Introduction
What is law?
A law is a set of rules used to regulate human choices.
What is the purpose of law?
The purpose of law is to promote human happiness and flourishing.
From where do laws come?
All laws always originate in some person’s mind. Compare the argument given here called the “moral argument.”
How are the different laws we encounter in our society categorized?
Into natural and revealed law.
What is the difference between natural and revealed law?
Natural law is a set of rules which we discover without any assistance from divine revelation. We simply use our own minds and reason to find them. Divine law refers to those rules we find in the Bible as for instance the decalog.
What can we know about natural law?
See here.
How do we find God’s laws in the Bible?
We look for three things: a command, a principle, or an example.
What is a command?
This is some direct imperative which we can read in Scripture such as the prohibition of drunkenness (Ephesians 5:18) or the command to gather as Christians. (Hebrews 10:25)
What do you mean by a principle?
A principle is also a rule but it is not specific. A moral principle must be applied. For instance, when you see a speed limit sign, you are seeing a rule specific to a given situation. When a police officer tells you to drive safely, that is a moral principle that is not specific. It has to be applied, and it will apply differently in different situations. Consider each of the ten commands; each of these are general moral principles that need to be applied to specific situations. For instance, when someone cuts you off on the highway, you now have an opportunity to apply (or violate) the principle “to do good to all.” (Galatians 6:10) The same is true of Jesus teaching where He commands us to love one another. (John 13:34)
What do you mean by an example?
This refers to all the things we see the great men and women of God doing in the Bible. Paul teaches us that the history of Israel is an example to us. (1 Corinthians 10:6) This category, however, is the most difficult since we first have to determine whether the example in question is good or bad. Some Christians believe that we should follow David in calling down curses on God’s enemies. Others, say that we should follow Jesus’ command to love our enemies and that Christians are not to follow David in this. Obviously, it can be difficult to know what examples we are to follow and which not.
What laws did God give His people in the Bible?
The first law which God gave to His people is contained in the very first chapter of the Bible. After creating Adam and Eve, God speaks to them:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. (Genesis 1:26-30)
This is known as the creation mandate, and it is repeated to Noah after the flood. (Genesis 9:7) The second law which God gave was the covenant which He made with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. This covenant contained the following terms:
Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” (Genesis 2:15-17)
This is the covenant known in theology as “the covenant of works.” The third law is God’s command to Noah:
Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood; you shall make the ark with rooms, and shall cover it inside and out with pitch. (Genesis 6:13-14)
The fourth instance of law is the covenant God made with Abraham. On this occasion, God commanded Abraham:
Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father’s house, To the land which I will show you; and I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” (Genesis 12:1-3)
The Law & Israel
What about all the laws God gave to Israel?
God chose to set His love on the nation of Israel. The defining event of this love was God entering into a covenant with Israel at mount Sinai. This covenant had two parts: God had his part and Israel had their part. Israel’s role in the covenant was defined by the law.
Was the law a negative thing then? Something that was imposed on Israel and something they resented?
On the contrary, the law was esteemed very highly. It was understood to be a great gift which God had given to His people. No other nation had a set of laws so perfect and so just. (Deuteronomy 4:7-8) Israel was a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6); and as a result, they had to act in keeping with this status.
What role did the law play in Israelite religion and society?
The law was at the center of Israelite life and religion. Schurer writes (p90):
All zeal for education in the family, the school and the synagogue aimed at making the whole people a people of the law. The common man too was to know what the law commanded, and not only to know, but to do it. His whole life was to be ruled according to the norm of the law; obedience thereto was to become a fixed custom, and departure therefrom an inward impossibility. On the whole, this object was to a great degree attained. Josephus declares: “Even if we are deprived of wealth, of towns, and of other possessions, the law remains to us for ever. And no Jew will be so far from his native land, nor so much fear a hostile ruler, as not to fear the law more than him.” So faithfully did most of the Jews adhere to their law, that they willingly incurred even torture and death itself in consequence. “Often already,” says Josephus, “have many of the prisoners been seen to endure the rack and all kinds of death in theatres, for the sake of not uttering a word against the law and the other Holy Scriptures.”
It is not saying too much to say that Israelite religion was nothing else than strict obedience to the law. Over time, this incredible zeal for the law led to negative results.
What negative results?
Schurer calls (p93) this negative effect, “an incredible externalizing of the religious and moral life.”
How was the law externalized?
Because the whole of their religion was obedience to the law, it became very important to them to know exactly how each precept was to be obeyed. The simple commands of God’s law were then greatly expanded going into great detail as to what was permitted and what wasn’t. The law of God was expanded to 613 distinct commands and a mountain of oral tradition was accumulated giving exact applications of these laws to every detail of daily life.
What is the oral tradition?
The torah is divided up into two parts: the written law and the oral law. The written law is the law of God written in the Pentateuch. The oral law is all the laws which God gave to Moses but were not written out as well as all the laws, customs, and traditions which the rabbis added over time. These laws were transmitted orally through the generations from father to son, from mother to daughter. This oral law was often referred to as a hedge or fence (p95) since it guarded people from violating the original command as it was in the written law. Some Jews point to this text:
Now the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the stone tablets with the law and the commandment which I have written for their instruction.” (Exodus 24:12)
where “the commandment” is understood to be the oral part of the law which God spoke to Moses but was not written down. Other rabbis use this text (p423):
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words [or “for over the mouth of these words”] I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” (Exodus 34:27)
They understand the reference to “mouth” to be an indication that God did not intend for Moses to write down all the laws but only some. The rest were to be transmitted orally. Josephepus writes (p281):
What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the law of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers; and concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side;
Was the oral law only from Moses or did the rabbis also add to it?
Yes, throughout the generations, further customs and applications of the Torah were added. These are the books known as the Mishna and the Talmud.
Was it in these books that the externalization of the law happened?
Yes, consider what happened to the fourth command.
How was the fourth command externalized?
The fourth command was originally stated:
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-11)
This was the written law. The rabbis, however, were not satisfied with this simple command and so they multiplied hundreds of applications to this law being very precise about exactly what was permitted and what wasn’t. In so doing, they devised thirty-nine different categories of work which were forbidden on the Sabbath (p97):
(1) sowing, (2) ploughing, (3) reaping, (4) binding sheaves, (5) threshing, (6) winnowing, (7) cleansing crops, (8) grinding, (9) sifting, (10) kneading, (11) baking, (12) shearing wool, (13) washing, (14) beating, (15) dyeing, (16) spinning, and (17) warping it, (18) making two cords, (19) weaving two threads, (20) separating two threads, (21) making a knot, (22) untying a knot, (23) sewing two stitches, (24) tearing to sew two stitches, (25) catching a deer, (26) killing, (27) skinning, and (28) salting it, (29) preparing its skin, (30) scraping off the hair, (31) cutting it up, (32) writing two letters, (33) blotting out for the purpose of writing two letters, (34) building, (35) pulling down, (36) putting out a fire, (37) lighting a fire, (38) beating smooth with a hammer, (39) carrying from one tenement to another.
Of course, these thirty-nine categories themselves needed explaining. Consider #21&22. Schurer explains (p98):
The prohibition of making and untying a knot was much too general to rest satisfied with. It was also necessary to state to what kind of knot this applied, and to what it did not “The following are the knots, the making of which renders a man guilty: The knot of camel-drivers and that of sailors; and as one is guilty by reason of tying, so also of untying them. R. Meir says: Guilt is not incurred by reason of a knot, which can be untied with one hand. There are knots by reason of which one is not guilty, as one is in the case of the camel-driver’s and sailor’s knots. A woman may tie up a slit in her shift and the strings of her cap, those of her girdle, the straps of the shoes and sandals, of skins of wine and oil, of a pot with meat.” And to tie strings of the girdle being permitted, it was agreed that a pail also might be tied over the well with a girdle, but not with a rope.
In terms of #37:
Caution goes still farther, when e.g. it is forbidden to read by lamplight on the Sabbath, or to cleanse clothing from vermin. For both are transactions in which a clear light is especially necessary. And thus there is obviously a temptation to stoop the lamp for the purpose of leading more oil to it, and this would offend against the prohibition of kindling fire. Hence these actions are altogether forbidden. It is indeed permitted to a schoolmaster to take care how children read by light. But he himself may not read by a light. (p101)
Schurer has many more examples of this.
What are we to think of this?
Jesus rebuked the Jewish leadership in their strict adherence to the oral law, they were actually violating the written law. This happened when some Pharisees and scribes accused Jesus for violating the tradition of the elders or the oral law. Jesus responded in the following verses:
Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER,’ and, ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH.’ But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Matthew 15:1-7)
What is Jesus teaching us here?
Corban (p131)
Romans 7
How does Paul understand the word “law” in Romans 7?
Paul uses the word in three different ways in this chapter. By far the most common usage is to refer to all the laws which God gave His people at mount Sinai. We’ll call this the Mosaic law. Second, he uses the word to refer to a motivating force in one’s soul. Third, he uses the word to refer to a common maxim of human living.
Start with the first verses.
Sure, in the first verses, we see the first usage which is by far the most common:
Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man. (Romans 7:1-3)
The first two occurrences speak of all the Mosaic laws which God gave to Israel. All the rest are references to one specific law of the Mosaic law, namely the law against adultery.
What about the rest of the chapter?
Up until verse 21, the word is always used to refer to the Mosaic law with the understanding that all of God’s laws function in this same way.
Function in what way?
Paul teaches that the law stirs up our sinful passions leading us to do the very thing that the law forbids. (Romans 7:8-11; more)
What changes in verse 21?
Here Paul uses the word law, translated principle here, in the third sense given above. It means a general rule or maxim of life. It is something that his years of experience had taught him.
I find then the principle [law/νομος] that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. (Romans 7:21)
What about the remaining verses?
In verse 22, Paul again uses the word, in its most common sense, to refer to God’s law:
For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man… (Romans 7:22)
In verse 23, Paul uses the word three times. All three times, Paul adopts the second meaning given above. It means a motivating or drawing force. Now the law isn’t just prescribing what is to be done but draws, leads, and even seduces the person to obey its commands. The “different law” he sees in himself is the same as the “law of sin.” It is always pushing him towards evil.
…but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. (Romans 7:23)
When Paul speaks of the the “law of my mind,” he also means a motivating force but this time something that is drawing him towards righteousness. This is confirmed because Paul tells us in v25, that with his mind, he serves the law of God.