What is the purpose of the law both as a book and as legal code? In light of this purpose, is there reason to see two disconnected and completely different covenants between God as law and gospel? Does the law present a different way of salvation than what is presented in the New Testament so as to be understood as teaching legalism? The aim of this paper is to show that even in light of a particular purpose and function of the Old Testament law in the event space of ancient Israel, the overall purpose of the law and its being fulfilled in Christ is an expression of God’s covenant faithfulness and grace, which is consistent throughout the entire canon of Scripture. This covenant continuity is why the Old Testament law remains relevant for the New Testament Christian, and therefore the concept of covenant continuity will be explored in this paper in arguing that grace, rather than legalism, has always been grounds for communion between God and His people, and this grace leads to a love for God and obedience to His commands both in the Old and New Testaments.

1. The Role of the Torah in the Old Testament Generally

The first five books of the Bible, known as the Pentateuch, are generally considered the corpus of Old Testament Law. This means that not only does the law include books like Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which might be seen as explicit books of the law, but the law includes Exodus, Numbers, and, perhaps less intuitively, the book of Genesis. Holistically, the Pentateuch represents Old Testament law with its instruction for the nation of Israel on how to live in covenant with a holy God. It is important to note that the law is both a book comprised of five individual books, known as the Pentateuch, and a group of specific laws contained in this collective book, which were given to Israel to guide them as the chosen nation who covenanted with God.

As Robert Alter notes, the common traditional name for these first five books is Torah, with its place being the foundation of the Hebrew Bible with both its teachings and laws: “Torah means ‘teaching’, or in biblical contexts involving specific laws….”[1] The idea being that the Torah, with its law and teachings, became the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament and the first part of what is known as the Tanakh, as Alter explains: “After Deuteronomy was brought together editorially with the four previous books, the designation Torah came to extended to all five. In the traditional Hebrew division, the Torah the constituted the first, foundational unit of the three large units that make up the Hebrew Bible, which is called acronymically the Tanakh–that is, Torah, Nevi’im (the Prophets, Former and Latter), and Ketuvim (the Writings, which is to say, everything else).”[2]

The role of the Torah then was to provide the foundation for the other writings, which make up the rest of the Hebrew Bible: the Christian Old Testament. The historical narrative of Genesis is just as much an essential part of the foundation of the Old Testament as is Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. It is here where the concept of covenanting with God originates. The nature of this foundation is therefore relational before it is logical or even legal in nature. As Roy Gane argues, the Old Testament law was given by authority with the expectation that, in following its instruction, Israel would be expressing loving submission and acceptance of God’s authority over them rather than simply agreeing to rational order or prohibited behaviors with related penalties for committing them.[3]

This idea of how the Torah is foundational to the rest of the Old Testament will be fleshed out more thoroughly in the next section, as it has a direct relationship to how it functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. However, it should be noted in line with Gane’s argument, the Torah served as the basis for the covenant relationship between God and Israel, and this covenant would be the theme and grounds of the entire Old Testament from the prophets who came in the name of the LORD to address God’s covenant people, to wisdom literature which brought to remembrance and instructed the people in practical ways of living in fear of the LORD in all wisdom.

Iain Duguid, providing insight into the nature of this covenant, states, “Essentially, a covenant is a relationship based on surrender of control.”[4] It was Abram who recognized God as his sovereign and, in entering this covenant, he made his life an offering. Duguid goes on to add, “This is the relationship between God and Abram that is on offer in Genesis 17. God almighty appeared to Abram and declared his sovereign willingness to be Abram’s covenant overlord, his suzerain.”[5] Abram was no longer his own; he had entered into covenant with God, surrendering control of his own life and necessarily trusting God with his future.

This is a theme of the rest of the Torah, and the broader Old Testament in general as Israel lived in the shadow of Sania in light of its covenant relationship with God. With this introduction to the law as it functioned in the Old Testament generally in mind, it is clear that without the Torah there would be no grounds for speaking of covenant faithfulness or the grace of God as the one who redeems and delivers, sets apart, and loves His chosen people. Therefore, the law functioned both as a monument to the covenant between Israel and God and as the legal, moral, and religious guide for a people called by God. With all of this in mind, the next section will focus on how the Old Testament law functioned in the event space of ancient Israel.

2. Old Testament Law in Ancient Israel

To further explore the concept of the Torah being foundational, it is important to consider how it functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. It is necessary to begin with the concept of identity. The Torah, as a book with its covenant and legal codes, did not simply function as a rule of legal expectations, but rather it functioned as the basis of identity for a people chosen by God to live in covenant community with Him. As Alter points out, the five books of the Torah serve as an account of the origin, definition, and identity of a people who accepted a covenant with God, and with this a trajectory is established and the biblical writers assumed Israel’s covenant with God would be realized through both institutional arrangements as well as historical acts.[6]

This is a critical observation to explore: that the covenant would be realized both institutionally and historically. With this the Torah served as the basis and evidence of the intentionality of God. John Sailhamer notes, “Every word spoken within Israel’s history has a horizontal (historical) range of meaning as well as a vertical (messianic) one. Within Israel’s own unique salvation history, not only are biblical words fraught with divine intentionality, but so also are the actual historical events that constituted that history.”[7] It is clear that Old Testament law was undeniably a testimony of divine intentionality and God’s covenant faithfulness, recounting God’s creative power, the election of Israel, and His covenant with them all grounded in historical acts which support the institutional establishment and definitions.

The first explicit calling of Abraham in Genesis 12 is the genesis of this covenant which began to be expressed in historical terms. There was a definitive place and time when God called one man to enter into a relationship of trust and obedience, and ultimately blessing and providential care. Then in Genesis 15 we see the formal covenant making act of God where God takes upon Himself the burden of fulfilling the covenant. As Duguid notes, “The one who would give the law here showed that grace comes first, for this was a totally one-sided covenant. It depended entirely on God for its fulfillment.”[8] The key observation being not only the fact that the covenant’s fulfillment depended upon God, but it was God who made this covenant of grace before He would give Israel the Mosaic law. This will be an idea worth exploring later, yet it is an important observation in making the point that from the beginning the Old Testament law was based on a covenant relationship of God’s grace where God’s faithfulness rather than Israel’s would be what realized the covenant’s fulfillment.

To say it another way, before Moses there was Abraham, the one with whom God originally entered into covenant, and this based not on Abraham’s faithfulness, but God’s. God’s faithfulness would be seen in His providing a son of promise, Isaac, yet not without divine testing which included waiting on the LORD and holding nothing from the LORD. Then throughout the lives of the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob there was covenant renewal, an expression of covenant continuity. And it is this concept of covenant continuity which is key to seeing that in both the Old and New Testament the substance of the covenant is the same, namely God’s grace and His covenant faithfulness ultimately realized in Jesus Christ.

This is described by Sailhamer as promise theology, which is tied to covenant blessings. Sailhamer states, “Central to the theological formation of the Pentateuch is the ‘prophetic’ word spoken to Abraham and introduced in Genesis 15:1 by the words ‘And after those things the word of the LORD came to Abraham, saying….’”[9] The point being, this prophetic word is the foundation for the concept of covenant promise. Sailhamer goes on to make the point that God’s promise is covenant promise and this covenant is divine commitment to Abraham in a way that goes further than the basic understanding of promise and fulfillment we see between the Old Testament and New Testament.[10] In this way, according to Sailhamer, the promise is a present tense reality of God’s relationship with Abraham as much as it was a future reality to be actualized in the blessing of humanity. A theme of covenant continuity is the realization of God’s constant intentionality and relationship with His people, the heart of the covenant established in the Torah, not simply God’s far off promise fulfilment. The covenant maker is the continually active party, bringing about all that the covenant promise entails.

However, the Old Testament law was normative and provided instruction and expectation for social and moral behavior in light of God’s character and purposes. It was more than wise instruction or what one might consider as modern positive law designed to regulate behavior alone, yet they were covenant stipulations which provided public and event specific paradigmatic guidance for Israel.[11] All of this tied directly to fact that YHWH is the God of Israel whose character is holiness and love which is expressed in the heart of Old Testament law, as Gane notes, underlies the call to live in social harmony under God with justice, integrity, honesty, and faithfulness.[12]

Interestingly, there has been much debate on whether or not God intended for there to be so many additional laws beyond Sinai, and according to Sailhammer, the Pentateuch’s overall strategy suggests that it was not God’s original plan to include the vast collections of law beyond the covenant at Sinai, but rather they were added because of the transgressions of Israel in the wilderness (cf. Matt. 19:8).[13] Time does not permit to explore whether or not the additional laws were part of God’s original design, however, it is worth noting that the additional laws do appear to move further into priestly code as a result of Israel’s failure to keep the covenant code.[14]

However, the identity of Israel is grounded in the covenant nature of Old Testament law. The essential concept of God walking with His people is foundational to how the Old Testament law functioned in the event space of ancient Israel. As Clowney notes, “The grace of God’s covenant promise is the source and heart of redemptive history. God declares, ‘I will walk among you and be your God and you will be my people’ (Lev. 26:12).”[15] Why did Israel submit to the Old Testament law? Because they recognized their covenant relationship with God, to whom they had submitted. Not only had they submitted to God, but God had taken possession of them in love! Clowney goes on, “We hear the language of divine love: he loved them because he loved them! (Deut. 7:7-8). Further, God has sealed his love to his people by his oath. The Old Testament term is chesed, an oath-bound commitment expressing freely given love…He revealed his name as Yahweh the God full of chesed (covenant devotion) and truth and faithfulness. He promised to go in the midst of his people, and not just ahead of them.”[16] This was in light of their inability to keep the covenant code. God’s covenant faithfulness is seen even in Israel’s failure to obey. Israel’s identity was grounded in God’s covenant love for them, which was expressed in God’s law given to them.

All of this ties into the concept of a trajectory: a metanarrative focused on God’s covenant faithfulness which provides the basis of an Old Testament biblical theology. It was not simply a matter of reflecting on the past alone, but a hope and an anticipation of God’s continued work in the future based on present divine covenant relationship, whether that be the promised land, or the Messiah. From the Old through the New Testament, there is a clear continuity of God’s purpose which began in the Torah. This Clowney describes as God’s one great plan for human history and redemption.[17] This concept of past, present, and future covenant reality as it relates to the entirety of Scripture will be the focus of the next section.

3. The Meaning & Canonical Role of the Pentateuch

The meaning and role of the Pentateuch in the whole of the canon of Scripture is an important facet to consider when accounting for how Old Testament law is to be understood not only in the event space of ancient Israel, but in the New Testament church as well. This understanding is fundamental to the argument that there is covenant continuity. Norman Geisler argues that the most basic division of the Bible is that of testaments or covenants between God and His people, and is not to be seen apart from Christ who provides the continuity between them as both are centered on Christ because, “The Old Testament views Christ by way of anticipation; the New Testament views him by way of realization.”[18] Accordingly, the Old Testament law as a book with its legal instruction is the foundation for the coming of Christ, as Geisler goes on to note, that the Torah is the foundation laid by God for this purpose, “in that God here effects the election (Gen.), redemption (Exod.), sanctification (Lev.), direction (Num.), and the instruction (Deut.), of the Jewish people through whom He will bring into the world its two most treasured gifts, the Living Word (Christ) and the Written Word (Scripture).”[19]

This foundation, which the law, both as a book and as legal code and instruction, provides, is in part how the meaning and role of the Pentateuch in the canon of Scripture is to be discovered. The larger picture of biblical theology and the theme of redemption are all grounded in the law, both as a book as well as including elements of legal code, namely the priestly code, which is related to messianic vision and fulfilment found in the New Testament. Likewise, even the Torah itself was understood as forward looking, and both Moses and other prophets understood it in this way. Sailhamer notes that there was great anticipation of the future and new works of God along Messianic lines, yet even this was grounded in what he calls the two seams, or redactional glue of law and wisdom seen as the meaning of the law and source of wisdom which also grounds faithful waiting for God’s future work, “How does one live in the present while waiting for God’s new work in the future? These seams refocus the reader’s attention from the present to the future arrival of a great prophet like Moses (Deut. 34:10), whose way is prepared by another great prophet, Elijah…”[20] This great prophet is understood to be Christ, yet even so the meaning of the law is seen in the wisdom gained through meditating on God’s law in anticipation of God’s continued covenant faithfulness, yet future.

Abner Chou echoes this sentiment and argues that Moses himself understood his own writings in light of the bigger theological picture of God’s plans for Israel, “Moses’s view of his writings is much larger than just the immediate situation…He understands his situation in light of God’s work in the past…This shapes Moses’s view of the present…Accordingly Moses points Israel to the future.”[21] This future would include the rest of the biblical canon of Scripture, which found its meaning and foundation inseparably tied to the meaning and role of the law. Chou goes on to note that the psalmists, Daniel, and the post exile prophets all understood their contexts and contemporary events in light of God doing exactly what the covenant anticipated, thereby connecting the present and future with the past, namely the Mosaic covenant where God had promised covenant faithfulness to Israel.[22] All of this once again points towards Christ, the Messiah who would be revealed in the New Testament as will be explored in the next section.

However, this concept of Messianic vision is an important, if not the most important, clue to how the meaning and role of Old Testament law in the broader canon of Scripture is to be found. Sailhamer articulates this clearly as a significant element of the Pentateuch’s compositional strategy: “In the Pentateuch the Messiah is a prophetic priest-king modeled after Moses who will reign over God’s kingdom, bring salvation to Israel and the nations, and fulfill God’s covenants. This messianic vision is part of the compositional strategy of Pentateuch…The Prophets and Writings sections of the Tanak are a detailed exposition of the Pentateuch’s messianism.”[23] The point being that the centrality of the messianic vision of the law as a book was exposited in the rest of the Old Testament, and therefore shows clearly that the law was not simply legal code, but played a foundational role as the context for the rest of the Old and, as we will see later, the context of the New Testament. And as legal code, its representation of the character of God also expresses the role of the law in the canon of Scripture. With this in mind the next section will focus on demonstrating the evidence for covenant continuity between the Old and New Testaments based on the meaning and role of the Torah, which is not only concerned with messianic vision, but also the centrality of faith and the fulfillment of God’s covenant promise established in the Torah.

4. Covenant Continuity

Old vs. New

While there are differences between the Old and New Testaments, there is covenant continuity which flows through and binds them. In this line of thought, what began in the Old Testament law is carried into the New Testament where the laying of the foundation for faith, holiness, and the grace and love of God in the Old Testament is realized in the New Testament. The argument is that there is one covenant of grace, and it began with the Old Testament law. This is seen first off in how the New Testament begins. Sailhamer makes the important observation that, “Matthew’s gospel, which follows immediately after the last Old Testament word, begins, like Chronicles, with a genealogy, this one identifying Jesus as the Christ (Messiah), the son of David, who is Emanuel, ‘God with us.”[24] As it was shown in the previous section, messianic vision was first presented in the law and then exposited in the rest of the Old Testament, and it is picked back up immediately in the New Testament. There is no new covenant offered fundamentally, but a demonstrable continuity and fulfillment of the old in the new which is recognizable in the opening of the New Testament.

There is certainly a difference between contexts of the old and the new, but they are not unrelated and completely separate covenants. Gane argues that those who would make sharp distinctions between the old and new covenants to the point of dismissing continuity do so by failing to adequately take into account biblical evidence that there is direct continuity grounded in the character of God, by which the law of Christ operates in light of the Mosiac Law and the promised Messiah: “First, the new covenant, under which the law of Christ operates, is in direct continuity with the Old Testament covenant’s phases, including the covenant at Sinai, under which the so-called Mosaic Law functioned.”[25] His point is that the New Testament builds upon and fulfills the gospel message of the Old Testament, rather than stands alone as a completely separate or new covenant.

Bavink makes explicit that while there were differences between the Old and New Testaments, they are different dispensations of the same covenant of grace whereby believers from the Old and New Testaments walked the same road in different dispensations of the same covenant related as promise and fulfilment.[26] Sailhamer, Gane, and Bavink are in agreement that there is really one covenant of grace which is grounded in the Torah and not simply a new concept which only appears in the New Testament. This is a concept argued by Calvin as well. He argues that the covenant made with all the fathers and with New Testament believers is of the same substance. Therefore, there is one covenant, and the Law and prophets were simply the means of communicating hope of immortality and assurance of adoption, and therefore the reconciliation the fathers enjoyed was not founded on merits of their own, but solely on the mercy of God.[27]

This raises the question as to whether or not the law was a covenant of works or a true covenant of grace. This is important for the concept and argument of continuity because if the law was a covenant of works then there is little continuity with a covenant of grace we clearly see in the New Testament. On answering this question, Bavink would also make the distinction that the covenant of works was before the fall.[28] This is important unless we equate the covenant of Sinai as a covenant of works, which seems to be along the lines of what Luther could be understood as concluding in his gospel-law contrast.[29] Luther says there are two sermons, the law of God and the gospel, and these two sermons are not the same and therefore the commandments found in Moses do not apply to New Testament believers[30], and that the gospel does not preach what we are to do or avoid. Luther says about the gospel, “It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law…For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not – as in the case of the law–what we are to give to God.”[31] The argument being made in this paper, to use Luther’s words, is that there really is only one sermon, and that is the grace of God through His covenant faithfulness first expressed in the law, just as Calvin argued, that reconciliation has always and only come through the mercy and grace of God, which is fully revealed in Christ to whom the Law and prophets testify.

To continue the argument of continuity, it is important to note that even the structure and literary feel of the Old Testament canon points forward towards realization yet future. This is an observation Iain Duguid offers in tying the promise of God first made in the Torah to its realization found in Christ. He notes that the incompleteness of the Old Testament and its ending prepares the reader to look forward and ties it back to Deuteronomy 18, where, “…God promises to send his people another prophet like Moses. This promise was partially fulfilled through a series of Old Testament Prophets resembling Moses in important ways, yet it is only truly fulfilled in Christ.”[32] As John O’Keefe and R. R. Reno point out in the same line of fulfillment awareness, this was the interpretive principle of the early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, for whom Christ’s coming was the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham and the end to the ritual laws of Israel.[33]

The argument is moved further along by considering the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. If the Old Testament as a whole was grounded in, and largely an exposition of, the Torah, then it follows that the New Testament’s appeal and use of the Old Testament is an expression of continuity between the two testaments, and therefore evidence of covenant continuity. Abner Chou describes this way of thinking along the lines of hermeneutical continuity. He states that hermeneutical continuity is defended by going through examples of the New Testament’s use of the Old, where what we find is that rather than a new reading or interpretation, we find the apostles quoting and using the Old Testament as the grounds and rationale for their arguments and conclusions[34], culminating in the conclusion that, “The law of the prophet in Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is used in reference to Christ. He is the One, like Moses, whom God will raise up (cf. Acts 3:22-23; 7:37, 52).”[35]

Centrality of Faith

The centrality of faith is another clear point of covenant continuity between the Old Testament law and the message of the New Testament. The law as in the Torah or the Pentateuch, makes explicit the requirement of faith rather than the merits of those who would be the people of God. And this requirement is the same in the New Testament, even though there are differences in the context of how faith is exercised. This is a point Sailhamer makes clear in pointing out the unified “faith theme” stressed in the Pentateuch, which ties faith and obedience to the prophetic notion of the new covenant as part of the Pentateuch’s compositional strategy: “This emphasis on the role of faith, so clearly New Testament in its outlook, is found at key locations in the compositional strategy of the Pentateuch. Often it lies along the compositional seams that tie together the whole of the book.”[36] The theme of faith is a fundamental element of the Old Testament law and Israel’s identity and submission to it. Therefore, it is not a novel New Testament concept, but a shared theme which provides continuity.

While the word “faith” is rarely used in the Old Testament, the concept of trust and confidence-based obedience is explicit in the Pentateuch. Benjamin Warfield provides helpful insight into this issue of the centrality of faith being a key concept to the Old Testament law even in light of the word faith and even the call “to believe” being largely absent. Warfield states, “The extreme rarity of the noun ‘faith’ in the Old Testament may prepare us to note that even the verb ‘to believe’ is far from common in it…”[37] He continues by showing that God Himself is the object of Old Testament faith and upon His very person rests faithful believing, “…it is to Him as a faithful witness that faithful believing turns (Deut. Ix. 23, Isa, xliii. 10)…it is upon His very person that faith rests in assured confidence (Gen. xv 6, Ex. Xiv. 31, Num. xiv).”[38] Warfield argues that the covenant of Genesis 15 into which Abraham entered with God was a covenant of faith, “The object of Abraham’s faith, as here set forth, was not the promise…what it rested on was God Himself, and not merely as the giver of the promise…but as His servant’s shield and great reward (Gen xv. 1).”[39] He concludes that despite the infrequency of the terms “faith”, and “to believe”, in the Old Testament, it is obvious that the religion of the Old Testament was equally fundamentally a religion of faith as that of New Testament.[40] Grace and faith therefore fueled obedience, and for this reason the New Testament writers look back and see righteousness credited on account of faith rather than adherence to the law even though the law was to be obeyed. Yet, as has been argued, at no point was justification grounded in obedience to the law, rather it was grounded in faith in God. This is a critical point in the argument that there is covenant continuity between the law and the gospel, for both share faith in God as the foundation for justification and covenant fulfillment.

5. Old Testament Law and The Church

Law Distinctions

With all of this in mind it is important to address the question of the relevance of Old Testament law and the New Testament Church. To begin, it is important to first note that the law as a book has obvious relevance for the church being part of the canon of Scripture. In light of this truth, we recognize that there is no Christ without the law as a book. There is no messianic vision, and no promise fulfillment without the law, for it is there we find the covenants of God with His people, ultimately being the covenant of grace after the fall as He works out His redemptive purposes and promises, calling His people to trust and believe in Him.

In addition, every time we celebrate baptism and the Lord’s Supper, we are memorializing Christ as the Passover Lamb who atones for the sins of His people, as both sacrifice and priest. Sinclair Ferguson rightly argues that it takes the whole of the Old Testament to understand this work of Christ on our behalf, “If you want to understand Jesus, then you need to know: 1. Jesus was a lamb without blemish or defect who was slain for us. We need to understand the Old Testament sacrificial system to see what this means…”[41] As Albert Mohler points out, the Old Testament saints had a forward-looking faith by which they would recognize the fulfilment of God’s promises, ultimately eschatologically through the blood of Christ.[42] Carl F. H. Henry recognizes the messianic promise and fulfilment which centers on Christ as the master key of the whole of Scripture, which is a manifestation of the unity of Scripture and the meaning and purpose of God’s redemptive activity which Scripture contains.[43]

However, in light of the law-gospel contrast which can be made, it is important to show that not only is the law as a book relevant for the Church, but the heart of the law as legal code is relevant as well. Gane is helpful in showing that some, like Dispensationalists and Lutherans who do not recognize continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament covenant, would separate law and gospel, while others, such as those in the Reformed tradition, recognize levels of continuity concerning the law of God.[44] Reformed distinctions found in the Westminster standard divide the law into three categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial. There are difficulties in recognizing these distinctions for some. J. Daniel Hays, for example, sees these distinctions as arbitrary on grounds that the Old Testament law does not make sharp distinctions between moral and other categories, and it is also difficult to separate the law from the covenant.[45]

While there is merit to the objections raised by Hays and those in agreement with his position, there is yet grounds for recognizing the validity of these distinctions when one considers the consistent teaching of the New Testament. Many of the civil and ceremonial laws are actually no longer required or forbidden. We see this in the case of circumcision in Paul’s writings, and certainly this was as much tied to the covenant as anything, yet Paul argues that it is no longer necessary in Galatians. We see in Hebrews where Christ is named the once for all sacrifice, speaking directly to the ceremonial law and priestly code. In Acts we also see a paradigm shift concerning what is clean and unclean, and in chapter 15 the call to not burden Gentiles with the law. Therefore, there does seem to be sound reason to believe that there is some warrant for recognizing distinctions when applying the law to the New Testament Church.

Keeping the Law

With these basic distinctions in mind, namely moral, civil, and ceremonial, it is necessary to touch on practical application concerning what obligation there is on the New Testament Church and believers to keep the law. Few evangelicals seem to argue that Christians are still bound by the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament such as rules of diet, cleanliness, and offering sacrifices. There seems to be a strong consensus that rather than either being free from the law or being burdened with the letter of the law, Christians are to fulfill the heart of the law through Christ. Gane notes that it is the law which is necessary in the redemptive process so that sinners realize the need for redemption through Christ received by faith (Rom. 3:20; 7:7-13, 3:21–26).[46] He goes on to argue that a Christian’s growing in holiness includes moral character and love (1 Thess. 3:12–13), “and therefore makes progress in emulating divine love (cf. 1 John 4:8, 16). This is the process of sanctification, which begins at conversion…”[47] He then ties this love to obedience to Christ, which results from faith and works working together in a converted person who is abiding in the love of Christ, “This love brings the Christian into harmony with God’s character and law of love. To receive God’s gift is to accept, cooperate with, and live out the moral transformation that he offers. The strength that he makes available.”[48]

This powerful concept finds agreement with Block, who recognizes the links between fearing God, loving God, and walking in His ways. This love-based obedience is not an outdated Old Testament concept, but an essential element of New Testament worship which follows from the life offered to believers, and this is the fulfilment and climax of what God began with Israel.[49] Chou also agrees with this concept and adds that, “The New Testament writers maintained the same interpretive paradigm. They quoted the law in order to instruct people about the changeless nature of the Creator (cf. Rom. 7:7).”[50] He goes on to note that even though Christians might not live out the precise mandates of the law, there are times when they do, as in cases of the moral law, yet it is not because they are obligated to keep the mosaic law, but to live out the logic the law intends.[51]

To come back to the concept of love, Karl Barth argues that loving others and loving God is fulfillment of the law, “Those who do what the Law requires in relation to their neighbors, and therefore those who love them, confirm and prove in this way that they are those who fulfill the law and therefore love God.”[52] Barth adds that reception of justification by faith alone cannot be separated from love.[53] These are critical observations which provide practical insight into how Christians might recognize the tension of being required fulfill the logic of the Old Testament law through loving obedience, while not being required to obey the letter of the mosaic law. Christians are enabled to obey God’s commands through Christ who fulfilled the law. Those who are in Christ are both freed from the law and enabled to fulfill the heart of the law, which we might call the law of Christ.

To this point, Lloyd-Jones states that confusion exists between law and grace as if they are opposed, but the law was never meant to save anyone, “because it could not….In Paul’s words it was meant to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. You see, therefore, that the law has a great deal of prophecy in it, and a great deal of the gospel. It is full of grace leading me to Christ….”[54] His point is that grace has delivered Christians from the curse of the law and at the same time enables them to keep the law because this grace brings the believer to love God and therefore love and keep His commandments.[55] Lloyd-Jones’ conclusion is the same as Gane’s, namely that God’s law and our love for Him provides both direction and motivation through Christ. Lloyd-Jones concludes, “Without the power of the Spirit we would lack the love for God that energizes us to keep his law. But without the law of God our love for him would lack direction. Thus, we discover that the way of Christ leads us more and more into obedience into God’s law.”[56] Gane concludes in the same line of thought that converted Christians become obedient from the heart for whom God’s commandments are not burdensome.[57]

6. Conclusion

The aim of this paper has been to show that, in line with the meaning, purpose, and role of the Old Testament law in both ancient Israel and the canon of Scripture, covenant continuity between the Old Testament and the New Testament exists in a way that demonstrates God’s covenant faithfulness and grace rather than a law and gospel separation. Because the law functioned as identity, history, and messianic promise, as well as a moral guide based on God’s character, it is the logic of both the Old and New Testaments, and its realization and fulfillment in Christ is the evidence of covenant continuity. Therefore, it should be seen as relevant for the covenant people of God who love Him and who have been called to walk in faith and holiness with Him, according to His divine love.

Works Cited

Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol. IV.2. V.1 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006.

Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy.Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009.

Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018.

Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003.

Duguid, Iain M. Is Jesus in the Old Testament? Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing , 2013.

—. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015.

Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.

Henry, Carl F. H. God Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows - Fifteen Theses, Part Three. Vol. IV. VI vols. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Studies In The Sermon On The Mount. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011.

Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Edited by Timothy F Lull, & William R. Russel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Mohler, Albert R. Jr. Christ-Centered Exposition: Exaulting Jesus in Hebrews. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2017.

O'keefe, John J., and R.R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009.

Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. Vol. II. X vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.

[1] Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019. xliv.

[2] Ibid. xliv.

[3] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 17-18.

[4] Duguid, Iain M. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015. 78.

[5] Ibid. 78.

[6] Alter, Robert. The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary: The Book's of Moses. Vol. I. III vols. New York: W. W. Horton & Company, 2019. xlvii

[7] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 231.

[8] Duguid, Iain M. Living Between the Gap Between Promise and Reality: The Gospel According to Abraham. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2015. 58.

[9] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 434.

[10] Ibid. 436.

[11] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 32-33.

[12] Ibid. 40.

[13] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 42.

[14] Ibid. 45.

[15] Clowney, Edmund P. Preaching Christ in All of Scripture. Wheaton: Crossway, 2003. 37.

[16] Ibid. 37-38.

[17] Ibid 37.

[18] Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. 20.

[19] Ibid. 21.

[20] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 218.

[21] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 99.

[22] Ibid. 100-101.

[23] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 236–237.

[24] Ibid. 237.

[25] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 170.

[26] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. 223.

[27] Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009. 274.

[28] Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Sin and Salvation in Christ. Vol. Three. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. 225.

[29] Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012. 297.

[30] Luther, Martin. Martin Luther's Basic Theological Writings. Edited by Timothy F Lull, & William R. Russel. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012. 111.

[31] Ibid. 108.

[32] Duguid, Iain M. Is Jesus in the Old Testament? Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing , 2013. 23.

[33] O'keefe, John J., and R.R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. 38.

[34] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 122.

[35] Ibid. 125.

[36] Sailhamer, John. The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composisition and Interpretation. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press , 2009. 244.

[37] Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Biblical Doctrines. Vol. II. X vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991. 470.

[38] Ibid. 470.

[39] Ibid. 471.

[40] Ibid 484.

[41] Ferguson, Sinclair B. Devoted to God: Blueprints for Sanctification. Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 2016. 24.

[42] Mohler, Albert R. Jr. Christ-Centered Exposition: Exaulting Jesus in Hebrews. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2017. 192.

[43] Henry, Carl F. H. God Revelation and Authority: God Who Speaks and Shows - Fifteen Theses, Part Three. Vol. IV. VI vols. Wheaton: Crossway, 1999. 469.

[44] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 172–173.

[45] Ibid. 174–175.

[46] Ibid. 51.

[47] Ibid. 394.

[48] Ibid 401–403.

[49] Block, Daniel I. The Gospel According to Moses: Theological and Ethical Reflections on the Book of Deuteronomy. Eugene: Cascade Books, 2012. 296–298.

[50] Chou, Abner. The Hermenuitics of the Biblical Writers. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2018. 217.

[51] Ibid. 217–218.

[52] Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation. Vol. IV.2. V.1 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010. 732.

[53] Ibid. 733.

[54] Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. Studies In The Sermon On The Mount. Mansfield Centre: Martino Publishing, 2011. 196–197.

[55] Ibid 197.

[56] Ibid 187.

[57] Gane, Roy E. Old Testament Law for Christians: Original Context and Enduring Application. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. 399.