T H E

  R E L E V ANC E   O F   T H E   L AW

Research  Paper
Old  Testament  Theology  and  History
OLDT  0511
Rebecca  G.  S.  Idestrom

26  January  2011

Trevor  GarreM
In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7
Box  815
 Your laws are perfect and completely trustworthy.
Psalm 119:138 NLT

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota,
not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Matthew 5:17-18 ESV

For Christ is the end of the law

so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Luke 10:26 NRSV

Introduction
One can easily imagine that the vast majority of Christians who believe that the Bible is God’s

inspired word believe that the whole Bible, both Old and New Testaments, is God’s inspired word. But

this introduces a problem: If the Old Testament is also fully the inspired word of God, how does it apply

to our lives in light of Christ and the New Testament? Or, to narrow it down further: What is the

relevance of the Old Testament Law, the Torah, to the Christian life?

We see verses in the Torah like “If you obey all the decrees and commands I am giving you today, all

will be well with you and your children.” (Deut 4:40 NLT) and “Cursed is anyone who does not affirm

and obey the terms of these instructions.” (Deut 27:26 NLT) and “This is a permanent law for you, and it

must be observed from generation to generation wherever you live.” (Lev 23:31 NLT).

So what are we to do? Are we to continue following the law? Certainly not for our justification, but

what about as the way of ethical holiness? Is the law ethically binding on the believer? Does it remain

prescriptive of the way people ought to live with God and each other? Ask a Christian their stance on the

sabbath, shellfish, and homosexuality and you might get three different treatments entirely. Ask them for

their reasoning and you might get awkward silence.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   1

 In response to these questions, this paper seeks to explore the role of, and the approach to, the law in

the life of the believer. The paper is pastoral in purpose and survey in nature due to the sheer volume of

diverse discussion and debate on this topic. In order to converge on a position, the approach I have taken

is to work backwards, from present-day scholarship and historical-critical research, back through Church

history to the early church, and finally to the Christ-event, examining how Jesus himself handled the

problem.

The Law in the Context of Biblical Theology

To begin, a theology of the law needs to be considered within the larger context of OT theology. The

continuity of the law is falls within the context of the continuity of the OT. In a survey of recent

approaches to Old Testament theology, Paul House describes the branch of OT scholarship “committed to

a unitary, theocentric and authority-conscious reading of the OT” 1 and a movement towards “whole

bible” biblical theology that approaches the bible as “one book, not two, so the OT and NT should be read

in continuity.” 2 This provides at least some scholarly basis to consider the continuity of the OT and by

extension the continuity of the law.

Martens himself says, “It is my conviction that, since the Old Testament is God’s Word, a theology of

the Old Testament should point beyond the description of the message to an indication of its importance

for today’s believer.”3 In his essay, Embracing the Law: A Biblical Theological Perspective, 4 Martens

argues for the continuity of the law on the basis of Heilsgeschichte, the progressive revelation of God in

1 Paul R. House, "God’s Design and Postmodernism: Recent Approaches to Old Testament Theology," in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s
People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 31.

2 Ibid., 33

3 Elmer A. Martens, God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981), 4. Subsequent editions appeared in
1994 and 1998.

4 Elmer A. Martens, "Embracing the Law: A Biblical Theological Perspective," in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in
Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 3-27.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   2

history: God approaches Abraham with the gift of a promise; God approaches Moses with the more

elaborate and definitive gift of the law; finally, God approaches the world with the supreme gift in the

person of Christ—a tangible incarnation of God himself, a gift that discloses more about God than either

the promise or the law. Martens presents the continuity not just in terms of God’s gifts but also in terms of

the continuity human appropriation: Righteousness results from a total faith-response to God via his gift,

whether the gift is the promise, the law or the Christ:

The faith-response is essentially an embrace of God; more specifically, it

is an embrace of his gifts, be they promise, Torah, or Christ. To embrace
the Torah is also to embrace the promise; to embrace Christ is to
embrace the preceding gifts of promise and Torah. It is this recognition
that gives to law an abiding ethical claim on the believer. 5

However, immediately after articulating this theory of continuity, Martens goes on to articulate the

exceptions and how two functions of the law are abrogated: as a boundary marker for a national identity

(the new boundary marker for God’s people is the Holy Spirit), and the law as the means of God’s

acceptance (Christ is now the means of God’s acceptance).

Herein lies the problem: Even armed with a foundation of biblical theology that allows for continuity

of the law and a whole bible perspective of Heilsgeschichte that integrates the gifts of God’s promise,

God’s law and God’s incarnation, we are still left with the problem of specifics: What, precisely, do we

bring forward, and what do we leave behind?

The Problem of Specifics

The diversity of the debate on the role of the law in the life of the believer has led to an equivalently

diverse perspective in how this looks in day-to-day life. Between the two extremes of complete

dispensationalist antinomianism and full-on legalistic theonomy there is an awful lot of territory.

5 Elmer A. Martens, "Embracing the Law: A Biblical Theological Perspective," in The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in
Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 24-25.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   3

 On the one extreme, there are Christian elements that propose a radical commitment to the law in

every area of life and cite the continuity, relevance and present applicability of the law as presented in the

Bible as their basis. A number of social benefits are put forward, for example, the cost savings of

abolishing the prison system in favour of restitution (Ex 22:1-4) and by eliminating “the release,

pardoning, and paroling of murderers by requiring their execution”6 (Deut 19:11-13). Besides appearing

to be a blatantly motivated by a certain political agenda7, such claims of strict following of the law always

have some layer of interpretation and emphasis. For example, no author I’ve come across seems to

advocate for the continuity of animal sacrifices, often citing Christ as the perfect sacrifice (Heb 9:14). But

neither have I come across anyone advocating for the continuity of the 50 shekel fine for raping an un-

engaged virgin (Deut 22:28). The theonomic response to why this more civil aspect of the law would not

be strictly followed might be an appeal to a more modern and relevant equivalent that is in the spirit of

the law. But there it is again––there is always a layer of interpretation, an application of one’s own

sensibilities. Done unsystematically, or without any apparent underlying principles or consistency is what

opens the Christian interpreter to the accusation of bending the Biblical authority to their existing beliefs

and agendas.

What is required is a framework or some underlying principles for bringing the law forward, that can

be applied consistently and pointed to as a consistent framework. Different approaches have been taken

with respect to creating a consistent framework. One approach is to take the decalogue as the core of OT

ethics, deal with it in detail, and then dismiss all the subsequent rules, commandments and cases as time-

bounded historical detail. Another approach is to divide the law into categories such as moral laws, civil

laws and ceremonial laws, and then proposing that it is only the moral laws which are binding on the

believer. However, this approach can be problematic in a number of ways: Firstly, because neither the old

6 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. God’s Law in the Modern World: The Continuing Relevance of Old Testament Law (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian &
Reformed, 1993), 62-63.

7 The work cited also makes OT arguments against abortion, against over-taxation of the rich, and against frivolous malpractice suits.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   4

 Above: A tongue-in-cheek protest of shellfish based on Leviticus 11:9-12.
The real protest appears to be against agenda-motivated application of the OT Law.
Joe Decker and Ryland Sanders, “God Hates Shrimp” http://www.godhatesshrimp.com
(accessed Jan 24, 2011).

or new testaments explicitly mentions these categories, and secondly, such divisions may be less helpful

than they appear. For example keeping the Sabbath could be considered moral, civil or ceremonial,

depending8.

Lalleman attempts to create a framework by leveraging Christopher Wright’s concept of paradigm 9:

that the law constitutes a pattern or model that can be applied in other cases where the details differ but

the essential principle remains unchanged. The result is that the law is not so much followed as it is

adapted and applied to the new situation. For example, if we consider Christ as God’s paradigm for a

8 Hetty Lalleman, Celebrating the Law? Rethinking Old Testament Ethics (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 46.

9 Ibid., 50-58

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   5

human life, then the way to live your life is not to do all the exact same actions Jesus did in his life, but to

do what Jesus would do if he were faced with the very different context, situation and details of your life.

Unfortunately, in attempting to apply this paradigmatic framework to food laws, cancelling debts, and

warfare, a complete breakdown of Lalleman’s system is observed, at least in terms of being able to

converge on some principle-based, paradigmatic or practical answer to current questions about food, debt

and war. In fact, quite the opposite is observed. Applying Lalleman’s “framework” results in a significant

divergence, with more and more OT material, authors, viewpoints and alternatives being added to the

equation for consideration.

Sadly, we end up right back where we started with a diversity of debatable perspectives and a layer of

suspiciously subjective application in all cases. It’s no wonder that there is often a dispensing of the law

altogether and a complete swing over the to other side of dispensationalist antinomianism.

The Historical Debate

In his book The Weakness of the Law, Jonathan Bayes traces the trajectory of the ongoing debate

regarding the role of the law in the life of the believer. Much of the debate seems to be about how is

obedience produced. Is it only produced directly by the Holy Spirit? Or can the law be used as a tool by

the Holy Spirit? As recently as 1981 the Council on Baptist Theology “articulated a doctrinal antinomian

position on the law in the life of the believer.”10 which received opposition from other Reformed Baptists.

This debate finds its roots in Dispensationalism which proposed a radical separation between law and

grace, putting them in opposition. Before that, the American holiness movement defined holiness in terms

of God’s law, keeping the law central, in line with Wesley’s apparently specific disdain for

antinomianism along with support from Whitefield. But even so there were debates within the Methodist

movement. These debates can be traced back to disputes about the treatment of the law within the Church

10 Jonathan F. Bayes, The Weakness of the Law: God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000),
44.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   6

of Scotland which were preceded by disagreement about the role of the law in Puritan New England and

among the English Puritans. English Puritanism affirms the relevance of the law in the life of the believer

as demonstrated in the Westminster Confession of Faith 11 which includes the following comments on the

Law:

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as
others, to the obedience thereof;and that, not only in regard of the matter
contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator,
who gave it. Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but
much strengthen this obligation.

VI. Although true believers be not under the law, as a covenant of works,
to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as
well as to others; in that, as a rule of life informing them of the will of
God, and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;

The Puritan view derives from Calvin who upholds the relevance of the law (“the Law of God

contains a perfect rule of conduct”) 12 specifically the use of the law as an instrument of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin held to “The third use of the law.” It was the Reformers who proposed three ways of using the

law:

1. Usus politicus or usus civilis: the law is supposed to restrict sin and
promote justice. Not denying any other uses, the law is meant to have a
key role in public life an politics.

2. Usus elenchticus or usus pedagogicus: the law is there to make

humans aware of their sins in order to lead them to Christ for salvation.

11 Westminster Confession of Faith (Centre for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, 2009) XIX:v-vi, http://www.reformed.org/documents/
wcf_with_proofs (accessed Jan 24, 2011)

12 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (London, UK: Bonhom Norton, 1599) III.vii.1.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   7

 3. Usus didacticus or usus normativus, also called tertius usus legis
(“the third use of the law”): the law is given to provide believers with a
norm for their lives, as a “light on their path”13

Luther and his followers focused on the second use of the law, it’s ability to convict people of sin and

drive them towards Christ, stressing that the believer is no longer under the law as per Rom 6:14 and Gal

5:18. However, Luther did build on the Ten Commandments.14

Paul and the Early Church

The extensive and longstanding debate in church history around the role of the law in the life of the

believer is no surprise when we can see in the scriptures themselves the level of contention about how the

law is to be handled. Paul has been central to the historical debate about the role of the law: “Over 60

percent of the New Testament’s nearly two hundred references to the term “law” (νομος) belong to the

Pauline letters. Yet because of the occasional nature of his letters, Paul’s statements about the Mosaic law

are often tolerant of more than one reading. Throughout Christian history advocates of various positions

on the relationship between the Mosaic law and the Christian Gospel have exploited this ambiguity to

claim for their positions the authority of Paul.”

This next section considers some of the key Pauline passages of scripture pertaining to the relevance

of the Mosaic law in the hopes of gleaning some insight on how the law is to be handled going forward.

Romans
It is clearly evident in Romans that the question of the role of the law in the life of believers was a

very real dilemma in the predominantly Gentile Roman church. A small group of law-observant jews had

come into conflict with a larger anti-semitic group creating a “spectrum of attitudes ranging from total

13 Hetty Lalleman, Celebrating the Law? Rethinking Old Testament Ethics (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2004), 1.

14 Ibid., 2.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   8

bondage to the Jewish law in all its aspects to complete antinomianism”15 Paul, as the apostle to the

Gentiles, surely felt some responsibility to restore unity. He makes his argument in five steps16 :

1) The law condemns both Jews and Gentiles (Rom 1.18-3:20); 2) Faith justifies both Jews and

Gentiles; 3) The law of sin and death gives way to the law of the Spirit of life (Rom 5.1-8.39); 4) Mosaic

law and Israel’s misstep (Rom 9.1-11.36); and finally, 5) How love for neighbour fulfills the Mosaic law

(Rom 12:1-16:27).

If you love your neighbor, you will fulfill the requirements of God’s law.
For the commandments say, “You must not commit adultery. You must
not murder. You must not steal. You must not covet.” These—and other
such commandments—are summed up in this one commandment: “Love
your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills
the requirements of God’s law. (Rom 13:8-10 NLT)

The various interpretations of Paul’s comments on the law in Romans are complicated, detailed, and

the subject of whole books. Thielman states “Paul argues that the era of the Mosaic law has passed

away”17 and “the new era has brought with it a new law, ‘the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2)’” and yet, “The

demise of the Mosaic law and the introduction of the law of Christ does not mean, however, that the

Mosaic law ceased to function as authoritative scripture for Paul.” He cites Paul’s use of the Abraham

narrative, and the decalogue as means of guidance to the Christian community. However Bayes asserts

that “According to this Epistle, the law does have an ongoing place in Christian life, because, though it

was disabled for as long as it used to be weak in the sphere of the flesh, but in the sphere of the Spirit

(where the believer now has his being), the law is empowered as a means of sanctification.”18

15 Jonathan F. Bayes, The Weakness of the Law: God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000),
124.

16 Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1999), 21-34.

17 Ibid., 35.

18 Jonathan F. Bayes, The Weakness of the Law: God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament Perspective (Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000),
124.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   9

 In Romans there is a a tremendous amount of material pertaining to the law, too much to deal with

here. And there are a number of interesting ideas that emerge that are beyond the scope of this paper: The

difference between applying the law for justification versus sanctification; the juxtaposition of Paul’s

positive and negative indicators regarding the law; Paul’s dual treatment of the law––his objection to it as

a boundary marker because it excludes the Gentiles, but his embracing of the law morally. In the end we

have both continuity and discontinuity, and the opportunity for a much deeper study.

Galatians
In Galatians, the role of the law in the life of the believer comes to a head in the conflict between Paul

and Peter at that quarrelsome meeting in Antioch when Peter wouldn’t eat with the Gentile believers and

Paul said “I had to oppose him to his face, for what he did was very wrong.” (Gal 2:11 NLT). To the

Galatians Paul addresses the law-gospel issue in the context of some Jewish Christians who are claiming

that the covenant of circumcision God made with Abraham is still in full force and were pushing for the

Gentile Christians to be circumcised and accept the whole mosaic law.19

Paul goes on to link the Christian to the Abrahamic covenant and not the Mosaic covenant, “The real

children of Abraham, then, are those who put their faith in God.” (Gal 3:7 NLT) by virtue of the idea that

“Just as no one can set aside or amend an irrevocable agreement, so it is in this case...The agreement God

made with Abraham could not be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would

be breaking his promise.” (Gal 3:15, 17 NLT) However, what needs to be dealt with is the problem that

the Abrahamic covenant does not give any details or guidance about ethical behaviour.20

So the question remains: How then, should the believer live without any detailed guidelines? Paul

offers two solutions: The Holy Spirit and the ethical teaching of the law of Christ. Paul introduces this

idea of “the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2) without saying precisely what it is except by the preceding “share

19 Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1999), 13.

20 Ibid., 18.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   10

each other’s burdens” which is a sort of summarizing of the Old Testament law using Leviticus 19:18 in

the same way Jesus did. And so, “For Paul, therefore, the law of Christ was Jesus’ own ethical teaching

and example. Although it had absorbed elements of the Mosaic law, this was a different law and formed

the new norm for the people of God during the period of the dawning eschaton.”21

Which brings us then to a consideration of the ethical teaching of Jesus and how he himself managed

the very point of continuity (or discontinuity) of the law. 22

Jesus And The Law

In Matthew’s gospel we see Jesus demonstrating both continuity and discontinuity with the law. In

many cases, Jesus positive orientation to the law is clearly visible. In his temptation in the wilderness

(Matt 4:1-11), Jesus quotes solely from Deuteronomy, the very heart of the law. Moreover, in his

valedictory address, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is careful to emphasize his relationship to the law by

saying “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish

them but to fulfill23 them.” (Matt 5:17 ESV), a statement of continuity in the strongest terms. Jesus’

summary of the law in Matt 7:12 is virtually identical to Lev 19:18. In his encounter with the Rich Young

Many (Matt 19:16-22) Jesus links eternal life to the keeping of the commandments: “if you want to

receive eternal life, keep the commandments.” (Matt 19:17 NLT)

However, Jesus vision of perfection goes beyond the Mosaic law to something much more difficult

and much more exacting (Matt 5:20) and Jesus’ ethical teachings in the Sermon on the Mount are given

as a series of contrasts to the Mosaic law: “You have heard the law that says… But I say…” (Matt

5:31-32 NLT). And there are other discontinuities as well. With regard to Mosaic dietary restrictions,

21 Ibid., 19.

22 This section is heavily endebted to the extensive work by Frank Thielman in The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity,
which is by far the best resource I came across in my study in this area.

23 “Depending on how one prefers to interpret the context, πληρόω is understood here either as fulfill=do, carry out, or as bring to full
expression=show it forth in its true , or as fill up=complete” BDAG

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   11

Jesus says in “It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you; you are defiled by the words that come

out of your mouth.” (Matt 15:11 NLT)

And so in Matthew we find both continuity and discontinuity. But how the continuity and

discontinuity are mixed is telling: Jesus is continuous with the law in properly celebrating the passover

with his disciples, but then re-interprets it, transforming it from a reference to one great redemptive act of

God into a reference to another great redemptive act of God. The Passover is not discarded––it’s

underlying principle is identified and it is profoundly applied to the new context. Jesus fulfills the law, not

by requiring submission to detail, but by getting behind the law to it’s underlying principle, and applying

that to the new situation. Thielman articulates this well: “Careful attention to this tension between

continuity and discontinuity reveals the special way in which Jesus fulfills the law. He does so, not by

requiring submission to it’s every detail, but by reducing the law to it’s fundamental principles and

reissuing the result as his teaching.”24

This idea of leveraging the underlying principle of the law can be found in John’s gospel as well.

Here we have several controversies regarding the keeping of the law against which Jesus must defend

himself. These include Jesus’ failure to keep the Sabbath as expected, and his claims of being one with

God, which was why they were trying to kill him: “So the Jewish leaders tried all the harder to find a way

to kill him. For he not only broke the Sabbath, he called God his Father, thereby making himself equal

with God.” (John 5:18 NLT). In both cases Jesus handles the law deftly by applying an underlying

principle.

In the controversy about the Sabbath (John 7.21-24) Jesus points to the underlying principle that does

allow certain important work to take precedence over the Sabbath, and goes on to say quite bluntly,

“Look beneath the surface so you can judge correctly.” (John 7:24 NLT). Similarly, in the controversy

about his claims of being one with God (John 5:45, 7.19) Jesus cites the fact that the Jewish leaders’

24 Frank Thielman, The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity (New York, NY: Crossroad, 1999), 48.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   12

attempts to kill him break the law and it is actually they who are the ones that transgress.

In John we also see the use of the underlying principle in Jesus’ replacement of the temple (John

2:13-22, 4:19-24), replacement of the feasts of Passover and Unleavened Bread (John 6:1-71) and the

feast of Booths (John 7:37-39, 8:12). Jesus doesn’t discard the temple, the sacrifices and the festivals, he

embraces the underlying function, fulfills it, and re-issues it anew: “So now I am giving you a new

commandment: Love each other. Just as I have loved you, you should love each other.” (John 13:34

NLT). Once again we have continuity and discontinuity, used together for dramatic effect.

Similarly, in Luke we have both continuity and discontinuity of the law. Throughout the heart of

Luke’s gospel (Luke 9:51-19:44) we see that “Jesus affirms portions of the Mosaic law but sovereignly

reinterprets them on his own terms. Jesus accepts the law’s command to love one’s neighbour and to care

the poor; but he absorbs these Mosaic concerns into his own more radical ethic...The result is a mixture of

continuity with discontinuity…”25

So where does this leave us with respect to Jesus and the law? One Jewish law-leaning Christian

ministry I uncovered in the course of my research claimed to know the answer to the great ethical

question of WWJD (“What Would Jesus Do?”). They said quite simply that “Jesus would keep the

Torah.” To that I would now say, “Maybe he would or maybe not, depending.” It would be safer to say

that Jesus would keep the underlying principle of the Torah, but even then there’s a pretty good chance he

wouldn’t be strict about the Mosaic details. Simple stories like Jesus defending his disciples’ casual

breaking of the Sabbath while walking through a grain field (Luke 6:1-5) should be enough to determine

that Jesus’ response is not that simple, or that predictable. That and all the other discontinuities mentioned

above.

25 Ibid., 143.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   13

Conclusion
And so, at the end of the journey, in light of the longstanding debate in the history of the church about

the continuity of the law, and the fine-but-endlessly-debatable answers proposed by scholarship on both

sides of theonomy and antinomianism, and Paul’s complex and seemingly unfathomable perspectives on

the law that can be appropriated for a variety of viewpoints, I think I’ll just stand with Jesus and how he

appeared to handle the law: Embracing it in function if not always in form, deriving the underlying

principle separate from the historic details, and applying the Torah-principle to the new situation.

The implication is that there will be interpretation––a clear layer of subjectivity. People may derive

different underlying principles and then apply them differently as well. What eludes us is the definitive

answer, the set of strict, axiomatic guidelines or an objective heuristic for dealing with the law

systematically and consistently. But that might not even exist or be attainable, which means taking an

interpretive approach could be a step forward for intellectual honesty, freeing us from becoming

“interpreters who act as if they have no presuppositions, act as if they are truly disinterested, and act as if

they are totally objective.”26 Maybe it’s natural to want a system or a framework so we only have to look

and see if the “rule” is valid for us or not, but perhaps it’s better that we have to talk about it, think about

it, wrestle through, and then start a discussion, just as Jesus did, by asking:

“What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”
(Luke 10:26 NLT).

26 Paul R. House, "God’s Design and Postmodernism: Recent Approaches to Old Testament Theology," in The Old Testament in the Life of
God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 52.

Trevor  Garre)::Tyndale  In-­‐Ministry  MDiv  Cohort  7::OLDT0511::Research  Paper   14

 Bibliography
Bahnsen, Greg L. Theonomy in Christian Ethics. Nutley, NJ: Craig, 1977.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3d ed. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press,
2000.

Bayes, Jonathan F. The Weakness of the Law: God’s Law and the Christian in New Testament
Perspective. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2000.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. London, UK: Bonhom Norton, 1599.

Decker, Joe and Sanders, Ryland. God Hates Shrimp, http://www.godhatesshrimp.com (accessed Jan 24,
2010).

Holy Bible, New Living Translation. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1996.

House, Paul R. "God’s Design and Postmodernism: Recent Approaches to Old Testament Theology." In
The Old Testament in the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak,
29-54. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.

House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998.

Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr. God’s Law in the Modern World: The Continuing Relevance of Old Testament
Law. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1993.

Lalleman, Hetty. Celebrating the Law? Rethinking Old Testament Ethics. Milton Keynes, UK:
Paternoster, 2004.

Martens, Elmer A. God’s Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981.

Martens, Elmer A. "Embracing the Law: A Biblical Theological Perspective," in The Old Testament in
the Life of God’s People: Essays in Honor of Elmer A. Martens, ed. Jon Isaak. Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 2009.

Thielman, Frank. The Law and the New Testament: The Question of Continuity. New York, NY:
Crossroad, 1999.

Westminster Confession of Faith (Centre for Reformed Theology and Apologetics, 2009) XIX:v-vi,
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs (accessed Jan 24, 2011)

Wright, Christopher J.H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downer’s Grove,
IL: InterVarsity, 2006.