NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG

Home
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
What does Paul mean by "the Law"?
Some time around or after the Protestant Reformation the Biblical term "Law" had
popularly come to mean something along the lines of 'any good work God commands of
humans'. This erroneous definition led millions into misunderstand Paul's teaching
on Salvation, thinking that Paul was against all works done under any
circumstances. But if we really care about the Bible (which I'm starting to think
Protestants do not), we cannot go around making up our own definitions of key
Biblical terms. The simple truth is, the Bible clearly and consistently defines
"the Law" to be the Mosaic Law, and this post will encourage readers to see the
plain evidence for themselves.

The Greek term "Law" (Nomos) occurs almost 200 times in the New Testament, so we
should be able to get a pretty good idea of its range of meaning, especially in key
chapters where Paul is contrasting the Law to the Gospel. Here's my breakdown:
Throughout the Gospels, the term "Law" is consistently used to refer to the Mosaic
Law or Old Testament as a whole, and in fact I don't see a single instance where it
means anything else. The following 30 verses are all the occurrences of "Law"
within the Gospels (note it never occurs within Mark), and if you hover your mouse
over the verse it will show you what it says: Mt 5:17-18; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36;
22:40; 23:23; Lk 2:22-24; 2:27; 2:39; 10:26: 16:16-17; 24:44; Jn 1:17; 1:45; 7:19;
7:23; 7:49; 7:51; 8:5; 8:17; 10:34: 12:34; 15:25; 18:31; 19:7. This data is
extremely significant because for the Jewish mind "Law" meant something very
specific and very fixed. In fact, the Jews had little regard for any merely human
law, since what they had was from Yahweh, the One True God. I don't think we
appreciate just what it means to have a detailed Rule of Living given to us
directly by God. Such is a blessing!

Similarly, throughout all 19 occurrences within Acts, the term "Law" clearly refers
to the Mosaic Law (Acts 6:13; 7:53; 13:15; 13:39; 15:5; 15:24; 18:13; 18:15; 21:20;
21:24; 21:28; 22:3; 22:12; 23:3; 23:29; 24:6; 24:14; 25:8; 28:23). The way it is
used in Acts is even more significant than in the Gospels, since Acts is where we
see the Apostles preaching to both Jews and Gentiles how to be saved.

Turning to Paul, we can break down our analysis into three parts, since Paul uses
the term "Law" about 51 times in Romans alone, and 25 times in Galatians, with 13
times in his other writings:
Within Romans, since the term "Law" appears so many times (51), it is best to only
highlight key aspects. In Chapter 2, the term "Law" appears 11 times, clearly
within the context of Jews versus Gentiles, circumcision versus circumcision, etc.
Thus, the most natural understanding is Mosaic Law (Rom 2:14; 2:17; 2:25). In the 6
occurrences in Chapter 3 (Rom 3:19-21; 3:27-28; 3:31), these are clearly within the
context of Jew versus Gentile as well, and thus the most natural reading is Mosaic
Law (e.g. Rom 3:29-30). While the occurrences in Chapter 3 are the most
disputed/abused, as we will soon see the Mosaic Law fits best and should be given
preference, rather than trying to overturn the clear themes everywhere else!

In Chapter 4, the four occurrences are contrasting Abraham to the Law (Rom 4:13-
16), not merely Abraham to "works". This is significant because we cannot rip
Romans 4:1-12 out of context with what was said in Ch3 and in 4:13-16. Paul most
reasonably (and often explicitly) has the same theme in mind throughout Ch2-5,
rather than separate stand-alone themes scattered throughout these chapters. In
Chapter 5, the key passage of Rom 5:13-14 (Rom 5:20) is clearly saying the Law
didn't exist until the time of Moses, which means the Mosaic Law is the most
logical option. By Paul saying death reigned "from Adam until Moses," this means
the term "Law" does not apply to Adam's time nor to Abraham's (cf Rom 4:13-16), and
thus it makes little sense to see it as some generic law.

In Romans 6:14-15, for Paul to say a Christian is "not under the Law" most
naturally means 'not under Jewish obligations', as it would make little sense for
Paul to say a Christian isn't bound to any kind of obedience (though some
Protestants actually suggest this, contrary to texts like 1 John 2:4; 3:24; 5:2 and
1 Cor 7:19).

Romans 7 is especially fascinating, and probably needs its own post, as the term
"Law" occurs about 23 times, more than anywhere in the NT! The most natural reading
is that Paul has the Mosaic Law in mind (e.g. Rom 7:7), which is what convicts him
of being a sinner in need of salvation and transformed living through Jesus. Even
though Paul starts to speak of "the law of sin" in this chapter, this still isn't
referring to deeds in general, but rather the former way of living which is
typified by life under the Old Covenant. Paul contrasts this to "the law of the
Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:2-4; 8:7), which is certainly the New
Covenant lifestyle we are required to live by. This new way of living required of
Christians is the whole point of Romans 8, and which we see in the references to
the (Mosaic) "Law" being "fulfilled" in Romans 13:8-10.

In Romans 9 and 10, the Mosaic Law is clearly in view (Rom 9:31-32; 10:4-5). These
are important chapters of Romans regarding Salvation, so it is very significant
that Paul isn't speaking in generality here, but clearly that of Jewish living
being the problem. Why would Paul need to constantly contrast Jews versus Gentiles
if the Gentiles are equally under the Law and equally trying to be saved by works?
It doesn't make sense. Rather, it makes sense only if Paul has Jewish works in
mind, and thus the Mosaic Law.

I think the way Paul uses the term "Law" in Galatians (25 occurrences) is the most
important of all, because it is here where it is used the most straightforward, and
where we can use the more clear teaching of Galatians to help us rightly interpret
Romans. Some think that Galatians does not talk about the same issue(s) as Romans,
but I disagree. I think there are blatantly obvious parallels that force us to see
both Romans and Galatians as speaking of the same key themes (e.g. Jews vs
Gentiles, works of the Law, circumcision, Abraham's example).

Paul begins talking about the "Law" in Galatians 2:16, which is clearly talking
about the Mosaic Lifestyle (Gal 2:12-15! Gal 6:13). This is contrasted to the new
life in the Spirit, now that you're "dead to the Law" (Gal 2:19; 2:21), which
sounds a lot like Romans 6-8 where Paul speaks of being "not under" (Gal 4:4-5, see
THIS link) and "dead" to the Law as well. What else could Paul be speaking of by
"receiving the Spirit" (Gal 3:2; 3:5) if not the gift of the Holy Spirit through
the New Covenant (e.g. Acts 2:38; Gal 3:14)? The Holy Spirit is what enables us to
"fulfill the law" (Gal 5:14; 5:18; 5:23), just as Paul says in Rom 8:4 and 13:8-10!
And hence the mortal sin of getting "circumcised" (Gal 5:3-4), since this 'work'
formally requires you to live as a Jew ("keep the whole Law"), and thus acting as
if Jesus never came to usher in a New Covenant, the "Law of Christ" (Gal 6:2).

The very important passage of Galatians 3:10-13 is certainly speaking of the Mosaic
Law, as 3:10 is directly referencing all the demands given to the Jews with the
associated "curses" for disobeying (Deut 27:26!). This isn't works in general nor
law in general. And the most conclusive proof text of all is Galatians 3:17-18,
since we see the "Law" in view did not come until 430 years after Abraham, which
can only mean the Mosaic Law given on Mt Sinai (Gal 4:21-24). This "Law" is what
Paul says is contrasted to the "promises to Abraham" (Gal 3:18), the very theme we
see in Romans 4:13-16. Instead, the "Law" was given for a certain period of time
(Gal 3:19-24), until Jesus came, which fits the theme of Romans 5:13-14. See how
almost all the same "Law" and "works" themes map back to somewhere in Romans?
Outside of Romans and Galatians: In 1 Corinthians, though a few occurrences could
be referring to the 'New Covenant laws', these verses more easily fit referring to
the Mosaic Law, while the rest of the occurrences are clearly referring to the
Mosaic Law (1 Cor 7:39; 9:8-9; 9:20; 14:21; 14:34; 15:56). Paul's Ephesians 2:15
reference most natural refers to the Mosaic Law (see THIS recent post on Col 2:14),
and the famous Justification by faith verse of Philippians 3:9 is most certainly
referring to the Mosaic Law as well (Phil 3:5-6). Finally, Paul's use of "law" in 1
Tim 1:7-9 most naturally refers to Mosaic Law, given that the Greek word "teacher
of the law" is used in this way elsewhere (Lk 5:17; Acts 5:34). All 13 occurrences
in Hebrews are in ch7-10, which are heavily and explicitly talking about the Mosaic
rules and regulations, and even contrasting the Old and New Covenants.

The only other NT writing to use the term "Law" is James, with 7 occurrences (James
1:25; 2:8-12; 4:11). These instances are interesting because James seems to clearly
have in mind the 'law of Christ', which is a new standard of living under the New
Covenant. Again, not some generic set of rules, and in this case James certainly
expects Christians to obey this 'law of liberty' for their salvation.
Given these plain facts, it is undeniable that the "Law" when used in the New
Testament almost always refers to the Mosaic Law, especially at the key
Justification passages. The only 'exceptions' are just that, exceptions, and these
most typically refer to the "Law of Christ," which are rules that Christians are
bound to follow. Nowhere can it be shown that Paul had 'works in general' or 'law
in general' in mind when opposing this to the New Covenant. It is thus completely
irresponsible (and sheer ignorance) for people, particularly Protestant teachers,
to go around saying "Law" refers to deeds in general, since this totally distorts
Paul's specific understanding of the term. Thankfully, some big name Protestants
are beginning to admit the "Law" is not some generic law but rather the Mosaic Law
(see THIS link), so there's certainly hope, as long as we can get the word out!
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. (Jn 1:17)
And by Jesus all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
Posted by Nick at 7:17 AM
Labels: Apologetics, Do Protestants really care about the Bible?, Interesting,
Justification, Protestantism, Reformed
8 comments:
Porphyry said...
Excellent post, I'm glad you are back to writing again Nick. John Bergsma recently
pointed out that the specific phrase "works of the law" occurs in one of the Qumran
texts, in a work of that title. This text refers exclusively to ceremonial
precepts. This provides additional support for the Catholic understanding of Paul,
because it suggests that the phrase had an established meaning and was generally
understood to refer to ceremonial works, not to the moral law as such.

March 27, 2019 at 1:05 PM

Anonymous said...
Erick Ybarra adopts a different interpretation.

https://erickybarra.org/2017/11/09/tridentine-interpretation-of-romans-part-1/

March 27, 2019 at 8:17 PM

Mark Thimesch said...
Another great post, Nick!

Glad to see you back on your blog!

March 28, 2019 at 11:05 AM

Nick said...
Thanks for your comments everyone! I've been wanting to blog but life has been
busy/stressful. I do have some other posts hopefully soon to post.

I have a post or two to follow up on this which is going to argue that "works of
the law" as ceremonial works isn't a bad thing. I recently looked up the Reformed
Westminster Confession on this issue and it said Adam was given the moral law as a
"covenant of works" in the Garden Of Eden (something which the Bible doesn't say).
The irony about this is that Adam was told not to eat from the tree. To "not eat"
is not really a moral issue, but more of a ceremonial one, like a liturgical fast
or abstaining from meat or a forbidden food like pork.

March 28, 2019 at 12:37 PM

Nick said...
As for Erick Ybarra, while I do generally like what he has to say, I think his
methodology misses the point of my methodology. What I generally try to do is to
lay out the Biblical evidence, then analyze it, as often times the plain Biblical
data carries the day for anyone honest enough to look. That's why I have the Tag
"Do Protestants Really Care About The Bible?" because it seems that much of these
debates really comes down to just accepting the Bible on its own terms. The Bible
is a Catholic book after all, so it couldn't teach Protestantism no matter how hard
we look.

Again, while I like much of what Erick says, I think there are missed opportunities
and not the amount/level of exegesis which I believe is necessary to equip
Catholics for convincingly and plainly defending the faith. Too often what has
happened the past 30 years or so in Catholic apologetics is verse slinging and not
engaging Paul directly. Simply asserting that Paul has this or that in mind isn't
convincing unless you can back up the point with Scripture.

I'm not some super smart guy, I just want things to be done upfront and honestly by
considering the facts. Sadly, I really haven't seen any other Catholics engage Paul
at the level I have, for example my recent post on "Calling upon the Name of the
Lord" and my various posts on Romans 4, 8, 9, etc. When I engage a Protestant, I
want to start off on the high ground, and I want other Catholics to do the same as
well. Apologetics is like a chess game, where you need to know what the opponent is
thinking and how to counter his plans with better plans. That's why I get little
interaction by Protestants, because they'd ranter run around with ill defined key
terms and engage Catholics who don't properly frame the issue. This allows both
sides to get exhausted while accomplishing little, repeating the same old cliches,
and not leading to conversions. If you want to shut down a discussion, just ask
about the Biblical term Logizomai or Atonement and see how long people care about
God's Word. My approach has the ironic result of causing Protestants to hate the
Bible, which isn't intentional but it shows where their true priority is (i.e.
hating Catholicism even if it means rejecting Scripture).

March 28, 2019 at 12:40 PM

Porphyry said...
Good points. I am a convert from Protestantism, and I can tell you right now that I
never would have come over to the true Church if I had not seen the case for the
Catholic understanding laid out meticulously from the text of the Bible. This
forced me to suspend my prior assumptions and to examine in detail what the Bible
actually says about atonement, sin, works of the law and sanctification. I realized
that, as a protestant, I had to keep going *out of my way* to avoid or re-interpret
the plain meaning of scripture. Called to Communion is one of the better Catholic
outlets in this regard, but too often I see Catholics falling back on what almost
looks like a presuppositionalist approach- i.e. "grant our assumptions about
authority, tradition and the magisterium and then listen to our arguments about
scripture". It's totally ineffective, and totally unnecessary since the Catholic
understanding of the bible is demonstrably superior.
April 2, 2019 at 2:24 AM
Hugo said...
Nick,

thanks for this post. You touched on my favorite topic. The problem with
Protestants is that even if you prove to them that "the law" refers to the Jewish
Torah and its ceremonies they will say: "but Paul is including all works in that
category, so at the end it doesn't matter". Also, they conclude from when Paul says
that "through the law comes the knowledge of sin", he is referring to the 10
commandments. So, they will say that the law includes also good deeds, and that
Paul in condemning that.

But Paul clearly opposes the ceremonial requirements of the law with the moral
requirements when he says that "Circumcision is nothing and uncircuncision is
nothing. What counts is keeping God's commandments (1 Cor 7:19). If the ceremonial
requirements were the same as the moral requirements then Paul will not be able to
contrast them and put them in opposition. I think that when he says that "through
the law comes the knowledge of sin" he is referring to all the bloody sacrifices
that the law required for (non-intentional) transgressions. With all that blood to
atone for sins, it was certainly natural to see what the Law was trying to point
out to. I think that Saint Augustin deals brilliantly with this when he exclaims
that the law was given so that we seek grace, and grace was given so that we would
be able to fulfill the law.

Regarding the first objection, which is a bit more challenging, Aquinas has an
amazing answer in the Summa that helps answer the question of what is wrong with
the works of the Law and why they won't justify. He affirms that all ceremonies are
professions of faith, and therefore when you try to do the "works of the law" you
are professing that the Messiah has not yet come. Whereas under the Law of the
Spirit (the "new" Law) the barrier between Jews and gentiles is teared down, and we
come into the family of God through the sacrament of baptism, which as a ceremony
of the New Covenant, is a profession of faith.

That really helped me understand why Paul opposes them, and how at the same time he
affirms the Law (Rom 3:31).

What is really amazing is how St Thomas Aquinas nailed it without all the things
that we know about Judaism today thanks to Qumram and the work of the scholars
associated with the "New Perspective" on Paul. Certainly he was an instrument of
the Holy Spirit.

April 5, 2019 at 2:43 PM

guy fawkes said...
I really like this article Nick. Thanks
May 10, 2019 at 10:02 AM
Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link

Older Post Home

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
Pope Leo XIII - Pray for us!
"Most desirable is it that the whole of Theology should be animated by the use of
the Word of God. This is what the Fathers and great theologians of all ages have
desired to practice. It was chiefly out of the Sacred Writings that they
endeavoured to establish the Articles of Faith, and it was in them, together with
divine Tradition, that they found the refutation of heretical error and the
reasonableness of the truths of Catholicism."
Labels
2 Tim 3:16 (26)
Active Obedience (44)
Apologetics (186)
Augustine (15)
Blessed Virgin Mary (7)
Catholic Social Teaching (19)
Church Fathers (25)
Debate (42)
Do Protestants really care about the Bible? (11)
Eastern Orthodoxy (11)
Eucharist (11)
Evolution (1)
Holy Trinity (13)
Imputation (96)
Interesting (73)
Islam (2)
Jehovah's Witnesses (11)
Judaism (5)
Justification (107)
Liturgy (20)
Losing Salvation (14)
Marian Devotion (3)
Mormonism (8)
Papacy (22)
Passive Obedience (64)
Penal Substitution (68)
Pro-Life (12)
Protestantism (197)
Quickie Apologetics (41)
Reformed (117)
Salvation History (23)
Seventh Day Adventists (2)
Sola Fide (104)
Sola Scriptura (59)
Tradition (36)
Traditionalism (26)
Vatican II (1)
Search This Blog

Search
My Favorite Posts
The ultimate argument to use against Protestants
Index of my Debates
Imputed Righteousnesss in the New Covenant?
A concise refutation of Sola Fide
James White's fails to defend Faith Alone
Atonement according to Scripture
Council of Nicea proves Papacy
Protestant "essentials" versus "non-essentials"
1914 A.D. and Jehovah's Witnesses
Sola Scriptura is Unscriptural
Divorce is forbidden in Scripture
Sola Scriptura is self-refuting
Was Jesus damned in your place?
Enter your email to receive notification of new posts

Email address...
 Submit
Subscribe to this blog
Posts
Comments
About Me
My photo
Nick
If you have anything you'd like to discuss via email, don't hesitate to ask!
View my complete profile
Blog Archive
? 2019 (1)
? March (1)
What does Paul mean by "the Law"?
? 2018 (21)
? 2017 (14)
? 2016 (9)
? 2015 (5)
? 2014 (17)
? 2013 (76)
? 2012 (44)
? 2011 (35)
? 2010 (42)
? 2009 (16)
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.