SCHOLIA

NOTES AND COMMENTS FOR THE MINISTER

SOME CRUCIAL ISSUES IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

by KLAAS RUNIA

When people say "I believe that the entire Bible, 'from cover to cover/
is the Word of God/' I am always happy to hear this. But when I see how
these same people often use their Bible, I am not so happy anymore.
Quite often they read the Bible in a haphazard way. When they quote
from Scripture, they do not give any attention to the context, but simply
take the words as they themselves understand them or as they suit the
particular point they want to make. A notorious example is the method
of the Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock at our doors. They are very
clever in quoting prooftexts. Usually they have underlined the prooftexts
for their various doctrines with different colors. But these people are not
the only ones to use the Bible in this way. It is also typical of many
fundamentalists. In fact, we can observe traces of this method even in
great Reformed theologians. Abraham Kuyper once wrote a moving
meditation on "Jesus alone." He had taken this from the story of the
Transfiguration, which in Mark 9:8 closes with the words "they no longer
saw any one with them but Jesus only." But these words do not at all
speak of Jesus being somewhere all on his own. The three disciples were
with him! Even Herman Bavinck, in his Reformed Dogmatics, at times
used the prooftext method. Sometimes he quoted a whole series of texts,
which he usually had copied from older textbooks. But when one checks
these texts, many appear to have hardly anything or even nothing to do
with the subject under discussion.

300

SCHOLIA

301

We believe that such an approach is totally wrong. Of course we

appreciate the acceptance of tota Scriptum as the Word of God. We also
appreciate the acceptance of the unity of Scripture. Yet the method of
acceptance is critical. The unity of the Bible is not a matter of uniformity.
The Bible ought not to be compared with a flat landscape, such as that
of my own country. The Bible's landscape includes a tremendous
amount of variety. There are flat plains but also high mountains. There
are small brooks and ponds but also large rivers and lakes and even deep
oceans.
In addition, what the Bible communicates to us is not a timeless truth.
The biblical message is intertwined with historynot just history in
general, but a particular kind of history: the history of salvation (or
redemption). What Gerhard von Rad says of the Old Testament is true of
the whole Bible: it is "a history book. It portrays a history brought to pass
by God's Word, from creation to the coming of the Son of Man. It may
not be superfluous to remark that even the prophetic books are 'history
books,' insofar as they do not seek to transmit teachings, truths, or the
like, but rather to portray eschatological events in advance."1 If, therefore, we want to understand a particular passage of Scripture, we have
to ask ourselves which part of the history of salvation this passage
belongs or refers to.
THE HISTORY OF SALVATION APPROACH

Biblical history starts with creation: "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth." This is not only the starting point of all history
but also the underlying reality of all history. Although Reformed theology has always clearly distinguished between God's act of creation and
his providence,2 it also has always seen an intimate relationship between
these two acts. L. Berkhof defines providence as "that continued exercise
of the divine energy whereby the Creator [!] preserves all His creatures [!], is operative in all that comes to pass in the world, and directs
all things to their appointed end."3 But soon after creation something
awful happened. Man, created in the image of God, rebelled against his

1
Von Rad, ''Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament/' in Essays on Old Testament
Hermeneutics, ed. Claus Westermann (Atlanta: John Knox, 1963), p. 25. Cf. the statements
of various Old Testament scholars on pp. 44ff. in that work.
2

See chap. 3 of G. C. Berkouwer, The Providence of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952).

Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), p. 166.

302

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

Creator, and thus sin entered into creation and into history (Gen. 3:1-7).
Since that moment, the fall has been the second underlying reality of all
history. In fact, it so permeates all of creation that at times it looks as if
sin has taken the place of creation and is the only underlying reality of
history. But there is yet a third element. In the story of the fall we read
that God not only speaks words of condemnation but also gives the
promise of salvation. In the Protevangel God promises that the seed of
the woman will bruise the head of the serpent's seed (Gen. 3:15). The
remainder of the Bible is the story of the further development of this
history of salvation, which from beginning to end is accompanied by the
battle between those two seeds.
In Reformed theology this idea of a history of salvation was already
seen in the sixteenth century. It was designated in covenantal terms. The
Lutheran scholar Arlis John Ehlen writes, "Reformed theologians from
the very beginning had been conscious of the covenant idea and had
recognized the fact that the Old Testament speaks of a succession of
covenants which God made with men, culminating in the new covenant
in Jesus Christ."4 Along these lines it is possible to distinguish various
dispensations within the one history of salvation.5
1. A universal dispensation, from Adam through Noah to Abraham.
2. A particular dispensation that starts with the calling of Abraham.
God makes a special covenant of grace with him and his descendants, a covenant of which circumcision is the special sign and
seal.
4

Ehlen, 'Old Testament Theology as Heilsgeschichte/' Concordia Theological Monthly 35

(October 1964): 523. He refers to Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizet
(London: Allen & Unwin, 1950), pp. 393-409.
5
We do not use the term "dispensation" in the same way as the so-called Dispensationalists do. According to Scofield, one of the founders of dispensational theology, "a
dispensation is a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some
specific revelation of the will of God" (Scofield Bible, p. 5). In each new dispensation man's
obedience is tested in a new way by a new revelation of God's will. Today dispensationalists generally "deny that they teach more than one way of salvation, admitting only
that the content of faith varies according to the revelation given in each dispensation" (H. H.
Rowdon, New Dictionary of Theology [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988], p. 200). We
are also happy to note that the editors of the New Scofield Bible insist that in each dispensation there is only one basis for salvation: God's grace in Jesus Christ. But if this is so, why
does man need to be tested anew in each new dispensation? We believe that Anthony
Hoekema is right when he concludes that "Dispensationalism fails to do full justice to the
basic unity of biblical revelation" (The Bible and the Future [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979],
p. 195).

SCHOLIA

303

3. At Sinai this covenant takes on the form of a national covenant:

God makes his beruh with the whole nation that he has led out of
Egypt. To this covenant belong the Decalogue and the Mosaic
law, and its administration spans the entire further history of the
Old Testament. In the latter part of this history we find an increasing number of references to the coming of the Messiah and
the outpouring of the Spirit. The prophets especially point out
that this will happen "in the last days/' the eschatological future.
4. The New Testament tells us that these promises are fulfilled in
Jesus Christ, our Lord, and in the coming of the Spirit on the day
of Pentecost. Now the "last days" have arrived (note Peter's insertion of the words "in the last days" in the quotation from Joel
2 in Acts 2:17!). This means that a new dispensation has come
about. In accordance with this we repeatedly read the term "the
new covenant" in the New Testament (e.g., in Luke 22:20; 1 Cor.
11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8,13; 12:24; cf. the term "better covenant"
in Heb. 7:22; 8:6). This new dispensation is again universal in
nature and purpose: the message of God's salvation in Jesus
Christ must now go out to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8).
All this is of tremendous importance for the interpretation of Scripture
as a whole and of every single passage and verse. Each passage and verse
must always be understood not only in the setting of its own context but
also within the "horizon" of the particular period of the history of
salvation to which it belongs or refers.6 Moreover, it must always be
related to him who is the consummation of all previous revelation and,
therefore, the center of the entire history of salvation.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

It will be obvious that to a large extent the relationship between the

testaments is determined by what we have been discussing thus far. All
Christians believe that the Old Testament is as much the Word of God as
the New. Although the Christian church has always been aware of the
fact that the Old Testament originally was the Word of God spoken to
Israel, yet from the very beginning it has acknowledged that this Word
to Israel is still God's Word to the people of the new covenant.

See Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1961), p. 15.

304

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

This acknowledgment was not only due to historical circumstances

that is, to the fact that the apostles and the first disciples all happened to
be Jews. However true this may be, the Christian church retained the
Old Testament for much deeper reasons. The church realized that we
stand in one history, the one history of God with his people. Jesus Christ
did not appear out of the blue; he is the fulfillment of the history of God
with Israel. His Jewishness is not a historical accident; he could be
nothing but a Jew! As a matter of fact, he himself taught his disciples
that the entire Old Testament spoke of him. He said it even to his
opponents: "You search the scriptures, because you think that in them
you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse
to come to me that you may have life" (John 5:39-40). After the resurrection he stated it even more clearly to his disciples: " These are my
words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything
written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms
[the three parts of the Jewish canon!] must be fulfilled.' Then he opened
their minds to understand the scriptures [= the Old Testament]" (Luke
24:44-45).
It is not surprising, therefore, that throughout the entire New Testament we observe that all writers continuaUy appeal to the Old Testament in order to show that Jesus is the Messiah who had been promised
to Israel. All writers read the Old Testament as a "Christ-ian" book. A
very clear example of this way of reading is offered by the first Gospel.
In the first chapter Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus, tracing it back
to Abraham, the founding father of Israel. He gives a long list of names:
three times fourteen names. In this list the whole Old Testament passes
before our eyes. All important names are mentioned: the patriarchs
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; then Judah; later on Boaz (and Ruth), David
(and Bathsheba), Solomon, Hezekiah, and others. But this is only the
beginning. In the remaining part of the book too (especially in the first
two chapters), the Old Testament is repeatedly quoted. In 1:23 the
writer quotes Isaiah 7:14 as being fulfilled in the virgin birth. In 2:6,
Micah 5 is quoted as a prophecy of Bethlehem as the birthplace of the
Messiah. In 2:15 Hosea 11:1 is quoted: "Out of Egypt have I called my
son." This is a rather strange quotation, for Hosea clearly refers to the
original exodus from Egypt, while Matthew speaks of the return of the
child Jesus with his parents from Egypt. In 2:18 Rachel's weeping over
her children (Jer. 31:5) is applied to the children slaughtered at Bethlehem. The most difficult quotation is found in 2:23, where Jesus is
called a Nazarene, because he went and dwelt in Nazareth, which is
then seen as a fulfillment of "what was spoken by the prophets." But

SCHOLIA

305

nowhere in the prophets do we read that the Messiah will be a

Nazarene!7
Now these are only a few examples from thefirsttwo chapters of one
Gospel! The total number of quotations from the Old Testament in the
New Testament is amazingly great. H. Berkhof, using the marginal notes
of the Nestle edition of the Greek New Testament, has counted 613 "real"
quotations.8 If one adds the allusions, one comes to a total of 1,640. If one
takes into account all verses in which Old Testament language is used,
the total is 4,150! But this is only the formal side. The variety of ways in
which the Old Testament is used is even more staggering. Berkhof has
classified them under eight headings:
1. The Old Testament seen as the authority for our life with God
(e.g., Matt. 15:4; Rom. 12:20)
2. The Old Testament seen as a prophecy of the "eschaton" (e.g.,
Matt. 24 and the book of Revelation)
3. The Old Testament seen as a prophecy of the time of salvation,
which has arrived in Jesus Christ (e.g., Matt. 11:4-5; Luke 4:18-19)
4. The Old Testament seen as a prophecy of the Messiah Jesus (this
is the largest group of quotations, especially in Matthew and
John, but in other books as well)
5. The Old Testament seen as a prophecy of the dispensation of the
Holy Spirit (e.g., Acts 2:17ff.; Rom. 10:11,13; 15:9ff.)
6. The Old Testament seen as a prophetic description of the opposition to the gospel (e.g., Stephen in Acts 5; Matt. 12:33-34; Luke
11:50-51; 1 Cor. 10:6)
7. The Old Testament seen as a preparatory revelation (something
"greater than Solomon . . . greater than Jonah"Luke ll:29ff.;
Heb. 1:1-2 and throughout the whole letter, with references to
priests, sacrifices, etc.)
8. The Old Testament seen in contrast with the New Testament dis7
According to many commentators, this might be a reference to Isaiah 11:1, where the
Messiah is spoken of as a netzer (" shoot") out of the stem of Judah. Jerome already tells us
that he had learned this from Jewish Christians. Others have interpreted it as saying that
Jesus was to be called a Nazirite, one specially dedicated to the Lord by a vow. But this is
a wrong etymology and, in addition, we never read that Jesus was called a Nazarite. Lenski
offers another expleanation: Jesus was afterward called a "Nazarene" by his enemies,
indicating their contempt for him, and this (viz., the contempt) was indeed "what was
spoken by the prophets." Cf. John 1:46 and Acts 24:5.
8
Berkhof, "Hoe leest het Nieuwe Testament het Oude?" Homiletica en Biblica 221M (Dec.
1963): 242. See also volume 23, numbers 1 and 2 of Homiletica en Biblica.

306

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

pensation (Hagar-SarahGal. 4; letter and spirit2 Cor. 3; law

and graceRomans and Galatians)
The eight groups are simply eight different approaches to the Old
Testament that are neither contradictory nor conflicting but rather complementary. Together they offer the New Testament view and interpretation of the Old Testament. Some of these groups, such as 1,2,6,7, and 8,
are not really difficult. But these quotations constitute only a small
portion of the passages quoted in the New Testament. Most passages
belong to the groups 3, 4, and 5, of which 4 is the real center: the Old
Testament as a prophecy of the Messiah Jesus. In other words, we again
encounter the same central aspect that we already observed under the
first heading of this article. According to all New Testament writers, the
entire Old Testament points to the coming Messiah, and all these writers
believe that this prophetic aspect of the Old Testament has been fulfilled
in Jesus of Nazareth.
When we look more carefully at the Old Testament statements that
belong to group 4, we discover that they are of three kinds:
(a) Direct messianic prophecies (e.g., Deut. 18:15; Isa. 53:13-53:12; Jer.
31:31ff.; Mie. 5:2; Mal. 3:1; 4:5; Zech. 9:9)
(b) Typical or typological passages (e.g., Isa. 7:14; Ps. 2:7); this category
also comprises passages related to the following persons, matters,
and events: the creation of the world, the creation of the man and
the woman, Adam, the flood, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham and
the other patriarchs, the Passover, Moses, the passage through the
Red Sea, the establishment of the covenant, the brazen serpent, the
manna, the service of the tabernacle, the day of atonement, David,
Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, and Jonah9
(c) General statements that are applied to Jesus Christ and his history
(e.g., Hos. 11:1; Jer. 31:15-17; Ps. 80:8)
The question we now must ask is: Is it possible to discover certain
principles that are at work in these three categories of texts? We believe
that this is so. In the case of the direct messianic prophecies, one can speak
of the principle of identification: the New Testament writers believe that
Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah and therefore they apply all these
messianic prophecies to him. In the case of the typological passages one
has to do with the principle o prfiguration. The Old Testament history of

Cf. Berkhof, "Hoe leest het Nieuwe Testament het Oude?" 23/2, p. 27.

SCHOLIA

307

Israel is read as pointing forward to the coming Christ. In the case of the
general statements, the principle of representation is at work. As Israel's
Messiah, Jesus is the true representative of Israel as a whole and of the
individual Israelite believer. Actually these principles are essentially
identical! Categories (b) and (c) are only particular applications of (a). At
the same time, (b) is the reverse of (c), and vice versa. In the case of (b),
one takes one's starting point in the New Testament history of salvation,
looks back at Israel's history, and discovers a prfiguration of Messiah
Jesus. In the case of (c), one takes one's starting point in the Old Testament
people of God, looks forward and sees how all these statements come
true in Messiah Jesus, who is the true representative of his people. But in
both cases the real starting point is the belief expressed in (a): Jesus, the
man of Nazareth, is the God-given Messiah.
This way of reading the Old Testament does not violate its peculiar
character. Many Old Testament scholars have pointed out that the principle of prfiguration in particular is already present in the Old Testament itself. Especially in Germany this matter has been carefully and
extensively studied, and many scholars belonging to the historicalcritical school agree that one of the most characteristic features of the Old
Testament is the movement from promise to fulfillment For instance, Walter
Zimmerli has written, "When we survey the entire Old Testament, we
find ourselves involved in a great history of movement from promise
toward fulfillment. It flows like a large brookhere rushing swiftly,
there apparently coming to rest in a quiet backwater, and yet moving
forward as a whole toward a distant goal which lies beyond itself."10 He
then points to the great promise given to Abraham. The first great
fulfillment is only partial: the exodus itself becomes the foundation for
the expectation of a new and greater fulfillment. Indeed, we see how
throughout the entire Old Testament (and later on in the New Testament), the exodus plays an important role. One may fairly speak of an
"exodus typology" in the Old Testament itself. The Old Testament
prophets "came to shape their anticipation of the great eschatological
salvation through the Messiah according to the pattern of the historical
Exodus under Moses."11 In the New Testament this pattern is taken up
again, but now it is applied to the redemption brought about by Jesus
Christ. We find this pattern in particular in the letters of Paul (e.g., 1 Cor.

10

Zimmerli, " Promise and Fulfilment," in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics, trans.
James L. Mays (Richmond: John Knox, 1963), pp. 111-12.
11

E. Earle Ellis, Paul's Use of the Old Testament (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1957), p. 131.

308

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

5:7; 10:3-4; ll:25ff.; 2 Cor. 3:3) but in other New Testament writings as
well (e.g., Rev. 15:3).
AU this means that both the Old Testament and the New Testament
show us the following pattern:
A

A is the promise given to Abraham. is the first fulfillment in the exodus,

which becomes a new promise. C is the new fulfillment in the return from
the exile, but again there is still more to come. D is the great fulfillment in
the coming of Jesus Christ. But even now the final redemption is still
outstanding, and so the people of the New Covenant are eagerly looking
forward to E, the second coming of their Lord. That event will be the final
fulfillment. This entire pattern suggests that the Old Testament can be read
correctly only in the light of Jesus Christ: only in this light can we see the
full riches of God's one great work of redemption, prefigured in the Old
Testament history of salvation and fulfilled in Jesus, who is the Christ.
THE PLACE OF THE LAW

All this is of great significance for our understanding of the place and
function of the Old Testament law in the Christian church. We touch here
on a moot point. All through the ages the Christian church has wrestled
with this problem. The churches and the theologians alike have failed
always to come to the same conclusions. We see this, for instance, in the
Reformers. For Luther the law was a very important aspect of faith and
theology. His entire theology was dominated by the dialectical tension
between law and gospel.12 He once said, "He is a good theologian who
distinguishes well between Law and Gospel." For Luther the two main
functions of the law were the usus civilis and the usus paedagogicus or
elenchticus. Thefirstfunction is to hinder gross transgressions and crimes
in this world of sin and to preserve public peace. The second function is
that of the schoolmaster (cf. Gal. 3:24) who convicts the sinner of sinfulness
and unworthiness and brings him to the cross of Jesus Christ. Luther did
not deny that the law has still another function for the believernamely,
to reveal God's will,13 but this function received much less attention in

12
See my article "The Hermeneutics of the Reformers," Calvin Theological Journal 19
(1984): 121-52.
13

See Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schulz (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1966), pp. 266ff.

SCHOLIA

309

his theology and sermons, undoubtedly because from experience he

knew the temptation to trust in one's own works of righteousness. Calvin
fully recognized thefirsttwo functions of the law but put much emphasis
on the usus tertius or normativus. In the Institutes he writes,
The third and principle use... finds its place among believers
For
even though they have the law written and engraved upon their hearts
by the finger of God..., they still profit by the law in two ways.
Here is the best instrument for them to learn more thoroughly each
day the nature of the Lord's will. . . .
Again,... the servant of the Lord will also avail himself of this benefit
of the law: by frequent meditation upon it to be aroused to obedience,
be strengthened in it, and be drawn back from the slippery path of
transgression. (2.7.12)
In the next chapter he goes on to give a full "explanation of the moral
law (the Ten Commandments)."14 This emphasis on the third use of the
law also explains to a great extent why the Old Testament has played a
greater part in Reformed theology than in Lutheran theology.
Why is it so difficult to determine the place of the Old Testament law
in the Christian faith? As we can already observe in the New Testament,
there is a strange dialectical tension around the law. On the one hand, it
is acknowledged in both testaments that the law of Moses was given by
God. Concerning the Ten Commandments we read that God, with his
own finger, engraved them on the tables of stone (Exod. 31:18; 32:15;
Deut. 8:10). On the other hand, Christians also believe that the law has
been fulfilled in Jesus Christ and that in himin his life, death, and
resurrectiona new situation has arisen. His people are "no longer
under the law, but under grace" (Rom. 6:14). He himself spoke of new
wine that should not be put into old wineskins (Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22;
Luke 5:37-38). How are these two lines of thought to be reconciled?
In the Pauline letters we observe that the apostle struggled with this
problem throughout his entire Christian life. At times one even gets the
impression that he never really solved it! There are various lines in his
thinking. Sometimes he speaks very negatively about the law. At other
times he speaks rather positively. This different approach is determined
by the question of which function of the law he has in mind. In fact, I
believe there are three main lines of thought in Paul.

14

See also the full exposition of the Ten Commandments in the third part of the
Heidelberg Catechism, the part on "Gratitude."

310

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

1. The law is dismissed as a means of grace or of salvation. Even

though it remains true that the man who keeps the law will live by the
law (Gal. 3:12), no one can appeal to this rule anymore, because since the
fall all humans are sinners and therefore unable to keep the law. It is even
true that our sinful passions are aroused by the very same law (Rom. 7:5)
and that sin finds opportunity in the commandment (Rom. 6:8). Yes, the
very commandment that promised life proves to be death (Rom. 6:9).
2. Nevertheless, the law remains of great value to the believer, for it
is still the revelation of God's will. It has not become a useless scrap of
paper that can be thrown away. The Christian too must study and
meditate upon the law, for behind this law stands the Lord God, who in
it makes his will known to us. In the same chapter of Romans just quoted
we also read that the law is holy and the commandment is holy and just
and good (Rom. 7:12). In the next chapter we even read that God sent
his Son and condemned sin in the flesh in order that "the just requirement of the law" might be fulfilled in us who walk not according to the
flesh but according to the Spirit (8:4). And at another place he says that
what really matters is "keeping the commandments of God" (1 Cor.
7:19). Herman Ridderbos rightly concludes that "As norm for the will of
God and guide to life, the law is therefore unassailable and perfectly
trustworthy."15
3. Yet this does not mean that everything in the Old Testament law is
still binding on the Christian. For at this point we must take into account
what we discovered in the first section of this essaynamely, the fact of
the history of salvation. There are, as we have seen, different dispensations
in this history, and a later dispensation modifies an earlier one. The great
incision in this history of salvation is produced by Jesus Christ, his cross
and resurrection. For this reason Christians are no longer under the
Mosaic law but are under the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:21). Ridderbos
interprets this expression as follows: "Christ suo modo represents the law
of God and thus the law of Moses."16 On the one hand, this means that
Christ by his Spirit brings about a new bond to the law in the hearts of
believers whereby the law retains its force as the expression of the will
of God in the new dispensation (see 2 Cor. 3:3) and the believers serve
their Lord of their own free will and not by compulsion. On the other
hand, it also means that Christ now represents the new standard of

15
Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. John Richard DeWitt (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 134.
16
Ridderbos, Paul, p. 285.

SCHOLIA

311

judgment as to what "has had its day" in the law and what has abiding
validity (see Col. 2:17). It is striking that exactly here Ridderbos refers to
the passage in Colossians 2 in which Paul speaks about "questions of
food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath"
and then goes on to say that "these are only a shadow of what is to come;
but the substance belongs to Christ."
Still, the question lingers: How do we know what has had its day and
what has not? This is the difficult question that has vexed the church
throughout the ages. It may have been clear to Paul himself; at any rate
in passages such as Colossians 2:16-17 he dared to draw far-reaching
inferences. But the church has always had problems in finding its way
here. Several solutions have been proposed. A very old one involves the
distinction among three kinds of law (or three different aspects of the one
law): the civil, the ceremonial, and the moral law. The first two would no
longer be binding, while the third still is. Undoubtedly there is a great
deal of truth in this distinction, and in many ways it has been helpful. Yet
it is by no means a conclusive solution. The law of Moses itself does not
make this distinction, nor does the New Testament. Walter R. Martin
mentions a great number of passages from the New Testament in which
"the law" is quoted (Matt. 5:17-18; 7:12; 11:13; 12:5; 22:36; 23:23; Luke 2:22,
24, 27; 5:17; 10:26; 16:14-17; 24:44; John 1:45; 8:17; 10:34; 12:34; 15:2; 19:7)
and concludes that "a study of [these] passages . . . will convince the
reader that the law is one gigantic structure comprised of moral, ceremonial, civil, judicial and prophetic aspects, all of which were grouped
by Christ and the apostles under the heading of 'the law/ "17 In this one
law the various aspects are often intertwined. How then is one to make
a definite decision? This applies in particular to the ceremonial and moral
aspects. What is really purely ceremonial? This may not be too difficult
with regard to the sacrificial system, but how does one determine other
aspects of the law? Are the Old Testament feasts all purely ceremonial?
Is the Passover feast purely ceremonial? And what about the fourth
commandment? Roman Catholics and Protestants answer this question
one way Seventh Day Adventists another. How does one decide? Apparently this distinction is not self-evident or clear-cut.
In recent years a new solution has been proposed. In a report presented to the synod of the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands the
term "transformation" of the law is being used. The argument runs as

17

Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults: An Analysis of the Major Cult Systems in the Present
Christian Era (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965), p. 413 n. 86.

312

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

follows. Basically the Old Testament law is a large system of rules and
regulations, covering all aspects of Israel's life, and although it is true
that the Old Testament itself already indicates that these rules and
regulations can be fulfilled only in an attitude of love to God and the
neighbor (the so-called double commandment of love, which plays such
a prominent part in the teaching of Jesus, is a combination of two Old
Testament textsDeut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18), this does not alter the fact
that the clear teaching of the Old Testament is that all these various
commandments have to be kept to the letter. The coming of Jesus Christ,
however, brings a definite change. Now all these external rules and
regulations change places, so to speak, with the double commandment
of love (this is the "transformation"): the double commandment of love
is now the central and decisive imperative (cf. Matt. 22:34-40; Mark
12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28), and all the separate rules and regulations have
to be evaluated by the test of whether they communicate love and
freedom to people.
Again we must say that there is a great deal of truth in this approach.
The New Testament puts much emphasis on love. In fact, it clearly states
that love is determinative. The apostle Paul speaks for all when he
writes to the congregation in Rome, "Owe no one anything, except to
love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill,
You shall not steal, You shall not covet/ and any other commandment, are
summed up in this sentence, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself "
(Rom. 13:8-9, italics mine; cf. Gal. 5:14; James 2:8). It cannot be said more
clearly that the law as the expression of God's holy will is realized in its
deepest intention by love.18 But does this mean a "transformation" of
the law, as suggested by the Dutch report? In my opinion, the New
Testament emphasis on love never happens at the expense of the
commandments themselves (again, not "any other commandment" in
Rom. 13:9). At no place in the New Testament do we read of a reversal
of roles. In fact, at the end of the Romans 13 passage, Paul emphatically
states that "Love is the fulfilling of the law." "Fulfilling," yesbut also
"of the law"! The commandments are not abrogated in and by love;
rather, they come along and are realized in their beneficial intention by
love only.19

18
See A. F. N. Lekkerkerker, De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen, vol. 2 (Nijkerk: G. F.
Callenbach, 1971), p. 145.
19

See Lekkerkerker, De Brief van Paulus aan de Romeinen, p. 147.

SCHOLIA

313

Does this mean that there is no solution at all? It will be evident that
there is no easy solution. I believe that we can find our way in this
labyrinth only if we ask ourselves what really happened to the law in
and through the coming of Jesus Christ and the subsequent coming of
the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we can formulate it thus: Since the coming of
Christ and his Spirit the law no longer functions as a codex, a code of law,
a system of rules and regulations that are automatically and absolutely
binding and have to be kept to the letter. Rather, the law now functions
as a guide that shows us the way and gives us directions. But we
ourselves have to go that way and determine which steps have to be
taken.
I believe that this approach is in conformity with what Paul writes in
Galatians 3:23-26. Before Christ came, the believers to whom he wrote
were "under the law." Yes, they were "confined under the law, kept
under restraint until faith should be revealed." The law functioned as a
kind of "jail-keeper"20 who kept them in bondage. This was true of them
all, Jews and Gentiles alike, for the Gentiles too were subject to the law,
being not without knowledge of the law (see Rom. 2:14-16). In verse 24
a new image appears: the law was "our custodian until Christ came." A
custodian (paidagogos) was a slave who served less as a boy's teacher than
as his disciplinarian, restraining him from doing evil and telling him
exactly what he ought to do. The paidagogos is usually depicted in ancient
drawings with a cane or rod in his hand! So this second image reinforces
the first. Like the paidagogos, the law of Moses, with all its rules and
regulations, had the function of keeping the people from evil and instructing them in detail what they ought to do. This is as far as the law
can go. However good and holy it is in itself, it cannot set the people free,
since it cannot cure them of their sinfulness or offer them salvation. It
can only constrain them and enforce their obedience.
But when Christ comes, the situation changes completely. The believers are no longer under a custodian, "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons
of God, through faith" (italics mine). The same imagery appears in the
next chapter, 4:1-11. Again the apostle compares the believers with
children. They may be heirs, but as long as they are minors, they are no
better than slaves: they are "under guardians and trustees" until the date
set by the father. The same is true of the believers before Christ. Paul
says, "When we were children, we were slaves to the elemental spirits
of the universe" (3:3). The term "elemental spirits" is the RSV translation

Ridderbos, The Epistle to the Galatians, New London Commentaries (1976), p. 144.

314

CALVIN THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

of the Greek term stoicheia.21 In a footnote, the Oxford Annotated Bible

edition of the RSV adds, "A better translation is 'rudimentary notions of
the world,' referring to the elementary religious observances (w. 9-10;
Col. 2:8,20)." Ridderbos takes a similar line when he describes them as
"definite principles or axioms . . . according to which men live before
Christ, without finding redemption in them."22 In this sense the law of
Moses also belonged to the stoicheia. It prescribed in detail what the
Jewish "children" had to do, but it was unable to provide them with the
liberty of the children of God. But now God has sent forth his Son, who
was also "born under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons."
And because we are sons, we have received the Spirit of his Son too. Now
we are no longer children but have come of age and are responsible for
making our own decisions. This does not mean that believers are simply
left to their own devices. In a chapter on "the new obedience" in the
theology of Paul, Ridderbos reaches the conclusion that according to
Paul the Christian life of the believers is determined by four interrelated
coordinates: faith in Christ, guidance by the Spirit, personal inner renewal, and knowledge of the law.23 Within the parameters of these
coordinates, individual Christians and the Christian church as a whole
have to find their way.
But does this not mean that in the final analysis all is left to our human
considerations and decisions? Does this not unsettle everything and
lead to pure situation ethics? I do not believe that this is so. Allow me
to make two comments. The first I make by way of a question: Why are
we Christians so afraid of our Christian liberty? Why do we think that a
fixed code of law, with detailed and minute rules and regulations, is a
safer way to go than the road of liberty? The Old Testament is one long
proof that the path of the law does not really protect the believers and
their children. It usually leads either to legalism or rebellion. Certainly
the law itself is good and holy, and it has a restraining effect, but it was
and is powerless in the face of our inherent sinfulness (see Rom. 7). Only

21

In accord with this translation, John R. W. Stott has suggested that " What Paul means
is that the devil took this good thing (the law) and twisted it to his own evil purpose, in
order to enslave men and women. Just as during a child's minority his guardian may
ill-treat and even tyrannize him in ways which his father never intended, so the devil has
exploited God's good law, in order to tyrannize men in ways God never intended" (The
Message of the Galatians [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1968], p. 105).
22
22

Ridderbos, The Epistle to the Galatians, p. 153.

Ridderbos, Paul, p. 286.

SCHOLIA

315

in the presence of the Spirit of the Lord is there freedom (2 Cor. 3:17).
My second comment is that the way I have indicated is definitely not
the way of libertinism. On the contrary, the four coordinates I mentionedfaith in Christ, guidance by the Spirit, inner renewal, and
knowledge of the laware the best possible safeguards against every
kind of libertinism. When our footsteps are guided by these coordinates,
we may be sure that we will find the way to the future. In the everchanging situations of life and history, these coordinates will surely
show us which direction we have to take. At times this direction may
be a surprise to us. Rest assured that the decision of the Conference of
Jerusalem described in Acts 15 surprised all present. Most of them were
Jews, nurtured in deep respect for the law of Moses. Yet they all agreed
with Peter when he said, "Why do you make trial of God by putting a
yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we
have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through
the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (15:10-11). And a little later
they also agreed with James, who suggested that the Gentile believers
should abstain only from the pollutions of idols, from unchastity, from
what is strangled, and from blood (15:20). In the letter that they sent to
the churches, they even dared to say, "It has seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and tous..." (15:28)! Undoubtedly this was the most momentous
decision ever reached by any ecclesiastical meeting! This gathering,
most likely consisting of Jews only, made the decision to free the Gentile
believers from the burden of the law of Moses, the law given by God
himself! This apparently is the way of Christian liberty. It is not an
autonomous and self-willed way; it is determined by the coordinates
mentioned before. In fact, they are all mentioned in this chapter: faith
in Christ (v. 11), guidance by the Spirit (vv. 8, 28), inner renewal (v. 9),
and knowledge of the law (vv. 20-21).
This same "coordinate system," I believe, also explains why the
Christian church of the first centuries not only felt at liberty to change
the day of worship from the Sabbath to the first day of the week but
actually felt compelled to do so. It believed that in Jesus Christ a new
dispensation had arrived. The eschatological "rest" of which the Sabbath
spoke is no longer a matter of the future only; in the cross and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are assured that the katapausis (Heb. 4) has already
started proleptically. This belief led the early church to celebrate the day
of his resurrection as "the day of the Lord" (Rev. 1:10; cf. 1 Cor. 16:2; Acts
20:7). This was not a mistake, still less the beginning of the apostasy of
the Christian church. Rather, it was the result of the reading of the law
in the light of Christ, under the guidance of his Spirit.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.