OT Law is an indirect source for the moral life

[Hornet]

Douglas Moo, in his commentary about the Book of Galatians, says that "under the law" means "under the authority of the law." He goes on to write, "The claim this phrase makes is the natural corollary to the salvation-historical argument of 3:15-25: since the time of the law is at the end, believers are no longer subject to its authority. Of course, this claim must be carefully nuanced so as to not to detract from the continuing general authority of the OT in the lives of believers and in order to do justice to NT texts suggesting that the OT law has some kind of continuing ethical import for believers (see esp. James 1:21-25; 2:8-13). The OT law has no direct authority over the believer but continues to be an indirect source (under the authority of NT teaching) for the moral life."

How is the Old Testament an indirect source for the moral life? Does this mean that the OT commands are not to be obeyed unless the NT repeats it?

[KingsGambit]

Douglas Moo, in his commentary about the Book of Galatians, says that "under the law" means "under the authority of the law." He goes on to write, "The claim this phrase makes is the natural corollary to the salvation-historical argument of 3:15-25: since the time of the law is at the end, believers are no longer subject to its authority. Of course, this claim must be carefully nuanced so as to not to detract from the continuing general authority of the OT in the lives of believers and in order to do justice to NT texts suggesting that the OT law has some kind of continuing ethical import for believers (see esp. James 1:21-25; 2:8-13). The OT law has no direct authority over the believer but continues to be an indirect source (under the authority of NT teaching) for the moral life."

How is the Old Testament an indirect source for the moral life? Does this mean that the OT commands are not to be obeyed unless the NT repeats it?

The Old Testament law provides examples of what sort of actions and behavior God wants to see. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 commands the building of parapets over buildings as a safety feature. The takeaway from this is that God expects us to consider the safety of other people in our actions. We have the latitude now to determine exactly how to apply these principles, and others, in everyday life.

[hedrick]

We can't necessarily expect the NT to repeat everything relevant from the OT. But it could still give us some relevant information.

Paul sees the Law as a tutor. In Rom 8:4 has says that Christ has freed us from sin, carrying out the intention of the Law. But I don't see from Paul statements saying that the Law itself should continue to guide us. Paul's idea of Christian life is centered on the Spirit and on being in Christ. It's not that he thinks anything goes, but that someone who is living in Christ has al the guidance that they need. Hence, as he says in 1 Cor, everything is allowed -- since the Law doesn't apply -- but not everything is helpful -- which we should know as Christ's followers. The only place I'm aware of that he cites the Law as an authority for us is 1 Cor 9:9, although that's a fairly metaphorical use. Paul cites "nature" in a couple of places where you might expect an authority such as the law, e.g. Rom 1 and 1 Cor 11:14.

Jesus never talked about the abolition of the Law. Indeed he cites the 10 commandments on a couple of occasions, once even as a basis for salvation. Mat 5 is a commentary on the 2nd table, though he replaces the letter of the commands with his own commandments that look at our intent. This seems consistent with Paul's concept that we don't need law if we are in Christ. However he cites the commandments a couple of other places, most notably with the "Rich Young Ruler." I guess I'd say that Jesus seems in principle to accept the continuing validity of the 10 commandments, but interprets it in a way that intent replaces the letter of the law. This seems to end up at a similar place to Paul, though not by the same route. I'm not aware of Jesus specifically using anything other than the 10 commandments as an authority, though in Mat 8:4 he advising someone who he healed to follow the Law in showing himself to the priest.

Both Lutheran and Reformed traditions give the Law a somewhat qualified role as providing continued guidance. I've never been sure I agree, though if you interpret it in a limited and free enough way that would be consistent with Jesus' approach.

[Jedidiah]

Paul sees the Law as a tutor. In Rom 8:4 has says that Christ has freed us from sin, carrying out the intention of the Law. But I don't see from Paul statements saying that the Law itself should continue to guide us. Paul's idea of Christian life is centered on the Spirit and on being in Christ. It's not that he thinks anything goes, but that someone who is living in Christ has al the guidance that they need. Hence, as he says in 1 Cor, everything is allowed -- since the Law doesn't apply -- but not everything is helpful -- which we should know as Christ's followers. The only place I'm aware of that he cites the Law as an authority for us is 1 Cor 9:9, although that's a fairly metaphorical use. Paul cites "nature" in a couple of places where you might expect an authority such as the law, e.g. Rom 1 and 1 Cor 11:14.

What did the general interpretation of the intent of the law in Micah 6: 6-8 have to say about what the law actually encourages?

“With what shall I come before the Lord,
and bow myself before God on high?
Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,
with calves a year old?

Will the Lord be pleased with[a] thousands of rams,
with ten thousands of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the Lord require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,[b]
and to walk humbly with your God?

Jesus never talked about the abolition of the Law.

Scripture does speak of Christ's fulfillment of the law, however.

[Hornet]

The Old Testament law provides examples of what sort of actions and behavior God wants to see. For example, Deuteronomy 22:8 commands the building of parapets over buildings as a safety feature. The takeaway from this is that God expects us to consider the safety of other people in our actions. We have the latitude now to determine exactly how to apply these principles, and others, in everyday life.

That is a good example. Keeping people safe is a part of loving others and being concerned about the interests of others, which is what the NT teaches. The greatest commands are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

[Hornet]

Paul sees the Law as a tutor. In Rom 8:4 has says that Christ has freed us from sin, carrying out the intention of the Law. But I don't see from Paul statements saying that the Law itself should continue to guide us. Paul's idea of Christian life is centered on the Spirit and on being in Christ. It's not that he thinks anything goes, but that someone who is living in Christ has all the guidance that they need.

I don't know if people would call them a "law", but the commands in the NT can give us guidance. However, living out the Christian life is not merely keeping God's commands. The main goal of living out the Christian life is to glorify God and to become more like Christ. Obviously, we need to depend upon the Holy Spirit to live out the Christian life.

Both Lutheran and Reformed traditions give the Law a somewhat qualified role as providing continued guidance. I've never been sure I agree, though if you interpret it in a limited and free enough way that would be consistent with Jesus' approach.

How do the Lutheran and Reformed traditions discern which OT commands apply to us today and which ones don't?

[hedrick]

I don't know if people would call them a "law", but the commands in the NT can give us guidance. However, living out the Christian life is not merely keeping God's commands. The main goal of living out the Christian life is to glorify God and to become more like Christ. Obviously, we need to depend upon the Holy Spirit to live out the Christian life.

I agree.

How do the Lutheran and Reformed traditions discern which OT commands apply to us today and which ones don't?

To my knowledge, there's no precise codification. Instead it's a general obligation to obey God's commands.

http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/Voge...eNecessary.pdf maintains that both Luther and Melancthon saw Natural Law as providing a way to separate what parts of the Law were essential to humanity and what are specific to the Jewish people.

There has been a reasonable concensus among people who take this position that the OT law include moral law, ceremonial law, and the municipal law of Israel. Only the first is appropriate for Christians. To that would be added Jesus' instruction, particularly love for God and neighbor. The OT moral law is often taken to be summarized by the 10 commandments, a tendency that I think we see in Jesus.

Interestingly, when the early Church needed to define it, in Acts 15 they came up with a small of basic principles that are probably based on Jewish ideas about what covenant is binding on non-Jews. (Acts 15:20) They understood that God's covenant with Noah after the ark landed was the basis for that, while the covenant with Moses was for the Jewish people.