W. Shaw Caldecott LAW, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
2. THE WRITTEN RECORD OF THE LAW
The enactment of the Law and its committal to writing must be
distinguished. With regard to the former, it is distinctly stated (John 1:17) that “the law was given through Moses”; and though this does not
necessarily imply that every regulation found in the Pentateuch is his, a large number of the laws are expressly ascribed to him. As regards the latter, we are distinctly told that Moses wrote certain laws or collections of laws (Exodus 17:14; 24:4,7; Deuteronomy 31:9). These, however, form only a portion of the whole legislation; and therefore, whether the remaining portions were written by Moses, or — if not by him — when and by whom, is a legitimate matter of inquiry.
It is not necessary here to discuss the large question of the literary history of the Pentateuch, but it must briefly be touched upon. The Pentateuch certainly appears to have reached its present form by the gradual piecing together of diverse materials. Deuteronomy (D) being a separate
composition, a distinction would seem to have been clearly established by critical examination between a number of paragraphs in the remaining books which apparently must once have formed a narrative by themselves, and other paragraphs, partly narrative but chiefly legislative and statistical, which appear to have been subsequently added. Without endorsing any of the critical theories as to the relation of these, one to the other, or as to the dates of their composition, we may, in a general way, accept the analysis, and adopt the well-known symbol JE (Jahwist-Elohim) to distinguish the former, and P (Priestly Code) the latter. Confining ourselves to their legislative contents, we find in JE a short but very important body of law, the Law of the Covenant, stated in full in Exodus 20 through 23, and repeated as to a portion of it in Exodus 34:10-28. All the rest of the legislation is contained in P and Deuteronomy.
1. The Critical Dating of the Laws:
We are distinctly told in Exodus that the law contained in Exodus 20 through 23 was given through Moses. Rejecting this statement, critics of the school of Wellhausen affirm that its true date must be placed
considerably later than the time of Joshua. They maintain that previous to their conquest of Canaan the Israelites were mere nomads, ignorant of agriculture, the practice of which, as well as their culture in general, they first learned from the conquered Canaanites. Therefore (so they argue), as the law of Exodus 20 through 23 presupposes the practice of agriculture, it
cannot have been promulgated until some time in the period of the Judges at the earliest; they place it indeed in the early period of the monarchy. All this, however, is mere assumption, support for which is claimed in some passages in which a shepherd life is spoken of, but with utter disregard of others which show that both in the patriarchal period and in Egypt the Israelites also cultivated land. See B.D. Eerdmans, “Have the Hebrews Been Nomads?” The Expositor, August and October, 1908. It can indeed be shown that this law was throughout in harmony with what must have been the customs and conceptions of the Israelites at the age of the exodus (Rule, Old Testament Institutions). Professor Eerdmans in his
Alttestamentliche Studien, Part III (1910), vigorously defends the Mosaic origin of the Book of the Covenant.
The same critics bring down the date of the legislation of Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah, or at most a few years earlier. They affirm (wrongly) that the chief object of Josiah’s reformation narrated in 2 Kings 23 was the centralization of worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They rightly attribute the zeal which carried the reform through to the discovery of the “Book of the Law” (22:8). Then arguing that the frequent previous practice of worship at high places implied the non-existence of any law to the contrary, they conclude that the rule of Deuteronomy 12 was a rule recently laid down by the temple priesthood, and written in a book in Moses’ name, this new book being what was “found in the house of
Yahweh.” But this argument is altogether unsound: its grave difficulties are well set out in Moller’s Are the Critics Right? And here again careful study vindicates the Mosaic character of the law of Deuteronomy as a whole and of Deuteronomy 12 in particular. M. Edouard Naville in Lamentations decouverte de la loi sous le roi Josias propounds a theory which he supports by a most interesting argument: that the book found was a foundation deposit, which must therefore have been built over by masonry at the erection of the temple by Solomon.
Equally unsound, however plausible, are the arguments which would make the framing of the Levitical ritual the work of the age of Ezra. The
difficulties created by this theory are far greater than those which it is intended to remove. On this also see Moller, Are the Critics Right?
Rejecting these theories, it will be assumed in the present article that the various laws are of the dates ascribed to them in the Pentateuch; that
whatever may be said as to the date of some “of the laws,” all which are therein ascribed to Moses are truly so ascribed.
2. Groups of Laws in P (the Priestly Code):
The laws in P are arranged for the most part in groups, with which narrative is sometimes intermingled. These e.g. are some of the groups:
Exodus 25 through 31; Leviticus 1 through 7; 11 through 15; Numbers 1 through 4, etc. The structure and probable history of these groups are very interesting. That many of them must have undergone interpolation appears certain from the following considerations. Each of the groups, and often one or more paragraphs within a group, is headed by a recurring formula,
“Yahweh spake unto Moses (or unto Aaron, or unto Moses and Aaron), saying.” We might at first expect that the contents of each group or paragraph so headed would consist solely of what Yahweh had said unto Moses or Aaron, but this is not always so. Not infrequently some direction is found within such a paragraph which cannot have been spoken to Moses, but must have come into force at some later date. Unless then we reject the statement of the formula, unless we are prepared to say that Yahweh did not speak unto Moses, we can only conclude that these later directions were at some time inserted by an editor into paragraphs which originally contained Mosaic laws only. That this should have been done would be perfectly natural, when we consider that the purpose of such an editor would be not only to preserve (as has been done) the record of the original Law, but to present a manual of law complete for the use of his age, a manual (to use a modern phrase) made complete to date.
That the passages in question were indeed interpolations appears not only from the fact that their removal rids the text of what otherwise would be grave discrepancies, but because the passages in question sometimes disturb the sequence of the context. Moreover, by thus distinguishing between laws promulgated (as stated) by Moses, and laws to which the formula of statement was not intended to apply, we arrive at the following important result. It is that the former laws can all be shown to be in harmony one with another and with the historical data of the Mosaic age;
while the introduction of the later rules is also seen to be what would naturally follow by way of adaptation to the circumstances of later times, and the gradual unfolding of Divine purpose.
It would be much too long a task here to work this out in detail: it has been attempted by the writer of this article in Old Testament Institutions, Their Origin and Development. Two instances, however, may be mentioned.
Instances of interpolation — In Exodus 12:43 ff (English Revised Version) we read, “This is the ordinance of the passover: there shall no alien eat thereof; but every man’s servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof.” This was the original Mosaic rule introduced by the formula in 12:43. But in 12:48,49 it is said that sojourners (when
circumcised) may eat of the passover. This was plainly a relaxation of later date, made in accordance with the principle which is enlarged upon in Isaiah 56:3-8.
According to Leviticus 23:34,39a,40-42, the Feast of Tabernacles was a feast of seven days only. This was the Mosaic rule as appears from the formula in 23:33, and in certain other passages. But as a development in the feast’s observance, an eighth day was subsequently added, and therefore insertions to that effect were made here at 23:36 and 39b. The introduction of this additional day would be in keeping with that
elaboration in the observance of the “set feasts” which we find in Numbers 28 and 29, as compared with the simpler observance of the same days ordered in Leviticus 23. Here again the formula in Numbers 28:1 plainly covered a few verses immediately following, but not the whole content of the two chapters.
Premising then the existence in writing from an early age of numerous groups of Mosaic laws and their subsequent interpolation, the ultimate compilation of these groups together with other matter and their
arrangement in the order in which we now find them must have been the work, perhaps indeed of the interpolator, but in any case of some late editor. These numerous groups do not, however, make up the whole legislative contents of the Pentateuch; for a very large portion of these contents consists of three distinct books of law, which we must now examine. These were the “Book of the Covenant,” the “Book of the Law”
of Deuteronomy 31:26, and the so-called “Law of Holiness.”
3. The Book of the Covenant:
This book, expressly so named (Exodus 24:7), is stated to have been written by Moses (24:3,1). It must have comprised the contents of Exodus
20 through 23. The making of the covenant at Sinai, led up to by the revealing words of Exodus 3:12-17; 6:2-8; 19:3-6, was a transaction of the very first importance in the religious history of Israel. God’s revelation of Himself to Israel being very largely, indeed chiefly, a revelation of His moral attributes (Exodus 34:6,7), could only be effectively apprehended by a people who were morally fitted to receive it. Hence, it was that Israel as a nation was now placed by God in a stated relation to Himself by means of a covenant, the condition upon which the covenant was based being, on His people’s part, their obedience to a given law. This was the law contained in the “Book of the Covenant.”
It consisted of “words of Yahweh” and “Judgments” (Exodus 24:3 the King James Version). The latter are contained in Exodus 21:1 through 22:17; the former in Exodus 20, in the remaining portion of Exodus 22, and Exodus 23. The “judgments” (the American Standard Revised Version
“ordinances”) relate entirely to matters of right between man and man; the
“words of Yahweh” relate partly to these and partly to duties distinctively religious.
(1) Judgments. Compared with Code of Hammurabi.
The “judgments” appear to be taken from older consuetudinary law; not necessarily comprising the whole of that law, but so much of it as it pleased God now to stamp with His express sanction and to embody in this
Covenant Law. They may well be compared with those contained in the so-called Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon, who is thought to have been the Amraphel of Genesis 14. These are called “the judgments of
righteousness which Hammurabi the mighty king confirmed.” The
resemblances in form and in subject between the two sets of “judgments”
are very striking. All alike have the same structure, beginning with a hypothetical clause, “if so and so,” and then giving the rule applicable in the third person. All alike relate entirely to civil, as distinguished from religious, matters, to rights and duties between man and man. All seem to have had a similar origin in judgments passed in the first place on causes brought before judges for decision: both sets therefore represent
consuetudinary law.
(2) Basis of Law of Covenant. Earlier Customs.
It is remarkable that, alike in matters of right between man and man, and in matters relating directly to the service of God, the Law of the Covenant did
little (if anything) more than give a new and Divinely attested sanction to requirements which, being already familiar, appealed to the general conscience of the community. If, indeed, in the “words of Yahweh” there was any tightening of accustomed moral or (more particularly) religious requirements, e.g. in the first and second commandments of the Decalogue, it would seem to have been by way of enforcing convictions which must have been already gaining hold upon the minds of at least the more thoughtful of the people, and that in large measure through the lessons impressed upon them by the events of their recent history. In no other Way could the Law of the Covenant have appealed to their conscience, and so formed a foundation on which the covenant could be securely based.
As in the “judgments” we have a ratification of old consuetudinary law; as again in the second table of the Decalogue we have moral rules in
accordance with a standard of moral right — no doubt already
acknowledged — very similar indeed to that of the “negative confession”
in the Egyptian Book of the Dead; so in the more especially religious rules of the Law of the Covenant we find, not new rules or an establishment of new institutions, but a new sanction of what was already old. These “words of Yahweh” assume the rendering of service to Yahweh: they do not enjoin it as if it were a new thing, but they enjoin that the Israelites shall not add to His service also the service of other gods (Exodus 20:3; 23:24). They assume the observance of the three “feasts,” they enjoin that these shall be kept to Yahweh — “unto me,” i.e. “unto me only” (Exodus 23:14,17).
They assume the making of certain offerings to Yahweh, they enjoin that these shall be made liberally — “of the first,” i.e. of the best — and without delay (Exodus 22:29 f). They assume the rendering of worship by sacrifice, and the existence of an accustomed ritual, and therefore they do not lay down any scheme of ritual, but they give a few directions designed to guard against idolatry, or any practices tending either to irreverence or to low and false conceptions of God (Exodus 20:4-6,23-26; 22:31; 23:18 f).
While insisting upon the observance of the three “feasts,” spoken of as already accustomed, it is remarkable that they contain no command to keep the Passover, which as an annual observance was not yet an accustomed thing.
This absence of ritual directions is indeed very noticeable. It was in the counsel of God that He would in the near future establish a reconstituted ritual, based upon what was already traditional, but containing certain new elements, and so framed as more and more to foster spiritual conceptions
of God and a higher ideal of holiness. This however was as yet a thing of the future. No mention therefore was made of it in the Law of the
Covenant; that law was so restricted as that it should at once appeal to the general conscience of the people, and so be a true test of their desire to do what was right. This would be the firm basis on which to build yet higher things. It is impossible to estimate the true character of the subsequent legislation, i.e. of what in bulk is by far the larger part of the [torah] — except by first grasping the true character and motive of the Covenant, and the Covenant Law.
See also COVENANT, BOOK OF: PENTATEUCH.
4. The Book of the Law of Deuteronomy 31:
Immediately after the making of the Covenant, Moses was called up into the mount, and there received instructions for the erection of the
tabernacle, these being followed in due course by the rules of the
reconstituted ceremonial of which the tabernacle was to be the home. All these for the present we must pass over.
Having arrived on the East of the Jordan, Moses, now at the close of his career, addressed discourses to the people, in which he earnestly exhorted them to live up to the high calling with which God had called them, in the land of which they were about to take possession. To this end he embodied in his discourse a statement of the Law by which they were to live. And then, as almost his last public act, he wrote “the words of this law in a book,” and directed that the book should be placed “by the side of the ark of the covenant” (Deuteronomy 31:24-26). What now was this book? Was it Deuteronomy, in whole or in part? The most reasonable answer to this question is that the book actually written by Moses comprised at least the contents of Deuteronomy 5 through 26 and 28. Whether the whole or any parts of the remaining contents of Deuteronomy also formed part of this book, or were subsequently added to it, the whole being brought by a process of editing to our present Deuteronomy, is again a legitimate matter of inquiry.
Characteristics of Deuteronomy.
Regarding Deuteronomy 5 through 26 and 28 (with or without parts of other chapters) as the “book” of Deuteronomy 31:24-26, we find that it is a manual of instruction for the people at large — it is not a priest’s manual.
It deals with matters of morals, and of religion in its general principles, but
only subordinately with matters of ritual: it warns against perils of idolatry and superstitious corruptions, common in the service of other gods, but which might by no means be mixed up with Yahweh’s seryice: it insists upon righteous conduct between man and man, and very strongly inculcates humanity toward the poor and the dependent: it enjoins upon those in authority the impartial maintenance of right, as also fairness, moderation and mercy, in the administration of law and the infliction of punishment: it sets forth the fear of God as the guide of His people’s actions, and the love of God in response to His mercy toward them. It does not lay down any scheme of ritual, though it gives rules (Deuteronomy 4:3-21) as to things which might not be eaten as unclean; it also gives
directions as to the disposal of tithes (Deuteronomy 14:22-29; 26:12); it enlarges upon the direction in the Law of the Covenant for the observance of the three “feasts,” adding to this the observance of the Passover
(Deuteronomy 16); it lays down a law (expressed conditionally) restricting to one sanctuary the offering of at least the more solemn sacrifices
(Deuteronomy 12); and it frequently inculcates liberality toward the Levites, both on account of the sacred services rendered by them, their dispersal among the tribes, and the precarious character of their livelihood.
Like the Law of the Covenant it assumes the existence of an accustomed ceremonial, and it is remarkable that when there is occasion to do so it makes use of phraseology (Deuteronomy 12) similar to that of the ritual laws of Moses in Leviticus and Numbers.
It is quite possible that some interpolations may have been made in the text of Deuteronomy 5 through 26, but not on any sufficient scale to affect the general character of the original book. This “Book of the Law” then was an expansion of the Law of the Covenant, enforcing its principles, giving directions in greater detail for carrying them out, and setting them in a framework of exhortation, warning and encouragement. Thus, its relation to the covenant is indicated by Deuteronomy 26:16-19; 29:1. This is that
“book of the Law of Moses” of which frequent mention is made in the books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah.
5. The Law of Holiness:
In marked contrast to the numerous rules, sometimes intermingled with narrative, which we find in Exodus 25 through 40; Leviticus 1 through 16, and throughout Numbers, we have in Leviticus 17 through 26 a collection of laws which evidently was once a book by itself. This, from its constant
insistence upon holiness as a motive of conduct, has been called “the Law of Holiness.” Though it contains many laws stated to have been spoken by Yahweh to Moses, we are not told by whom it was written, and therefore its authorship and date are a fair subject of inquiry. In its general design it bears much resemblance to the Law of the Covenant, and the Book of the Law contained in Deuteronomy. As in them, and especially in the latter, the laws are set up in a parenetic framework, the whole closing with promise of reward for obedience and a threat of punishment for disobedience (compare Exodus 23:20-33; Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). Like them it deals much with moral duties: Leviticus 19 and 20 are practically an expansion of the Decalogue; but it deals also more than they do with ceremonial. With regard to both it sets forth as the motive of obedience the rule, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.”
A Clue as to Date
A clue to its date is to be found in its conception of cleanness. The idea found in the Prophets and the New Testament that moral wrongdoing renders unclean must be based upon some earlier conception, namely, upon the Old Testament conception of ritual uncleanness. Now ritual
uncleanness was originally physical uncleanness only; the idea of moral right or wrong did not enter into it at all: this is perfectly clear from the whole contents of Leviticus 11 through 15. On the other hand we find the idea of moral cleanness and uncleanness fully formed in the Psalms,
Proverbs, and in the Prophets, including the earlier prophets, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. In H (the Law of Holiness, Leviticus 17 through 26) we find an intermediate conception. We find that whereas in Leviticus 11 through 15 sexual acts which were lawful rendered unclean equally with those which were unlawful, in H, adultery and incest are denounced as rendering specially unclean, the idea being that their technical uncleanness became more intensely unclean through their immorality (Leviticus 18:24-30).
Similarly, converse with familiar spirits and wizards, which probably involved physical defilement (perhaps through the ingredients used in charms), is mentioned as specially causing defilement, probably as such technical defilement would be intensified by the unlawfulness of dealing with familiar spirits and wizards at all (Leviticus 19:31). Sins, however, which did not in themselves entail physical uncleanness, such e.g. as injustice, are not mentioned in H as rendering unclean, though they are so regarded in the Prophets. First, then, we have ritual uncleanness, which is physical only in the rules of Leviticus 11 through 15 (Mosaic rules