The Law in the Gospel

020

Martin Luther taught that the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—consists of two sorts of writings: law and gospel. He regarded as gospel the parts of the Bible that were directly conducive to salvation. The rest he regarded as law, as an unnecessary burden and an obstacle to salvation.

Luther found law and gospel intermixed in both the Old and New Testaments: In the Old Testament, Genesis was gospel because Abraham was saved by his faith, but books such as Esther were merely law. In the New Testament, the letters of Paul were gospel, but the letter of James was an “epistle of straw.”¹ This contrast between law and gospel is akin to Paul’s distinction between works and faith. Only the latter is essential to salvation.

The denegration of law in the biblical writings runs deep in modern culture. But a curious document from the Dead Sea Scrolls has recently made us reconsider the nature of law—and particularly the debates about the proper interpretation of the law—in the centuries just before and after Jesus. This document is the famous Halakhic Letter (from the Hebrew word halakhah, which means “law” or “legal interpretation”). Qumran scholars also call it MMT, an abbreviation for Miqsat Ma‘ase Ha-Torah, “Some Precepts of the Torah.”² This document, apparently addressed by a leader of the Essene community to a religious authority in Jerusalem, contends that the dominant halakhah of the Pharisees was incorrect and that the Essene halakhah was certain and true. The author of the letter writes, “We have sent you some precepts of the Torah, according to our understanding, for your good and the good of your people.”³

The several manuscripts of MMT date from the first century B.C.E. to the first century C.E. The editors argue that its origin is probably the mid-second century B.C.E., during the early years of the Essene movement. These dates deliver a devastating blow to the long-held view that this kind of legal debate occurs only in classical rabbinic Judaism, after the fall of the Temple in 70 C.E. The Mishnah (compiled around 200 C.E.) and the Talmud (compiled around 600 C.E.) are monuments to this sort of halakhic disputation. But we had no idea that Jews of the second and first centuries B.C.E. were already participating in this kind of religious discourse.

Moreover, MMT shows us that halakhic argument was precisely the manner in which the Essenes carried on theological debate with their opponents. They are not arguing about predestination or the resurrection of the dead, they are arguing about the proper interpretation and implementation of the law. These differences in legal interpretation involve such seemingly arcane matters as the purity of animal bones, the ownership of tithes and the question of whether impurity can be transmitted upstream. The centrality of these debates indicates that in this period religious differences were expressed by the participants as differences about halakhah. To put it differently, debate about the proper interpretation of the law was the vehicle or idiom for theological dispute. If you followed the right interpretation of the law, the correct beliefs and practices would fall into place as part of the package.

How does all this affect our understanding of the relationship between law and gospel (using Luther’s terms) in the religious writings of this period? We begin to see that the law, correctly understood, is an essential precondition for the gospel. When we look again at the New Testament from this perspective, it becomes clear that the major voices, particularly Jesus and Paul, are deeply engaged in halakhic disputes. It can even be said that the idiom of halakhic interpretation is basic to their theological discourse. In other words, the gospel is expressed through discussions about the law.

The prime example is, of course, the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus says, “You have heard it said…but I say to you…” This is a classic halakhic formulation, very similar to the repeated formula, “we say…,” in MMT.⁴ Jesus is advocating a new interpretation of some precepts of the Torah, according to his understanding, for the good of the people. Jesus and the author of MMT would no doubt have disagreed on the right interpretation of the law, but they were participating in the same kind of discourse and would have understood the importance of what was at stake. The right understanding of the precepts of the Torah was a precondition for salvation, for entry into the kingdom of God.

Whether the halakhic issue be the purity laws of the Sabbath, the laws of divorce, tithes and taxes, or the meaning of the law to “love thy neighbor,” the idiom of halakhic dispute runs like a golden thread through the discourses of Jesus in the New Testament. When Paul argues about the necessity of circumcision, or even about the curse of the law, he too is engaged in halakhic dispute. He speaks in the language of his time. In late Second Temple Judaism, the idiom of choice was halakhic interpretation and argument. The law is in the gospel, Martin, and the gospel is in the law.

Martin Luther taught that the Bible—both Old and New Testaments—consists of two sorts of writings: law and gospel. He regarded as gospel the parts of the Bible that were directly conducive to salvation. The rest he regarded as law, as an unnecessary burden and an obstacle to salvation. Luther found law and gospel intermixed in both the Old and New Testaments: In the Old Testament, Genesis was gospel because Abraham was saved by his faith, but books such as Esther were merely law. In the New Testament, the letters of Paul were gospel, but the letter of James was […]