Kevin Vandergriff / Fall 2010
CSAP 521 / Research Paper
A Defense of Douglas Moo’s Modified Lutheran Position on the Relationship between the
Mosaic Law and the New Testament
Introduction: Given the extent of the Bible’s underdetermination on several significant issues
such as: the relationship between human responsibility and divine sovereignty, working definitions of
God’s attributes, and the like; it is hardly surprising that Christians often disagree amongst themselves
on such issues. The situation is the same when Christians weigh in on determining the proper
relationship between the Law of Moses (Mosaic Law), and the Law of Christ (New Testament).
There
are at least five different views that argue for varying degrees of continuity and discontinuity between
the Testaments. In this paper I will defend the Modified Lutheran position laid out by Douglas Moo in
the book Five Views on Law and Gospel, and then consider some objections to that view. Specifically, I
will focus on three areas that are central to the question of the degree of continuity and/or discontinuity
in the law between the Old and New Testaments: 1) Scriptural data from Matthew 5:17, Romans 10:4,
and Galatians 6:2; 2) The indivisibility of the Mosaic Law and objections thereof; 3) Two systems of
moral reasoning that can help assuage charges of antinomianism, if indeed the Law of Moses has been
replaced with the Law of Christ for the Christian; and also shed light on the degree of
continuity/discontinuity between the two testaments as well. Secondly, we will consider some
objections put forth by Walter Kaiser, VanGemeren, and Bahnsen concerning the specific Scriptural
data relating to Moo’s position.
Theological Framework: Before turning to a treatment of the Biblical data in support of Moo’s
position, it will help to get clear on the theological framework, called the salvation-historical framework,
in which he operates. He explains it as follows:
“…the biblical writers understand salvation as the culmination of a historical process that features several distinct
periods of time. At the “center” of history, and forming the decisive turning point, is Christ’s death and
resurrection. All that came before funnels into this decisive moment, and all that will come after flows from
it…Salvation history finds a discontinuity between the time before and the time after Christ at the core of the
Scriptures. This is not, of course, to deny the continuity of salvation history—a continuity rooted in one God,
carrying out one plan, in one people. But it is to insist that this one continuous and eternal plan unfolds in
successive and distinct stages.”1
This is why Moo concentrates so heavily on Matthew and the apostle Paul to glean evidence on the how
the law relates between the two testaments. Matthew is concerned with showing his audience the
relationship between Israel and the church, and concordantly, the teachings of Jesus to the Mosaic Law.
Paul, “as the apostle to the Gentiles,” had to deal specifically with how a Gentile Christian was to relate
to the Mosaic Law (if at all), and so serves as the greatest resource on this issue. Let’s take them in
order: Matt. 5:17, Rom. 10:4, Gal. 6:2.
Biblical Data:
“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” (Matt. 5:17). According to Moo:
“Matthean usage of ‘Law and Prophets’ as well as the context, which focuses on the relationship between the OT
and Jesus’ teaching (5:21-48), demonstrate that Jesus is speaking to the way in which his teaching relates to the
demand of God in the OT law.”2
The key word in this passage is “fulfill.” Moo argues that:
“The implication of this exegesis of Matt. 5:17-19 is that the code of conduct applicable to life in the kingdom—
and so, I would take it, to the church—is to be found essentially in Jesus’ own teaching. The OT law is not to be
abandoned. Indeed it must continue to be taught (Matt. 5:19)—but interpreted and applied in light of its
fulfillment by Christ. In other words, it stands no longer as the ultimate standard of conduct for God’s people, but
must always be viewed through the lenses of Jesus’ ministry and teaching.”3
However, given the salvation-historical transitional phase occupied by the context of Jesus’ own
teachings and ministry, only tentative conclusions can be drawn. This point also serves to explain why
the Gospels do not contain more explicit teachings on the relationship of law between the testaments.
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 321.
Moo, Douglas, The Law of Moses or The Law of Christ, 204.
3 Ibid, 205.
1
2
On the other hand, according to E.P. Sanders4 Paul says so much about the law that many despair of
every systematizing his perspective on it. While no such attempt at systematization will be made here,
we can at least get an idea of the general shape of Paul’s theology concerning the law by considering
Romans 10:4 and Galatians 5:18.
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Romans 10:4 ):
The key word in this verse is “end.” In Greek, this word is capable of two meanings: “end” and “goal.”
According to Moo we see both ideas at work in the background of Paul’s theology:
“We see in this key verse, then, elements of both continuity and discontinuity. Christ is that to which the law has
been pointing [i.e. Jesus is the goal of the law]; now that he has come, a whole new situation with respect to the
place of the law in the life of the people of God exists [i.e. Jesus is the end of the law].”5
The law has always anticipated Jesus as its goal, and Jesus has also fulfilled the law; thereby
ending the direct authority of the law in God’s plan of salvation for the Christian.
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law (Gal. 5:18):
According to Moo:
“Paul’s purpose is, then, to show that the law had the purpose of regulating the life of God’s people for a set
period of time. It imposed rules, guarded behavior, and served to reveal, confine under, and stimulate sin. All
this was intended by God as preparation for the era of fulfillment which has now dawned in Christ, the era in
which slaves have become sons through the redemption brought by Christ and the gift of the Spirit.”6
Paul’s point is that the Christian no longer lives under the regime of the Mosaic Law in which
the law instigated and strengthened the power of sin, but rather, the Christian lives in a new
freedom from the power of sin. Christ has fulfilled the law, and the law is no longer directly
binding on a Christian.
Indivisibility of the Law and Objections: The Reformed tradition divides the 613
commandments of the Mosaic Law into three categories: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Typically, the
moral content of the Ten Commandments are viewed as eternal, perfect, and changeless in their GodSanders, E.P., Paul, the Law and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).
Moo, Douglas, The Law of Moses or The Law of Christ, 208.
6 Ibid, 214.
4
5
given and original form. While Kaiser and VanGemern maintain that only the moral law (Ten
Commandments) carries over into the New Testament era, Bahnsen thinks that both the civil, and moral
categories of the Mosaic law are directly binding on the Christian today. However, there are good
historical-cultural, scriptural, and philosophical reasons to think that the Mosaic Law is an indivisible
unity. Historically-culturally speaking, Jews in Jesus’ day insisted that the law was a unity, and couldn’t
be obeyed in parts.7 H.A.W. Meyer writes, “In nomos, however, to think merely of the moral law is
erroneous; and the distinction between ritualistic, civil, and moral law is modern.”8
In addition there is strong biblical data supporting the indivisibility of the Mosaic Law. James
asserts (2:10), “whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking the
whole law.” In Galatians 5:3 Paul says, “I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he
is obligated to obey the whole law.” Jesus, in Matthew 23:23, distinguishes between the weightier
matters of the law and the less important, but also insists that all the requirements of the law must be
obeyed. Even within the Ten Commandments it isn’t easy to distinguish between what is continuous,
moral, eternal, and directly binding on the Christian. The Sabbath commandment presents the best test
case to see if the Ten Commandments are entirely moral and changeless by their very nature. First,
although the Sabbath commandment is based on God’s relationship to creation and rest, it is unclear
what moral content, if any, is housed therein. Moreover, the Sabbath Commandment has been changed,
A.T. Lincoln writes:
“God’s concern for the whole person and for all His creatures being able to have regular rest from their work
surely instructs us that although the literal Sabbath day of rest has been abrogated and has not been transferred to
Sunday, we should share this concern for regular periods of rest both for ourselves and for others in our
society…but…there is no biblical or compelling theological reason why it has to be Sunday.9”
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 337.
“Matthew” in Commentary on the New Testament [New York: Funk, 1884], 1.120.
9 Lincoln, A.T., From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, 404.
7
8
Like other commandments from the Ten Commandments, the fourth one has an element of continuity,
but also one of discontinuity that arises when filtered through the teachings of Jesus, and the apostles.
The continuity lies in the notion of rest still at work in the life of a Christian, but the discontinuity arises
in the manner that “the New Testament people of God are to participate” in it by entering:
“God’s rest by faith and thereby cease from works. Since “faith” in Hebrews refers not just to an initial
commitment but is an attitude which requires perseverance and endurance, this cessation from dead works is not
mere inactivity but an ongoing process of dying to self and mortification of sinful deeds.10”
This is inconsistent with what traditional Reformed adherents say, which is that the ‘moral
commandments’ are eternally binding, and changeless in the form in which they were originally given.
Another example of discontinuity between the Ten Commandments and the New Testament treatment of
them, comes from the fifth commandment when Paul reapplies this commandment to Christian readers
in Ephesians 6:2-3. He makes the local promise a universal promise by shifting the reward from “the
land the Lord your God is giving you”, “to the enjoying of long life on earth.”
Is Moo’s Position Semi-Marcionite?: There are many things philosophers wished theologians
knew, and likewise, many things theologians wished philosophers knew. With regard to the former state
of affairs, it becomes clear that Moo, Kaiser, VanGermern, and Bahnsen do not possess a sufficient
background in philosophy when each tries to say why the Ten Commandments are either continuous, or
discontinuous with the New Testament. Moo writes, “… the Mosaic law is not a direct and immediate
source of guidance to the new covenant believer.”11 VanGemeren writes in his critique of Moo, “In
contrast, I conclude that God’s will has not changed and that the moral law (the Ten Commandments) is
a summary of his will.”12 Worse yet, Bahnsen writes in his critique of Moo, “Indeed, because it is an
all-or-nothing matter, Moo insists that we must not be morally bound by the Mosaic prohibition of
Lincoln, A. T., From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day, 396.
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 375.
12 Ibid, 378-379.
10
11
bestiality, or else we are obligated to circumcision, tabernacle, Levitical priesthood, sacrifices, and all
the rest of the old covenant.”13 Likewise Kaiser finishes his critique of Moo by saying, “If this is a not a
Marcionite view, it is at least semi-Marcionite—and the disciples of our teaching will soon prove what
direction it was that we were heading in if we refuse to fully follow the implications of our own
thought.”14 How can philosophy help the discussion here? The answer to that question will take shape
when we consider the implications of two moral systems of reasoning: 1) Divine Command Theory and
2) Virtue Ethics.
According to Divine Command Theory, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of an
essentially just and loving God. Moral values are ontologically grounded in the nature of God, and our
moral duties are grounded in the divine will. This means that the source of moral values and duties is
God’s nature and will. While the Mosaic Law coincides with the God’s nature and will, it is not
identical to it. Very simply then, Divine Command Theory allows God to replace previous commands
He may have given by issuing new commands; some of which may coincide with, but are not identical
to one another, and be as Moo states, “indirectly binding, but no longer ultimately binding.” It should
also be evident that on Divine Command Theory, it is not antinomian, Marcionite, contradictory, or an
overruling of God’s will to say that the Mosaic law is no longer directly binding on a Christians because
the source of our moral duties is God’s nature and will; whereas the expression of that will is found in
the various covenants of the Bible. Clearly then, God has replaced the Old Covenant by expressing
something better in the New Covenant. But what is that something God has expressed?
Whereas the Ten Commandments resemble a rule-based and deontological system of moral
reasoning (Divine Command Theory), it is very clear that the New Testament ethic of Jesus is “deeper,”
13
14
Bahnsen, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 386.
Kaiser, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 400.
more “radical,” “internalized,” and Spirit guided “law of Christ”. It does not contain a formal set of new
apodictic laws, and for some this produces a felt need to hang on to the Ten Commandments at all costs
to avoid antinomianism. Many theologians, I would assume, have the unsophisticated view that without
rules, without duties, without the Ten Commandments, morality crumbles. However, I suspect that a
system of moral reasoning named virtue ethics can resolve much of the confusion on the part of Moo’s
critics, and strongly buttress his own Modified Lutheran defense of Law and Gospel.
Virtue ethics insists that we understand right action by reference to what a virtuous person would
characteristically do. More formally, an act is morally right just because it is one that a virtuous person,
acting in character would do in that situation. According to this view, actions are not right because of
some hard-and-fast rules, or moral principles. Rather, they are right because they would be done by a
person who is a moral exemplar (i.e. Jesus) whom provides the goal that we ought to aim for, even if, in
reality, each of us will fall short of it in one way or another. Moo writes:
“…Christians are not bound to the law of Moses but,… are bound to those principles established by Christ in his
life and teaching—principles mediated and motivated by the Spirit and focused on love; this constitutes “the law
of Christ.”15
Virtue ethics is primarily a system of character, but for each virtue there will be a derivative rule that
tells us to act accordingly, and for each vice a derivative rule that tell us to avoid it, “But the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
Against such things there is no law (Gal. 5:22-23).” Clearly, the New Testament envisions moral and
spiritual maturity only in connection with the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit who transforms the
character of a person from the inside out through the imitation, and internalization of the virtues of
Christ, our moral exemplar. This is the “law of Christ," God’s replacement of the Law of Moses found
15
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel 361.
in His expression to us through the NT; and the sense in which the law is now written on our hearts
(Jer.31:33).
What in the OT is Continuous with the NT?: If Jesus fulfilled the law, was the goal and end of
the law, and Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses, but under the Law of Christ, then in what
sense, if any, is the Mosaic Law still applicable to the New Testament believer. Those commandments
within the Mosaic Law which coincide with “the law of Christ,” but are not identical to it, are only
indirectly binding in the sense that:
“what Christians are actually to do, I could well find myself in complete agreement with, say, a colleague who
takes a traditional Reformed approach to the Mosaic Law. The difference would lie not in what Christians are to
do but in how it is to be discovered… I would argue that we are bound only to that which is clearly repeated
within the New Testament teaching.”16
To reiterate, the systems of moral reasoning that would be of tremendous help for the Christian to
discover what to do are Divine Command Theory, and Virtue Ethics.
Second, moral principles are arguably easier to apply in moral dilemmas such that “the laws
about personal injury in Exodus 21 might well conclude—rightly I think—that the killing of an unborn
baby falls into the category of those takings of human life that are prohibited by both the Decalogue and
by the New Testament.”17 Moreover, principles without virtue are impotent, but virtues without
principles can be blind. Thus, the “detailed stipulations of the Mosaic law often reveal principles that
are part of God’s word to his people in both covenants, and believers continue to profit from what the
law teaches in this respect.”18
Objections to Biblical Data Supporting Moo’s Position: At this point I would like to consider the
objections to Moo’s interpretation of the three key Biblical passages we considered near the beginning
Moo, Doulgas, Five Views on Law and Gospel 376.
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 376.
18 Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 376.
16
17
of our case to sharpen that aspect of the Modified Lutheran case Moo defends. Concerning Moo’s
treatment of Matt. 5:17 Bahnsen writes:
“I have cited Matthew 5:18-19 against his principle that we should presume discontinuity unless a Mosaic
commandment is repeated in the New Testament. I think it is as plain as the hand before my face that Jesus in
this text does not teach discontinuity with the Mosaic commandments, but upholds their every minute detail—
their “original form” as written, if you wish.”19
According to Bahnsen then, Jesus “fulfilled’ the Law and Prophets by upholding, or re-establishing the
law, and by giving it its intended meaning, probably in response to a Jewish evasion, or perversion of
it.20 This interpretation is surely mistaken for at least two reasons. First, the context doesn’t support a
re-establishing of the law. Matthew 5:21-48 contains the famous “antitheses” where Jesus deepens the
OT law further by moving its demands from the external to the internal. But even this is not the more
fundamental context of Matthew. Rather, from Matthew 11:13 we are presented with
“a theology of salvation history which pictures the entire OT as anticipating and looking forward to Jesus…the
“fulfillment” of Matt. 5:17…is a continuity on the plane of a salvation-historical scheme of “anticipationrealization.”21
So then, the enduring validity, or continuity of the law in verses 18-19 makes the most sense “when
seen in light of its fulfillment in Christ.”22
Romans 9:30-10:13: It has been popular lately to argue that the use of “law” in Romans 10:4
doesn’t refer to the Mosaic Law, but to a misuse of the law that sees it as a means of salvation. Kaiser’s
basic critique of Moo on this point is essentially the same. He argues that the contrast in this passage is
not between the Mosaic Law and Christ, but between the Jewish perversion of the law and Christ—
between a “work’s righteousness” and “righteousness by faith.” Moo’s response is as follows:
“While faulting the Jews for “works righteousness,” Paul also faults them for a preoccupation with Mosaic law.
Some antithesis, then, between the Mosaic law and righteousness by faith is present here.”23
Bahnsen, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 378-388.
Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nutley, NJ:Craig, 1977), pp. 61-72.
21 Moo, Douglas, Law of Moses or Law of Christ, 205-206.
22 Ibid, 206.
19
20
Hence, we cannot remove the Mosaic Law from the phrase.
Galatians 5:18: VanGemeren speaks of the moral law in connection with Galatians 5:17-18,
citing this text as evidence that the moral law is still relevant as an instrument of condemnation. If
VanGemeren is trying to claim the source of the moral law is the Mosaic Law then
“formidable objections loom... Galatians 5:17-18 provides no basis for the concept of a Mosaic “moral law,” and
“Rather than affirming the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of a Christian, Galatians 5:17-24 rather clearly
denies it.”24
To claim that the “moral law” distinction is being made in this text is a good example of eisegesis, but
what we should follow is Moo’s exegesis.
Conclusion: What we have seen from the Biblical data (Matt. 5:17, Rom. 10:4, and Gal. 5:18) is
that though there is a predominant stress on discontinuity between the Law and Gospel, we cannot
eliminate some degree of continuity as well; a continuity within the discontinuity:
“It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the
Mosaic Law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which one no longer do.”25
This means that the Christian is no longer bound to the Mosaic Law because Christ has brought its
fulfillment. Instead, the Christian is bound to the “law of Christ” directly and only indirectly to the Law
of Moses. This claim can be fleshed out, and made good sense of with the help of Divine Command
Theory and Virtue Ethics, so as to avoid the charge of antinomianism. Lastly, objections brought
against Moo’s interpretation of 5:17, Rom. 10:4, and Gal. 5:18 are faulty, and not to be preferred over a
theological framework of anticipation-realization.
(*I do not discuss Strickland’s view because space was short and substantive disagreement arises from the
other contributors as Strickland himself says, “Douglas Moo has come to a conclusion antithetical to that of
Bahnsen, VanGemeren, and Kaiser…There is much to agree with in Moo’s essay…There are [only] some
minor areas of disagreement.”)
Moo, Douglas, Five Views on Law and Gospel, 221.
Ibid, 86.
25 Ibid, 87.
23
24