Biblical Law

by Lynn Trapp
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 16 No.1, March 31, 1990

For several months now, I have agonized over the question of biblical law. Three factors have led to my consideration of this subject. First, having read Walther Eichrodt’s Old Testament Theology (Vol. 1), I began to perceive that how I had explained the relationship between the two covenants was essentially flawed because that explanation was based on the wrong premises. Second, recent studies (over the past three years) of Ezekiel and Joshua through II Kings have required a consideration of these matters. Third, last year, Brother Chappelear asked me to prepare an article for Sentry on the relation between the covenants (my only regret is that other duties have prevented me from pursuing that request until now). The primary focus of this article deals with how we explain the relation between the covenants. I respectfully beg the deference of the readers on this matter since this is being written more as an academic exercise to test a theory than it is as a settled conclusion of mine. Therefore, any response to this will be welcome.

What’s Wrong

Let me begin by describing what I think is fundamentally wrong with my former explanation. Basically, I would characterize it as thinking of the law of Moses and the law of Christ in a vacuum. I have viewed the law of God as a collection of regulations that exist solely because God gave them to us. Yet, such a concept makes God purely arbitrary—a conclusion I have long been uncomfortable with. Nonetheless, I was satisfied with this situation because I had no alternative.

Furthermore, I believe that the standard explanation runs into a difficulty in Hebrews 7:12, "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also." Clearly, the context (Hebrews 6:1-3; 8:7-13) is arguing for a complete change in law, but why does the change of priesthood require a total change of law? Would not an "amendment" to the law of Moses serve the same purpose? Is it possible that there is something more fundamental to the law than the restriction of priests to the tribe of Levi? Hebrews 7:14 says, "It is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah..." However, the writer says that the need for a law change becomes "clearer still" when we consider the order from which the new priest arises. Melchizedek predates the law of Moses, and thus, his priesthood rested on a more fundamental basis than that law. Thus, when another priest arises after the order of Melchizedek, it is based on something greater than the law.

The basic fallacy in explaining the relation of the covenants is the equating of law and the covenant. Now, while an exhaustive search of the use of the two terms in scripture will find some instances of equivalence, the terms are not exactly the same, either in meaning or use. Instead of giving an extensive definition of the words, let me state simply that law arises because of the existence of a covenant. The concept of a covenant establishes a community known as the people of God (Israel in the Old Testament, the church in the New Testament). It governs that community’s relationship with God. The law then is provided by God to keep the community in the proper relationship to the covenant. I suspect that Galatians 3:15-20 will prove to be a watershed passage regarding this question, but I have not thoroughly studied the subject and will, therefore, not deal with it in great detail. While this is only a provisional idea, I suggest that the one concept that runs through the entire corpus of Revelation is the concept of covenant. Accordingly, to properly understand the relation between the "old law" and the "new law," we must pursue the meaning and purpose of biblical covenants. Still, that study will require more time and space than is available for this article.

May One Law Supercede Another?

The understanding that covenant, not law, is the fundamental concept that governs our relationship with God will, I believe, help establish clearly that the law of Christ has superseded the law of Moses. The church, the people of God under what is called the new covenant, is (by its connection with Christ) the culmination of a covenant which Galatians 3:17 says is not invalidated by the introduction of the law of Moses. Conversely, those who come into covenant relationship with God through Christ are said to be not "under" the law of Moses (Galatians 3:25), but are "Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). With this in mind, I think we may say that the law of Moses consists of all the regulations for life and worship given to Israel from Mt. Sinai to the close of the Old Testament, and in no way annulled or added to the covenant with Abraham. Yet, what we call the law of Christ is fundamentally different (in fact, the term "law of Christ" may not be the best choice of terms, but I do not object to its use). The law of Christ and the culminated Abrahamic covenant are coterminous and so interwoven as to be indistinguishable. Thus, if the culminated covenant supersedes the law of Moses (Galatians 3:25), then the law of Christ supersedes the law of Moses.

Another thing that might be added, but is the subject of a completely different inquiry, is that the law of Moses and the law of Christ are also different in their nature. Where the law of Moses was given to lead men away from the commission of transgression, the law of Christ was given to lead men toward the forgiveness of transgression. I wish that someone defending the concept of continuous cleansing in Christ would take up that thought and pursue it because I believe a failure to recognize that difference is central to the argument in defense of specific repentance of every sin. But that’s another issue I will leave for others to pursue.

A Practical Question

Let me offer a practical benefit of looking at the two laws this way. Hebrews 13:8—"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, yes and forever"—has been used by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways, not the least of which is an attempt to bind the law of Moses on the church. We have generally responded that the passage deals with God’s character, not the specific details of some law or practice. Yet, to the listener, it still sounds like we are arguing for change when God says there is none. And we place God’s integrity on the line unless we can show contextually that He is not dealing with the details of some law. Put another way, can God be said to be unchangeable if He changes the priesthood? He can if the change in that detail of law is necessary to preserve the integrity of His covenant promise to Abraham. In Hebrews 13:10-16, the writer argues, in the face of Hebrews 13:8, for change from animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of Christ.  Paradoxically, the argument for change is made to defend his statement in Hebrews 13:8 that there is no change. The only possible way is because God is preserving the integrity of something (the covenant promise of Abraham), which is more basic than the law of Moses.

Conclusion

I appreciate the patience of the readers who have waded through my wanderings on this subject and Brother Chappelear’s consideration for publication. This may not be what he wanted when he asked me to write on this subject, but it is all I can offer in my current state of understanding. Admittedly, some controversy may be generated by some of the things I have said, though I cannot and will not predict just where. I only hope that any detractors I may have will chalk some of it up to my incurably cloudy head and enjoyment of a philosophical approach to writing. With that, I leave it with you to do with as you please.