The Relationship of the Law and the Gospel

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL

Virgil Warren, PhD

            When the Christian gospel came into redemptive history, the status and nature of the Mosaic Law came into question. Not only was this question relevant to Jews, but Gentiles also had to cope with it, because Christianity came out of a heritage different from their own. Christendom has witnessed five ways of dealing with the issue.

1. Keeping the law constitutionally (code and content) and adding the gospel to it. The law and the gospel are conceived of as two stages of the same thing; they are compatible. Among the Jews the approach received significant impetus during the early years of the Gentile mission. Judaizing missionaries received strong opposition from Paul and Barnabas in Antioch and eventually in Jerusalem at the Conference on Circumcision recorded in Acts 15. In Galatians, 2 Corinthians 3, and Romans, Paul vigorously opposed the concept primarily on soteriological grounds, but other matters were also implicated.

2. Throwing away the Law (code and content) as evil/false and retaining the gospel only. The Law and the gospel are considered antithetical. Marcion, son of the bishop of Sinope, Pontus, in the second century took that stance and has as his heirs the modernist movement in the late nineteenth to early twenty-first centuries. Not far into his ministry, we find the Lord attempting to head off any such inference from his teaching: “Do not think that I have come to destroy the law” (Matthew 5:17).

3. Spiritualizing the Law in terms of the gospel. The Law and the gospel are perceived to be formally alike, so the content of the second we may seek in the allegorical, analogical, or moral interpretations of the first. Already in the second century the quality of Old Testament exegesis had fallen quite low under the influence of such fanciful methods as appear in The Shepherd of Hermas and The Epistle of Barnabas.

4. Keeping the Law as amended by the gospel. That approach considers the Law and the gospel as modifications on the same expression of God’s will for his people—his constitution. The formulation is a way of expressing the reformed, or covenantal, view of divine economy.

5. Abrogating the Law constitutionally and replacing it with the gospel as to code. The law and the gospel are formally different while materially related. That construction distinguishes between code and content, so it envisions two levels of change.

                        codewise                     there is             discontinuity;

                        contentwise                 there is             (general) continuity.

The Law and gospel are formally different but materially related. As to code, Christians are not under the Law, but as to content much of it is applicable as ascertained from what the apostles enjoined from the time of Pentecost onward.

            a. The Law is retained

               (1) with respect to historical matters.                      (history)

                        (a) as an inspired record of God’s will for the Jews.

                        (b) as an accurate record of God’s deeds among them.

               (2) with respect to the nature of things.                   (ontology)

               (3) with respect to moral content used illustratively as guided by New

Testament parameters (1 Timothy 1:8).                                 (behavior)

            b. The Law is superseded, not antithesized

               (1) by a more refined, not parallel, expression of God’s will for his people.

               (2) by a better means of providing fellowship with God.

                     Under the code-content distinction, the relationship of the covenants in God’s ongoing purpose among his people appears in the following diagram. 

The diagram pictures the first code preparing for the second and what in the second is abrogated, new, refined, and continued—in that order.

                        (a) Making the code-content distinction rather than taking the amendment approach enables us to see how we are not under the Law (code) without denying the truth or divine source of the Law (content). What is true cannot be abrogated; but since it is the expression of a will, it may be modified or changed under appropriate circumstances. We can then discriminate between what we are under or not under without pronouncing the latter false.

                        (b) Making the code-content distinction rather than taking the amendment approach provides a mechanism for distinguishing what in the Law applies to Christians and what does not. The New Testament revelation lays out the guidelines for Christian living. Inasfar as these correlate with Old Testament principles and commandments, the Law serves as a preliminary basis for ethics. This construction does not require finding a statement of repeal for each item in the Law that Christians no longer are to keep. In the amendment approach, each matter not repealed is still binding. We may eliminate the dietary laws through Mark 7:19 or circumcision via Acts 15, but can he find a way of eliminating the law of jealousy in Numbers 5? On what basis can we avoid keeping some aspects of the ceremonial law? Failure to make the code-content distinction has created problems regarding Sabbath keeping by Christians (or observing Sunday after the manner of Sabbath observance). Similarly, the Jewish requirement of tithing has illegitimately been brought in as a Christian duty.

                        (c) Making the code-content distinction rather than taking the amendment approach eliminates having to be able to make the distinction between moral law and positive commandment. The New Testament speaks of the Law as being abrogated, blotted out, annulled, taken out of the way, and so on (Colossians 2:14-15; Hebrews 7:18). It sometimes speaks of civil or ceremonial commandments being annulled as a class. The problem is not with the concepts of moral, civil, and ceremonial law, but with categorizing specific cases with composite elements and in establishing the argument that ceremonial law as such has been abrogated.

                        Composite matters like the law of jealousy, alluded to above, are difficult because a moral matter—adultery—is involved, but the method of establishing guilt as prescribed is not. Is it civil? Perhaps, but we wonder. It would seem that Jesus’ efficacious sacrifice would not per se eliminate animal sacrifice; they could continue to be offered in memorial rather than in anticipation of the reality of which they were proleptic or reflective shadows (cp. pre-millennialists who look for the re-institution of animal sacrifice during the millennium). Under the code-content approach, such decisions fall out because the New Covenant content alone establishes what is normative for Christian living. The concomitant point is that morally and religiously, nothing beyond the contents of the New Covenant from Acts 2 onward is normative for Christians. There is one people of God and therefore one constitution over them.

christir.org