| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
In the area of hermeneutics, it is necessary to decide whether the believer is obligated to apply the Old Testament Law to his/her life. It is also necessary to decide how to handle statements of moral principle, and specific case laws. Finally, it is necessary to decide how to prioritize ethics, which will be considered in its own section.
| A. Relationship of Christians to Old Testament Law |  |
According to Paul, a Christian should reject not only legalism, but also Old Testament nomism.10 Legalism, in this context, refers to the teaching that one can be justified by works of law. Nomism means that while a believer is justified by grace, it is necessary to be under law as a means of growth and as a rule of life.11
The Reformed tradition holds that the statements made by Paul to the effect that, "...we have been released from the law, having died to that by which we were bound..." (Rom.7:6), are to be understood in one of two ways.
First, it is argued, some of these statements are referring to the fact that we are not justified by law, but by grace (i.e. they argue against legalism). This is sometimes true. Unfortunately however, it is not possible to consistently argue this position in all cases. Many passages, including this one in Romans 7, clearly indicate that there was a time when we were under law.12 Yet the Old Testament never taught salvation by works of law, a fact admitted by all reformed theologians.13 In what sense then, it must be asked, has anything changed? Clearly Paul does refer to a difference between the present relation of the believer to the law, and that which was there before Christ.
It is at this point that reformed theologians argue that it is the ritual law that has been fulfilled and made obsolete by the work of Christ. This assertion is also correct.14 However, it is incomplete. Many passages make it clear that the idea of not being under the law means not being under the moral law of the Old Testament. For instance, the statement quoted earlier that we are "released from the law" is illustrated in the very next verse with the statement, "the Law...said, 'you shall not covet'," (Rom.7:7). This is no ritual law! In what sense then have we been "released" from it? Not, as we have already seen, in the sense that we are not justified by keeping it, since no one ever was justified that way. Instead, we are released from it as a rule of life-- the very sense that the nomist will not admit.15
This is even more clear in the passage in II Cor. 3:6-11 where the "letter that kills" in vs. 6 which we do not serve is identical with, "the ministry of death in letters engraved on stones" in vs. 7. Clearly, the reference to letters engraved on stones can only refer to the Decalogue itself. It is impossible to argue then that such a passage refers to the ritual law. It also throws into question how a letter that kills could be considered a means of growth. Is this not rather negative language to apply to a law which we love and are able to obey?16
Thus we find that one's view of salvation history and pneumatology directly affects his view of hermeneutics. Unless a decisive change of direction in the ministry of the Holy Spirit at the time of Pentecost is admitted, there will be no clear basis for rejecting Old Testament style nomism.
This is true in part because Christ himself was nomistic in his teaching much, if not most of the time.17 Bahnsen and various theonomists constantly return to this fact in their discussions.18 Unfortunately, such an appeal to Christ is really beside the point, since He was, "born under the law..." unlike us who are no longer under a tutor.19
Are we arguing then that coveting is no longer wrong? Not at all. The point is that confronting the believer with this law is not helpful in enabling him/her to resist lust. In fact, it is inappropriate for a believer who serves according to the Spirit rather than the letter to relate to morality in terms of laws. Such a nomistic outlook actually has the effect of hindering real spiritual growth. This is because under nomism, a believer is constantly having his/her eyes drawn to a focus on sin and laws, rather than to Christ.
When, in Romans 8, Paul teaches that the key to compliance with the law (vs.4) and real growth is to have one's mind set on the things of the spirit. Yet in the context, one of the main ways to set one's mind on the things of the flesh is to focus on the law.20
But even spiritual Christians need ethics--we need to know the difference between right and wrong. For this need we find ourselves approaching the law, but not in a nomistic way. Instead of looking to the case law in the Bible for particular direction in the details of life, we will need to go beneath the case law to find the great ethical themes of the Bible. Then we will have to apply those principles to the current situation under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, in response to our relationship with Christ, and in harmony with what can be learned about applying principles from the case law of the Old and New Testaments. The Bible itself points to this kind of approach in several ways.
Gordon Wenham points out that the Old Testament collections of law are to be distinguished from other extra-biblical collections because the latter,
"consist almost entirely of case law...They deal only with ordinary matters of legal dispute. The Old Testament of course contains many examples of this type of law, but it includes as well straight prohibitions and numerous religious regulations."
He goes on to point out that,
"...the primary command of the covenant is to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart', or to put it negatively, to 'have no other gods before me'."21
"The Ten Commandments occupy a very special place, summarizing as they do the basic religious and moral principles that must control Israel's behavior."22
Thus even in the Old Testament, which was substantially nomistic in its approach to morality, there was the perceived need to define the underlying principles so that the case commands would not be arbitrary floating rules that must be rigidly observed in all ages.
In the New Testament, we see Paul applying ethical themes in a flexible and creative way that would be completely inconsistent with a nomistic approach. A good example of the flexibility of Paul when dealing with ethics can be seen in I Cor. 7. It seems clear that he did not feel bound to the letter at all, but rather infused the principles given with love. Thus as Nixon correctly says,
The law is therefore not so significant as the fundamental principles which it embodies.
The way in which Paul summarizes the commandments into one injunction and the rational in terms of good and evil, shows that Paul did not have a legalistic approach to the law when used as a guide to moral conduct. He is more concerned with fundamental issues than with formal obedience.23
Contact Dennis with a comment or question
Return to the Ethics table of contents
