Does Paul Teach That the Old Testament Law Is Now Abolished?
 |
| Moses with the tablets of the Ten Commandments, painting by Rembrandt (1659) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
The phrase “old covenant” implies that that covenant enacted with Moses is no longer in force and that it has been replaced by the new covenant. The old covenant is clearly identified with the law, for the letters engraved on stone, which are clearly the Ten Commandments, reflect the content of the covenant (2 Cor. 3:6–7). The laws of the covenant are probably particularly in view in the phrases “when they read the old covenant” (2 Cor. 3:14) and “whenever Moses is read” (2 Cor. 3:15).
Therefore, it follows that if the Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect because it has been replaced by the “new covenant,” then the laws, which belong to that covenant, are no longer binding either. How does this dissolution of the old covenant fit with Paul’s citing some of the commands from the Ten Commandments as authoritative? More shall be said on this topic in questions 14–17, but at this juncture it should be noted that the laws are not authoritative as stipulations of the old covenant since that covenant has passed away.
The temporary nature of the old covenant is confirmed elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 3. Moses’ ministry is linked with the old covenant in the text. In other words, the ministry of Moses reflects the nature and character of the old covenant. Hence, the fading glory on Moses’ face reflects the passing away of the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:7). Scott Hafemann argues that the word katargoumenēn in 2 Corinthians 3:7 and 11 (cf. also 3:13) refers to the bringing to an end of the consequences or effects that would have occurred if Moses’ face was not covered.1 The veil on Moses’ face, according to Hafemann, represented the mercy of God, for Israel would have been judged and destroyed if it saw the glory of God unmediated since it was a stubborn people. This interpretation once persuaded me, but I now think it is unconvincing.
The temporary nature of the old covenant is confirmed elsewhere in 2 Corinthians 3. Moses’ ministry is linked with the old covenant in the text. In other words, the ministry of Moses reflects the nature and character of the old covenant. Hence, the fading glory on Moses’ face reflects the passing away of the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:7). Scott Hafemann argues that the word katargoumenēn in 2 Corinthians 3:7 and 11 (cf. also 3:13) refers to the bringing to an end of the consequences or effects that would have occurred if Moses’ face was not covered.1 The veil on Moses’ face, according to Hafemann, represented the mercy of God, for Israel would have been judged and destroyed if it saw the glory of God unmediated since it was a stubborn people. This interpretation once persuaded me, but I now think it is unconvincing.
The key to unlocking the passage is the clear contrast between “what remains” (to menon) and “what is fading away” (to katargoumenon, 2 Cor. 3:11). Paul’s ministry and hence the new covenant remains and persists, whereas the Mosaic ministry and covenant passes away. Such a reading is confirmed by the contrast between the old and new covenants. Hafemann distinguishes between Moses’ ministry and the old covenant, but Paul links the two together. Thus, the fading glory on Moses’ face, which fits very nicely with what Exodus 34:29–35 says about the radiance on Moses’ face, is a symbol of the temporary character of the old covenant. Therefore, 2 Corinthians 3:7–18 most naturally teaches that the old covenant has passed away.
The letter to the Galatians supports the interpretation proposed for 2 Corinthians 3. Paul’s aim in the letter is to persuade the Galatians to refuse to accept circumcision as the initiation rite into the church of Jesus Christ, even though circumcision was required to belong to the covenant people of Israel (Lev. 12:3). In Galatians 2:15–3:14 Paul emphasizes that circumcision is unnecessary since the Galatians are justified by faith and not works of law. Furthermore, they received the Spirit by faith; hence one becomes a son of Abraham by faith and not by works of law. In this section of the letter, Paul does not specifically address the question of the permanence of the law and circumcision.
The letter to the Galatians supports the interpretation proposed for 2 Corinthians 3. Paul’s aim in the letter is to persuade the Galatians to refuse to accept circumcision as the initiation rite into the church of Jesus Christ, even though circumcision was required to belong to the covenant people of Israel (Lev. 12:3). In Galatians 2:15–3:14 Paul emphasizes that circumcision is unnecessary since the Galatians are justified by faith and not works of law. Furthermore, they received the Spirit by faith; hence one becomes a son of Abraham by faith and not by works of law. In this section of the letter, Paul does not specifically address the question of the permanence of the law and circumcision.
Clearly, his argument has a salvation-historical character in Galatians 2:16–3:14, but the redemptive-historical nature of his argument is even more evident in Galatians 3:15–4:7. In Galatians 3:15–18 Paul specifically distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the covenant with Abraham. The latter came 430 years before the former, and thus the provisions and stipulations of the Sinai covenant cannot nullify the promises of the covenant made with Abraham. Now what Paul says here could be interpreted to say that the Mosaic covenant simply supplemented the covenant with Abraham, but verses 17–18 clarify that the two covenants have a different nature.
In the Mosaic covenant the inheritance is gained by obeying the law (which, as we have seen, no one is able to do), and in the covenant with Abraham inheritance comes via the promise. The Abrahamic covenant focuses on God’s work (and hence the promise is guaranteed), whereas the Mosaic covenant requires obedience to the law (and the inheritance is not realized because of human inability).
In making the argument about the temporal difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, Paul claims that they are different kinds of covenants and that the Abrahamic covenant is permanent. The Mosaic covenant and law, then, were added by God for a limited period of time (Gal. 3:19); and now that Christ has come as the promised seed, the law is no longer valid. It was God’s intention all along that the law would last only until faith in Christ became a reality (Gal. 3:23). Now that Christ has arrived, the era of the pedagogue (“guardian” in ESV, Gal. 3:24–25) has ended.
In making the argument about the temporal difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, Paul claims that they are different kinds of covenants and that the Abrahamic covenant is permanent. The Mosaic covenant and law, then, were added by God for a limited period of time (Gal. 3:19); and now that Christ has come as the promised seed, the law is no longer valid. It was God’s intention all along that the law would last only until faith in Christ became a reality (Gal. 3:23). Now that Christ has arrived, the era of the pedagogue (“guardian” in ESV, Gal. 3:24–25) has ended.
It seems hard to imagine how Paul could be any clearer in saying that the era of the law has ended. But in case his readers have not grasped what he is saying, he revisits the issue in Galatians 4:1–7. Here he uses the illustration of an heir who is a minor so that the time of his inheritance has not yet arrived. The time of slavery before the promise was fulfilled is identified as the epoch when Israel was “under the law” (vv. 4–5). Now that the “fullness of time” has come (v. 4) and God has sent his Son to liberate those under law, the era of the law has ceased.
The Galatians were tempted to submit to circumcision and to observe the Old Testament law in order to obtain justification. One of Paul’s fundamental arguments in the letter is redemptive-historical. Requiring circumcision is folly, for it turns the salvation-historical clock back. Circumcision belonged to the era of Moses, not the era of promise. Now that Christ has come, circumcision and observance of the law are no longer required to belong to God’s people.
Interestingly, Romans does not present a sustained argument against the ongoing validity of the law. Some short statements and suggestive comments, however, indicate that it presents the same view as we found in 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 3–4. First, Paul says believers are no longer “under law” (Rom. 6:14), and I will argue in answering question 10 that “under law” should be interpreted redemptive-historically, so that it supports the notion that the law is no longer in effect.
Second, Romans 10:4 asserts that Christ is “the end of the law.” The word translated “end” here is telos, which can be translated as “end” or “goal.” Space forbids a long discussion of the term and its meaning in context, but it is probable that both “goal” and “end” are intended in this context. Christ is the goal to which the law points; and when the goal is reached, the law also comes to an end.2 If this interpretation is correct, then Romans 10:4 also teaches that believers are no longer under the Mosaic law.
Third, Paul’s discussion in Romans 5:12–21 suggests that the Mosaic covenant is no longer operative. History, according to this text, is dominated by two figures: Adam and Christ. Adam introduced sin and death into the world, but Christ triumphed over Adam, so that righteousness and life now reign through him. Jews in Paul’s day believed that the law’s role in history was to counter sin, that it was God’s agent to reverse the sin and devastation set in motion by Adam. Astonishingly, Paul argues the opposite view in Romans 5:20. The law did not decrease the trespass but increased it. In other words, the law has an interim character in salvation-history. It increased sin until the coming of Christ, who triumphed over sin and death, which Adam brought into the world. The implication, then, is that the law no longer continues since the Christ has come.
Fourth, we see another indication that the law has come to an end from Romans 7:6, where believers are released from the law through the death of Christ. Release from the law intimates that the law is no longer in force.
Fifth, the Pauline discussion on food in Romans 14:1–15:6 suggests that the law is no longer normative. The Old Testament law clearly forbids the eating of certain foods (Lev. 11:1–44; Deut. 14:3–21). Paul, however, identifies the weak as those who have a restricted diet (Rom. 14:2), whereas those who are strong feel free to eat anything. Paul sides theologically with the strong.
The Galatians were tempted to submit to circumcision and to observe the Old Testament law in order to obtain justification. One of Paul’s fundamental arguments in the letter is redemptive-historical. Requiring circumcision is folly, for it turns the salvation-historical clock back. Circumcision belonged to the era of Moses, not the era of promise. Now that Christ has come, circumcision and observance of the law are no longer required to belong to God’s people.
Interestingly, Romans does not present a sustained argument against the ongoing validity of the law. Some short statements and suggestive comments, however, indicate that it presents the same view as we found in 2 Corinthians 3 and Galatians 3–4. First, Paul says believers are no longer “under law” (Rom. 6:14), and I will argue in answering question 10 that “under law” should be interpreted redemptive-historically, so that it supports the notion that the law is no longer in effect.
Second, Romans 10:4 asserts that Christ is “the end of the law.” The word translated “end” here is telos, which can be translated as “end” or “goal.” Space forbids a long discussion of the term and its meaning in context, but it is probable that both “goal” and “end” are intended in this context. Christ is the goal to which the law points; and when the goal is reached, the law also comes to an end.2 If this interpretation is correct, then Romans 10:4 also teaches that believers are no longer under the Mosaic law.
Third, Paul’s discussion in Romans 5:12–21 suggests that the Mosaic covenant is no longer operative. History, according to this text, is dominated by two figures: Adam and Christ. Adam introduced sin and death into the world, but Christ triumphed over Adam, so that righteousness and life now reign through him. Jews in Paul’s day believed that the law’s role in history was to counter sin, that it was God’s agent to reverse the sin and devastation set in motion by Adam. Astonishingly, Paul argues the opposite view in Romans 5:20. The law did not decrease the trespass but increased it. In other words, the law has an interim character in salvation-history. It increased sin until the coming of Christ, who triumphed over sin and death, which Adam brought into the world. The implication, then, is that the law no longer continues since the Christ has come.
Fourth, we see another indication that the law has come to an end from Romans 7:6, where believers are released from the law through the death of Christ. Release from the law intimates that the law is no longer in force.
Fifth, the Pauline discussion on food in Romans 14:1–15:6 suggests that the law is no longer normative. The Old Testament law clearly forbids the eating of certain foods (Lev. 11:1–44; Deut. 14:3–21). Paul, however, identifies the weak as those who have a restricted diet (Rom. 14:2), whereas those who are strong feel free to eat anything. Paul sides theologically with the strong.
He clearly speaks about the food laws in the Old Testament when he declares, “I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean” (Rom. 14:14). The word koinos (“common”) is regularly used elsewhere of foods deemed to be unclean in the Old Testament (cf. 1 Macc. 1:47, 62; Acts 10:14; 11:8). It is quite clear that the legitimacy of eating foods forbidden by the Old Testament is the subject of discussion in Romans 14:20: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God.
Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats.” The term translated “clean” (katharos) often refers to what is considered to be pure (e.g., Lev. 10:10; Deut. 14:20; 23:11 LXX). What is remarkable is that Paul declares foods that are forbidden by the Old Testament law and the Mosaic covenant to be clean (cf. also Col. 2:16, 20–22). Such a conclusion indicates that believers are no longer required to obey the stipulations of the Mosaic law, and this in turn suggests that the Mosaic covenant is no longer in force.
Finally, a few other observations confirm that the Mosaic law is no longer in force. Circumcision was mandated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 12:3). Indeed, Moses was nearly killed by the Lord himself because his son was uncircumcised (Exod. 4:24–26). Furthermore, Israel could not enter the Land of Promise without being circumcised (Josh. 5:1–9). But Paul clearly teaches that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the people of God (Rom. 4:9–12; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2–4, 6; 6:15).
Finally, a few other observations confirm that the Mosaic law is no longer in force. Circumcision was mandated in the Mosaic law (Lev. 12:3). Indeed, Moses was nearly killed by the Lord himself because his son was uncircumcised (Exod. 4:24–26). Furthermore, Israel could not enter the Land of Promise without being circumcised (Josh. 5:1–9). But Paul clearly teaches that circumcision is no longer necessary to belong to the people of God (Rom. 4:9–12; 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 5:2–4, 6; 6:15).
If the initiation rite into the Mosaic covenant is no longer required, then it follows that the covenant itself is no longer operative. In the same way, the Sabbath was a central part of the Mosaic covenant (e.g., Exod. 20:8–11), but Paul identifies the Sabbath along with the food laws as part of the shadows that give way to the substance, who is Christ himself (Col. 2:16–17). Similarly, in Romans Paul is unconcerned if one considers every day to be alike (Rom. 14:5–6).
He almost certainly thinks of the Sabbath here, but he reckons it to be a matter of inconsequence. Paul’s attitude of indifference relative to the Sabbath indicates that it is no longer normative. A new era has dawned in which the Mosaic covenant has passed away. This reading is confirmed by Ephesians 2:15. Jews and Gentiles in Christ are now one new man, for Christ has “[abolished] the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” In other words, one reason Jews and Gentiles are unified is that the requirements of the Mosaic covenant, which separated Jews from Gentiles, have become passé.
There is abundant evidence in Paul that the old covenant had an interim character and that it is no longer operative since the coming of Christ. It is imperative that Christians today understand that we do not live any longer under the old covenant but the new covenant that has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ.
Schreiner, T. R. (2010). 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. (B. L. Merkle, Ed.) (pp. 67–71). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.
He almost certainly thinks of the Sabbath here, but he reckons it to be a matter of inconsequence. Paul’s attitude of indifference relative to the Sabbath indicates that it is no longer normative. A new era has dawned in which the Mosaic covenant has passed away. This reading is confirmed by Ephesians 2:15. Jews and Gentiles in Christ are now one new man, for Christ has “[abolished] the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” In other words, one reason Jews and Gentiles are unified is that the requirements of the Mosaic covenant, which separated Jews from Gentiles, have become passé.
There is abundant evidence in Paul that the old covenant had an interim character and that it is no longer operative since the coming of Christ. It is imperative that Christians today understand that we do not live any longer under the old covenant but the new covenant that has been inaugurated in Jesus Christ.
Schreiner, T. R. (2010). 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law. (B. L. Merkle, Ed.) (pp. 67–71). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional.
