Where have you read these statements before? These passages, taken from the books of Galatians and Romans (Gal.3:13; 5:18; Rom.7:4) seem to just about render the law of the Old Testament a dead letter, right?

WRONG !

Paul is considered the spokesman of the antinomian view of Christianity. His writings lay down the doctrine of grace by which we may come to recognise that salvation is a free gift of God, and that accordingly we are relieved of the obligation which always previously existed to please God by doing good works. In Gal.2:16 the great man solemnly intones "by works of the law shall no-one be justified".

It was the revelation of this "doctrine of grace" which fuelled Luther’s dissatisfaction with the state of the official church during the Reformation, and the conviction that the system was gravely in error because it ignored the biblical teaching of grace as opposed to works.

Paul’s contribution to the New Testament - namely, most of its theology - places him in the eyes of many commentators and theologians as the real founder of historical Christianity for all practical purposes. His lengthy and involved writing characterised by sophisticated thought processes and a highly polemical style are held to constitute the actual basis of Christian doctrine. This is seen as the logical development of Christianity as it moves away from its Palestinian origins geographically and its Jewish antecedents theologically. It is the teaching of Christ dressed up in an intellectual form for the benefit of a gentile world steeped in Greek philosophy.

This evaluation of Paul is not so far from the mark. Paul considered himself to be the Apostle sent to the gentiles in the mainly Hellenistic culture in which the first Christian missionaries moved. His teachings and writings were consistent with his Greek education. He is generally described as "by birth a Jew, by citizenship a Roman, and by education a Greek". Although he was raised a Pharisee in the school of Gamaliel, he was thoroughly immersed in the Greek culture of the Mediterranean world. As a Jew and a Christian however, Paul had a serious problem. This was how to explain the salvation of the gentiles by reference to a religion which had hitherto been the preserve of the Jews, quite exclusive of gentiles (except converts). Again, remember that for many years Christianity was essentially a Jewish affair and confined to Judea and its environs. Even a church leader like Peter some ten years after the crucifixion needed a special revelation from God in order to understand that gentiles could be saved (Acts 10). (This episode had nothing whatsoever to do with revoking the dietary laws of the Bible, contrary to modern Christian teaching!)

According to accepted Jewish belief one could only be acceptable in the eyes of God by taking upon oneself the obligations of the Mosaic Law code and this meant in particular accepting the ritualistic requirement of circumcision in order to become symbolically a descendant of Abraham.

The idea that Paul abolished the Old Testament law for Christians, and provided the theological basis for this view, is in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ himself as argued in the preceding pages. As a matter of logic why, it might be objected, would God have ever needed to abrogate his own law? Why would Paul presume to do so when Jesus himself didn’t?

The answer of course is that Paul did not abrogate the Old Testament law.

Consider the following quotations:

Passages like these have caused many people to see a profound contradiction in Paul’s thinking. Many books have been written on the subject of "Pauline" theology and even quite recent works have happily admitted that the matter is probably unresolvable. Such is the confidence of Bible scholars that they really understand the meaning of scripture! Why should Paul have been so seemingly inconsistent on this question, and why should theologians have found it so difficult to work out a solution?

The answer to all this is that Paul as the Apostle to the gentiles had a novel theological problem that demanded a novel solution. If we look at the supposed antinomian statements of Paul we may discover in the background to the text a recurring element. In just about all cases Paul is dealing with the problem of the admission of gentiles into the assembly of believers, and more specifically the issue of circumcision.

Paul had concluded that gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to be saved. In fact, the Old Testament laid down this rite as a sign for the physical descendants of Abraham and was never required of gentiles. In 1 Cor.7:19 it is stated that "neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God." This passage suggests that Paul views circumcision as defining a person’s status as a Jew or a gentile, rather than as a test of obedience for all aspiring Christians.

Paul’s conclusion however appeared remarkable enough to a group of observant Jews to require a thorough-going theological treatment. Even where divine law did not apply, as in this question relating to circumcision, the mere suggestion of tampering with the law of God demanded a well reasoned justification. Paul had to show that circumcision was not required in the case at hand and consequently had also to somehow come up with a fully structured argument as to how it was possible that "God’s law" (ie. "the law" in his writings) could be rendered "null and void" in any sense whatsoever.

Paul embarks on an attempt to show that we have been saved from the consequences of our imperfection when measured against the law of God. The law is our accuser, even our enemy. It is not that there is anything wrong with the law (the law is, after all, "holy, just and good"). It is our inadequacy when measured against its demands that makes it "a curse" on humanity. The only thing which can save us is the grace of God. In none of this need it be assumed that the precepts of the law themselves are actually abolished - only that we are truly no longer living "under" the law. If we can be saved from the law (which we are by Christ’s sacrifice) then the law no longer has power over us. And it does have power over us, because the penalty of sin is death (Rom.6:23). But again by this reasoning the law is only "done away with" in a special sense which has nothing to do with whether or not we have a continuing obligation to obey its requirements.

The surface contradiction between these ideas is usually resolved in Christian doctrine by appealing to a triple division of the law into "moral, civil, and ceremonial" components. According to this view whenever the law is said to be done away with it is only the "ceremonial" (and "civil"?) aspects of the law which are abolished. In those passages on the other hand which seem to show that the law still applies, or when we are taught that we should do good works, it is the moral precepts of the law only which remain in force.

The trouble with this view is that no three way division in the law is indicated anywhere in scripture, least of all in the New Testament. This resolution of the problem is facile and patently false, and previously made comments on Mat.5 are apropos.

Paul’s treatment of "law" can be applied equally as well to the norms of Christian ethics accepted by all of traditional Christianity such as the prohibitions against murder, theft and adultery as to the so-called ceremonial and civil aspects of the law. The word "law" simply refers to the laws of the Bible in total. In Rom.13:8 Paul states:

The word "law" in this passage encompasses the great moral precepts of the Bible accepted by Christianity. This is one and the same law as that from which we are redeemed, to which we have become dead! If the dietary laws are done away with in the teachings of Paul then so is the law against murder. If we place ourselves "under the law" by observing the Old Testament holy days, why do we not do so by not cheating on our tax returns. If we "submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal.5:1) by fasting on the Day of Atonement why do we not do so by turning away from sexual immorality. If a Christian has to obey the law against adultery, there is the same obligation to continue to obey the law of the sabbath. Why does scrupulous observance of the latter, according to such scriptures as Deut.6:4-9 and 15:5 constitute "legalism" according to Christian commentators, whereas observance of the former is considered exemplary Christian conduct. "Legalism" - a term which appears nowhere in the Bible - always arises when the question of Old Testament law observance in Christianity is raised in argument. Just what does this word mean in Christian theological writing? It bears the hallmarks of a totally meaningless term bandied about to paper over a profound contradiction in Christian teaching; a word which testifies to the weakness of the traditional Christian position in logic.

It is sometimes argued that there exist parts of God’s law which have eternal validity over and above the Mosaic Laws in general. However, there are many laws of the Mosaic code rejected by Christianity which clearly pre-date Moses, eg. the sabbath (Gen.2:2), the law against blood (Gen.9:4 - note again Acts 15:20), the law of tithing (Gen.14:20).

Paul’s most sustained "attack against the law" occurs in the book of Galatians. Why is the language of Paul in this letter seemingly so inimical to circumcision and the Mosaic Law in general? Is Paul trying to warn people against the folly of obeying God’s law? Of course not! How could a mere mortal human being rise up and castigate the very laws and commandments of Almighty God, laws which Paul himself describes as "holy, just and good" (Rom.7:12)?

In Galatians Paul is confronting not the Mosaic Law as such. The real issue is exactly that which we find in Acts 15. Gentile Christians are being forced to accept circumcision by leaders trying to exert control over them. The theme of the letter is set in Gal.2:14:

The discussion proceeds almost exclusively in regard to the issue of circumcision - a law for the physical descendants of Abraham, something which was never required of gentiles in the Old Testament. Paul makes the well established point that none of us are justified by our obedience to the commandments. The commandments only accuse, us they cannot by themselves give us salvation. In Gal.5:1 Paul makes reference to "a yoke of slavery". If God’s laws were a thing of slavery, then God would never have inflicted them upon us. The slavery here is clearly enslavement to the will of men - those wishing to exert control over the congregation - not to the will of God. If God had not wanted us to be subject to this "slavery to the commandments", and to be ultimately freed from them, he would never have burdened us with them in the first place! The letter concludes on the same note upon which it began.

Note various other passages which make the same point:

The controversy concerning the Galatians is actually commented on and dealt with in the Book of Acts. In Acts 21 Paul returns to Jerusalem. Upon meeting with the church leaders there, they declare:

Paul is then counselled to take part in a ceremony of purification. Why? So that "... all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law." (Acts 21:24)

As far as the traditional interpretation of the Book of Galatians is concerned the cat is out of the bag! The man who wrote Galatians kept the Mosaic Law! The simplistic antinomian interpretation has to be incorrect. As in the episode recorded in Acts 15, the real issue is that of carnal, power-seekers wishing to theologically dominate others.

An illustration of how the traditional view can lead us far astray in our understanding of this book can be discerned when we look at Gal.4:10-11. Here, Paul says: "you observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid I have laboured over you in vain." Is this a criticism of the Galatians for merely observing the Old Testament holy days? Clearly not, because in Acts 18:21 (KJV), Paul testifies that he "must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem." (This passage is omitted from many modern versions of the Bible, probably because its meaning is unintelligible to modern translators immersed in traditional Christian theology!) How could Paul be critical of the Galatians for practices which he himself engages in? The "days" and other times mentioned in Gal.4:10-11 are clearly extra biblical religious observances which lie outside the system of holy days commanded in the Torah.

Galatians provides us with a classic confrontation between a renewed understanding of God, and the forces of established religious orthodoxy.

Throughout his ministry Paul was constantly at odds with Jewish religious authorities. To say that Paul was against the tenets of Biblical Judaism is like saying that Luther was against the tenets of Christianity because he opposed the religious establishment of his day. This factor should not be underestimated in analysing the writings of Paul. Paul’s theology was clearly influenced by the controversies he experienced with proponents of orthodox Jewish beliefs whose pre-occupation was with the externals of religious truth. From the passage in chapter one quoted above (Gal.1:10) it is clear that Paul is dealing with the enforcement of the Jewish law on gentile converts by self-appointed guardians of religious truth - the very same controversy which arose in Acts 15. The issue of circumcision is a prime example of the misplaced priorities of his opponents.

According to Paul the uncircumcision of the gentiles, coupled with imputations of their inner purity, points up the outer purity but inner corruption of the Pharisees, just as Jesus did (in Mat.23:23-28). But these criticisms are of hypocritical and unbelieving people not the law of God.

The essential problem Paul faced was the issue of works versus grace. This issue arose specifically in relation to the issue of Jew versus gentile. The Jews believed that because they were the chosen people of God, they thereby possessed the status of saved people. Accordingly, gentiles were given to accept that in order to be saved they must become Jews, become circumcised and themselves achieve the status of "law-keeping people", who are to all outward appearances saved. This turned the truth of Christ’s teachings on its head (and this was the reason Christ ran into trouble with established Jewish belief) because it made one’s identity as law-keeping servant of God into something more important than the reality of one’s actual righteousness according to the commandments. That is why this constitutes very much a "works" as opposed to a "grace" - based view of salvation. I believe that if we read this "salvation by identity" principle into Paul’s treatment of the "law" we will unravel the true meaning of his writings.

The book of Galatians is used by antinomians to prove that the law is no longer binding on Christians. However in their enthusiasm to argue this point they appeal to other passages in the writings of Paul to support their case, which ostensibly hold obedience to the law to be a positive evil. Consider the following passages:

In fact these passages are referring not to the biblical law of God, but to human embellishments on the law found in the extra-Biblical writings of Judaism (not made under divine inspiration) which were an attempt to "build a fence around the law" (Aboth 1.1). The passage in Colossians is in reality advocating obedience to God’s law. What this passage is saying is that "WHEN YOU KEEP THE HOLY DAYS AND DIETARY LAWS, do not submit to man-made rules and regulations, and thereby to human judgmentalism". It was this that Jesus referred to when he said: "You have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition" (KJV,Mat.15:6). The outward observance of God’s law are always only a "shadow of what is to come", but this does not mean that the requirement to obey these laws no longer applies.

Antinomians "protest too much" when they cite these passages. How is it possible to characterise the Old Testament law as "doctrines of demons" as it is claimed for the passage in Timothy, when this law was spoken directly by God (NB. Ex.20:1)? The passage itself makes a favourable reference to food which is sanctified by the "word of God" ie. the Old Testament dietary laws! The reference to "forbidding marriage" gives the game away. It is clear that the teachings aimed at here go far beyond the dictates of the Mosaic Law. Celibacy has never been sanctioned by Bible based Judaism. Indeed, marriage is held to be a positive duty in the Jewish religion.

Moreover, in passages such as Hebrews 13:9 could anyone seriously argue that the "strange" teachings referred to are the biblical dietary laws which were revered by Jewish Christians well after the Christian religion had been established (Acts 10:14)? No Jew, Christian or otherwise, would ever have referred to the word of God in this derisory manner. Even if this was indeed the case, the simple fact is that the Old Testament dietary laws were anything but "strange" to the Jewish people - to whom, be it noted, the book of Hebrews was specifically addressed! They were well acquainted with the biblical dietary prohibitions.

These passages are in reality of no use to the antinomian position at all, but they do throw into relief the conflict between the ingrained tradition of the Jewish religious establishment and the deep spirituality of the Messiah’s teachings. Much of what Paul wrote could be applied to deviations of modern so-called Christian churches from the truths of Christ. Fresh insights into religious truth will always be resisted by the prevailing religious institutions.

Christians accept that Paul overturned the Mosaic Law and championed the cause of a gentile centred Christianity. That Paul himself was Jewish is not disputed. It is understood that Paul was a strict Pharisee learned in the law and scrupulous in its observances before his conversion on the Damascus road. Yet amazingly, few people seem to realise that Paul continued to faithfully observe the Mosaic Laws long after the Christian religion had become established. Christians who are totally convinced that Paul dispensed with Old Testament law in his writings would plainly be horrified to learn that Paul, even after his conversion, remained a faithful observer of the Jewish law. This amazing fact is attested to in the Book of Acts, not once but four times!

In Acts 21(KJV) Paul is accused of teaching disobedience to the Mosaic Law. He carries out a ritual of purification in the Temple so that "all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you but that you yourself live in observance of the law". This indicates Paul did not believe Old Testament temple worship was done away with contrary to popular opinion, and despite Christ's priestly role as outlined in the book of Hebrews. Temple worship in the world to come (as outlined in the book of Ezekiel) will fulfil the same role as it did anciently. That the sacrifices pointed to Christ in the past does not change the fact that they can point to Christ through their performance in the future.

In Acts 24:14(KJV) appearing before the Roman governor Felix at Caesarea, Paul declares: "I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets". It is difficult to see how Paul could in good conscience make this statement if he believed the law to have been abolished. In Acts 25:8 appearing again before a Roman official in Caesarea Paul states: "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the Temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all, and in Acts 28:17 Paul declares that he has "done nothing against, the people or the customs of our fathers."

Of course the argument is made that in accordance with the statement in 1 Cor.9:20(KJV) that "I became as a Jew, in order to win the Jews", Paul merely observed the Mosaic laws when in the company of Jews, but refrained from doing so when mixing with gentiles. The problem with this interpretation, quite apart from the dishonesty and hypocrisy implicit in this conduct, is simply that it is not consistent with the passages cited above. In these instances Paul unequivocally asserts that he has not (at any time!) disobeyed the Mosaic Law.

That the writer of the passages in 1 Tim.4 and Col.2 could testify to observing the Old Testament law code would surely be inconceivable if the intention in these passages is to disparage the Law of Moses!

The statements in Acts prove conclusively that the popular idea of Paul dispensing with the Mosaic law could not possibly be correct and that a more sophisticated explanation of his writings is demanded. His view was clearly not that simple. This alone destroys the foundations of the antinomian view of Pauline theology. If Paul did not do away with the Mosaic Law, it is then still a valid part of Christian teaching, and Christian theology is deeply in error.

Paul’s adherence to the Mosaic Law in practice neatly sums up the problematical nature of his attitude to the Jewish law on the theoretical level, and symbolises the weakness and unreliability of the "no law" case in Christian theology.

Christians need to think twice before they reject the law of God on the basis of the interpretations of a writer who himself observed the law, and many of whose statements should not be taken at face value.

They should heed a warning about the writings of Paul given in the Bible itself in 2 Pet.3:15-17(KJV):

The wisdom of God can be seen in the writings of Paul. They do not allow us to embrace unquestioningly the Mosaic Law code without looking at its true purpose in God’s plan of salvation. Primarily, what his teachings achieve is to guard against Christianity turning into a religious system like Phariseeism where outward observance took on a life of its own and replaced the religion of inner experience.

In the previous chapter I posited the idea that if this had been the case, Christianity would have become a religion mired in a complex system dedicated to outward piety and less concerned with matters of true faith. Many Christian churches have taken this path anyway even when not based on the authority of the Mosaic Law. Strict enforcement of the Mosaic Law would have only accelerated this process and given it an even more insidious character.

These thoughts can be illustrated by a passage from the Old Testament:

Was God dispensing with his Old Testament laws of holy convocation with these words? Of course not! What God is saying is that these wonderful ceremonies he has ordained have become so tainted by the people’s insincerity and inner corruption that their offerings and their worship have lost all meaning in his eyes. They are an exercise in futility and have become an abomination. They should forget about worshipping God until they are fit to come before him in holiness. Similar sentiments could be read into the words of Paul about the place of God’s law in our lives, particularly in regard to the practice of circumcision. A similar argument could be made about the ceremony of baptism in the way that it is abused by so-called Christian churches today!

Is it really possible Paul could be criticising people for merely obeying the stipulations of the Old Testament law? Traditional Christianity is so far removed from its Jewish origins that it views adherence to the Mosaic Law as if it were just one step removed from some exotic religion like Hinduism or African devil worship. This is why Christians remain oblivious to the real issues underlying this controversy.

Christianity was not allowed to become simply another instalment of the Pharisaic religion and once again misuse divine law in the process. However antinomian Christians have gone to the other extreme and rejected God’s law entirely. It is time to redress this imbalance and reinstate the law of God to its proper place in Christian thinking.

Someone will be tempted to say, "the only thing that stands between your position and traditional Christian teaching is a Saturday afternoon at the football and a ham sandwich!" But by what wisdom do we decide that these matters are anything other than of the utmost significance in the eyes of God. These things are as important as the air we breathe. These are fundamental issues of life regarding how we spend our time, and what we ingest into our bodies. People who observe such practices are putting God first in some of the most important aspects of human existence. Those who don’t are merely making excuses for pushing God further into the background than he already is in their lives, and calling it "not getting hung-up on inessentials". Concern with these matters in everyday life speaks volumes for our attitude to the most deeply spiritual aspects of our relationship with God, and our fellow man.

What then is the true relationship between Christians and the law? As is clear from Acts 15 and the book of Galatians, the new Christian convert who was unversed in the law (ie. the gentiles in the New Testament, and virtually all converts in the present time) were not to have the law imposed upon them by others. If it had not been for the activities of the "circumcision party" this issue need never have arisen, since the law was unquestionably accepted by Jewish converts. The first step in Christian living should be to accept the idea of submitting oneself to God by beginning to obey the commandments. (Why should it be considered correct theology to repent, accept Christ, and then immediately dismiss any notion of obeying God’s law as a part of our Christian lives? This is effectively what we are taught by conventional Christianity.) The continuing desire to live according to God’s ways should be dictated by the spirit - that is, by faith! - not by the rules and regulations of a religious organisation. In accordance with Christ’s statements in Matthew 5, obedience to the law should be taught, though not enforced. This is teaching on the theological plane only. An attitude which implies that one is righteous because one 'keeps the law', and that the new convert is unrighteous because he does not, that is being 'under the law' according to Paul (Gal. 4:21), and a return to the idea of the law being our taskmaster in Gal. 3:24. It is a great evil for anyone, or any religious organisation, to actually enforce law-keeping upon another. That is the real 'Galatian heresy'.

Paul was in no position to dispense with the law of God, and if we think he did, the Bible warns us (through 2 Pet. 3:15-17 as previously mentioned) that we are misinterpreting scripture, and committing the sin of lawlessness.

Christianity is not just a religion of commandment keeping. Disobedience to God’s law is what ultimately separates us from God. If we keep his commandments he will open up to us truths which we will never discover on our own - truths about the Kingdom of God and about how God works in our personal lives. Truths which he withholds from those who disobey his laws and reject his ways.

This assessment of the relationship between Christians and the Mosaic Law is far more in keeping with what we actually read in the New Testament than the traditionally accepted view. It may seem overly subtle and difficult to conceptualise just how the Mosaic Law fits into Christian experience as set out above, but consider the alternative interpretation. The whole treatment of faith versus works, Jew versus gentile, circumcised versus uncircumcised, is a complex one in the New Testament. Traditional Christianity puts these issues in a very simple light and misconceives the message of the scriptures in the process. It states that Paul simply dispensed with the law. In fact his writings are amazingly complex on this point and are full of perceived contradictions. So the "simple" view of his theology is obviously in error. Traditional Christians see the issue in Acts 15 in a similarly simplified light. The Law of Moses was, we are told "simply dispensed with for gentiles". In fact there was extensive dissension and debate on this issue by the elders of the church. Again the simplified version does not accord with what we read in the Bible. The whole issue of law-keeping needs to be re-considered by modern Christians.

BACK TO CHAPTER 1