Law or Guide?

There are many Bible students who, upon hearing that we're to pattern our lives after the teachings and examples found in the royal law of King Jesus (i.e. the New Testament), often respond by saying that because the New Testament is not structured like the Jewish Torah (a list of specific, stringent requirements), we must not and cannot argue that it's a pattern or law. Instead, they argue that we ought to view the New Testament merely as a series of 27 books that ought to guide our behavior. According to these people, to scour its pages and to bind specific details is not only an incorrect use of the New Testament, it's downright legalistic and Pharisaical.

How do we respond to such an argument? Has King Jesus indeed made it so that His revealed decrees are hidden in a random collection of "private correspondence" from the first century? Or, does the King of kings expect us to pattern our lives after the New Testament just as God expected the Israelites of old to pattern their lives after the Old Testament?

To put it simply, Paul says in Colossians 3:17 that everything we do in word or deed is to be done in the name of Jesus, or by His authority. So if we're to seek the King's authority (permission) for everything we do, and if (as has been shown in previous articles) the 27 books of the New Testament contain the revealed law of King Jesus, then the answer to the question above is "Yes!" Yes, we must pattern our lives (and our churches) after the revealed will of King Jesus.

But, even though Colossians 3:17 (among other verses, which we'll consider in a later article) provides a simple response to this argument, let's consider the argument further.

First of all, are the two laws really that different? Sure, you're going to notice some differences if you compare Leviticus with Acts, or Deuteronomy with Revelation, but really, the two testaments are not that different. You see, the Jews did not only view the first five books of the Old Testament (the penteteuch) as their law; they viewed the entire Old Testament as inspired and authoritative. Jesus Himself made this very clear during His ministry:

• When challenged on His treatment of the Sabbath, Jesus cited, not the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, but a story from 1 Samuel 21 (Mt. 12:1-5).
• When questioned about Moses' teachings on divorce, Jesus referenced God's original design for marriage found, not in Deuteronomy 24, but in the historical record of Genesis 1-2. Just as Genesis served as an inspired, authoritative guide for the Jews of old, the book of Acts (a book recounting the history of the church in the first century) serves as a guide for the church today. To say that a book structured as an historical narrative cannot convey law is clearly a misnomer. Books such as Genesis (for the Jews) and Acts (for the Christians) reveal, if nothing else, what is acceptable and pleasing to God.
• In John 10:34, Jesus said, "Has it not been written in your law, 'I said, you are gods.'" Here he was quoting, not the Penteteuch, but Psalm 82:6. Again, in John 12:34, the Jews quoted psalms, referring to it as "the Law." According to Jesus and the Jews both, the book of psalms was a book of law to which the Jews of old were bound.

Are the two "laws" (the Law of Moses and the Law of King Jesus) really that different in the way they're each structured? Not really. Again, the Law of Moses encompassed more than just the lists of "thou shalt nots" in Exodus-Deuteronomy; books such as Genesis, 1 Samuel and Psalms were also viewed as being valid sources of law. 

Likewise, not only can we derive law from the historical books of the New Testament such as the Gospels and Acts, we actually DO find lists of "thou shalt nots" as well. Matthew 5-7, Ephesians 4-5 and 1 Thessalonians 5 (among others) illustrate this point as each text conveys in a matter-of-fact way specific behaviors that are condemned and others that are commanded.

Having said that, am I suggesting that the two laws are spitting images of one another? Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that the royal law of King Jesus (i.e. the inspired apostolic writings that comprise the New Testament) is similar in its basic structure as the law of the Old Testament - both contain lists of commands as well as historical narratives, prophesies and poetry/parables, ALL of which impart law.

The difference between the two laws has more to do with degree, purpose and results.

Regarding degree, a simple scan of the Penteteuch compared with any book of the New Testament reveals that the old law (of Moses) was exponentially more stringent. Peter told the Judaizing teachers in Acts 15:10, "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear." By way of contrast, Paul says regarding the royal law of King Jesus that it is our "reasonable service" (Rom. 12:1-2). Yes, we must be transformed and we must be holy, but even still, God is not asking too much of us! Again, in Galatians 5:1-4, Paul contrasts the Old Testament "yoke of slavery" and the "freedom" offered in the New Testament.

Does freedom (or liberty) necessitate a total absence of law? Of course not. When we gained our independence from England on July 4, 1776 and become a "free country," we did not become a lawless country. We are a country of great freedom and liberty only when compared to the unbearable, stringent governments of countries like England. In other words, as Christians, we can have liberty in Christ while also being bound to a law. James 1:27 refers to the "royal law" (2:8) as a "law of liberty."

Regarding purpose, the Law of Moses was a temporary law that was intended to "shut up all men under sin" (Gal. 3:19-22) until "the fulness of time came" at which point "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4). Like the "Articles of Confederation" in the infant days of America, the old law was only intended to provide a temporary fix until the real deal came along. When Christ came, He fulfilled and thus abolished the old law, breaking down all barriers, and instituting a law that offers true unity and fellowship with God (Eph. 2:14-16).

Regarding results, Hebrews 9-10 contrast the two covenants. As the inspired writer says in Hebrews 10:4, it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats (i.e. the Old Testament sacrifices) to provide true atonement. The blood of Christ, however, can provide complete and total redemption; this message is taught throughout the book of Hebrews.

Now imagine being bound to a law that had no lasting purpose and could offer no direct reward and to make matters worse, was burdensome and very, very demanding. I'm reminded of the person who is forced to work a minimum-wage job just to "get by" all the while pursuing an education in hopes of one day having a meaningful, satisfying career. Can you see the contrast? Both the minimum-wage job (presently) and the career (future) require work, but one job is going to be a burden and the other a joy. Moreover, not only will the career be more rewarding and enjoyable, it'll likely offer greater pay for less work. This is a great way to view the two covenants.

Just as God gave the Jews of old a law (i.e. the Old Testament), so also has King Jesus given His subjects a law (i.e. the New Testament). These historical documents and letters (to churches) may not be consistently structured like the book of Leviticus, but all 27 New Testament books convey to us the royal law of King Jesus. With this in mind, we must scour the pages of the New Testament, applying this royal "law of liberty" to our lives that we might be obedient citizens in the kingdom of our Lord.

Click here to access the next article in this series.