Friday, November 23, 2018

Did Jesus institute a Law?

In Baptist Bible study one Sunday Morning we stumbled across an unusual expression in Paul’s letter to the Galatians: “Bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2 RSV). It is an unusual statement because Paul was of the opinion that “Christ is the end of the law”; under Christ people are justified by faith according to Paul (Rom 10:4). Did Jesus institute a law? Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that he had not come to abolish the law [the Mosaic covenant], but rather to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18). Can that statement be read as suggesting a “Christian” law of some sort remaindered from the Mosaic Code?

According to the Baptist student quarterly, the “law of Christ” is found in a saying of Jesus in John 13:34: “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another." The writer said: “This law of love is the rule believers are to follow.” I raised my hand to suggest that John 13:34 could not be the “law” to which Paul referred. The saying has no parallels elsewhere and the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century, while Paul lived in the middle first century. In any case Paul knew very little about the details of Jesus’ life, apart from a very few sayings and events that had already become liturgical by his day.

Paul claimed to be “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21), which Gordon Fee describes as an informal “Christian ethical imperative.” Nevertheless, (Fee adds) that does not mean followers of Jesus now have a new law to obey. According to Fee the expression “law of Christ” is roughly equivalent to the kind of informal ethical instructions Paul gave in Romans 12 and Gal 5-6.1 Yet the use of the word “law” to describe an informal list of ethical behaviors does seem strange for a Paul who insisted that faith had replaced the law.

James also uses the word “law,” referring to the “royal law” (Jas 2:8), which he does not explain, except to say “If you really fulfill the royal law, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” (RSV; Lev 19:18; Matt 22:39; Rom 12:8-10). In other words whatever the royal law is, the doing of it will include the loving of your neighbor. Or does James intend that the reader understand that the “royal law” is to be equated with Lev19:18? The royal law can be equated with the “perfect law,” that is to say, “the law of liberty” (Jas 1:22), under which people will be judged (Jas 2:12). The law of liberty is contrasted to the Mosaic covenant, which is a formal code (Jas 2:8-12). James is doubtless referring to this “law of liberty” when he calls for one to be a “doer of the law” (Jas 1:25). Are Paul and James referring to some kind of formal legal code in early Christianity?  That is likely not the case. In spite of the fact that Paul and James use the word “law” to describe certain prescribed Christian behaviors, there does not appear to be any such formal “law” preserved in the earliest canonical Christian texts. We modern readers are therefore left to ponder the unfortunate choice of legalistic language used by Paul and James.

One of the “Apostolic Fathers,” the Didache (dated 70-150), however, begins with a formal statement of acceptable Christian behavior called “The Way of Life.” The behaviors, while specific, are not described as a “code” or “law,” however. The following is a brief summary of the first two sections of the Way of Life in the Didache.

You shall:

Love God; love your neighbor as yourself; what you don’t want done to you, don’t do to another; bless those who curse you; pray for your enemies; fast for those who persecute you; love those who hate you; abstain from bodily and carnal lusts; if struck on the right cheek, turn the other; if pressed to go one mile, go two; if anyone takes your coat, give him your shirt; do not refuse what anyone will take from you; give to everyone who asks from you; let your alms sweat in your hand, until you know who you are giving them to.

You shall not:

Commit murder; commit adultery; commit fornication; use magic; use philtres [i.e., potions]; procure abortions; commit infanticide; covet your neighbor’s goods; commit perjury; bear false witness; speak evil; bear malice; be double-minded; be double-tongued; be covetous; commit extortion; be hypocritical; be malignant; be proud; make evil plans against a neighbor; hate anyone.

            The Way of Life in Didache (among the earliest parts of the Didache) suggests there is an element of legalism in early Christianity: here are certain acts that Christians do and others that they do not. The list finds a ready fit with the language of Paul and James. James was very outspoken that “faith by itself, if it have not works, is dead” (Jas 2:17), and what do you suppose Paul was thinking when he said that he was “under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). There are some modern Christian groups for whom this information would not be a surprise, but rest assured it does not play well among Baptists.

Charles W. Hedrick
Professor Emeritus
Missouri State University

1Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 430.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

For a comprehensive understanding of the early Christian views on law I think we have to look at Galatians 5:19, 22 ("fruits of the spirit" and "works of the flesh") and Romans 8:2 ("the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus' and "the law of sin and of death")[NRSV]. These are not codes of behavior but conditions of motivation from which behavior naturally flows, and I would submit that these are what are behind the two lists of behavior found in the Didache. I would suggest that the-spirit-of-life-in-Jesus had/has little or nothing to do with codes; a good example is his attitude that "the sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the sabbath." (Mark 2:27 and //s).

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Charles Hedrick said...

Thanks Gene,
So I gather you are suggesting that the word "law" used by Paul and James is simply a misleading or poor term that works against what they really thought?
Cordially,
Charlie

Anonymous said...

Hi Charlie,

Perhaps both Paul and James were looking for a way to sum up "code law" that could be seen as a legitimate gift, overcoming, as James puts it, "temptation by one's own desire which gives birth to sin" which in turn "gives birth to death." This cycle can only be destroyed by "the word of truth" by which "we become a kind of first fruits of his creatures" (NRSV: 1:14-18).

So with Paul we have, "The whole law is summed up in a single commandment.'You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Galatians 5:14), and you mention James 2:8 where the royal law is equated with loving neighbor as self.

I never really noticed before how Paul and James can be similar in language. The stereotype of just the opposite exists. However, where Paul ties "fruitiness" to the presence of "spirit", James seems to tie "fruitiness" to the revelation of "truth" which would appear to be the "law of liberty" (James 1:25). This seems to be an echo of Paul, "For freedom we have been set free. Do not again submit to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1). So Paul seems to find freedom in the Spirit and James in a revelation of truth. They both advocate very similar behaviors, despite their personality differences, one of which seems to prefer a transformation of flesh by spirit, the other of which seems to prefer clear headed understanding of liberty. Don't we really need both?

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.

Anonymous said...

Just the other day, I was practicing translation, working over Romans 8.1-6, and the symmetry of the “law of the spirit” atop and “the “life and peace” at the end seemed to phrase the passage. In it the author equates thought of flesh with sin and death and thought of spirit with “life and peace.” This law of the spirit is, naturally (or supernaturally) “of the life in Christ Jesus.” This association reminded me of Philo. In several passages, he personified the law. Philo considered Abraham (On Abraham 276) to be “... one who is himself the unwritten law and justice of God.” He also felt the same of Moses, writing, “... but since Moses was also destined to be lawgiver of his nation he was himself long previously through the providence of God, a living and reasonable law...” (On the Life of Moses 1.162). Something to ponder from first century Judaism that might relate.
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Anonymous said...

Typo: "the before the first "peace and life" was from something I was deleting.
Dennis

Anonymous said...

Hi Dennis,

life in Christ Jesus, life in Abraham, life in Moses - the unwritten law and justice of God in first century Jewish thought. Very cool!

Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa

Elizabeth said...

Good Evening Charlie,

1) Can you explain in a bit more detail why the scriptures you cited regarding "the law of Christ" do not play well among some Baptists? Are they big "Sola Fide" enthusiasts? (I've never attended a Baptist church, or if I have, I don't recall what they preached.)

2) I don't know if you would ever continue the discussion about Gal. 6:2 or 1 Cor. 9:21 with your Bible study group- but here's a question for them:
Who cares what Paul says about Jesus and the "law of Christ?" Paul never met Jesus. He was not a disciple of Jesus. He never talked to Jesus and Jesus never talked to him. So where does Paul get the authority to speak on Jesus's behalf? Does your Bible study group think that played well with the other disciples who physically interacted with Jesus? I guess what I'm getting at is- what did Jesus himself say about "the law of Christ?" Don't his words carry more weight than Paul's?? I'd love to hear their feedback.

3) Speaking of the Baptist denomination- I saw a Baptist minister on YouTube draw a diagram of most denominations (fairly comprehensive- but not as comprehensive as what you stated as there being over 1000 of them!) Anyway- he hit the major ones that most of us recognize... And they all were branches off of Catholicism. When I say branches- I mean they had their roots in Catholicism and then later split off for various doctrinal or cultural or political reasons.... Except the Baptists. He stated that Baptists are the only denomination who does not have its roots in Catholicism. Is that really true?

Many thanks!! As always! Elizabeth

Charles Hedrick said...

Hi Elizabeth,
First paragraph: Baptists in general believe in Salvation by God's grace through faith. So yes it is sola fide.
Second paragraph: You likely know this passage: See Paul's report about his exchange with Peter Galatians 2:11-21.
Third paragraph: Baptists in general think that they did not evolve out of Catholicism.
Cordially,
Charlie

Elizabeth said...

Yes, I am indeed familiar with Paul's report about his exchange with Peter... I wish there was a report from Peter about his exchange with Paul. He wasn't shy about asserting his evolving views to the disciples who lived and slept and ate with Jesus in physical reality. The one thing I do appreciate is Paul's outreach to non-Jews, even though he was a bad tempered bully to anyone who did not share his perspective. I still don't understand why any churchgoer, Baptist or otherwise, would be unsettled by a simple phrase such as "law of Christ." I wish I could have heard the discussion. Elizabeth

Anonymous said...

In Nina E. Livesey’s excellent book “Galatians and the Rhetoric of Crisis,” she writes in her conclusion, “Denigrating competition is one of the prime objectives of the rhetoric of crisis.” Galatians is such a writing. She also writes that writers of rhetoric of crisis, “...take an existing situation and build it into a crisis demanding attention.” It seems to me the purpose of Galatians wasn’t so much veracity or meticulous historical reconstruction as it was meant to be persuasive and propagandic. I would have loved to have known the earliest responses to hearing it, how it would have, for instance, "gone over" with the crowd that used Didache or Matthew, which seems to give Peter primacy (at least in chapter 16:17b, where him being the "rock" the church was built on was also neither revealed by blood or flesh). Compare the "flesh & blood" at the end of Galatians 1.16, usually translated as "human being."
Dennis Dean Carpenter
Dahlonega, Ga.

Elizabeth said...

Well I completely agree with you and Nina, Dennis... about taking an existing situation and building into it a crisis demanding attention. I'd love to hear more! I do feel that the whole subject of the "law" was made into a crisis... for no reason. Other than, as you said, persuasion and propaganda. I did compare Matt. 16:17 and Gal. 1:16... I'm not smart enough to draw insights from them. But I am intrigued. I really should read the whole chapter of Galatians in order to get a sense of the rhetoric of crisis. That is such a good term, I won't forget it. Any further thoughts would be appreciated. Elizabeth

Elizabeth said...

Yes Gene- we do need both!! Crisis of rhetoric need not apply! Its not "either/or"... It's "both/and." Thank you as always!! Elizabeth