By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.comLast week, we attempted to establish the first of two propositions: That New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law.
Today and tomorrow we will consider a second proposition: That the New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching. At first glance, this may seem surprising—especially if these same authors were equally convinced that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding for New Testament believers.
Jesus, of course, expounded the Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matt. 5). Paul cites the fourth commandment as the basis for why children should obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-2). Peter cites Leviticus 19:2 as the basis for why Christians should be holy. James appeals to Leviticus 19:18 in exhorting his readers to love one another (Jas. 2:8) and to Exodus 20:14 in contending that they should not murder (Jas. 2:11). Jude points to the Exodus (v. 5), Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), Moses (v. 9), Cain (v. 11), Balaam (v. 11), Korah (v. 11), and Enoch (v. 14) in order to make his point.
And these are just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament lists over 150 New Testament references in which the Pentateuch is directly quoted (see chart 2 below). The UBS GNT goes on to list well over 600 additional “allusions and verbal parallels” between the Torah and the New Testament.
Here is the list of references where the New Testament quotes from Exodus through Deuteronomy.
Exodus 1:8 – Acts 7:18
Exodus 2:14 – Acts 7:27-28, 35
Exodus 3:2 – Acts 7:30
Exodus 3:5-10 – Acts 7:33-34
Exodus 3:6 – Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 3:13; 7:32
Exodus 3:12 – Acts 7:7
Exodus 3:15 – Matt. 22:23; Mark 12:26; Acts 3:13
Exodus 9:16 (LXX) – Rom. 9:17
Exodus 12:46 – John 19:36
Exodus 13:2 – Luke 2:23
Exodus 13:12 – Luke 2:23
Exodus 13:15 – Luke 2:32
Exodus 16:18 – 2 Cor. 8:15
Exodus 19:6 (LXX) – 1 Pet. 2:9
Exodus 19:12-13 – Heb. 12:20
Exodus 20:12 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; Eph. 6:2-3
Exodus 20:12-16 – Matt. 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20
Exodus 20:13 – Matt. 5:21; James 2:11
Exodus 20:13-15, 17 – Rom. 13:9
Exodus 20:14 – Matt. 5:27; James 2:11
Exodus 20:17 – Rom. 7:7
Exodus 21:17 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10
Exodus 21:24 – Matt. 5:38
Exodus 22:28 – Acts 23:5
Exodus 24:8 – Heb. 9:20
Exodus 25:40 – Heb. 8:5
Exodus 32:1 – Acts 7:40
Exodus 33:19 – Rom. 9:15
Leviticus 12:8 – Luke 2:24
Leviticus 18:5 – Rom. 9:15; Gal. 3:12
Leviticus 19:2 – 1 Pet. 1:16
Leviticus 19:12 – Matt. 5:33
Leviticus 19:18 – Matt. 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8
Leviticus 23:29 – Acts 3:23
Leviticus 24:20 – Matt. 5:38
Leviticus 26:12 – 2 Cor. 6:16
Numbers 9:12 – John 19:36
Numbers 16:5 – 2 Tim. 2:19
Numbers 30:2 – Matt. 5:33
Deuteronomy 4:35 – Mark 12:32
Deuteronomy 5:16 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; Eph. 6:2-3
Deuteronomy 5:16-20 – Matt. 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20
Deuteronomy 5:17 – Matt. 5:21; James 2:11
Deuteronomy 5:17-19,21 – Rom. 13:9
Deuteronomy 5:18 – Matt. 5:27
Deuteronomy 5:21 – Rom. 7:7
Deuteronomy 6:4 – Mark 12:32
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 – Mark 12:29-30
Deuteronomy 6:5 – Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 20:27
Deuteronomy 6:13 – Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8
Deuteronomy 6:16 – Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12
Deuteronomy 8:3 – Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4
Deuteronomy 9:4 – Rom. 10:6
Deuteronomy 9:19 – Heb. 12:21
Deuteronomy 17:7 (LXX) – 1 Cor. 5:13
Deuteronomy 18:15 – Acts 7:37
Deuteronomy 18:15-16 – Acts 3:22
Deuteronomy 18:19 – Acts 3:23
Deuteronomy 19:15 – Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1
Deuteronomy 19:21 – Matt. 5:38
Deuteronomy 21:23 – Gal. 3:13
Deuteronomy 24:1 – Matt. 5:31; 19:7
Deuteronomy 24:1,3 – Mark 10:4
Deuteronomy 25:4 – 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18
Deuteronomy 25:5 – Matt. 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28
Deuteronomy 27:26 (LXX) – Gal. 3:10
Deuteronomy 29:4 – Rom. 11:8
Deuteronomy 30:12-14 – Rom. 10:6-8
Deuteronomy 31:6,8 – Heb. 13:5
Deuteronomy 32:21 – Rom. 10:19
Deuteronomy 32:35 – Rom. 12:19
Deuteronomy 32:35-36 – Heb. 10:30
Deuteronomy 32:43 – Rom. 15:10
Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX) – Heb. 1:6
It quickly becomes apparent that, although the New Testament writers considered the Mosaic Law no longer binding, they nonetheless frequently referred to it in their instruction of New Testament believers.
Appealing to the Law (Part 2)
February 26th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
Today we are continuing to discuss our second proposition: That the New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching.
Not only did the New Testament writers frequently cite the Mosaic Law, they also evidence a high regard and personal esteem for it.
(From the outset, we will admit that much more could be said about this than what is written here. Thankfully, that’s why we have a comments section.)
The apostle Paul, for example, is clear that all Scripture including the Mosaic Law is profitable for the New Testament believer (2 Tim. 3:16). For contemporary theologians to then claim that certain parts of the Law are no longer relevant to Christians in any sense goes contrary to the New Testament evidence. After all, Paul (the New Testament author most outspoken regarding the abrogation of the Law) found great delight in the Law of Moses. Thus,
Paul writes that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy righteous and good,” (Rom. 7:12), that the “law is spiritual” (7:14), and that in his inner being he “delights in God’s law” (7:22). And to Timothy Paul writes that the law is good if it is used properly (1 Tim. 1:8). (Online Source)
As David Dorsey explains:
When Paul addresses himself specifically to the question of the value (and not the legal applicability) of the law, he expresses nothing but the highest regard for it. He considers the laws to be God’s laws (Rom 7:22, 25; 8:7; I Cor 7:19). They are “good” (Rom 7:12–13, 16; I Tim 1:8), “holy and righteous” (Rom 7:12), and “spiritual” (7:14). He views the laws as embodying a standard of righteousness that we Christians are called upon to achieve by walking in the Spirit (8:4). He considers the laws valuable in the identification and conviction of sin in one’s life (3:20; 7:7 ff.). He teaches, as did Jesus, that each individual law of the Mosaic corpus (and not just a certain category of laws) fleshes out the one overarching law: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (13:9; Gal 5:14). Paul holds the corpus in such high esteem that his inner being delights in it. Most significantly for the present inquiry, he maintains that the individual laws (speaking specifically of the law dealing with muzzling the ox; Deut 25:4) were given “for us” and are written “for us” (1 Cor 9:8–10). In no instance does he imply that only a particular category of laws possesses such high value. (David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 331-32.)
Rather than steering clear of the Mosaic Law, the New Testament writers are quick to appeal to it and esteem it (as well as the rest of the Old Testament). Of course, this is to be expected since the Old Testament was the Bible of the apostolic church. The apostles would naturally have referred to it in their teaching and writing.
But how does this appeal to and appreciation for the Mosaic Law fit with the apostolic teaching that Christians are no longer under the Law? Are the two propositions indeed contradictory? Or can they be reconciled and, if so, how?
Our articles for the rest of this week will focus on answering these questions.
9 Responses to “Appealing to the Law (Part 2)”
I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full.
Is this a correct statement? Indeed, now I can eat Big Mac’s, fried Snickers, or 25 pop-tarts dipped in caramel sauce to get full.
But, did I ever have to eat potato chips to get full? If the answer to this is no, is my postulate that I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full a true statement? If my previous postulate by assumption implies that before “now” I used to have to eat potato chips to get full, it is not a valid postulate.
Now, should I even have eaten only potato chips for a meal? If I think all day long about not eating potato chips, and manage to not eat potato chips for my evening meal, will this still create in me a strong desire for something fried to eat for a meal? Does my now stating that I never had to eat potato chips for a meal make me healthy?
Food for thought.