Attitude of early Church Fathers to the Law

[The Unassumed]

What were the attitudes of the earliest Church Fathers (c100-300) on the application of the Law/Torah? Did they coincide with theonomy's view?

[Jezz]

What were the attitudes of the earliest Church Fathers (c100-300) on the application of the Law/Torah? Did they coincide with theonomy's view?

I don't know what Theonomy's view is, but the view of the Church Fathers towards Torah was, in a nutshell, that it has been abolished. This is in line with the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and in line with St Paul teaching that "we are not justified by works of the law". Thus, they frowned upon circumcision, sabbath observance, observance of Jewish festivals, sacrifices, etc. The Torah was given as a disciplinarian, to keep the people of Israel safe and out of trouble. When Christ came, the purpose of the law was fulfilled. When "heaven and earth" passed away (the destruction of the Temple in AD 70), this put an end to sacrifice (and to the Torah).

This view of the law, however, did not include those commandments that were given independently of the Torah. For example, the 10 commandments (the "natural law") were not abolished. Neither were the commandments that Christ gave in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere (eg, "love one another as I have loved you", "do this in rememberance of me", "make disciples of all nations"), etc.

For more information, you could try going direct to the source. Try reading "A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" by St Justin Martyr, and Book IV of "Against Heresies" by St Irenaeus of Lyons. Both are available in Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 1, which you can get from http://www.ccel.org

[Glenn P]

What were the attitudes of the earliest Church Fathers (c100-300) on the application of the Law/Torah? Did they coincide with theonomy's view?

I did write something on this, it was an appendix to a thesis. It's probably too large to post here, but you can download a copy here.

[The Unassumed]

I did write something on this, it was an appendix to a thesis. It's probably too large to post here, but you can download a copy here.

Thank you, that is useful.

The recurring idea of abrogation of the literal letter of the law in Christ, yet fulfilment of the law's deeper/spiritual/allegorical/etc purpose in Christ, agrees with Paul's explanation in the New Testment. That is, the law has been fundamentally redefined in Christ, so that the literal laws of Torah are no longer relevant, except in light of Torah's eschatological fulfilment in Christ.

I was especially interested in the earliest Church Fathers, as those who were the first to grapple with this redefinition of the Law. What do you make of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 40-41? If I am reading the epistle rightly, Clement seems to be exhorting the Corinthians to follow their own particular ministries, as properly assigned to each one of them, by giving the example of the ongoing offerings and sacrifices prescribed by the Law. That is, the ongoing practice of sacrifice of Jerusalem is positively referred to, as an example for the practice of spiritual gifts in the Church. Your thoughts?

[The Unassumed]

I don't know what Theonomy's view is, but the view of the Church Fathers towards Torah was, in a nutshell, that it has been abolished. This is in line with the decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) and in line with St Paul teaching that "we are not justified by works of the law". Thus, they frowned upon circumcision, sabbath observance, observance of Jewish festivals, sacrifices, etc. The Torah was given as a disciplinarian, to keep the people of Israel safe and out of trouble. When Christ came, the purpose of the law was fulfilled. When "heaven and earth" passed away (the destruction of the Temple in AD 70), this put an end to sacrifice (and to the Torah).

This view of the law, however, did not include those commandments that were given independently of the Torah. For example, the 10 commandments (the "natural law") were not abolished. Neither were the commandments that Christ gave in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere (eg, "love one another as I have loved you", "do this in rememberance of me", "make disciples of all nations"), etc.

You seem to distinguish the 10 Commandments as having continuing efficacy, by reason that they also rest on "natural law."
- What is your basis for identifying the 10 commandments as "natural law," and identifying other law in Torah as not resting on "natural law"?
- And how do you distinguish the commandment to observe the Sabbath in the 10 commandments from the other 9 commandments (presuming that you don't observe the Sabbath, even though you say the "natural law" requires you to)?

I too consider that some laws in Torah have continuing application, and some do not, as mainstream orthodoxy has done for 2000 years. But I don't know how well your "natural law" can account for the required distinction. (Yet, I agree that ethical commands given by Jesus have the highest authority).

For more information, you could try going direct to the source. Try reading "A Dialogue with Trypho the Jew" by St Justin Martyr, and Book IV of "Against Heresies" by St Irenaeus of Lyons. Both are available in Ante Nicene Fathers, volume 1, which you can get from http://www.ccel.org

In fact, I have already been (re)reading the Church Fathers, to consider this very issue. I'm not up to Justin Martyr and Irenaeus quite yet, but I will get there.

[Glenn P]

Thank you, that is useful.

The recurring idea of abrogation of the literal letter of the law in Christ, yet fulfilment of the law's deeper/spiritual/allegorical/etc purpose in Christ, agrees with Paul's explanation in the New Testment. That is, the law has been fundamentally redefined in Christ, so that the literal laws of Torah are no longer relevant, except in light of Torah's eschatological fulfilment in Christ.

Whether that's true or not, it's clearly false that this is a wholesale approach taken by patristic writers on the law. Take for example Clement of Alexandria's claim about the law, after observing that the death penalty was prescribed for adultery, and he says that "the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both?" While there are of course some clear typological references in the law, it is just false to imply that there is a consensus among the Fathers that the law in its entirity is abrogated. Even Tertullian who said that the law is abrogated, only actually singles out the examples of circumcision, the Sabbath and the offering of sacrifices. Elswhere, as noted in the piece I linked to, he appears to treat the law as good and morally upright now.

I was especially interested in the earliest Church Fathers, as those who were the first to grapple with this redefinition of the Law. What do you make of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 40-41? If I am reading the epistle rightly, Clement seems to be exhorting the Corinthians to follow their own particular ministries, as properly assigned to each one of them, by giving the example of the ongoing offerings and sacrifices prescribed by the Law. That is, the ongoing practice of sacrifice of Jerusalem is positively referred to, as an example for the practice of spiritual gifts in the Church. Your thoughts?

As far as I can tell, the services and sacrifices that we offer to God are being compared, in those chapters, to the services and sacrifices performed in the temple in Jerusalem, for the purposes of stating that all that we do should be done in an orderly manner and in accordance with the commands of God. The temple is a good object of comparison because of how regulated its ceremonies are.

[The Unassumed]

Whether that's true or not, it's clearly false that this is a wholesale approach taken by patristic writers on the law. Take for example Clement of Alexandria's claim about the law, after observing that the death penalty was prescribed for adultery, and he says that "the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both?" While there are of course some clear typological references in the law, it is just false to imply that there is a consensus among the Fathers that the law in its entirity is abrogated. Even Tertullian who said that the law is abrogated, only actually singles out the examples of circumcision, the Sabbath and the offering of sacrifices. Elswhere, as noted in the piece I linked to, he appears to treat the law as good and morally upright now.

Clement's point that there is one author of both Old Testment and Gospel in relation to the law of adultery is just that: there is one God who is author of both. Similarly, in 1.27, Clement says "both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord." Yet, he is equally clear that the Law is only preparatory, and has been superseded in Christ, as the second quote in your appendix shows. Sure, the law against adultery is one law that has continuing effect, because of Christ's endorsement of it, but only insofar as the Law is consistent with the Gospel. That is, the Law has been redefined in Christ.

What do you make of Clement's letter to the Corinthians, Chapters 40-41? If I am reading the epistle rightly, Clement seems to be exhorting the Corinthians to follow their own particular ministries, as properly assigned to each one of them, by giving the example of the ongoing offerings and sacrifices prescribed by the Law. That is, the ongoing practice of sacrifice of Jerusalem is positively referred to, as an example for the practice of spiritual gifts in the Church. Your thoughts?

As far as I can tell, the services and sacrifices that we offer to God are being compared, in those chapters, to the services and sacrifices performed in the temple in Jerusalem, for the purposes of stating that all that we do should be done in an orderly manner and in accordance with the commands of God. The temple is a good object of comparison because of how regulated its ceremonies are.

Yes, sure. But the point that particularly interested me is that these sacrifices are referred to favorably as present and continuing acts, ordained by God to be carried out at set times - all referred to in the present tense - strongly implying Clement's acceptance of the ongoing application of the laws of sacrifice and offering. Your thoughts?

[Glenn P]

Clement's point that there is one author of both Old Testment and Gospel in relation to the law of adultery is just that: there is one God who is author of both. Similarly, in 1.27, Clement says "both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord." Yet, he is equally clear that the Law is only preparatory, and has been superseded in Christ, as the second quote in your appendix shows. Sure, the law against adultery is one law that has continuing effect, because of Christ's endorsement of it, but only insofar as the Law is consistent with the Gospel. That is, the Law has been redefined in Christ.

Well hang on. In the first quote he isn't just saying that the Gospel and the law have the same source. He says of this command about adultery that this commandment has no conflict with the Gospel because the law and the Gospel do not conflict, since they have one source.

But you're misreading the second quotation considerably. In fact Clement isn't the one who used the word "preperatory," I'm the one who introduced that term if you check back at the paper you'll see that, and you can rest assured I didn't use it to mean that that standards being discussed no longer exist. Clement himself said, in the quote ytou are referring to:

Clement of Alexandria

[The commandments of the Law] indeed, are good. Who denies it? For “the commandment is holy,” as far as a sort of training with fear and preparatory discipline goes, leading as it did to the culmination of legislation and to grace. But Christ is the fulfilment “of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth;” and not as a slave making slaves, but sons, and brethren, and fellowheirs, who perform the Father’s will.

© source where applicable

In context, the Father's will refers to the law. It was me, and not Clement, who said, as a summary of the above: "Although serving a preparatory role in salvation history, the Law nonetheless retains its essential goodness."

Yes, sure. But the point that particularly interested me is that these sacrifices are referred to favorably as present and continuing acts, ordained by God to be carried out at set times - all referred to in the present tense - strongly implying Clement's acceptance of the ongoing application of the laws of sacrifice and offering. Your thoughts?

Well my thoughts are pretty much the same as they were in my last post. Bear in mind that this just isn't a reference to what is now going on in the Temple in Jerusalem, because at this point the temple has already been destroyed. Remember that Clement was written toward the close of the first century. Hence it must a be a reference, not to what was still happening now in Jerusalem, but rather to what is now preserved in Scripture about the temple. In other words, he exhorts the brethren to excercise their gifts and to fulfil the duty of their office orderly and in accordance with what God has commanded, just as is the case in what God says in Scripture about the Temple. IOW, God has always been a God of order.

[The Unassumed]

Well hang on. In the first quote he isn't just saying that the Gospel and the law have the same source. He says of this command about adultery that this commandment has no conflict with the Gospel because the law and the Gospel do not conflict, since they have one source.

I quite agree that this is what Clement is saying - that the law and Gospel cannot disagree on the subject of Adultery, because they have the one source. Clement only speaks about the law of adultery, yet you seem to be misreading him as referring to the law in its entirety. But Clement does not refer to the law in its entirety, which he elsewhere considers to be superseded in Christ.

As this only concerns the law of Adultery, I repeat my point: the earliest Church Fathers are generally consistent in affirming that the Law is abrogated, except where affirmed in the Gospels.

But you're misreading the second quotation considerably...

Not at all.

In fact Clement isn't the one who used the word "preperatory," I'm the one who introduced that term ...

I am fully aware of this, so have snipped your explanation.

Remember that Clement was written toward the close of the first century. Hence it must a be a reference, not to what was still happening now in Jerusalem, but rather to what is now preserved in Scripture about the temple. In other words, he exhorts the brethren to excercise their gifts and to fulfil the duty of their office orderly and in accordance with what God has commanded, just as is the case in what God says in Scripture about the Temple. IOW, God has always been a God of order.

This presupposes a late dating for Clement. However, it is quite defensible that Clement was written in the 60s AD, and this would be consistent with his present tense description of sacrifices being carried out in Jerusalem. Clement names Jerusalem as the place in which these sacrifices are being carried out, and oddly gives no indication of their ending. It is quite unusual, given other Christian writings of the time.

[Glenn P]

I quite agree that this is what Clement is saying - that the law and Gospel cannot disagree on the subject of Adultery, because they have the one source. Clement only speaks about the law of adultery, yet you seem to be misreading him as referring to the law in its entirety. But Clement does not refer to the law in its entirety, which he elsewhere considers to be superseded in Christ.

I have to confess, what you're saying just looks obviously false. He says that God is the author of both the law and the Gospel, and this is the reason for Clement's comments that follow. If you think he really just means that God is the author of only this one command, and He is the author of the Gospel as well, I don't what to say except that this is manifestly untrue.

You yourself seemed to grant this point in a recent post, noting that elsewhere Clement said similar things about the law: "Similarly, in 1.27, Clement says "both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord." Did he mean only one single commandment there too?

This presupposes a late dating for Clement. However, it is quite defensible that Clement was written in the 60s AD, and this would be consistent with his present tense description of sacrifices being carried out in Jerusalem. Clement names Jerusalem as the place in which these sacrifices are being carried out, and oddly gives no indication of their ending. It is quite unusual, given other Christian writings of the time.

I'm simply following the evidence. As far as we know, Clement was written well after 70 AD. And even if it wasn't, the interpretation of the passage - which does not depend on its date in the least - is equally plausible, since the temple is only used as an illustration of the fact that God's people have always excercised their offices in an orderly way.

I repeat my point: the earliest Church Fathers are generally consistent in affirming that the Law is abrogated, except where affirmed in the Gospels.

If this is supposed to represent a consensus, it is just obviously incorrect, and not based on the evidence. It's more of an assertion than a "point."

[The Unassumed]

I have to confess, what you're saying just looks obviously false. He says that God is the author of both the law and the Gospel, and this is the reason for Clement's comments that follow. If you think he really just means that God is the author of only this one command, and He is the author of the Gospel as well, I don't what to say except that this is manifestly untrue.

You yourself seemed to grant this point in a recent post, noting that elsewhere Clement said similar things about the law: "Similarly, in 1.27, Clement says "both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord." Did he mean only one single commandment there too?

I don't think that you're even beginning to appreciate the point here.

Clement is pointing out that the law against adultery in Torah must be the same as the law against adultery in the words of Jesus - because the author (God) is the same in each case. So, Clement's rationale - in this one case of the law against adultery - is that God is the author of the whole Law and the whole of the words of Jesus. But, this says nothing about the position of the Law in general after Christ - and to leap to a conclusion that Clement is denying the abrogation of the Law in Christ by this statement is not only "manifestly untrue," but lacks logical rationale (arguing as it does, fallaciously, from the particular to the general).

I'm simply following the evidence. As far as we know, Clement was written well after 70 AD.

What evidence? And are you unaware of those who date Clement to the A.D. 60's?

There is nothing in Clement's epistle which suggests that he departs from the consensus of the earliest Church Fathers in affirming that the Law is abrogated, except where affirmed in the Gospels. And Clement is far better interpreted as supporting the aborgation of the Law in Christ. I suggest that your misinterpretation of his words, in your thesis, was the result of reading through the coloring of your own peculiar lens.

[Glenn P]

I don't think that you're even beginning to appreciate the point here.

Clement is pointing out that the law against adultery in Torah must be the same as the law against adultery in the words of Jesus - because the author (God) is the same in each case. So, Clement's rationale - in this one case of the law against adultery - is that God is the author of the whole Law and the whole of the words of Jesus. But, this says nothing about the position of the Law in general after Christ - and to leap to a conclusion that Clement is denying the abrogation of the Law in Christ by this statement is not only "manifestly untrue," but lacks logical rationale (arguing as it does, fallaciously, from the particular to the general).

You have it the wrong way around. Clement reasons from the general to the particular. This is not fallacious, it is ordinary deductive reasoning. Observe how it can be put in standard form:

1) The law says X about adultery.
2) God is the author of the law and the Gospel, and as such the law and the Gospel do not conflict.
3) Therefore X does not conflict with the Gospel.

You are correct about Clement's rationale, in your own words: "God is the author of the whole Law and the whole of the words of Jesus." And because this general principle is so, there is no confict between Gospel view of adultery and the Law's pronouncements on adultery. Have a think about how else this general principle might apply. For example, how does it apply to other commands? Just take the standard form above, and replace "adultery" with any other thing.

What evidence? And are you unaware of those who date Clement to the A.D. 60's?

I'm aware of the disagreement, but it makes no difference because the interpretation I offered is unaffected by the time of writing, for reasons given already.

[The Unassumed]

You have it the wrong way around. Clement reasons from the general to the particular.

I know what Clement is arguing. But you have it compeltely the wrong way around, and are quite confused in your replies in this thread. I was talking about your argument from the particular (Clement's particular case of adultery) to the general conclusion about the applicability of the Law as a whole - which is your own fallacious conclusion from Clement's writings.

... Have a think about how else this general principle might apply. For example, how does it apply to other commands? Just take the standard form above, and replace "adultery" with any other thing.

This is exactly what you need to consider. Unfortunately for your fallacious argument, Clement does not depart from the consensus of the earliest Church Fathers in affirming that the Law is abrogated, except where affirmed in the Gospels.

I'm aware of the disagreement, but it makes no difference because the interpretation I offered is unaffected by the time of writing, for reasons given already.

Thank you for accepting that the dating of Clement is not as clear-cut as you first thought.

However, your "reasons given already" for not considering Clement's positive view of sacrifice failed to address the point that Clement is referring to these sacrifices in as present and proper ongoing activities ordained by God. And to do so by a first century Christian is at least curious, without any qualification. It is quite an unusual passage in first century Christian writings.

[Glenn P]

I know what Clement is arguing. But you have it compeltely the wrong way around, and are quite confused in your replies in this thread. I was talking about your argument from the particular (Clement's particular case of adultery) to the general conclusion about the applicability of the Law as a whole - which is your own fallacious conclusion from Clement's writings.

You don't understand what has been said to you then. When did I ever make such an argument? Since you apparently agree with me about what Clement is arguing, you must give up your claim that this only applies to the one issue of adultery and nothing more, because if Clement deals with particular issue of adultery by reasoning from the general principle about God being the author of law and Gospel and hence there being no confliuct between them, the implications of the general have impications for more than just adultery.

This is exactly what you need to consider.

Just saying "same to you" says nothing. I explained why you need to consider it. You need to consider it because Clement is reaching his conclusion on the particular issue of adultery by reasoning from the general principle on God's law. But if the principle is what Clement takes it to be, then you must change your view that this only applies, in Clement, to adultery and to nothing else.

Unfortunately for your fallacious argument, Clement does not depart from the consensus of the earliest Church Fathers in affirming that the Law is abrogated, except where affirmed in the Gospels.

Clement never says this at all. And the only reason you call my claim fallacious is because you misrepresented or misunderstood. This has now been corrected.

Thank you for accepting that the dating of Clement is not as clear-cut as you first thought.

As I "first thought"? What are you talking about. As I just said I am aware of the disagrement over dating. But it's a moot point, since the date makes no difference to my explanation of what Clement meant. I'm trying to offer help, and you're just being rude.

However, your "reasons given already" for not considering Clement's positive view of sacrifice failed to address the point that Clement is referring to these sacrifices in as present and proper ongoing activities ordained by God. And to do so by a first century Christian is at least curious, without any qualification. It is quite an unusual passage in first century Christian writings.

No, I didn't fail to address it. I addressed it directly by explaining what Clement is doing in context. He is saying - and this is his point - that the gifts and offices within the church are to be excercised in an orderly way and in obedience to God's commands, since we know that this is always how God has required His people to live - see the temple as a clear example of this. So I didn't fail to address that issue at all.

The Unassumed, are you seeking hostility with me because you do not accept my views on ethics?

[The Unassumed]

...if Clement deals with particular issue of adultery by reasoning from the general principle about God being the author of law and Gospel and hence there being no confliuct between them, the implications of the general have impications for more than just adultery.

Your reasoning here is quite incorrect. Clement's reason concerns a law that holds in both the OT and Gospels. The applicability of other OT laws is exactly what is at issue - so you cannot simply assume that Clement's reasoning applies to them all. One might as well reason that no other OT laws are applicable, unless they are repeated by Jesus in the Gospels. But that reasoning would be begging the question just as much as you have here. The moot question remains: has the Christ-event abrogated the law in some way?

No, I didn't fail to address it. I addressed it directly by explaining what Clement is doing in context. He is saying - and this is his point - that the gifts and offices within the church are to be excercised in an orderly way and in obedience to God's commands, since we know that this is always how God has required His people to live - see the temple as a clear example of this. So I didn't fail to address that issue at all.

Yet again, you have failed to address the present and continuing sense of Clement's words - all the more surprising given the perspective of other early Christian texts which are against the continuing of sacrifices in Jerusalem. This passage in Clement is quite fascinating, and worth considering, not ignoring because of the peculiar lens you choose to view it through.

The Unassumed, are you seeking hostility with me because you do not accept my views on ethics?

I will not respond to your rhetoric about "hostility." I seek answers, not "hostility."

As for the substance of your question, I am quite unaware what views on ethics you are referring to. From memory, we have not discussed ethical issues as the main topic of any of our discussions. And in my consideration of 'theonomy' thus far, I have not considered the ethical implications, being interested instead in what I see as the prior and more fundamental issue of the application of Torah after Christ.

Which ethical views do you imagine I may be objecting to, out of interest?