 
### Should Christians Keep Old Testament Laws?

Copyright 2014 Grace Communion International

Published by Grace Communion International

All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com  
The "NIV" and "New International Version" are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™

Cover illustration by Ken Tunell. Copyright Grace Communion International

**Table of Contents**

The Role of the Law in Christian Life

Six Reasons to Obey God

What Is the Law of God for Christians Today?

Appendix 1: Matthew 5:17-19 — How Did Jesus Fulfill the Law?

Appendix 2: Galatians 3:19 and Jeremiah 7:22 — Were the Sacrifices Added Later?

Appendix 3: Matthew 23:23 — Did Jesus Confirm the Law of Moses?

Can Old Covenant Worship Laws Become New Covenant Spiritual "Shadows"?

Comparison of Old and New Covenants

Has the New Covenant Been Made?

The New Covenant Is Older Than You Think

Are Old Testament Laws Still Binding on Christians?

Circumcision: A Test Case for Evaluating Old Testament Laws

Are Some Meats Unclean? A Look at the Old Testament Concept of Uncleanness

About the Authors

About the Publisher

Grace Communion Seminary

Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

## The Role of the Law in Christian Life

###### By Joseph Tkach

At the heart of Paul's theology, in the center of his good news message about Jesus Christ, is the doctrine of justification by faith. God accepts us when we believe in his Son — he accepts us as righteous on the basis of what Christ has done, not on the basis of what we have done.

This may be interpreted as bad news by people who think they've done pretty well. Such people tend not to like the idea that God would lower his standards and accept people who aren't as good as they are, who haven't tried as hard as they have.

However, this is incredibly good news for those of us who know that we have messed up pretty badly, and that we could never redeem ourselves, no matter how many good things we do. We realize there is no special merit in doing the things we should have done. We know we can never make up for the fact that we have let God down — all we can do is rely on his mercy.

### A demonstration of justice

The good news is that God has guaranteed that mercy. He sent his Son to die for us. Because of Jesus' death for us, God remains righteous even though he declares the wicked to be justified (Romans 4:5; 5:6). God presented Jesus "as a sacrifice of atonement...to demonstrate his justice" in leaving sin unpunished (Romans 3:25).

As odd as it may sound, the death of Christ was a demonstration of God's justice — because it shows that God has the right to forgive sin. In forgiving us, God does not just pretend that sin does not matter. Rather, he shows how much it matters by sending his Son to die for us, that is, by taking our sins upon himself. God has done everything that was needed so that he can justify the ungodly — he does not violate his own righteousness when he declares us righteous and acceptable.

This is grace. Since Christ died for us, we can be forgiven. Paul makes it clear that we are justified by faith (Acts 13:38; Romans 3:22, 26; 4:24; 5:1; etc.). We are accepted by God as his children — this is the heart of the good news of God's kingdom. We don't deserve it — it comes by grace — but it is guaranteed by God. The means of salvation is a gift of God (Ephesians 2:8).

### Which law to obey?

So far, so good, say some people. God brings you into his kingdom if you have faith. Now that you are here, they say, you should obey God. Specifically, you should obey the commandments he has given his people, commandments we find in the Holy Scriptures — clear commands regarding circumcision, festivals, Sabbaths, etc.

This was the Galatian heresy: false teachers said that Christians had to have both the old and the new covenants, both Moses and Christ, both law and faith, both merit and grace. It was an emphasis on continuity, on covenant faithfulness, on living by every word of God. It sounded logical, it sounded worshipful, but it was fundamentally flawed.

It is true that Christians should obey God, but the Law of Moses is the wrong law. The book of Galatians makes it clear that the Law of Moses is obsolete. Its authority has expired, and we are no longer "under the law." Paul even says that the Sinai covenant produced a religion of bondage (Galatians 4:24-25), but that Christians are free.

We are children of the promise, children of the free woman (3:29; 4:31). "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery" (5:1). If you try to be justified by the law, then you will be alienated from Christ, and you will have fallen out of grace (verse 4). Paul emphasizes that we "were called to be free" (verse 13).

Not only is the old covenant the wrong law, Paul's point is that we cannot be saved by any law. "If righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!" (Galatians 2:21). If a different law could have given us life, then God would have given us the life-giving law. But the very nature of law prevents it from giving us life. All a law can do is set forth requirements and prescribe penalties for failure. Since we all fail at some point, the law prescribes penalties. It cannot give us life.

Since we never achieve perfect obedience in this life, we can never look to law as a standard for salvation. We can never say, Grace covered my past sins, but now my salvation depends on my obedience. If that were true, we would all be doomed. Our acceptance with God is _always_ on the basis of grace and faith, and never on the basis of our obedience. We can never say that we deserve eternity with our Creator.

### Loyalty to God

What then is the role of law in a Christian's life? We know that Christians do not "sin deliberately so that grace may abound." We know that Christians want to please the God who saved them. We know that sin caused our Savior to suffer and die, so we do not want to have anything to do with sin. We want to obey God as best we can, even though we know we can't do it perfectly. We are obeying not because we earn anything through obedience, but because we love God and want to obey him. We are his children, not hired servants.

Our relationship with God is based on faith, not a list of rules. It is a personal loyalty to God, a loyalty that leads us to obey, but a loyalty that always looks directly to God, not to a list of rules as a gauge of our relationship. We never boast of obedience, nor despair of falling short. God has already made fully sufficient provision for justifying us even when we were wicked and ungodly.

When we are used to thinking of religion as a list of rules, Paul's teachings seem self-contradictory. If our salvation doesn't depend on the law, the reasoning seems to go, then why would anybody want to obey? Surely there has to be some kind of threat involved, or else the people of God would quickly jump into immorality. I exaggerate to make a point. The point is that we need to think about law in a different way, and we need to think of Christianity in a different way.

When people see laws and commands only in terms of reward and punishment, then they are naturally bewildered about the role of law when it is neither a basis of reward nor of punishment. Christ has removed it from such roles.

Why then should anybody obey? We need to reorient our thinking about law — away from thoughts of reward and punishment, away from a standard that we are measured by. We need to think of God's laws as a matter of personal loyalty, as integral and natural to a personal relationship.

### A new form of righteousness

God's law, which for us is the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21), provides forgiveness for every transgression (except that of rejecting the forgiveness provided by Christ). This forgiveness is received by faith, not by penance, not by good works, not by our paying a price (Romans 3:28). This is not the kind of "law" that we are used to.

Christianity is a faith, not a list of rules. It is a belief in God's grace, in his love, in his promise and power to forgive and cleanse. God grants his children not only forgiveness of sin, but also a new life — a life in Christ. Where once we lived for ourselves, now we live for Christ. And we do so because the Holy Spirit resides in us, not because we have suddenly become righteous ourselves.

The New Testament does give us rules and behavioral expectations, but these should be seen as the _result_ of a faith relationship, not as the _basis_ for it. They are not the measurement of our righteous standing before God — and that's good, because we all fall short. We have no righteousness of our own, but when we put our confidence in Christ, God counts us as righteous (Romans 4:23-25). We have peace with God, not directly ourselves, but through Christ (Romans 5:1-2).

There is now a new righteousness that God has made known (Romans 3:21). It is a righteousness that does not come from the law. It is a righteousness that comes only from God himself (verse 22). The law and the prophets testified to this new righteousness, but it does not come from them; it comes only from God (verse 21).

This new righteousness comes from God through faith, to all who believe. Everyone is a sinner, and the only way we can have righteousness, the only way we can have peace with God, is by God giving it to us (verses 22-23). All who believe are made righteous, or justified, freely, by God's grace through the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ (verses 23-24).

### The fruit of the Spirit

Our righteousness, then, is not really ours — it is Christ's. God attributes the righteousness of the only righteous human, Jesus, to us, if we are united to him by faith. More than that, he actually works in us to live righteously. That is why the good that Christians do is called "fruit of the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16-26). It is fruit of the Spirit because it is done only because God lives in us. The fruit is his, not ours.

God produces the fruit of the Spirit in us through faith, not because we "set our wills" or "try really hard" to be good. The root of righteous living is faith, not personal virtue. Sin is no longer our master, because we are not under law, but under grace (Romans 6:14).

We strive to be found in Christ (Philippians 3:7-9), not to be found personally good. Christians are not pursuing a righteousness of our own that comes from the law, but the righteousness that comes from God through faith in Christ (verse 9). When we pursue knowing and loving God, our lives will naturally (because God is at work in us) begin to produce righteous fruit. We can't become righteous by trying to become righteous; we can become righteous only by trusting God, who makes believers righteous.

When our minds are set on knowing and loving Christ, the Spirit brings forth righteous fruit in us (Romans 8:5). When our minds are set on the desires of sin, we bring forth fruit of sin. The way to righteousness is through faith, and faith is strengthened when we are spending our time with Christ. It is through Christ, and not through ourselves, that we fully meet the righteous requirements of the law (verses 3-4).

As Christ loved us, so we are to love one another (John 13:34-35). In this kind of love, the whole law is summed up (Galatians 5:14). That is why John sums up God's law for us (which Paul calls the law of Christ) in the commands that we are to believe in Christ and that we are to love one another (1 John 3:23-24). Only when our trust rests in Christ can we love one another as he loved us.

### Communion with Christ

It is only because we are in Christ that we are able to live righteously. And that is not because we can do so, but because he already defeated sin for us. It is God who makes us stand firm in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20). It is not our doing. All the glory is his because he has done every bit of it.

When we are in close communion, or fellowship, with Christ, we remember who we are and to whom we belong. We remember how destructive sin is, and that we have been set free from its power (Romans 8:1-4). We are inclined to heed the prompting of the Spirit and follow his lead (verses 12-16).

Our minds are led by the Spirit when we are spending time with Christ. But when we put our minds on the things of the sinful nature, we forget that we belong to Christ, that he has defeated the power of sin for us, that we are saved and that God loves us. All those things remain true, but our ability to see and believe them becomes clouded. In that condition, we are easy prey for the sinful nature.

We are no match for sin. It "so easily entangles" us, Hebrews 12:1 says. But when we are in Christ, the victory is already won. We do not have to let sin rule, because it no longer has power over us. How can we "throw off" sin? By keeping our eyes fixed on Jesus (verse 2), the author and the perfecter of our faith. Our "feeble arms" and "weak knees" (verse 12) receive strength when our time and attention are kept on knowing and loving Christ.

That is why spiritual disciplines such as Bible reading, prayer, meditation, simplicity, service, worship, etc. are so basic to the Christian life. These are means God has given us to stay "tuned into" the real truth about God and about ourselves: God loves us, we are his beloved children, he has saved us and he has freed us from the power of sin. Through such means, we remain "close to" God and have the courage to stand in the power of Christ's resurrection — power he has given to all his children (Romans 8:10-11).

God's grace and power are wonderful beyond description, brothers and sisters. May we continually grow in our faithful walk with our Lord, Savior and Teacher, Jesus Christ.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Six Reasons to Obey God

###### By Michael Morrison

If God saves us by grace, apart from the good works that we do (Titus 3:5), why should we obey him? If there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1) and our salvation is not in jeopardy, why should we struggle to obey?

**1.** The simplest reason is: It's our duty. Through his death on the cross, Christ has purchased us (Acts 20:28), and it is only fair that we do what he says. We are children of God, and we are to do what he commands. Of course, we do not obey in order to be saved. Salvation comes first, and obedience should follow. But obedience goes deeper than duty. Obedience should come from the heart, done because we want to, not grudgingly, because we have to. So why should we _want_ to obey? There are three main reasons: faith, hope and love.

**2.** In faith, we believe that God's commands are for our own good. He loves us and wants to help us, not to give us unnecessary burdens. As our Creator, he has the wisdom to know how we should live, what works best and what causes the most happiness in the long run. We have to trust him in that; his perspective is much better than ours. Obedience expresses faith in his wisdom and love. Obedience is what he made us for (Ephesians 2:10), and life works better if we are in tune with the way we were made.

**3.** Obedience also involves hope in a future blessing. If there is no future life, then Christianity would be foolish (1 Corinthians 15:14-18). Jesus promised that his disciples would find that eternal life is worth far more than anything they might have to give up in this age (Mark 10:29-30). Everyone who is saved will have the joy of knowing God forever, but there are also rewards in addition to eternal joy. Jesus encouraged his disciples to "store up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (Matthew 6:19-21). Several of his parables indicate that we will be rewarded for what we do in this life. God rewards those who seek him (Hebrews 11:6).

Paul also wrote about rewards: "The Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does" (Ephesians 6:8). This is not talking about salvation, but about rewards in addition to salvation. He described the judgment as a fire that tests the quality of every person's work. "If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward" (1 Corinthians 3:14). If it is burned up, he will lose it, but he will still be saved (verse 15).

**4.** But reward is not the only reason we work, for we are children of the King, not employees who do only what we get paid for. Our fourth motive for obedience is love. This includes love for God, and for the people around us, because they will be better off if we obey God than if we do not. God's instructions are sensible, not arbitrary rules. They help people get along with each other.

But most of all, it is our love for God that causes us to want to obey him. He has done so much for us, that we cannot help but be thankful and want to please him. "If you love me," Jesus says, "you will obey what I command" (John 14:15). "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching" (verse 23). John later wrote, "This is love for God: to obey his commands" (1 John 5:3). "The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar.... But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him" (1 John 2:4-5). When we are united to Christ, we will be more like he is.

**5.** Our love for God means that we want to bring him favorable publicity, so that others will come to love him, too. Obedience serves as a witness to God and the gospel. Obedience says that God is great and good and wise, and we adore him. Obedience says that God is important, that he is valuable, and that he deserves our loyalty. Let your good deeds be seen, Jesus said, so people can see them "and praise your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

A bad example will bring the gospel into disrepute (Titus 2:5). But a good example can help people be favorably disposed to God. "Live such good lives among the pagans," Peter wrote, "that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us" (1 Peter 2:12). "Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ" (Philippians 1:27). Help the gospel be associated with good things, not bad.

**6.** This is the life of the age to come. If we really want to enjoy life in eternity without lying, cheating, stealing and other such behaviors, if we really want that sort of life, then we want it _now,_ not just in the future. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit invite us into a life of love and goodness, not a life of selfishness and sin.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## What Is the Law of God for Christians Today?

###### By John Curry

In the King James Version, 1 John 3:4 defines sin as "the transgression of the law." John was referring to the law of God, but how do we define the law of God for Christians today? We know it can't be all of the laws of the Old Testament, because the New Testament shows that the sacrificial system has ended.

But what about other Old Testament laws? Are they as binding on Christians today as they were for Israelites before the coming of Jesus Christ? Which Old Testament laws does God command Christians to obey today?

A similar question troubled the early New Testament church, and even required a council of apostles and elders to address the issue. The conclusion of that council, with the writings of the apostle Paul and other New Testament authors, help us understand what God's law is for Christians today.

### The New Testament controversy

A controversy that troubled the early New Testament church was whether God required Gentile Christians to be circumcised and live according to the Law of Moses. The basic message of Paul to the Gentiles was that their salvation was a gift that came through faith in Jesus Christ, and that they were complete in him. Paul placed no demands on his converts that they be either circumcised or required to perform other Old Testament laws in order to be saved.

However, the position of some Jewish Christians was that "Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the Law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). Without the authorization of the apostles (verse 24), they had spread this disturbing message to certain Gentile congregations.1

This teaching implied that faith in Christ was not enough for salvation. These "Judaizers" wanted to combine the gospel of Christ with the observance of the Law of Moses. Their error was not that they substituted something for Christ's work, but that they tried to _add_ something to it. For them, salvation was not by faith alone: It was by faith in Christ _and_ obedience to the law.

Paul strongly resisted the idea that the Law of Moses was a requirement either to get salvation or to maintain it. He fought a running battle with these "Judaizers," whom he regarded as "false brothers" who had infiltrated the Gentile churches (Galatians 2:4). He wrote his epistle to the Galatian church to counter their teaching, which he labeled a "different gospel" (Galatians 1:6).

### Paul and the covenants

It is instructive to analyze how Paul responded to the heresy of the Judaizers in his letter to the Galatians. Although the focus of the Judaizers' message appears to have been on ritualistic parts of the Mosaic Law (particularly circumcision), one doubts they would have been content with Gentiles observing these laws only. Paul seems to anticipate this view in Galatians 5:3, where he makes the point that, in order to be consistent, those who submit to circumcision are "obligated to obey the whole law." The Mosaic covenant was a complete unit — submission to its laws could not be selective.

In countering the Galatian heresy, Paul did not limit himself to addressing only the ritualistic part of the Law of Moses. His strategy in his letter was to show that the entire old covenant (that is, the Mosaic covenant) had ended and has been replaced by a new covenant (Galatians 4:24–26). Christians now live under that new covenant and are not obligated to live according to the requirements of the old covenant. They are justified through faith in Jesus Christ, and justification does not require additional works of the law.2

Paul saw the new covenant as the fulfillment of the covenant God made to Abraham. This covenant, based on Abraham's faith and God's promise, was not set aside by the Mosaic "law" that came 430 years later (Galatians 3:17). Since the Mosaic covenant was added later, it could not disannul the promises made to Abraham.3

In Galatians 3:19, Paul asks what purpose the law served. He explains that it was "added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred [Jesus Christ] had come." What Paul means by "added because of transgressions" is not clear, but it may mean something like "to make wrongdoing a legal offence" (New English Bible) — that is, to explain more clearly what behaviors were wrong. (A further explanation of this verse, showing when the sacrifices were added, is found in Appendix Two.)

Paul goes on to explain the purpose of the old covenant law. It was to serve as a custodian or schoolmaster for the children of Israel "until faith should be revealed" (verse 23). In other words, the old covenant law was designed to keep them in the knowledge of God until Christ came, after which faith in Christ would prevail (verse 24). Paul concludes: "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (verse 25).

Paul saw the new covenant as a present reality for Christians, not a future hope.4 In Galatians 4 he figuratively contrasted the old and new covenants to illustrate where Christians' citizenship lies. The old covenant was represented by Hagar, who stands for Mount Sinai, which in turn corresponded to the city of Jerusalem (verse 25), then the center of Judaism.

The new covenant, on the other hand, was represented by the free woman (by implication, Sarah — see verse 22), who corresponds to "Jerusalem that is above." She "is free, and she is our mother" (verse 26). Paul concluded that as Christians, "We are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman" (verse 31). In other words, Christians are the freeborn children of the new covenant, not slaves of the old covenant.

Then in chapters 5 and 6, Paul explains the implications in one's behavior of living under the new covenant.

### The Jerusalem Council

Despite his vigorous efforts, Paul was not able by himself to stamp out the Judaizers' heresy.5 He therefore went to Jerusalem to have the church leaders settle the issue. This conference is recorded in Acts 15. After considerable discussion, Peter addressed the council. He explained how God gave uncircumcised Gentiles the Holy Spirit, thus revealing to Peter that God had accepted these people (verse 8). God "made no distinction between us [Jews] and them, for he purified their hearts by faith" (verse 9). After rebuking the Judaizers for testing God by putting a yoke on the Gentile believers, Peter announced: "No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are" (verse 11).

James agreed with Peter's conclusion, declaring that no salvation requirements should be placed on the Gentiles, besides their faith in Jesus Christ. However, James saw the need to ask Gentile converts to "abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood" (verse 20). The reason given for this ruling was because "Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath" (verse 21). Gentile Christians following these stipulations would not offend the sensibilities of those Jews living in the Gentile world who heard the law of Moses preached each week in their synagogues.

These stipulations appear to have been minimum rules for Gentile Christians, the observance of which would facilitate good relations with both non-Christian and Christian Jews. At least as far as the dietary restrictions may have been concerned, the need for these minimum standards was because of cultural differences. Jewish culture was based on the laws of the Mosaic covenant, while Gentile culture derived from paganism. Some aspects of Gentile culture were particularly offensive to Jews. Thus, Jews considered Gentiles "unclean" and avoided interactions with them as much as possible.

To overcome this stumbling block for Jews, the church asked Gentiles to avoid eating meat that had idolatrous associations, blood, and meat that had not been properly drained of blood. Because these dietary rules would facilitate good relations with the Jewish community and fellowship with Jewish believers, and were not given as requirements for salvation, Paul had no objection to asking Gentile Christians to observe them.

Despite the conclusions of this apostolic council, questions and controversies about the law of God for Christians continued to disturb the early church. Paul therefore continued to address the subject in letters he subsequently wrote to various churches and ministers.

### The new way of the Spirit

With this historical perspective from the early New Testament church in mind, we can now examine different views about the law of God for Christians.

If God has already made his new covenant with Christians, what effect does this have on their relationship to Old Testament law? Some might assume that it means a Christian must now fulfill the law not only according to the letter, but also according to its full spirit and intent. Thus, the demands of the law are intensified and are even more rigorous for a Christian.

This view assumes that much of the law of the old covenant is simply transferred into the new covenant, with the additional benefit of the Holy Spirit. Such a view is flawed, as can be seen in the example of circumcision. If God expects Christians to fulfill both the letter and spirit of the law, then all males must be physically and spiritually circumcised. The early New Testament church decisively rejected this conclusion at the Council of Jerusalem.

This position sees everything in terms of laws to be obeyed, with Jesus Christ providing the perfect example of obedience and the Holy Spirit providing the power to obey the laws. It inevitably leads to legalism because it focuses on law rather than on Christ.

The opposite of this view is that Christians are under "grace," and therefore all law is abolished. However, this leads to antinomianism (Romans 3:8), which Paul strongly rejected. Rather, he upheld the law (Romans 3:31) and made it clear that being under grace was not permission to sin (Romans 6:15–23).

The alternative to these extremes is that under the terms of the new covenant, a Christian's relationship to Old Testament law is _transformed_ rather than intensified or abolished. This is brought out in Romans 6 and 7. Paul explains that Christians "are not under law, but under grace" (6:14) and that they "died to the law through the body of Christ" (7:4). He writes,

#### By dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (7:6)

This is elaborated in 2 Corinthians 3, where Paul contrasts the administrations of the old and new covenants:

#### He [God] has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant — not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (verse 6)

So under the new covenant Christians serve in a "new way" — the way of the Spirit. The "old way" of the written code has been superseded. It has ended because the old covenant was a temporary system designed to act as a guardian for the nation Israel until the Messiah came. Humanity's relationship to God is no longer regulated by a written law code on tables of stone or in a book, as it was for ancient Israel. It is now based on faith in Jesus Christ (verses 22–24). "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law" (verse 25).

In what way is our relationship to old covenant law transformed through faith in Jesus Christ?

"Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes" (Romans 10:4). The Greek word _telos,_ translated as "end," can mean 1) termination," "cessation," or 2) "goal," "culmination," "fulfillment." In this verse, it is best understood in the latter sense, that Christ is the fulfillment of the law. He brought the law to completion by perfectly obeying its demands and by fulfilling its types and prophecies. Through his life and death, Jesus fulfilled all the righteous requirements of the law, thereby freeing Christians from the condemnation of the law.

A major purpose of God's law is to lead humans to Christ by convicting them of sin. But because believers are justified by Christ's righteousness, the law has no legal claim over them. After explaining in Romans 7 the accusatory nature of the law, and that rescue is through Jesus Christ, Paul writes,

#### There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1–2)

As its fulfillment, Jesus Christ transcends the law. This is what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17-19: "Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus' teaching does not abolish the Law or the Prophets, but brings them to their intended climax. (For a discussion on this passage, see Appendix One.)

In terms of the new covenant, the law no longer exists in the form of a written code apart from Jesus. God's law, in its spirit and intent, exists in Christ alone. He is greater than the law. The law kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). Fulfilling the law is through trusting _him_ rather than obeying an external written code.

Our spiritual connection with God is based on a personal relationship with Christ, not on obedience to an impersonal list of rules. Living faith can be to Jesus Christ only, because salvation is through him.

### The Law of Christ

In 1 Corinthians 9:20–21 Paul explains his approach in preaching the gospel, and in doing so he revealed which law he obeyed:

#### 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.

Paul describes himself as not being under the law. From the context it is obvious he means Mosaic Law, the law of the old covenant. But this does not mean he saw himself as without law. Paul was not free from God's law — he was now under "Christ's law." It is important to appreciate this distinction. The Mosaic Law was God's law for the nation of Israel under the old covenant. The "law of Christ" is God's law for Christians in the New Testament era. The two are not the same.

Serving in the new way of the Spirit rather than the old way of the written code is what Paul describes as fulfilling "the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:2). In Galatians he used the term in the context of bearing each other's burdens. Yet the thought behind the phrase encompasses all that Paul wrote concerning living in Christ. Fulfilling the law of Christ is the way of holiness, as opposed to legalism or antinomianism. According to Raymond T. Stamm,

#### This law of Christ is not a law in the legal sense of the word, but the life principle of all who take up his cross of creative suffering. (The Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon, 1953], vol. 10, 574)

Paul used the phrase "law of Christ" after writing about living "by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16, 25) as opposed to living "under law" (verse 18). Because the Galatian members were so enamored with law, Paul used the word _law_ in a way they had not anticipated. They were not under Mosaic Law, but they were under the law of Christ, which required them to bear each other's burdens.

In arguing against the position that Christians are no longer under the law, the Judaizers would claim that this would lead to antinomianism. Paul's response to this reasoning is summarized by John Montgomery Boice:

#### Finally, the opponents of Paul charged that the Gospel he preached led to loose living. By stressing the law, Judaism had stressed morality. Jews looked down on Gentile sin and excesses. But what would happen if the law should be taken away? Clearly, lawlessness and immorality would increase, the legalizers argued.

#### Paul replies that this is not true (chapters 5, 6). It is not true because Christianity does not lead the believer away from the law into nothingness. It leads him to Jesus Christ, who, in the person of the Holy Spirit, comes to dwell within him and furnishes him with the new nature that alone is capable of doing what God desires. The change is internal. So it is from within rather than without that the Holy Spirit produces the fruit that is "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" (5:22-23). Life in the Spirit is free from and above the kind of religion that would result in either legalism or license. It is true freedom — a freedom to serve God fully, unencumbered by the shackles of sin or regulations. (Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1976], vol. 10, 411)

Oscar Fisher Blackwelder comments:

#### All this, said Paul, is fulfilling the law of Christ. Law? After the struggle he had gone through to get the law properly placed in his thinking and in his own life, after getting the Galatians free from their entanglement with the law — why on earth did Paul turn again to that word? Was it to give the Galatians a totally new conception of law? Here law undoubtedly means for him the way of Christ, the principles on which the Christian life operates, the act itself of love, of putting into daily living all that he had written about burden-bearing and about the restoration of those who trespass. (The Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon, 1953], vol. 10, 579)

Equating the law of Christ with the way of Christ hearkens back to Jesus' parting words to the disciples before his death. Jesus said to them:

#### A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another. (John 13:34–35)

Jesus was expanding the injunction in Leviticus 19:18, which Paul quoted in Galatians 5:14, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Christians show they are disciples of Jesus Christ by loving one another as he loves them. The Gospels record how Jesus loved. He was not particularly concerned with the externalities of religious observance, but he was concerned with "the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness" (Matthew 23:23) and "the love of God" (Luke 11:42). He ministered to people in their suffering, he showed them the love of God through kindness, compassion and mercy, and he forgave their sins. They would fulfill the law of Christ by following the example and teachings of Jesus that he gave for the church.

F.F. Bruce identifies features of the law of Christ in Romans 12 and 13, showing how Paul reiterates major teachings of Jesus. He links them with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

#### Mutual love, sympathy and esteem within the believing brotherhood are to be expected, but this section [Romans 12:9–21] enjoins love and forgiveness towards those outside the brotherhood, not least towards its enemies and persecutors. (Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Eerdmans, 1991], 110)

Paul's conclusion concerning law is found in Romans 13:8–10:

#### Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

For Paul, a Christian's obligation was to love, and everything else was secondary. Regarding circumcision, for example, Paul wrote:

#### For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. (Galatians 5:6)

The Judaizers who wanted Gentiles to be circumcised and come under the Law of Moses were not motivated by love. Paul saw this, and called them false brothers (Galatians 2:4). They wanted to bring the Gentiles into a form of religious bondage under their control (Galatians 4:17; 6:13). Because their motivations were not right, they violated the law of Christ.

Fulfilling the law of Christ is people-oriented rather than task-oriented. It focuses on relationships, not works of law. The law of Christ cannot be imposed according to an externalized written code, because it is written in the heart of the Christian. A written code cannot encompass the law of Christ, because it would need to encompass Christ, which is impossible. Christ's law is an internal principle and way of godly living that produces "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22–23).

Under the old covenant, the Israelites lived according to the Law of Moses. Under the new covenant, Christians are to live according to the law of Christ. The difference is love generated by the Holy Spirit. It is possible to fulfill outwardly the Law of Moses without love in your heart. It is impossible to fulfill the law of Christ unless there is love in your heart.

### Legalism versus the Spirit

The result of attempting to relate to God through obedience to Old Testament law, or even to a "New Testament" set of rules, is to descend into legalism. Christianity becomes regulations. The gospel is reduced to a law system.

Just as old covenant Israelites knew what their obligations were by reading the law, so Christian legalists can look to their set of rules, whatever they may be, to know what they should do. The rules vary according to the religious tradition of the legalists. For some, it would be Sabbath and Holy Day observance, scrupulously setting aside tithes and avoiding "unclean meat." These behaviors are not wrong, but it is wrong to observe them in a legalistic manner, as the Pharisees did.

In other churches, the rules can include strict Sunday observance, no drinking of alcohol, no dancing or going to movies, vegetarianism, rejecting blood transfusions to save life, etc. Decisions are easier in this black-and-white approach, and it results in generally good behavior. But it omits the weightier matters of the law that require spiritual discernment and sometimes difficult decisions as to which principle is most important.

Legalistic rules also become the measuring stick by which behavior (both one's own and that of others') is judged as acceptable or deviant. Christians think that God is on their side, if only they follow the rules and perform their religious duties. The problem with this approach is that the legalists' faith is in their rules, and not in Christ to lead and teach them by his Spirit to understand the spiritual intent of the law. Often without realizing it, legalists rest in their own works instead of the redemptive work of Christ.

Christians today can choose to live according to Mosaic Law, just as Jewish Christians did in the first century. However, their law-keeping will not cause God to give them his Spirit and work miracles in their lives (Galatians 3:5). Nor will it lead them into a deeper understanding of spiritual truths, compared to those who live according to the law of Christ. The opposite may even be true, because the more that Christians rely on law to direct them, the less they rely on the Spirit. It seems that it is impossible to rely on law and the Spirit simultaneously — it's either one or the other.

This is the point Paul makes in Galatians 3:1–5. The Galatians had received the Spirit through believing in Christ, not through human observance of the law. Paul asks, "After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort?" (verse 3).

Can adherence to the Law of Moses work contrary to the law of Christ? Yes, it can. Consider the New Testament example of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3–11). The Law of Moses called for the death penalty by stoning (verse 5), but Jesus did not condemn her. Instead, he demonstrated kindness, mercy and forgiveness. This was an example of the law of Christ in action. God has replaced the administration of death by the "more glorious" administration of the Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:9) — old rules are set aside so that more important principles can prevail — in this case, mercy.

Another example is found in Matthew 12:1–8. In response to the Pharisees' accusations that Jesus' disciples were breaking the Sabbath by picking heads of grain, Jesus referred to the incident when David ate the consecrated bread from the tabernacle of God, something that was lawful for Levites only. However, because David was hungry and there was nothing else to eat, God did not regard his eating of the bread as sinful. David's actions were not lawful according to the Law of Moses, but because of the circumstances, he was blameless. Mercy is more important than strict obedience, which, in that case, could have imperiled human life (see verse 7).6 The lesson is that compassion is a better guide to godly behavior than blind adherence to rules.

Legalism continues to exist today in many denominational traditions — wherever Christians define and limit their dealings with others according to the rules of a written law code.

There is no doubt that Christian legalists are sincere in their emphasis on rules, though their thoughts and actions may be contrary to the law of Christ. Legalists are deceived in their belief that the letter of the law is most important to God and that God is more concerned with obedience to rules and regulations than with expressing the love of Christ in relationships. For legalists, law takes precedence over people. Legalists dishonor God's name when they make the genuine needs of people secondary to the letter of the law.

### Conclusion

Christians are called to live a holy life in obedience to Christ. They are to live by every word of God as it applies to them. The law system applying to Christians is not the law of the Old Testament, but the law of Christ. It is not a written code that one defines by rules and regulations. It is the application of God's living law of love that affects every area of our lives.

This does not mean that Christians discard Old Testament law as if it has no relevance to them today. There is much relevance because it expresses the will of God for a particular people during a particular age. The principles underlying many Mosaic laws are valid for Christians today. As D.J. Moo observes:

#### Jesus never attacks the Law and, indeed, asserts its enduring validity. But it is only as taken up into Jesus' teaching, and thus fulfilled, that the Law retains its validity. The Law comes to those living on this side of the cross only through the filter of its fulfillment in Christ the Lord. ("Law," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 450)

Often the application of the law of Christ coincides with laws and principles in the Old Testament. Sometimes it does not. But whenever there is a conflict between them, the law of Christ prevails because it more fully expresses the will of God.

### Endnotes

1 Why circumcision was so important to Jews is explained by Unger:

#### Circumcision became the external token of the covenant between God and his people. It secured to the one subjected to it all the rights of the covenant, participation in all its material and spiritual benefits; while, on the other hand, he was bound to fulfill all the covenant obligations. (Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary [Moody, 1974], 207)

2 Paul also makes this point in Ephesians 2. After explaining that salvation is not by works but is a gift through faith in Jesus Christ (verses 8-9), Paul goes on to show that the Gentiles who were excluded from citizenship in Israel and from the covenants of promise (verse 12) have now been brought near through the blood of Christ (verse 13), thereby "abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations," which had been a dividing barrier between Jew and Gentile (verse 15). Consequently, Gentiles "are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household" (verse 19).

3 F.F. Bruce writes,

#### The gospel was the fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham, which antedated the law by centuries. Abraham, whose faith in God was counted to him for righteousness, was the prototype of all who are justified by faith. The [Mosaic] law was a parenthetical dispensation, introduced to serve a temporary purpose, but was rendered obsolete by the coming of Christ, the true offspring of Abraham, in whom the promises and their fulfillment were embodied" (F.F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free [Eerdmans, 1977], 182; emphasis ours).

4 One view is that God _is making,_ not _has made,_ his new covenant with Christians, and that Christians live under the terms of the new covenant. However, the typology of the old covenant argues against this view. God made the Mosaic covenant with Israelites at Sinai shortly after they came out of Egypt, even though many of the covenantal promises were not fulfilled for 40 or more years. God was not _making_ his covenant with them during the decades in the wilderness — it had already been made and sealed in blood at Sinai (Exodus 24:8).

Likewise, God has already made his new covenant with Christians, even though they have not received the fulfillment of all its promises. The covenant requires faith precisely because the promises are not yet fulfilled, but the promises have been given and the covenant has been made. The agreement and relationship has been established. God makes his new covenant with individuals when they repent of their sins and are forgiven through their faith in the blood of Christ. He then seals them with the down payment of the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of their eternal reward (2 Corinthians 1:22; 5:5; Ephesians 1:13–14).

5 Commentators differ as to when Paul wrote Galatians. According to the North Galatian Theory, Galatians was written between A.D. 53 and 57. An alternative view is that Galatians was written to the Christians living in the southern area of the Roman province of Galatia, in 48-49. If this second view is correct, then the epistle was probably written before the apostolic council discussed the issue. This would seem to explain why in Galatians Paul did not refer to the decision of the council.

6 It is sometimes argued that Jesus was showing that human need takes precedence over obedience to the law. However, this idea misses the purpose of biblical law. According to D.J. Moo:

#### Jesus is not claiming that one can break the Sabbath command when human needs dictate, but that the Sabbath command itself must be so understood as to include this basic purpose in its promulgation. The Sabbath is truly obeyed only when its intention to aid human beings is recognized and factored into one's behavior. This is why, rather than being a violation of the Law, Jesus' Sabbath-Day healing of a woman was a true fulfillment of that law ("it was necessary" [edei] that she be healed on the Sabbath: Lk 13:16).

#### For Jesus, then, love for God and for others, being basic to God's intention in giving the Law, must always be considered in interpreting the meaning of that Law. (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press], 1992, 453)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Appendix One:  
Matthew 5:17–19 — How Did Jesus Fulfill the Law?

In Matthew's account of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

#### Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17–19)

People have frequently appealed to these scriptures as proof that "the law" continues to be binding on Christians today. This is usually in response to the claim that Jesus did away with some aspect of the law by his death on the cross. For them, the meaning is that Jesus came to show what the law really means; or that Jesus fulfilled the law by obeying it perfectly, thus setting the perfect example for Christians to follow as they, too, fulfill the law.

There are problems with interpreting Matthew 5:17–19 in these ways. Note, first, that in verse 17 Jesus was speaking of the Law _and the Prophets,_ not of the Law only. Jesus did not restrict what he had come to fulfill to the Mosaic Law code. He said he also came to fulfill the prophetic writings.

Second, Jesus said that "not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished" (verse 18). If Jesus meant by "the Law" the Mosaic Law code, then even the most minor law of the old covenant has ongoing validity. This would mean that every ceremonial and sacrificial law continues to be binding on Christians. Few, if any, Christians believe that they must obey all the laws of the old covenant that God gave to the nation of Israel more than 3,000 years ago.

Therefore, what did Jesus mean when he said that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, and that nothing would disappear from the Law until all is accomplished?

Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets by bringing them to their intended climax in himself. He fulfilled and continues to fulfill in himself all the types and prophecies of the Old Testament that pointed to him. Jesus made this clear after his resurrection. On the road to Emmaus with two of the disciples, Jesus revealed that everything that had recently happened in Jerusalem was spoken of by the prophets. "Beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself" (Luke 24:27).

Shortly afterwards Jesus appeared to the assembled group of apostles and disciples in Jerusalem. He said to them,

#### This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. (verse 44)

Luke here records Jesus as saying he fulfilled all three parts of the Old Testament — the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. (Psalms are representative of the Writings, as they are the first book of the third section of the Hebrew Old Testament.) It appears that "the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 5:17), "Moses and all the Prophets" (Luke 24:27), and "the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (Luke 24:44) are synonymous terms for "all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27).

In verse 18 of Matthew 5, Jesus makes the point that nothing will disappear from the Law until all is accomplished. What did he mean by "the Law" here? It is unlikely Jesus meant merely the Mosaic Law code. That is because verse 18 builds on what Jesus said in verse 17. To repeat the full phrase "the Law and the Prophets" was unnecessary. "The Law" here represents all the Old Testament writings.1

The fulfillment ("until everything is accomplished") takes place in the ministry, passion, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus. We can then take Jesus' words literally, rather than having to make artificial distinctions about what laws Jesus may have had in mind that would not disappear. In Matthew 5:18 Jesus was emphasizing that nothing in the Old Testament that pointed to him could fail to occur.

Then Jesus proceeded to say that:

#### Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (verse 19)

What commandments was Jesus referring to here? Did he mean all the commands of the Old Testament, from the least to the greatest? If so, then the early church was wrong in concluding that physical circumcision was unnecessary to become a Christian. The answer is found in the context of the preceding verses, and in those that follow — the Sermon on the Mount. The commandments of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Christ (Romans 10:4), and as such are redefined and magnified according to his teaching.

Some laws of the old covenant, through their fulfillment in Christ, are not binding on Christians today. They include the ceremonial and sacrificial laws that foreshadowed Christ (Hebrews 10:1). However, other laws do have application in the life of the Christian. In Matthew 5:21–48, Jesus illustrated how certain old covenant commandments now applied through their fulfillment in him. He did not, as some people claim, make Old Testament laws "more binding," so that Christians now obey according to both the letter and the Spirit, thereby enabling them to surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees (verse 20). Rather, he _redefined_ the law of God and showed its full spiritual intent. He established the spirit of the law as the norm for Christian behavior instead of the letter of the law (Romans 7:6).

Sometimes the letter of the law and the spirit of the law complement one another, as in Jesus' teaching about murder and adultery (Matthew 5:21–30). With other laws, Jesus' spiritual teaching overrides the letter of the law, as in divorce (verses 31–33). Elsewhere in the Gospels we read of Jesus' application and defining of the law of God as fulfilled in him.

Thus, we should not see in Matthew 5:17–19 Jesus' confirmation of the law of the old covenant as the law of God for Christians. Rather, Jesus explained that he fulfills in himself everything to which the Old Testament Scriptures point. He illustrated how the law of God given to Israel is transformed through its fulfillment in him.

Scot McKnight captures the essence of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount:

#### In using his own teachings as the basis for righteousness, Jesus revealed that the OT Law and Prophets (Mt 5:17) were being fulfilled in his own teachings and that he is the Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the Law and so revealed a new standard of conduct (Mt 5:20). From the cross onward, the righteousness of God's people is determined by conformity to the teachings of Jesus, which in turn fulfill the OT revelation of God's will. Jesus expects his followers to be righteous in their conduct (Mt 5:6, 10), to do God's will (Mt 7:12, 13–27) and to pursue justice (Mt 23:23 [ _krisis_ ]; 25:37; Jn 7:24).

#### According to Jesus, only those who are righteous are finally acceptable to God (Mt 10:41; 12:37; 13:43, 49; 25:46; Lk 14:14; Jn 5:30). Again, this righteousness is not an outward conformity to the Law or an appeal to ritual observances, but the necessary fruit of commitment to Jesus as Messiah and Lord. Jesus illustrated the link between commitment and obedience at the end of his Sermon on the Mount: "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them...." (Mt 7:21–27). ("Justice, Righteousness," Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 413)

### Endnote

1 In John 10:34, John quotes Jesus as using the term _Law_ to refer to the entire Old Testament. Jesus asked the Jews, "Is it not written in your Law?" and then quoted Psalm 82:6. In this instance Jesus referred to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, not just the Pentateuch. See also John 12:34 and 15:25.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Appendix Two: Galatians 3:19 and Jeremiah 7:22 —  
Were the Sacrificial Laws Added Later?

Some churches teach that the laws of the old covenant apply to Christians today (except for the sacrificial laws). Christians are to obey these laws, not in the strictness of the letter, but according to their full spirit and intent. Thus, they teach the ongoing validity of old covenant laws such as the first, second and third tithes. One scripture sometimes used in support of this idea is Galatians 3:19a, where the apostle Paul wrote:

#### What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

"The law" here is equated with the _sacrificial_ law system that was part of the Law of Moses. This part of the Law of Moses was supposedly not part of the covenant made at Sinai, as recorded in Exodus 20–23. Rather, it was "added because of transgressions." Because the Israelites sinned after the initial giving of the law, God gave them a regulated system of worship. It began about one year after the making of the Sinai covenant. The idea is that this is the law that came to an end when Christ came, and that all other old covenant laws are still in force.

The major weakness in this interpretation of Galatians 3:19 is that Exodus gives no indication that the sacrificial law was added to the covenant. Rather, the sacrificial system was an intrinsic part of the old covenant. God spoke of sacrifices even before the Israelites reached Sinai; they were part of the plan all along (Exodus 10:25; 20:24). Although the sacrifices began about one year after the covenant was made, preparations for them began almost immediately afterwards. It was not possible to begin the sacrifices without first building the tabernacle, instituting the priesthood, etc. (Exodus 25–40). Once these preparations were completed, the sacrifices began.

Jeremiah 7:22 is sometimes used to support the idea that sacrifices were a secondary addition. The New King James Version reads,

#### For I did not speak to your fathers, or command them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

This verse seems to support the idea that the sacrificial system was added later. However, according to Charles L. Feinberg, this verse illustrates the role that rhetorical negatives play in Hebrew. They highlight points of emphasis. The thing spoken of negatively is not literally being denied. Its rhetorical denial emphasizes the greater importance of that with which it is contrasted. One needs to understand this idiom to grasp Jeremiah's argument.

#### A rhetorical negation is used to point up antithesis between [Jeremiah 7] v.22 and v.23 more emphatically (cf. Deut. 5:3). Moreover, the negative in Hebrew often supplies the lack of the comparative — i.e., without excluding the thing denied, the statement implies only the prior importance of the thing set in contrast to it (Hos. 6:6). In short, the Hebrew idiom permits denial of one thing in order to emphasize another (cf. for a NT parallel Luke 14:26). The idiom does not intend to deny the statement but only to set it in a secondary place. (Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1986], vol. 6, 431)

A close examination of Feinberg's references to Deuteronomy 5:3 and Hosea 6:6 confirm his point. In Deuteronomy, Moses says that God did not make the old covenant with the fathers (or perhaps ancestors) of those who were about to enter the Promised Land. But that's exactly what God did. In Hosea, God says to old covenant Israel that he does not desire sacrifices. In truth, under the old covenant, he did. As Feinberg has commented, these are not falsehoods, but rhetorical negatives to emphasize the things with which the negatives are compared. Further on Feinberg writes:

#### Judah had left out the main element: obedience to God. In view of the passages just cited, and in view of the Pentateuchal legislation, sacrifices were always meant to be of secondary importance to obedience and godliness. Neither Jeremiah nor any other prophet decried sacrifices as such. They meant that moral law is always paramount to the ritual law. (ibid.)

The _New International Version_ seems to capture the intent of Jeremiah 7:22 (emphasis ours): "For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not _just_ give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices."

This verse does not support the erroneous explanation of Galatians 3:19. In Galatians Paul teaches that the entire old covenant has come to an end through Christ. Paul is not referring to the sacrificial part of the Law of Moses only. There are many non-sacrificial laws of Moses that no longer apply, such as the law to wear tassels on garments, to travel to one central worship location for the annual festivals, etc.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Appendix Three: Matthew 23:23 —  
Did Jesus Confirm the Law of Moses for Christians?

A verse sometimes quoted to support the idea that the law of the old covenant is binding on Christians today is Matthew 23:23. Here Jesus said of the scribes and Pharisees:

#### Woe to you, teachers of the law, and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.

The focus is put on the last sentence of the verse, "You should have practiced the latter...." Jesus' words are interpreted to mean that Christians should practice the more important matters of the law without neglecting lesser laws, such as the old covenant laws of tithing.

While tithing is a valid biblical model for voluntary giving to the church to support the preaching of the gospel, this verse does not support the view that Jesus here confirmed the ongoing validity of old covenant law. Those who hold this interpretation overlook the context in which Jesus said these words.

Jesus was speaking to people who were under the old covenant. This covenant applied to them, and God required them to live by its terms. Verse 23 records part of Jesus' condemnation of Pharisaic legalism (see the entire chapter). Among other things, the Pharisees were meticulous about fulfilling the letter of the law in their tithing, but ignored the weightier matters of the law. Yes, they should have been tithing as commanded in the Mosaic covenant, but they should have also been showing such things as love, justice and mercy.

Another illustration of Jesus commanding a person to fulfill the requirements of the Law of Moses is found in Mark 1:40–43. In this instance, Jesus healed a leper and said to him:

#### See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing as a testimony to them.

Just because Jesus instructed this man to offer sacrifices according to the requirements of the Mosaic Law does not mean that his words have universal applicability for Christians. The context determines the application. Jesus was speaking to a Jew under the old covenant. God does not require a Christian healed of leprosy to offer sacrifices as Jesus instructed this man. The Christian is under the new covenant, and different conditions apply. Matthew 23:23 was spoken to Jews under the old covenant; we cannot assume that its instructions apply to Christians today.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Can Old Covenant Worship Laws  
Become New Covenant Spiritual "Shadows"?

###### By Paul Kroll

The Christian Sabbath is life in Jesus Christ, in whom every believer finds true rest. The weekly seventh-day Sabbath is a shadow that prefigured the true Reality to whom it pointed – our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

We publish a booklet titled _The Christian Sabbath: Divine Rest in Christ_. The booklet examines in detail the theological underpinning for the conclusion that the Sabbath for Christians is not a day of the week that needs to be made "holy" by physical rest from labor. It demonstrates that the Sabbath rest is only a "shadow" – or we could say metaphor – for the life that believers enter through faith in Christ. In their "Sabbath rest," Christians enjoy the real thing – eternal life as a gift of God – to which the physical old covenant Sabbath rest could only point.

We can understand why some Sabbatarians would not be comfortable with such an understanding of the Sabbath, even when the underlying theology sounds right. If a person has been taught for years that the Sabbath rest or some other Mosaic law should be kept _literally_ , it might be difficult to accept that this command – stated with such forcefulness in the Ten Commandments and the Law of Moses (Exodus 31:12-17) – should have only _figurative_ meaning for Christians.

Is it scripturally valid to claim that the Mosaic physical Sabbath rest is _only_ a metaphor of spiritual reality, thus negating the need for participation in a seventh-day rest from labor? Is there New Testament precedent for interpreting Old Testament worship commands as being only "shadows" representing a spiritual truth in Christ?

What could ease or eliminate the Sabbatarians' concern over the teaching that the Sabbath rest has only "shadow" value for Christians? Perhaps if they could see examples of Old Testament commands being interpreted in a figurative way by the apostles who wrote and influenced the New Testament writers, they might be more receptive to the metaphorical understanding of the Sabbath rest. The purpose of this article, then, is to show that a number of commands in the Law have only "shadow" or figurative meaning – pointing to Christ – under the new covenant.

### Some general considerations

We start with the assertion by the apostle Paul in Colossians 2:16-18 that the Mosaic annual festivals, New Moon celebrations and weekly Sabbath day "are a shadow of the things that were to come," the reality of which "is found in Christ." That Paul is referring to a three-fold series of old covenant practices is clear. They are referred to in this way throughout Israel's history as weekly Sabbaths, New Moon festivals and "appointed feasts." Please see the following passages as examples: 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 8:12; 31:3; and Isaiah 1:13.

The book of Hebrews refers to the law of Israel as a body of law (most specifically, temple worship and the sacrificial system) that was figurative of spiritual truths to come. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves," says Hebrews 10:1. The discussion that follows in Hebrews 10 makes it clear that the entire temple service with its sacrifices pointed to the One Sacrifice for sin carried out by Jesus in his death.

Hebrews quotes from Exodus 24:8: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am – it is written about me in the scroll – I [Christ] have come to do your will, O God'" (Hebrews 10:5-7).

The Holy Scriptures of the Jewish nation, or the Christian Old Testament, have many things to say that foreshadow Jesus Christ and his redemptive work. These Scriptures refer to a reality that would be fulfilled in Christ. This is discussed in several places in the New Testament.

Luke records the following words of Jesus to two disciples after his resurrection:

#### He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself (Luke 24:25-27)

Later, when Jesus was eating with his disciples, he said,

#### This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. (verse 44)

Whatever it was in the Holy Scriptures that referred to Christ and his redemptive work had to be specifically pointed out and explained by Jesus. This implies that it was not immediately evident that what was _literally_ expressed in the Old Testament applied to Jesus in a _figurative_ way. It would be a mistake to restrict the meaning of these Old Testament verses to the literal meaning.

The Gospel of John records a teaching about the content of the Holy Scriptures that is in the same vein as Luke's commentary. In John, Jesus is shown as telling the Jewish religious leaders the following:

#### You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me.... Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say? (John 5:39, 45-47)

As a principle of biblical interpretation, then, we can see that it is proper to understand literal statements of various kinds in the Old Testament as applying in a "shadow" or figurative way to Jesus and his redemptive work. The question that follows is, can we see examples of literal commands in the Law that apply to Christians only in a spiritual way? The answer is yes.

### Law of circumcision

Let's begin with the command in the Old Testament that most obviously doesn't literally apply to Christians. This law preceded the Law of Moses by a few centuries, but was incorporated into that law (Leviticus 12:2-3).

We read in Genesis 17 of God's command to Abraham to have every male in his household physically circumcised (verse 10). Just as the weekly Sabbath was a sign of the Sinai covenant (Exodus 31:12-13), circumcision was to be a "sign" of the covenant between Abraham and God (verse 11). More than that, circumcision was to be "an everlasting covenant" (verse 13). So important was this command from God, that he would have prevented Moses from leading the Israelites into the Promised Land – to the point of killing him – if he did not have his son circumcised (Exodus 4:24-26).

Let's consider the importance and binding nature of the law of circumcision. It was given as a command for Abraham's descendants long before the Law of Moses was codified. Its authority, therefore, existed prior to, outside of and beyond the Law. It was given to Abraham, the father of the faithful, not just to the nation of Israel. Circumcision was to be an "everlasting" practice. It was a "sign" of the covenant in the same way that the Sabbath was. It _could_ be argued that circumcision as a literal practice had _greater_ authority than the Sabbath rest and the other commands of the Mosaic Law.

It is no wonder that circumcision became a controversy in the apostolic church. In the church council around A.D. 49, which decided the question of whether Gentile Christians must keep Mosaic worship practices, some Jewish believers said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses" (Acts 15:5). (Since Jewish Christians would have already been circumcised, the question of whether they needed to undergo this practice under the new covenant did not come up.)

The church decided against this claim. This was a paradigm shift in how the church came to understand the role of the Law in the Christian life. Here was a command that came before the Law of Moses, was commanded by God to be an "everlasting covenant" and became a defining sign of God's people. Yet, the church leadership said it did not need to be practiced by Christians! On what Scriptural considerations was the decision made?

From the apostle Paul's writings, we can see that the church come to understand that Christian circumcision was of the heart, not a literal cutting away of the foreskin. There are a number of references to this point in his writings, but let us consider Romans 2:28-29:

#### A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code [that is, by the law code of the old covenant given by God to Israel]."

In Philippians, Paul wrote: "For it is we [the church] who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (3:3). He says in Colossians 2:11, "In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ."

The church understood that literal circumcision – though it had been anciently and strongly commanded by God for Abraham and his descendants – was not necessary for Christians. Circumcision was to be understood figuratively, or as a "shadow," of Christ's spiritual work. That is to say, Christians are spiritually circumcised through the redemptive work of Christ and in the work of the Holy Spirit.

### The Passover ceremony

Another important and strongly commanded worship practice of Israel under the Law of Moses was the Passover ceremony. It is first described in Exodus 12 along with the Festival of Unleavened Bread, while Israel was still preparing to leave Egypt. The Passover also technically antedates the giving of the Law of Moses, but was incorporated into the commanded annual observances for Israel (Leviticus 23:5; Numbers 28:16; Deuteronomy 16:1-8). The Passover festival was given only about two months before the Mosaic covenant was ratified on Sinai (compare Exodus 12:1-2, 6 with 19:1-2, 10, 16 and 24:1-8).

The Passover was considered one of the most important observances in Israel. So important was the Passover that provision was made in the Law for keeping the festival in the second month by Israelites who were unable to keep it at its normally scheduled time on the 14th day of the first month (Numbers 9:1-14).

The Gentile church did not keep the literal Passover practice of eating roast lamb with bitter herbs. Rather, Jesus had instituted what we call "the Lord's Supper," with its symbols of the bread and wine, as a premier worship practice for the church. There is no mention in the Gospels of a sacrificial lamb or bitter herbs in the "Passover" meal that Jesus ate with his disciples on the night of his arrest.

The church understood the literal old covenant Passover worship practice in a figurative way, not as a literal practice to be observed. Virtually nothing is said in the New Testament of the Mosaic Passover, except that the Gospels point out its celebration occurred during the time when Jesus was crucified and buried. This suggests that the Jewish Passover as a practice did not hold much significance for the church.

In one statement by the apostle Paul, we see that the old covenant Passover ceremony was thought of in a figurative way as a "shadow" pointing to Jesus Christ. Paul said, "For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed" (1 Corinthians 5:7). Christ did it, and so the believers did not need to do it in a literal way.

### Temple worship

Temple worship (and before that, worship around the moveable tabernacle) was the cornerstone of the Israelites' worship life. All the annual festivals of Israel were to be observed at the place where God "will choose as a dwelling for his Name" (Deuteronomy 16:2, 5, 11, 16), which originally was wherever the tabernacle stood, and later at the temple in Jerusalem.

Sacrifices were offered daily and on special occasions at the temple (Leviticus 23). The Levites and priests served in various capacities, carrying out the duties as prescribed in the Law of Moses. They were the central actors in the worship life of Israel under the old covenant (Hebrews 9:1-6). Without a literal priesthood, there was no worship life for Israel. But their work depended on a "holy place," in and around which they could do their work. This was, as mentioned above, the moveable tabernacle, and since the days of Solomon, the temple in Jerusalem, the city that God chose for his name.

All these aspects of Israel's worship life were quite literal, that is to say, they were physical practices carried out by the priesthood and the people. But with the coming of the new covenant, the temple and the "holy work" carried out were seen to be "shadows" pointing to Jesus and his redemptive work.

Jesus had explained that his people would not be doing physical acts of worship at the temple in Jerusalem. There would be no such thing as a "holy place" in the coming church age. Jesus told the Samaritan woman at the well:

#### Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain [Gerizim] nor in Jerusalem.... A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth. (John 4:21-24)

With one statement, Jesus was eliminating the significance of the entire worship system of Israel, as described in the Law of Moses. Since almost every aspect of Israel's worship was in one way or another centered on the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus' statement implies that a wide range of worship practices are no longer required in a literal way.

If Jesus' true worshipers would not be worshiping at Jerusalem, they could not be taking their cues for worship from the Law of Moses, since it was dependent on the existence and use of the temple. For example, the annual festivals, as mentioned earlier, were to be observed at the place where God chose to place his name. If no such place existed, there would be no _lawful_ way to observe the festivals.

Jesus was also "spiritualizing" true worship. His words imply that worship did not consist of doing physical things – offering sacrifices, resting from labor, doing homage to the temple as a physical building where God's "presence" rested, observing days in Jerusalem, and so forth. Worshipers would be worshiping God "in spirit and truth." When understood in the context of all that transpired in Jesus' life and in his teachings, that statement alone points to a "shadow" understanding of old covenant worship practices.

This is why the church leaders, instructed by Jesus, led by the Spirit, saw that it was right to understand all the elements of old covenant physical worship only in terms of how it pointed to Jesus, his redemptive work and the church.

### Temple, high priest and Day of Atonement

Let's continue with a few other, interrelated examples of Mosaic institutions and practices that had only symbolic value for the church.

The physical temple in Jerusalem, in symbol, comes to stand for the new people of God in Christ. "Don't you know that yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?" asks the apostle Paul. "If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple" (1 Corinthians 3:16-17). In the physical temple in Jerusalem, God's presence was in the inner sanctum, the Most Holy Place. In the new covenant, this is understood to be a "shadow," figurative of a more real dwelling of God within his people, the church.

Another example is the high priest of ancient Israel. In the old covenant, the high priest was the most important religious figure of the nation – a human being who carried out vital religious acts of Israel's religious life (Hebrews 9:7). But for the church he was only a symbolic and figurative representation of Jesus Christ. Jesus is our high priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1), who has "entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood" (Hebrews 9:12).

The Day of Atonement was the most holy annual Sabbath of the Hebrew calendar. On that day, the high priest went into the temple to perform a special sin-cleansing ritual (Leviticus 17). It was an "annual reminder of sins," but it was of no value in itself because the blood of animals cannot take away sins (Hebrews 10:3). It was only a shadow that pointed to Jesus, our high priest and atoning Savior who "offered for all time one sacrifice for sins" (verse 12).

Here, then, we see that the observance of the holiest Sabbath day of all for Israel became only symbolic of the real, spiritual work of Jesus in cleansing and saving us. In particular, the offering the high priest made on behalf of the people and his entry into the Most Holy Place, allowed only once a year on Atonement, was symbolic of the fact that Jesus Christ is our High Priest and Mediator between God and his people, who are made clean by Jesus' atoning work. Through Jesus' atoning work we are cleansed of sin and able to come into the presence of God.

Jesus is our atoning High Priest. The sacrifices offered under the Mosaic covenant were but "shadows" pointing to his real cleansing work. The book of Hebrews is a sustained discussion of how the worship practices of Israel, in particular the work of the Levitical priesthood, point to the reality of Jesus. Once the Reality has arrived and completed his work, there is no longer a need for participating in the old covenant works and practices. They have no value in themselves, but were meant only to be reminders to Israel of the One who was to come.

### Conclusion

We could cite other examples of how various worship regulations of the old covenant are to be understood only in a shadow or metaphorical way, representations of true, spiritual realities under the new covenant. A survey would include such Mosaic practices as the eating of unleavened bread and bitter herbs and the laws of clean and unclean. These practices kept Israel mindful of their sinfulness and need for a Messiah Savior.

This way of interpreting Old Testament worship practices applies to _every aspect_ of Israel's religious life, even to the food and purification laws. Hebrews tells us: "They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings – _external regulations_ applying until the time of the new order" (Hebrews 9:10, italics ours). Thus, Hebrews can say, as mentioned earlier: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves" (10:1).

The conclusion regarding the weekly Sabbath is clear from the discussion above. This practice, like all the other literal worship practices of Israel, ceased to be commanded when Jesus finished his redemptive work, sent the Holy Spirit and the church age began. The church becomes the Israel of God (Galatians 6:2), a "new creation" in which neither Sabbath-keeping nor non-Sabbath-keeping "means anything," to paraphrase Paul. Through Christ and in the Holy Spirit a real faith – a dynamic relationship between God and his people – is now possible. Worship is in "spirit and in truth," as Jesus said. Worship is of the heart and mind through the mediation of Christ, and is elevated to a spiritual level.

The apostle Paul, speaking of himself as a Jew and to Jewish believers, could say the following about the Law of Moses and its worship system – _including the weekly and annual Sabbath rests_ :

#### Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. (Galatians 3:23-25)

We are free to worship God in spirit and in truth.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Comparison of Old and New Covenants

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Has the New Covenant Been Made?

###### By Michael Morrison

Several people teach that Christians should keep the Sabbath and several other laws that are found in the Old Testament. However, Christians are not required to keep the Sabbath, to keep annual festivals, to avoid "unclean" meats, and to give two or three tithes. One approach that can help people understand this is a study of the biblical covenants. Below are three Question and Answers that focus on the covenants.

###### \-----

**Question:** Has the new covenant been made?

**Answer:** In the old covenant, God listed numerous laws and promised to drive the Canaanites out of the land (Exodus 20-23). The people agreed to obey God, and Moses sprinkled "the blood of the covenant" on the altar and on the people, finalizing the covenant (Exodus 24:1-8). Even though the covenant had been made, Israel's relationship with God was only in its beginning stages. They had not yet demonstrated whether they would be obedient, and God had not yet given them the land he had promised.

Hebrews 8:6 tells us that Christ's covenant "is founded on better promises." It "was established," says the King James Version; the New American Standard says it "has been enacted." In other words, the new covenant has been made. The Greek verb is _nomotheteo,_ meaning "to give or to establish a law" (Louw-Nida lexicon). In Hebrews 8:6, it is in the perfect tense, indicating that something was completed in the past and it continues to have an effect. This verse clearly says that the new covenant has been legally made, and it continues in that legally ratified status.

Analogies, such as the analogy of a covenant as a marriage agreement, cannot negate the clear meaning of Hebrews 8:6. Some of the new covenant promises have not yet been fulfilled, but we have been given a down payment as a guarantee that all the promises will be fulfilled. In contract language, the agreement has been signed, though all the goods have not yet been delivered.

Covenants were traditionally ratified with the blood of a sacrifice (Genesis 15:8-18; Exodus 24:1-8). The new covenant was also ratified with sacrificial blood. Hebrews 10:29 calls the blood of Jesus the "blood of the [new] covenant," which has sanctified us, that is, made us holy. His sacrificial death "has made perfect forever those who are being made holy" (verse 14). The blood of the covenant has been applied to us; the new covenant has been made and ratified. Our relationship with God may have only begun, but it _has_ begun, and it is continuing on the basis of the new covenant, made possible by the blood of Jesus Christ. He is the guarantee and the mediator of the new and better covenant (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6).

Jesus mentioned the new covenant during his last meal with his disciples. The cup of wine represented "the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20). Jesus' blood, the blood of the new covenant, was poured out for us at the crucifixion, ratifying the new covenant. No one can alter or annul this covenant; it has been made.

Paul wrote that God "has made us...ministers of a new covenant," which is characterized by God's Spirit (2 Corinthians 3:3-6). A covenant must be made before it can be administered, and the fact that we have been given the Holy Spirit indicates that the new covenant has already begun to be implemented in us. God's law is written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the future promises.

We should live under the terms of the new covenant. The reason we should live this way is that the new covenant has been made.

###### \-----

**Question:** The NIV says that the old covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). The King James Version, however, says only that it is decaying and growing old, implying that it is still here. Can you prove from the King James Version that the old covenant is obsolete?

**Answer:** Hebrews 10:9 (KJV) says that Jesus Christ, as God in the flesh, came to do the will of God the Father. He _took away_ the first covenant so he could establish the second. Hebrews 8:6 (KJV) says that he is the mediator of a better covenant, and that the better covenant has already been established. These two verses show that the old covenant has ended. When he established the new covenant, Christ made the old covenant obsolete. The new agreement replaces the old. Our relationship with God is on the basis of the new covenant, not the old.

The old covenant included both the tabernacle and the sacrificial system (Hebrews 9:1). These are now obsolete, indicating that the law requiring them is also obsolete. We do not have to offer both physical and spiritual sacrifices; we do not keep all the old laws and simply add the Holy Spirit to help us keep them in their spiritual intent as well as in the letter. Instead, such commandments are set aside, disannulled, no longer required, made obsolete (Hebrews 7:18).

For example, the old covenant required sabbatical years, jubilee years, tree-branch booths, phylacteries and the destruction of mildew-infested homes. The reason that we do not have to obey these laws is because the covenant itself is obsolete. (Some old covenant laws, such as the law forbidding adultery, are continued into the new covenant. But they existed before the old covenant, and we can demonstrate their continuing validity from the new covenant.)

2 Corinthians 3 also discusses the old and new covenants. Verse 3 refers to the tables of stone on which the old covenant was written, and the writing of the Holy Spirit on the heart, which is the new covenant. Paul notes that the new covenant is already being administered (verse 6). The old covenant was glorious, Paul said (verse 7), but he also refers to that covenant as "that which is done away" (verse 11).

Galatians 3 also makes it clear. Verse 17 mentions the Abrahamic covenant and a law that was added 430 years later. What law was given 430 years after a covenant was made with Abraham? The law at Sinai, including the covenant and all its sacrifices — both its commandments and its penalties. This law was added long after the covenant of promise through faith was given to Abraham. The covenant at Sinai was made with Abraham's descendants in Moses' day "because of transgressions, till the seed [Christ] should come to whom the promise was made" (verse 19).

The laws and penalties were designed to be a "schoolmaster" (KJV) to bring us to Christ (verse 24). Before we were brought to faith in Christ, we were "held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith would be revealed" (verse 23, NIV), but after faith has come, we are no longer under a "schoolmaster" (verse 25). Galatians is talking about an added law that has become obsolete.

Is it possible that this additional law was only the law of sacrifices? Were the sacrifices temporarily added to the Ten Commandments, which are (according to this interpretation) a permanent covenant? If so, verse 17 would then need to be understood in this way: "The law, which was added two months after the covenant was made, cannot disannul the covenant." But this is not what verse 17 says. The covenant mentioned in verse 17 is the promise given to Abraham, and "the law" is the covenant made at Sinai 430 years later. Galatians is not arguing about sacrifices at all. The Levitical sacrifices could not be performed in Galatia, and they were not part of the controversy Paul was addressing.

In Galatians 4, Paul is contrasting the covenant given to Abraham with the covenant given to Moses. Abraham had two sons, and in an allegory they are compared to two covenants (verses 22-24). The son of the bondwoman corresponds to Sinai and the temple in Jerusalem (verses 24-25). But Christians are children of the promise — we are under the Abrahamic covenant, not the Sinaitic covenant (verses 28, 31). "Cast out the bondwoman and her son," Paul quotes with approval (verse 30). Do not put yourself under the old covenant, but under the new.

###### \-----

**Question:** Is the new covenant really established? Hebrews 8:11 says, "No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." Does this verse prove that the new covenant isn't established, since not everyone knows the Lord?

**Answer:** We must understand the context of the verse. Hebrews is a book that compares and contrasts an old order with a new order. It shows that Jesus Christ is superior to the angels, superior to Moses and the Aaronic priesthood, and he is the mediator of a better covenant.

After drawing these comparisons and contrasts, the author shows that something was wrong with the old order, the old covenant (Hebrews 8:7). The flaw of that covenant was with the people (verse 8). In light of this, God announced that he would establish a new covenant. This covenant would include better promises.

In verses 8-12, the author quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is a prophecy about a new covenant. This covenant focuses on three things: God will write his laws on our hearts (Hebrews 8:10), knowledge of the Lord will be available from the least to the greatest (verse 11) and our sins will be remembered no more (verse 12). Verse 13 ends the section by stating that the first covenant is obsolete. We are now under the new covenant.

The author quotes part of Jeremiah's prophecy again in Hebrews 10:15-18. In this passage he says that the forgiveness of sins has been achieved, implying that Jeremiah's prophecy has been fulfilled. In using Jeremiah's prophecy, the author shows that in the old covenant, people did not personally know the Lord because they had to be taught about him. Human mediation accompanied the old covenant. Knowledge of God was made possible through the priesthood. Instead of the law being internalized or written on the "inward parts," the people memorized the law as an external code. This resulted in a knowledge about God but not necessarily a personal relationship with him.

Under the new covenant, believers know the Lord through a personal relationship with him. Jeremiah's new covenant prophecy says that those who know the Lord, from the least to the greatest, will know the Lord in a better way. Believers know the Lord without a required human mediator or the memorization of an external code.

In the new covenant there is no class (such as priests) who alone could teach others to know the Lord, no class distinctions by age or sex or race, but the knowledge of God is available to everyone across the whole range of humanity. Everyone in the Body of Christ is on an equal footing through a common and personal knowledge of God (see Donald Guthrie, _Hebrews,_ Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 15, page 177).

Covenants, like promises, are made _before_ they are fulfilled. For instance, part of the Abrahamic covenant began to be fulfilled centuries after it had been made. The Mosaic covenant was made 40 years before the Israelites even entered the land that it promised. Likewise, God has already made his new covenant with Christians, even though they have not received the fulfillment of all its promises. The covenant requires faith precisely because the promises are not yet fulfilled, but the promises have been given and the covenant has been made. The agreement and relationship has been established. The church still looks forward to the fulfillment of all the promises of the new covenant. Many blessings do await, and they are new covenant blessings.

The _prophecy_ that the new covenant would be made has been fulfilled, for the new covenant _has_ been made. The new covenant has _begun_ to be fulfilled, but it has not been completely fulfilled yet, for not all the promises have been completed. But it is still correct to say that the new covenant has been made, even though many people do not yet know the Lord.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## The New Covenant in a Nutshell

###### By Joseph Tkach

Someone asked, "We know that the new covenant brought an end to various old covenant rituals. But what is the new covenant itself? Can you put the new covenant in a nutshell?

Good question — and I will respond in a nutshell. Then I will expand it, because the central truth can be developed in many ways as we study this in the Bible.

In simple terms, a covenant is _an agreement_ between two parties. It can be an agreement between a husband and wife, a friendship pact between two people, an alliance between two nations, or an agreement between God and humans. The new covenant is an agreement between God and humans. God sets the terms, he makes the offer, and we respond to it with either cooperation or resistance.

How can we have a relationship with God? How can we become his friends? How can we become citizens of his holy nation? Sinful humans aren't in a position to make deals with their Creator. As sinners, we are alienated from him, estranged from him. Sin and corruption cannot enjoy his presence. But because he is good, because he loves us, God has acted decisively to end our alienation and restore us to his household.

### God sets the terms

God is the one who sets the terms of this relationship. He tells us in advance what he will do. He calls the shots, and makes us free to respond to his terms.

The terms God has set are these: Jesus died for our sins. In a financial metaphor, he has paid for them. There is no more debt. We have been forgiven. Our works cannot add anything to it. God has in Christ acted unilaterally, reconciling all things to himself (Colossians 1:20).

At its core, the new covenant is _Jesus Christ._ He embodies everything the new covenant is. He is the Word of God and the Son of God, made human for us. He is the Message of God, the Mind of God, the Meaning of God, made flesh for us to see and know and love. In himself, he enables us to be friends with God. In Jesus Christ, God has given us a new basis for our relationship with God. This is the covenant God has given; we respond to Christ with either yes or no.

You might ask, How can Jesus — a person — be an agreement? In a prophecy about Christ, Isaiah 42:6 says that the Messiah, or Christ, would be made a covenant. The Bible calls Jesus a mediator, a go-between. A mediator's purpose is to get two parties to relate positively to each other. His work is what causes the barriers to come down and the relationship to bear positive fruit. Jesus was the greatest diplomat, the brilliant negotiator of the greatest covenant, or agreement, in human history. Jesus could do that because he was both God and human. He was not only able to _represent_ both parties, he was able to _be_ both parties. As God, he did what only God could do: forgive us. As a human, he did what humanity was supposed to do: respond perfectly. Just as his death counts for all humanity, so does his perfect response.

How does Jesus accomplish this? Romans 5:8-10 puts it like this: _Christ died for us,_ and because of his death we are now _justified_ before God, _saved_ from any fears of punishment and _reconciled_ to God as one of his deadly loved children. Through the death and life of Christ, God has provided the one and only means by which we can be the faithful and loving friends and children he created us to be.

How should we respond to what Jesus has done? We should turn away from self-reliance and put our confidence completely in Christ to wash us clean of sin, clothe us with righteousness and bring us into the family, the household, the kingdom of God. One way to describe it is that we quit doing things the devil's way (relying on self) and do things God's way. We stop building our own kingdom and accept the kingdom he has built for us. We accept the covenant-promise he has given us. That is how we can be in harmony and allegiance with him.

### Different ways to describe it

Let's look at some additional aspects of this wonderful gift of our loving Father. Paul says that Christ died for us; he also says that Christ died for our sins (Romans 4:25). Although he was innocent, he suffered the consequences of our sins. In some ways this is a very simple concept, but there are very complex ideas under the surface — see Galatians 3:13 or 2 Corinthians 5:21 for two examples.

The term "justified" was sometimes used in a courtroom. In the courtroom of heaven, God declares us justified, or not guilty, because of what Christ has done for us. When Paul says that we are reconciled, he is referring to a relationship that has gone from hostility to friendship.

Paul also uses language from the slave market to say that we have been bought at a price (Christ himself being that price) so that we may now serve our new Master. Other biblical images include those of being cleansed, of being newly created, of being born again, of being adopted. Each of these ideas helps us see different aspects of the central picture: that we are able to have a good relationship with God because Jesus Christ died for us and was raised again.

Jesus Christ is the basis of the new covenant, the bond of friendship that God has given us. We can accept this or reject it. Because he loves us with indescribable love, he urges us to accept it — to put our faith, our trust, in Jesus Christ—to trust him with our lives, and to accept him as our only means of salvation.

All this is a gift—it is not something we could ever earn. If we look at what we _deserve,_ we deserve to be alienated from God and therefore separated from the joy of knowing him and participating in his eternal blessings. _But the good news is that we don't have to be alienated_ —Christ has already reconciled us _._ We can live forever enjoying harmony with God because of Jesus Christ, because of what he did for us in his death and resurrection.

Our salvation — being rescued from destruction and restored as favored friends and children of God — depends entirely on Jesus Christ. He is the basis of this great rescue. Accepting him is the one requirement that God makes as the basis of this magnificent agreement we call the new covenant.

Accepting Jesus is not a work that we perform in order to meet the conditions of the contract, so to speak—it is simply an intrinsic part of enjoying what God is giving us. In one respect, we have already been brought into a new relationship with God—our choice is whether to enjoy it, or resist it. When we enjoy a beautiful sunset, our joy has nothing to do with our skill, and we certainly have not earned the joy—that is simply the appropriate response.

If we believe the good news and trust in Jesus, then we are experiencing a right relationship with God (and all the responsibilities and privileges that go with that right relationship). Jesus Christ is the core of the new covenant. That is why he must always be the center of our church, our preaching, our proclamation and our personal lives.

### Entering the kingdom

Another way to talk about our relationship with God is to use kingdom terminology. The good news of the kingdom of God is that we are qualified to the kingdom through Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:12-13). Without him, we are disqualified. But _he_ is qualified, because he is the Son of God, and he has united himself to us. By becoming one of us, taking our sins on himself, dying in our place and being raised to glory, he has perfected us and taken us up into himself. Because we are now, as believers, united with him, we are qualified to be in his kingdom.

Jesus is the door, the key and the true path to the kingdom of God. The good news is that God has qualified humans to enter his kingdom in Jesus Christ. We cannot qualify on our own, no matter how good we are. Nor does "being good" maintain our salvation. Salvation is a free gift, from start to finish.

The Bible uses many ways to describe the same thing. Being in the kingdom is the same as being adopted as children of God. It is the same as being born again as his children. It is the same as being redeemed from death. It is the same as being washed by the blood of the Lamb, or justified by his death. All these phrases are about the gift of a right relationship with God, and in all of them, Jesus Christ is the key, the focus. The "new covenant" is simply another way of talking about the same thing.

Jesus preached about the kingdom — a kingdom we are invited to enter in this life. The apostles, however, preached primarily about salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. These are not two different messages. The apostles were not misrepresenting the message of the Master. Rather, the apostles were inspired to explain the message of the kingdom of God in different ways. The kingdom is not good news unless we can be part of it. The gospel is a message about how humans receive intimate loving fellowship with God, how they enter his kingdom—something that is made possible only by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

### The gospel

The new covenant is, to use another nutshell, _the gospel of salvation._ It describes how we have been saved from sin and death so we can live forever in a loving relationship with God through the saving work of Jesus Christ for us. We always keep coming back to the center-point, Jesus Christ. He is God himself, who has offered himself to us. If we want eternal life with God, it must be through Jesus Christ.

At its core, the new covenant is the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is the message of salvation by grace through faith in him. That is why it is important for us to understand it and teach it. It is the basis of our eternal life!

That is why we emphasize Jesus Christ. That is why we emphasize faith and grace. That is why we emphasize the new covenant, the gospel and eternal life. All these are bound up with each other. The gospel tells us that we can live forever with God—not because of good things we have done—but because of what Jesus Christ did for us. God gives us this amnesty, forgiveness, and a new and wonderfully good relationship with him. He tells us that he has accepted us, and urges us to believe this message of his goodness and put our confidence in what _he_ has done for our salvation.

When Jesus announced a new covenant in his own blood (Luke 22:20), he was announcing something dramatically new! Never before had God made a covenant using _human_ blood. The previous covenants had used animal blood. God did not allow human sacrifices. Jesus was not announcing a renewal of the old covenant, or a slight revision. Instead, it was a completely _new_ covenant, made in a way forbidden by the old covenant! Simply in making the new covenant, Jesus was announcing the fact that the old covenant no longer applied.

The new covenant has different blood, a different basis, and it presents a different basis of relationship between God and humans. The new basis is Jesus himself and his blood. Jesus did what we could not do, and he sacrificed himself for us as a gift, as grace. To enjoy the new covenant, we admit that we can't earn our way into God's presence — we will never be good enough — but we instead rely on his mercy.

In summary, the new covenant is the relationship we have with God, made possible by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ — a relationship based on faith and grace rather than on works of the law.

Friends, I am deeply thankful that Christ has helped us come to know him and love him more deeply. I am awed by his mercy; I praise him for his greatness. I celebrate his birth into humility, his death for me on a shameful cross, and his resurrection into glory.

Saul of Tarsus thought he knew God and what God wanted him to do. Then he met Jesus, and from Jesus he received a chance to see again. From then on, he was a Christ-centered man. He resolved to know Christ and to preach Christ. O, that we might do the same!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## The New Covenant Is Older Than You Think

###### By Paul Kroll

Christians are under the guidance and authority of the new covenant, not the old covenant. This brings up an important question: What is the relationship between the two covenants?

It's sometimes said that the new covenant is a magnification of the old. In an informal way of speaking, this may be acceptable. However, by thinking of the new covenant as only a modification of the old, we may be led to accept the erroneous idea that the new grew out of the old. If the new covenant is only an expanded version of the old, then this creates a question. Perhaps some of the practices (such as avoiding unclean meats) commanded under the old should also be commanded in the new?

Also, to say that the new covenant develops from the old is to imply that the new is only a Johnny-come-lately, whose existence depends on something that came before it. We might be left with the wrong conclusion that the old covenant is the real basis for the new. This is absolutely not the case. That's why the title of this article is "The new covenant is older than you think." This title insists on the ironic conclusion that the new covenant existed long before the old covenant did.

The old covenant existed on a much lower, physical plane. It was kind of a teaching tool pointing to the intent of that which was God's original and ongoing purpose with humanity. This covenant had a limited existence for a specific time in history for a specific people under special circumstances. The best it could do was point, for a limited time and in a somewhat veiled way, to the reality of God's purpose in Christ—the new covenant.

On the other hand, the new covenant should be understood as _timeless._ We cannot attach an age to it, because it goes back to "the beginning." It was the original plan all along—what some theologians call "the covenant of grace," the covenant under which all other covenants were given. Creation has never existed without the new covenant, even though God's purpose is not yet fully achieved.

The New Testament insists that the new covenant goes back to the beginning. Of course, such passages do not use the words "new covenant." For this reason we need to get a working definition of the new covenant so we can understand when it is being spoken about. Essentially, the new covenant can be defined in the following phrase: the working out of God's purpose to create human beings to transform them out of their fallen condition into the image of his Son, and give them eternal life.

But here is where things get complicated. We infer from Scripture that God purposed human beings to be created in such a way as to allow them – if they choose – to become prisoners of the fallen world order, which includes sin and death.

### Bondage to sin and decay

We understand this aspect of the new covenant from the New Testament. The apostle Paul, for example, summed it up with these words:

#### The creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we are saved. (Romans 8:20-24)

Our bondage to sin and decay forms the underlying problem the new covenant is meant to deal with. Without the new covenant promises, every human would die and decay into eternal nothingness. God's purpose would be stopped dead in its tracks. But we know the rest of the story—the new covenant. God provided a means whereby sinning humans could be rescued from the evil world order, from Satan (Ephesians 2:2; 1 Corinthians 4:4; Revelation 12:9) as well as from sin and death. God, in the person of the Son or Word, would become a human being (Jesus Christ), would die for humanity's sins, and be resurrected as Savior.

God would forgive humans their sins, image them in his Son through the transforming work of the Holy Spirit, and ultimately raise them from the dead. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the new covenant. Under the new covenant, sin and death are defeated, and God's purpose to provide humans with eternal life comes to pass. That is the new covenant in a nutshell.

But to say it again, the new covenant is much older—eternally older—than the old covenant. (Since God's purpose ultimately wins out, his purpose is as good as done, even before it occurs it is manifested in creation.) A number of New Testament verses testify to the eternal existence of God's plan, now known as the new covenant. These scriptures refer to the promise of Christ's atoning work and God's purpose to give eternal life in him.

Christ is the basis of the new covenant. Let's see, in rapid-fire fashion, how insistently these scriptures tell us of the eternal existence of the new covenant.

##### • The new covenant is God's "eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Ephesians 3:11).

##### • Jesus (the Lamb) "was slain from the creation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

##### • We were redeemed from our empty way of life by the blood of Christ, who "was chosen before the creation of the world" (1 Peter 1:18-20).

##### • God's "work has been finished since the creation of the world" (Hebrews 4:3).

##### • It was God's purpose to choose humans for salvation "before the creation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4).

##### • The kingdom we are to inherit has been prepared "since the creation of the world" (Matthew 25:34).

##### • God's purpose to save us and call us to his grace "was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time" (2 Timothy 1:8-9).

##### • The new covenant has been eternally in existence. It is "the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time" (Titus 1:2).

### Hidden purpose

The new covenant is extremely old. It appears new only because it didn't come into general force until nearly 2,000 years ago. The fact of its existence before this time was generally hidden from humans. (It was discussed in the Hebrew Scriptures, but we see this primarily in retrospect, because the Reality has now come.)

One of Jesus' purposes was to reveal the prior existence of this eternal new covenant. Matthew, quoting one of the prophets, said of Jesus' teaching: "I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world" (13:35). Paul said God's new covenant purpose to include all people in his plan of salvation "has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints" (Colossians 1:26). It was, said Paul, "God's secret wisdom" (1 Corinthians 2:7). Elements of the new covenant, however, existed partially long before the old covenant. Here are some examples.

##### • The new covenant ministry of Melchizedek existed before the old covenant ministry of Levi (Hebrews 7). The new covenant high priest in the Melchizedek line existed before the old covenant high priest Aaron.

##### • John tells us that the Logos existed before Moses.

##### • The new covenant "fruits" of the Holy Spirit existed before the giving of the old covenant law at Sinai.

##### • Salvation was given by grace to people such as Abel, Enoch, Noah and Abraham long before the old covenant people of Israel (Hebrews 11:5-12). In Galatians 3:8, Paul says God "announced the gospel"—the new covenant—"in advance to Abraham."

The fact that the new covenant existed before the old has many implications for us. As Christians, we would want to look to that which came first—to the real thing—as our authority for truth and that in which we put our hope. That's the new covenant. We would not look to the old covenant, which was but a temporary imitation—a copy or shadow.

Since the old covenant has become obsolete, it would of itself not determine how we should worship God. The old covenant institutions—temple, Levitical priesthood, law etched on stones, various worship regulations and the sacrificial system—would not be normative for us under the new. That is, we would not determine what must be done under the new covenant by looking at the institutions of the old. The book of Hebrews makes this clear. So does Paul in his letters.

### Shadow and reality

Let's summarize the difference between the two covenants. The old covenant institutions were the shadow; the new covenant is the eternally existing reality. The shadow points to the real thing, and cannot exist by itself. The new covenant does not grow out of the old, just as a shadow does not grow out of the reality. Rather, the old covenant grew out of the new. Under the old covenant, Israel became the matrix or setting for the coming of Jesus Christ and his redemptive work.

The new covenant did not come into existence with Christ's death, resurrection and coming of the Spirit (although that is when the old covenant ended), nor did the new covenant come into existence with Abraham. The new covenant came into existence as God's original purpose for the human race. Even from before the beginning of time, God has purposed and promised to be gracious to all humanity, to bring us into a joy-filled, never-ending relationship with Father, Son and Spirit.

The very old "new" covenant is the authority for how we are to live our lives in Christ and the framework – through Christ – of our faith.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Are Old Testament Laws Still Binding on Christians?

###### By Joseph Tkach

Christians often wonder, Are Old Testament laws still in force?

The New Testament gives two basic answers to this question: Yes, and no. Some verses indicate continuity, and others indicate change. Some verses maintain the validity of the law; others describe it as having been superseded by Christ.

If we look at one group of verses, we might conclude that we have to keep all Old Testament laws. If we look at another group of verses, we might conclude that they are all done away. Both answers have scriptural support and validity, so we need to look at both sides of the question.

Let's start with an emphasis on continuity. A passage like Matthew 5:17-19 can be used to argue that all Old Testament laws are still in force. Jesus didn't do away with _any_ of God's laws. Rather, he emphasized that we ought to obey God not only in our actions, but also in our hearts. We have to keep every Old Testament law in the spirit, in its attitude and purpose. God's laws are written in our hearts and minds (Hebrews 8:10). They are internalized, so we should want to keep them. Hebrews 8:10 is a quote of Jeremiah 31:31-33, one could argue, and the laws that Jeremiah had in mind were the laws that were valid in his day: the old covenant laws. They were all given by God.

If this line of reasoning is correct, our love for God will motivate us to be circumcised, to keep the Jubilee year and sabbatical years. We will be diligent to avoid all forms of uncleanness, and we will wear phylacteries and only pure fabrics. We will offer sacrifices, not only for sin but also for fellowship offerings and thank offerings. When Jeremiah described the kingdom of God, old covenant customs were included.

### Spiritual application

These laws _are_ still valid – but, as we know, they are applied in a spiritual way. The application of the law has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ. If our hearts are circumcised, it does not matter whether we have been circumcised in the flesh. If we are offering spiritual sacrifices, we do not need to offer animals.

If we are always forgiving debts and liberating people from bondage, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we are treating our livestock and farmland properly, we do not have to do anything different on sabbatical years. If we live by the spirit, the letter of these laws is not required.

If we examine our hearts for corruption and are being cleansed by Jesus Christ, then we do not have destroy houses that have mildew. If our thoughts are pure, we don't have to worry about our fabrics. If we are always thinking of God and his laws, we don't have to wear phylacteries. The laws are valid, but the way in which we obey them has been transformed by the coming of Jesus Christ.

### Spiritual dimension

Some Old Testament laws are, in Christian application, spiritualized. They are removed from the dimensions of space and time and transferred into the spiritual dimension of attitude and interpersonal relationships.

Some people fight against spiritualizations. I've heard of one person who says Christians _should_ offer animal sacrifices if the temple were still standing! And yet, as far as I know, he does not wear phylacteries or blue threads in tassels on his garments, nor does he advocate the destruction of a home when mildew is discovered. Moreover, I don't know why the absence of a temple should stop an obligation (if it really is an obligation) to sacrifice animals. Sacrifices were part of correct worship long before Moses, so the end of the old covenant simply means that sacrificing is no longer the exclusive duty of Levites. We ought to worship God like Abel, Noah and Abraham did – and they sacrificed animals.

According to this logic, ministers ought to make animal sacrifices, preaching all the while that these animals remind us of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We ought to kill Passover lambs in addition to partaking of bread and wine, because Jesus only added to the law; he did not take anything away. The sacrifices may be shadows, but even when the reality has come, the shadow still exists! Animal sacrifices are very educational, full of spiritual meaning, and it would be wrong to ignore any of God's commands.

I have been arguing facetiously, but elements of the above argument have been used to promote various old covenant customs. My main point is that some Old Testament laws are spiritualized. Almost everyone can agree on that.

However, there are all sorts of opinions concerning which laws may be spiritualized and are not. Some fringe groups want physical circumcision. Some want land sabbaths. Some may even want tree-branch booths. Some want first tithe but not second and third. Some want weekly Sabbaths but not annual. Some want new moons. Many different doctrinal packages exist; each person thinks his own is the biblical one and that the others are inconsistent.

Some people are willing to say that the old covenant is obsolete; others are not comfortable with this statement. Some are willing to say that Gentiles do not need to keep the law of Moses; some are not willing to say that. Some are willing to say that the "law" of Galatians 3:19 is the old covenant; some are not.

With so many opinions floating around, it's difficult to know where to start in a rational discussion. What biblical criteria can we use when discussing which laws are spiritualized and which must be kept in the letter as well as the spirit?

### Critical questions

We need to start by defining the issues – can the person agree that the new covenant has been established (Hebrews 8:6)? Can the person agree that Christians should live by the terms of the new covenant? Can the person agree that some Old Testament laws, such as tassels and phylacteries, are obsolete even if the New Testament says nothing about such laws? Can the person give a rational reason why some old laws are valid in the letter and others are not, or is the position irrational?

The Old Testament clearly commanded the Israelites to wear blue threads in tassels on their garments (Numbers 15:38-39). Was this law inspired by God, or not? Answer: It was. Is this law obsolete? Answer: It is. Who has the authority to declare a God-given law obsolete? Answer: Only God.

Does the New Testament specifically rescind this law? Answer: No. It says nothing about this specific law. Then how can we prove, with divine authority, that it is obsolete? Answer: Because the New Testament declares the entire old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). As a law code, as a source of laws, it is not valid.

That brings us to our second approach to Old Testament law: None of it is valid. Christians do not have to keep the law of Moses because those laws were a temporary package, designed to be in force only until the Messiah came. Now that he has come and given us a better covenant, the first is obsolete.

The old covenant was something like a contract. In business, people make contracts. A farmer agrees to deliver tomatoes to the store every Tuesday, and the store agrees to pay a certain price per pound. If he comes on Monday, the store is not necessarily obligated to buy. If he brings broccoli, the store is not obligated to buy. Now, what happens if the farmer is simply unable to bring tomatoes on Tuesday because his entire crop is rotten? Perhaps there will be penalties; it depends on how the contract is written.

Suppose now that the store makes a new contract with the farmer: Bring every vegetable that you have, as often as you pick it. This new contract even specifies that the old contract is null and void. The old restrictions (only tomatoes, only on Tuesday) are irrelevant, because the new contract supersedes the old.

A farmer and a store can have several contracts simultaneously, concerning different vegetables, different prices and terms and expiration dates, but God has only one covenant with his people. We do not add the new on top of the old and try to keep both the letter and the spirit of every law. We do not have to wear tassels on the outside and keep the law in our hearts as well. The new has replaced the old (Hebrews 10:9), and we focus on the spirit rather than the letter. In some cases the proper spirit will cause us to keep the letter, but in other cases it will not.

Consider the spirit of adultery, for example. If we avoid lust, then we will also (without any need for a written law) avoid physical acts of adultery. The letter of this law is still valid. If we do not covet, then we will (without any need for a written law) not steal. This law is also valid in the letter. If we are not angry at our brother, we will (without any need for a written law) not murder. Again, the letter is valid. Keeping the spirit of the law has thwarted these sins at their very source.

However, consider how different the Feast of Unleavened Bread is. The spirit of the law is (in moral terms) that we repent of sin and (in Christological terms) that we partake of the sinless Bread of life.

If we are abiding by the spirit of the law, do we automatically (without any need for a written law) look to a calendar based on the agricultural seasons of Judea, and observe a specific seven days of the year, specifically by avoiding bread made with yeast and avoiding work on the first and seventh days? This is not automatic at all. Rather, it is based exclusively on the written old covenant. In this case, there is a dramatic difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.

Or consider whether we must live in booths during the Feast of Tabernacles. Arguing about the details would be missing the point, for the simple reason that the new covenant says that the old contract is obsolete. The new contract does not require booths, nor does it forbid them. It says nothing about tomatoes, Tuesdays, or palm-branch sukkahs.

Instead, the new covenant requires us to remember always that we are strangers and pilgrims on this earth, journeying on our way to God's promised new earth (1 Peter 2:11; Philippians 3:20). Just as with phylacteries and tassels, if we keep this law in our hearts, we do not need to worry about the letter. The purpose has been fulfilled.

### Fulfillment in Jesus Christ

We know that sin offerings were shadows of the real sacrifice for sin, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:1-3). Now that the real sacrifice for sin has been made, the physical symbolism does not need to be reenacted. But what about peace offerings and fellowship sacrifices? The New Testament doesn't specifically say that they are done away, but Jesus Christ fulfilled them, too. We keep these laws in the spirit, not in the letter.

Jesus has made atonement for us once for all, making us at one with the Father. We do not need to commemorate Christ's atonement with the goat rituals of Leviticus 16. Their purpose has been fulfilled, and the purpose for fasting on the 10th of Tishri (Leviticus 16:29-31) has also been fulfilled. Fasting can be a beneficial spiritual discipline—but it is neither commanded for nor restricted to the Day of Atonement.

Christ, by bringing a new covenant, has transformed the law. The same underlying law still exists—the law of love. Jesus did not change that law at all. Rather, he fulfilled it. The old covenant, including the sacrifices, tassels and Jubilee years, had specific, physical applications of the underlying law of love. But those specifics are, in many cases, now obsolete. The spirit of the law remains, but the letter does not. The old covenant way is not the way to apply the purpose of the law. There are other ways to express our devotion to God and our love for our neighbors.

The Sabbath commandment, as our last example, had several purposes. It was a reminder of creation; it was a reminder of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt; it was a reminder of their special relationship with the Creator. It provided physical rest for animals, servants and families.

Morally, the Sabbath symbolized our duty to cease from evil works. Christologically, it symbolized our need to find spiritual rest in Christ, to trust in him rather than our own works for salvation. It symbolized the completion of our creation at the end of the age.

Now, if we have the spirit of the law written in our hearts, will we automatically, without need for written instructions, refuse to work on a particular day of the week? Will we, from our hearts, know that holy time extends from evening to evening? Will we automatically perceive that this specific time is so important that we should be willing to lose our jobs because of it? The answer is obvious: No. These things are dependent on the written old covenant. They are not automatic even if our hearts are right with God. The spirit of the Sabbath law does not automatically produce the letter – but Christians are to focus on the spirit.

### Perpetual remembrance

The real purpose is that we enter the rest of God through faith in Christ. Our salvation is in him, not in a specific day of the week. If we are in Christ and he is in us, we will always remember our special relationship with him. We will be in perpetual remembrance of the new creation being done in us. We will cease from evil work every day of the week. We will do good works on every day of the week. We will worship on every day of the week. We will also recognize that new covenant love should motivate us to meet with one another regularly to encourage one another (Hebrews 10:24-25).

Resting on the Sabbath may picture a changed life, but many Sabbath-keepers do not have changed lives. Sabbath-keeping cannot change our hearts. Spiritual Sabbath-keeping, however, does change our hearts – because spiritual Sabbath-keeping means the life of faith in Christ, which changes us from the inside out. Jesus Christ has magnified the Sabbath law far beyond the temporal restrictions of the letter. If we are keeping the spirit of this law, the physical restrictions are not required. It is not wrong to rest on the Sabbath day. The physical benefits are still there. But it is wrong to see the physical as required for all Christians.

But, some say, we should keep both the letter and the spirit of this law. It is easy to make that claim, but there is no proof for it – and there is certainly no reason to condemn people on the basis of a different interpretation of how we should obey God. It is just as easy to make the claim that people truly abiding by the spirit of the tassels will also be wearing tassels. The flaw of such logic is exposed by the realization that the new covenant declares the old contract obsolete. We must focus on the spirit and purpose of the laws.

A Sabbatarian approach to the Sabbath emphasizes Matthew 5:17-19, and that usually leads to a distorted meaning for such verses as Colossians 2:16 and Romans 14:5.

However, after we recognize that the letter of some Old Testament laws is obsolete, then we realize that Matthew 5:17-19 has to be qualified or restricted in some way. So do Romans 3:20, 31; 7:12, 14 and other verses of continuity. These verses do not tell us which specific laws are still in force, and they do not prove the continued validity of any specific law. They are general, not specific.

Once we recognize that some Old Testament laws, although still valid in purpose, are obsolete in the letter, then we are free to accept the implications of what Paul wrote in Colossians 2:16. We should not let anyone judge us regarding Sabbath days, just as we shouldn't let them judge us regarding new moons. Everyone should be convinced in their own mind, and they should not judge other Christians regarding such matters.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Circumcision:  
A Test Case for Evaluating Old Testament Laws

###### By Michael Morrison

Circumcision was an essential part of religious practice for the nation of Israel. Is circumcision a required practice for Christians today? Let's examine the biblical evidence and explore the validity of arguments concerning old covenant customs.

### Abraham

In the first biblical mention of circumcision, God made a covenant with Abraham and his descendants. God said to Abram, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless." God then explained his part of the covenant — he would be the God of Abraham's descendants and give them the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:1-8); God then further explained Abraham's part of the covenant (verses 10-14). "This is...the covenant you are to keep." Every male was to be circumcised, and this physical rite was to be "the sign of the covenant" with God, and it was "an everlasting covenant."

Every male in Abraham's household was to be circumcised immediately, and from then on every new baby boy was to be circumcised on the eighth day. Whether they were Hebrews or whether they were purchased as slaves, the males had to be circumcised. If they were not, they would be cut off; they had broken the covenant.

Abraham did what God told him to do (verses 23-27; 21:4). The practice of circumcision became the defining characteristic of the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob clan. Many years later, the sons of Jacob used this custom to get revenge on Shechem (Genesis 34:14-29). They said they could cohabitate and intermarry only with people who were circumcised (verse 16).

### Moses

The custom may have continued when the Israelites lived in Goshen. But Moses, reared in the court of Pharaoh and later a refugee in Sinai, did not circumcise his own son. Zipporah had to do it (Exodus 4:24-25). Under the leadership of Moses, the entire nation of Israel did not circumcise their male infants in the wilderness. Joshua had to reinstitute it (Joshua 5:2-8).

It is not clear why these lapses occurred, but it _is_ clear that the omission had to be corrected before the plan of God proceeded. God could call Moses even when he was a covenant-breaker, but his son had to be circumcised before Moses could do his job. Nor would God allow the Israelites to live in the promised land unless they were faithful to the covenant God had made with Abraham.

Since circumcision was already a requirement for the Israelites, it is natural that it was included within the old covenant laws (Leviticus 12:2-3). People had to be circumcised to participate in the Passover (Exodus 12:44, 48).1 Even Gentiles had to be circumcised if they wanted to worship God by means of this festival.

However, circumcision was not merely a physical and external practice. It symbolized something internal. God described idolatry and disobedience as a result of an uncircumcised heart (Leviticus 26:41); he described repentance as a circumcision of the heart (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6). This spiritual meaning did not eliminate the need for the physical practice; the Israelites were to obey both the letter of the law and its symbolic meaning.

### History and prophecy

The Israelites apparently continued the practice of circumcision. Even in the lawless period of the judges, the Israelites were distinguished from others by the fact that they were circumcised (Judges 14:3; 15:18; 1 Samuel 14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4; 2 Samuel 1:20; 1 Chronicles 10:4).

When Samson and David called the Philistines "uncircumcised," it was not a mere medical description — it was an ethnic, earthy insult. It was probably impolite then, just as it is impolite today, to make references someone's sexual organ. But this use of the term illustrates how definitive the practice of circumcision was for Israelite self-identity, and the depth of emotion involved in this ethnic tradition.

The prophets used the term "uncircumcised" as a synonym for Gentiles (Isaiah 52:1). When Ezekiel predicted death for the ruler of Tyre and the Pharaoh of Egypt, he said they would die the death of the uncircumcised and be buried among the uncircumcised (Ezekiel 28:10; 31:18). This conveyed a death in opposition to God; the connotation was that these rulers were ungodly. This was developed further in Ezekiel's lament for Pharaoh in Ezekiel 32. In verses 19-32, Pharaoh was said to have his fate with other uncircumcised soldiers who are now buried. Throughout, the implication is that they were all enemies of God.

Ezekiel criticized those who permitted uncircumcised people into the temple (Ezekiel 44:7). The prophets elaborated on the _spirit_ of circumcision, too. Jeremiah exhorted his people, who presumably were already physically circumcised, to circumcise their hearts (Jeremiah 4:4). It was a metaphor for repentance. God said he would punish Israelites and Gentiles who are circumcised in the flesh only and not in the heart (Jeremiah 9:25-26). Physical circumcision was not enough; spiritual circumcision was also necessary.

Isaiah emphasized the importance of circumcision in one of his prophecies of God's glorious rule. He described a time when only circumcised people would be allowed to enter the new city of Zion (Isaiah 52:1-2). In Isaiah's culture and time, that meant people who were physically circumcised. Isaiah may have also meant those who were circumcised in heart as well. This was part of his prophecy of redemption (verse 3) — when good tidings of salvation are preached and God rules (verse 7) — when the Lord returns to Zion (verse 8) and reveals salvation throughout the world (verse 10). Ezekiel also prophesied that only people who were circumcised in both the flesh and the heart could worship properly (Ezekiel 44:9).

### Controversy in the early church

The Law and the Prophets consistently upheld the need for circumcision, and the intertestamental period did, too. Circumcision was one of the Jewish customs forbidden by Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:48). Hellenizers who tried to surgically reverse their circumcision were considered to have "abandoned the holy covenant" (verse 15).

Circumcision was so important to Jewish self-identity and worship that faithful Jews were willing to die rather than abandon this physical reminder that they were God's covenant people. The books of Maccabees record their eventual victory. Circumcision and other Jewish customs were enforced and were emphasized as religious obligations for Jewish people.

John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised (Luke 1:59; 2:21). Jesus' only comment about circumcision was favorable: It was part of "the law of Moses," and the Jews were willing to circumcise children on the Sabbath. Since it was a religious rite, it could be done on the Sabbath (John 7:22-23), just as priests could "desecrate" the Sabbath to perform sacrifices (Matthew 12:5).

Stephen mentioned the covenant of circumcision that God had given Abraham (Acts 7:8), but he criticized the Sanhedrin for having uncircumcised hearts and ears (verse 51). They were physically circumcised, but not obedient to what God had told them through Jesus. Physical circumcision should have been followed by a circumcision of the heart.

The biggest controversy about circumcision came when the gospel began going to Gentiles. Circumcised believers (i.e., Jews) were astonished when the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius (Acts 10:45). Circumcised believers criticized Peter for going to the house of an uncircumcised person and eating with Gentiles (Acts 11:2-3).

The problem surfaced again when more and more Gentiles began responding to the gospel by believing in the Lord Jesus (verses 20-21). Later, some Jewish believers came to Antioch and taught that Gentiles had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). They also said that the Gentiles should obey the entire law of Moses (verse 5). In Antioch, this would not have included sacrifices (unless they traveled to Jerusalem), but it would have included other Jewish customs traceable to the five books of Moses. By "circumcision," these messianic Jews meant full proselyte status, since circumcision implied an obligation to all the other laws (Galatians 5:3).

### Argument of the Judaizers

The Jerusalem conference concluded that circumcision was not required for Gentile believers. They did not have to obey "the law of Moses." Today, we understand that circumcision is not required for Gentiles. But perhaps we will better understand the significance of this decision if we try to argue the case _for_ circumcision. Luke does not report the actual arguments used by the Judaizers, but they could have made a strong case:

#### "Circumcision goes back to God's eternal covenant with Abraham, in which God promised to be the God of his descendants. These Gentiles are claiming Abraham as their spiritual father. He is the father of the faithful, and Genesis 17:12 tells us that all who are his descendants, whether physically or otherwise, are under the covenant of circumcision. If they really have the faith that Abraham did, they will be willing to do what Abraham did. If they really have a covenant with the same God, they will gladly accept the sign of that covenant. The covenant was revealed as everlasting, not a temporary arrangement. It was commanded by God himself.

#### "God has called these people, and that is good. But just as our ancestor Israelites could not inherit the promises until they were circumcised, so also these Gentiles cannot inherit the spiritual promises (salvation) unless they are circumcised. Until they are circumcised, they are strangers to the covenant of promise. We should not allow them to participate in the bread and wine with us until they are circumcised; even though they have believed in Jesus our Passover, they should not partake of the meal or receive the benefit of his sacrifice unless they are circumcised. There is solid scriptural precedent and support for this. The example of the ancient Israelites was written for our admonition.

#### "Circumcision is not only a physical command from God; it also has important spiritual symbolism. It pictures repentance, but this symbolism doesn't eliminate the need to obey God physically, too. If these people really were repentant, they would not want to spiritualize away God's command to be circumcised. Isaiah clearly said that when the good news of salvation is preached, only circumcised people will be able to enter the daughter of Zion, which is the church today. These Gentiles are being grafted into Israel, and they therefore need to keep Israelite laws.

#### "What advantage is there in being circumcised? Much in every way! Our nation has the promises and covenants, and our Lord said that salvation is of the Jews. The only thing Jesus said about circumcision was positive. And he said that if something causes sin, we ought to cut it off. Circumcision helps us picture that important truth, but we lose its symbolic value if we abandon the practice. Circumcision has value if a person observes the law, and we certainly don't want to encourage these new converts to be lawbreakers. Our Messiah specifically said that he didn't come to do away with the law, and none of it would pass away. He fulfilled the symbolism of sacrifices, but that doesn't do away with our need to obey the plain and clear commands of God.

#### "God justifies people by faith, but the faith isn't genuine if these people aren't willing to obey clear commands of God in the God-breathed Scriptures that are able to make us wise for salvation. No one should rely on circumcision as a guarantee of salvation, but neither should we reject it. Abraham believed first, and then he obeyed. That's what these Gentiles need to do to be saved. Keeping God's commands is what counts."

Would we be able to answer such an argument without the writings of Paul? We could read the conclusion of the Jerusalem conference, but then right after that we would read that Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). Paul was accused of teaching against circumcision (Acts 21:21), but that was clearly a false accusation. From Genesis to Acts, the Scriptures are supportive of the rite of circumcision except for one chapter. Although Acts 15 gives us the overall conclusion that circumcision is not required for Gentiles, it does not answer all the specific arguments that the Judaizers could have had.

However, Peter, Barnabas and Paul radically reinterpreted the law of circumcision by keeping the spiritual meaning but rejecting the physical rite. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, they explained that Abraham received the promises by faith before circumcision; therefore the circumcision of the most-respected patriarch, although commanded as an everlasting covenant for his physical heirs and extended household, cannot be a requirement for salvation. Why? Because Peter, Barnabas and Paul saw a dramatic _dis_ continuity between the old and the new. Even a ritual confirming the promises, a ritual given hundreds of years before Sinai, could be swept aside, as a requirement for salvation, by the new situation that Jesus had inaugurated.

Few among us would have been so bold.

Many Jewish Christians could have been deeply troubled by the conclusion that circumcision was not required. An ancient and culturally important religious law was rejected without even a hint that Jesus was against it. Why was this necessary? Let us now see what Paul later wrote, and understand his rationale for the discontinuity between old and new.

### Circumcised in and by Jesus Christ

"Circumcision has value if you observe the law," Paul writes (Romans 2:25), but he does not explain what that value is. After all, if a person observes the law he is counted as circumcised (i.e., in Abraham's covenant) whether or not he is actually circumcised (verse 26). A Gentile who obeys is better than a Jew who disobeys (verse 27); mere circumcision cannot guarantee salvation. If a person is Jewish only externally, in physical circumcision, but not in the heart, such a person is not one of God's people, since real circumcision is not "merely" physical (verse 28).

Paul's comments so far might be agreeable to a messianic Judaizer who advocated that both physical and spiritual circumcision were necessary. But Paul's next comment would be too sweeping: A man is one of God's people if he is _inwardly_ circumcised, since the real circumcision is a spiritual matter, of the heart, "not by the written code" (verse 29).

But what value is there in being circumcised? Or, in synonymous terms, what advantage is there in being a Jew? Much, replies Paul (Romans 3:1-2). He does not describe any health benefits, but he mentions that circumcised people have in their community the words of God (verse 3). That is a great value, but it is wasted if they do not obey — and that brings Paul to the crux of the problem.

There is none righteous, no not one. No one keeps the law perfectly; we all fall short. How then can we be saved? By faith. "There is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith" (verse 30). Justification by faith is the central reason that the physical rite of circumcision is not necessary. Faith is a more significant identifying characteristic for those who are in good relationship with God.

Paul examines the example of Abraham again, and notes that Abraham was counted as righteous even while he was uncircumcised (Romans 4:9-10). Even though he later received a physical sign or seal of his righteousness, his righteous status before God did not depend on circumcision (verse 11). He is the father of all who faithfully live as he did before he was circumcised (verse 12). That was an exemplary faith, since Abraham packed up and moved without knowing where he was going.

To the Corinthians, Paul made it clear that if a person was called while uncircumcised, he should not attempt to change his anatomy (1 Corinthians 7:18). His reason is surprising: "Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts" (verse 19). The surprise is that circumcision _had been_ one of God's commands, and yet it doesn't count. The law of circumcision was a religious rite that had nothing to do with our moral responsibilities to our neighbors.

Paul explained circumcision in greatest detail in his letter to the Galatians. They were being misled by a heresy that demanded that Gentile believers follow up their faith with physical compliance with old covenant commands. But Paul explained that it is wrong to view physical circumcision as _necessary,_ because that would imply that faith in Christ was not enough. "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all" (Galatians 5:2).

Paul did not forbid circumcision; we have already noted that he circumcised Timothy, whose mother was Jewish. But he explains that Titus, a Gentile, was not circumcised (Galatians 2:3). It was not a requirement for salvation, nor a requirement for leadership within the church. Circumcision is permissible as a voluntary practice, but it should not be taught as a requirement. It does not enhance anyone's standing before God. It should not be done as a commitment to old covenant laws, which was the issue in Acts 15 and Galatians 5:2-3.

Circumcision was only the beginning of the legalistic demands. What they were really insisting on was the whole law of Moses as a requirement (Galatians 5:3). They were insisting on the Mosaic covenant. Faith in Christ is great, they probably said, but we have to add to our faith some works as specified by the writings of Moses. Not so, said Paul. "In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love" (verse 6).

Paul had to state that he was _not_ preaching circumcision (verse 11). Why was this necessary? Probably because the legalists were claiming that Paul was actually in favor of circumcision. Like other Jewish preachers seeking proselytes, Paul taught morals and virtues. Once people had accepted the morals, the Judaizers claimed, Paul would add circumcision as the capstone requirement. Not so, said Paul. He was not going to add requirements to what he had already taught the Galatian believers. He was so upset about the legalistic agitators that he exclaimed, "I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!" (verse 12). Moreover, if the Galatians submitted to this work of the law as if it were required, they could not be saved (verse 2)! They would be looking to their own works, instead of trusting in Jesus Christ.

The circumcisers, he said, had selfish motives. They wanted to look good by bringing in converts for messianic Judaism, and they didn't want to be criticized by fellow Jews regarding the shameful death of Jesus (Galatians 6:12). They talked about obedience, but they were sinning and in need of the cross they were ashamed of (verse 13). Circumcision is obsolete, Paul said, since it has been replaced by the cross of Christ and all that the cross symbolizes (verse 14). Through faith in our Savior's death on our behalf, we are acceptable to God _on the basis of faith,_ and we do not need a physical sign of the covenant we have in Jesus' blood.

"Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation" (verse 15). If we are born anew in Christ, if we have faith that works itself out in love, then we are acceptable to God. We do not have to observe this ancient rite in order to be saved.

Because the Gentiles were uncircumcised, they were once considered excluded from the covenants of promise and cut off from God. But now, through the blood of Christ, they have been brought near to God (Ephesians 2:11-13). In Jesus' own flesh, by his own obedience to old covenant rules, he has abolished the commandments and regulations that had separated Jews from Gentiles (verses 14-15). He gave all ethnic groups access to God and made them fellow citizens with each other; it is in Christ that we are being built together as a spiritual temple for God (verses 19-22).

Paul also warned the Philippians about the circumcision advocates. "Watch out for those dogs," he said, using Jewish slang for Gentiles in reference to the Judaizers (Philippians 3:2). They are evil men, "mutilators of the flesh" — a Greek view of the rite of circumcision. But the Spirit fights against the flesh; Paul emphasizes that the physical rite, at least to the Greek mind, takes away from its spiritual meaning. It is _believers_ who are the true circumcision — all "who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh" (verse 3).

Paul was circumcised (verse 5), but he counted it as loss for the sake of Christ (verses 7-8). His righteousness did not come from the law, but from faith in Christ (verse 9). Justification by faith means that the rite of circumcision is spiritually obsolete.2 The principle of salvation by faith, which Abraham received before his circumcision, gave Paul the logical foundation for saying that obedience to a command of the Old Testament was not necessary for salvation. A physical requirement cannot supersede a promise of God given through faith.

Paul told his Gentile converts in Colosse that they were circumcised in Christ (Colossians 2:11). Since he is our righteousness, and we are in him, we have been given fullness in him (verse 10). We can be accounted righteous because he himself is righteous. Therefore we are as good as circumcised if we are putting off our sinful nature and putting on Christ. Our circumcision is not done by humans, but by Christ himself. How? Through baptism (verse 12). That is how we express publicly that Jesus is our Savior, that our old life died with him, that we — now circumcised in the heart —live in his service and that we have faith that we will live again through him.

When we were separated from God in our sinful nature, we were spiritually uncircumcised. But God has now made us alive again with Christ (verse 13). He forgave our sins, canceling our spiritual debts (incurred through transgressing the written code that was against us), including the regulations that concerned the symbolic forgiveness of sins (verse 14). He likewise canceled the regulation of circumcision, which may have symbolized repentance and sanctification. Since the fullness of those regulations has come, the symbol is no longer required. Christ has given us the fulfillment.

### The eternal validity of God's law

Physical circumcision, which was once commanded by God, is no longer required. How can this be? God, the perfect and unchangeable Lawgiver, changed a fundamental aspect of his law — not only circumcision, but also sacrifices and temples and priesthoods. The infallible Scriptures contain commands that are obsolete.

But Jesus said,

#### Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)

Jesus was talking about the entire Old Testament — the Law and the Prophets. How can his statement be reconciled with the fact that some commands of the Old Testament are not required today? Perhaps the best way to explain this is to understand that the laws are valid in their intent, but changed in their application. Laws regarding sacrifice continue to be valid, but we obey them through faith in Jesus Christ, who was the real sacrifice. The law required sacrifice, and Jesus confirmed its validity at the same time as he made it unnecessary for us to perform it.3

When God commanded animal sacrifices, he commanded an administration of the law that was perfectly appropriate to the times. When David said that God did not want animals (Psalm 51:16), that was also a perfectly appropriate administration of the law of sacrifice, because David was inspired to understand that repentance was the real command (verse 17). When Christ sacrificed himself, he rendered all animal sacrifices unnecessary (Hebrews 10:8-10). The administration of the law shifted to faith in the effectiveness of Jesus to remedy our sinfulness. When we have faith in him, we are effectively obeying the laws regarding sacrifice.

Likewise, we are obeying the law of circumcision when our attitudes are circumcised. The real law — allegiance to God — is eternally valid; the physical administration of it has changed. We live in a different age, needing a different administration.

God's law is to be "written on our hearts" by the Holy Spirit. This does not mean the details regulating physical specifics of worship practices, but it means the intent behind those regulations, especially faith and love and other fruits of the Spirit.

God's law did not originate with Moses — since sin existed before Moses and sin does not exist without law, law existed before Moses (Romans 5:12-14). God's law existed, and the people transgressed it. God's law does not depend on its Mosaic administration. There is a law _behind_ the law of Moses. The Mosaic administration was a valid expression of God's holy, spiritual, righteous law, and it was perfectly appropriate for its situation, but it is not appropriate after the death of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit.

To impose or to attempt to combine the Mosaic administration into Christian faith and practice can cause many problems. New wine makes old wineskins burst (Matthew 9:17). The old covenant is obsolete. However, many of the Mosaic rules, especially those concerning the way we should treat other people, are still valid applications of the spiritual purpose. Jesus explained them in the Sermon on the Mount, for example.4

But many other laws of Moses, especially those concerning worship, are not valid practices because we have been given the spiritual fulfillment that those rites only symbolized. Jesus criticized the Pharisees for paying too much attention to those rules and not enough on human relationships (e.g., Matthew 23; Mark 7:11-13).

In summary, laws can remain on the books, and remain valid in purpose, and yet we may no longer be required to keep them in the letter. A simple citation of Matthew 5:17 does not automatically prove that an Old Testament law must be administered in the way it was under Moses. The law of circumcision illustrates the new covenant approach to old covenant laws.

### Endnotes

1 Since the Israelites did not practice circumcision in the wilderness (Joshua 5:5), and uncircumcised people could not partake of the Passover, only the generations that left Egypt kept the Passover. There may not have been enough lambs in the desert to keep an annual slaughter for the whole congregation (Numbers 11:13).

2 Circumcision may have medical benefits, but the Bible makes no such claim. If people want to argue that circumcision has medical benefits, they need to discuss the medical evidence both for and against it.

3 John R. W. Stott writes,

#### "The law" was a comprehensive term for the total divine revelation of the Old Testament. None of it will pass away or be discarded, he says, not a single letter or part of a letter, until it has all been fulfilled.... The law is as enduring as the universe....

#### "The law and the prophets," namely the Old Testament, contain various kinds of teaching. The relation of Jesus Christ to these differs, but the word "fulfillment" covers them all.... Jesus "fulfilled" it all in the sense of bringing it to completion by his person, his teaching and his work....

#### The whole ceremonial system of the Old Testament, both priesthood and sacrifice, found its perfect fulfillment. Then the ceremonies ceased. Yet, as Calvin rightly comments, "It was only the use of them that was abolished, for their meaning was more fully confirmed." They were but a "shadow" of what was to come; the "substance" belonged to Christ. (John R.W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7): Christian Counter-Culture. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1978, 1985, pages 71, 73)

4 Stott writes:

#### The Old Testament contains ethical precepts, or the moral law of God.... Jesus fulfilled them in the first instance by obeying them.... He does more than obey them himself; he explains what obedience will involve for his disciples. He rejects the superficial interpretation of the law given by the scribes; he himself supplies the true interpretation. His purpose is not to change the law, still less to annul it, but "to reveal the full depth of meaning that it was intended to hold."...

#### Christian righteousness is greater than pharisaic righteousness because it is deeper, being a righteousness of the heart.... The scribes and Pharisees...were trying to reduce the challenge of the law, to "relax" the [ethical] commandments of God, and so make his moral demands more manageable and less exacting.... They made the law's demands less demanding and the law's permissions more permissive. [They did this for laws about interpersonal conduct, but the Pharisees had the opposite approach regarding the Sabbath!] What Jesus did was to reverse both tendencies. He insisted instead that the full implications of God's commandments must be accepted without imposing any artificial limits. (Stott, pages 72, 75, 79)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

## Are Some Meats Unclean?  
A Look at the Old Testament Concept of Uncleanness  
and Whether the New Testament Says Some Meats Are Unclean

###### By Michael Morrison

Among the regulations God gave the ancient Israelites were various laws about cleanness and uncleanness. These laws were not concerned with hygiene, but ceremonial status. People who were unclean were not allowed to participate in religious ceremonies.

Do these laws apply to Christians? Let's examine the evidence in the five books of Moses and the New Testament.

To gain a context for the concept of clean and unclean foods, we will discuss other sorts of uncleanness first. This may seem tedious, but it will help us better understand the Old Testament concept of uncleanness.

### Religious purity

The word for "clean" ( _tahôr_ ) may also be translated "pure," as we see in numerous places in Exodus. The tabernacle furniture and utensils had to be made with pure gold.

Jacob told his household to get rid of their idols and to "purify" themselves and change their clothes (Genesis 35:2). We are not told _how_ they purified themselves, but it seems to have been related to worship. Later, Levites were purified with "the water of cleansing" (Numbers 8:6, 15, 21).

Portions of a sin offering had to be incinerated outside the camp in a clean place (Leviticus 4:12). Ashes of the burnt offering had to be put in a clean place (Leviticus 6:11). The priests were to eat sacrificial meat in a clean place (Leviticus 10:14).

If priests performed an offering when they were unclean, they were to be expelled (Leviticus 22:3). They could eat the offerings only when they were clean (Leviticus 22:4-7; Numbers 18:11-13).

If something unclean touched meat of the fellowship offering, that meat would have to be incinerated (Leviticus 7:19). Only clean people could eat meat of the fellowship offering (verses 19-21). If an unclean person ate the meat, that person was to be expelled (verses 20-21). However, unclean people could eat meat that was not part of a sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:15, 21-22; 15:21-22).

In these passages, the distinction between cleanness and uncleanness was made for religious purposes, relating to the Levitical and sacrificial system of ancient Israel.

### Sexual impurities

The Hebrew word for "unclean" ( _tame'_ ) may also be translated "defiled," and this is how the NIV translates it in Genesis 34:5, 13, 27. When Shechem had sex with Dinah, she became defiled. A person who committed sexual sins was defiled (Leviticus 18:20-23). Adultery was called impurity or defilement (Numbers 5:12-30). A woman who remarried was defiled for her first husband (Deuteronomy 24:4). Witchcraft and child sacrifice would also defile a person (Leviticus 18:21; 19:31; 20:2-3).

Sin was involved in the cases above, but _in the vast majority of cases uncleanness did not come from sin._ For example, normal sexual intercourse rendered both men and women unclean (Leviticus 15:18). Childbirth made women unclean. For a boy baby, the mother was unclean for a week, and cleansed or purified 33 days later. For a girl baby, the mother was unclean for two weeks, and purified 66 days later. In both cases, her purification ceremony involved a burnt offering and a sin offering (Leviticus 12:1-8).

Menstruation caused uncleanness for seven days, and whoever touched the woman's bed was unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:19-23). If a man slept with her during her menstruation, he would also be unclean for seven days, and any bed he laid on would also be unclean (Leviticus 15:24).

An emission of semen caused uncleanness, whether it was during intercourse or a nocturnal emission (Leviticus 15:16-18; Deuteronomy 23:10).

Unusual discharges, sexual or otherwise, caused a man or woman to be unclean (Leviticus 15:2-3, 25-27). If an unclean man touched anyone or spit on anyone, that person would be unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:7-8). If the unclean man touched a pot, the pot had to be broken (Leviticus 15:12). When the discharge stopped, the person could be cleansed after a week, with a sin offering and a burnt offering (15:13-15, 28-30).

### Unclean things

Uncleanness was _contagious:_ "Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening" (Numbers 19:22). If people went into a quarantined house, they would be unclean (Leviticus 14:46). If people touched an unclean bed, they would be unclean until evening (Leviticus 15:4-10). Even if people _accidentally_ touched anything that would make them unclean, they were "guilty." They had to confess their "sin" and make a sin offering (Leviticus 5:3-6).

If an unclean animal died and touched something, the thing would become unclean; it was to be put into water and would be unclean until evening (Leviticus 11:32). But if a dead animal touched a clay pot, the pot and its contents would have to be destroyed (verses 33-35). If a dead animal touched dry seeds, they would be clean, but if the seeds were wet, they would be made unclean (verses 37-38).

If people touched a corpse, they would be unclean for seven days and unable to be in religious activities such as the Passover (Numbers 5:2; 9:6-10; 19:11, 16). If a person died in a tent, all who were in the tent would be unclean for a week (Numbers 19:14).

Priests were allowed to become unclean as a result of the death of close relatives, but not of in-laws (Leviticus 21:1-4). But the high priest could not become unclean for any relative (21:10-12); nor could Nazirites (Numbers 6:7). If a person died in the presence of a Nazirite, the Nazirite had to offer a sin offering and a burnt offering because he "sinned" by accidentally being near a dead body (verses 9-12).

People who were unclean because of a dead person could be cleansed by the water of cleansing, which was made with the ashes of a specially sacrificed red heifer (Numbers 19:9-13, 17-19). Although the ashes could be used to purify people from sin (verse 9), people who made the ashes were unclean, and those who touched the water were unclean until evening (verses 7-10, 21). Those who failed to be cleansed in this way were to be expelled (verses 13, 20).

On the day of Atonement, the high priest atoned for the uncleanness of the Israelites (Leviticus 16:16, 19, 30).

### Skin diseases

Various skin diseases could cause a person to be considered unclean. If a sore was more than skin deep and the hair turned white, the person was unclean (Leviticus 13:3, 20, 25, etc.). If the skin problem spread, the priest pronounced the person unclean (verses 8, 22, 27). Such persons had to live outside the camp and warn people that they were unclean (verses 45-46).

When the people could be declared clean, the priest killed a bird, dipped another bird in the blood, sprinkled the person and released the live bird (Leviticus 14:2-7). The person then had to shave and wash twice (verses 8-9), then offer a guilt offering and a sin offering, and the priest was to anoint the person on the right earlobe, the right thumb and the right big toe (verses 10-32). Surprisingly, if the problem covered the entire body, the person was clean (Leviticus 13:12-13). If the sores turned white, the person was clean (verses 16-17).

Mildew was a similar problem. Clothing with spreading mildew was unclean and had to be burned (Leviticus 13:47-55); even if washing helped, the affected material had to be destroyed.

If a building had a spreading mildew, it had to be scraped and repaired. If the mildew did not return, the house was declared clean after a ceremony in which one bird was killed and the other released (Leviticus 14:48-53). If the mildew returned, the entire house had to be dumped outside the town in an "unclean" place (verses 33-45).

### Purpose of the ceremonies

The laws of uncleanness are unusual, and the purification ceremonies are unusual, too. Why would a red heifer be more effective than a black one? Was there any public-health reason for dumping sacrificial ashes in a clean place rather than an unclean one?

Does the legislation forbid husbands and wives to sleep in the same bed 25 percent of the time? Why was sexual intercourse defiling? Why were sin offerings required for circumstances beyond a person's control? Why were pots broken rather than purified in a fire? Were people supposed to avoid uncleanness if they could? Was it somehow sinful to help bury a dead relative?

Why did the water of cleansing make some people clean and others unclean? Why are the rules so concerned about contagious skin diseases, but not any other contagious diseases? Why is a person affected from head to toe considered clean? Why anoint the right big toe instead of the left little toe?

There are many questions we cannot answer. The distinction between clean and unclean, as far as we can understand, was in many cases arbitrary. Above all, the rules reminded the Israelites that they were different from other peoples. Births and deaths reminded the people to be in harmony with God. Daily activities reminded the people that they were not perfectly holy. Various taboos gave the people frequent reminders that God had something to say about how they lived. Sacred things were different from ordinary things, and the Israelite nation, being holy to God, was different from other nations.

Laws about uncleanness might have given the Israelites some public-health benefits, but those benefits seem more incidental than the main goal. The quarantining of skin diseases may have helped prevent their spread, but it would have been better to quarantine other diseases, instead. It would have been good to wash before childbirth as well as afterward. If mildew was a public-health hazard, it would have been dangerous for anyone to scrape the inside of the house walls.

God did not claim any health benefits for these rules. Therefore, although we might discern, from our 20th-century perspective, some health benefits to _some_ practices, we cannot claim that they were _all_ principles of health. These laws do not authorize us, as Christians, to examine skin sores and expel people from church services if their sores have gotten larger. (But, as an expression of love for others, we rightly quarantine for contagious diseases that the law of Moses does not mention.)

We do not forbid people to take the Lord's Supper if they touched a dead person the previous day. We do not check to see who has slept on which bed or how long it's been since they had a discharge of some sort. If we kill a mosquito on our arm, for an extreme example, we do not wash our clothes and consider ourselves unclean until evening even though we have touched the body of an unclean animal.

Moreover, we have no scriptural guidelines telling us which customs were arbitrary and which were beneficial. Therefore, we have no biblical reason to reject one rule and retain another. All the procedures for washing are now obsolete (Hebrews 9:10), superseded by the spiritual cleansing that Christ gives. In the new covenant, we do not have any rules for cleansing; they are not relevant to our relationship with God. (We believe in good hygiene and sanitation, but this is not under discussion in the biblical concepts of clean and unclean.)

Jesus' example is instructive. He touched people with leprosy and people with discharges (Matthew 8:3; 9:20). Even though the people were healed, under the old covenant rules, both they and Jesus would technically be unclean until evening. However, Jesus made no effort to avoid this. Nor do we read that Jesus ever participated in a cleansing ceremony. In the new covenant, a nocturnal emission or menstruation does not affect our status with God. It is not wrong to touch a dead person. There is nothing to repent of, to ask forgiveness for or to be cleansed of in the religious sense.

### Unclean meat

Now let us look at the distinction between clean and unclean animals. It's the same Hebrew word; there is no indication in the Bible that this uncleanness was different in nature or in purpose to other types of uncleanness.

Noah was told to make a distinction between clean and unclean animals (Genesis 7:1-9). We are not told _why_ Noah was to make the distinction; the only evidence we have in Genesis is that the clean animals were used for sacrifice (Genesis 8:20). After the flood, God said, "Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything" (Genesis 9:3). This indicates that humans did not eat any meat before the flood, and that all types of meat were permissible after the flood.

For Noah, the distinction between clean and unclean animals was for sacrifices, not for food; the passage says nothing about clean and unclean in reference to eating meat. _The Jewish Encyclopedia_ says:

#### It seems that in the mind of this writer the distinction between clean and unclean animals was intended for sacrifices only: for in the following chapter he makes God say: "Everything that moveth shall be food for you" (Genesis ix. 3). ("Clean and Unclean Animals," vol. 4, p. 110)

After the flood, Noah was allowed to eat " _all_ the beasts of the earth and _all_ the birds of the air... _every_ creature... _all_ the fish... _everything_ that lives and moves... _everything_ " (Genesis 9:2-4). Blood was listed as an exception, but unclean animals were not. The implication is, and the traditional Jewish interpretation is, that Noah could eat any kind of meat he wanted, just as he could eat any kind of green plant he wanted. (Some plants are poisonous, but God did not list the ones that are. He allowed humans to discern which plants are good; this is done by scientific investigation. Likewise, some animals are not good for food. God allowed Noah and his descendants to investigate which were good for food.)

Clean and unclean animals are listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14. God makes no claims there regarding health. He does not say that camels have more parasites than cows do, or that fish-eating herons are more hazardous to us than fish-eating ducks. He simply gives some rules without giving reasons. We are not told why honeybees are unclean but honey can be eaten. We are not told why bottom-feeding carp may be eaten but bottom-feeding catfish cannot, or why grasshoppers are OK but crabs are not. Or perhaps we might wonder whether camel's milk and human milk are equally forbidden.

If people touched a dead unclean animal, they would be unclean until evening (Leviticus 11:24-26). However, the same penalty applied to Israelites who touched a dead _clean_ animal or ate any of it (Leviticus 11:39-40; 17:15). Leviticus 5:2-6 prescribes the additional penalty of a sin offering and a guilt offering even for accidental touching.

Why did God give these rules? Leviticus 11:44-45 gives this reason: Since God is holy (separate), he wanted his people to be holy and distinct from other cultures. He wanted them to make distinctions in what they could do and what they should not. It was a reminder of holiness. Leviticus 20:24-26 gives a similar reason: God set the Israelites apart from the nations, so they must therefore make a distinction between animals:

#### I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations. You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals.... You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

The rules in Deuteronomy 14 begin (verse 2) and end (verse 21) with a similar "setting apart." If the Israelites found something dead, they were not allowed to eat it, but a Gentile _could_ eat it. "Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the Lord your God."

The meat was unclean, but it could be given or sold to a Gentile. But God would not encourage something harmful to be sold. This shows that the distinction between clean and unclean was designed for Israelites, not for health. Israelites had different rules than Gentiles; the rules about uncleanness separated the Israelite nation from Gentile nations.

Years later, Ezekiel criticized the priests for their failure to teach the people the difference between the clean and the unclean. They were failing to do their duty under the old covenant — failing to discern leprosy and failing to discriminate against those who had touched corpses and people with discharges. A similar criticism was given by Malachi: The people and priests were giving defective offerings. When the prophets criticized Levitical functions, they were not telling us what _we_ are required to do today.

Ezekiel predicted a time when the priests would do their duty, teaching the difference between clean and unclean (44:23). But in these prophecies of correct worship, he also included sacrifices (20:40; 45:17) and a requirement for circumcision (44:9). When the prophets made predictions about worship, they were not telling us what _we_ are required to do today.

### Why these rules?

The Bible never indicates that the uncleanness of animals was different from any other sorts of uncleanness. They served similar purposes. The Bible doesn't make any claims about health benefits in these chapters. Although we can see some health benefits to avoiding certain types of meat, these benefits appear to be coincidental rather than the primary purpose of the list. If the problem was parasites, for example, a simple solution would have been to require thorough cooking. Moreover, clean animals can have parasites, just as unclean animals can.

If health were the primary purpose, then God didn't include enough laws. If God wanted to give us health laws, he would need to spend more time advocating exercise and sleep rather than forbidding seagulls and bats, which few people want to eat anyway. He would need to tell us about which mushrooms are dangerous, and which herbs increase our chances for cancer. He would need to tell us about the more dangerous health hazards.

Using human reason and scientific data, we might be able to discern some health benefits to avoiding certain types of unclean meat, but we cannot with biblical authority say that they are all harmful to health. The rules presumably did not harm the Israelites' health, but neither did God claim that this set of laws would benefit their health. He promised to help their health if they obeyed the entire covenant (Deuteronomy 7:15), but this was described as a supernatural blessing, not simply a natural result of a better diet. The laws were given in terms of holiness, not health. Holiness and health may overlap, but they are not synonymous.

God told the Israelites to make a distinction between the clean and the unclean because he had made a distinction between the Israelites and the Gentiles. Under the new covenant, however, God does _not_ make a distinction between Israelites and Gentiles. He dwells in us all. We all have access to God equally — God hears our prayers whether we have touched a dead body or not, whether we have eaten pork or not. He calls on us to be holy, but holiness is in matters of the heart rather than external rules that have no connection with morality. Just as circumcision is now a matter of the heart, so also is the distinction between the clean and the unclean (Hebrews 10:22; James 4:8).

Jews have traditionally considered the dietary rules to be unnecessary for Gentiles. Gentiles need to observe these restrictions only if they want to become proselytes and come under the covenant made at Sinai. Gentiles could be saved, the rabbis taught, by observing laws that go back to Noah, and avoiding unclean meat was not part of their requirements. In this way, the Jews acknowledged that Genesis does not forbid the eating of unclean meat, and that it is a ceremonial matter, not a moral one. _The Jewish Encyclopedia_ defines Noachian laws:

#### laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews.... They declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob.... A seventh commandment was added after the Flood — not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal.... He who observed the seven Noachian laws was regarded as a domiciled alien...as one of the pious of the Gentiles, and was assured of a portion in the world to come. ("Laws, Noachian," vol. 7, pp. 648-9)

Talmudic references are _Aboda Zara_ 64b and _Sanhedrin_ 56ab; see also _Sibylline Oracles_ 4:24-34.

Christians today have a relationship with God based on the covenant of faith and promise made with Abraham (Galatians 3:6-9). Faith leads us to worship and obey our Lord and Savior, but ceremonial laws are no longer required. Laws that were added at Sinai do not set aside or add requirements to the Abrahamic covenant (verses 15-17). Circumcision is an example: it was added _after_ the promise was given to Abraham, and is not necessary for Christians today. It may or may not have health benefits, but they are incidental and not a basis for religious requirement.

Although the distinction between clean and unclean animals existed before Abraham for sacrificial purposes, the meat of unclean animals was not a prohibited food until after the old covenant had been made. Under the old covenant, unclean meats were a matter of ethnic separation and worship regulation, and the rules are therefore not a matter of sin today — just as it is not a sin to touch a dead body or to have a skin disease or sleep in the same bed as your wife.

### Mark 7:15-19

In Mark 7:15-19, Jesus said, "Nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'... For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body."

Jesus was addressing the Pharisees' practice of handwashing before every meal (verse 3). This washing was not because of their concern for personal hygiene, but because they did not want their eating to make them ceremonially unclean. Jesus phrased his analysis of their practice with a general statement that applies to foods as well as hands and utensils.

In the Old Testament, uncleanness was a matter of external matters. Even touching an unclean thing, let alone eating it, could defile a person. Therefore, when Jesus said that nothing entering people defiled them or made them unclean, he overthrew a basic principle of that whole system. People are defiled by things that are in their heart, not by what physically touches their bodies. God looks on the heart, not the stomach; he judges our attitudes, not our diets.

The Greek text of verse 19b is disputed. In the version used by the King James translators, the participle "cleansing" seems to be part of the words of Jesus. In this version, Jesus says, "Foods cannot make people unclean, since they go through the body, thus purifying all foods." In this version, Jesus is talking about the digestive system and elimination.

There are two problems with this textual version and interpretation. First, the New Testament does not use the word _katharizo_ with the meaning of "purge" in any other passage. It normally refers to cleansing in a religious sense, either through ceremonies or by a cleansing of the conscience through forgiveness. The context in this passage is ceremonial cleansing.

Second, the digestive process and bowel movements can get rid of dirt, but soil particles were not the concern of the Pharisees. The context is ceremonial cleanness, and the digestive process cannot make anyone or anything religiously or ceremonially clean.

The Greek text used by most translations differs by only one Greek letter from that used by the King James translators. One version has the letter omicron; the other has an omega. The different letter links the participle "cleansing" with the "he" in verse 18. The thought is this: "He said [most of verses 18-19], cleansing all foods." Verse 19b is not Jesus' words but Mark's comment about the significance of what Jesus had said. That is why many translations place verse 19b outside the quotation marks. The Greek text they are basing their translation on requires this. Mark explains that Jesus' principle can be applied to all foods, including meats.

The text of verse 19b is debatable, but our understanding of clean and unclean meats does not depend on this one word. Our understanding is not based on debatable points of textual criticism. Rather, it is founded on Jesus' teaching: contrary to the old covenant, nothing entering a person can defile that person. Foods do not defile people. Under the new covenant, pork does not cut anyone off from God.

Our understanding is based on the broader context of the entire new covenant revelation. Paul echoed Jesus' words when he wrote that all foods are clean, as we will see below.

Many Christians accept Mark 7:15-19 (in either textual version) as clear evidence that all meats may be eaten. This is a reasonable interpretation, and we should not condemn or ostracize those who hold this view.

### Peter's vision

As we move forward in the New Testament, we come to Acts 10. Peter was given a vision of all sorts of animals and told to kill and eat (verse 13). He protested, saying that he had never eaten anything common or unclean, but the command was given again and again.

The vision was then explained: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean" (verse 15). Peter also explained the vision: "God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean" (verse 28). Even if Cornelius had been eating pork, he was neither common nor unclean. Those distinctions were no longer valid. His food could not make him unclean.

Why did Peter use both "unclean" ( _akathartos_ ) and "common" ( _koinos_ )? Some have suggested that _koinos_ refers to clean animals made temporarily unclean by proximity to unclean animals. The two words have different root words, but their meanings overlap. _Koinos_ was the uncleanness that the Pharisees were concerned about in Mark 7. The verb form of the word, _koinoo_ (to make something common), is used in Hebrews 9:13 to refer to the ceremonial uncleanness that had to be cleansed by the water made with the ashes of a red heifer, and the Hebrew word for that is the same word as used for unclean animals. _Koinos_ and _akathartos_ have roughly the same meaning.

The Louw and Nida lexicon lists _koinos_ as a synonym of _akathartos,_ saying: "It is possible that there is some subtle distinction in meaning, particularly on a connotative level, between _koinos_ and _akathartos_ in Ac 10.14, but it is difficult to determine the precise differences of meaning on the basis of existing contexts. The two terms are probably used in Ac 10.14 primarily for the sake of emphasis." Such repetition, using similar words or phrases, was a common Jewish form of emphasis.

In the vision, the unclean animals represented Gentiles. In vision, the animals were called cleansed. Peter understood from this that Gentiles were cleansed. But would Peter understand this conclusion if unclean animals were not in fact declared clean? If the animal remained unclean, wouldn't the person it represented also remain unclean? God was showing Peter that Christians were no longer separate from Gentiles — his people included Gentiles. The laws of separation no longer applied. The meats that were commonly eaten among the Gentiles did not make them religiously unacceptable.

This passage does not directly say that God cleansed all foods, but many readers have seen that implication. There is certainly nothing in Acts 10 to counteract that implication — nor is there any discussion of unclean meat in Acts 15, when the Jerusalem council decided that Gentile converts did not have to keep the law of Moses. Since the Jewish rabbis did not think that Gentiles were required to avoid pork unless they became circumcised proselytes, and the council (composed of Jewish Christians) was inspired to conclude that circumcision was not required, the implication in this historical context is that the council did not require Gentiles to quit eating unclean meats.

In the vision, why did Peter refuse to eat the unclean animals? Because he did not yet understand that they could be considered clean. He did not understand the implications of Jesus' comment. He did not yet understand that common meat (by anyone's definition) could be eaten. In his own experience as a Jew and as a Jewish Christian, he had "never eaten anything impure or unclean" (Acts 10:14).

Peter's understanding was incomplete; he learned a bit at a time. Moreover, he did not perfectly live up to what he understood, as Paul points out in Galatians 2. Peter withdrew from Gentile tables when legalistic Jewish Christians came to Antioch, and Paul rightly criticized Peter's hypocrisy. Those legalistic believers should have known from Jesus' teachings that handwashing and other nonbiblical rules were wrong. Yet they were still making separations between Jews and Gentiles.

Paul notes that Peter normally ate with Gentiles, not considering them unclean (Galatians 2:12). Peter lived "like a Gentile and not like a Jew." What would it mean, from a Jewish perspective, for a person to live like a Gentile? It would not mean that idolatry was permissible, but it would mean that it was permissible for the person to eat pork and other previously forbidden meats. Peter concluded that the church should not "force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs" (verse 14).

### Romans 14

We turn next to Romans 14, which tells us that all foods are clean, and it discusses the delicate matter of handling people in the same congregation who disagree as to what foods are permissible.

One of the issues in Romans 14 is vegetarianism, but Paul's explanation of the subject applies to meats, too, especially when he says, "As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that _no food is unclean [koinos] in itself._ But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean" (verse 14). He says something similar in verse 20: " _All food is clean [katharos],_ but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble."

The Roman church included both Jews and Gentiles, and some of the Jewish Christians may have been vegetarians because they distrusted the cleanness of all meats. Regardless of the reason for their vegetarianism, Paul's statements are principles that may be applied to all matters of clean and unclean foods. When Paul said that no food is unclean, he used the Greek word _koinos,_ which means common or ordinary, unclean or defiled. He said that all foods are clean, using _katharos,_ the same word Jews used for cleanness and clean animals.

Paul did not restrict his statements or their application, even for a church area he had not been in before, even though it contained both Jews and Gentiles. Paul's Gentile readers in Rome would have understood that pork was a food, and from Paul's letter, they would have concluded that it was clean or OK to eat.

But Paul knew that some of his readers would not accept his analysis. He did not demand that they agree. Instead, he encouraged them to remain true to their convictions, and he cautioned others to avoid offending them.

Paul wrote to the strong in faith: "Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters" (verse 1). Is the matter of unclean meat a disputable matter? Yes. Some people may believe that they can eat all meats, but others may believe that they ought to abstain from pork and shrimp. "The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does" (verse 3). It is not wrong to abstain, but it is wrong to condemn someone else.

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls.... We will all stand before God's judgment seat," Paul advised in verses 4 and 10. "He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God" (verse 6). Whether we eat or whether we abstain, we should do it in an attitude of submission to Christ.

If people think that eating pork is a sin, then they should avoid pork — just as those who believe that drinking alcohol is a sin ought to avoid alcohol. "The man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin" (verse 23). Everyone must be fully convinced about the way in which they serve the Lord (verse 5). It's not that all ways are equally acceptable, but that each person should be fully convinced. The attitude is more important than the action itself. It's the inside of a person that counts most.

Paul also cautions that the strong should not flaunt their liberty. "It is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble" (verse 20). "If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil" (verses 15-16). "Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way" (verse 13).

Some have taught (without biblical proof) that meats are a matter of health, and that it is a sin to desire the forbidden foods. However, in the world today, alcohol is a _much_ greater health problem than pork and shrimp, and yet the Bible does not forbid alcohol.

Many people believe that it is wrong to eat pork. Their experience would be similar to Peter's. They have not eaten pork or shrimp. It would be wrong for anyone to pressure such people into eating pork. "It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall" (verse 21).

"Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food," Paul says to everyone (verse 20). Do not let disputable matters lead to dissention and judging within the church. "Whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God" (verse 22). That does not mean that you have to keep your beliefs secret, of course (Paul did not) — it means that your belief affects your own relationship with God; it should not intrude into other peoples' relationships with God.

Paul closes with a warning for the strong, lest they take their liberty too far: "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves" (verse 22). Do not sin by flaunting your belief in such a way that you cause others to sin.

When Paul wrote that our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and that we should honor God with our bodies (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), he was talking about sexual sins, not about physical health. The holiness that God wants is in our morality, not in our diets. We are sanctified in our hearts, not in dietary customs. If we are discerning good from evil in our morality, then we are automatically obedient to the _purpose_ of the clean/unclean rules about discharges and sores and meats.

The last relevant scripture is 1 Timothy 4:3-5, which says that all food may be eaten if it is "consecrated by the word of God." Does the Bible consecrate all meats? Romans 14:20 says yes — all are clean. Everything that God has created is good (1 Timothy 4:4). This passage does not comment on whether all meats are good for our health, just as it does not say that all vegetables are good for food. Whether it is good for food is up to people to discern, just as it was in the days after Noah's flood. The distinctions given in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 do not tell us.

### Conclusion

Are any meats unclean? The New Testament says "no" — the category of uncleanness was a religious, ceremonial category that ended with the old covenant. God's people were commanded not to eat unclean animals only in the old covenant. The law began with the old covenant and ended when the old covenant was made obsolete by the death of Christ. The New Testament specifically says that all foods are, for religious purposes, clean.

Are any meats unhealthful? Yes, but that category is not exactly the same group of animals forbidden under the old covenant. Whether a meat is good for food is determined not by a ceremonial category, but by scientific research. The church does not make such decisions, and does not forbid its members to eat any particular kind of meat.

Some people may avoid pork just in case it _might_ be harmful to health. That is certainly permissible, but we cannot make that a religious requirement for those who do not have such beliefs. The Bible does not say that those rules had anything to do with health, so we cannot preach that they do. Some meats are harmful to health, but the church is not in the business of enforcing dietary rules, whether they concern meat or vegetables or minerals.

Some will continue to abstain from pork and shrimp because eating such foods would violate their conscience. The church is not insisting that Christians eat any such foods. They should obey according to their understanding.

The distinction between clean and unclean animals was for sacrificial and ceremonial purposes and, later, to separate Israelites from Gentiles. The rules affected participation in the sacrificial system — and that context is now obsolete. The rules are not requirements today. The New Testament tells us that food cannot make us spiritually or physically unclean. All food is clean. It is not a sin to eat pork or shrimp or beef.

God's church can peacefully contain people who have different opinions on this subject, just as the Roman church included people of different convictions. The kingdom of God is not based on food or drink, but on "righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Romans 14:17). "Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification" (verse 19).

###### ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

###### back to table of contents

##   
About the Authors

**Joseph Tkach** has been, since 1995, the president of Grace Communion International. He earned a D.Min. degree from Azusa Pacific Seminary in 2000. He is the author of _Transformed by Truth: The Worldwide Church of God Rejects the Teachings of Founder Herbert W. Armstrong and Embraces Historic Christianity,_ and several e-books.

**Michael Morrison** received a PhD from Fuller Theological Seminary in 2006. He is Dean of Faculty and Professor of New Testament for Grace Communion Seminary. He is the author of numerous e-books and the following printed books:

Who Needs a New Covenant? The Rhetorical Function of the Covenant Motif in the Argument of Hebrews.

Sabbath, Circumcision and Tithing

Exploring the Word of God: The Letters of Paul

When **John Curry** wrote his paper on "What is the Law of God for Christians Today?," he was an employee of the Grace Communion International affiliate in Australia.

When **Paul Kroll** wrote his chapters, he was an employee of Grace Communion International. He has written numerous articles, which have been incorporated into numerous e-books. He is now retired.

## About the Publisher...

Grace Communion International is a Christian denomination with about 50,000 members, worshiping in about 900 congregations in almost 100 nations and territories. We began in 1934 and our main office is in North Carolina. In the United States, we are members of the National Association of Evangelicals and similar organizations in other nations. We welcome you to visit our website at www.gci.org.

If you want to know more about the gospel of Jesus Christ, we offer help. First, we offer weekly worship services in hundreds of congregations worldwide. Perhaps you'd like to visit us. A typical worship service includes songs of praise, a message based on the Bible, and opportunity to meet people who have found Jesus Christ to be the answer to their spiritual quest. We try to be friendly, but without putting you on the spot. We do not expect visitors to give offerings—there's no obligation. You are a guest.

To find a congregation, write to one of our offices, phone us or visit our website. If we do not have a congregation near you, we encourage you to find another Christian church that teaches the gospel of grace.

We also offer personal counsel. If you have questions about the Bible, salvation or Christian living, we are happy to talk. If you want to discuss faith, baptism or other matters, a pastor near you can discuss these on the phone or set up an appointment for a longer discussion. We are convinced that Jesus offers what people need most, and we are happy to share the good news of what he has done for all humanity. We like to help people find new life in Christ, and to grow in that life. Come and see why we believe it's the best news there could be!

Our work is funded by members of the church who donate part of their income to support the gospel. Jesus told his disciples to share the good news, and that is what we strive to do in our literature, in our worship services, and in our day-to-day lives.

If this e-book has helped you and you want to pay some expenses, all donations are gratefully welcomed, and in several nations, are tax-deductible. If you can't afford to give anything, don't worry about it. It is our gift to you. To make a donation online, go to www.gci.org/participate/donate.

Thank you for letting us share what we value most — Jesus Christ. The good news is too good to keep it to ourselves.

See our website for hundreds of articles, locations of our churches, addresses in various nations, audio and video messages, and much more.

Grace Communion International  
3129 Whitehall Park Dr.

Charlotte, NC 28273-3335

800-423-4444

www.gci.org

### You're Included...

We talk with leading Trinitarian theologians about the good news that God loves you, wants you, and includes you in Jesus Christ. Most programs are about 28 minutes long. Our guests have included:

Ray Anderson, Fuller Theological Seminary

Douglas A. Campbell, Duke Divinity School

Elmer Colyer, U. of Dubuque Theological Seminary

Gordon Fee, Regent College

Trevor Hart, University of St. Andrews

George Hunsinger, Princeton Theological Seminary

C. Baxter Kruger, Perichoresis

Jeff McSwain, Reality Ministries

Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University

Paul Molnar, St. John's University

Cherith Fee Nordling, Antioch Leadership Network

Andrew Root, Luther Seminary

Alan Torrance, University of St. Andrews

Robert T. Walker, Edinburgh University

N.T. Wright, University of St. Andrews

William P. Young, author of _The Shack_

Programs are available free for viewing and downloading at www.youreincluded.org.

### Speaking of Life...

Dr. Joseph Tkach, president of Grace Communion International, comments each week, giving a biblical perspective on how we live in the light of God's love. Most programs are about three minutes long – available in video, audio, and text. Go to www.speakingoflife.org.

back to table of contents

##

### Grace Communion Seminary

Ministry based on the life and love of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

Grace Communion Seminary serves the needs of people engaged in Christian service who want to grow deeper in relationship with our Triune God and to be able to more effectively serve in the church.

Why study at Grace Communion Seminary?

 Worship: to love God with all your mind.

 Service: to help others apply truth to life.

 Practical: a balanced range of useful topics for ministry.

 Trinitarian theology: a survey of theology with the merits of a Trinitarian perspective. We begin with the question, "Who is God?" Then, "Who are we in relationship to God?" In this context, "How then do we serve?"

 Part-time study: designed to help people who are already serving in local congregations. There is no need to leave your current ministry. Full-time students are also welcome.

 Flexibility: your choice of master's level continuing education courses or pursuit of a degree: Master of Pastoral Studies or Master of Theological Studies.

 Affordable, accredited study: Everything can be done online.

For more information, go to www.gcs.edu. Grace Communion Seminary is accredited by the Distance Education Accrediting Commission, www.deac.org. The Accrediting Commission is listed by the U.S. Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.

back to table of contents

## Ambassador College of Christian Ministry

Want to better understand God's Word? Want to know the Triune God more deeply? Want to share more joyously in the life of the Father, Son and Spirit? Want to be better equipped to serve others?

Among the many resources that Grace Communion International offers are the training and learning opportunities provided by ACCM. This quality, well-structured Christian Ministry curriculum has the advantage of being very practical and flexible. Students may study at their own pace, without having to leave home to undertake full-time study.

This denominationally recognized program is available for both credit and audit study. At minimum cost, this online Diploma program will help students gain important insights and training in effective ministry service. Students will also enjoy a rich resource for personal study that will enhance their understanding and relationship with the Triune God.

Diploma of Christian Ministry classes provide an excellent introductory course for new and lay pastors. Pastor General Dr. Joseph Tkach said, "We believe we have achieved the goal of designing Christian ministry training that is practical, accessible, interesting, and doctrinally and theologically mature and sound. This program provides an ideal foundation for effective Christian ministry."

For more information, go to www.ambascol.org

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

back to table of contents

###

### 
