Old Testament Law

Old Testament Law

Humans are lawmakers. We all have reams of regulations stored in our heads. We think highly of our own rules and are scornful of rules that contradict them. We get angry at people who break our rules, even when they have no idea what those rules might be. Bertrand Russell and Christopher Hitchens, both famous atheists, objected to religion on moral grounds. Cultural “progressives” are not anarchists; they are the legalists of the 21st century.

Our rule-making tendencies are, in many ways, harmful, but the inclination to make rules is evidence of our being made in the image of God. There is something about being human that recognizes the need for right behavior. The need is intuitive, but defining right behavior well is much more difficult, and it is controversial. For Christians, understanding right behavior means grappling with biblical law. 

For those who have studied the Bible, it has become obvious that the “Law” has various meanings, and those meanings need to be assigned correctly. The different perspectives can mix and muddle one another, which means there is a job of un-mixing and un-muddling them. 

One perspective is that the Law works as a means of condemnation: it exists as a standard that is too difficult for humans to meet. Metaphorically, the Law encourages us to train as long-jumpers, and then it presents the jump as the Grand Canyon. However severe and disciplined our training, however naturally springy we may be, the result of our efforts will be a shortfall that leads to a long fall. The flip side of this observation, explained primarily in the New Testament, is that the Law helps us recognize our moral insufficiency and, so, drives us to the Savior. We come to understand that Jesus must pick us up and fly us to the other side. This is a source of great relief, since we learn that our salvation is not dependent on our performance but is dependent on the Almighty God himself.  

Another New Testament perspective on Law has to do with Phariseeism. Jewish religious leaders grew obsessed with the secondary standards they had deduced from Old Testament Law. Much of their casuistry was self-serving, but the more pernicious effect of their expanded law was that it morphed into a kind of idol. The religious leaders came to love their system of laws so much that it came between God and themselves. Consequently, God became a stranger to them. 

But the Law is not always looked at negatively in the Bible. What great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today? – Deuteronomy 4.8. Psalm 119 is made up of 176 verses of non-stop praise for the benefits of the Law. Perhaps verse 105 is the most well known: Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path. 

Returning to the the New Testament, we read a pivotal, and yet controversial, proclamation by Jesus about the Law. Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. – Matthew 5.17-18.Jesus’ use of the phrase, “Law or Prophets,” makes it fairly clear that he had the entire Old Testament in mind.

The troublesome word in this passage is “fulfill”. It is the source of much debate. But I believe there are two ideas Jesus is conveying. The first sense of “fulfillment” is that he has come to obey the Law. The human race has failed to obey the Law, but the God/man Jesus can obey and does. The second understanding is related to movement in the Kingdom of God. The Old Testament has been a progressive revelation and it is filled with future references, i.e., prophecies. Jesus claims to be the One to whom those prophecies pointed. Being the embodied fulfillment of Old Testament narrative, he claims the final authority over God’s progressive revelation. He has the final word on the Law. It is no accident that this quote is embedded in the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus expounds at length about how we should understand God’s Law. So Jesus’ statement is powerful in its inclusion of the Old Testament, even as it is also a statement that he has clarifications to make and that we must pay attention to them. 

But, just so we don’t get everything sorted out too easily, let’s pull into the mix statements about the Law made by the Apostle Paul. Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. – Romans 6.14. The law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, – Galatians 3.24,25. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. – 1 Corinthians 9.20,21. All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful. – 1 Corinthians 6.12. So, this seems to be a problem. Jesus says the Old Testament Law remains in full force, though fulfilled, while the Apostle Paul says we are no longer bound by the Law.

Christian scholars have long relied on an interpretive tool that seems designed to address the tricky nuts and bolts of this Law conundrum. The tool is what I will call “the Law Splitter”. It is described in the Westminster Confession, but it draws on theological statements from Aquinas, Augustine, and even earlier Church fathers. In short, it divides Old Testament Law into three parts: Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil. An official quote from the Orthodox Presbyterian denomination puts it this way: “Traditionally, Reformed theology has taught that the Old Covenant law has three aspects to it: ceremonial, moral, and civil. Of course, all aspects of the Old Covenant law are fulfilled in Christ, but two of the three aspects are also abolished with the fulfillment, while one aspect carries over into the New Covenant. That is, the ceremonial laws and the civil laws are fulfilled by Christ and abolished.”

Law Splitter formula in hand, the statement by Jesus comes to mean something like: “We must keep the entire Law, by which I mean all the Moral Law, as clarified by my teachings and the teachings of my disciples.” Paul’s statements within the Law-splitting formula are understood in this manner: “The Ceremonial and Civil Laws are no longer binding. Additionally, salvation is no longer dependent on our obedience to the Law, because Christ met those requirements for us. We must only have faith in him. However, we remain bound by the Law of Love, as Jesus summarized.” I’m pretty sure that if you asked 50 Evangelical theologians to interpret Jesus and Paul via the Law Splitting formula, you would get 20 or more significantly different explanations. (It would be an interesting exercise.) So, take my explanation with a grain of salt. At any rate, the Law-splitting formula seems to provide a means for making Jesus and Paul’s statements complementary. But does this formula really help us, or does it stand in the way of our appreciating O.T. Law? 

Problems with the Law-splitting formula

1. Jesus’ Adamant Retention of the Law

Jesus insisted that heaven and earth would pass away before one “jot or tittle” (as it is translated in the King James version) is removed from the Law. To Interpret that Jesus’ statement was only in reference to the Moral Law stands in sharp contrast to his words. To get from “Not the smallest mark shall be removed,” to “Everything but the Moral Law shall be removed,” is, well, contradictory.   

One might argue that Jesus meant for the entire Law to remain in the canon but that the Civil and Ceremonial portions were to be retained only for historical reference. But it’s more than strange that he would be adamant for the sake of historians while, simultaneously meaning the certain laws would be irrelevant to the Church, at large. This variant still runs counter to the tenor and words Jesus spoke. What we must grapple with is how he meant what he said, not how he didn’t mean what he said.

2. Jewish Perception 

There is something fantastical about the Law-splitting formula. The Jewish people did not understand that the Law was made up of three divisions. Neither did Moses or David or John the Baptist or Jesus. They saw the Law as a whole. They referred to it as one entity. They saw it as God’s guidance, God’s requirement, and as God’s gift. We don’t see this division in Paul’s thinking, either. Paul does consider the Law in terms of letter and Spirit: But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code. – Romans 7.6. But Paul does not dismiss portions of the Law. He says we are free from the letter of the Law and, yet, we remain under its Spirit. We can search Scriptures high and low but will never find references to Law divisions.

3. Division Lines

The Law-splitting formula creates a problem for itself with respect to where the lines are to be drawn. Which laws are Moral, which are Ceremonial; which are Civil? Let’s start with the Big Ten, otherwise known as the Ten Commandments. There clearly is something special about the Ten Commandments, since they were written in stone. Of course, the tablets have long been lost to us, which kind of pulls the legs out from under that proverb. Is there something qualitatively different about the Big Ten from the remainder of the law? Maybe the difference is more about space limitations and the weight Moses could carry. Maybe if Moses had been in his forties instead of his eighties we would have been given the Big Twelve. Later, Jesus insisted that there is really only a Big Two.

What does “moral” mean, anyway? The Oxford dictionary says: “concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.” That’s a little vague. I think we, as Christians, would do best to define “moral” on the basis of the Big Two. We might also want to make sure that “love” is understood as both an attitude and as favorable actions. From this perspective we can see how the Ten Commandments are moral. The final six laws focus on how people treat one another. The first three have more of a God focus, while the fourth seems to lean in both directions.

Probing the question about morality, we can see that our behavior toward God does impact other people. If we build idols, others are taught that this is right behavior and are tempted to do the same. The same goes for taking the Lord’s name in vain. When we disparage God, people learn to distrust him, to their harm. When we honor him, people are inclined to look at him more closely, which is to their benefit. When we look at the Ten Commandments closely, we see there is something about loving God and loving our neighbors as ourselves in each one of them.

But what about the laws that don’t make the Big Ten? Are some of them moral? Is there something moral about the Year of Jubilee regulation? Is there something moral about the requirement to tithe? Is there something moral about observing Passover? When it comes down to it, are there any laws in the Old Testament that do not address moral concerns? Laws inherently are about telling people what they should or should not do. Every time we talk about “oughts” we are talking about morality. Admittedly, there are all sorts of “oughts” in our world that ought not to be. But we can we say that about the God-given Old Testament? Houston, we have a problem here.

Not only is it not possible to identify non-moral laws in the Old Testament, it is not possible to separate the laws from our relationship with God: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. – Deuteronomy 6.4-6.

4. What Is Done With Ceremonial and Civil Laws?

Let us assume for a moment that we can discover a principle that enables us to accurately Law-split, does that mean that the Ceremonial and Civil laws are to be cast into Gehenna? Do we understand them as once having a purpose for Israel but that they are now old wine skins?

It ought to make us a little uncomfortable to concede that large portions of the O.T. are mere historical artifacts. Isn’t it possible that there is intent in those laws that bear implications for us today? Isn’t it likely?

Interpretative Examples

1. Dietary Restrictions

The O.T. Law includes many dietary rules that we dismiss. Well, check that; it is not exactly true that we have dismissed them. The Apostle Peter had a vision, as recorded in Acts 10. In the vision Peter was commanded to eat all sorts of unclean foods. Peter was perplexed. The vision was contrary to what he had been taught. He did not understand what the vision meant. Peter received an explanation very quickly through interactions with the God-fearing centurion, Cornelius. As Peter put it, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.” – Acts 10.28. Not long after this speech Peter and his fellow Jews were amazed to witness the Holy Spirit falling upon all who accepted the truth of the Gospel. Peter responded by commanding that those gentiles who had received the Spirit be baptized. 

The passage in Acts reveals that the central intent of the dietary laws had to do with the Jewish people maintaining needed boundaries. There were many practices of distinction, repeatedly reminding God’s people of the importance of those boundaries. The point was not that good Israelites ought to be insular and unfriendly; the point was that the surrounding nations were seductively wicked. Symbolic barriers helped protect the Israelites from falling into the destructive, dehumanizing practices common to those pagans. The dietary laws, while apparently Civil (I suppose), were very much moral in their intent.

I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify themin the truth; your word is truth. – John 17.14-17. God made it clear to Peter that Christians are no longer to concern themselves with the dietary laws, per se. But Jesus reminds us that the meaning of those laws remains. We are to be a a holy people, unmoved by the pursuits and idols that motivate the godless.

So, when it comes to the dietary laws and their cousins, the laws about dress and beards, etc., we can infer that Christ’s fulfillment signifies a strong disconnect from the outward signs. We understand this disconnect because of the clarifying revelation given to Peter. But the fulfillment retains the Spiritual implications of those signs.  

2. Animal Sacrifices

The main purpose of the sacrifices was to provide substitutes to pay the penalty for sins. God condemned the human race when its representatives, Adam & Eve, failed to trust Him. But God instituted the sacrificial system as a remedy. The very bloodiness of the system was a reference to the real effects of sin in the world. The system also revealed God’s interest in bridging the gap between an unholy people and his holy Self. It did not solve the problem of the curse, though. In one sense it served as a constant reminder of the curse. At the same time, God’s bridge-making effort offered hope for a better solution. Indeed, he promised the Messiah and, as we have come to understand, the Messiah became the perfect sacrifice for sin and, rising from the dead, conquered death for all who trust in him. 

So when we look back on the sacrificial system, do we see a bloody, barbaric system that we are gladly rid of? Yes, but we must see more than this. We must remember that we are no better than the Israelites and that our sins continue to result in bloody damage on the earth. Wars, racial animosity, political animosity, religious animosity, cultural animosity, gender animosity, gender confusion, human identity confusion, murder, theft, social apathy, relational break-down, familial break-down, injustice, waste—all these and more are the fruits of sin. We ought to be horrified over what we as individuals and we as the human race are doing. 

We need to be conscious of the ongoing efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice. The sacrificial system has not completely ended yet—Jesus’ sacrifice covers our past sins, present sins, and future sins. We must remember that our sin problem was so great that Jesus had to die to address it. Having our sins paid for is a huge part of the solution. Our response to this work of Christ is, first of all, deep gratitude for being relieved of the system of sacrificing animals. More profoundly, it is gratitude for deliverance from the guilt of sin. More profoundly still, it is gratitude for deliverance from due punishment. More profoundly still, Christ’s sacrifice is the necessary groundwork for God to complete his work of transformation in each Christian’s heart.  

With respect to the sacrificial system, Christ’s fulfillment delivers us fully from the activity of sacrificing animals. But we remain bound to the Spirit of the Law, that is, the meaning of the sacrificial system. We can argue that the animal sacrifices were Ceremonial but, in the final analysis, they were requirements that pointed a sharp finger at the moral failures of God’s people. They made clear what remains true today: that moral failure is incompatible with the Kingdom of God. 

3. Unlawful Sexual Relations

The next examples I will consider are found in Leviticus 18. Most of the activity forbidden in this chapter has to do with incest. Interestingly, conservative and “progressive” elements in our society still tend to agree about the inappropriateness of incest. But in a world of untethered moral principles, do not be surprised if we see divergence on this question soon. Chapter 18 also addresses a few other issues. It mentions that we are not to offer our children to Molech (v.21); it forbids homosexual activity (v.22); and it forbids bestiality (v.23).

My assumption is that Law-splitting adherents would want to identify the laws in this chapter as Moral. But it is an assumption, and this raises the issue of the lines problem. Law-splitting creates the opportunity for some to argue that the substance of chapter 18 is not Moral, but Civil…or maybe even Ceremonial. “These laws are no more relevant than the laws that forbid the trimming of beards. They have been fulfilled by Christ. Maybe not all the behaviors in Leviticus 18 are beneficial but, still, in Christ I am free to practice them in accordance with my conscience. Homosexuality provides love for those who would otherwise be denied it. While forced incest is wrong, and we can see how incest is genetically problematic, a little protected recreational incest shouldn’t bother anyone. Besides, if an accidental pregnancy should take place, abortion is always an option. Who wants an unwanted child? Who wants to be an unwanted child? Abortion is all about mercy. In fact, abortion is the moral thing to do.” 

I certainly do not blame homosexuality, bestiality and abortion on Law-splitting. All I’m suggesting is that Law-splitting is inherently weak as a means of determining how to understand the laws of the Old Testament. Law-splitting is an open door for the dismissal of any unpopular law. Identify any law as something Civil or Ceremonial and it immediately loses its present relevance.   

How should we approach these verses, then? What is the Spirit of the Law when it comes to sexual relations? A key reference is Jesus’ response to the question about divorce. In the Sermon On the Mount he essentially said, “Don’t do it.” There are other N.T. passages that provide some wiggle room on the question of divorce, though. Sexual unfaithfulness is the primary grounds that allows for it. Most conservative Christians also recognize harsh abuse, physical and/or psychological, as grounds. I would include abandonment, on the basis that it, along with the other two, amount to de facto divorce.

But, to reiterate, Jesus was strongly opposed to divorce. He was clear that the threat of divorce was not to be used as a means of spousal control. He was clear that we ought not to be looking for ways to get out of our marriages. He was clear that we ought to be working to make our marriages functional and happy. The fact that marriage can be challenging is obvious to anyone who has actually been married. But Jesus didn’t come to give us ease; he came to give us abundant life. Good results often come through hardship. The Christian life is, in part, refinement through fire. We will not like the fire but the joy of being refined is everlasting.  

He redirects the discussions about divorce back to God’s original design. Men and women were intended from the beginning to cleave together and become one flesh. It’s a pregnant phrase, and one of its implications is pregnancy. God commanded Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply. This doesn’t mean that all people must get married and have kids. Jesus didn’t get married and he didn’t have kids. But it is clear that sex is an intended element of marriage between a man and a woman. Sexual activity is for the blessing of the marriage relationship, and sexual activity is for procreation. Children should be the fruit of marriages. No guilt is due anyone who for medical reasons is unable to bear children but, it appears that choosing to marry and choosing to not have children is a failure to understand the meaning of marriage. 

However pleasurable it can be, sexual activity was never meant to be strictly for the sake of pleasure. Neither was it meant to be a combo of pleasure and relational bonding. It was meant for more. Homosexuality does not produce children. Jesus cursed a fig tree because it did not bear figs. Homosexuality is counterfeit marriage. 

What is there to say about a person who will engage in sex with an animal? Perhaps doing so is a kind of desperation (brought on by an idolatrous fixation with sex itself). Perhaps it is due to a deep self-image problem. It is a person who is losing touch with what it means to be a human. It is a person who has lost touch with the concept of being made in God’s image. Or, perhaps, the reference in Leviticus is to some sort of religious ritual performed in Canaan. Apparently the God, Baal, had intercourse with cows. What gods do, their worshippers will also do. Sexual behavior strongly influences how we live out our lives. Bestiality leads a person to view other humans as animals. Once humans are animals there’s very little that humans won’t feel free to do to them. 

I don’t think it was an arbitrary decision to place child sacrifice in this chapter on sexual practices. “Free love” has a way of producing unwanted children (along with a host of other problems), proving that “free love” is an oxymoron. Our enlightened society continues to fight for “free love” and the right to terminate the young (those without voices, or votes). It turns out that it’s very difficult to practice “free love” without the abortion option. Sex that does not align with God’s design for marriage has a way of devolving into murder. 

This is where we must consider how these laws are no longer in force, as far as the letter is concerned, even as they remain in force as far as the Spirit is concerned. Their limitation is that they do not express the intent of the Spirit; they only present examples of failure to comply with the intent. Incest, homosexuality, bestiality, and child-murder are to be avoided, but the real issue has to do with what we are to embrace. 

Sex is fundamentally about strengthening committed relationships (marriage) and generating life. The greatest gift God gives us is life itself. As we image our Creator, life is also the greatest gift we can give. Of course, we can’t actually create life, as the process of life is a miracle that God has established. But he has made us participants in the process. And, of course, bringing a child into the world is only the beginning of the project of loving the child. Being a parent is a privilege that lasts a lifetime. If you are a Christian, a lifetime is a long, long time. 

But we must look at these laws about sexual behavior and sacrificing children to Molech (aborting them), differently than we look at, say, the sacrificial system. With the sacrificial system, we have moved on to a more glorious system. When it comes to sexual behavior and care of our children, the particular laws of Leviticus 18, while they do not fully represent the proper use of sexuality, they are limiters that remain true. They are warnings. Participating in any of them is to stray from the path of the Spirit. Participating in any of them is to cause damage rather than to love ourselves, our neighbor, and our God. We know this is true because we can see the damage. We know this is true because they are actions contrary to God’s original design for humanity. 

4. More On Divorce

God forbids divorce and we need to take the command seriously. It’s a stark boundary marker given for our good, but heeding the boundary marker alone rather misses the point. Obeying the letter of the Law, alone, is of no benefit. It is possible to not divorce your spouse while maintaining a marriage that is a house of horrors. One can stay in a marriage while praying every day that God will provide delivery. We don’t marry for the sake of not getting divorced.

We marry for the joy of it; for the pleasure of it; for the sake of good company; for the sake of love; for the happiness of being wanted; for the sake of children; for the sake of extended family ties; for the sake of mutual care and support; for the sake of having someone who will help us through hard times; for the sake of having someone who will help us love and understand God; and for the sake of a committed relationship, superior in many ways to any other relationship on earth. When Jesus used the metaphor of the Church being his bride, all these sakes explain what he was talking about. The breaking of commitment pretty much scuttles the list of sakes. Thinking through all this helps us to understand the point of the command. The Spirit of the Law about divorce is found in a full understanding and commitment to the precious gift of marriage.

There’s another portion of the Spirit that comes into play here, as well. There will be times when a marriage does not seem to be providing for any of the above. Or, at least, it may seem that some aspects of the marriage are so awful that they overwhelm the positive aspects. What do you do when the blessings of marriage seems to be lost or locked up somewhere where they can’t be recovered? It is at these times when the Spirit of the Law is clarified and strengthened by the letter.

Many of our roads and highways are bordered with what are called, “sleeper lines”. I will call them “rumble strips”. Roads, especially highways, typically are bordered with painted lines, as well. The need for keeping a car centered in its lane is self-evident, and the painted lines serve as guides for that purpose. But sometimes we get to enjoying the scenery a bit too much. Sometimes we literally fall asleep at the wheel. At these times the rumble strips are our friends. When we fail to notice that we’re drifting off the road, the rumble strips vibrate our cars, making a hard-to-ignore budda-budda-budda sound that shakes us back to reality. The letter of the Law is rumble strips. The object of driving is not the avoidance of rumble strips. In fact, we are free to drive on them if we like. But, as Paul said, “All things are permissible to me, but not all things are beneficial”. The rumble strips remind us that we’re not in the center of the road—the place where we are much safer, and where the vehicle rides more efficiently. 

Sometimes we obey God simply because God said so. I don’t think this is how God wants us to appreciate his laws, generally, but trusting God is the fundamental reason we obey his laws in the first place. Trusting him is more important than understanding everything he says. Sometimes we must obey in order to understand. And sometimes it takes a good long time of trusting before understanding finally shows up. 

Some say the Fall happened because of human pride. Much more pertinent, I believe, is that Adam and Eve failed to trust God. They trusted the serpent they were supposed to be ruling over. It is no coincidence that salvation is given to those who believe. What are we supposed to believe? That God is all-powerful, full of wisdom, and full of goodness. He is the Way to life. He is for us. He is always worthy of our trust. 

Why is the summary of the Law that we should love Him and love our neighbors as ourselves? It is because God is love. We follow his laws of love because he first loved us. How on this earth do we love God? We obey his commandments. Obedience, on our parts, is the expression of trust. It is not the Law that we follow—it is God. 

So obeying the command to not divorce, according to the Spirit of the Law, includes following the letter, as long as the marriage has not already been destroyed. This will be a struggle for those who are miserable in their marriages, but the command demands the struggle. Loving the unlovely and the ungrateful is what God does. Loving the unworthy and making them into something of great worth is what God does. Commitment to marriage, come hell or high water, is what God does.

5. Sabbath Day Observance

Here’s a fun subject on which we can all disagree. Those who subscribe to the Law-splitting formula generally assign Sabbath Day observance to the Moral category because it is included in the Ten Commandments. There was a time in our country’s history when the vast majority of people saw Sabbath Day observance as a moral imperative. Thus, the blue laws. But because of pluralism and increasing secularism, blue laws are now either off the books or are simply ignored. Christian practice has tended to follow the cultural drift.   

While many Evangelicals continue to consider Sabbath Day observance as part of the Moral Law, practice has evolved into a kind of moral/spiritual hybrid. We no longer observe the Sabbath on Saturday (the last day of the week); instead, it is observed on Sunday (the first day of the week). There are two common arguments for this change. The first is that Jesus rose on the first day of the week. It’s obvious why Christians would want to celebrate that. You might say the resurrection celebration trumped the rest celebration. The second argument is that God’s Sabbath requirement can be met by resting every seven days. There’s nothing magical about the seventh day—the point of resting comes about through the cycle of days. This is what you might call Law, adjusted by the Spirit, or, having your cake and eating it, too.

Regarding the first argument, while it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate the first day of the week, doing so is not grounds for moving the Sabbath. The Word contains commandments about Sabbath Day observance; it contains no commands about Resurrection Day observance. As to the second argument, a command to rest on the seventh day is different from a command to rest every seven days. When manna was collected in the wilderness, there was no option clause that allowed individuals to shift their collection cycles. More fundamentally, God rested after he created the universe. The Law-splitting formula simply fails to justify current Sabbath Day practices. And since Sabbath Day observance is included in the Big 10 and is, therefore, a Moral law, it’s clear the Christian church is practicing serious sin every Saturday.

Thankfully, we are not bound to the Law-Splitting formula. Jesus cleared up the matter  of Sabbath Day observance considerably when he proclaimed that man wasn’t made for the Sabbath but that the Sabbath was made for man. The Sabbath is a gift from God. He gives it to us as a day of rest (restoration). How can we rest? One obvious answer: catch up on needed sleep. Take a nap. But resting from the madness of our world is also a good idea. We need mental rest. Not attending to the news is a good plan. If you love the Sunday paper, read it on Monday. Getting out in nature is helpful. There is something restorative in breathing fresh air, watching birds, listening to the leaves rustle and the splashing of water over rocks. Take time to be with loved ones. Assemble with the Church. It is good to be able to talk freely with others about the Christian life. It is good to be in the presence of God in a special way, brought about by the assembled saints. It is good to be refreshed by the Good News that we study together. Even a little tough preaching is restful if it can help us to better manage our lives. God’t truth always brings good health. 

The second important aspect of celebrating the Sabbath according to the Spirit is to receive with joy the reminder that God takes care of us. The World lives in fear of not having enough. God says we don’t have to work ourselves to the bone. We need to be more concerned about being human than about obtaining stuff, power, status, and earthly security. God says, “I will provide for your needs. I had you from before your conception; I have you now; I will have you long after your last day on this earth. Let your heart be at ease. I am the Lord. I am the Master of all creation. To quote the great theologian, Aaron Rodgers, “Relax”. Rest.

Does it matter whether the Sabbath is on Saturday or Sunday? I don’t think so, but I only feel free to say this when I consider the Law on the basis of the Spirit. 

Is it important that the Sabbath be observed every seven days? I’m not certain, but there are some reasons to think so. First of all, God rested after six days of creation. Our rest after six days of work reminds us that we are created in his image. There is always something beneficial in being like him. Paradoxically, the need for a Sabbath rest reminds us of our humanity. We are created beings with clear limitations. Every night our bodies tell us to go to sleep. We may argue with our bodies and we may push our bodies to do things they don’t want to do, but eventually our bodies win the arguments. There are clear rhythms in creation, such as the seasons and the days. In a way, the week seems like an arbitrary subdivision of the calendar, but God’s command to rest on the seventh day suggests otherwise. And finally, there is the practical aspect of establishing a time for God’s people to assemble. It’s easy to will ourselves into certain behaviors for a little while. Possessing a routine time for assembly with the saints is a blessing. I may not always feel like assembling with the saints. I may often feel like I would rather be doing my own thing. But God tells us that we need each other. The reasons are many. Our secular society looks at Christians assembling and says, “What a drag on time and resources”. But if we look at what they are doing instead, it becomes clear that the regular assembly with the saints is one way that God gives us strength.  

It seems that I’m arguing that we should continue Sabbath Day observance pretty much as we already do. Yes, but I am also saying that we can be at peace in our current practice when we understand what we do as acting according to the Spirit of the Law rather than the letter. It’s also very different to think of Sabbath Day observance as a regulation we must follow vs. a privilege God bestows on us.

6. A Goat & its Mother’s Milk

You must not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk. – Exodus 23.19. Is this Law Moral, Ceremonial, or is it Civil? If it’s Ceremonial or Civil we are free to forget about it. If it is Moral, well, we’re in pretty good shape there, too, because eating goats is rare in our country. Using goat’s milk to cook is probably even more rare. This is an ideal law, due to its irrelevance. Gotta love this kind of law. We can be good without trying. 

But what if we are actually bound to the Spirit of this law? What is this law getting at? The young goat is dead. The young goat is not concerned about what liquid it may be boiled in. And can the mother really distinguish between her milk and the milk of other goats? Or, for that matter, camel’s milk? Can she really tell that the butchered kid in the pot is hers? And, who let her in the kitchen, anyway?

If there is something to this law, and that is my contention, I think it is trying to get at human attitudes and treatments of animals. The context here is is a little puzzling, given that the law does not forbid eating goats, which itself seems a little insensitive. But, since this law does not address the question of eating animals, I will not discuss it further here. Except to quote this interesting passage: Creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. – Romans 8.21,22. 

Speaking of interesting passages, Jesus says, “The Good Shepherd lays down his life for his sheep”. This metaphor is based on the difference between a shepherd who risks his life for his sheep and an apathetic shepherd who doesn’t mind losing a sheep now and again, as long as he gets paid at the end of the day. Certainly the metaphor is a reference to Jesus sacrificing himself for us, but it draws on the assumption that a good shepherd goes to extremes in caring for his animals. 

My wife and I raised chickens for four years. Chickens are not the most affectionate creatures on the planet. They tend to tolerate humans, and their preferred location is anywhere beyond human reaching. Chickens don’t have facial muscles. When they look at you their thoughts are inscrutable. A dog’s look may melt your heart but a chicken’s will make you shiver. 

Nevertheless, my wife had an idea, which meant that not long after, she collected nine chicks and brought them home. Their first dedicated space was a large plastic tub that we kept in a bathroom. They were messy, but they were also very cute. A person can get attached, even to chickens.

Every day we made sure they had sufficient food and water, and little rocks to aid their digestion. When the weather warmed up we moved them outside into a large run I built. We were very concerned that they might be eaten by predators, such as our neighborhood fox, the local hawks and, most worrisome, the raccoons. Consequently, the run was double-fenced, with a wire apron that extended out from the perimeter. There was either roof or fencing over the top of the run, so the chickens were completely enclosed. There was plenty of room for them to run around, and even fly a little. There were step ladders and perches. There was a mirror for them to look at themselves, and there often were special treats. Most of the run was covered with a roof so they could stay dry in the rain. Even the non-roofed area was covered with grape vines that provided shade for the hot days. In the winter, the main part of the run was covered in plastic to shield the chickens from the wind. When the temperature dropped below 30°, I would come out after dark and, one-by-one, place them in the coop, where their combined body heat created a warm space. My wife cleaned the run every day. We were over-protective, but all our chickens remained healthy for the four years we owned them. 

There was one chicken, a Buff Orpington, named Buffy, (we named all the chickens, against the after-the-fact advice of many). I had a little stool in the run and on most days I would sit for awhile and watch the chickens busy themselves at being chickens. Buffy would usually jump up on my lap and sit for several minutes. I think she felt someone ought to keep me company, seeing that no one else was paying me any mind.  

Those chickens are, for me, a window into the goat and its mother’s milk Law. Animals are God’s creatures, too. We are to care for his animals and his world. They should be precious to us, as they are precious to him. I think, too, that our treatment of animals influences how we treat humans. The letter of this law may not affect our lives in any way, but the Spirit of it remains important. 

Let me note here that understanding O.T. laws according to the Spirit is not an exercise in certainty. My interpretation of the goats-in-milk law makes sense to me, but it is also speculative. There may be some cultural aspect of this law that I’m ignorant about. Maybe I’ve missed the intended point of the law, altogether. 

But here are two counter-points. First of all, discounting the law as Ceremonial or Civil leaves us with nothing. Considering it according to the Spirit gives us something of value. Secondly, note that my interpretation is not a bizarre, novel flight of the imagination. Rather, it is a connection to other Scripture. God did create all the world and all the animals in it. He does care for the animals. He does want us to care for them, too, as we live as stewards on his planet. I’m betting that most who read the chicken story will remember it, which means it will aid them in their tasks as stewards. In this sense, my speculation is not really speculation, but a meditation on what we already know to be true. So this particular law, instead of being cast aside, serves to enrich the rest of God’s Word. 

7. The Tithe

Here’s another fun law that Christians like to disagree about. If you had to categorize this law using the Law-splitting concept, it would (in my opinion) belong in the Civil category. While the tithe was used for a variety of needs, its primary purpose was to support the Levites, who, unlike the eleven other Israelite tribes, were not assigned land on which they could earn a living. The tithe served a specific economic purpose in theocratic Israel. But there are no tribes in the New Israel. As for priesthood, the New Testament identifies it as all who call Jesus Lord. From the Law-splitting perspective, the tithe no longer exists. 

But is there a different way we should be looking at this law, as far as the Spirit is concerned? The New Testament is actually fairly clear about it. The word “tithe” appears four times in the New Testament, but the references are either to O.T. practices, or they are negative references about those who tithe for the sake of public approval. What the N.T. does says over and again is that it is important for God’s people to be generous. Do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased. – Hebrews 13.16. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ – Acts 20.35. Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. – 2 Corinthians 9.7.

The idea of a literal tithe keeps hanging on like an electrostatically charged styrofoam peanut because church leaders tend to be budget-anxious. Brow-beating congregants with the idea of the tithe is one way of getting more money into the collection plate. I knew a single woman who wanted to send her two children to a Christian school. She could have done so with a little financial aid, combined with her own earned money. But she was a member of a church where the pastor hounded the congregants to tithe. Convicted, she gave that money to the church. She also sent her children to a public school that was little more than a finishing school for criminals. In my mind this makes the pastor a criminal. 

On the other side of the financial spectrum, let us ask, just how significant is ten percent of income for the person with a salary of $500,000 and a net worth of ten million dollars? Such a person might give $50,000 to the church and be thought of as quite the philanthropist. But the “sacrifice” by this person is nothing but a slowing of his wealth accumulation. Ten percent means almost nothing to a person of such means.

The very concept of the tithe is, for us, a legalistic trap.

There are many ways to be generous. We can be generous with our time, through donations of our skills, through gifts of money, and so forth. But is there really a point at which we can say, “Whew! I’ve reached my generosity quota for the year. I can just sit back, turn off my phone, and sip a margarita on a tropical beach.” Like the Consumer gods on TV like to tell us, “Babe, you’ve earned it!” When it comes to generosity we should neither be driven by guilt, nor should we allow ourselves to be satisfied. We need to have an attitude that says, “I am the servant of the Lord. May I always be ready to answer the needs God presents to me, as I am able.” We don’t own anything. We are stewards of the resources God puts in our hands. The only question for us—a question that must take into account all practical, personal considerations—is how am I best to use these resources to serve Him? The letter of the tithe Law is to give 10% of earnings; the Spirit of the Law is to live as stewards of the King’s resources.   

8. Stoning Homosexuals 

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. – Leviticus 20.13. No one stones homosexuals anymore, at least not in the “Christian” West. Homosexual legitimacy is one of the issues of the great cultural divide. At present, it’s not clear to me whether a homosexual person is more likely to be discriminated against or discriminated for. The orthodox Church has never approved of homosexuality though, historically, it has tended to direct its ire more at witches and heretics or “heretics”. (The Church has never been very good at telling the latter two apart). For the Law-splitter, the reason we no longer stone homosexuals is easy: the regulation was Civil (however uncivil it may have been).

But how do we face this regulation from the perspective of the Spirit? Several principles apply. We saw earlier that God instituted marriage and that other sorts of sexual activity are counterfeits, harmful to the humans who practice them. As such, we continue to view homosexual behavior with disfavor. We do not see homosexual sin as greater than other sins, but we do see it as sin. It is best for everyone to discontinue whatever sin they may be practicing.

But while Christians cannot accept that homosexuality is either normal, healthy, unresolvable, or acceptable, neither do we stone or allow the stoning of homosexuals. Neither should we abuse them or permit others to abuse them. Gracious tolerance, not endorsement. Why is that? One reason is that the stoning of homosexuals was part of the broad policy of keeping the Israelites separate from the pagans. For Israel to survive, its many regulations about remaining separate were sometimes severe. Not only were the nations surrounding Israel extremely wicked, many of them were much more powerful and prosperous than Israel. The temptations to assimilate with the surrounding nations were real and compelling. 

With the Church as the New Israel, the situation is different. The Kingdom of God on earth is no longer geo-politically identified. The people of God dwell in every nation. Christians ought to be busy influencing their respective nations in ways that promote freedom, flourishing, and justice, but Christians do not legislate Christianity itself on their respective societies. (Sorting out how this works is another important issue, but for a different essay.)  

Jesus had something to say about this situation, as well. You have heard that it was said, ^“You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. – Matthew 5.43-45. Yes, those who practice homosexuality are our enemies, and they are enemies of God. The promotion of foolishness is the promotion of destruction. What are Gay Pride parades, if not propaganda events that egg others to join in their self-harm practices? It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin. – Luke 17.2. But Jesus insists that we love our enemies. 

In many ways it would be easier for Christians to live as isolationists, but we have not been called to this. As noted earlier, we are to be in the world but not of it. Jesus ate comfortably with tax collectors (Roman collaborators) and sinners (Jews who openly lived in ways forbidden by Jewish law). He called on us to be the salt of the earth (those who would preserve it, as well as make it palatable). And he insisted that we are not to judge…not even judge ourselves, because that job is God’s alone. And, frankly, we’re really bad at it. This does not mean we should not use judgment as to what is right and wrong, but that we should not condemn. The Spirit of God has made it clear that the stoning law is a practice no longer permissible to us, even as He identifies homosexual activity as sin. The Church is the New Israel but the New Israel functions as a people in exile, living under the authority of various political entities. The Church is not to wield the sword, but it must bear witness to the One who will. The God of love is also the God of holiness. He absolutely will clean house. “For this reason [Babylon’s] plagues will come in a single day, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for mighty is he Lord God who has judged her.” – Revelation 18.8.

Under the Spirit of the Law; Under the Law of the Spirit

I want to make clear that I make no claim about knowing the best understanding for any particular O.T. law. What I am saying is that there are riches to be mined in them that can and will bless our lives when we do the mining. We should ruminate over O.T. laws rather than throw up our hands at them, or sweep them under a rug. 

God’s laws, however many different ways they may affect us, are, at their core, words of grace. They are not arbitrary rules made up to prove we can’t keep them. They are not course content for which God will eventually give us a grade. They are guidelines for holy living, which is the same thing as guidelines for abundant living. They are tools in our workshop; they are utensils and machinery in our kitchen. You know what they say about having the right tools. The Law-splitting formula has buried some of our tools in boxes under crawl spaces. We don’t know what they are and we don’t know what they do.

I have provided a series of O.T. examples, along with interpretations that I hope are in accordance with the Spirit of God. I have shared various lines of thought to help explain the examples. The following section is an attempt to enumerate principles that will help us interpret O.T. laws consistently with the Spirit. 

1. Assumption of Relevance

It’s disturbing to imagine that God provided his people with laws that do not, at least, point us in the direction of principles of truth. To think so is contrary to what we know of Him. We must approach O.T. laws, assuming that each one of them has a meaning and purpose that is relevant to us today, even if some the particulars of some of the laws do not. There is something in all the laws God wants us to understand. There is something moral in every law that has been identified as Civil or Ceremonial. There is something in every jot and tittle of Old Testament Law that is useful for us as we labor to be like Christ. 

2. Against Legalism

While we are to love God’s Law, we must be careful to guard against Phariseeism. We do not serve rules. We do not worship rules. We are not to be weighing ourselves down with layers of rules. The ordering of our lives must revolve more simply around the questions: Does this honor God? Does this bless my neighbor? Is this appropriate for me?

3. Interpretive Humility

In our ruminations we must remember humility. For us, there is no exactly. While all that God says is true, and we live in a universe of absolute truth, humans are not capable of perfectly recognizing it. We are limited first by mental capacity. We are limited again by the short time we have on this earth. And we are limited in a more pernicious way by sin. Sin distorts our vision, like funhouse mirrors but without the fun.

Because God calls on us to be like him, logically, we must have a capacity for understanding. Certainly the Holy Spirit opens our eyes to much that is important. The existence of the Bible is testimony to the fact that God can communicate to us. He has gone to extremes to put us in possession of his Word. But our place is one of tension. It is a place of knowing, and it is a place where our knowing is tentative. 

We need to recognize that there is subjectivity in corporate understanding, as well. We may belong to a denomination with a long history of theological fine-tuning by a host of brilliant people. When we are enveloped in such a cloud, we can become comfortable and confident in our theological viewpoints. Of course, if we venture to spend time with people from different theological perspectives, we will find that those perspectives have their own long histories and their own collections of brilliant, Godly theologians. We all tend to gravitate towards the groups whose beliefs come nearest to our own. This is reasonable, but this has the drawback of locating us in echo chambers. It can make us feel safe in our spiritual viewpoints when, sometimes, we are anything but.

We need to be wary of interpreting scripture in accordance with our current preferences. Biblical study is not the business of adjusting Revelation to fit our theological systems or our opinions. Biblical study is the practice of tuning our opinions to what the Bible actually says. God is for us and is much smarter than we are, so it’s always in our best interest to adjust to God’s teachings. We must be committed to the fact that we have much to learn. How will God manage to sanctify us if we think we know it all?

Similarly, we should be on the lookout for complex intellectual gymnastics. If we go on at length, if we travel several times around the barn, if our explanations cause other people’s eyes to glaze over, and if we end up insisting a passage means something different than what it bluntly says, it’s time for some serious soul-searching.

4. The Indwelling Spirit

While on the one hand we must maintain honesty about our limitations, on the other it’s important that we do not lose sight of our high calling and the responsibility that God wants us to embrace. “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days”, declares the Lord: “I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds,” – Hebrews 10.16. Now before faith came, we were kept in custody under the Law, [perpetually] imprisoned [in preparation] for the faith that was destined to be revealed, with the result that the Law has become our tutor and our disciplinarian to guide us to Christ, so that we may be justified [that is, declared free of the guilt of sin and its penalty, and placed in right standing with God] by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under [the control and authority of] a tutor and disciplinarian. For you [who are born-again have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, sanctified and] are all children of God [set apart for His purpose with full rights and privileges] through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ [into a spiritual union with the Christ, the Anointed] have clothed yourselves with Christ [that is, you have taken on His characteristics and values]. – Galatians 3. 23-27 (Amplified Bible).

We see in the book of Acts how the Bereans were commended for rightful skepticism. These [Berean] Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. – Acts 17.11. This is much of what it means to be a Christian. We are supposed to be about the business of figuring out the way God thinks. Doing this, we will regularly be amazed and delighted with the beauty, wisdom, and love that characterizes God’s thinking. His thinking is perfectly integrated—it is an exact representation of his heart. He has nothing to be ashamed of or to hide. It is our quest and responsibility to discern his heart that we might become like him in our thinking. When we think rightly, we will also act rightly. 

5. The Letter Hints at the Spirit 

In order to understand Old Testament Law, it’s helpful to see the letter as rumble strips. The letter is not so much the essence of the law as it is a boundary of it. Or we may see the letter as a sign to help us grasp the law’s fuller intent. We must look for the greater truth the letter suggests. The greater truth is the Spirit of the law, to which we are bound.

The ubiquitous STOP sign, though found on the streets of the world’s intersections rather than in God’s Word, can help to explain. To follow the letter of the law of the STOP sign is straightforward: stop. More precisely, we are to stop with the front edge of our front bumper touching the imaginary line that extends from the plane of the STOP sign. But following the letter is not really the point, as even the driver’s manual explains. The point of the STOP sign is to love your neighbor. The STOP sign proclaims that we are to be mindful of the lives and property of all those who share the roads with us. And when we understand the STOP sign according to the Spirit, we realize it is not an impediment to our travel progress. Rather, it is a blessing, especially when it is respected by all, that allows us to end up where we’re going, neither shaken nor shattered. 

Perhaps the most straightforward and universally accepted regulation from the Ten Commandments is “You shall not kill”. Even so, there is a broad spectrum of interpretations for this law. Evangelicals often clarify the command as, “You shall not commit murder.” While such an interpretation may address the greatest concern of the law, it diminishes its range. We are also not to accidentally kill, for example. We may be feeble and accident-prone, but admitting this does not give us the right to accidents. Rather, it reminds us to be careful. We can drive at 60 m.p.h. instead of 80 m.ph. where the speed limit is posted as 60. We can stop tailgating. (Please!) Nearly 43,000 people died in auto accidents in the U.S. in 2022. We can debate whether those deaths were accidents or cases of negligent homicide, but the debate makes the point: carelessness kills. We can have secure railings on our stairways. We can salt our icy sidewalks.

We can be slow to war. We can resist executing criminals, except for individuals who have made it clear they will continue to kill. We can help those in need to live more productive, healthy lives. We can share the truth of the Gospel. Jesus seemed to equate anger with murder. I suppose his meaning was that the idea of murder precedes the action, so it’s best to avoid nurturing the idea. Or maybe what he was getting at is that we should not be writing other people off, hoping they will disappear, hoping they will just die. He does not want us to “ghost” others out of our lives. 

Killing is always a bad idea. I believe there are times when it is a necessary idea, but it is still always a bad idea. God gives life. None of us is our own. It is not for us to take the lives of others, nor is it for us to take our own. Our lives are precious to God and we should recognize every person’s life as precious. Yes, there may come a time when we are called to give up our own life but, if so, it will be for the sake of preserving the lives of others. This is what Jesus did. When the letter says, “You shall not kill,” the Spirit carries the meaning all the way to, “Greater love has no one than this, that he lays down his life for his friends.” – John 15.13.

6. The Whole Counsel of God

I’m reading a book by a man who considers himself a representative of the “emerging church”. He holds a certain reverence for the Bible but his reverence seems to be for the Bible’s wondrous tradition. He doesn’t see it as God speaking. This, of course, gives him the freedom to smorgasbord at will. In the final analysis he is worshipping his own opinions. The Bible is God’s authoritative Word. If we don’t approach it as such, we might as well put it in the recycling bin, because it becomes worthless. 

But if it is God’s authoritative Word, we need to be serious Bible students. We need to know the Bible through our direct study and reading. We need to know it through sermons and Bible studies and Sunday School classes. It is so helpful to be able to bounce questions and ideas off of other saints. It is helpful to read books written by Christians. When I consider the saints who have done the most to firm up my Christian faith, I notice that they come from a variety of theological traditions. The value of these saints is not so much their variety as the fact that they all are passionate to understand God. They all know his Word and can draw on it in insightful ways. This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. – Hebrews 8.10. To have Spiritual understanding, we must know the Word.

7. Progressive Revelation

The short explanation for this, I believe, is that the Old Testament sets up the New. It is the source of the language the New Testament speaks. It is a language steeped in history. The New Testament provides the Great Clarification. It gives us the deeper insights that we must use to understand Old Testament puzzles. Jesus is himself referred to as the image of the invisible God. – Colossians 1.15.

8. The Heart of the Law 

We must cling to the thought that all of God’s Laws are first of all relational: Love God; love your neighbor; love yourself. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. – John 14.15.  Theology matters, and the pursuit of it will bring us wisdom and joy, as long as our theology is clearly connected to the Law’s core. Any theology that strays from this center is false. Every O.T. law points to the love of God. If we are not laboring to understand the laws with this in mind, we will not understand them, and we will not be given understanding through them.

9. The Heart of God 

I have heard more than a few preachers proclaim the inscrutability of God. I wonder if they shouldn’t find a different line of work. God understands far more than we can, of course, but the Gospel is about the mysteries of God laid bare. The Bible is God giving us a piece of his mind. If God is inscrutable, why do we worship him? If God is inscrutable, what is the Church other than a moralistic social club that provides employment opportunities for seminarians? 

We must be about the business of discovering God. Who is God? This is the one question that every human must answer. Getting the answer right is a matter of life and death. The only other question that comes close in importance is: Who am I? Answering the second question is impossible without answering the first. Can we answer these questions perfectly? No, of course not, but it will be our joy to pursue them eternally…because the ever-refined answers get better and better.

Understanding the Spirit of the Law is the work of coming to know the heart of God. We can rejoice that we are no longer under the letter of the Law, but we can rejoice more knowing that we thrive under the Spirit of the Law. [God] has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. – 2 Corinthians 3.6.