Christ and the Law (Nομος)
How Christians Should Fathom this Relationship
Preface
Since the deviation of the Western Church from the East, and then the deviation of the Reformation from the Catholic Church to this present century, the relationship of Christ and the Law or Torah has been understood (erroneously) as this monolithic tradition where all the supposed prophecies and the ordinances of the law based on the authorial context points to Christ, and it has been presumed that the ethics between the old and new covenants do not contradict (despite this being a delusion). However, this kind of theological notion is faulty and detrimental for various reasons. Christian fundamentalism propagates this kind of theological system where the law was fulfilled in totality by Christ, and that somehow the Jews were too psychologically blind to the advent of Christ. But according to Hebrew scholarship, and even my own literary research of the Hebrew Bible, it has been concluded that none of the so-called prophecies in their original context refers to Christ as the messiah. And for many years, many Christians have misunderstood the nature of the prophetic fulfillment of Christ, to the degree that Christians have slandered Jews as being too proud to concede or ignorant to understand, and even to the shameful extent where medieval Christians (from the Dominican Order) sought to banish a medieval Jewish scholar when he demonstrated their exegesis in search for Jesus in the Hebrew Bible was fallacious, and published the proceedings after the Dominicans claimed victory despite the King’s favor over Nachmanides.
Moreover, as a consequence of this mistaken “Christian” tradition, seeing Jesus with the Law as being linearly compatible, there are movements like Messianic Judaism (i.e. Semi-Ebionite Christianity) which has advocated Christian Jews in keeping the mosaic rites, and some sects of this occurrence would also extend this kind of bondage to Gentiles. This has been the result of the Christian fundamentalist understanding, which not only proposes paradoxical ideas of God and ethics, but has also provoked some Christians to adopt a semi-Ebionite mindset. In summary, my attempt is to demonstrate how Paul (and Hebrews) perceived the Law and the Prophets in light of Christ, how the Early Church understood Christ’s fulfillment, and how certain scriptures (i.e. Gospels) disagree on the portrayal of Jesus concerning the Law.
Those Detrimental Human Traditions
Upon examining Paul’s language and perceiving many examples of his usage of allegoresis, he doesn’t perceive the mosaic laws as being strictly divine from the letter (or authorial context). Instead, he fathoms the mosaic tradition as being humanly invented, which demonstrates that the mosaic tradition are not injunctions and oracles dictated by the divine. Paul, who is among Hellenized Jews, spiritually reinterprets the law and the prophets in light and primacy of Christ (cf. Colossians 2:16–17; Galatians 4:21–31; 1st Corinthians 9:9–10). Before this point is demonstrated, permit me to cite certain Pauline passages.
In the epistle to the Ephesians, Paul proclaims that Christ negated the law of commandments containing ordinances, which separated both Jews and Gentiles from each other. This could be conveyed as merely pagan traditions invoking separation from the Jews; however, the mosaic tradition prescribed to them that they should not intermarry with Gentiles (cf. Deut. 7:3), that they may enslave certain foreigners for life unlike their fellow Israelites with a temporal enslavement period (cf. Lev. 25:45–46), and that they may annihilate certain tribes along with their women, children, and cattle (cf. Deut. 20:16–18). Paul in likelihood means both traditions derived from Jewish and Pagan culture. Anyway, let’s observe and retain Paul’s language in Ephesians to compare with his other epistles for now:
“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off are made near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who made both one, and broke down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in his flesh the hostility, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man of the two, making peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, having killed the hostility through it” (Ephesians 2:13–16 WEBUS).
In the epistle to the Colossians, Paul says to his audience that they were morally dead (as in predominant sin, not total depravity), mentions Jesus’ revelation of God’s forgiveness towards them, and he claims that Christ negated the “the handwriting in ordinances,” which opposed both Paul and his audience. This phrase has often been mis-translated as a legal debt to God, or some sacrificial law by Reformed crowds, but the most appropriate translation should be rendered as “certificate” or “handwriting”. And so, based on the language of Paul from Ephesians and Colossians, the ordinances or decrees are human precepts or man-made customs. If we read Colossians in context to “the handwriting in ordinances,” the identification is made clear by Paul’s reference to mosaic rites, self-abasement, and angelic worship as the precepts/dogmas of man:
“You were dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh. He made you alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, wiping out the handwriting in ordinances which was against us. He has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. Having stripped the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no one therefore judge you in eating or drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s. Let no one rob you of your prize by self-abasement and worshiping of the angels, dwelling in the things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind…If you died with Christ from the elemental spirits (stoicheiōn) of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to ordinances, (all of which perish with use), according to the precepts and doctrines of men?” (Colossians 2:13–18, 20–22).
In the epistle to the Galatians, Paul explains to the Galatians that when both him and his audience were immature (or rhetorically “children”), they were in captivity to the elemental principles of the world. And Paul elaborates that when Christ came by means of a woman, He sought to redeem those under the law, so as to be adopted as children. After this explanation, Paul rebukes and asks them on why they seek to return to being in bondage to the elemental principles of the world, while mentioning their observance of seasons. He writes:
“But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a bondservant, though he is Lord of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed by the father. So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the elemental principles (stoicheiōn) of the world. But when the fullness of the time came, God sent out his Son, born to a woman, born under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as children…But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elemental principles, to which you desire to be in bondage all over again? You observe days, months, seasons, and years” (Galatians 4:1–5, 9–10).
Since we have explored the Pauline passages, allow me to disclose even further. In Colossians, Paul mentions Christ abolishing the handwriting of ordinances, which separated the Jews and Gentiles according to Ephesians. Paul identifies the ordinances as the mosaic laws, angelic worship, and so forth, and he attributes these matters as “elemental principles of the world (stoicheion)” and “precepts and doctrines of men”. In Galatians, he attributes the mosaic laws to the Galatians as “elemental principles of the world”. In case some do not consider the letter of Colossians to be associating the mosaic laws as “elemental principles” and “precepts of man”, allow me to explain why the fundamentalist interpretation fails. If Paul identifies pagan tradition as elemental principles (in Colossians), and identifies mosaic observance as elemental principles (in Galatians), then by logical inference, he is saying that the mosaic tradition is also a precept and dogma of men. This theological and semantic pattern in Paul’s epistles not only address pagan traditions as elemental principles of the world (or as precepts of men), but also mosaic observance. In addition, Paul uses “stoicheion” and “precepts of man” interchangeably in Colossians 2:20–22, which demonstrates that mosaic observance is part of the precepts of man, and in 2:8, he interconnects “elements (stoicheia) of the world” with “traditions of men” in the same anti-divine influence category.
Allegoresis & the Black and White Dichotomy Concerning Law
While Paul considers the Torah (and the rest of the books) to be detrimental and uninspired by God, this is not entirely accurate; for instance, Genesis claims that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, Proverbs warns readers from seeking sexually immoral women, and even Paul uses the Old Testament typologically, indicating that he believes that spiritual allegory discloses its transcendental inspiration. When discussing with inerrantists about how the Old Testament is spiritually detrimental, they typically perceive this instantly as rejecting any degree of divine inspiration found in the Hebraic scriptures. According to their logic, if one passage is wrong, then all of them are fallacious, which is a naive epistemology. Despite having this naive epistemology, they don’t apply this same criteria with other areas of knowledge like science, history, and personal relationships. And their excuse is that God didn’t inspire any of these things, but I do believe that God inspired within humans: the progressive discipline of science, historical interest and accuracy, and even inspiring the spark of good friendships.
Anyway, Paul fathomed the inspiration of the Old Testament as an amalgamation of humans, daemons (i.e. kinds of spirits), and the divine. And for this reason, Paul often cited the Old Testament by the means of allegoresis to disclose the will of God in light of Christ. Beforehand, I said that Paul attributed the mosaic laws as elemental principles or precepts of men, but before he made this claim, he said to the Colossians: “Let no one therefore judge you in eating or drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day, which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body [or substance] is Christ’s” (ibid. 2:16–17). He believes that the mosaic laws, when pneumatically interpreted rather than by regular exegesis, prefigures or symbolically portrays the advent of Christ. In another occasion, Paul reinterprets a mosaic command for oxen in reference to believers receiving a fair wage for their service. He says: “Do I speak these things according to the ways of men? Or doesn’t the law also say the same thing? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain.” Is it for the oxen that God cares, 10 or does he say it assuredly for our sake? Yes, it was written for our sake, because he who plows ought to plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should partake of his hope. 11 If we sowed to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we reap your fleshly things?” (1st Corin. 9:8–11). When Paul cites the law of Moses as not according to the ways of men, he means the spiritual reading rather than the law in its bare state. Paul asks a dichotomous question on whether God inspired the mosaic command for the oxen to be for the care of oxen, or for the care of believers; in other words, Paul is asking did God inspire the authorial reading or the spiritual reading, and he answers that God fully inspired it for believers while ignoring the historical context of that command. So Paul considers the pneumatic reading to be divinely inspired, instead of the original context of that command (which was obviously commanded for the care of oxen since Christians didn’t exist at the time of the mosaic law, nor are they the subject of the command).
In another instance, Paul in Galatians cites the Old Testament narrative with similar language he employs in Corinthians, but this, again, is in regard to spiritual allegory. He writes: “Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don’t you listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. 23 However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. 24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children to bondage, which is Hagar” (Galatians 4:21–24). Whenever Paul cites the Old Testament in an authoritative sense towards those who seek to be in bondage to the law, he appeals merely to the pneumatic, allegorical interpretation. This is where the notable Church Father Origen derives his allegorical method towards the Jewish scriptures (cf. De Principiis IV.12). Origen writes, “For we find the expression, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the grain. And afterwards, when explaining what precept ought to be understood by this, he adds the words: Does God take care for oxen? Or says He it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written; that he who ploughs should plough in hope, and he that threshes, in hope of partaking. Very many other passages also of this nature, which are in this way explained of the law, contribute extensive information to the hearers… Now a spiritual interpretation is of this nature: when one is able to point out what are the heavenly things of which these serve as the patterns and shadow, who are Jews according to the flesh, and of what things future the law contains a shadow, and any other expressions of this kind that may be found in holy Scripture…He composed a texture of both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their bodily meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by the insertion of many” (ibid. IV.12–15). According to Origen, there are certain narratives or passages that must not be read according to its plain reading, but should be read in transcending the text to avoid theological incoherence and immoral notions. In another work, he writes in like manner: “[We] would say that we both agree that the books were written by the Spirit of God, but that we do not agree about the meaning of their contents;…we are of opinion that the literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is upon their heart,” because the meaning of the law of Moses has been concealed from those who have not welcomed the way which is by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law” (Contra Celsum V.60). Origen demonstrates that the textual surface of the law is not inspired by the Spirit, but only by spiritual, figurative interpretation can the law endow a genuine understanding of its contents. In case an anti-Origen spirit condemns the interpretive work of Origen, let us hear what Gregory the Wonder-worker (a student of Origen) think of his interpretive method:
“And he himself became the interpreter of the prophets to us, and explained whatsoever was dark or enigmatical in them. For there are many things of that kind in the sacred words…Now that greatest gift this man has received from God, and that noblest of all endowments he has had bestowed upon him from heaven, that he should be an interpreter of the oracles of God to men, and that he might understand the words of God, even as if God spoke them to him, and that he might recount them to men in such wise as that they may hear them with intelligence” (Panegyric to Origen, Argument 15 by Gregory Thaumaturgus).
Here again, Paul applies the spiritual interpretation concerning Abraham and his offspring: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his offspring He doesn’t say, ‘To descendants’, as of many, but as of one, ‘To your offspring’, which is Christ” (Galatians 3:16). If Paul intended a grammatical argument, he would certainly be a fool, because offspring or seed doesn’t just mean one child, but it can extend to mean many. And here is some context: “Yahweh said to Abram, after Lot was separated from him, “Now, lift up your eyes, and look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward, 15 for I will give all the land which you see to you and to your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then your offspring may also be counted. 17 Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its width; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:14–17). When verse 15 for offspring is read in context to verse 16, the argument for a single seed becomes evidently false to a diligent reader, and the land has more relevance for the children of Israel than Jesus does. Here’s another example: “Abraham said to him, “Beware that you don’t bring my son there again. 7 Yahweh, the God of heaven — who took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my birth, who spoke to me, and who swore to me, saying, ‘I will give this land to your offspring — he will send his angel before you, and you shall take a wife for my son from there” (Genesis 24:6–7). Again, the offspring is identified with Israel since the land is relevant to them, even Genesis 26:3b — 5 says, “For I will give all these lands to you and your offspring, and I will confirm the oath that I swore to your father Abraham. 4 I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky, and I will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations of the earth will be blessed, 5 because Abraham listened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws,” which indicates that the offspring is Israel again due to the plurality of the stars mentioned. Since Paul implicitly means a figurative method of interpretation concerning the seed of Abraham, we must not render his argument as grammatical. The pneumatic mode of interpretation often appeals to symbols, and sometimes solecisms (akin to this Pauline example above) to make an interpretation in favor of Christ and the Church.
In the Book of the Hebrews, the author renders the old covenant as being faulty, in need of correction, and he narrates the Old Testament, modifying its meaning by means of spiritual allegory; for example, he says: “But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which on better promises has been given as law. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second” (Hebrews 8:6–7). The author blames the covenant as being fallible, and he blames the people as well in verse 8, but he places ultimate blame on the covenant for its inadequate nature since he alludes to the Jeremiah covenant, while giving it a new meaning contrary to the authorial intent. Again, he writes: “Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services, but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. The Holy Spirit is indicating this, that the way into the Holy Place wasn’t yet revealed while the first tabernacle was still standing. This is a symbol (parabolē) of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the worshiper perfect, being only (with foods and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation (diorthōseōs)” (ibid. 9:6–10). The author of Hebrews narrates the old priesthood, and employs spiritual allegory into it (again) by saying “the Holy Spirit is indicating” and “this is a symbol of the present age”. He then argues that these regulations from the old priesthood (or covenant) were imposed until a time where Christ would correct them. There cannot be a reformation for a system if there’s no error in the system; the purpose of a reformation is to correct or rectify present errors. When believers forcibly attempt to make the author of Hebrews suggest that the people were the sole fallible cause and not the covenant, render his allegorical interpretations as grammatical readings, and conflate his narrations of the Old Testament as historical opinions, they have created a narrative that’s not only alien to Hebrews, but to Paul and the patristic world. And if their reading was supposedly valid, then the whole theme of the old covenant being faulty, inferior, and in need of a reformation, and his parabolic language being employed throughout the letter would all be meaningless readings, and the text itself would be unintelligible, devoid of literary structure, and paradoxical. This being said, their reading of Hebrews is gibberish nonsense, whereas my reading of Hebrews renders their interpretations as being impossible and purely fanciful.
One of the greatest orthodox Fathers, defender of the Nicene Creed, Athanasius himself, denied the narrative where God commands sacrifices, and his scriptural appeal was Jeremiah, Colossians 2:17, and Hebrews 9:10 (the same references I made). He writes, “Now it appears to me — may God grant, by your prayers, that the remarks I presume to make may not be far from the truth — that not at first were the commandment and the law concerning sacrifices, neither did the mind of God, Who gave the law, regard whole burnt-offerings, but those things which were pointed out and prefigured by them. ‘For the law contained a shadow of good things to come.’ And, ‘Those things were appointed until the time of reformation…Therefore neither at the beginning, when God brought the people out of Egypt, did He command them concerning sacrifices or whole burnt-offerings, nor even when they came to mount Sinai” (Letter 19, section 3–4). Athanasius believed God inspired the pneumatic reading behind the law, instead of the historical-grammatical reading. Just as Paul and Hebrews deny complete inspiration of the grammatical reading of the Old Testament, so does Origen, the great Athanasius, and myself.
Mystical Fulfillment of Christ
The grammatical reading is often appealed to by Christians to suggest that Jesus fulfilled the so-called prophecies, which convinces the average person that has never read the Hebrew Bible. And once they become Christians, regardless of the amount of textual evidence and superior exegesis, they resort to denial, slander, and persistent apologetic tactics (or manipulation — I laugh). As I have demonstrated through the Pauline epistles, he reinterpreted the Old Testament in light of Christ (Book of Hebrews in 10:1 as well). To find Christ in the scriptures by the aid of allegoresis (or spiritual allegory), we must appeal to the symbols and solecisms or subtleties that are remain in the Judaic writings. Here is a selection of quotes from the Fathers who affirmed this kind of fulfillment:
Origen of Alexandria (AD 185–256):
“Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a spiritual sense, but incorrectly, have fallen into heresies. These particulars, then, being briefly stated regarding the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it seems necessary to explain this point also, viz., how certain persons, not reading them correctly, have given themselves over to erroneous opinions, inasmuch as the procedure to be followed, in order to attain an understanding of the holy writings, is unknown to many. The Jews, in fine, owing to the hardness of their heart, and from a desire to appear wise in their own eyes, have not believed in our Lord and Saviour, judging that those statements which were uttered respecting Him ought to be understood literally,…And seeing that, according to history, there was no accomplishment of any of those things predicted of Him, in which they believed the signs of Christ’s advent were especially to be observed, they refused to acknowledge the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ” (De Principiis IV.7–8). When Origen says “literal”, he means the grammatical reading and not excessive literalism since he addresses the divine intention of the scriptures and not the authorial intention of such in De Principiis.
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215):
“This, then, is the type of “the law and the prophets which were until John”; while he [John], though speaking more perspicuously as no longer prophesying, but pointing out as now present, Him [Christ], who was proclaimed symbolically from the beginning, nevertheless said, “I am not worthy to loose the latchet of the Lord’s shoe.” For he confesses that he is not worthy to baptize so great a Power; for it behooves those, who purify others, to free the soul from the body and its sins, as the foot from the thong. Perhaps also this signified the final exertion of the Savior’s power toward us — the immediate, I mean — that by His presence, concealed in the enigma of prophecy, inasmuch as he, by pointing out to sight Him that had been prophesied of, and indicating the Presence which had come, walking forth into the light, loosed the latchet of the oracles of the [old] economy, by unveiling the meaning of the symbols” (Stromata 5.8). Clement teaches that Christ was prefigured or predicted merely by the symbols of the [old] economy (or Hebrew scriptures), and he demonstrates this example even through John the Baptist.
Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130–180?):
“But Jeremiah also says, In the last days they shall understand these things. (Jeremiah 23:20) For every prophecy, before its fulfillment, is to men [full of] enigmas and ambiguities. But when the time has arrived, and the prediction has come to pass, then the prophecies have a clear and certain exposition. And for this reason, indeed, when at this present time the law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation of all things pertaining to the advent of the Son of God, which took place in human nature; but when it is read by the Christians, it is a treasure, hid indeed in a field, but brought to light by the cross of Christ,…” (Against Heresies: Book IV.26.1). According to Irenaeus, all of the prophetic expressions for Christ were hidden within the scriptures, rather than being exposed by its bare or textual state; some have ventured on elsewhere in Irenaeus’ volumes to suggest that he meant the authorial reading, but Irenaeus did not have grammatical awareness of the Isaiah chapter, and this appeal from Irenaeus was polemical in nature (polemics are often bias) and this was previous to when he composed book 4 since he likely changed his mind overtime due to his current assertion of all predictive expressions for Christ being hidden; hence, the counter-argument in question doesn’t work.
Didascalia Apostolorum (AD 250+):
“But this (the Sabbath) has been set as a type for the times, even as many other things have been set for a type. The Sabbath therefore is a type of the (final) rest, signifying the seventh thousand (years), but the Lord our Savior, when He came, fulfilled the types and explained the parables, and He showed those things that are life-giving, and those that cannot help He did away, and those that cannot give life He abolished” (Chapter 26 translated by R. Hugh Connolly). According to the Didascalia (an authoritative church document), the only fulfillment ever mentioned by it is typological or symbolic in nature, and there is no citation of any grammatical or contextual appeal for prophetic fulfillment.
Fortunatianus of Aquileia (AD 300=370):
“Whatever the Old Testament contains figuratively (figuraliter), the New has fulfilled through the very reason of truth” (Fortunatianus, Commentary on the Gospels, lines 181,182). The author of this commentary declares that every figure or symbolic expression of the Old Testament was fulfilled by the Advent of Christ, yet he makes no comment on the grammatical reading.
Novation (AD 200–258):
“But how perverse are the Jews, and remote from the understanding of their law, I have fully shown, as I believe, in two former letters, wherein it was absolutely proved that they are ignorant of what is the true circumcision, and what the true Sabbath…Therefore, first of all, we must avail ourselves of that passage, that the law is spiritual; (Romans 7:14) and if they deny it to be spiritual, they assuredly blaspheme; if, avoiding blasphemy, they confess it to be spiritual, let them read it spiritually. For divine things must be divinely received, and must assuredly be maintained as holy. But a grave fault is branded on those who attach earthly and human doctrine to sacred and spiritual words; and this we must beware of doing. Moreover, we may beware, if any things enjoined by God be so treated as if they were assumed to diminish His authority, test, in calling some things impure and unclean, their institution should dishonour their ordainer. For in reprobating what He has made, He will appear to have condemned His own works, which He had approved as good; and He will be designated as seeming capricious in both cases, as the heretics indeed would have it; either in having blessed things which were not clean, or in subsequently reprobating as not good, creatures which He had blessed as both clean and good. And of this the enormity and contradiction will remain for ever if that Jewish doctrine is persisted in, which must be got rid of with all our ability; so that whatever is irregularly delivered by them, may be taken away by us, and a suitable arrangement of His works, and an appropriate and spiritual application of the divine law, may be restored…And thus there was a certain ancient time, wherein those shadows or figures were to be used, that meats should be abstained from which had indeed been commended by their creation, but had been prohibited by the law. But now Christ, the end of the law, has come, disclosing all the obscurities of the law” (On the Jewish Meats, Chapter 1–2, 5). Novation would consider certain Christians who believe God prohibited certain meats as impure, contradicting the divine decree of them being good or pure, to be heretics, because he emphasizes from the Apostle that the law should have always been understood in spiritual interpretation, instead of indulging the bare text. He explains these ritual procedures as being obscurities needed to be disclosed by His advent typologically to inspire the Jews apart from their literal adherence by abolishing the law. Novation and patristic Barnabas share the same view: God did not literally forbid pork, but sought to teach spiritual lessons through them (cf. The Epistle of Barnabas 10.2–3, 9).
Exegetical & Theological Confusion
Some will venture on to argue that Jesus fulfilled the mosaic law in totality (and without contradiction) by citing Matthew 5:17–18, which says: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” But this argument fails entirely, because Jesus is most likely exaggerating the manner of fulfillment since letters (as in the bare alphabet) can’t be prophetically fulfilled. Another point of interest is that Matthew’s gospel has a significantly distinct portrayal of Jesus versus Mark’s gospel; for instance, Mark narrates Jesus contradicting the kosher laws, while Matthew alters this same narrative to present a Jesus who is consistent with the mosaic laws (by replacing kosher laws with hand washings). Permit me to share these two contrary narratives:
So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornication, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.” — Matthew 15:16–20
He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated” — [thus He] purified all foods? 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornication, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” — Mark 7:18–23
Some have argued that Mark 7:19 was later interpolated, that Jesus in Mark supposedly meant hand-washings, or that the translation is inaccurate, but none of these objections resolve the issue. I have handled these objections prior in a previous medium post. Mark 7:19 was not interpolated since the earliest manuscripts (including the Codex Sinaiticus) contains it, Jesus in Mark 7 was understood by the earliest Christians like Gregory Thaumaturgus (AD 213–275) as being in reference to the dietary laws, and finally, this translation is conceptual since certain Koine Greek phrases or sentences make no intelligible sense if translated verbatim (cf. Canonical Epistle, Canon I). I have already addressed the other lengthy objections in my previous post (the link is provided above).
The Gospel of Matthew employs a polemical route since its audience is plausibly a Jewish audience, especially for unbelieving Jews. But the Gospel of Mark propels itself in the Pauline direction, which is why Paul argued for the mosaic customs as being humanly concocted and needing to be abolished by the advent of Christ. It is not an aberration for Matthew to alter narratives contrary to other New Testament narratives; for example, Matthew demonstrates a remorseful and troubled Judas returning the money to the chief priests, which he earned by betraying Jesus, while Acts of the Apostles narrates Judas employing this same money he had received to buy a field (cf. Matthew 27:3; Acts 1:18). Some have ventured to argue that Judas returned some of the money to the chief priests, but Matthew narrates that Judas returned the full sum, so this theory is false. Even if it wasn’t the full sum (since some Christians are stubborn), if Judas returned some of the money, then this would have contradicted his remorseful sentiment; thus, the narrative would be contradictory and the emotional flow would be inconsistent. It’s better to leave this narrative alone lest you ruin the literary flow with your inerrantist dogma. If this contradiction didn’t suffice, both Judas and the chief priests buy a field bearing the same name after similar reasons with the same money, and this isn’t possible to reconcile (cf. Acts 1:18; Matthew 27:6–10). Matthew altered the narrative of Judas to present him as a “spiritual” fulfillment of a certain Old Testament passage despite the Book of Acts displaying a contrary narration. Some even argue that Judas bought the field (with “the money glitch” — a video game phrase where money is duplicated after violating gaming mechanics) to commit suicide, which is not a realistic narrative. No one needs to buy a field to commit suicide; this whole narrative is unrealistic if one attempts to reconcile these legitimate contradictions. Matthew’s motif is not historical accuracy, instead it’s driven by polemical motivations.
The Gospel of Matthew due to its Judaic tendencies was upheld by a small, early Christian sect (i.e. the Ebionites), while Paul’s epistles were shunned by them. If we end up prioritizing the Gospel of Matthew above the other written Gospels and Paul’s epistles, then the temptation of adhering to the mosaic laws becomes more plausible (cf. Against Heresies I.26.1; reported by Irenaeus of Lyons). But we know that the author of Hebrews has considered the mosaic customs (especially the sacrificial laws) to have been abolished (cf. Hebrews 8:13).
Deciphering Paul on Romans 7 (& Galatians 3)
Romans 7.4: “In the same way, my friends, you have died to the law through the body of Christ,” — Paul explains to the Jewish audience (since he names his recipients in verse one) that Christ abolished the cultural application of the law. Romans 7.5–6: “While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” — Paul expresses that the cultural application of the law aroused sinful tendencies due to its permissive attitude towards slaughtering children, plundering virgins, polygamy, ruthlessly treating Gentile slaves, etc., but Christ elevated them to transcend these cultural norms by exemplifying them to live according to the divine Spirit. Romans 7.7–12, 14: “What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’ 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived 10 and I died, and the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good…14 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.” Paul first affirms the morally detrimental aspects of the law, but then he affirms that the law is spiritual, but this does not mean that the bare contents of the law are always benevolent since he means the spiritual, allegorical aspects of the law, including the Decalogue to some extent. Paul elaborates that they were captives to the old ordinances of the law, but also that he was a captive under sin to justify the [pneumatic reading of the] law latterly, while blaming the [cultural ordinances of the] law formerly. Paul makes a similar commentary on the law in the epistle to the Galatians: “What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made, and the law was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not” (3:19–21). Why did Paul inquire suddenly that the law is against the promises of God — and then respond with a negative? Because he said that the law was given by angels initially (and then a medium), and he contrasts the role of a mediator with God’s singular nature, because he is arguing that the mediator has a mixed (daemonic-human) message (thus it’s faulty), while God has a unanimous revelation. Eastern Orthodox scholar, David B. Hart, agrees with my assessment on Paul, so he writes:
“We, though, tend to read right past Paul’s remarks to the Galatians that the old law was imperfect because it came not directly from God, but from his angel (the angel who reigned over Israel and who appeared to Moses) and was passed through a human mediator (Moses himself). The promise of the new age, by contrast, is that now all of these heavenly powers have been subdued again, under the foot of Christ, and in the age to come Christ himself will rule over all of creation directly” (The Power of the Sword).
“[T]he Law of Moses was flawed and devoid of saving significance because it was written only by angels (Galatians 3:10–11, 19–20)” (Whose Orthodoxy? Which Gnosticism?).
“They are cursed by a law that was in fact ordained by lesser, merely angelic powers. Galatians quite clearly says the law was written by angels and delivered through human mediators. So even the law comes to us in a defective form because the angels that govern the nations, even the angel that governs Israel apparently — the Angel of the Lord, is defective in his rule” (To be honest, I have seen this quotation twice, but I don’t know the source for it: On Reddit & Kenogaia: A Gnostic Tale [under Matthew Winbow’s comment]). I assume it’s in his NT translation; I don’t own it yet.
Furthermore, the apostle distinguished the law in two manners: “we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive…slaves not under the old written code,” indicating its somatic state as being malevolent (particularly the cultural ordinances), and “the law is holy…spiritual,” indicating its spiritual state as being benevolent. This kind of interpretation is made by Origen when he said: “In accordance with this the Apostle everywhere prefers the spirit and repudiates the flesh or that which belongs to the flesh. After all, he himself praises the spirit of the law but spurns the letter as if flesh when he says, “The letter kills but the spirit gives life,” [2nd Corinthians 3:6]…It is on account of these laws that the law is weak according to the letter, that is, according to the flesh. For that reason, the Apostle says, “For the law is spiritual,”…And Moses and Elijah appeared in glory, speaking with Jesus on the mountain. In this the law and the prophets are shown to harmonize with the Gospels and to shine forth with the same glory when viewed and interpreted spiritually” (Commentary on Romans, Book I, Chapter 10). Novation likewise (as cited prior) said, “the law is spiritual…[if] they confess it to be spiritual, let them read it spiritually”.
To summarize all this, here is Origen’s interpretation of Romans 2:
Natural law is able to agree with the law of Moses according to the spirit but not according to the letter. For what natural insight shall there be in the command, for instance, that a person should circumcise his infant son on the eighth day; or that wool ought not be woven together with linen; or that one must not eat anything with yeast in it during the feast of unleavened bread? At different times I have presented such texts to the Jews and demanded of them that if there is something of benefit in such laws, let them make it known. We know that they usually give only this answer, “This is what has seemed good to the Lawgiver.” But we who are aware that all these things must be understood spiritually believe therefore that it is “not the hearers but the doers of the law who will be justified, “but not the law according to the letter, since, because of its unattainableness, it cannot have any doer. Rather it is according to the Spirit, through which means alone is it possible for the law to be fulfilled. This, then, is the work of the law which the Apostle says even the Gentiles are able to fulfill by nature. For when they do the things of the law it seems that God has written the law on their hearts, “not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God” [2nd Corinthians 3:3] (ibid. Book II, Chapter 9).
My brethren, from now on, let us interpret the sacred writings of the old covenant in a manner worthy of God, and by the spiritual method of interpretation. When patristic tradition (including Paul and Hebrews) has conferred a means to interpreting the scriptures, it should not be neglected for the emphasis of biblical inerrancy or the grammatical reading, which leads to death and mental insanity. I pray that you heed the oracles of God given by the apostles and spoken by the apostolic fathers — and myself. Amen.
