Covenant Connections in Paul (Part 5)

Read the series.

Paul, the Law, and the New Covenant

It all comes down to this: the saint who is under the New covenant in Christ is not under the old covenant. The reason is twofold. Firstly, Paul, in agreement with Jesus’ earlier statement in Matthew 5:17-20, declares that faith in Christ does not void the law but rather establishes it in the act of keeping it for us (Rom. 3:31).¹ My second reason comes as a logical consequence of my insistence that Christ embodies the New covenant, and that is that right relationship to Christ by faith necessarily includes entrance into New covenant status for the saint. And one cannot be a party to two conflicting covenants, one dealing with ‘works’, the other dealing with pure grace.

For those who hold that the New covenant is restricted to future Israel, or even for those who believe that the Church somehow has some sort of tangential relationship to the New covenant, they cannot point to covenant transference as a major reason for the saint not being under the Law, but they can point to the fact that Christ has rendered moot the requirements of the Law in terms of righteousness. The NT is clear on this issue. Christ came “to redeem those who were under the Law” (Gal. 4:5). Henceforth, a person who is redeemed from being under the Law must now perforce no longer be under the Law. The Law as an external standard has absolutely no authority over the Christian (e.g., Gal. 2:16, 19; 3:1-3, 11-12).

But then we must ask about the relationship of the saint to the Law, for it is plain to see that one exists for Paul still appeals to it on occasion (e.g., with women keeping silent in the assembly—1 Cor. 14:34). If the Law is not operative in some sense now how can Paul say that “every mouth will be stopped, and all the world will be guilty before God”—the standard being God’s Law (Rom. 3:19)? And what is Paul doing in Romans 13:9?

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet, “and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Romans 13:8-10 can you see how Paul enjoins Christian love by referring to the Law! This is because the Ten Commandments (well, nine of them²) are divine disclosures of ethical norms based on the attributes of God. If it is alright foe an apostle to base moral teaching on the Law, then it must be okay to include the Law as a standard for Christian conduct.³ But I must immediately qualify the statement. First, these commandments reflect God’s own character (e.g., He is truthful, just, faithful, etc.), and as such they possess normative moral authority over a Christian. Thus, if one is to be “conformed to the image of Christ” he will be conformed more and more to the Decalogue. This is important to notice since the Law cannot regulate behavior as a “rule of faith.”

If we examine Romans 6, we come across a most important question: “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?” If we return Paul’s strong negative answer, then the question for the Christian ethicist is, “Well then, what ought we to do?” How do we explicate a passage like Romans 6:11-19 for the people of God? This involves us in the setting forth of a positive ethics. We know Who the standard is (Rom. 8:29; Phil. 3:14), and we know that the Commandments, correctly understood, point to His moral perfection. Therefore, we may use the law lawfully (1 Tim. 1:8), as Paul does, to “adjust” our conduct accordingly. This is just to say that the normativity of the Ten Commandments (minus the 4^th) derives from their universal application.⁴

Think of another example: The Bible tells us not to bear false witness (Exod. 20:16; Rom. 11:9). This is a NT use of the Eighth Commandment which some say they are not obliged to obey in any sense—since the law is not a norm for Christians. But if one does not hold themselves to be accountable to this commandment—even though it is in a NT epistle written to Jews and Gentiles—they need not trouble themselves on this point. However, this leaves them on the horns of a dilemma. If a person believes they are not commanded to tell the truth—that is, if they believe “you shall not lie or bear false witness” is not an authoritative command to them because, 1. they are a Gentile, and 2. they are sanctified by faith alone, then clearly, they can lie with impunity. If the rejoinder comes back that Christians are under the law of Christ (Gal. 6:2), I reply that that law is Love (e.g., Rom. 13:8, 10).

Let us compare two Pauline passages to further elucidate my point:

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. (1 Corinthians 7:19)

For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:4)

In the 1 Corinthians verse “the commandments of God” surely refer to the Law in some way, and that way is set in opposition to the cultic requirements of the Law as seen in circumcision. This means that Paul is offsetting one aspect of the Law with another. The first aspect involves the universal ethics entailed in the Ten Commandments (minus the 4^th), while the second aspect is the cultic-ethnic aspect tied to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. This does not mean that it is okay to divide the Law up into moral, cultic, and ceremonial pieces. For example, the Fourth Commandment is ethnocentric and concerns Israel just like circumcision. But it is nevertheless true to say that while the rule of male circumcision is for Jews, and is therefore not universal, the rule concerning idolatry is for all God’s worshipers. Hence, in 1 Corinthians 7:19 “the commandments of God” have to do with the universal and unchangeable realities which reflect God’s majesty and character and ergo are fully in force for Christians, even if they are not in themselves a means of justification. The commandments reflect the character of God and are normative for the saint on that basis! In Romans 10:4 where justification of the sinner is at issue (Rom. 10:3, 5) Christ is the telos; the goal of the Law is achieved in Him.

These admonitions from Paul (and others such as in Eph. 1-5:21 and 1 Thess. 4:1-7) can all be subsumed within the Ten Commandments as expounded by writers like Jochen Douma and John Frame (again, minus the Sabbath command).⁵ A person who will not be ethically accountable to the Ten Commandments cannot, without serious contradiction, consider themselves obligated to obey Paul’s injunctions either. They are of one fabric.

In summary, the law is not a rule of life for the Christian. The Christian is not “under the law” in that sense. Moreover, because of the Christian’s involvement in the New covenant in Christ he cannot be “under the law” as a rule of life, Christ having lived that life. But the Christian should realize that it is always wrong to have other gods, or to dishonor God’s name, or to commit adultery or steal. These are universal ethical norms because they reflect the character of God Himself, and so stamp a moral imperative upon human beings at all times and in all places. This is how the Apostle can refer believers to them while teaching us that “we are not under law but under grace.” (Rom. 6:14).