In my previous post, I outlined the complex, awkward relationship Christians have with the Law that was derived from Jewish scripture, followed by a high-level overview of what the Law entails (after a slugfest of compiling each and every instruction given in the Pentateuch).

Now that the OT contents are out of the way, this post is dedicated to the NT’s portrayal of the Law. While the gospels do occasionally mention about Jesus’s insistence of keeping the Law (e.g. in Matthew 23:23), the bulk of this post will cover Paul’s teaching, as it is through his epistles in the NT that developed this awkward tension between Christians and the Law. 

Jesus’s views on the Law

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. (Matthew 23:23 NRSVUE)

By focusing solely on how the Synoptics portray Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic teacher building his teachings off Jewish traditions, Jesus consistently emphasized that the Law is to be kept, and the Law’s purpose is more important than the “doing” of the Law itself. This is despite the attempts of evangelists and Protestants to reinterpret statements such as Matthew 5:17-20 to harmonize them with other views of the Law in the NT, especially those from Paul. However, I think such attempts are misguided, for they assume without good reason that both Jesus and Paul must share the same opinions regarding the Law.  

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18 NRSVUE)

One other verse that has tripped up many modern readers is in Matthew 5:17, where Jesus is said to come to “fulfil” the Law – whatever that means. “Fulfilling” a law is unusual wording, and the phrasing could be interpreted in several ways:

• the demands of the Law have been satisfied – whatever the Law instructed to do, Jesus has perfectly completed it
• the Law has successfully completed its set purpose ordained by God
• the Law predicted or foretold something that Jesus has accomplished in His ministry
• some combination of the above

Regardless of which interpretation one takes, I think it is still abundantly clear that in the eyes of the author of the gospel of Matthew, followers of Christ have to keep the Law. The subsequent verse (Matthew 5:18) mentions “not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law”, echoing the demands God placed on the ancient Israelites in Deut 5:33 to observe the Law precisely, in its entirety. The precise language in Matthew 5:18 suggests that Jesus here isn’t referring to some broad, abstract perception of the Law that can be summarized into some higher commandment, such as the two greatest commandments (even though He does refer to them elsewhere). No, all of the Law is to be kept, up to its nitty-gritty details.

You must follow exactly the path that the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live and that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land that you are to possess. (Deuteronomy 5:33 NRSVUE)

Yet, does this reflect what the historical Jesus taught? An astute reader might realize that all the verses cited above came from the gospel of Matthew. That’s because not all the gospels shared Matthew’s view of how Jesus related to the Law.

Matthew’s gospel emphasized strict observance of the Law to the point where the righteousness of its followers “must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees” (Matthew 5:20). Mark’s gospel isn’t as clear as Matthew’s, as Jesus rarely mentions the Law except in His encounter with the rich man (Mark 10:17-25) and the wise scribe (Mark 12:32-34). In neither story did Jesus explicitly mention that followers were expected to observe all the details of the Mosaic Law. Luke’s gospel overlaps greatly with Matthew’s gospel, which includes his own version of Matthew 5:18 (in Luke 16:17, though the context is slightly different). To me, it is difficult to infer if Mark and Luke shared Matthew’s sentiments that the historical Jesus expected full observance of the Law from His followers, though it is plausible that Luke did (given Luke 16:16-17).

For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20 NRSVUE)

Finally, the gospel of John barely mentions the need to observe the Law at all. In fact, where the Law is mentioned, it is in the context of attacking Jewish opponents (John 10:34), contrasted against something else (John 1:17), or as a “new” commandment (John 13:34). I don’t see how any of these could go back to the historical Jesus, considering what one reads from the synoptics.

This topic has spurred a large array of scholarship far beyond what I can access, and it directly ties into other aspects of Jesus’s ministry and early Christianity. For example, as Jesus ushers in a new covenant (Mark 2:21-22), does that imply that followers of Christ are no longer subject to the old demands of the Law? And does that answer differ for Jews and Gentiles? Here is when we turn to Paul…

Paul’s views on the Law

For a start, it is important to recognize that the views here come from undisputed Pauline letters that represent Paul’s views, but that does not automatically mean those views were shared by Jesus. These views should be assessed independently before deducing whether what Paul taught was consistent with Jesus’s teachings.

Paul mentions the Law most prominently in two of his letters: Galatians and Romans. His letter to the Galatians stands out as his most vehement critique of the Law. Here, Paul is addressing his Jewish opponents on what truly brings salvation – faith in Jesus Christ. Nothing more, nothing less. Building on from this position, Paul criticizes anyone who seeks justification through other means, including following the Law. In his eyes, if there was any other way one could be proclaimed righteous, then Christ died for nothing.

I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousnesscomes through the law, then Christ died for nothing. (Galatians 2:21 NRSVUE)

Paul pulled no punches when he wrote the rest of his letter to the Galatians. Because of his fixation that only the death of Christ could make one righteous, he has placed himself into a very awkward theological position. He had to reason why God gave the Law to the ancestors of the Jews. Some of these reasons cited across his letters include to keep His people in check until the arrival of Christ (Galatians 3:23), and to reveal sin (Romans 7:7). Yet, because of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, believers are now free to choose the path of faith and grace instead. And in Paul’s mind, why wouldn’t you? Those who continue to adhere to the Law are choosing to enslave themselves to it like their forefathers, pursuing a way that cannot possibly lead to righteousness. Thus, in his letter to the Romans, the Law has become a stumbling block to the Israelites because they lacked faith (Romans 9:32).

Faith in what?

Here is when one can start to see holes in Paul’s theology. For one, what choice did the Israelites back then have? In the OT, the Mosaic Law was seen as a holy guide on how one should live as God’s chosen people. One either lived by the Law, or faced God’s wraith. Furthermore, nowhere in the Torah did it mention that these laws were to cease ever – it is the responsibility of every generation to pass down these laws to the next so that they would be observed by everyone and everywhen (Deut 4:9). Paul’s message would have been a tremendous umbrage to his Jewish opponents who see the Law as forever-binding.

But take care and watch yourselves closely, so as neither to forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children’s children— (Deuteronomy 4:9 NRSVUE)

In Galatians 5, Paul gets increasingly hostile. Those who subject themselves to circumcision would mean they rejected the path of faith and grace in favor of enslavement to the Law. In my opinion, here contains the juice to Paul’s theology – either Christ or the Law. Both are mutually exclusive. Following one to pursue righteousness means discarding the other. This dichotomy in thinking originated from Paul, and persists till today. But there is nowhere in the gospels nor in the OT that support such a dichotomy.

In his letter to the Romans, Paul’s perception of the Law appears to be a mixed bag. In some places, Paul’s negative view of the Law shines through (for e.g. saying the Law invites God’s wrath in Romans 4:15). In other places, he praises the law for being holy and revealing his total sinfulness, so that he can die in Christ and be discharged of the Law’s demands (Romans 7). By carefully reading each chapter, one can generate a bird’s eye view of Paul’s theology, which goes like this (read here for an even better summary):

• God gave the Law as His holy standard that no human ever has met. This essentially condemns all of Mankind to face God’s judgement and wrath (Romans 3:19-20).
• Christ’s sacrifice means that people now have another way to be made righteous by believing in His atoning sacrifice (Romans 5:18). As the Law revealed more and more sin, so too the power of God’s grace (Romans 5:20).
• Belief in Him entails following Him to His death metaphorically (through baptism, in Romans 6). The believer dies and is no longer slave to the demands of the Law but becomes under grace instead.
• Why couldn’t the Law make one righteous in the first place? Man’s fleshy nature forces us to stumble which prevents us from living up fully to the Law, which is spiritual in nature (Romans 7).

Law or not?

Most Christians today will be familiar with Paul’s theology and proclaim how modern followers of Christ have been adopted into a new covenant where grace prevails and the Law is old news. This good news, I suspect, is Paul’s innovation.

Yet, does Paul’s view align with the rest of Scripture? I don’t think so. To a Jew, the Law is a gift from God given after He has anointed His people and freed them from slavery (Exodus 19:4-5a), and these Laws are reasonable and within reach (Deut 30:11-14). Instead, Paul argued vehemently that the Law invokes God’s wrath by setting a standard no one can ever achieve. The psalms sing praises of the greatness and perfectness of God’s Laws for eternity (e.g. Psalms 19:7-8, 119:97). Yet, Paul tells his followers to pick a different path apart from this perfect Law by choosing grace instead (and mocks those who chose otherwise).

‘You have seen what I did to the Egyptians and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now, therefore, if you obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession out of all the peoples.(Exodus 19:4-5a NRSVUE)

“Surely, this commandment that I am commanding you today is not too hard for you, nor is it too far away. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross to the other side of the sea for us and get it for us so that we may hear it and observe it?’ No, the word is very near to you; it is in your mouth and in your heart for you to observe. (Deuteronomy 30:11-14 NRSVUE)

The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the decrees of the Lord are sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is clear, enlightening the eyes;(Psalms 19:7-8 NRSVUE)

Would Jesus approve of Paul’s teachings? My guess is that He would be aghast at what Paul had to say. From what we know in the synoptics, Jesus not only insists that the Law is to be followed, but it also had to be observed in a manner better than the scribes and the Pharisees. How can that be done? Only by having the correct attitude and mindset (loving God and people) and doing all the practices demanded by the Law while prioritizing love and care for people. Only then would the believer be welcomed into the future Kingdom of God. It would be unfathomable to Him that one could “choose” between obedience to the Law and grace. Obviously, believers needed both.

It is worth noting that Paul probably hardly knew a thing about Jesus’s ministry – he barely quotes anything about what He did during His lifetime. Thus, I believe Paul was largely working his way backwards, starting from the presupposition that only the death of Christ could make one righteous and then patching holes in his theology later. Yet, it doesn’t take much imagination to arrive at an alternative understanding of Christ’s sacrifice and the Law. What if: 1) one must believe in Christ’s death as an atonement for one’s sins to be cleansed, 2) believers of Christ must still obey the Law as instructed since it is God’s holy and perfect standard, and 3) only by doing both does one achieve perfect righteousness by demonstrating full obedience and having been cleansed by the blood of Christ. This would seem to align better with what Jesus taught in the gospels and the positive perception of the Law in the OT.

Regardless, fast forward 2000 years later, we now read, live and breathe the theology that ultimately won. Even though I don’t think Paul’s understanding of the Law was necessarily “correct” in Jesus’s eyes, Paul remains a hugely influential figure in Christianity (arguably more so than Christ Himself), and his evangelistic thoughts and efforts were what catapulted the faith past its humble Jewish origins. Yet, it would be prudent to recognize that Paul’s theology represents just a small piece of the diversity of thought in early Christianity on how this new movement of Christ-followers should relate to its Jewish roots. To me, reading about this diversity and challenging dogmas on how the bible authors definitely “got it right” is interesting in its own right, and can really get one to seriously reexamine how much of our faith really stems from Jesus, or from someone/something else. Had the Law prevailed instead of Paul’s theology, perhaps Christianity would be a very different religion from what it is today…