Does the Apostle Paul treat the law of Moses as abrogated?
The Old Testament starts off with five books that it calls the Torah meaning the
Law of Moses. Christians claim that the moral directives of that law still stand
but we don't need to keep the non-moral rules about feasts and stoning people to
death. They say God revealed the Law and as Jesus came to save us he fulfilled
the law and made it obsolete.
The New Testament never says that the horrifying punishment laws of the Torah,
and the other rules laid down by God through Moses have been done away. Those
who dispute this must be answered.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to God refreshing the covenant with a new one but this new one is not an altered one. It is just one that reaffirms the laws in the Torah and makes a fresh start in getting them obeyed and requiring that obedience. The New Testament depends on Bible prophecy so it has to accept that doctrine. Jesus referred to this covenant when he gave the cup to his disciples saying it was the new covenant in his blood which is the main reason why Christian communion ceremonies are invalid and unJesus for they disobey the Mosiac covenant. Jesus said that anybody who waters down the rules of the law will be downgraded in his kingdom.
The reason people think there was an abrogation of the law is mainly down to
St Paul.
PAUL KNEW NOTHING OF AN ABROGATION
Paul is reputed to have said that Christians don’t have to observe the Law of
Moses, over and over again. He never said anything of the kind.
· Christians claim, “Paul said that justification could not be gained by keeping
the Law but only be faith without keeping it (Romans 3:20,28). Faith is
opposition to the Law. The Law is abolished.” Yes he said that but he also said
that faith does not abrogate the Law but upholds and fulfils it (Romans 3:31).
Faith must then enable you to keep the Law but the Law has to be kept in force
before faith can do that or try to.
Paul said that the Law was given to show both Jew and Gentile why we need a
saviour and that we are sinners. It cannot do that unless it stays valid
forever. Otherwise people could do evil things and say God has changed his mind
about these things being bad.
Paul stated that the only reason the Law failed to justify was because its
command about faith and trust in God was ignored which meant it was not being
kept right. He did say that anybody who kept the Law as it should be kept would
be justified and right with God (Romans 2:13) for God promised that they would
be. When Paul declared law keeping useless he meant superficial law keeping.
That is, external actions with no love or sincerity or faith in them. Competent
Christians accept this (see page 167, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible). Just
as a person who does not care about you merits nothing by serving you so you
merit nothing before God if you serve him with a similar attitude. So the
argument is wrong. Since the Law could not save because people would not obey
its law of faith it follows that by asking us to keep this law of trust and
confidence and by saying that the Law has not been abrogated by faith that Paul
wants us to keep the whole Law.
The Protestants say that Paul preached salvation by faith without good works in
the sense that you can be sinful and still be smuggled into Heaven even though
you should not be there. God pretends that you are holy though you are not for
Jesus obeyed God and earned Heaven for you and atoned your sins. If their
interpretation is right it does not confute the notion of the Law still being in
force but means that Jesus has compensated for our failures to follow it. So the
law is in force.
Some say salvation by faith alone does abrograte the Law for the Law prescribes
punishments and this doctrine says that you are free from the penalty of the
Law. This penalty is the separation from God due to sin not the other
punishments. We know this for even the New Testament says that God will punish
his sons to keep them right. In the Law, God never said that he would not
forgive those who were stoned to death. Perhaps they pay for their sin by their
death and that’s the matter ended. But all God said was that he forgives all who
repent.
Others say that if you are saved by faith alone then you don’t need to obey the
Law so it cannot exist anymore. But the Bible says that if you are saved you
will be inclined to obey. What is right is always essential. Paul says that we
are saved by faith alone because we will not obey the Law fully and it is the
only way we can be made righteous in the sight of the Law. For him, the two were
perfectly compatible for Law forces you to obey but faith makes you keen to
obey. The rules may no longer rules when you obey them willingly but they are
still being said to be right.
The Catholics say that Paul just meant that when you turn away from your sins
and are forgiven because of your faith you are saved by faith alone but only as
long as you stay pure from sin that divides you from God. This does not
contradict the Law which taught the same thing by preaching that God forgives.
· Christians argue that “St Paul taught that the laws of Israel are over for he
pronounced the Jewish Law a thing of the past and that there is no Law now
(Ephesians 2:15; Galatians 2:15-21). He proclaimed Christ to be the end of the
Law (Romans 10:4). In Ephesians 2:14,15 he stated that Christ cancelled the Law
with its commandments for Christians.”
A law is something you are forced to obey. Paul was just saying that the Law of
Moses though a law is not a law in the sense that one has to be forced to keep
it any longer. He thought that people had to try and force themselves to keep it
with little help from God so that they would realise that they couldn’t do it
and depend on his mercy and on faith. Now that was all over and anyone who obeys
God will do it because they want to and enjoy it and have God assisting them in
this task.
His teaching does not eliminate the laws of the Old Testament for Christians.
Far from this he said that the Law was all about love. He was saying it was love
to keep the capital laws. God cannot change these rules without ceasing to be
love. He did not even declare the ritual laws of the Old Testament to be
abrogated for instead of that, according to the Christian interpretation – which
I question - they were fulfilled by Christ for us so that we have no need to
keep them. That would be saying that they are abolished only in the sense that
they are not binding on us but strictly speaking they are not abolished. They
cannot be abolished when Jesus has to keep them for us to make up for our
failure to keep them.
How could the Ephesians verse that supposedly says the commandments of the Law
are cancelled for Christians forbid the commandments of the Law when Paul said
that the Law was love and that Christians must love? The Law forbade pre-marital
sex, adultery, stealing and laying and so do Christ and the apostles. It means
that the Law must be kept but that it is no longer law.
· Christians argue, “God asserted that the faith isn’t spread by violence (2
Corinthians 10:4) while the Law advocates the forced conversion of heretics in
the form of ‘Convert and stay converted or die!’ He told us to be at peace with
all. These things prove that the capital laws are things of the past.”
The Law never said that forcing a person to believe and obey was any good. It
commanded the love of God which is voluntary. Force can be used to only
indirectly effect sincere conversions and this was the sort of compulsion the
Law desired. We successfully force our children to believe in Geography.
God rejection of violence as being good evangelism is saying that intimidation
cannot make people faithful or believe. But force can spread the faith in
certain ways and circumstances so more probably it forbids force that puts
people off. The command to be at peace with all is not taken literally by any
Christian for they aren’t at peace with certain sinners. They forbid some forms
of peace when they hamper greater peace. Christians would say the Law could not
be annulled by this verse for the Law never advocated conversion by force. It
does in some ways but it never demands that say pagans must be converted at the
point of a sword.
Christians argue, “The New Testament does away with the morality of the Law to
keep the Sabbath proving that the Mosiac morality is nonsense. Moreover, the
penalty for Sabbath-breaking was death by stoning. The Sabbath is abolished so
the death penalty got the same fate. We need a Sabbath day. The rule that we
must keep the Sabbath is a moral law. The New Testament revoked so much of the morality of
the Law of Moses. The ceremonial laws were done away too even though it was
immoral to keep these for they were signs of gratitude to God. This means that
the ethical laws are abolished.”
It is surmised that since the New Testament commands cheerful free and uncoerced
giving to the Church (1 Corinthians 16:2; 1 Corinthians 9:7) that the Old
Testament law of tithing was done away. But that law applied to the Jewish
priesthood and the Church was a different set-up. The early Christians in
Jerusalem did continue paying tithes to Judaism.
It is argued that “God says that the Law that the Christian follows is written
not on paper but in the heart. Written Law cuts one off from God but the one in
the heart gives life. (See 2 Corinthians 3:3-11). Nobody can assert that the Law
of Moses is everlasting after reading this for this means that the written Law
is no more. In verse 11, Paul says that the Law has passed away”.
The law of the land can be written in my conscience and in my heart though it is
down on paper too. Its being in me does not mean that I have abolished it for
myself. But I have abolished it in the sense that I like following it so it is
no longer a law, a law is what compels. I have the Holy Spirit to tell me how to
follow it and so I don’t need the written law.
· “Paul said that vengeance was God’s job not ours (Romans 12:19). The Law
commands vengeance so Paul is making it plain that it is abrogated.”
Just before that Paul told his people to avoid vengeance as far as possible not
absolutely. He said that God set up governments to avenge crime. Moreover, if
vengeance is God’s job we will still have to do it for him. Even the Law
restricted vengeance for you can’t have a society if all take revenge all the
time. Paul was quoting an Old Testament Psalm when he said that vengeance was
God's job and the Psalms all upheld and were under the authority of the Law.
Paul means that vengeance is God’s business except where the Law says otherwise
so by implication we are to get involved too as avengers but only where the Law
says. He knew his readers should be smart enough to see that he did not mean to
be taken too literally.
Paul stated that through avengers and an avenging government God takes
vengeance. The verse is no help in showing the old laws are gone.
· “Romans 15 condemns judgment which the Law allows”.
It condemns judging those who are merely following their conscience (v 3,4).
Paul allowed judgment in the case of a man living with his stepmother.
· “In 1 Corinthians 9:20, Paul said that he acts towards the Jews as if he were
under the Law like them though he is not. The Jews therefore had to obey it and
he had not. The Law is cancelled.”
He just means that the Jews obey under compulsion and he does not so in that
sense he is not under the Law. This not saying that the Law is wrong or wrong
now. Also, Jesus obeyed the Law for us so we are counted law-keepers if we
become true Christians and we must keep the Law not to gain salvation like the
Jews did but in thanksgiving for salvation. The Law is compulsory for us but it
is not compulsory in the sense that it is required for getting into Heaven.
That a Christian can still obey the law shows that the rules are still regarded
as correct and sacred. The Christian has to hold that the laws God gave
endorsing the murder of rape victims are holy and good.
· “Paul declared that he acts as one without Law when he is among people who
have no law (1 Corinthians 9:21). He was opposed to hypocrisy so he is saying
that the Law of the Jews is abolished.”
He says in this verse that he follows the Law of Christ. To be without the Law
means that you are not forced by the Law to obey it so that it is not a real Law
for you.
· “Paul claimed that the righteousness he got from the Law was rubbish compared
to his being saved by Jesus (Philippians 3:6,7). God must have dropped the Law
when he wrote like this.”
Since Paul said that nobody could keep much of the Law unless they were saved by
faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:8-10) he did not mean righteousness in the sight of
God here but righteousness in the sight of man which according to the standard
of the Law was not true righteousness for all fall short (Romans 9:31). He is
not criticising the Law. He is saying that the Christian is able to fulfil the
Law by obeying the Law and that Jesus has obeyed the Law for you to make up for
the defects so that you stand before God as a perfect law-keeper. When a person
is saved Jesus has kept the Law for them so they are credited as law-keepers and
now they must keep the Law not to gain salvation but in gratitude for salvation.
· “Christians do not have to observe the Law of Moses. It is written that Jesus
‘wiped away the handwriting of the note (bond) with its legal decrees and
demands which was in force and stood against us (hostile to us). This [note with
its regulations, decrees, and demands] He set aside and cleared completely out
of our way by nailing it to [His] cross’ (Colossians 2:14). Jesus destroyed or
repealed the laws that were against us.”
The verse is about the decrees that condemned us.
It only says that Jesus forgave sins when he died on the cross by dying on the
cross. Forgiving sins against the Law is not doing away with the Law but saying
the Law is right. How could the Law be done away when Jesus saw it as being so
important that he had to suffer and die for every transgression against it? When
Jesus atoned for sins against the Law by his death that should show the Law is
still in force for you can’t forgive breaking a law when the law is repealed.
· “Paul complained that certain people were preaching that the Law was to be
followed by Christians (1 Timothy 1:6-8) proving that he believed them to be in
error.”
He said they were abusing the Law. He said that unlike them he recognised that
the Law was given for bad people not good people. If the Law were given for good
people as the heretics said then they thought that unless good people keep it
they will not be saved which is intolerable blasphemy and bigotry.
· “God has revoked the Torah in Hebrews 8:13.”
This verse says that God has done away with the Old Covenant and replaced it
with a new one. The Covenant was that God would be the God of the people if they
were true to him. They would not be his people so he made a New Covenant under
Christ. The Law is not the Covenant. You just have to obey the Law to be in the
Covenant. However, the only thing new about the New Covenant is that it is a
repeat of the Old. The contract was the same, “Be my people and I will be your
God”. The first contract was broken by the people for they did not obey the Law
through faith and use Jesus to keep it for them and the second is the exact same
contract except that this time we have and are aware that through trust and
faith and the obedience of Jesus in our place to make up for our sins against
the Law we will be reconciled with God. The substitutionary obedience of Jesus
means that though we should obey the Law we don’t have to when it comes to
acquiring salvation though we have to obey it to be moral for Jesus has obeyed
it for us and was valuable enough to God to ensure that God would be satisfied
with his obedience as much as that of many people.
The New Testament says that since the Jews turned their backs on the saviour
that God rejected them and applied the promises he made to Israel to its
continuation – not successor for Jesus came to fulfil Judaism and to add to it
and not to destroy it! These promises concerned ownership of the Promised Land
and loads of material and spiritual blessings. They were conditional upon
obedience to the Law. So when the Church was promised the blessings of the Law
pertaining to its status as the continuation of Israel the people of God and
warned about the dangers of disobedience and the punishments it could bring it
follows that the Law was still to be obeyed by the Church. See Those Incredible
Christians, page 54 and Matthew 11:43.
Conclusion: The notion that many have that we are free to regard the law of
Moses as immoral in places for Jesus came to fix things and bring in more humane
principles is nonsense. Jesus's law is that you regard the Law of Moses as
right. The evidence is that that means you regard it not just as right in
principle but in practice as well and must resume stoning people to death in
accordance with the rules God laid down.
The New Testament is clear that the Holy Spirit came around the time of
Christ and is extremely powerful and this according to some is the prime reason
the Church needs only spiritual weapons against evil. This is the prime reason
Christianity argues that it is unnecessary to stone people to death any more.
Evil does not need to be violently removed like a cancer but dealt with by the
power of the Spirit. Notably Gleason Archer promotes that kind of argument in
his apologetics. So it is not that killing people or stoning them to death is
wrong. It just obsolete. That means the Christian who does not stone is no
better than the religious fanatic who looks for the right to stone or who lifts
the rocks.