This note is an attempt to deal with the role of Law in Christianity. It starts from a question asked by one of our readers: If Jesus said: "I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it" and "Not one tittle will drop away from the Law until the end of time" (or quotes to that effect), why did Christianity immediately upon the death of Jesus throw out the Law? Historically, the answer is that it came from dealing with the problem of Gentiles who wanted to be Christians. Read Acts 15 and Galatians for a couple of views. Jesus' ministry was primarily to Jews. I think you have to understand his insistence on the Law in that context. Many Jews in the 1st Cent., as Jews now, did not believe that non-Jews were necessarily called on to accept the Law. Thus there were a class of people (called "God-fearers") who accepted the Jewish concept of God, and had a loose connection with the synagogues, but had not been circumcized, and were not bound by the Law. The Centurion in Luke 7 seems to have been one of these. He was a benefactor of the Jews, but seems not to have been a Jew himself. Jesus didn't call on him to accept the Law. (Note by the way that while Gentiles were not expected to follow the whole Law, they were expected to follow a smaller set of rules, currently called the "Noachic commandments". There is a separate FAQ about them. They are considered to be part of the covenant with Noah established in Gen 9. The rules themselves do not appear explicitly in Gen 9, but in fact seem to be based both on Gen 9 and laws in Lev that are binding on strangers living in Israel, combined with traditional Rabbinical interpretations. In some forms the Noachic laws appear to be intended to be the minimal set of restrictions that would allow a Gentile to maintain fellowship with Jews. The rules in Acts 15 appear to have at least some relationship to the Noachic commandments, and in fact are probably focused on allowing fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians.) Acts 15 appears to be a fairly moderate Jewish Christian reaction to the problem of Gentile Christians. It acknowledges that the Law does not apply to Gentile Christians (most particularly, that they do not need to be circumcized), but does impose something rather close to the Noachic commandments. Furthermore, Acts 15 seems to to assume that Jewish Christians are still bound by the Law. (The more conservative reaction is the view rejected by Acts 15, that Gentiles must become Jews before being allowed to be Christians.) Paul's view appears somewhat more complex. He portrays the Law as a schoolmaster leading up to Christ. He considers the Law as holy. But what he says has left many Christians with the impression that it no longer applies. There's general agreement that he says you can't depend upon the Law *for salvation*, and that he rejects some parts of the Law. (The kosher rules and the Sabbath are the most commonly cited examples, though some of our readers don't agree about the Sabbath.) Mark 7:19 traces the abandonment of kosher to Jesus himself. Paul never says "the Law is hereby null and void", but manages to leave that impression with many readers. We're now getting into points where there are lively discussions. I'll have more to say about Paul shortly. Some people believe that Paul used a Jewish concept that the coming of the Messiah would free the people from the Law. One could take this as being based on Jer 31:31 ff, which says that God would make a new covenant, not like the old one, but written in their hearts. There's been a persistent Christian interpretation that Christ fulfilled the Law, but that in doing so he brought it to an end. Mat 5:17-18 can be read this way. Note "until all is accomplished". As far as one can determine, the exact relationship between Christianity and the Law was a matter of debate for the NT church, and this debate continued through the period of the Church Fathers (including a debate as to whether the OT belonged in the Bible at all). It is still a hot topic in this newsgroup. The big problem with Paul is that on the one hand he seems to condemn the Law, but on the other hand he says it is holy, and he is at least as strongly opposed to the "antinomians" as those who would impose circumcision on all Christians. As a result, there are innumerable explanations of Paul's views. One posting that appeared here said that Paul used "nomos" only for the oral Law, and when he said we aren't under the Law, that's what he meant. He was contrasting the oral Law, which does not bind us, and "God's Law" (the Torah in the narrow sense?), which does. From the description in the Theological Dictionary of the NT, it looks like Paul uses "nomos" in a whole variety of senses, as narrow as a single law, or the 10 commandments, and as broad as God's will for mankind, or the "law of love". Much of the time "nomos" has a positive meaning for him. If he does distinguish between wider and narrower law, I don't think you're going to find the distinction in where he does or doesn't use nomos. It's clear that Paul says both positive and negative things about the Law. It would be convenient to find that he was using different definitions of Law in these cases, so e.g. he was for the 10 commandments but against the oral law. But I'm afraid it's not quite so simple. I think he says of the same Law, both that it is holy and shows people what is good, and that for Christians it ultimately can become damaging. I would suggest that the difference is between sons of the Kingdom and those outside. The Law is primarily for people outside. It shows us our need for Christ, and leads us to him. But those inside live directly in God's love, and do not need Law. For them to continue depending upon the Law means that they have not yet come into the right relationship with Christ. On the other hand, he see the law of love as a higher standard, not a lower one. So he has no sympathy with "libertines". Thus despite the fact that we are no longer under the Law, we have passages such as 1 Cor 6:9 that list things that no Christian will do. One common analysis tries to separate the Law into a "ceremonial law", which defined observances that are specific to the Jewish people, and a "moral law", that applies to everyone. Certainly what Paul says has a certain broad similarity to this view. On one hand, he does reject things like circumcision and the Sabbath, which certainly seem to be ceremonial. And on the other, he lists examples of things Christians won't do in several places. Paul is definitely concerned about Christian behavior, and opposes "antinomians" on one side as much as "Judaizers" on the other. It's important to note that when he rejects the Law, it is almost always in the context of specific Jewish practices such as circumcision and kosher rules. This is what lends plausibility to the distinction between "moral" and "ceremonial" law. The term Torah had a wide range of associations for Jews. It was not only law, but teaching or instruction. It seems that what Paul objected to was primarily what I would call the "legalistic" side -- specific ceremonial practices which separated Jews from Gentiles. He clearly still accepted many moral and sexual standards that appear in the Law. So it's probably true that in practice, Paul acted in a manner that is consistent with the moral/ceremonial distinction. But the problem is that Paul never makes this distinction in any explicit way. He makes several fairly blanket condemnations of Christians depending upon the Law. I think Paul does actually reject the Law as a whole. What replaces the Law is the life of faith. Not faith as intellectual belief, but rather faith that is associated a transformation in our lives, by the power of the Holy Spirit. I think he is confident that the result of this will be behavior that meets all the necessary standards. Furthermore, I think he sees reliance on the Law as dangerous, not because it isn't holy (as he says, heaven forfend!) but because as soon as we focus on the Law, we begin to think about things legalistically. For this reason, I personally do not use the category of Law in discussing Christian ethics. However I understand why others do, and I think that there are ways in which a "moral law" can be useful to Christians. Clearly there will be some connection between Christian standards and the Law, since after all it's the same God who gave the Law and who Christians are children of. Certainly if we are violating the ten commandments, there's something wrong. I think the long-standing Christian tradition of using the ten commandments in self-examination is a good one, and I find it hard to believe that Paul would object in any serious way. But I don't think it's what he was actually advocating, and I think his objections should warn us that the Law is at most a subsidiary standard for us. The ten commandments shouldn't ultimately be what is controlling our behavior. They may help show us when we fallen, but love should take us so far beyond them that they never become an issue. (Indeed Paul seems to say just about this in Rom 13.) We are not under Law, but grace. I know it's fashionable to set Jesus and Paul against each other, but I see exactly the same approach in Jesus. The Sermon on the Mount doesn't ever overturn the Law (though in some places it may suggest some rather liberal interpretations of it). But it does suggest that our behavior should be controlled by a higher standard. You have heard ... but I say to you. And what Jesus says goes so far beyond any legal requirements that the Law should never be an issue. (Purely ceremonial requirements would of course be a separate issue. Jesus didn't seem much concerned with them, though he did accept them. However I think it's generally agreed that they don't apply to Gentiles. I have to confess that I don't have any clear position on what the role of the Law should be for Jewish Christians.) With this leadin, let me try to summarize the common positions on the Law taken by various writers in this group in the past. They are 1) that the Law as a whole is still valid for Christians. This is an unusual position, but a few people do hold it. It is hard to identify any major Christian bodies that advocate this position. 2) that the ceremonial Law is not valid, but the moral Law is. The conclusion that ceremonial Law is not valid for Christians is sometimes based on the argument that Christians are in general Gentiles (i.e. Acts 15), and sometimes on the concept that with Christ's death, the ceremonial Law was "nailed to the cross" (Paul's position, interpreted as applying only to the ceremonial Law). Among people who take this position, there is general agreement that the Ten Commandments (except possibly for the Sabbath -- see below) are part of the moral Law, and still apply. Beyond that, generally the tendency is to look to the New Testament to determine which portions of the Law still apply to Christians. This distinction between moral and ceremonial Law is normally associated with the Lutherans, but seems to be common among evangelicals of all kinds. The Sabbath is the only one of the Ten Commandments that most Christians believe does not apply (or does not apply in all aspects) to Christians. Specifically, most Christians believe that the specific day is part of the ceremonial Law, although the general requirement to worship regularly is part of the moral Law. While this is the general view, a few groups (of which the Seventh-Day Adventists are probably the best known) believe that the entire commandment is still valid, and thus that Christians should worship on Friday night/Saturday. There's a separate FAQ with more information on this issue. Those who accept the distinction between ceremonial and moral Law often call Sunday the Sabbath, because they see worship on that day as being the Christian way of following the Sabbath law. 3) That none of the Law applies to Christians. This position is presented in more detail in the discussion above. As mentioned there, generally people do understand that moral standards are necessary. However they are not seen as Law. As a practical matter, there isn't a lot of difference between the standards adopted by people holding this view and the moral Law accepted by those who hold to the ceremonial/moral distinction. That's because in both cases the teachings of Jesus and other New Testament sources are used. While the Ten Commandments aren't exactly seen as Law, they are still used as moral standards and for self-examination. However in principle, this position is based on a more radical reading of Paul. Historically, it is associated with Calvin and the Reformed tradition. On the matter of the Sabbath, people holding this position do not believe that the Sabbath law applies to Christians. Christian worship is a free act, not a legally mandated one. However, Christians are still expected to worship regularly, and as a matter of church order, a specific day is chosen. It is normally referred to as the Lord's Day, not the Sabbath, because the Sabbath is associated with the Law. Again, see the separate sabbath faq for details.