WAS THE OLD LAW NAILED TO THE CROSS?

It has long been considered part of the “sound doctrine” among Churches of Christ that the old Mosaic law was nailed to the Cross, thus abrogating it or ending it. A clear, succinct statement of this appears in What is the Church of Christ?, a pamphlet by Joe R. Barnett, who can speak for Churches of Christ as well as anyone: “The New Testament teaches that the Old Law was ‘blotted out,’ taken out of the way, and nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14).”

If the New Testament teaches this, we have a problem of conflict of some proportion, for Jesus was adamant that “I have not come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” If he abolished or abrogated the law at the Cross, he did what he did not come to do. He was emphatic that the law would endure until the consummation of all things: “Truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished” (Mt. 5:18). Since the law calls for the rule of love upon earth and peace among nations we can hardly say that “all is accomplished.” Therefore, the law stands, every dot and iota.

The apostle Paul had the same lofty view of the law that our Lord had, even going so far as to say: “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law” (Ro. 3:31). It hardly figures that the apostle would continue to “uphold” what had years since been abolished, and certainly he would not refer to it as “holy, just and good” as he does in Ro. 7:12. In fact, in that same chapter he explains that it was the law that brought him to a knowledge of sin (verse 7). It is clear that Paul upheld what some of us would overthrow.

Does Col. 2:14, quoted by brother Barnett as proof that the law was nailed to the Cross, teach that the law came to an end? It reads, including the preceding verse: “And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross.”

Does it say the law was nailed to the Cross? It was rather “the bond which stood against us with its legal demands” that was set aside and nailed to the Cross. Right? On what basis do we identify “the damning evidence of broken laws and commandments which always hung over our heads,” as Phillips renders it, with the law itself? It is the curse of the law or the debt it places upon us that is blotted out. Christ paid the debt (of the law) for me when he died on the Cross. My sins, which I was guilty of because of the law, were nailed to the cross along with the Lord. As Gal. 3:13 has it: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law,” not the law itself.

If I owe the city of Denton a huge debt in back taxes, so huge that there is no way for me to meet the obligation, I am in danger of losing my property. A friend out of mercy redeems the debt for me, and I can now keep my property. The “bond written in ordinances, “ the bill from the tax collector, which declared my indebtedness, can now be torn up, or it can be nailed to the bulletin board at the city hall and marked paid. What has been blotted out? My debt, not the law of taxation itself.

In like manner, Jesus did not blot out the law, but the “damning evidence” of the law. He died “in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,” as per Rom. 8:4. By keeping the law perfectly and by not sinning because of it, Jesus fulfilled the law, which is what he came to do. Those of us who accept him as Lord and Savior through faith are thus free of the law’s condemnation, for we too have now fulfilled the law’s demands and stand in a right relation (righteous) before God. Jesus fulfilled the law’s demands and imputed that to us. That is what happened on the Cross, a free gift from the Father. But nothing happened to the law per se.

The law is basically the decalogue, the Ten Commandments, which, according to Moses, “God wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me.” Yet Jesus said it was “the law and the prophets” that would not pass away. This is because the prophets were interpreters of the law, and their writings are expansions and explanations of the law. When Micah wrote: “What does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?,” he was saying what the Lord had already implied in the decalogue. Jesus summarized the law even more when he gave what we call “the Golden Rule,” explaining that “this is the law and the prophets.” Paul was equally succinct in his summary of what the law is all about, reducing it to what he called “one word”: “The whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘Y ou shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14).

None of us would dare say that we are not amenable to the Golden Rule or to “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” and yet we disassociate ourselves from the law. Jesus and Paul say they are the same. All the world, every creature on earth, is responsible to the law. It is in fact the law that shows us how sinful we are.

The Son of God did not come to this world to take away one law and give us another. He did neither. He fulfilled the old law by living according to its demands perfectly. Satan, the great accuser, had no charge to bring against the Messiah in that he was sinless. Jesus became our “sin bearer” because he had no sins of his own to bear. We are all found sinners in the light of the law, and we can all say with Paul: “the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me” (Ro. 7:10). Why? Because we can’t keep the law, just as Paul could not. As the apostle put it, faith had to enter in. Law-keeping never puts one right with God, however lofty that law is, for man is lawless by nature (or practice).

That is why Jesus did not give us another law. If “the law of the Lord is perfect,” as the psalmist insists, then it cannot be improved upon. Jesus did not bring a more perfect law. He brought no law at all. He came to teach, to enhance, to fulfil, to give meaning to the eternal law of God. It was the only time in history that a representative of the human race fulfilled all the demands and purposes of the law, which were to make one right with God. He was thus the proper agent for the unfolding of a new era for God’s children, as he himself put it: “The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone enters it violently” (Lk. 16:16). While Jesus did not bring a new law, he brought the kingdom of God. He was the kingdom in its essence. And all of this was anticipated in the law and the prophets.

There is no reason to believe that a law Jesus might give would be superior to the one God had already given to Moses and the prophets. We could not keep a “Christian law” any more than we can keep the law God gave at Mt. Sinai. We cannot be made right before God by any law. A law coming from Jesus would be as much “death” to us, to use Paul’s language, as the law of Moses is, for it too would be “damning evidence” against us. If Jesus could have saved us by giving us a better law, he would not have had to go to the Cross. The apostle said it well: “If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose” (Gal. 2:21).

It is true that the Scriptures say such things as “You are not under law but under grace” (Ro. 6:14) and even “Christ is the end of the law” (Ro. 10:4). These cannot mean that we are no longer responsible to God’s eternal law, but that we are not under law for justification. Christ did not end the law, but the ordeal of trying to be saved by it. Then there is the entire theme of Hebrews, which is that a new covenant has made the first obsolete — “And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13). But it is not God’s law that becomes obsolete, but rather the covenant that he made with Israel. While we have a new covenant (agreement) in Christ, we do not have a new law. The reference to “the law of Christ” in Gal. 6:2 alludes to the law of love or the Golden Rule, not to a system of law.

I am to love the law that God has given, like the psalmist did, in esteeming the law above silver and gold. It disciplines and educates me; it reminds me of my vulnerabilities and my need of God’s grace. I am to search out the will of God in Moses, Isaiah, and Hosea as well as Luke, Paul and Peter. It all “applies” to me. There are ceremonial injunctions growing out of the law in both Testaments that are restricted to time and circumstance, but we are always to honor God for the law he has given and we are to obey that law as best we can, even if Jesus has already obeyed it for us.

I strive to obey the law, such as the Golden Rule, which, as we have seen, is the essence of the law, not to be saved, but because I am saved, and because I love God. I want to please and honor him, so I obey his law, even if imperfectly. But by the power of the Holy Spirit I am able to obey the law more and more, and I know that it is good for me, that I will be abundantly blessed in both body and spirit, to keep God’s law.

It is a chilling disregard for God’s law that is leading to the destruction of the human race. People live as if God had never spoken to the prophets of old. Thou shalt have no gods beside me!, Thou shalt make no graven image!, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain! are injunctions from the God of heaven that sit in judgment on our irreverent idolatrous world. Thou shalt not murder!, Thou shalt not commit adultery!, Thou shalt not steal! are eternal laws of a loving God who knows what is best for his children. Most of the world lives as if such laws had never been written by God’s own hand. Even on TV before our children these laws are scorned and mocked. To have “an affair” is smart, and an abortion (six million a year in the U.S. alone!) is one more way to make life convenient. The drunkard is a fun guy on the TV screen. And even though “sodomites” are listed among those who disobey God’s law (1 Tim. 1:10), we are constantly pressured to accept sodomy as honorable behavior, with such euphemisms as “alternate life style.” The Ten Commandments have no alternatives!

Some of my brethren resist being “under” the Ten Commandments because of the fourth commandment, the Sabbath law. They will even say, “We are under nine of them, for they are included in the New Testament.” God’s commandments are not holy and good because of where they appear, Old or New Testament, but because they came from him. It seems that he even made them a part of man’s conscience, and they existed before they were written. As for the Sabbath rest that God enjoined, it was realized for Israel on the seventh day. As with all the law that is gloriously enhanced in the person of Christ, Jesus becomes “the sabbath rest” for Christians.

We should praise God for the role of law, for as Paul put it: “Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (Rom. 5:20). So that is what we are saying: rather than nailing it to the Cross, let law in so that we can see the full measure of our sin. Then grace abounds all the more. If we neglect the law, grace may not abound. —the Editor