James speaks of the "law of liberty" (1:25; 2:12). Paul speaks of the "yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1). What two laws are they talking about?

James writes, "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty." James cites two of the Ten Commandments, and then speaks of being judged by the "law of liberty" (James 2:1012). This "perfect law of liberty" is something a person "looks into" and "continues in" (1:25). Obviously, it includes the Ten Commandments. James calls it the "law of liberty" because he understands that true freedom is possible only in the framework of law.

       The "yoke of bondage" Paul mentions in Galatians 5:1 is not the law, but is a spiritual condition that resulted from the wrong use of the law. Paul explains, "You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (verse 4). To be "justified" is to have one's sins blotted out and be given a right standing before Goda state of being that cannot be attained through any law. "For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law" (Galatians 3:21). Therefore, the Galatians who were seeking justification through law (which cannot provide it), and not through Christ (who can provide it), had "fallen from grace."

Is the law "added because of transgressions" (Galatians 3:1725) the law pertaining to sacrifices, washings, and so forth, or is it the "moral law," or Ten Commandments?

The law Paul speaks of in the book of Galatians is the entire law as codified in the Sinaitic covenant. It includes the Ten Commandments as well as the sacrificial and ceremonial laws. It was "added because of transgressions" in that it was codified and given to Israel in order to make the people aware of their sins. As Paul said to the Romans, "I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, 'You shall not covet'" (Romans 7:7).

       One of the law's functions is to make us aware of our transgressions. When Paul said that the law was added "till the Seed should come" (Galatians 3:19), he did not mean that the law had no more purpose or function once Christ (the Seed) had come. Rather, he meant that the law had accomplished its purpose in making us aware of our transgressions and, therefore, our need for a Savior. The "Seed" did not abolish the law, but the record of transgressions for those who put their trust in Him.

       Because of the law's function in making him aware of his sins and of his need for a Savior, the apostle Paul could say, "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).

       The law also has the function of revealing the way of life God would have us follow (see Psalm 119:97104). Because of this function of the law, Paul could say, "For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man" (Romans 7:22).

Would you comment on Paul's reference to the "freewoman" and "bondwoman" (Galatians 4:24,25)? Verses 30 and 31 teach that Christians are not children of the bondwoman, which is identified as the covenant from Mount Sinai. Doesn't this suggest that the law given at Mount Sinai has been done away?

Galatians 4:24,25 reads: "which things are symbolic. For these [the "bondwoman" and the "freewoman"] are the two covenants: the one from the Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagarfor this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children."

       Notice that Paul was comparing the "bondwoman" and "freewoman" with "the two covenants" i.e., the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Remember, a covenant is a binding agreement between two parties. The law, in and of itself, was not the covenant; therefore, we should not assume that the law was abolished when the covenant was terminated.

       God, through the prophet Jeremiah, tells us why the Old Covenant was dissolved, and makes it clear that the termination of the former covenant does not entail abolition of the law. Notice: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judahnot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant [i.e., a new covenant, which will replace the old onethe one they broke] that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jeremiah 31:3134).

       The reason the Old Covenant "gives birth to bondage" is that the people broke God's law, thus placing themselves under bondage. The New Covenant is different in that it involves having the law written on the heart, which is another way of speaking of a heart of obedience (compare Deuteronomy 5:29). Sin is the source of bondage. Under the New Covenant, the source of bondage is completely remitted, thus producing freedomnot "freedom" to break the law, but freedom from the bondage of sin.

Doesn't Hebrews 7:12 tell us that the old Law of Moses has been abolished and replaced with a new law?

Hebrews 7:12 states: "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." The change of the law was not the abolition of the Law of Moses. Rather, it was a change in the law concerning the priesthood. This is made clear in verses 13 through 19.

       In the Levitical priesthood, all priests were to be descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi. However, since Jesus Christ "arose from [the tribe of] Judah" (Hebrews 7:14), He could be a priest only if the law restricting priesthood to the family of Aaron (of the tribe of Levi) were changed. Had the law in its entirety been abolished, it is unlikely that the writer of Hebrews would have bothered explaining that a change had occurred in one of the law's commandments.

Does Matthew 9:1417 mean that it is a mistake to try to mix the Old Covenant law with the New Covenant gospel?

The extreme discontinuity between the law and the gospel is popular among dispensationalists, but was never a part of the teachings of Jesus. Matthew 9:14-17 simply means that it would not have been appropriate for the disciples to mourn (symbolized by fasting) while Christ was with them, for He was the central figurethe prophesied Davidic Kingof all promises of hope for Israel and the world. Christ uses three parables to illustrate the inappropriateness of mourning (fasting) while He is present: 1) the bridegroom's attendants (verse 15); 2) the new patch and the old garment (verse 16); and 3) the new wine and the old wineskin (verse 17). Christ is saying that mourning (fasting) while the Source of hope is present is as inappropriate as putting new, fermenting wine into old, hardened wineskins; or as putting a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; or as the bridegroom's attendants mourning while the bridegroom is present. John the Baptist's purpose was to call the people to repentance, which involved mourning and fasting, in preparation for Christ's coming. But once Christ had arrived, it was time for His followersthose who had longed for His presenceto rejoice.

Does Matthew 5:38-42 mean that if someone attacks me or takes my belongings, I have to stand there and take it? Is it wrong to defend oneself from an attacker?

Matthew 5:38-42 is Jesus's response to the notion that the "eye for an eye" law permitted personal vengeance. It did not. Rather, it was directed to the judges (Exodus 21:22-25), and was simply another way of saying that the compensation for a wrong done to a person must match the damages. Jesus's directive to "turn the other cheek" can be understood two ways: First, it can be understood as a hyperbolic way of expressing how far a person should distance himself from seeking personal vengeance (and remember, personal vengeance is very different from self defense), just as "tear it out" and "cut it off" (verses 29,30) are hyperbolic ways of expressing how far a person should distance himself from sinful behavior. Second, Jesus may be speaking of situations in which resistance would only result in further damages (compare with verses 25,26). In any case, Jesus is not forbidding self-defense.

Does Matthew 5:19 say that a commandment-breaker will be in the Kingdom, though he will be least in the Kingdom? Does this not conflict with scriptures that say that commandment-breakers will not be in the Kingdom at all?

Luke 12:4248 teaches that, when Christ returns to establish His Kingdom, there will be degrees of privilege or dishonor based on how faithfully a person upheld God's standards. The saintsthose who inherit the Kingdom at Christ's returnwill be the most honored in the Kingdom. Some of the mortal subjects of the Kingdom, however, will have to answer for having neglected to uphold God's righteous standards. Matthew 5:19 does not mean that commandment breakers will enter the immortal, Spirit-born family of God at Christ's return; it simply means that when the Kingdom is established, those who have annulled even the least of God's standards will receive no honor.

Why do you quote from the Old Testament in establishing doctrine for Christians? Shouldn't Christians get their beliefs from the New Testament alone, especially from the epistles of Paul?

Listen carefully to what the apostle Paul says about the so-called "Old Testament":

To Timothy, Paul writes, "and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15,16).

       The only Scriptures Timothy could have known from childhood was the collection of books we call the "Old Testament." Therefore, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament when he says that the Scriptures can make a person wise for salvation; is inspired of God; is useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness, thus equipping the man of God for every good work.

       According to the New Testament, then, doctrinal truth applicable to Christians can be derived from the Old Testament!

The book of Leviticus contains what I would call hard laws: those laws that have to do with types of uncleanness and defilement and require washings and separation from other people until evening. How do these laws apply today?

The "hard laws" of Leviticus, found in chapters 11 through 15, are the ones people often refer to when they charge us with "picking" the Old Testament laws we want to keep and rejecting all others. Of course, we should not "reject" any of the commandments of the Torah, but simply recognize that some laws have cultural limitations and some do not. For instance, laws concerning livestock and agriculture would not directly apply to city-dwellers. Laws regarding flat-roofed houses do not directly apply to most of us because most of us do not live in a flat-roofed house (though there may be an underlying principle that applies to our situation). How or whether a particular law directly applies to us depends upon the purpose of that law.

       The sacrifices, washings, and periods of separation for various kinds of defilement were given to instill discipline and give sanction to public health laws. These regulations helped keep the people from slipping into unsanitary practices that would contribute to poor health and the spread of various diseases. Our modern health regulations capture the intent and fulfill the purpose of these Old Testament ceremonial regulations.

Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). Didn't He mean that He was setting aside the law, not by abolishing it, but by completing its purpose?

The word translated "fulfill" in Matthew 5:17 literally means "to fill" or "make full." Jesus "fulfilled" the law, or "made it full," by stripping it of the erroneous interpretations that had been added to it by men, and by restoring its original meaning and intent. The remainder of the chapter provides several examples of how Jesus restored the true purpose and meaning of various laws while exposing the false ideas that had been added by men.

       For instance, some of the Jews of Jesus's day saw the divorce law of Deuteronomy 24:1 as a license for divorce. But a careful examination of the passage reveals that the purpose of this law was to discourage divorce. Knowing this, Jesus brought to light the good and perfect will of God regarding the divinely ordained institution of marriage (see Matthew. 5:31,32).

       Another example is the way some interpreted the "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" law. This law was part of Israel's justice system, and was to be administered by the judges (Exodus 21:22-25). Unfortunately, by the time of Jesus some were citing the law as an excuse for personal vengeance. Jesus clearly recognized this error (see Matthew 5:38-42).

       Many of the erroneous interpretations Jesus was dealing with came from the Pharisees and other religious parties. No doubt, as He exposed and refuted their false teachings, the angered religious leaders accused Him of trying to destroy or abolish the law. That's why Jesus said. "Do not think that I came to destroy the law."

       To underscore the fact that He did not come to abolish the law, Jesus added, "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. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:18,19).

       A clue as to whose erroneous interpretations He had in mind throughout His discourse lies in the next verse; "For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven" (verse 20).