Some time around or after the Protestant Reformation the Biblical term "Law" had popularly come to mean something along the lines of 'any good work God commands of humans'. This erroneous definition led millions into misunderstand Paul's teaching on Salvation, thinking that Paul was against all works done under any circumstances. But if we really care about the Bible (which I'm starting to think Protestants do not), we cannot go around making up our own definitions of key Biblical terms. The simple truth is, the Bible clearly and consistently defines "the Law" to be the Mosaic Law, and this post will encourage readers to see the plain evidence for themselves.
The Greek term "Law" (Nomos) occurs almost 200 times in the New Testament, so we should be able to get a pretty good idea of its range of meaning, especially in key chapters where Paul is contrasting the Law to the Gospel. Here's my breakdown:
- Throughout the Gospels, the term "Law" is consistently used to refer to the Mosaic Law or Old Testament as a whole, and in fact I don't see a single instance where it means anything else. The following 30 verses are all the occurrences of "Law" within the Gospels (note it never occurs within Mark), and if you hover your mouse over the verse it will show you what it says: Mt 5:17-18; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36; 22:40; 23:23; Lk 2:22-24; 2:27; 2:39; 10:26: 16:16-17; 24:44; Jn 1:17; 1:45; 7:19; 7:23; 7:49; 7:51; 8:5; 8:17; 10:34: 12:34; 15:25; 18:31; 19:7. This data is extremely significant because for the Jewish mind "Law" meant something very specific and very fixed. In fact, the Jews had little regard for any merely human law, since what they had was from Yahweh, the One True God. I don't think we appreciate just what it means to have a detailed Rule of Living given to us directly by God. Such is a blessing!
- Similarly, throughout all 19 occurrences within Acts, the term "Law" clearly refers to the Mosaic Law (Acts 6:13; 7:53; 13:15; 13:39; 15:5; 15:24; 18:13; 18:15; 21:20; 21:24; 21:28; 22:3; 22:12; 23:3; 23:29; 24:6; 24:14; 25:8; 28:23). The way it is used in Acts is even more significant than in the Gospels, since Acts is where we see the Apostles preaching to both Jews and Gentiles how to be saved.
- Turning to Paul, we can break down our analysis into three parts, since Paul uses the term "Law" about 51 times in Romans alone, and 25 times in Galatians, with 13 times in his other writings:
- Within Romans, since the term "Law" appears so many times (51), it is best to only highlight key aspects. In Chapter 2, the term "Law" appears 11 times, clearly within the context of Jews versus Gentiles, circumcision versus circumcision, etc. Thus, the most natural understanding is Mosaic Law (Rom 2:14; 2:17; 2:25). In the 6 occurrences in Chapter 3 (Rom 3:19-21; 3:27-28; 3:31), these are clearly within the context of Jew versus Gentile as well, and thus the most natural reading is Mosaic Law (e.g. Rom 3:29-30). While the occurrences in Chapter 3 are the most disputed/abused, as we will soon see the Mosaic Law fits best and should be given preference, rather than trying to overturn the clear themes everywhere else!
In Chapter 4, the four occurrences are contrasting Abraham to the Law (Rom 4:13-16), not merely Abraham to "works". This is significant because we cannot rip Romans 4:1-12 out of context with what was said in Ch3 and in 4:13-16. Paul most reasonably (and often explicitly) has the same theme in mind throughout Ch2-5, rather than separate stand-alone themes scattered throughout these chapters. In Chapter 5, the key passage of Rom 5:13-14 (Rom 5:20) is clearly saying the Law didn't exist until the time of Moses, which means the Mosaic Law is the most logical option. By Paul saying death reigned "from Adam until Moses," this means the term "Law" does not apply to Adam's time nor to Abraham's (cf Rom 4:13-16), and thus it makes little sense to see it as some generic law.
In Romans 6:14-15, for Paul to say a Christian is "not under the Law" most naturally means 'not under Jewish obligations', as it would make little sense for Paul to say a Christian isn't bound to any kind of obedience (though some Protestants actually suggest this, contrary to texts like 1 John 2:4; 3:24; 5:2 and 1 Cor 7:19).
Romans 7 is especially fascinating, and probably needs its own post, as the term "Law" occurs about 23 times, more than anywhere in the NT! The most natural reading is that Paul has the Mosaic Law in mind (e.g. Rom 7:7), which is what convicts him of being a sinner in need of salvation and transformed living through Jesus. Even though Paul starts to speak of "the law of sin" in this chapter, this still isn't referring to deeds in general, but rather the former way of living which is typified by life under the Old Covenant. Paul contrasts this to "the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:2-4; 8:7), which is certainly the New Covenant lifestyle we are required to live by. This new way of living required of Christians is the whole point of Romans 8, and which we see in the references to the (Mosaic) "Law" being "fulfilled" in Romans 13:8-10.
In Romans 9 and 10, the Mosaic Law is clearly in view (Rom 9:31-32; 10:4-5). These are important chapters of Romans regarding Salvation, so it is very significant that Paul isn't speaking in generality here, but clearly that of Jewish living being the problem. Why would Paul need to constantly contrast Jews versus Gentiles if the Gentiles are equally under the Law and equally trying to be saved by works? It doesn't make sense. Rather, it makes sense only if Paul has Jewish works in mind, and thus the Mosaic Law. - I think the way Paul uses the term "Law" in Galatians (25 occurrences) is the most important of all, because it is here where it is used the most straightforward, and where we can use the more clear teaching of Galatians to help us rightly interpret Romans. Some think that Galatians does not talk about the same issue(s) as Romans, but I disagree. I think there are blatantly obvious parallels that force us to see both Romans and Galatians as speaking of the same key themes (e.g. Jews vs Gentiles, works of the Law, circumcision, Abraham's example).
Paul begins talking about the "Law" in Galatians 2:16, which is clearly talking about the Mosaic Lifestyle (Gal 2:12-15! Gal 6:13). This is contrasted to the new life in the Spirit, now that you're "dead to the Law" (Gal 2:19; 2:21), which sounds a lot like Romans 6-8 where Paul speaks of being "not under" (Gal 4:4-5, see THIS link) and "dead" to the Law as well. What else could Paul be speaking of by "receiving the Spirit" (Gal 3:2; 3:5) if not the gift of the Holy Spirit through the New Covenant (e.g. Acts 2:38; Gal 3:14)? The Holy Spirit is what enables us to "fulfill the law" (Gal 5:14; 5:18; 5:23), just as Paul says in Rom 8:4 and 13:8-10! And hence the mortal sin of getting "circumcised" (Gal 5:3-4), since this 'work' formally requires you to live as a Jew ("keep the whole Law"), and thus acting as if Jesus never came to usher in a New Covenant, the "Law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).
The very important passage of Galatians 3:10-13 is certainly speaking of the Mosaic Law, as 3:10 is directly referencing all the demands given to the Jews with the associated "curses" for disobeying (Deut 27:26!). This isn't works in general nor law in general. And the most conclusive proof text of all is Galatians 3:17-18, since we see the "Law" in view did not come until 430 years after Abraham, which can only mean the Mosaic Law given on Mt Sinai (Gal 4:21-24). This "Law" is what Paul says is contrasted to the "promises to Abraham" (Gal 3:18), the very theme we see in Romans 4:13-16. Instead, the "Law" was given for a certain period of time (Gal 3:19-24), until Jesus came, which fits the theme of Romans 5:13-14. See how almost all the same "Law" and "works" themes map back to somewhere in Romans? - Outside of Romans and Galatians: In 1 Corinthians, though a few occurrences could be referring to the 'New Covenant laws', these verses more easily fit referring to the Mosaic Law, while the rest of the occurrences are clearly referring to the Mosaic Law (1 Cor 7:39; 9:8-9; 9:20; 14:21; 14:34; 15:56). Paul's Ephesians 2:15 reference most natural refers to the Mosaic Law (see THIS recent post on Col 2:14), and the famous Justification by faith verse of Philippians 3:9 is most certainly referring to the Mosaic Law as well (Phil 3:5-6). Finally, Paul's use of "law" in 1 Tim 1:7-9 most naturally refers to Mosaic Law, given that the Greek word "teacher of the law" is used in this way elsewhere (Lk 5:17; Acts 5:34). All 13 occurrences in Hebrews are in ch7-10, which are heavily and explicitly talking about the Mosaic rules and regulations, and even contrasting the Old and New Covenants.
- The only other NT writing to use the term "Law" is James, with 7 occurrences (James 1:25; 2:8-12; 4:11). These instances are interesting because James seems to clearly have in mind the 'law of Christ', which is a new standard of living under the New Covenant. Again, not some generic set of rules, and in this case James certainly expects Christians to obey this 'law of liberty' for their salvation.
Given these plain facts, it is undeniable that the "Law" when used in the New Testament almost always refers to the Mosaic Law, especially at the key Justification passages. The only 'exceptions' are just that, exceptions, and these most typically refer to the "Law of Christ," which are rules that Christians are bound to follow. Nowhere can it be shown that Paul had 'works in general' or 'law in general' in mind when opposing this to the New Covenant. It is thus completely irresponsible (and sheer ignorance) for people, particularly Protestant teachers, to go around saying "Law" refers to deeds in general, since this totally distorts Paul's specific understanding of the term. Thankfully, some big name Protestants are beginning to admit the "Law" is not some generic law but rather the Mosaic Law (see THIS link), so there's certainly hope, as long as we can get the word out!
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17) And by Jesus all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
8 comments:
Excellent post, I'm glad you are back to writing again Nick. John Bergsma recently pointed out that the specific phrase "works of the law" occurs in one of the Qumran texts, in a work of that title. This text refers exclusively to ceremonial precepts. This provides additional support for the Catholic understanding of Paul, because it suggests that the phrase had an established meaning and was generally understood to refer to ceremonial works, not to the moral law as such.
Erick Ybarra adopts a different interpretation.
https://erickybarra.org/2017/11/09/tridentine-interpretation-of-romans-part-1/
Another great post, Nick!
Glad to see you back on your blog!
Thanks for your comments everyone! I've been wanting to blog but life has been busy/stressful. I do have some other posts hopefully soon to post.
I have a post or two to follow up on this which is going to argue that "works of the law" as ceremonial works isn't a bad thing. I recently looked up the Reformed Westminster Confession on this issue and it said Adam was given the moral law as a "covenant of works" in the Garden Of Eden (something which the Bible doesn't say). The irony about this is that Adam was told not to eat from the tree. To "not eat" is not really a moral issue, but more of a ceremonial one, like a liturgical fast or abstaining from meat or a forbidden food like pork.
As for Erick Ybarra, while I do generally like what he has to say, I think his methodology misses the point of my methodology. What I generally try to do is to lay out the Biblical evidence, then analyze it, as often times the plain Biblical data carries the day for anyone honest enough to look. That's why I have the Tag "Do Protestants Really Care About The Bible?" because it seems that much of these debates really comes down to just accepting the Bible on its own terms. The Bible is a Catholic book after all, so it couldn't teach Protestantism no matter how hard we look.
Again, while I like much of what Erick says, I think there are missed opportunities and not the amount/level of exegesis which I believe is necessary to equip Catholics for convincingly and plainly defending the faith. Too often what has happened the past 30 years or so in Catholic apologetics is verse slinging and not engaging Paul directly. Simply asserting that Paul has this or that in mind isn't convincing unless you can back up the point with Scripture.
I'm not some super smart guy, I just want things to be done upfront and honestly by considering the facts. Sadly, I really haven't seen any other Catholics engage Paul at the level I have, for example my recent post on "Calling upon the Name of the Lord" and my various posts on Romans 4, 8, 9, etc. When I engage a Protestant, I want to start off on the high ground, and I want other Catholics to do the same as well. Apologetics is like a chess game, where you need to know what the opponent is thinking and how to counter his plans with better plans. That's why I get little interaction by Protestants, because they'd ranter run around with ill defined key terms and engage Catholics who don't properly frame the issue. This allows both sides to get exhausted while accomplishing little, repeating the same old cliches, and not leading to conversions. If you want to shut down a discussion, just ask about the Biblical term Logizomai or Atonement and see how long people care about God's Word. My approach has the ironic result of causing Protestants to hate the Bible, which isn't intentional but it shows where their true priority is (i.e. hating Catholicism even if it means rejecting Scripture).
Good points. I am a convert from Protestantism, and I can tell you right now that I never would have come over to the true Church if I had not seen the case for the Catholic understanding laid out meticulously from the text of the Bible. This forced me to suspend my prior assumptions and to examine in detail what the Bible actually says about atonement, sin, works of the law and sanctification. I realized that, as a protestant, I had to keep going *out of my way* to avoid or re-interpret the plain meaning of scripture. Called to Communion is one of the better Catholic outlets in this regard, but too often I see Catholics falling back on what almost looks like a presuppositionalist approach- i.e. "grant our assumptions about authority, tradition and the magisterium and then listen to our arguments about scripture". It's totally ineffective, and totally unnecessary since the Catholic understanding of the bible is demonstrably superior.
Nick,
thanks for this post. You touched on my favorite topic. The problem with Protestants is that even if you prove to them that "the law" refers to the Jewish Torah and its ceremonies they will say: "but Paul is including all works in that category, so at the end it doesn't matter". Also, they conclude from when Paul says that "through the law comes the knowledge of sin", he is referring to the 10 commandments. So, they will say that the law includes also good deeds, and that Paul in condemning that.
But Paul clearly opposes the ceremonial requirements of the law with the moral requirements when he says that "Circumcision is nothing and uncircuncision is nothing. What counts is keeping God's commandments (1 Cor 7:19). If the ceremonial requirements were the same as the moral requirements then Paul will not be able to contrast them and put them in opposition. I think that when he says that "through the law comes the knowledge of sin" he is referring to all the bloody sacrifices that the law required for (non-intentional) transgressions. With all that blood to atone for sins, it was certainly natural to see what the Law was trying to point out to. I think that Saint Augustin deals brilliantly with this when he exclaims that the law was given so that we seek grace, and grace was given so that we would be able to fulfill the law.
Regarding the first objection, which is a bit more challenging, Aquinas has an amazing answer in the Summa that helps answer the question of what is wrong with the works of the Law and why they won't justify. He affirms that all ceremonies are professions of faith, and therefore when you try to do the "works of the law" you are professing that the Messiah has not yet come. Whereas under the Law of the Spirit (the "new" Law) the barrier between Jews and gentiles is teared down, and we come into the family of God through the sacrament of baptism, which as a ceremony of the New Covenant, is a profession of faith.
That really helped me understand why Paul opposes them, and how at the same time he affirms the Law (Rom 3:31).
What is really amazing is how St Thomas Aquinas nailed it without all the things that we know about Judaism today thanks to Qumram and the work of the scholars associated with the "New Perspective" on Paul. Certainly he was an instrument of the Holy Spirit.
I really like this article Nick. Thanks
Post a Comment