J. Eo.ss Murray. LAW. — The question of Christ's relation to the Jewish law is one of fundamental importance for the origin of Christianity, but at the same time one of peculiar dithculty. The difficult}- arises, to some extent, from the fact that His own teaching marks a period of transition, when the old Avas already antiquated, while the new was still un- born. A further difficulty is created by the rela- tion in which the actual conduct of Je.sus stood to the principles which He laid down. Moreover, the question arises whether His attitude remained the same through the whole course of His ministrj-, or whether He came to realize that His fundamental principles carried Him further than He had at first anticipated. Lastly, when we remember how bitter was the strife which this very question aroused in the primitive Church, the misgiving is certainly not unreasonable, that this may have been reflected back into the life of the Founder, and sayings placed in His mouth endorsing one of the later partisan views. Our present subject is that of the Ceremonial Law.
It must be clearly recognized that the distinction between moral and ceremonial law is not one sanctioned in the Law itself. All its parts alike were the command of God. The dis- tinction has maintained its vitality in virtue of a praiseworthy ethical interest. The antinomianism of St. Paul seemed to endanger morality, and those who could not rise to his point of view, that it was precisely in this way that morality was secured, turned Christianity into a new legalism, and explained his doctrine that the Law was abolished to mean that Christians were no longer compelled to practise Jewish ceremonies. This was, of course, to reduce much that he said to the immeaning. It is precisely the moral law that St. Paul had chiefly in mind. The Decalogue is described as ' the ministration of death written and engraven on stones ' (2 Co 3" B.X) ; and, to illustrate the sin- producing effects of the Law, St. Paul quotes one of the Ten Commandments (Ro 7"). His doctrine was unquestionably that the Law as a whole was done away for all who were in Christ, inasmuch as they had crucified the flesh, which was the home of sin, and thus had lost everything to which the Law could appeal as provocation to sin, while they had escaped into the freedom of the Spirit, and could therefore no longer be under the constraint of the Law. But even St. Paul was forced to recognize that his magnificent idealism was not milk for babes, hence moral exhortation found a large place in his Epistles, side by side with the loftiest assertions of a Christian's freedom from sin, flesh, and the L">w. But St. Paul is quite explicit that this freedom is to be strenuously maintained in the sphere of Jewish ceremonies, especially circumcision, and sacred days and seasons. On the other hand, a party in the Early Church in- sisted passionately on the permanent validity of the Law, and especially of circumcision, as essential to salvation. It lies be- yond our limits to trace the histoid" of this controversy, but a reference to it is necessary for the reason already indicated.
Jesus was Himself born into a Jewish home, and the rites prescribed by the Jewish law were scrupulouslj- fulfilled in His case. His parents did not belong to the ranks of the Pharisees, hence His early training was liealthier than that of St. Paul ; but He, like His great Apostle, was boi-n under the Law (Gal 4^1, and initiated by circum- cision into the Covenant on the eighth day (Lk 2-M. His mother presented Him as her firstborn male child to the Lord in the Temple, and offered the
stems. In its exuberant playfvilness of fancy it exceeds any- thing in the Gospels : it is probably based on an actual saying of Christ (see Westcott, Introd. p. 433).
sacrifice of purification prescribed in the Law (Lk 2-"--'), and thus ' accomplished all things that were according to the law of the Lord ' (Lk 2^^). Joseph and ^laiy went up each year to the feast of the Passover at Jerusalem (Lk 2^'). So far as we can see, Jesus Himself was a strict observer of the Law. Whatever His attitude towards it during His ministry, we may assume without ciuestion that, till He was conscious of His Messianic voca- tion, His obedience to the Law was scnipulously and heartilj- rendered. It lay in the natui'e of the case, however, that the old bottles of Judaism should be unfit to receive the new wine of the Kingdom Avith which He knew Himself to be in- tnisted. The question whether this was clear to Him from the first, or whether it became clear only in the course of His controversy with the scrites, cannot be answered with certainty, in view of the doubt which hangs over the chronology of the ministry. And His conduct here was regu- lated by much the same need for reserve as He practised in reference to His self-revelation as Messiah. A premature declaration would have created an extremely difficult situation. All He could do was to utter His principles and leave the practical inferences to be drawn, when the time was ripe, by tho.se who shared His spirit.
On one great branch of this question, however, Jesus expressed Himself clearly and without com- promise. The morbid anxiety of the scribes to make a hedge about the Law so that all possible approaches to its violation might be blocked, added to the hair-splitting casuistry in which moralists of their tj-pe delighted, and the la\\yers instinct for precise and exhaustive definition, had led to the elaboration of the precepts in the Law into a vast system of tradition. Moreover, the heavier the burden grew, the greater grew the temptation to find a literal fvdfilmeut which should be an escape from the spirit. AH tlus apparatus of piety demanded leisure to master and perform, such leisure as no man with his daily bread to earn could command ; hence arose a morality unfitted for the normal human life. Against all this tra- dition Jesus entered an emphatic protest. His attitude towards it was wholly different from that which He assumed towards the written Law. The scribes made void bj' their tradition the word of God, and everj- plant which His heavenly Father had not planted He said should be rooted up. Nevertheless, in vindicating the Law against the tradition. He enunciated principles which pointed forward to the abolition of both. The points on which He came into conflict with Jewish cere- monialism were Fasting, the law of L'ncleanness, the Temple .service, and the cancelling of primary human duties by feigned respect for duties to God.