Gary Demar: Legalism, the Mosaic Law, and the New Testament
“American Vision’s offering of E.C. Wines’ Commentaries on the Laws of the Ancient Hebrews brought many interesting responses. Some of them were troubling. One emailer asked, “Do you want legalism? I sure don’t!” Keeping God’s law is not legalism. Another emailer wrote, “Under the New Covenant, love the Lord God with all thy heart, mind, soul and strength. Love thy neighbor as thy self, encompasses all the law. We are not bound by Mosaic law! [Matt. 22:36–40].” I pointed out that in response to the question by the Pharisees about which is the Greatest Commandment, Jesus quoted the Mosaic law, in particular Leviticus 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Jesus went on to say that “on these two commandments depend the whole Law and Prophets” (Matt. 22:40). Jesus did not say that because of these two laws the law passes away.
Of course, we learn later in the NT that laws related to the redemptive work of Jesus are completed. There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices, earthly priesthood, a stone temple, or circumcision. Jesus is our lamb, priest, and temple. Circumcision is no longer needed because the final seed (Jesus) was born. Circumcision is a blood rite, cleansing the seed. All things related to blood are fulfilled in Jesus. But there is no NT indication that the moral application of the OT law has passed away. Paul makes reference to the OT law when he wants to define love. “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law” (Rom. 13:8). How do you know when you love your neighbor? How do you know when you love Jesus? “If you love me,” Jesus said, “you will keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Paul defines love toward a neighbor in the same way:
For this, “You shall not commit adultery , You shall not murder , You shall not steal , You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom. 13:9–10).
Loving your neighbor as yourself is a summary of the law. A summary does not nullify what it summarizes. Love isn’t a substitute for the law; love is defined by the law. Love is not a feeling; it’s an act. Love is what people do.
Jesus had His most vocal disputes with the Pharisees. This has led many Christians to believe that Jesus was opposed to the law, that He had come to nullify the law, because the Pharisees were all about keeping the law. The Pharisees, contrary to popular opinion, did not keep God’s law. They were not “the best people of their day.”[1] The best people were men like Simeon (Luke 2:25), Zacharias (Luke 1:6), and Joseph (Matt. 1:19), and women like Anna (Luke 2:36), Mary (Luke 1:46–56), and Elizabeth (Luke 1:6). Elizabeth and Zacharias “were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord” (Luke 1:6). The commandments of God were neglected by the Pharisees (Mark 7:8). They “nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep [their] tradition” (Mark 7:9). Jesus told the Pharisees that they had the devil as their father (John 8:44), not because they kept God’s law, but because they substituted it for a set of man-made traditions. James B. Jordan sets the record straight about the Pharisees:
We are used to thinking of the scribes and Pharisees as meticulous men who carefully observed the jots and tittles [of God’s law]. This is not the portrait found in the Gospels. The scribes and Pharisees that Jesus encountered were grossly, obviously, and flagrantly breaking the Mosaic law, while keeping all kinds of man-made traditions. Jesus’ condemnation of them in Matthew 23 certainly makes this clear, as does a famous story in John 8. There we read that the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman taken “in the very act” of adultery (John 8:1–11). How did they know where to find her? Where was the man who was caught with her? Apparently he was one of their cronies. Also, when Jesus asked for anyone “without sin” (that is, not guilty of the same crime) to cast the first stone, they all went away, because they were all adulterers.[2]
When the “scribes and the Pharisees . . . seated themselves in the chair of Moses,” that is, when the law was properly taught and applied, the people were to do all that they told them (Matt. 23:2–3a). At the same time, Jesus admonished the people “not to do according to their deeds” (v. 3b) which were contrary to the law (read all of Matt. 23).
Does keeping the law save us? Did it save the Israelites in the OT? James tells us that “for whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10). One sin, one transgression of the law, is enough to condemn us to eternal judgment. Only Jesus kept the law perfectly. God “made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). Jesus “redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8–10). In this sense, we are not under law but under grace (Rom. 6:14).
But does salvation by grace through faith mean that Christians are free to live any way they please since they are “redeemed from the curse of the law”? Paul asks it this way: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law” (Rom. 3:21). In another place Paul tells us that “the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Tim. 1:8).
No one ever was or ever will be saved by keeping the law. This is the Bible’s point when Romans 6:14 says that the Christian is not under the law. This is far different from saying that the Christian is not obligated to obey the law as a standard of righteousness. In the very next verse, Paul states, “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!” (6:15).
Sin is defined as “lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). Obviously some law is still in force or there would be no sin, and if there is no sin then we do not need an Advocate with the Father. In addition, “if we confess our sins [‘lawlessness’]; He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins [lawlessness] and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
While there are many questions about which OT laws still apply under the NT, there is no debate that keeping God’s law is an important part of the Christian life.”
[2] James B. Jordan, Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World (Brentwood, TN: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1988), 267.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Gary,
I really don’t think you are stupid, so you must just be stubborn (Though I must confess your arguments seem really stupid to me). Surely, I am not the first person to tell you there is a difference between God’s law and the Mosaic law, but you just don’t seem to get it. Was Moses’ law God’s law? Of course it was, but God’s law did not begin to exist when he made the covenant with Israel on Mt. Sinai. Yet, Paul says the law “came in along side” and “the law entered.” He also says it was intended to continue “Until the seed should come to whom the promises were made.” That is, the law as a covenant had a beginning point and came to an end. That doesn’t mean God’s law began to be or ceased to be.
Of course, Jesus quoted from it. He was under it. Additionally, the question he answered specifically related to the “greatest commandment in the law.” What else was he going to quote but the law. That seems so simple, I almost feel embarrassed to ask the question.
Of course, we must keep God’s law as it is articulated to us by Jesus and his apostles. To accuse a person of believing that law keeping is not important, because he denies that we are still under the old covenant is in my opinion a “straw man” argument.
It is impossible to be without law if that law is universal and eternal, yet Paul describes the Gentiles as “without the law.” Does that mean there were without God’s law in the absolute sense? No, he tells us that God’s law was written on their hearts. I suspect you will contend that means the 10 commandment, but your contention would be completely without biblical foundation. God’s law was written on Adam’s heart in the sense that he was made upright and in God’s image. The remnants of that continue in the heart of the vilest pagan. Do they have no duty to obey God since they are “without the law?” If they do, then how can you argue that anyone who claims to be no longer under the Mosaic covenant is saying he no longer has an obligation to obey God’s law?
I would be happy to engage you in a serious discussion of the issues, but you and your ilk need to stop the false accusations. If you are concerned about the 10 commandments, you might want to start taking the ninth one seriously.
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
Does the New Covenant abolish all elements of the old, or do some elements of the old covenant carry over into the new?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
As a covenant, the new completely replaces the old. Since both the law of Moses and the law of Christ have their foundation in the law of God, there will be much that they have in common. The law of Moses and the Law of Christ are not based on two distinct laws, given by two different God. It is the same God who “spoke in many parts and many ways in times past to the fathers, who has in these last days spoken to us in his Son.” Therefore, there will be continuity between the two.
Randy
LikeLike
But if the New replaced the Old, what is the significance of the continuity between the two? Specifically, how should Christians look at the continuity in light of the New replacing the Old?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
I am not saying there is a continuity between the covenants, but that there is a continuity in the law that forms the basis for them.
LikeLike
What “law”? Rereading your other statement, there is a law that ceased (law of Moses?), and then “God’s Law” continues. Please explain the fundamental difference between the two.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
As NC believers, we live our lives principally as we are let by the Spirit. As we discussed yesterday, there are certain principles such as “do no muzzle the ox” that have spiritual application for God’s new covenant people.
LikeLike
Is being led by the Spirit different than applying OT principles? Which “law” are those principles part of, and can the application of those principles be correctly called “walking in the Spirit.” Other than OT Principles being applied to our life, please qualify or explain “being led by the Spirit.” What does that entail?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
There is little difference between the Mosaic law and the law of God. The principal difference is that one is absolute and eternal , the other is covenantal and temporary. The so called Mosaic law was the covenant God established with Israel, establishing them as a nation “And he wrote on the tablets [of stone] the words of the covenant—The Ten Commandments (Exo 34:28). It was their national constitution. God intended, in giving them this covenant, not only to constitute them a nation but to illustrate in their experience the recalcitrant nature of the human heart. The law “came in along side” the original problem of Adam’s disobedience so that the offense might overflow (Romans 5:20). In Galatians 3:19, Paul informs us that the Law’s purpose was to give sin the character of transgression. He could not have meant the Law was given to remove or lessen transgressions since transgressions only exist where there is codified law (Romans 4:15). You can’t willfully and rebelliously step over a boundary if the boundary isn’t clearly defined. Paul says this law “entered” [in other words it wasn’t there before in that form] and was intended to last “until the Seed [already identified as Christ] should come to whom the promises were made [the time the covenant would end is at Christ’s first coming]. This covenant began and ended. It is now finished.
The Sabbath was the ceremonial sign of that covenant made between Jehovah and the Israelites (Exodus 31:17). Remember that the word translated “forever” refers to the duration of the covenant. We are justified “forever” because the covenant under which Christ has placed us is an “everlasting covenant.” When the covenant came to an end, the sign of the covenant was done away with.
God’s law did not come into existence. It is as eternal as God since it is merely the reflection of his holy being. It has never been right to have other gods or to or to conceive of God as a corporal being to whom we can make meaningful images. It has never been right to kill, steal, commit adultery , bear false witness etc. and it never will be.
Please follow me here. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 9:20-21, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law, but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.”
1. It seems clear to me that Paul is referring in these verse to the Mosaic law or the old covenant. He is certainly not suggesting that he and the Gentiles have no obligation to conform to God’s eternal standard of righteousness, yet he states that they are “not having the law” and he is “not under the law.”
2. If the 10 Commandments are eternally and universally binding, no one could be “without the law” or not “under the law.” The issue in Galatians is whether the law should be imposed on Gentile believers and the answer is “NO!” It is possible for a human being to be without the 10 commandments; it is not possible to be without God’s law.
3. Though Paul states that he is not under the law (Mosaic covenant), he is not therefore “not without law to God.” He was not free to do whatever he wished contrary to God’s revealed will.
4. Though no longer under the Mosaic expression of the law, he, and all NC believers are now under Christ’s law.
The sign of the OC was the Sabbath. The sign of the NC is the communion cup. One commemorates the completion of the Old Creation and the deliverance of God’s [Typical] people from Egypt. The other commemorates the establishment of the New Creation and the deliverance of God’s true people from the bondage of sin.
God’s NC people do not reject any law from the OT Scriptures that truly reflects the righteous character of God. We are not against the law. It is just that we recognize the complete inability of the law to produce the obedience and holiness it demands. Christ’ s redeeming work produces in us what the law demanded but could never produce.
I hope this helps to clarify the issues.
Blessings,
Randy
LikeLike
The author of the “Treatise to the Hebrews” tells us that the new covenant is not like the old covenant that God made with Israel when he “took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt” (8:9). When my children were young, I used to take them by the hand to lead them across the street. They needed clearly defined rules and punishments for breaking the rules. I had to make them brush their teeth, make their beds etc. I don’t do that for them anymore, because they are now adults. The hope is the rules I made for them have been internalized. Paul tells us that the Jews were under the hard tutor of the law [Mosaic covenant], but now that [the] faith [objective] (I take that to mean the full blown revelation of God in Christ since subjective faith already existed during the OC period), we are no longer under the tutor, i .e., the Mosaic law. I am not sure how much clearer that needs to be.
NC believers who are led by the Spirit don’t need to refer back to the intricate rules of the inferior covenant. Again, the author of the Hebrews wrote, “Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil” (5:14). Christ’s law is far less specific than the law of Moses, because he is dealing with mature saints and not children in their minority. Sometimes the same duties are commanded under both covenants since is the same God who instituted them. This doesn’t prove the one hasn’t passed away and the other been established.
I am fairly confident there will be those who will take these words and twist them so they can use them against me. I have learned that just because you aren’t paranoid, it doesn’t mean everyone isn’t against you [feeble attempt at humor]. I only ask that you prove all things and hold fast what is good.
LikeLike
Randy,
Got it: My focus is drawn to the “law of Christ”: “Christ’s law is far less specific than the law > of Moses, because he is dealing with mature saints and not children in > their minority.”
Please explain, “far less specific.” Also, can you point me to specific verses in the Bible that are the law of Christ,and others that are something else? Or is it anything other than the Decalogue?
What then is the standard for the Spirit’s leading.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
that’s a good point you made: “Obviously some law is still in force or there would be no sin.” Additionally, if there’s no law why are all the unbelieving, vile, sexually immoral, murderers, idolators, and all liars thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur in the end? Why are the men of Ninevah and the Queen of the South going to stand up at the judgment and condemn certain Jews? I’m sure some GS/Sonshipers believe in God’s law. But apparently they only hear the law. Christ is the one who actually obeyed/obeys the law. Interesting, the apostle Paul says in Romans 2:13 “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Further in Romans 2:27 he says the one who “obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.” The great promise is proclaimed in Romans 2:7 “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Now that’s the Gospel!
It’s a spiritual thing you know. That’s the underlying problem or solution. It’s not so much grace-yes and works-no, or grace against works. The law is spiritual, the Pharisees were unspiritual. Therefore, they could not obey. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” The Pharisees diligently studied scripture but obviously never understood the value of what it said. Their father was the devil. They belonged to the evil one as Cain did: “Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous (1 John 3:12).” Jesus made this comment: “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:20).”
Definately, the Spirit is given so we can obey the laws of God. Galatians says the Old Covenant, with laws written on stone, could not “impart life (Gal 3:21).” That was the problem, dead to God, and prisoner of sin. However, the New Covenant has the promise of the Spirit who does impart life (Gal 3:14). By the Spirit the law is written on our hearts (Heb 8:10). Moses told the people that God would circumcise their hearts so they could love God (Duet. 30:6). Paul explains circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, done by Christ. Faith, Hope, and Love are poured (infused) into our hearts by the Spirit. Obedience comes from faith and the one who loves Christ will obey His commands. A case of God working in us by grace. Grace is something that moves people. Moved by the Spirit, the Spirit of grace. We haven’t received the spirit of the world. The whole world is under the control of the evil one. But we have recieved the Spirit who is from God so we may understand what He has freely given us.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Gary Demar wrote it–not me–I posted it because i thought it was a great piece. And..
You have much here, which I will file with some stuff I am working on, especially because of the Romans references. But you mentioned something that has been on my mind: “Therefore, they could not obey. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” This whole thing that people teach from Galatians that the Law was a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ in regard to justification. In view of 1Cor. 2:14, how could that be? Something doesn’t smell right.
LikeLike
That is….in light of the whole “the law leads us to Christ because we finally figure out that we can’t keep it.” I don’t know if that’s exactly right. Wouldn’t we have to understand it and have a desire to obey it before we even tried????
LikeLike
Just one quick example. The New Testament doesn’t tell Christians to cover up their poop when they have to go in the woods. Since Israel was a physical nation, with physical diseases, material problems etc., God gave them laws relative to these specific problems as part of the outworking of their national covenant, the 10 commandments. We, God’s new covenant people are a spiritual people, the fulfillment of the type that was Israel. (Please keep in mind that the terms that are used of them as “God’s people” are used in a different sense from the use of those same terms relative to those redeemed by Christ. For example, they were called God’s chosen people even though many if not most of them were lost). They were instructed to remain separate from the pagan nations surrounding them. We are instructed to be separate spiritually from the thought patterns etc of the pagan world around us.
In Galatians 4, Paul explains that because we are no longer in our minority, God has sent forth his Spirit into our hearts. He tells us God has sent the Spirit just as he tells us he has sent the Son . The Spirit’s ministry is distinctly different under the NC. I know that doesn’t fit well with CT but it is the truth anyway. Because we are spiritual people, we are taught by the Spirit to discern between what is best and what is evil.
The law of Christ is more descriptive than prescriptive. In being led by the Spirit, we are not left to the subjectivity of our own judgment. We have the words of Christ and the Apostles as an objective standard [The law of Christ] by which to judge ourselves. That is all we need. Much of what is written in the Mosaic code ought to just be plain common sense if we weren’t fallen beings. In Christ, we are being restored to the image of God from which we fell in Adam. It is the Spirit’s work to restore the common sense that would have been innate in Adam’s posterity had he not fallen.
The NT Scriptures are the standard according to which the Spirit leads his New Covenant people. What do you find that you lack, in terms of knowing how you ought to conduct yourself as a Christian, after having read the New Testament Scriptures?
Randy
P.S. I would invite you again to consult what I have written on some of these matters at http://www.new-covenant-theology.org. I am enjoying our interaction on these issues. I hope you are.
LikeLike
Randy,
“What do you find that you lack, in terms of knowing how you ought to conduct yourself as a Christian, after having read the New Testament Scriptures?”
Randy, somebodies going to chime in and say the NT doesn’t address bestiality, so, do we have liberty there?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
I have looked again at the review by Arms and have difficulty evaluating it. For one thing, I always wonder about the dots. . . . .what was left out? If they are saying what he says they are saying, then there are clearly some problems with it.
If they are making no distinction between justification and sanctification, that is clearly a problem. If they are saying there is no need for us to obey Christ, there is a problem. I they are saying we need to “let go and let God,” there is a problem.
I think my issue is that I find more problem with what Arms says they are saying than I find in the actual quotes he offers. If I had read the entire book, I might take the same view he does of it. I don’t intend to do that since I am an old man and I don’t want to waste the time and energy.
If all they are saying is that the commands of Christ do not come to us as mere mandates, but as directives bathed in redemptive truth, I could not agree more. E.g., “Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church and gave up himself for it.” I have written about this in “The Cross: The Heart of NCT.” Paul appeals to the believers at Rome “by the mercies of God” to present themselves a living sacrifice to God. The outline of most of his epistles is I. See what you are in Christ. II. Be what you are in Christ.
The truth is, if the book is bad and you don’t draw much attention to it, it will probably pass off the scene without much notice.
LikeLike
Randy,
I have read HPC, all told, probably at least 4 times. What would you like to know? The reason HPC is important is because it is a (actually, “the”) contemporary treatise on how Gospel Sanctification applies to life. Arms and the publication,JoMM,does not exactly rank with the peasantry of the Evangelical world. So where is Tripp’s response? For that matter, where is a response from anybody? Nowhere. Why? Because it can’t be defended–it is what it is. The theology in the book can’t be explained away as a misunderstanding. A response would merely raise more questions and educate Christians towards Gospel Sanctification’s greatest fear: that Christians would begin to understand the difference between justification and sanctification.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Randy:
You said, “Of course, Jesus quoted from it. He was under it.”
Your inference is, I think, that Jesus was under the the Law, because He was born under the OT dispensation, or Old Covenant, but since then, since He came and brought in the New Covenant we are now under NC law, not old covenant. Do I understand you correctly?
Thanks,
Gerry
LikeLike