W. Shaw Caldecott LAW, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1. LAW IN THE GOSPELS
Naturally we first turn to the Gospels, where the word “law” always refers to the Mosaic law, although it has different applications. That law was really threefold: the Moral Law, as summed up in the Decalogue, the Ceremonial Law, prescribing the ritual and all the typical enactments, and what might be called the Civil or Political Law, that relating to the people in their national, political life. The distinction is not closely observed, though sometimes the reference emphasizes one aspect, sometimes another, but generally the whole Law without any discrimination is contemplated. Sometimes the Law means the whole Old Testament Scriptures, as in John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25. At other times the Law means the Pentateuch, as in Luke 24:44.
1. The Law in the Teaching of Christ:
The Law frequently appears in the teaching of Christ. In the Sermon on the Mount He refers most specifically and fully to it. It is frequently asserted that He there exposes the imperfection of the Law and sets His own authority against its authority. But this seems to be a superficial and an untenable view. Christ indeed affirms very definitely the authority of the Law: “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets” (Matthew 5:17). Here the term would seem to mean the whole of the Pentateuch “I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished” (Matthew 5:17,18). A similar utterance is recorded in Luke 16:17: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fall.”
(1) Authority of the Law Upheld in the Sermon on the Mount.
The perfection and permanence of the Law as well as its authority are thus indicated, and the following verse in Matthew still further emphasizes the authority, while showing that now the Lord is speaking specifically of the moral law of the Decalogue: “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be
called great in the kingdom of heaven” (5:19). These impressive sentences should be borne in mind in considering, the utterances that follow, in which there seems a contrast between the Law and His own teaching, and from which has been drawn the inference that He condemns and practically abrogates the Law. What Jesus really does is to bring out the fullness of meaning that is in the Law, and to show its spirituality and the wideness of its reach. He declares that the righteousness of His disciples must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Their righteousness consisted largely in a punctilious observance of the external requirements of the Law; the disciples must yield heart obedience to the inner spirit of the Law, its external and internal requirements.
(a) Christ and Tradition:
Jesus then proceeds to point out the contrast, not so much between His own teaching and that of the Law, as between His interpretation of the Law and the interpretation of other teachers: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time” (the King James Version), “to them of old time”
the Revised Version (British and American) (Matthew 5:21). Either rendering is grammatically allowable, but in either case it is evidently not the original utterance of Moses, but the traditional interpretation, which He had in view “Ye have heard that it was said”; Christ’s usual way of quoting the Old Testament is, “It is written” or some other formula pointing to the written Word; and as He has just referred to the written Law as a whole, it would be strange if He should now use the formula “It was said” in
reference to the particular precepts. Evidently He means what was said by the Jewish teachers.
(b) Sin of Murder:
This is further confirmed by the citations: “Thou shalt not kill; and
whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.” The second clause is not found in the Pentateuch as a distinct statement, but it is clearly the generalization of the teachers. Christ does not set Himself in opposition to Moses; rather does He enjoin obedience to the precepts of the scribes when, sitting in Moses’ seat, they truly expound the Law (Matthew 23:1-8). But these teachers had so expounded the command as if it only referred to the act of murder; so Christ shows the full and true spiritual meaning of it: “But I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” (Matthew 5:22).
See MURDER.
(c) Adultery and Divorce:
Again, “Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery”
(Matthew 5:27). The traditional teaching confined this mainly to the outward act, `But I say unto you,’ says Christ, `that adultery pertains even to the lustful thought’ (Matthew 5:28). In dealing with this matter He passes to the law of divorce which was one of the civil enactments, and did not stand on the same level with the moral precept against committing adultery, nay, the very carrying out of the civil provision might lead to a real breach of the moral precept, and in the interests of the precept itself, in the very desire to uphold the authority of the moral law, Christ pronounces against divorce on any ground, save that of fornication. Later on, as recorded in Matthew 19:3-9, He was questioned about this same law of divorce, and again He condemns the light way in which divorce was treated by the Jews, and affirms strongly the sanctity of the marriage institution, showing that it was antecedent to the Mosaic code — was from the beginning, and derived its binding force from the Divine pronouncement in Genesis 2:24, rounded upon the nature of things; while as to the Mosaic law of divorce, lie declares that it was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that no other cause than fornication was sufficient to dissolve the marriage tie. This civil enactment, justified originally on account of the inability of the people to rise to the true moral ideal of the Decalogue, Christ claims authority to transcend, but in doing so He vindicates and upholds the law which said, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
See DIVORCE.
(d) Oaths:
The next precept Jesus cites is one partly civil and partly ritual, concerning the taking of oaths. The words are not found in the Pentateuch as a definite enactment; they are rather a gathering up of several utterances (Leviticus 19:12; Numbers 30:2; Deuteronomy 23:21), and again the form of the citation suggests that it is the rabbinical interpretation that is in question.
But the kind of swearing allowed by the law was the very opposite of ordinary profane swearing. It was intended, indeed, to guard the 3rd commandment against taking the name of Yahweh in vain. Christ in condemning the flippant oaths allowed by the rabbis was really asserting
the authority of that 3rd command; lie was enforcing its spirituality and claiming the reverence due to the Divine name. Into the question how far the words of Christ bear upon oath-taking in a court of law we need not enter. His own response to the adjuration of the high priest when practically put upon His oath (Matthew 26:63,64) and other instances (Romans 1:9; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Galatians 1:20; Philippians 1:8; 1 Thessalonians 2:5; Hebrews 6:16,17; Revelation 10:5,6) would tend to show that such solemn appeals to God are not embraced in Christ’s prohibition: “Swear not at all”; but undoubtedly the ideal speech is that of the simple asseveration, the “Yes” or “No” of the man, who, conscious that he speaks in the presence of God, reckons his word inviolable, needing no strengthening epithet, though as between man and man an oath may be necessary for confirmation and an end of strife.
See OATH.
(e) Retaliation:
He next touches upon the “law of retaliation”: “an eye for an eye”
(Matthew 5:38), and consistently with our understanding of the other sayings, we think that here Christ is dealing with the traditional
interpretation which admitted of personal revenge, of men taking the law into their own hands and revenging themselves. Such a practice Christ utterly condemns, and inculcates instead gentleness and forbearance, the outcome of love even toward enemies. This law, indeed, finds place among the Mosaic provisions, but it appears there, not as allowing personal spite to gratify itself in its own way, but as a political enactment to be carried out by the magistrates and so to discountenance private revenge. Christ shows that the spirit of His gospel received by His people would supersede the necessity for these. requirements of the civil code; although His words are not to be interpreted quite literally, for He himself when smitten on the one cheek did not turn the other to the smiter (John 18:22,23), and the principle of the law of retaliation still holds good in the legislative procedure of all civilized nations, and according to the New Testament teaching, will find place even in the Divine procedure in the day of judgment.
See also PUNISHMENT.
(f) Love to Neighbors — Love of Enemies:
The last saying mentioned in the Sermon clearly reveals its rabbinical character: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy” (Matthew 5:43). The first part is indeed the injunction of the Law, the second part is an unwarrantable addition to it. It is only this part that Christ virtually condemns when He says, “But I say unto you, Love your enemies”
(Matthew 5:44). That the interpretation of these teachers was
unwarrantable may be seen from many passages in the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Psalms, which set forth the more spiritual aspect of the Law’s requirement; and as to this particular precept, we need only refer to Proverbs 25:21,22, “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat.”
Christ while condemning the addition unfolds the spiritual import of the command itself, for the love of neighbor rightly interpreted involves love of enemies; and so on another occasion (Luke 10:25-37) He answers the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?” by the parable of the Good Samaritan, showing that everyone in need is our neighbor.
See also FORGIVENESS; WRATH.
The last reference in the Sermon on the Mount to the Law fully bears out the idea that Christ really upheld the authority while elucidating the spirituality of the Law, for He declares that the principle embodied in the
“Golden Rule” is a deduction from, is, indeed, the essence of, “the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).
(2) Other References to the Law in the Teaching of Christ.
We can only glance at the other references to the Law in the teaching of Christ. In Matthew 11:13, “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John,” the Law in its teaching capacity is in view, and perhaps the whole of the Pentateuch is meant. In Matthew 12:1-8, in rebutting the charge brought against His disciples of breaking the Sabbath, He cites the case of David and his men eating the showbread, which it was not lawful for any but the priests to partake of; and of the priests doing work on the Sabbath day which in other men would be a breach of the Law; from which He deduces the conclusion that the ritual laws may be set aside under stress of necessity and for a higher good. In that same chapter (12:10-13) He indicates the lawfulness of healing — doing good — on the Sabbath day.
(a) Traditions of the Elders and the 5th Commandment:
In Matthew 15:1-6 we have the account of the Pharisees complaining that the disciples transgressed the traditions of the elders by eating with unwashed hands. Jesus retorts upon them with the question: “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” citing the specific case of the 5th commandment which was evaded and virtually broken by their ingenious distinction of [qorban]. This is a very instructive incident in its bearing upon the point which we have sought to enforce — that it was the traditional interpretation and not the Law itself which Jesus condemned or corrected.
(b) Christ’s Answer to the Young Ruler:
To the young ruler (Matthew 19:16-42) He presents the commandments as the rule of life, obedience to which is the door to eternal life, especially emphasizing the manward aspect of the Law’s claims. The young man, professing to have kept them all, shows that he has not grasped the spirituality of their requirements, and it is further to test him that Christ calls upon him to make the “great renunciation” which, after all, is not in itself an additional command so much as the unfolding of the spiritual and far-reaching character of the command, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”
(c) Christ’s Answer to the Lawyer:
To the lawyer who asks Him which is the great commandment in the Law, He answers by giving him the sum of the whole moral law. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:35-39). In Mark’s report (Mark 12:31), He adds, “There is none other commandment greater than these,” and in that of Matthew He says, “On these two
commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets” (Matthew 22:40); both utterances showing the high estimation in which He held the Law.
(d) References in the Fourth Gospel:
In His discussion with the Jews, recorded in John 7, He charges them with failure to keep the Law: “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law?” (7:19). And referring to the healing of the impotent man on the Sabbath day, a deed which had roused their ire, He shows how one law may conflict with another. Moses had enjoined circumcision, and
sometimes the time for circumcising would fall on the Sabbath day. Yet with all their reverence for the Sabbath day, they would, in order to keep the law of circumcision, perform the rite on the Sabbath day, and so, He argues, it is unreasonable to complain of Him because on the Sabbath day He had fulfilled the higher law of doing good, healing a poor sufferer. In none of all Christ’s utterances is there any slight thrown upon the Law itself; it is always held up as the standard of right and its authority vindicated.
2. The Law in Relation to the Life of Christ:
The passages we have considered show the place of the Law in the teaching of Christ, but we also find that He had to sustain a practical relation to that Law. Born under the Law, becoming part of a nation which honored and venerated the Law, every part of whose life was externally regulated by it, the life of Jesus Christ could not fail to be affected by that Law. We note its operation:
(1) In His Infancy.
On the eighth day He was circumcised (Luke 2:21), thus being recognized as a member of the covenant nation, partaking of its privileges, assuming its responsibilities. Then, according to the ritual law of purification, He is presented in the temple to the Lord (Luke 2:22-24), while His mother offers the sacrifice enjoined in the “law of the Lord,” the sacrifice she brings pathetically witnessing to her poverty, “a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons” being the alternative allowed to those who were not able to provide a lamb (Leviticus 12). The Divine approval is set upon this consecrating act, for it is while it is being done concerning Him after “the custom of the law” (Leviticus 12:27), that the Spirit of God comes upon Simeon and prompts the great prophecy which links all the Messianic hopes with the Baby of Bethlehem.
Again, according to the Law His parents go up to the Passover feast when the wondrous child has reached His 12th year, the age when a youthful Jew assumed legal responsibility, becoming “a son of the Law,” and so Jesus participates in the festal observances, and His deep interest in all that concerns the temple-worship and the teaching of the Law is shown by His absorption in the conversation of the doctors, whose questions He answers so intelligently, while questioning them in turn, and filling them with astonishment at His understanding (Luke 2:42-47).
(2) In His Ministry.
In His ministry He ever honors the Law. He reads it in the synagogue. He heals the leper by His sovereign touch and word, but He bids him go and show himself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4). And again, when the lepers appeal to Him, His response which implies the healing is, “Go and show yourselves unto the priests”
(Luke 17:14). He drives out of the temple those that defile it (Matthew 21:12,13; John 2:15-17), because of His zeal for the honor of His Father’s house, and so, while showing His authority, emphasizes the sanctity of the temple and its services. So, while claiming to be the Son in the Father’s house, and therefore above the injunctions laid upon the servants and strangers, He nevertheless pays the temple-tax exacted from every son of Israel (Matthew 17:24-27). He attends the various feasts during His ministry, and when the shadows of death are gathering round Him, He takes special pains to observe the Passover with His disciples. Thus to the ceremonial law He renders continuous obedience, the motto of His life practically being His great utterance to the Baptist: “Suffer it now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15). If He obeyed the ceremonial law, unquestionably He obeyed the moral law. His keenest-eyed enemies could find no fault in Him in regard to His moral conduct.
His absolute sinlesshess attests the translation of the moral law into actual life.
3. The Law in Relation to the Death of Christ:
We enter not upon theological question as to the relation of the death of Christ to the penal inflictions of the Law Divinely enforced on behalf of sinners — that touches the doctrine of the Atonement — we only note the fact that His death was brought about in professed accordance with the Law. The chief priests, in hatred, sent officers to take Him, but overawed by His matchless eloquence, these officers returned empty-handed. In their chagrin, the chief priests can only say that the people who follow Him now not the Law and are cursed (John 7:49). Nicodemus, on this occasion, ventures to remonstrate: “Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself?” (John 7:51). This sound legal principle these men are bent on disregarding; their one desire is to put an end to the life of this man, who has aroused their jealousy and hatred, and at last when they get Him into their hands, they strain the forms of the Law to accomplish their purpose. There is no real charge that can be brought against Him. They
dare not bring up the plea that He broke the Sabbath, for again and again He has answered their cavils on that score. He has broken no law; all they can do is to bribe false witnesses to testify something to His discredit. The trumpery charge, founded upon a distorted reminiscence of His utterance about destroying the temple, threatens to break down.
(1) Christ Charged with Blasphemy under the Jewish Law.
Then the high priest adjures Him to say upon oath whether or not He claims to be the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Such a claim would assuredly, if unfounded, be blasphemy, and according to the Law, be punishable by death. On a previous occasion the Jews threatened to stone Him for this — to them — blasphemous claim. Now when Jesus calmly avows that He is the Son of God, the high priest, rending his clothes, declares that no further proof is needed. He has confessed to the blasphemy, and unanimously the council votes Him worthy of death (Matthew 26; Mark 14; Luke 22). If Jesus Christ were not what He claimed to be, then the priests were right in holding Him guilty of
blasphemy; it never occurred to them to consider whether the claim after all might not be true.
(2) Christ Charged with Treason under the Roman Law.
Not only is the Jewish law invoked to accomplish His death, but also the Roman law. On one other occasion Christ had come into touch with the law of Rome, namely, when asked the ensnaring question by the Herodians as to the lawfulness of giving tribute to Caesar (Matthew 22:17; Mark 12:14; Luke 20:22). Now the Jews need the Roman governor’s
authorization for the death penalty, and Jesus must be tried before him.
The charge cannot now be blasphemy — the Roman law will have nothing to say to that — and so they trump up a charge of treason against Caesar.
In preferring it, they practically renounce their Messianic hopes. The charge, however, breaks down before the Roman tribunal, and only by playing on the weakness of Pilate do they gain their end, and the Roman law decrees His death, while leaving the Jews to see to the carrying out of the sentence. In this the evangelist sees the fulfillment of Christ’s words concerning the manner of His death, for stoning would have been the Jewish form of the death penalty, not crucifixion.
See JESUS CHRIST, III, E), ii, 3, 4.