14; 4:7).  Also, it should be noted that even the confession does not interpret Jesus' words as referring to a mere confirming of the original law in toto or even a simple correction of the Pharisaic misinterpretation of the law because it speaks of some aspect of the law as being "abolished" or "expired."  How can we interpret Jesus' words as merely a complete endorsement of the law as originally given in the "law and the prophets" and at the same time speak of some aspect of that law as being abolished or expired?  Also, we must be very sensitive to this particular point in redemptive history in that Jesus is still under the Mosaic covenant (Gal. 4:4-5), which had not yet been fulfilled and replaced by the new covenant.

b.  Jesus says he has not come to "abolish" the whole law, but to "fulfill" it.  He goes on to say that the whole law ("not the smallest letter or stroke" v. 18; "one of the least of these commandments" v. 19) will continue "until" all is "accomplished."

(1).  "fulfill" -- The term "fulfill" must be defined by its usage in Matthew's gospel (1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9).  The term "fulfill" never means in Matthew's gospel that Jesus simply comes to "confirm" or "restore" the Old Testament teachings.  Rather, Matthew uses the term in its eschatological and redemptive historical sense in that Jesus comes to "fulfill" or "fill up" the entire Old Testament not only by accomplishing everything that was predicted about him but even more so by entering into the history of the Old Testament and bringing all of it to its climatic, glorious summation in Christ (cf. Eph. 1:19-20).  The entire Old Testament (including the law) anticipates and points forward to Jesus.  In these "formula quotations" of Matthew's Gospel (see above), Jesus is fulfilling or filling up the Old Testament types through his person and work so that once all is accomplished then those types must necessarily become obsolete.  In Matt. 5:17 then, Jesus is doing the same thing to the law.  He is coming to fulfill or fill up the Old Testament law by his own teachings (cf. Matt. 28:20) so that once they are all accomplished in his perfect teachings or commandments then those types or shadows must now become obsolete.  This is clearly demonstrated in what Jesus goes on to do in the six antitheses (vv. 21-22, 33-34, 27-28, 31-32, 38-39, 43-44; "you have heard it said . . . but I say to you") where he displays his own independence from the Mosaic law, and in some cases the Jewish traditions, and gives his commandments, which far exceeds the Mosaic law, based upon his own authority (7:29; 28:18-20).  Ned B. Stonehouse, former professor of New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary (1929-1962), has stated:

That Jesus' fulfillment of the Old Testament law involved far more than an affirmation of the validity of the law appears unmistakably in the illustrations of his interpretation of the law provided by the antitheses of the sermon on the mount.  The accent on the authoritative new utterances of Christ in truth is so powerful that in certain instances an apparent impingement upon the abiding authority of the law is disclosed.  Six times Jesus, completely on his own authority, and without any attempt to vindicate his categorical declarations, seems to set his own pronouncements in antithesis to "that which had been spoken," the deliverances consisting of, or at least including, in every instance a quotation from the law of Moses (Mt. 5:21ff., 27ff., 31ff., 33ff., 38ff., 43ff.).  It was the absoluteness with which Jesus spoke, as possessing authority in his own right, and not deriving the authority of his utterances from Scripture or revered traditions like the scribes, that caused the crowds to express amazement at this teaching (Mt. 7:28).  There had appeared on the scene a new self-confident voice, the voice of one who assumed an authority in no sense inferior to that of the commandments of God given through Moses.  The sovereignty with which Jesus speaks is so absolute that his fulfillment of the law seems to carry with it the invalidation of the law of Moses. [11]   

(2). "until" -- It is clear that Jesus is saying that the entire law (every detail of the law) will remain valid and authoritative ("teaches" v. 19) until something happens:  

(a).  Some [12] give more weight to the first use of "until" contained in the phrase "until heaven and earth pass away" (v. 18; cf. Luke 16:16-17) to say that the entire law continues until this creation passes away at the end of the age (Christ's return).  In this case, the words "these commandments" points forward to the teachings of Jesus found in the sermon on the mount which are about to be revealed (5:21-7:27; and inclusive of all the teachings of Christ and the apostles).  The second use of "until" in v. 18 "until all is accomplished" must modify the first use so that what does not pass away until the end of the age is the "accomplished commandments" of Jesus.  In this way the word "until" points to the fact that Jesus comes and fulfills the "prophetic function" of the law as it reaches its consummation in the teachings of Christ and his apostles. [13]  The second use of "until" defines how we understand the nature of "these commandments" and the duration of Old Testament authority.  Fred Zaspel has written, "Christ's claim here is that all of Moses is to be continually taught and observed -- only, in the new form he gives it.  It is all of the law that remains, but it is to be obeyed as interpreted by Jesus." [14]  Therefore, vv. 18-19 would emphasize the continuing authority of the law as it is fulfilled or accomplished by Jesus' life and teachings.

(b).  Others [15] give more weight to the second use of "until" in the phrase "until all is accomplished" (v. 18; cf. Matt. 24:34-35) to say that the entire law continues until all is accomplished in the teachings, person, and work of Jesus Christ in his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension.  Once that work is complete and Jesus has entered into the holy of holies (cf. Matt. 27:51; Heb. 10:20) he stands before his disciples and proclaims that now all authority has been given to him and his disciples are to now go forth into all the world and teach the nations to observe all his commandments (28:18-20; Heb. 3:1-6).  Then the first use of "until" refers to the passing away of the old creation and the inauguration of the new creation in Christ (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 5:17).

Either interpretation of "until" points to the fact that Jesus' teaching (and life) is the eschatological fulfillment of God's moral will to which the Mosaic law pointed forward and reached its consummation. 

The law of Moses reached its intended and ultimate goal and purpose in Jesus' teachings.  The true meaning of the Old Testament is finally, gloriously satisfied in the one who teaches with all authority (Matt. 7:28-29; 28:18-20).

An important discussion on the nature of the canon of scripture, provided for by Meredith Kline, will help us further understand the nature of the Old Testament law as a historical, covenantal document given specifically and uniquely to Israel as a nation.  Kline compares the canons of the Old and New Testaments to the ancient political treatises made between kings and their vassals in the ancient near east.  While these treatises or covenantal documents were given as "eternal, perpetual" contracts to give order and structure to the relationship between the great king and his vassals those legal documents were still subject to change as the covenant relationship went through transformation and could be altered only by the king himself.  In the same way, though the old covenant made with Israel is described as eternal and perpetual, Yahweh himself can make changes to that covenantal document as he progressively unfolds his plan of redemption.  Kline states:

This covenant order, however, is subject to the Lord Yahweh, who according to his sovereign purposes directs and forwards redemption's eschatological development by decisive interventions, initiating distinctive new eras and authoritatively redefining the mode of his kingdom. [16]   

The nature of the biblical canon is that there are actually two canons, the Old and New, within the one canon of scripture.  These two sub-canons are formed around two biblical covenants, the old and new covenant, with "two quite separate and distinct stages" of redemptive history.  Each covenant forms its own self-contained canon that applies specifically to that particular covenant structure and people.  Kline goes on to explain the nature of these covenantal canons within scripture:

Each inscripturated covenant is closed to alteration, subtraction, or addition by the vassals (as the proscriptions of the treaty document clauses insist); yet each is open to revision by the Suzerain, revision that does not destroy but fulfills, as the history of God's kingdom proceeds from one epochal stage to the next, particularly in the passage from the old covenant to the new. [17]

Kline goes on to point out that there is certainly continuity between these sub-canons within scripture.  This is true because the same "organic spiritual-historical relationship" runs throughout the one canon of scripture.  Both covenants are unfolding the same redemptive plan of God.  Kline explains:

They are, of course, indissolubly bound to one another in [an] organic spiritual-historical relationship.  They both unfold the same principle of redemptive grace, moving forward to a common eternal goal in the city of God . . . According to the divine design the old is provisional and preparatory for the new, and by divine predisclosure the new is prophetically anticipated in the old.  External event and institution in the old order were divinely fashioned to afford a systematic representation of the realities of the coming new order, so producing a type-antitype correlativity between the two covenants in which there unity is instructively articulated. [18]

This continuity is important because the Old Testament necessarily provides the "backdrop" for understanding man's original purpose and his fallen condition that makes salvation in Christ necessary.  The Old Testament pictures the original eschatological goal and promise made to man created in the image of God and that awful, fallen condition under Adam in types and shadows that will only clearly be understood once they have reached their consummation and fulfillment in Christ.  But equally, once that fulfillment has been accomplished then the believer can go back to those types and shadows to gain a fuller understanding of the nature of the work of Christ.

But this continuity between the two covenants/canons also includes certain commandments (or "life-norms," as Kline refers to them) that equally apply to all mankind throughout redemptive history.  Kline says, "there are, of course, life-norms found in the Old Testament which continue to be authoritative standards of human conduct in New Testament times." [19]  There is no doubt that God's eternal, moral law is expressed in similar ways throughout redemptive history and contained in each covenant document of the Old and New Testaments. 

With this continuity in mind, we must also recognize the radical discontinuity between the two canons of the Old and New Testaments.  When that which is provisional and preparatory finds its fulfillment then a new covenant must be established to bring order and structure that is consistent to the nature of that new covenant community.  Therefore, it makes sense that the Old Testament canon gave specific and unique "life-norms" or commandments to structure that specific covenant community (type) that do not carry over into a new covenant community (anti-type).  Kline argues:

This is to say that the Old Testament is not the canon of the Christian church.  Covenant theology is completely biblical in its insistence on the Christological unity of the Covenant of Redemption as both law and gospel in its old and new administrations.  But the old covenant is not the new covenant.  The form of government appointed in the old covenant is not the community polity for the church of the new covenant, its ritual legislation is not the directory for the church's cultic practice, nor can the program of conquest it prescribes be equated with the evangelistic mission of the church in this world . . . the Old Testament's community life-norms for Israel are replaced in the New Testament by a new polity for the church.  The Old Testament laws dealing with the institutional mode of the kingdom of God in relation to the cultural mandate and with the community cultus of Israel, those norms which are the peculiarly canonical norms, were binding only on the community of the old covenant.  In these terms, the Old Testament, though possessing the general authority of all the Scriptures, does not possess for the church the more specific authority of canonicity.  Under the new covenant the Old Testament is not the current canon . . . In brief, the Old Testament canon was given as the covenant constitution for the Israelite community formally established as a kingdom under Moses, the servant of Yahweh. [20]

Now when Kline makes the radical statement that "the Old Testament is not the canon of the Christian church" he must be understood within the context of his previous discussion of the continuity between the two canons within the one overall canon of scripture.  Kline simply means that the Old Testament is not directly authoritative (note his distinction between "general authority" and "specific authority") as the canon of the Christian church, but only as it is read and applied through its fulfillment in Christ.  We cannot simply go back and read the Old Testament and apply its commandments to the new covenant community as if Christ never came.

2.  The Law as a Unified Whole/Covenant.  Paul sees the law as a unified whole in which all the specific laws given in Genesis through Deuteronomy make up "the one law of Moses" given uniquely to Israel.  Therefore, the traditional threefold division of the law as ceremonial, civil, and moral finds absolutely no support biblically.  When an Israelite, like Paul, heard or used the term "the law" he only thought of "the one law/legal code" given as a covenant to the nation (Ex. 34:27-28; Lev. 19; Deut. 4:12-13; 5:1-3; 9:7-11, 15; Deut. 28:1-2, 15; Jer. 31:31-34; Matt. 5:17-19; 23:23; Gal. 5:2-3; Heb. 10:11-18; James 2:10). [21]  Therefore, to require the believer to keep even one law as handed to us directly by Moses would then require the believer to keep the whole law and therefore deny that Christ has come to fulfill the law for us (cf. Gal. 5:3).  Martin Luther stated: 

But we will not have this sort of thing. We would rather not preach again for the rest of our life than to let Moses return and to let Christ be torn out of our hearts. We will not have Moses as ruler or lawgiver any longer. Indeed God himself will not have it either. Moses was an intermediary solely for the Jewish people. It was to them that he gave the law. We must therefore silence the mouths of those factious spirits who say, "Thus says Moses," etc. Here you simply reply: Moses has nothing to do with us. If I were to accept Moses in one commandment, I would have to accept the entire Moses. Thus the consequence would be that if I accept Moses as master, then I must have myself circumcised, wash my clothes in the Jewish way, eat and drink and dress thus and so, and observe all that stuff. So, then, we will neither observe nor accept Moses. Moses is dead. His rule ended when Christ came. He is of no further service. [22]

The law of God was never given to Israel as a "buffet line in a restaurant" to merely pick and choose which law an Israelite should obey.  They were to obey the whole law as God gave it.    

While there is clearly a distinction within "the law" itself (Ten Words or decalogue distinct from the many other laws; cf. Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4), the writers of the Old and New Testaments speak of the law as a unified whole.  We should ask the question, "Which law(s) condemned Israel?  And which law(s) did Christ come under to redeem Israel from under its condemnation? (Gal. 4:4-5; 5:3).  Did Christ merely come under the Ten Commandments or did he come under the whole law?  The answer of course is that the "whole" law condemned Israel and Christ came under the law to redeem Israel from the "whole" law. [23]

However, even if we assumed a division between the Ten Commandments as the perpetual, moral law of God and the ceremonial and judicial laws (or better, the typological laws), should we view the Ten Commandments as the eternal, moral law that universally applies to all men as the confession seems to do?  Do we simply take the Ten Commandments out of the context of the Old Testament and apply them directly to all men or even to the church?  And did God give the Mosaic Ten Commandments to Adam?  Are Christian believers directly under the Ten Commandments?  It must be pointed out that if the WCF makes even one change to the Ten Commandments, then they necessarily cannot be defined as the "perfect rule of righteousness."

a.  Note the historical context of the commandments as applying specifically to Israel "who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (Ex. 20:1-2; Deut. 5:6).  The Ten Commandments were given to a specific people within a particular point in redemptive history.  It should be remembered that one of the major responsibilities of any interpreter of scripture is to carefully note the audience and context of any passage of scripture.  This is especially important when dealing with the imperatives of scripture.  For instance, most interpreters of scripture would not interpret God's commandment to Joshua to enter into the city and kill every man, woman, and child (Josh. 6:11; 8:26; etc.) or God's commandment to Saul to strike down Amalek and utterly destroy everything he possesses including every man, woman, child, and infant (1 Sam. 15:3) to apply directly to the new covenant community.  But even a less dramatic illustration of this principle of hermeneutics is found in Matt. 21:2-3.  The interpreter must ask who Jesus is speaking to or else he could possibly apply this text to people to whom this commandment of Jesus does not apply.  In an extended quote, Martin Luther explains this very well:

But our factious spirits go ahead and say of everything they find in Moses, "Here God is speaking, no one can deny it; therefore we must keep it." So then the rabble go to it. Whew! If God has said it, who then will say anything against it? Then they are really pressed hard like pigs at a trough. Our dear prophets have chattered thus into the minds of the people, "Dear people, God has ordered his people to beat Amalek to death" [Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-19]. Misery and tribulation have come out of this sort of thing. The peasants have arisen, not knowing the difference, and have been led into this error by those insane factious spirits.

Had there been educated preachers around, they could have stood up to the false prophets and stopped them, and said this to them, "Dear factious spirits, it is true that God commanded this of Moses and spoke thus to the people; but we are not this people. Land, God spoke also to Adam; but that does not make me Adam, God commanded Abraham to put his son to death [Gen. 22:2]; but that does not make me Abraham and obligate me to put my son to death. God spoke also with David. It is all God's word. But let God's word be what it may, I must pay attention and know to whom God's word is addressed. You are still a long way from being the people with whom God spoke." The false prophets say, "You are that people, God is speaking to you." You must prove that to me. With talk like that these factious spirits could have been refuted. But they wanted to be beaten, and so the rabble went to the devil.

One must deal cleanly with the Scriptures. From the very beginning the word has come to us in various ways. It is not enough simply to look and see whether this is God's word, whether God has said it; rather we must look and see to whom it has been spoken, whether it fits us. That makes all the difference between night and day. God said to David, "Out of you shall come the king," etc. [II Sam, 7:13]. But this does not pertain to me, nor has it been spoken to me. He can indeed speak to me if he chooses to do so. You must keep your eye on the word that applies to you, that is spoken to you.

The word in Scripture is of two kinds: the first does not pertain or apply to me, the other kind does. And upon that word which does pertain to me I can boldly trust and rely, as upon a strong rock. But if it does not pertain to me, then I should stand still. The false prophets pitch in and say, "Dear people, this is the word of God," That is true; we cannot deny it. But we are not the people. God has not given us the directive. The factious spirits came in and wanted to stir up something new, saying, "We must keep the Old Testament also..' So they led the peasants into a sweat and ruined them in wife and child. These insane people imagined that it had been withheld from them, that no one had told them they are supposed to murder. It serves them right. They would not follow or listen to anybody. I have seen and experienced it myself, how mad, raving, and senseless they were.

Therefore tell this to Moses: Leave Moses and his people together; they have had their day and do not pertain to me. I listen to that word which applies to me. We have the gospel. Christ says, "Go and preach the gospel," not only to the Jews as Moses did, but to "all nations," to "all creatures" [Mark 16:15]. To me it is said, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" [Mark 16:16]. Again, "Go and do to your neighbor as has been done to you" [cf. Matt. 7:12]. These words strike me too, for I am one of the "all creatures." If Christ had not added, "preach to all creatures," then I would not listen, would not be baptized, just as I now will not listen to Moses because he is given not to me but only to the Jews. However because Christ says: not to one people, nor in this or in that place in the world, but to "all creatures," therefore no one is exempt. Rather all are thereby included; no one should doubt that to him too the gospel is to be preached. And so I believe that word; it does pertain also to me. I too belong under the gospel, in the new covenant. Therefore I put my trust in that word, even if it should cost a hundred thousand lives.

This distinction should be noticed, grasped, and taken to heart by those preachers who would teach others; indeed by all Christians, for everything depends entirely upon it. If the peasants had understood it this way, they would have salvaged much and would not have been so pitifully misled and ruined. And where we understand it differently, there we make sects and factions, slavering among the rabble and into the raving and uncomprehending people without any distinction, saying, "God's word, God's word." But my dear fellow, the question is whether it was said to you. God indeed speaks also to angels, wood, fish, birds, animals, and all creatures, but this does not make it pertain to me. I should pay attention to that which applies to me, that which is said to me, in which God admonishes, drives, and requires something of me. [24]

b.  In Ex. 20:5, 7 (Deut. 5:9, 11) God warns that if this commandment is not kept then he will bring judgment upon the covenant breakers.  But, does the New Testament come with negative sanctions?  Are there threats of condemnation (Rom. 8:1)?  Even the WCF is clear that the warnings of judgment have been removed for those who place their faith in Christ (19:6; "although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law . . . although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works").

c.  In Ex. 20:8-11 (Deut. 5:12-15) the commandment requires Israel to keep the Sabbath day (seventh) holy.  However, do we in the New Testament practice the Sabbath on Saturday (the seventh day -- WCF 21:7-8)?  Also, do we now refrain from all work  (Matt. 12:12; LC 116, 136)?  I would argue that this is extremely important as to how we understand the Ten Commandments as the "perfect rule of righteousness."  If the Ten Commandments, as written, are the "perfect" rule of righteousness, and if the WCF sees this law changed in any way, then how can the word "perfect" be applied to the Ten Commandments?  Doesn't a significant change here presuppose that something about the Ten Commandments was not perfect and that, at least, this law had to change?  Also, I would argue that this particular law, as typologically pointing to rest in the land, applied only to Israel and is not to be imposed in any way upon the new covenant believer. [25]

d.  In Ex. 20:12 (Deut. 5:16) the commandment promises prolonged days "in the land which the LORD your God gives you."  But what land is the commandment referring to?  It is clear that within the historical context of the commandment that the promise can only refer to the land of Canaan.  However, even the confession argues that "the state of that people" has expired (19:4).  Also, it is clear that Paul transfers this promise to the church in a much fuller manner (Eph. 6:2-3; [26] cf. Rom. 4:13; Heb. 11:13-16; 12:18-24).  Here is another example of a typological (ceremonial) aspect contained in the Ten Commandments that must undergo a change before it is given to the church.  Again, it must be asked that if there is transformation taking place, then can the Ten Commandments be considered the perfect rule of righteousness?  If they were perfect, then why did they change?

e.  In Ex. 20:13-15 (Deut. 5:17-19) the commandment speaks only of the external nature of sin.  But Jesus clearly applies these sins in a much deeper (intensified) manner (Matt. 5:22, 28).  Vern Poythress has written:

Jesus' concentration on issues of the heart represents a shift in focus in comparison with the law of Moses.  In agreement with the overall external, earthly character of Mosaic worship, the stress of the law is predominantly on externals.  The Ten Commandments . . . focus in their obvious meaning on the most obvious violations." [27] 

Even, the Westminster Larger Catechism applies these sins in an equally more intensive manner (WLC 134-142).  In fact, if we simply place these laws, as given through Moses, before the believer then he will never know the deeper "heart issues" that are involved in Jesus' intensification of the law.  Also, how will he know the fundamental aspect of the law as revealed by Jesus to love as he loved us (Matt. 28:20; John 1:17; 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 3:23-24; 4:21)?

f.  The law in Ex. 20:17 (Deut. 5:21) comes much closer to Jesus' intensification of the law, but even here there is no aspect of love for our neighbor that ought to characterize this law.  If we truly love our neighbor then we will not covet his possessions.  Also, the work of Christ and our life hidden in him, along with the passing away of this age and our heavenly hope, teaches us to be content with all things, as Paul teaches us (2 Cor. 4:7-18; Gal. 3:20; Phil. 1:21; 4:11; Col. 3:1-4; Heb. 10:34).  How can we teach the doctrine of loosing our life in Christ and therefore no longer hanging on tightly to the things of this world when we merely focus upon the nature of this commandment?   

Very simply, the Ten Commandments are not sufficient for new covenant believers.  This law applied to an earthly people with an earthly hope.  Now that Jesus Christ has come, and redemptive history has reached its climax, then the people of God need a law that is "directly proportional to the quality and magnitude of God's redeeming work."  The law that Christ gives to the church comes to us in a very different manner and in a way that is more appropriate to the glorious nature of his work.  The Ten Commandments cannot be the "perfect rule of righteousness" because not only are they clearly transformed in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but they cannot handle the enormous transformation that takes place once Christ brings in the perfect revelation of the kingdom of God.  I would argue that even the confession notices this transformation and though at one point it argues that the Ten Commandments are the "perfect" rule of righteousness, it must go on and speak later of the transformation that comes at the advent of Christ.  Rather than make such a complicated pottage of the normative law for the believer, as the confession seems to do, I would argue that we should simply understand the Ten Commandments as going through the same transformation as does the typological laws (ceremonial and civil) with the coming of Christ so that the entire law of Moses is fulfilled and transformed and given to us only in the hand of Christ (i.e. the law of Christ).  Martin Luther has written:

That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20:1, where God himself speaks, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage."  This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us.  For God never led us out of Egypt, but only the Jews.  The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments.  We will just skip that.  We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver -- unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law. [28]

In this way, the law becomes uncomplicated for the believer and he clearly knows where to turn to hear the commandments of Christ.  The law of Moses spoke to Israel.  It is not the law of the new covenant believer.  We have our own lawgiver and we must gather at the feet of Christ to hear how we may joyfully serve and walk before our Savior.

3.  The Law as a Legal Covenant. Paul sees the law as a "legal" covenant which is binding upon the whole nation of Israel to be kept perfectly in order to receive God's blessing, or the "promise of life," and if broken, to be cursed by God (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 10:4; Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10).  This law held out the promise of life to Israel for those who actually accomplished the laws demands (Matt. 19:17; Mk. 10:17-18; Lk. 18:18-19; Rom. 2:13; 7:10; 10:5; Gal. 3:12; cf. Lev. 18:5).  However, the law, though good and holy (Lev. 11:45; Rom. 7:12-14, 16), could not produce the fruit of righteousness because of the weakness of Israel's (and by extension all men in general) flesh (Acts 13:39; 15:10; Rom. 2:13; 3:20, 28; 7:4-5; 8:1-4; Gal. 2:21; 3:2-12, 21; Eph. 2:14-15; Heb. 7:18; 10:1-14) and therefore, the law became a curse and a ministry unto death and condemnation (Rom. 3:19-26; 4:15; 7:4-6, 23; 8:2-4; 2 Cor. 3:1-18; Gal. 3:6-9, 13-14, 23; 4:7; Col. 2:14).  The purpose of the law, though certainly given to reveal God's holy character to Israel, ultimately was to awaken and intensify Israel's awareness of sin (Rom. 5:20; 7:7-12; Gal. 3:19-20, 23) and therefore to drive them to Christ (Gal. 3:24) so that when Christ came the law itself, having fulfilled its purpose and upon reaching its goal (Rom. 10:4; Matt. 5:17-19), passed away (Gal. 3:25; Rom. 6:14-15; 1 Cor. 9:20).  The promised new covenant would be unlike the previous one in that it could not be broken (Jer. 31:33-34; Ezek. 36:24-28; cf. Heb. 8:6-13; 10:11-18).  The new covenant would be better than the former because the stipulations of the new covenant would be perfectly fulfilled by the covenant mediator and his meritorious righteousness would then be given to his Spirit-filled people.

The interpretation of the "works of the law" as simply referring to the ceremonial (typological) aspects of the law (i.e. Jewish identity markers) [29] or works performed legalistically [30] is not sufficient to explain Paul's contrast between the "works of the law" and justification "by faith" alone.  Paul is not simply arguing that we should not impose the ceremonial laws of the Jews (i.e. Sabbath, circumcision, food restrictions) upon Gentile believers or that we shouldn't keep the law in a legalistic manner in attempting to win God's favor.  To argue that Paul is simply using this phrase to speak of "legalism" or a misunderstanding of the law does not take into an account the many places where Paul simply uses the "works of the law" to speak of any works, including good works (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:2-4; 9:11-12) or when Paul uses the phase to speak unambiguously of the actual law as God gave it to Moses (Rom. 3:19-20; 5:20; 7:7; Gal. 3:15-18).  Note especially of those places where Paul specifically mentions the "moral law" or the Ten Commandments (Rom. 2:17-24; 7:7).  It is clear that Jesus did not come merely to die for a misunderstanding of the law, but the actual, objective imprisoning and bondage of the demands of the law of Moses, which no man can achieve (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20-26, 28; 7:4-6; 8:2-4; Gal. 2:16, 21; 3:2; 5, 10, 13-14; 3:21; 4:7; Heb. 10:1-14).  It would seem rather strange that God would send his own Son to come under the law and die in order to free or redeem us from the bondage of the law (Gal. 4:1-5) if all Jesus had to do was simply preach and teach to correct a misunderstanding of the law.  Those who would argue that the real problem between the Jews/Judaizers and Paul's preaching of justification by faith alone is merely a misunderstanding of the law between them, simply do not take into an account the severe nature of God's plan of salvation that required such drastic measures as the death of his own Son.

How Then Should We Live?

The confession argues that the Ten Commandments are the "perfect rule of righteousness" that forever applies to all men in all ages (19:2, 5).  However, we have shown that even the confession goes on to make significant changes to this so-called "perfect" rule.  Therefore, if even the confession notes that the Ten Commandments are not perfect and that a radical transformation has taken place both in the sweeping removal of 603 of the Mosaic laws and in several of the Ten Commandments themselves, then we must look to a much more precise manner of approaching the law of God. 

I would argue that rather than view the Ten Commandments as equal to the eternal, moral law, which can be applied universally to all men, that we should view the eternal, moral Law as contained "in" the Ten Commandments but not equivalent to the Ten Commandments.  How then do we know what is the "eternal, moral law" and what is therefore abrogated in the Ten Commandments or the law as a whole?  We must realize the radical transformation to the law that takes place in the coming of Christ and therefore look to see what is commanded of us in the New Testament and how that law is transformed in the teachings of Christ and his apostles.  Fred Zaspel explains:

Finding how a given law from Moses receives treatment by Jesus and/or the NT writers demands attention in detail.  But this is the interpreter's task exactly -- he must use his entire Bible.  He must read his entire Bible as a Christian, from his New Covenant perspective, to be sure, but he must use his entire Bible.  The law of Moses finds its fulfillment in the law of Christ, and we must look to see how this is so in any given case. [31]

It is not that the Mosaic law has simply been forgotten and cast aside by Jesus and the apostles.  Rather, Jesus Christ came to "fulfill" the law and bring it to maturity in his teachings.  The law has grown up and it comes to us in a very different, more mature manner for the believer.  But it would be equally wrong to interpret this to mean that the law of Christ is a mere internalization of the Mosaic law, since clearly many of the laws have been "abrogated" or "expired" in Christ (e.g. Mk. 7:19; Acts 10:9-16; Heb., etc.; cf. WCF 19:3-4).  To simply go back to the law as given through Moses is to regress in the history of redemption and to deny (and dishonor) the glorious work of fulfillment in the person and work of Christ. 

The Mosaic law, including the Ten Commandments, was a covenant that had a beginning and an end (see above).  When that covenant ended, so did the direct authority of the Mosaic law upon those under a new covenant.  However, it could be argued that all of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament and transformed into or subsumed under the law of Christ (or at least 9 out of 10 depending on what you do with the fourth commandment). [32]  In this way, the view presented in this paper is not far from what the confession teaches on the law of God, with the lone exception of the fourth commandment. [33]  The confession is generally correct in its understanding of the law of God when it is read according to its overall understanding of the structure of the covenants within scripture and when the whole application of the law given in its explanation in the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms is presented in its fuller, transformed relationship to Christ. [34]  

Here is a graphical presentation of a redemptive historical understanding of the law that is more sensitive to the biblical theological nature of scripture than we have seen in chap. 19 of the confession:

This diagram [35] could be further modified to include the eternal, moral law of God given in a specific form to Adam (Gen. 2:15-17) and to all men in the natural law written upon their hearts (Rom. 2:14-15).  Both the confession's understanding (19:1-2) and this presentation of the law of nature written on the hearts of men shows that what God is commanding in the law of Moses (esp. the Ten Commandments) that applies to all men is already contained in the natural law, so that we should simply speak of the natural law applying to the Gentiles and the Ten Commandments or the law of Moses as applying to Israel.  In other words, there is no need to impose the Ten Commandments as given specifically to Israel at Mt. Sinai, upon all mankind or even the church because those laws which are by nature the moral law of God are already written upon the hearts of all mankind.  Again Luther comments:

When these factious spirits come, however, and say, "Moses has commanded it," then simply drop Moses and reply, "I am not concerned about what Moses commands." "Yes," they say, "he has commanded that we should have one God, that we should trust and believe in him, that we should not swear by his name; that we should honor father and mother; not kill, steal, commit adultery; not bear false witness, and not covet [Exod. 20:3-17]; should we not keep these commandments?" You reply: Nature also has these laws. Nature provides that we should call upon God. The Gentiles attest to this fact. For there never was a Gentile who did not call upon his idols, even though these were not the true God. This also happened among the Jews, for they had their idols as did the Gentiles; only the Jews have received the law. The Gentiles have it written in their heart, and there is no distinction [Rom. 3:22]. As St. Paul also shows in Romans 2:14-15, the Gentiles, who have no law, have the law written in their heart.

But just as the Jews fail, so also do the Gentiles. Therefore it is natural to honor God, not steal, not commit adultery, not bear false witness, not murder; and what Moses commands is nothing new. For what God has given the Jews from heaven, he has also written in the hearts of all men. Thus I keep the commandments which Moses has given, not because Moses gave the commandment, but because they have been implanted in me by nature, and Moses agrees exactly with nature, etc.

But the other commandments of Moses, which are not [implanted in all men] by nature, the Gentiles do not hold. Nor do these pertain to the Gentiles, such as the tithe and others equally fine which I wish we had too. Now this is the first thing that I ought to see in Moses, namely, the commandments to which I am not bound except insofar as they are [implanted in everyone] by nature [and written in everyone's heart]. [36]

The diagram also shows the relationship between God's eternal moral law and its specific cultural and historical expression in the law of Moses.  The diagram shows how the Mosaic law (the type, shadow) in transformed into the law of Christ (the antitype, reality) and how the law of Christ is the perfect rule of righteousness given as the ultimate, complete expression of the eternal moral law of God.

Therefore, when we practice the "law of Christ" we follow everything that is the perfect revelation of the  "eternal, moral law" that was contained in the law of Moses and now transformed in Christ.  Everything is included, but now it is filtered through Christ (it is given to us in the hand of Christ).  It is not that the law has simply been abolished without any concern of fulfillment.  Rather, Jesus came to the law and glorified it in his person and work and has given us the new mature, grown up law in his and the apostles' teachings (the analogy of the caterpillar to butterfly).  Fred Zaspel has written:

Jesus is to Moses what the butterfly is to the caterpillar.  Moses is not struck down.  Moses did not "fall" (Luke 16:17).  Nor was he "destroyed" (Matt. 5:17).  Moses is "fulfilled."  In Christ, Moses reaches maturity and emerges in full bloom.  Moses' law still has relevance, but only as it comes to us from the hands of the Lord Jesus.  Christians today must still read Moses, and for great profit, but when they read him they must be careful to wear their Christian lenses.  Moses' law is not simply incorporated into the New Covenant as it was revealed through Moses -- it is fulfilled, advanced, and brought to completion. [37]

The law finds its intended goal, fulfillment in the teachings and life of the mature man, Christ (Eph. 4:13; cf. John 1:17; Rom. 7:1-6; 8:1-4; 10:4; Heb. 7:18-22; 8:6, 13; 10:15-18).  We are now under gospel-obligation to live according to the law of Christ (Matt. 28:20; 1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), namely to love our God and one another as he loved us (Matt. 22:34-40; Mk. 12:28-34; Lk. 10:25-28; John 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 3:23-24; 4:21; cf. Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14).  The gospel-obligation flows from our being delivered from the curse of the law by actually removing the law of Moses as a direct, immediate authority upon our lives (Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-15, etc.).  The law has been completely fulfilled through the meritorious work of Jesus Christ (Gal. 4:4-5; 1 Cor. 1:30; Jesus Christ came under the law as a covenant of works) and his merited righteousness is applied to our lives in the Spirit by uniting us to Christ (Rom. 8:4; 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14).  There is such a close connection between the Holy Spirit and our keeping of the law of Christ (Rom. 7:1-6; 8:1-4; Gal. 3:1-3; 5:1, 5, 16-25; 6:8) [38] that we could almost use those two terms ("Holy Spirit" and "law of Christ") synonymously. 

Under the gospel, the law of Christ comes to us as an "easy yoke and a light burden" (Matt. 11:28-30).  The legal nature of the law is completely removed in the law of Christ.  Rather the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2; or the "royal law" James 1:25; 2:10, 12), with its central demand to love as he loved (Gal. 5:14, etc.), is applied to us by the Holy Spirit through the means of grace (word and sacraments) as we walk in the Spirit or in our "Spiritual" union with Jesus Christ (cf. WCF 19:7).  The law of Christ is a "Spiritual" law that is applied to "Spiritually" mature men.  What the law of Moses could not do in producing true righteousness (Heb. 7:19; 10:1-2; etc.), Jesus Christ has accomplished for us and the Spirit of God applies his meritorious righteousness to our lives as we hear the gospel-imperatives of the new covenant (Rom. 8:1-4).  The law of Christ is gentle (its tone is radically different from the law of Moses) and it woos the willing heart of those who have been forgiven of their sins and united to Jesus Christ.  It now produces true fruit (Gal. 5:16-26) and heart godlinesss/transformation in the life of the believer who is being conformed into the image of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, as believers in Christ we must now sit at the feet of Christ, not Moses (Matt. 28:20; John 1:17; 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 3:23-24; 4:21). 

"If God condescended to us so very low, to teach us this way in the scriptures, and by Christ, it must needs be greatly necessary for us, to sit down at his feet and learn it." [39] 

All glory now goes to Christ, not Moses.  Moses belonged to the Jews and Moses is now dead to us.  The person, work, and teachings of Jesus Christ are the goal of the law (Rom. 10:4; Eph. 1:9-10; 2:14-15; Matt. 5:17).  It is as if Jesus were saying to us, "Put me and my teachings in place of the law" (Matt. 17:5; Luke 24:19; John 4:25; 6:14; 7:40 and all the "but I say unto you" sayings of Matt. 5:20-48).  Is this not also what God has explicitly told us to do with his Son's teachings?

"The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him. 16 "This is according to all that you asked of the LORD your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, let me not see this great fire anymore, lest I die.' 17 "And the LORD said to me, 'They have spoken well. 18 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. 19 'And it shall come about that whoever will not listen to My words which he shall speak in My name, I Myself will require it of him (Deut. 18:15-19).

While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and behold, a voice out of the cloud, saying, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!" (Matt. 17:5; Mk. 9:7; Lk. 9:35).

God has summed up all things in Christ (Eph. 1:9-10; 2:14-16), including the whole law so that now we must look to that glorious summation in Christ, who is at the center of God's redemptive work.  We have now reached the culmination of redemptive history and so now we are given a mature law that is directly proportional to the quality and magnitude of God's redeeming work in Christ.

What then is the use of the Old Testament, including the Mosaic law, to the church? 

The Old Testament is a witness (prophetically) of God's redemptive plan in Christ.  There, we receive the background or foundation of what is later to be understood and fully disclosed by God's revelation in Jesus Christ.  Remember that the Mosaic law is no longer directly authoritative as a commanding authority over the church.  The purpose of the Old Testament for the New Testament believer is to progressively reveal God's work and nature from seed-like form in types and shadows in the Old Testament until he is perfectly revealed in the fulfillment of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Therefore, the Old Testament serves as preparatory, foundational material to give us a fuller understanding of what God is going to do ultimately in the fulfillment of redemptive history (Heb. 1:1-4).  On a helpful discussion of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Tom Wells says, "The Old Testament therefore is useful for pointing men to Christ and for equipping gospel ministers when it is read in the full light of Christ's coming . . . If, after the coming of the Lord Jesus, we apply OT law just as the OT prophets applied it, we have failed in our understanding." [40]  In another place he has written, "all of the OT, including the Old Covenant, is prophetic of Christ.  In this view, the Lord Jesus in his person, his work, his teaching and his body (i.e., the church) provides the fulfillment of the entire history of redemption as contained in the OT.  The Old Covenant is the caterpillar and the New Covenant is the butterfly." [41]

Therefore, though the eternal, moral law is contained "in" the Old Testament Mosaic law it is not to be simply equated with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments.  However, the eternal, moral law is contained fully and completely in the law of Christ.  As Christians we are no longer "directly" under the authority of the Mosaic law, but only indirectly as it is given to us in the hand of Christ.  Ernest Kevan writes of the Puritans, "Because of easily-recognizable differences between the relation of men to the Law before and after faith, it became customary to speak of the believer as related to the Law 'in the hands of Christ.'" [42]  Kevan goes on to point out that this tradition goes all the way back to the early church fathers when Origen said, "We who belong to the catholic church do not reject the law of Moses, but we welcome it, provided it is Jesus who reads it to us, so that as He reads we may lay hold of His understanding and interpretation." [43]  We are now under the gospel of Christ with the central demand to love (John 13:34; 15:12) and the guiding influence and power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1-4; Gal. 5:16ff).

Therefore, the New Testament understanding of the law is that the whole Old Testament law is still indirectly authoritative, but only as it is read/filtered through the fulfillment or lens of Christ.  Only what Christ and his apostles command is what directly applies to believers in the new covenant.

The Threefold Use of the Law

The traditional threefold use of the "moral" law (Ten Commandments) argues that the Ten Commandments should be used in the following manner:

1.  Civil use  to restrain civic sin in the state (WCF 19:4)

2.  Pedagogical use  to drive us to Christ (WCF 19:5; Gal. 3:24)

3.  Normative use  as a rule of life for the believer (WCF 19:5)

A redemptive historical understanding of the threefold use of the law of God would understand the civil use of the law as applying the law of nature or common sense (conscience) under the common grace kingdom of man (Rom. 2:14-15, as the confession seems to argue, WCF 19:4). [44]  By arguing that it is the eternal, moral law of God expressed through natural law (common to all men) we therefore no longer need to ask the question of whether or not the first four commandments (the first table) [45] should be enforced by the state.  Clearly, since those laws specifically applied to a historical expression of the covenant people of God then by there very nature they should not be applied to all men for all time.  The nations of this world should be religiously neutral and should make laws that are common to all the people under their jurisdiction. 

The second use of the law would apply specifically to the nation Israel under the Mosaic covenant since Paul speaks of the law as specifically driving Israel to Christ (Gal. 3:23-25).  The law served a particular redemptive historical purpose to imprison Israel under the condemning power of sin and to drive them to Christ.  However, Paul also argues that Israel served as a typological picture of the condition of all men and therefore, by extension, the eternal, moral law of God was expressed through natural law to all men in general who were under the original covenant of works at creation (Rom. 2:14-15; 3:19-20).  Therefore, there is a sense in which the "natural" law also imprisons all men under the condemning power of sin.  This aspect of the law was not only fulfilled by Christ for the elect Jews but also for the elect Gentiles who have now been united together into one new man through Christ abolishing the law in his flesh (Gal. 3:23-25; Eph. 2:11-22). 

Since Paul refers to this aspect of the law as primarily applied to Israel, and only by extension to all men, then the Lutheran concept of continuing to preach the law to drive men to Christ is at best tenuous.  It is true that the law brings about an awareness of sin (Rom. 3:19-20; 7:7-12) but Paul's primary focus here in teaching on the law is to say that the Mosaic law worked in a different manner than did the natural law upon Israel.  Speaking corporately of Israel as a nation, Paul says in Rom. 7:7-12, that the law awakened sin that the nation had not previously seen in the natural law.  But we do not see in the evangelistic encounters of the New Testament, the apostles preaching "the law" to prepare men for Christ (although this is clearly what Paul is doing in Rom. 1:18-3:20 to explain the gospel to believers).  Even in the example of the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-22), it is not the law that drives the young man to despair.  In fact, he saw himself as fulfilling the law.  Rather, it was the gospel call to follow Jesus that led him to walk away in grief.  Therefore, rather than preaching the natural law (for the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law), or even the law of Christ (which is gospel oriented and therefore can only be applied to believers), to prepare men to hear Christ, it seems that, by the examples in the New Testament, that the gospel of Jesus Christ should be preached in all of its glory announcing the full forgiveness of sins and the free offer of Christ's merited righteousness to those who come to him by faith alone.  In this way, the Spirit of God will use the comforting, gracious words and wooing of the gospel to open men's hearts and bring them to faith in Christ.

Finally, as argued above, the law given to new covenant believers, as the "perfect rule of righteousness," is the law of Christ (Matt. 5-6; 1 Cor. 9:19-21; Gal. 6:2) and it is found in the writings of the new covenant.  Though Luther's view of the law-gospel contrast is basically correct, a redemptive historical understanding of the law-gospel contrast sees the term "law" as applying to the Mosaic legal covenant and the term "gospel" as applying to the new covenant in Christ.  Therefore, the Christian believer still has imperatives to guide him in his sanctification and these are found in the law of Christ which are applied to the believer as he continues to walk in the Spirit.  

Rev. Robert A. Lotzer

Ordained Minister of the OPC

Covenant Presbyterian Church, OPC

Abilene, TX

November 2002

Endnotes

[1] This paper is not presented as a detailed presentation of the relationship between the Christian and the Mosaic law.  Rather, this paper was prepared to present a summary of my view of the law.  I have referenced in the paper several important works that do present a more detailed, exegetical discussion of the relevant texts (esp. Douglas Moo's works) and I would ask the reader to study those particular works to understand the exegetical basis for my conclusions.  Also, see Thomas R. Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment:  A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1993).

[2] Also see WCF 7:2, 5-6; 19:6; 20:1; 25:2; WLC 20, 30, 92, 93, 97; and WSC 12, 40.  Be sure to read all of the pertinent cross-references of scripture to see how these concepts should be interpreted.  This will be especially important later to see the "works principle" as applied to the Adamic covenant by using references that clearly apply to the Mosaic covenant, so that both Adam and Israel (and all mankind) are under the covenant of works.  

[3] Note that if the confession says that the believer is "not under the law, as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified, or condemned" that the confession does clearly state (19:1) that there was a time when man was under the law as a covenant of works to be either justified or condemned.  The confession is clear that the man outside of Christ is under a covenant of works by which he may either be justified, through obedience, or condemned through disobedience to the law of God.  It is clear that the confession is speaking of Adam and Israel, specifically (and all mankind by extension) as being under the covenant of works.  Adam is mentioned explicitly, and Israel is included through the use of references in scripture that clearly apply only to the nation of Israel (cf. on 19:1 see Rom. 2:14-15; 10:5; Gal. 3:10, 12; and on 19:6 see Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; 3:13; 4:4-5; Acts 13:39; Rom. 8:1).

[4] Calvin argued, "I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I were not aware that here many dangerously go astray.  For there are some who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations.  Let other men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be enough for me to have proved it false and foolish . . . It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.  Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now speaking has been prescribed in it.  Hence, this equity alone must be the goal and rule and limit of all laws.  Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal, bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among themselves . . . For the statement of some, that the law of God given through Moses is dishonored when it is abrogated and new laws preferred to it, is utterly vain.  For others are not preferred to it when they are more approved, not by a simple comparison, but with regard to the condition of times, place, and nation; or when that law is abrogated which was never enacted for us.  For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and -- as became a wise lawgiver -- he had special concern for it in making its laws (Inst. 4.20.14, 16; also see Calvin's comments on Rom. 1:21-27 and 2:14-15).

[5] This "Saxon code of law" was a thirteenth century compilation of the economic and social laws obtaining in and around Magdeburg and Halberstadt; it was influential in the codification of German law until the nineteenth century.  The radical Reformers sometimes sought to replace it with the law of Moses or the Sermon on the Mount.

[6] Martin Luther, "How Christians Should Regard Moses, Luther's Works vol. 35 (Philadelphia:  Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 167; also see my edited version of this wonderful sermon by Luther.

[7] There are also some rare cases where Paul uses "nomos" to refer to the "principle" or "power" of something like sin or faith (Rom. 3:27; 7:21, 23; 8:2; 9:31).

[8]  Douglas Moo, "'Law,' 'Works of the Law,' and Legalism in Paul," in Westminster Theological Journal 45 (Spring 1983):  73-100; Douglas J. Moo, "The Law of Christ As the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses," in The Law, the Gospel and the Modern Christian, ed. Wayne Strickland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 319-376 (also see his responses to other contributors); Douglas Moo, "The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ," in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Weschester, Ill:  Crossway Books, 1988), 203-213. 

[9] Rev. Jeong Woo Lee, "Introduction to the Ten Commandments" (http://kerux.com/documents/keruxv13n1a3.htm).

[10] See D. A. Carson, "Matthew," in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8 (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1984), 140ff.; Donald A. Hagner, "Matthew 1-13," Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 33A (Dallas:  Word Books, 1993), 102ff.; Douglas Moo, "Jesus and the Authority of the Mosaic Law," The Best in Theology, ed. J. I. Packer (Carol Stream, Ill:  Christianity Today Inst., 1987), 101-127; Moo, "The Law of Christ," 347-353; Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood:  Wolgemuth & Hyatt, Pub. Inc., 1991), 251-286; Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology (Frederick, MD:  New Covenant Media, 2002), 91-138.

[11] Ned B. Stonehouse, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ (Philadelphia:  Presbyterian Guardian, 1944), 198-199.

[12] Carson, 140-147; Moo, "Jesus and the Authority," 101-127; Moo, "The Law of Christ," 352-353.

[13] Robert Banks, Jesus and the Law in the Synoptic Tradition (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1975), 221-223; Robert Banks, "Matthew's Understanding of the Law:  Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20," JBL 93 (1974), 226-242; R. T. France, Matthew:  Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids:  Zondervan, 1989), 195-196; R. T. France, "Matthew," in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1985), 113-117.

[14] Wells and Zaspel, 127.

[15] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:  T. & T. Clark, 1988), 44-63; J. P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew's Gospel (Rome:  Biblical Institute, 1976), 62-64; Robert Guelich, The Sermon on the Mount (Waco:  Word, 1982), 145-48.

[16] Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene, OR:  Wipf and Stock Pub., 1972, second ed., 1989, rev. 1997), 95-96.

[17] Ibid., 97.

[18] Ibid., 98.

[19] Ibid., 102.

[20] Ibid., 99, 102, 105.

[21]  In those rare cases where Paul refers to the believer as having a law that is normative to him, Paul always qualifies that law by adding "of Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21; Gal. 6:2), to distinguish both the content and nature of the law of Christ from the law of Moses.

[22] Martin Luther, 164-165.

[23] And by extension Christ came to redeem the elect Gentiles from the natural law that was given to Adam under which all men stand condemned.

[24] Martin Luther, 169-172.

[25] See my paper, "Toward an Understanding of the New Testament Teaching on the Sabbath."

[26] Here is a clear example of how the law of Moses is given to the new covenant community by the hand of Christ.  It is no longer limited to the land of Canaan and therefore it is not given directly to the church from the hand of Moses.  Rather, it undergoes transformation in the person and work of Christ and only then is it given to the church as the law of Christ.

[27] Poythress, 258.

[28] Martin Luther, 165-166. 

[29] See works by E. P. Sanders, N. T. Wright, James D. G. Dunn, and Frank Thielman, who gives some degree of credence to this interpretation.

[30] See works by Daniel P. Fuller, John Piper, and Norman Shepherd.

[31] Wells and Zaspel, 160.

[32] Again, see my paper, "Toward an Understanding of the New Testament Teaching on the Sabbath."

[33] However, it should be noted here that if all nine of the commandments carry over into the new covenant except the fourth commandment that this understanding of the law is still within the larger realm of the Reformed community. This would essentially be the argument of Calvin and the continental Reformed church (cf. Heidelberg Catechism Q. 103).

[34] However, what I see to be true of the larger scope of the teachings of the Westminster standards I think is sometimes not clear in the confession's presentation of the law in chap. 19.  When the reader's understanding of the law is limited to only chap. 19 of the confession it is difficult to see its larger, fuller understanding of the relationship of the law of Moses to the Christian.  Therefore, I am trying to take the larger scope of the Westminster standards and present a more systematic, as well as redemptive historical, understanding of the nature of the Christian's relationship to the Mosaic law.

[35] The first structure is from Geerhardus Vos, The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Phillipsburg, NJ:  Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 55-65.  The second structure is a modification of Vos' triangle in light of my understanding of the moral law of God.  Also, this understanding of the law is clearly presented in Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologoca, I-II, Questions 90-108 and a similar presentation is found in Douglas Moo's response to Willem A. VanGemeren in The Law, the Gospel and the Modern Christian, 89.

[36] Martin Luther, 167-168.

[37] Wells and Zaspel, 157.

[38] Stephen Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1988), 205-216.

[39] Walter Marshall, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 1692, re. 1999), 6.

[40] Wells and Zaspel, 202.

[41] Ibid., 172.

[42] Ernest F. Kevan, The Grace of Law:  A Study in Puritan Theology (Ligonier, PA:  Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1993), 184.

[43] Origen, In Josuam 9.8, quoted in Alec. R. Vidler, Christ's Strange Work (London:  Longsman and Green, 1944), 50, referenced in Kevan, 184.

[44] The Rev. Lee Irons' has shown that once the American Presbyterian church revised the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1788 that all the statements concerning the state must now be interpreted in light of those significant changes.  See "The Reformed Theocrats:  A Biblical Theological Response" (http://www.upper-register.com/theonomy/reformed_theocrats.html).    Also see other helpful articles on this subject at (http://www.upper-register.com/theonomy.html).

[45] Calvin, Inst. 4.20.9; the original edition of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith seems to imply that the civil magistrate has the responsibility to give preference to and even encourage the Christian religion (WCF 23:1-4).  This is what the American Presbyterians rejected in 1788, instead seeing the state as a religiously neutral institution.

Heavenly Reality, Archetype

Eternal Moral Law of God

Shadow, Type

Reality, Antitype

Mosaic law for Israel containing both the eternal moral law and the typological (or, civil and ceremonial law) together as the one law of Moses as a legal, historical covenant.

The law of Christ for the Christian church, the ultimate end and plenary expression of the eternal, moral law of God (1 Cor. 9:21f; Gal. 6:2; Matt. 5:17-20; 28:18-20.