Chapter Two

Comparative Overview of
Christian Perspectives on Old Testament Law

 

At the core of the disagreement between the Commandment Keepers and
mainstream Christianity is a stronger commitment by the former to the
eternal and universal validity of many Old Testament commandments. Of
course, respect for the Old Testament is a vital part of the historic
Christian tradition. It is clear that the Hebrew scriptures emphasize
appreciation for the written code of law preserved by the followers of
Yahweh. The longest chapter, Psalm 119, in the Old Testament was written
in praise of the Law. “Oh, how I love your law! It is my meditation all
the day” (Psalm 119:97). Many New Testament scriptures take a similar
approach. Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans, “Therefore the law is
holy, and the commandment holy and just and good” (7:12). The First
Epistle of John states, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His
commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (5:3).

It should be noted here that the criticism that Jesus brought
against the extreme legalism of certain rabbinic authorities was a
criticism from within the Yahwistic religious tradition. The basis of the
relationship of a Jew or Jewess to his or her God was the fact that he or
she was a member of the Jewish community. The children of Israel were all
included in a divine covenant. An aspect of this covenant was God’s
miraculous intervention to deliver God’s people from Egyptian bondage.
Being born into a community is not something one earns. So the future
eternal salvation of a Jew or Jewess was ultimately based on God’s love
rather than on his or her works. To obtain the same quality of reward,
gentiles needed to enter the covenant community. The Pharisaic emphasis on
do’s and don’ts caused Judaism to resemble a pagan system of attempting to
purchase divine favor with deeds and discipline–salvation by works.

The critical difference between Commandment Keepers and
mainstream Christianity is the tendency of the former to view the
commandments of the Torah, to state it metaphorically, as innocent until
proven guilty. Their reading of New Testament scriptures causes them to
accept the literal applicability of laws that traditional Christianity has
considered to be intended for a specific nation at a particular historical
period.

It has already been shown that, for a theist, right personal
behavior is not solely a matter of ethics. Commandment Keepers believe
that God has a plan involving a relationship with each and every human
being. Authentic Christians are in the vanguard. A proper relationship
with God is lived within the appropriate human community, the one most in
harmony with God’s will. Certain practices which, prima facie, may be
ethically neutral, may nevertheless be critical to identifying the
community that God is using to advance God’s purpose.

The Jews of the first century CE were the remnant of Israel, the
chosen people. From a New Testament perspective, the Church becomes a
spiritual Israel (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 6:16). In the book of Romans,
Paul sees a future role for the Jews in God’s plan (Romans 9-11). In the
meantime, Romans 11 pictures gentile Christians as achieving Israelite
status spiritually without necessitating inclusion in the physical
community. Commandment Keepers read such passages more closely than most,
assuming that the holy days and dietary laws commanded for ancient Israel
and preserved in Judaism, are also required of Christians. It is quite
reasonable to contend that one of the values of these practices is that
the practices constitute important signs designating the divinely chosen
community.

Roman Catholic theology reached a certain culmination in the
writings of Thomas Aquinas. Probably history’s two most influential
Protestant theologians are Martin Luther and John Calvin. All three
presuppose that both the Old Testament and the New Testaments are divinely
inspired and thus authoritative in matters of doctrine. Each of these
theologians discusses how Christians should view the applicability of the
laws associated with the Sinaitic Covenant. It will be useful to compare
their perspectives on Old Testament law with the perspective that can be
discerned in the writings of contemporary Commandment Keepers and their
most influential spokesperson of recent decades, Herbert W. Armstrong.

The traditional Roman Catholic perspective on Old Testament law
can be gleaned from the thirteenth century theologian, Thomas Aquinas.
Considered a saint by his church, Thomas Aquinas cannot be ignored by
contemporary theologians who are practicing Roman Catholics. His highly
influential writings reflect the view that the Old Testament provides a
model for a society ordered on the New Testament. New, but similar
practices are substituted for the old. The religion that results can be
described as a gentilized form of Judaism.

Martin Luther reacted against this approach to the Torah when
applied to the use of ceremonies and rituals, but considered that the
Pentateuch could be consulted for options in handling civil and political
matters. Calvin’s position was similar, but later Calvinists for a time
attempted to more closely apply many of the laws of ancient Israel to
their own societies.

Luther’s approach to the Pauline writings had revolutionary
implications for Christianity’s approach to the Hebrew Bible. For Luther,
the ideal of the Pauline tradition is for Christians to practice their
religion based on a Christ-directed conscience, rather than on any written
code. Of course, Luther did not discard the specific instructions found in
the New Testament. Nor could he ignore the law code of the ancient Hebrews
that was its prelude.

Luther acknowledged two uses of the law:

1.It has a social use since it exercises a restraining influence on
society.
2.It has a pedagogic use since it points out sin and drives the sinner
to Christ. (Brinsmead 1981, 61)

       Luther can even be said to endorse, in a qualified manner, a
third use of the law, usually associated with John Calvin.

3.It has a guiding use since it acts as a rule of life for those who
have been justified. (Brinsmead 1981, 61)

  Luther would not carry this third use too far. He opposed the reimposition of the Hebraic code or of an ecclesiastical equivalent.
However, while Luther preached New Testament ethics for the individual
Christian, he utilized the Old Testament as a guide to societal norms. In
the Augustinian tradition exemplified in modern times by the “moral man,
immoral society” perspective of Reinhold Niebuhr ( 81), Luther condoned
activities such as the waging of war by Christian nations, as ancient
Israel had done.

Luther was reacting against what could justifiably be called the
legalism and devotion to ritual of sixteenth century Roman Catholicism. In
practical terms, he simplified Catholic practice but retained traces of
Catholicism in his approach. By encouraging Bible study, including study
in the vernacular, Luther enhanced the influence of the Old Testament on
Christian thought and practices. However, his theology contained the seeds
for the virtual rejection of the Old Testament as a Jewish relic, entirely
superseded by the New Testament. This position, however, cannot be
attributed to Luther himself. He made extensive use of the Old Testament
in the formulation of his theology.

Robert D. Brinsmead reminds us that, while having much in common
with Lutheranism:

The Reformed branch of Protestantism, however, traditionally placed
greater emphasis on the third use of the law. While the Lutheran
tradition has tended to permit any form of worship except that which God
has forbidden, the Reformed tradition has tended to permit only that
form of worship which God has enjoined. (61)

Calvin did not seek to re-establish a system of rituals and
ceremonies, but he did respect the ethical requirements of the Old
Testament. Subsequent generations of Calvinists went further in using the
Old Testament scriptures as authoritative for personal and societal
conduct:

Puritanism was the outgrowth of Reformed theology. The Puritans
searched the Bible for directives on liturgy, church government and the
entire spectrum of Christian existence. They expounded the Ten
Commandments in great detail and applied them with rigor, believing that
they were the rule of life par excellence. (Brinsmead 1981, 61)

The Renaissance witnessed a return to the study of the Graeco-
Roman classics that had served as a basis for European civilization. In
religion there was also a return to the study of the biblical texts in
their original languages. To an extent, the Protestant Reformation
represented an effort to return to a more authentically biblical approach
to religion, clearing out encrustations of generations of church
traditions.

It can be argued that John Calvin went further than Luther in
returning to a more Old Testament based approach to religion. His backing
away from Catholicism included a renewed respect for the specific
instructions contained in the Old Testament. Calvinism gave Christianity
an opportunity to recapture a “proper” balance between its Hebraic and
Graeco-Roman heritage. The struggles between Judaism and Christianity of
the early centuries CE had long ceased to be of significance. Christianity
was a major world religion with a distinct identity and history. The time
had come with the Reformation for Christianity to more explicitly return
to its Hebraic theological roots.

In a sense, the interest that Calvinist Protestants came to
develop for Old Testament examples was a recasting of a tradition which
existed within Roman Catholicism. There had been a tendency in Catholicism
to view Old Testament laws and institutions as patterns upon which
Christian laws and institutions should be based. This Old Testament
typology included the concept that nations should ideally be theocratic,
that national laws and institutions should reflect Church teaching and
practice.

During the twelfth century in Europe, there was a revival of
interest in the Old Testament in the light of the Catholic understanding
that the Old Covenant was “preparing and prefiguring” the New Covenant (Chenu
1968, 146-7). Citing the axiom popularized by Augustine, “Vetus in novo
patet (The Old unfolds in the New); Novum in veteri latet (the
New lies enveloped in the Old),” Chenu contends that in the first
two-thirds of the twelfth century, the Old Testament, “. . . exercised a
Judaizing influence upon the interpretation of the New” (148).

M.D. Chenu points out one very significant way in which
Catholicism utilized the Old Testament during the Middle Ages. The Church
investigated the historical accounts in the Old Testament for what it
termed exempla, which Chenu defines as “normative or ‘type’ actions
fitted by their concrete detail to provide an efficacious model for human
conduct, which was also governed by general principles” (159).

Of course, this use of the Old Testament for guidance on human
conduct presupposes some enduring relevance. In that regard, such a
position is implicit in such New Testament material as 2 Timothy 3:15-16
where the scriptures referred to are what are popularly referred to today
as the Old Testament.

Of great significance is the fact that “In the area of social
morality, precepts that rested upon Old Testament legislation abounded.
The most characteristic case was the forbidding of interest” (Chenu 1968,
154). Yet the basic Roman Catholic teaching rejecting the authority of the
Mosaic Code on Christians remained intact. “. . . Men of the Middle Ages
recognized and proclaimed the cessatio legalium (cessation of the
Law)” (Chenu 1968, 158). Much Catholic writing spoke disparagingly or
condescendingly about the legal system of the Old Testament (Chenu 1968,
159). The final third of the eleventh century witnessed an “evangelical
awakening,” (Chenu 1968, 239) and a return to emphasis on the New
Testament, particularly the gospels, and a rejecting of what might be
termed an earlier legalism. For example, Peter the Chanter wrote a chapter
criticizing what Chenu describes as “. . . the proliferation of precepts .
. .” (Chenu 1968, 216). Probably having Thomas Aquinas in mind, Chenu
opines that:

Not until the thirteenth century was a just and balanced evaluation
of the Old Law proposed within the evangelical freedom of the New. (216)

A capsule summary of the underlying theology concerning the Torah is
that viewed as a complete written code, it was the vehicle to salvation
under the Old Covenant. Of course, the divine inspiration of the
Pentateuch was acknowledged. On a case by case basis, the ancient laws
could provide divine guidance for appropriate civil policy, ecclesiastical
policy, or personal morality.

There was a theological tension between respect for the Old
Testament commandments as reflecting God’s will, at least for a particular
time, and for a particular ethnic group, and the opprobrium in which its
descendants were held in the Middle Ages because of their refusal to
accept Christianity. Upon the election of a new Pope, a special ceremony
would take place in Rome. The Jewish elders would march out of their
ghetto in procession and present a scroll of the law before the new
Pontiff. He would then declare “Excellent Law’detestable race” (Ausubel
1984, 101-102).

A perusal of Thomas’ writings will quickly demonstrate that he
took the entire Old Testament into consideration, including the “deutero-canonical”
books excluded from the Hebrew canon and later by most Protestants. Other
contemporaries of Thomas also utilized Old Testament scriptures in their
theological expositions. One example is the “Golden Sequence” attributed
to Stephen Langton, which reflects the influence of Psalms, Isaiah, and
Jeremiah (Fairweather 1956, 319-360). Another example is a passage
in Section 3 of Disputed Questions on Faith by Matthew of
Aquasparta, where he quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Genesis 1:1 (Fairweather
1956, 410).

One would expect to find considerable influence from the Book of
Psalms on the writings of Thomas Aquinas. It is the Old Testament book
directly cited most often in the New Testament. It is also one of the most
quoted biblical books in the selections from the Summa Theologica on
Nature and Grace translated and edited by A. M. Fairweather (375-380).
The importance of the Old Testament Psalms in medieval Christianity can be
traced back many centuries.

R. W. Southern points out that:

However out-of-date, and even moribund, the Benedictine ideal became
in the later Middle Ages, it continued to provide an authoritative
standard of normal religious life, more ancient, more dignified, and
more stable than any order. (217)

The Rule of St. Benedict required of monks that:

All 150 psalms must be chanted during the week so that on Sunday
Matins the series may start afresh. Monks who chant less than the entire
Psalter, with canticles, each week are slothful in their service to God.
Our spiritual fathers performed with determination in one day what we
now take a whole week to do. (68)

& nbsp    The Psalms are replete with praises for the divine law.
Thomas, in discussing the need for a divine law, quotes from Psalm 119:33
(Psalm 118 in Catholic versions) which evidently in the text he had
available states, “Set before me for a law the way of Your justifications,
O Lord” (Baumgarth 1988, 23). Baumgarth and Regan will be the edition of
Thomas’ Summa used in this paper unless otherwise noted). Later in
the same article, he quotes extensively from the praise of the law in
Psalm 19 (18) which is an earlier Psalm in praise of the law (mistakenly
cited as Psalm 118 in Baumgarth and Regan, page 24, and perhaps even in
Thomas’s original text).

Since the law is so highly praised within The Holy Scriptures, it
must have been of great spiritual utility, even though, as a codified
collection, not binding today. Thomas comments at length on the historical
importance of the Old Covenant law in his commentary on Galatians:

[I]t should be noted that the Old Law was given for a fourfold
purpose corresponding to the four consequences of sin enumerated by Bede,
namely because of wickedness, weakness, passion, and ignorance. (Larcher
1966, 95).

He elaborates by stating that ” . . . men who are ill disposed need to
be kept from sin by penalties . . .” (Larcher 1966, 96). On the second
consequence, he states that ” . . . Finding that without grace he was
unable to avoid sin, he would more ardently yearn for grace . . .” (96).
Regarding the third consequence, ” . . . the Law was given in order to
tame the concupiscence of a wanton people, so that, worn by various
ceremonies, they would not fall into idolatry or lewdness . . .” (97).
Finally, ” . . . the Law was given as a figure of future grace in order to
instruct the ignorant . . .” (97).

Thomas in his writings expounds on how the Old Testament set the
stage for the New, a sort of progressive view of biblical revelation. In
Galatians 3:23, Paul tells his readers “But before the faith came, we were
kept under guard by the law, kept (margin: confined) for the faith which
would afterward be revealed.” He then goes on to write, “Therefore the law
was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith”
(verse 24). He adds in verse 25, “But after faith has come, we are no
longer under a tutor.” Thomas comments in Summa Theologica, 22ae,
Question 1, Article 7, that:

[A] master who knows the whole art does not impart it, but imparts it
gradually, in accordance with his pupil’s capacity. Now it is as
learners that men have progressed in knowledge of the faith with the
passing of time. Hence the apostle likens the Old Testament to
childhood, in Gal. 3:24 (Fairweather 1954, (232).

Do Paul’s words imply that only if a biblical law is restated
in the New Testament does that law apply to Christians? Paul said a great
deal in favor of the law, as when he wrote in Romans 7:12, “Therefore the
law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” Thomas Aquinas
would hold that essential morality is constant and that laws which reflect
it remain in force, whether or not they are restated in the Christian
scriptures after first appearing in the Jewish. That position continues to
be held by current Catholic theologians. The normative teaching is that
Catholics, viewing Old Testament laws from a New Testament perspective,
can see which laws are expressions of an essential moral code and
therefore remain applicable. Through Christ:

[A]ll the precepts of the moral law, even the most sacred, are given
a new and glorious orientation in divine grace and new focus, the Person
of the God-man. (Haring 1966, 3)

Thomas interprets Romans 2:14 as an indication that human
beings have in their consciences the “natural law,” and that people can
discern on a basic level, ” . . . what is good and what is evil”. Thomas
defines natural law, as ” . . . nothing else than the rational creature’s
participation of the eternal law” (20). Original sin did not diminish
man’s capacity to reason morally but did diminish his capacity to live
rightly. ” . . . The natural inclination to virtue . . . is diminished by
sin . . . .” (Fairweather 1954, 126).

Human beings were in need of divinely revealed laws to direct
more effectively their lives toward their ultimate purpose, which is
spiritual. Additional factors are the uncertainty of human judgment, man’s
incapacity to judge properly what is going on in his or her inner self,
and the need to leave no evil “unforbidden and unpunished” (Baumgarth
1988, 23-24).

As does Augustine, Thomas distinguishes the commandments of the
Old Testament, “the Old Law,” from the commandments of the New Testament,
“the New Law” (Baumgarth 1988, 24-26):

The natural law directs man by way of certain general precepts common
to both the perfect and the imperfect; wherefore it is one and the same
for all. But the divine law directs man also in certain particular
matters to which the perfect and imperfect do not stand in the same
relation. Hence the necessity for the divine law to be twofold . . ..
(26)

As a Roman Catholic theologian, Aquinas would see the death
and resurrection of Jesus as cosmic events. After the ministry of Jesus
Christ, the New Covenant that he brought her caused a redefinition of the
specific obligation in comparison with these of the old Sinaitic Covenant.
The New Covenant of Christianity is qualitatively different from the old
Sinaitic covenant. The New Covenant is based on a new law.

In his commentary on the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Church at
Ephesus, Thomas states that:

The Old Law was termed of works because it ordained only what must be
done, but did not confer the grace through which men would have been
assisted in fulfilling the law. The New Law, on the other hand,
regulates what must be done by giving commands, and it aids in
fulfilling them by bestowing grace. (Lamb 1966, 106).

The New Covenant is made with God’s new Israel. Galatians
6:16 evidently refers to the Christian community as “the Israel of God.”
Based on his reading of Galatians, Thomas compares the Israelites under
the Old Covenant to a child under the kind of discipline traditionally
exercised over children, as opposed to New Covenant Christians, who live
as spiritual adults.

In Galatians 4:3 Paul writes that ” . . . we, when we were
children, were in bondage under the elements of the world.” Thomas
comments that ” . . . it was necessary that the Jews serve God under the
elements of this world, because such an order is in harmony with human
nature which is led from sensible to intelligible things” (Larcher 1966,
111). Back in the third chapter of the Epistle to the Galatian Churches,
the Apostle declares that ” . . . the law was our tutor to bring us to
Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Thomas expatiates:

[For] under the Law the just were restrained from evil, as helpless
boys are, through fear of punishment; and they were led to progress in
goodness by the love and promise of temporal goods. Further, the Jews
were promised that through a seed that was to come the time for
obtaining that inheritance had not yet come. Consequently, it was
necessary that until the seed should come, they be kept safe and not do
unlawful things. And this was effected by the Law. (102)

In his writings, Thomas Aquinas expounds upon the Pauline concept of
the Church as the spiritual Israel. He explains that:

Even the Gentiles have become the Israel of God by uprightness of
mind; for Israel means “most upright”: “Israel will be your name”
(Genesis 32:28). (Larcher 1966, 207)

The etymology here is loose, but theologically interesting. In any
case, the requirements of physical Israel’s covenant with God did not
necessarily carry over to the Church. Thomas informs us in Question 98 of
Part I of the Second Part of his Summa Theologica, that:

The Old Law showed forth the precepts of the natural law, and added
certain precepts of its own. Accordingly, as to those precepts of the
natural law contained in the Old Law all were bound to observe the Old
Law; not because they belonged to the Old Law, but because they belonged
to the natural law. But as to those precepts which were added by the Old
Law, they were not binding on any save the Jewish people alone.
(Sullivan 1955, 244)

Later in the Summa Theologica we find an interesting
statement concerning the relationship of the Old Law to the New Law:

One thing may be contained in another in two ways. First, actually,
as a located thing is in a place. Secondly, virtually, as an effect in
its cause, or as the complement in that which is incomplete; thus a
genus contains its species, and a seed contains the whole tree,
virtually. It is in this way that the New Law is contained in the Old:
for it has been stated (A.I) that the New Law is compared to the Old as
perfect to imperfect . . . . (Sullivan, 1955, 329)

From this premise one can expect that basic guiding
principles would continue from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, but
that many actual details would change. Why was the Old Law given only to
the people of Israel? The Summa Theologica gives us a partial
explanation, that ” . . . it was merely from gratuitous election that the
patriarchs received the promise, and that the people sprung from them
received the law . . ,” (243) and later adds that “. . . Although the
salvation which was to come through Christ was prepared for all nations,
yet it was necessary that Christ should be born of one people, which, for
this reason, was privileged above other peoples . . ..” (243)

Since Aquinas would acknowledge an enduring moral law, he would
recognize that Pentateuchal commandments which reflect it would continue
to apply under the New Covenant. Therefore, it is important to him to
categorize those commandments into certain general areas of concern.
Organizing the laws into such categories serves not only to better
understand their original purpose, from a Thomist perspective, the
analysis also enables us to discern which of the old laws would still be
incumbent upon Christians.

In Question 100, Article 1, Thomas places the commandments of the
Old Testament into three categories: moral precepts, ceremonial precepts,
and judicial precepts (Sullivan 1955, 251). He also states that:

The moral precepts, distinct from the ceremonial and judicial
precepts, are about things pertaining of their very nature to good
morals . . .. (251)

Thomas sees the need to explain the significance of the ceremonial
commandments and leans heavily on the twelfth century treatise, The
Guide of the Perplexed, by Moses Maimonides (276, 278, 296-297).
However, he is clear in his belief concerning their lack of authority over
Christians.

The career of Maimonides was similar to that of Aquinas. One of
the most brilliant and talented men of his day, he had fused
Aristotelianism with Rabbinic Judaism. Though his work caused some initial
controversy, it later came to define normative Judaism, and Maimonides
came to be thought of as a spiritual leader of nearly biblical
proportions. Maimonides discussed laws that for his religious community
were, at least theoretically, binding. For Thomas Aquinas, however, the
laws of the Torah of Moses, when viewed as a whole, had not been
authoritative since the beginning of Christianity:

The Old Law is said to be “for ever” simply and absolutely, as
regards its moral precepts; but as regards the ceremonial precepts it
lasts for ever in respect of the reality which those ceremonies
foreshadowed. (Baumgarter 1988, 301).

He then infers from the Catholic understanding of the significance of
the ceremonial commandments of the Old Testament that as religious rites
they have not only lost their authority, but are actually forbidden to
Christians, giving us the impression that this view reflects the position
of the earlier Catholic authority, Augustine:

The ceremonies of the Old Law signified Christ as having yet to be
born and to suffer, but our sacraments signify Him as already born and
having suffered. Consequently, just as it would be a mortal sin now for
anyone, in making a profession of faith, to say that Christ is yet to be
born, which the fathers of old said devoutly and truthfully, so too it
would be a mortal sin now to observe those ceremonies which the fathers
of old fulfilled with devotion and fidelity. (Baumgarter 1988, 302)

The position of Thomas concerning the applicability of
specific Old Testament laws is problematic to me in light of Jesus’
criticism of the Pharisees for placing their own traditions in a position
of higher esteem than God’s revealed commandments (Matthew 15, Mark 7,
Luke 6). For Aquinas, the fact that the Old Testament ceremonies are
abolished and the judicial laws merely an option does not mean that the
Church does not legislate in such matters. In theory and practice, a new
system of ceremonies and of requirements replaces the old. Medieval
Christianity had taken upon itself, believing it had the authority to do
so, its own legal system that it connected with its own post-Old Testament
experience. Christianity had brought a New Law and Catholics understood
that “. . . the New Law is in the first place a law that is inscribed in
our hearts, but that secondarily it is a written law” (Sullivan 1955,
321).

By the thirteenth century, many Church practices had been
instituted to officially replace the divinely commanded practices of the
Torah, as we see in this revealing passage from the Summa Theologica:

As to the Sabbath, which was a sign recalling the first creation, its
place is taken by the Lord’s Day, which recalls the beginning of the new
creature in the Resurrection of Christ. In like manner other solemnities
because the blessings vouchsafed to that people foreshadowed the favours
granted us by Christ. Hence the feast of the Passover gave place to the
feast of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection; the feast of Pentecost when
the Old Law was given, to the feast of Pentecost on which was given the
Law of the living spirit; the feast of the New Moon, to the feast of the
Blessed Virgin, when appeared the first rays of the sun, that is,
Christ, by the fullness of grace; the feast of Trumpets, to the feasts
of the Apostles; the feast of Expiation, to the feasts of Martyrs and
Confessors; the feast of Tabernacles, to the feast of the Church
Dedication; the feast of the Assembly and Collection, to the feast of
the Angels, or else to the feast of All Saints. (Baumgarter 1988,
301-302)

The ancient Israelite feasts had foreshadowed various aspects
of Christology and ecclesiology (283). Some of the sacramental rites of
the Old Testament were figures of Christian sacraments, ” . . . For
Baptism, which is the sacrament of Faith, corresponds to circumcision . .
.” (286). Thomas also explains that:

In the New Law the sacrament of the Eucharist corresponds to the
banquet of the paschal lamb. The sacrament of Penance in the New Law
corresponds to all the purifications of the Old Law. The sacrament of
Orders corresponds to the consecration of the pontiff and of the
priests. (Baumgarter 1988, 286)

I find the use of the Old Testament by Aquinas to be
fascinating. He is not only discussing typology, looking for spiritual
truths or fulfilled prophecies symbolized or foreshadowed by the Mosaic
festivals. He also cites those festivals as precedent or precursor to
Church festivals that are nowhere enjoined or even mentioned in the New
Testament. Yet, these Church festivals are obviously considered by Aquinas
to have a greater validity for Christians than the sacred rites of ancient
Israel.

The Pentateuch explicitly teaches that God spoke to Moses
concerning sanctified days and that Moses passed that information on to
the nation of Israel (see for example, Leviticus 23:1-2, 44). The
implication of the Thomistic perspective is that the leadership of the
Catholic Church now stands in God’s place, with the power to refashion the
Hebrew observances for Christian use. The net effect theologically is
twofold. A sufficient connection is maintained with the Old Testament to
preserve the credibility of the Church as the appropriate spiritual
successor to the people of Israel. On the other hand, the new observances
sufficiently break the connection between the Church and the Torah so as
to transcend the code’s ethnic roots. What we see in the ecclesiastical
calendar of Roman Catholicism could be described as a detribalized form of
ancient Judaism.

Since the Sabbath is in the Decalogue, it would seem problematic
to abandon it. A modern Catholic text explains that “In New Testament
times, Sunday replaced the Jewish Sabbath” (Hardon 1975, 314). It was
called “the Lord’s Day” or “Dominica” (314.). From another text we have a
more thorough explanation of how this was doctrinally possible:

This commandment tells us of our obligation to set aside a certain
part of our time for God, since otherwise in our busy daily life it
would be easy for the consciousness of His presence to be lost . . . .

The Church regulates which days are to be specially
dedicated to God, and the manner in which they should be observed. The
actual Lord’s Day is Sunday . . . . (Van Doornik 1958, 404)

A well-known Catholic manual explains that ” . . . Natural
law obliges man to adore and thank God for His continuous blessings”
(Morrow 1963, 212). It explains that “In the Old Law the Jews kept holy
the seventh day of the week, Saturday” (212). It then points out in heavy
black ink the belief that “the vital principle of the Third Commandment
was not the specific day, but that one day out of seven should be devoted
to the worship of God the Creator” (212). We are informed that ” . . . In
the New Law, Catholics keep holy the first day of the week, Sunday. It is
called ‘The Lord’s Day’ . . ..” (213)

We can see this separation of the Sabbath commandment of the
Decalogue into a moral and ceremonial aspect in the writings of Thomas.
For him and for later Catholics it is the Third Commandment. In Judaism
and in Protestantism it is the fourth. Thomas explains in Summa
Theologica I-II, Question 100, Article 3, that ” . . . The precept of
the Sabbath observance is moral in one respect, insofar as it commands man
to give some time to things of God . . . .” He continues that ” . . . In
this respect, it is placed among the precepts of the Decalogue, but not as
to the fixing of the time, in which respect it is a ceremonial precept” (Baumgarter
1988, 89).

The understanding of Old Testament law in the Summa Theologica
remains the standard Roman Catholic perspective. For example, The Law
of Christ, Moral Theology for Priests and Laity by Bernard Haring,
written in 1959, after discussing “natural law,” goes on to discuss, “the
positive divine law” in the Old Testament (250). He differentiates three
kinds, two of which have been abolished, the “cultal law” and the
“judiciary law,” and the third, the “moral law” which remains binding upon
New Testament Christians (250-252). A catechism text published in 1975
states that “The Decalogue is not out of date, nor is there a syllable in
the New Testament that suggests the contrary . . . ” (Hardon 1975, 289).

A statement of the Archbishops and Bishops of the United States
issued on November 18, 1951, gives a good contemporary summary of the
moral requirements of human life as seen from the Catholic perspective. In
speaking of “natural law,” it explains, “These religious truths of the
natural order can be known by human reason . . .” (Brantl, 1962, 207).

It then continues:

But God, in His goodness, through Divine Revelation has helped man to
know better and to preserve the natural law. In the Old Testament this
revelation was given to the chosen people of God. Completed and
perfected in the New, it has been communicated to mankind by Jesus
Christ and His Apostles and it has been entrusted to the church to teach
all men. (Brantl 1962, 207-208).

The Talmud illustrates the concept of examining the
scriptures so as to reduce the 613 commandments to a smaller number of
overarching principles. For example, in the discussion in Makkoth 23b-24a,
(pages 169-173), Thomas similarly reduced the details of the Natural Law
to a basic core principle. He taught that the Natural Law was based on the
precept, ” . . . that good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be
avoided . . .” (Baumgarth 1988, 47). He quoted the account of the synoptic
gospels (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 10) of how Jesus summarized the Law
into the principal precepts of love of God and love of neighbor (88).

Overarching summaries, however, do not mean abolition of the
deducible details. After all, the complex, many-faceted discipline of
Judaism was summarized about two thousand years ago by Rabbi Hillel thus:

What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor, that is the whole
Torah, while the rest is commentary thereof; go and learn it. (Epstein
1938, 140).

Rabbinic Judaism is a challenging way of life, but a devout
Catholic also has his or her share of do’s and don’ts. After studying
Thomas’ writings on biblical law, one can understand how later Protestant
theologians could question whether through the Roman Catholic tradition,
Christianity had been, “. . . corrupted from the simplicity that is in
Christ Jesus” (II Corinthians 11:3). Or, they could inquire as to whether
a complex system of extra-biblical commands is really to be preferred to a
legal system divinely revealed and canonized.

Writing within the Roman Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas uses
the written Torah as a guide concerning the type of legislation
appropriate for the Christian Church. The church can legislate in the same
areas of life that we find covered by the Mosaic Law. Church laws would be
similar enough to Old Testament laws so that a certain validity will
adhere to them, as reflecting biblical values. However, the New Testament
practices must be sufficiently distinct to be perceived as New Covenant
laws rather than Old Covenant laws.

Old Testament influence is discernible in the approach that
Thomas takes towards the use of civil authority to enforce ecclesiastical
norms. The same tendency is found in the theology of Luther and Calvin.
Some radical reformers of the sixteenth century challenge the notion that
state power should be used to achieve religious ends.

As Maimonides had done for Judaism, Thomas Aquinas thoroughly and
eloquently states the doctrines of Catholicism in the light of the
thinking of the most highly educated people of his day. Thomas states
that:

If forgers of money and other evildoers are forthwith condemned to
death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics,
as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated
but even put to death. (Baumgarth 1988, 256)

Yet, the New Testament warns that:

Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and
there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult
is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew
7:13-14)

It is clear from the New Testament that the suffering and
death of Jesus Christ abolished the penal system included in the laws of
the written Torah. For the early Church, the sacrifice of Jesus the
Messiah had made the entire sacrificial system of Judaism redundant,
although Jesus himself instituted a new ceremony to replace the paschal
sacrifice. The dominant Christian view traditionally has been that the
entire written code connected to the Old Covenant is abolished.

While the historic Church has generally taught that Christians
are not obligated to obey the written code as a complete corpus, it has
also taught that there is an eternal moral law reflected in biblical
Judaism. There are principles contained in the old law that carry over
into the new law. Christians can keep those principles in a manner that
they could consider to be spiritually mature. The New Testament scriptures
provide the basis for Christian conduct.

Thomas states concerning judicial precepts:

That they refer to man’s relations to other men; secondly, that they
derive their binding force not from reason alone, but in virtue of their
institution. (Baumgarter 1988, 304)

Under the New Covenant the judicial laws commanded to Ancient Israel:

Are dead indeed, because they have no binding force, but they are not
deadly. (306)

In other words, they may be still observed by Christians. According to
Aquinas:

If a sovereign were to order these judicial precepts to be observed
in his kingdom, he would not sin; unless perhaps they were observed, or
ordered to be observed, as though they derived their binding force
through being institutions of the Old Law, for it would be a deadly sin
to intend to observe them thus. (306)

The preceding statement is difficult to accept in the light of actual
church practices recorded in Acts. The book implies that Jewish Christians
in Jerusalem continued to participate in the Temple sacrifices as long as
they could.

The writings of Aquinas leave the Roman Catholic Church open to
the charge that, in effect, it has re-established an Old Testament form of
religion, with the authority of the Church replacing the authority of the
Hebrew scriptures. Even more problematic is the very real, possible
concern that medieval Christianity had also absorbed pagan elements that
had taken Christianity in a very different direction from its apostolic
path. At the least, it can be said that Aquinas supports the replacement
of a scripturally commanded cycle of community of observances with an
extra-scriptural one.

This was the sin of Jeroboam discussed in First Kings 1 and
elsewhere. He sought to refashion the religion of Israel so that the
northern Israelite tribes could observe it apart from the nation of Judah
(the Jews) to the south. The agenda of Jeroboam could be stated as
removing the influence of Judah from the northern kingdom, which had taken
the name of Israel. The agenda of Catholicism was to remove Jewish
influence (physical Israel) from the Church (spiritual Israel).

A perceived legalism and excessive ritualism in Roman Catholicism
was an important factor in the Protestant Reformation. Yet, it could be
argued that the Reformers perpetuated the break that Roman Catholicism had
made with many specific requirements of the Old Testament. It continued
the policy of a gentilized Christianity. This perception was an important
factor in the rise of Commandment-keeping branches of certain fellowships
related to the Radical Reformation.

Martin Luther as a theologian was attempting to reform the Roman
Catholic Church from within. He did not reject the foundational
theological writings of his religious tradition. In Luther’s Commentary
on Galatians, we see that his general approach to the relationship of
the Old and New Testaments is in keeping with the dominant Church’s
position:

[W]e know that when by faith we apprehend Christ himself in our
conscience, we enter into a certain new law, which swalloweth up the old
law that held us captive (Dillenberger 1961, 119).

Luther perceives that Roman Catholicism had, in effect,
substituted its own form of salvation by works for the Pharisaic system
that Jesus Christ had shown to be ultimately ineffective. Luther’s reading
of Paul causes him to teach that:

For like as neither the law nor any work thereof is offered unto us,
but Christ alone: so nothing is required of us but faith alone, whereby
we apprehend Christ, and believe that our sins and our death are
condemned and abolished in the sin and death of Christ. (121)

Martin Luther’s response to the Pentateuch as scripture
differs from the response of Thomas Aquinas. Luther does not see a need to
provide Christian equivalents for various practices required by laws
contained in the Five Books of Moses. In his “Preface” to his translation
of the New Testament, Luther criticizes what I would call Roman Catholic, gentilized Old Testament style Christianity:

[B]eware lest you make Christ into a Moses, and the gospel into a
book of law or doctrine, as has been done before now, including some of
Jerome’s prefaces. In fact, however, the gospel demands no works to make
us holy and to redeem us. Indeed, it condemns such works, and demands
only faith in Christ, because He has overcome sin, death, and hell for
us. Thus it is not by our own works, but by His work, His passion and
death, that He makes us righteous, and gives us life and salvation. This
is in order that we might take to ourselves His death and victory as if
they were our own (Dillenberger 1961, 17).

In 1520, Luther, writing in The Freedom of a Christian,
condemns “stubborn ceremonialists [who] . . . having no faith, boast of,
prescribe, and insist upon their ceremonies as means of justification.
Such were the Jews of old, who were unwilling to learn how to do good” (Dillenberger
1961, 82).

A person understanding Paul the way Luther does:

Could easily and without danger find his way through those numberless
mandates and precepts of pope, bishops, monasteries, churches, princes,
and magistrates upon which some ignorant pastors insist as if they were
necessary to righteousness and salvation, calling them “precepts of the
church,” although they are nothing of the kind. (Luther 1957, 33)

Such a person would submit to ecclesiastical authority, while
understanding that fulfilling those requirements does not earn salvation.
“Although tyrants do violence or injustice in making their demands, yet it
will do no harm as long as they demand nothing contrary to God” (Luther
1957, 33).

Luther sees a “double use of the law” as codified in the Old
Testament (Dillenberger 1961, 139). “One is civil: for God hath ordained
civil laws, yea all laws to punish transgressions. Every law then is given
to restrain sin” (Dillenberger, 1961, 139).

He goes on to explain:

The first use, then, of laws is to bridle the wicked. For the devil
reigneth throughout the whole world, and enforceth men to all kinds of
horrible wickedness. Therefore God hath ordained magistrates, parents,
teachers, laws, bonds and all civil ordinances, that, if they can do no
more, yet at the least they may bind the devil’s hands, that he rage not
in his bondslaves after his own lust. (Dillenberger 1961, 139)

The law also serves to convict us as transgressors in need of
God’s mercy:

Another use of the law is theological or spiritual, which is (as Paul
saith) “to increase transgressions”; that is to say, to reveal unto a
man his sin, his blindness, his misery, his impiety, ignorance, hatred
and contempt of God, death, hell, the judgment and deserved wrath of
God. (Dillenberger 1961, 140)

Luther is critical of Catholic theologians for generally not
making a proper distinction between the law and the gospel. However,
Luther should not be misunderstood as unheedful of the moral guidance
contained in the Pentateuch’s commandments. He sees no reason to re-invent
a ceremonial system on the Old Testament model. However, he does believe
in the applicability of Old Testament examples to Christian ethics and in
using the civil code of the Pentateuch as a guide for civil law in
Christian nations:

For time and external circumstances matter not among Christians.
Neither is it true that the Old Testament was abolished in such a way
that it need not be kept, or that it would be wrong for any one to keep
it in full, as St. Jerome and many more erred in thinking. It is indeed
abolished in the sense that we are free to keep it or not to keep it,
and it is no longer necessary to keep it on penalty of one’s soul, as
was formerly the case (Dillenberger 1961, 376)

However, Old Testament moral laws may be followed if doing so shows
love for one’s fellow human beings, a basis of Christian conduct.
Therefore, regarding the use of military force to enforce internal
security within a nation, or to right wrongs on an international scale,
Luther explains:

Hence, the precedents for the use of the sword also are matters of
freedom, and you may follow them or not, but where you see that your
neighbor needs it, there love constrains you so that you must needs do
what otherwise would be optional and unnecessary for you to do or to
leave undone. (Dillenberger 1961, 376)

For Luther, salvation is ultimately the result of grace only,
not the result of a combination of grace and works. Thus, he does not, in
Roman Catholic fashion, anticipate a Christianity involving an intricate
body of explicit laws and prescribed ceremonies reminiscent of Judaism.
The relationship of believers with God under the New Covenant is
qualitatively different from that under the Old Covenant. The Church would
be working at cross purposes with that better relationship if it were to
conduct itself as a refashioned Levitical system. However, Luther does
combine the Old and New Testaments in his social ethics, at least in terms
of guiding principles and examples.

When we consider the practical application of Lutheran theology
concerning the law, we can see that it is a “reformation” of Catholicism,
but not a “radical reformation,” as reflected in Anabaptist theology. The
Christianity of Luther is not so much a counter-culture as it is ideally a
positive, leavening agent in society. In their application, the teachings
of Luther cause Lutheran churches to have a tendency “. . . to leave the
essentials of religion to be dictated and controlled by the state . . .” (MacGregor
1989, 390).

When Luther lists the uses of the law, he omits the obvious, as a
guide to personal conduct. Perhaps he thinks such a statement to be
redundant since one cannot be restrained from sin or made to feel guilty
and inadequate from an invalid code of law. However, this omission on his
part hints at a certain distancing of Christianity from its Old Testament
roots. Luther is not Marcionite, but it can be argued that he begins a
process, perhaps unwittingly, that leads to a German Protestantism which
is insufficiently respectful of the Judaic element in Christianity. In
that regard the approach of Calvin to the law provides a theological
balance. The heritage of the Calvinist churches is thus more biblically
rooted and perhaps less potentially anti-Jewish.

Luther uses the Old Testament to justify a Christ and culture
paradigm as Aquinas had done. Luther’s approach to the manner in which the
Old Testament might be applied in a contemporary setting differs from
Aquinas’s. Luther emphasizes the scriptures themselves without giving the
same level of deference as Thomas Aquinas does to ecclesiastical
tradition. Theoretically, these views would have allowed for the ancient
Torah to influence Lutheran communities. However, Luther’s reaction
against the “works” orientation of sixteenth century Roman Catholicism
lays a basis for future Lutheran aloofness towards the do’s and don’ts
required of ancient Israel.

In a sense, the Protestant Reformation was, indeed, an effort to
return to the biblical roots of Christianity unencumbered by certain
traditions that in the Reformers’ views, had obscured the essential
biblical message. It can be proposed that Calvin proceeded further than
Luther towards a more purely biblical Christianity:

If Luther is willing to think of a Bible within the Bible because of
the centrality of justification by faith, and of the way in which Gospel
is set against law, Calvin without retreating from justification,
nevertheless sees the totality of Scripture as a book which makes
manifest the benefits of God for men. (Dillenberger 1975, 13)

John Dillenberger notes that Calvin’s writings display a more
positive view of the significance of the Old Testament than do Luther’s:

The harmony between the old and the new is more pronounced than is
the case in Luther, for whom the major accent sets the two against each
other. While in Luther the law as a schoolmaster that drives one to
Christ is considered to be the “alien work” of God, for Calvin it
certainly belongs to his “proper works.” Law as the schoolmaster that
drives one to mercy and as the restraining force which makes community
possible, is in both instances already in the service of the religion of
Israel. (15)

Calvin is more explicit in his respect for the Old Covenant
commandments. It would seem useful to quote Dillenberger’s summary of
Calvin’s belief that:

The law under the old dispensation is the guide to the believers in
Israel and now, under the new dispensation, to the Christians. While the
forms of the ceremonial law have been abandoned, the law is not
abolished but finds its true setting in the context of believers (15).

According to seminary professor John H. Leith:
“Predestination never issued in passive living, allowing life to be
determined by what happened to one. Predestination meant election to
responsibility” (Keesecker 1985, 9). Responsibility can imply the
obligation to be law abiding.

Calvin’s more explicitly positive approach to the ancient laws
can be seen in his writings on the Decalogue: ” . . . [T]he Ten
Commandments are interpreted not with respect to what they prohibit, but
rather to what they enjoin upon the believer” (Dillenberger 1975, 15). An
annotated edition of the Institutes notes that: “For Calvin a
positive evaluation of the law allows the ‘third use’ to be the principal
one . . .. Calvin regards the condemning function as “accidental” to its
true purpose . . .” (McNeill 1960, 348).

It should also be noted that “Calvin wholly rejects the notion of
a theocracy based on the judicial laws of the Old Testament” (McNeill
1960, 1502). Even so, the Old Testament precepts are still important and
useful as a guide for proper conduct. Calvin explicitly states in his
writings that an independent human conscience is an insufficient guide to
proper behavior. “For, however people may dispute concerning virtues and
duties, no work is worthy of praise concerning virtues and among virtues,
except what is pleasing to God” (Keesecker 1985, 109). Calvin
believes that Christians should apply the Old Testament scripture in which
God:

Himself testifies that he makes greater account of obedience than of
sacrifice (I Sam. 15:22). Wherefore, our life will then be rightly
constituted when we depend upon the word of God and undertake nothing
except at his command. (Keesecker 1985, 109)

In Book 4, Chapter 20, section 14 of his Institutes of the
Christian Religion, Calvin discusses the topic “Old Testament law and
the laws of nations” (McNeill 1960, 1502). He avers that:

I would have preferred to pass over this matter in utter silence if I
were not aware that here many dangerously go astray. For there are some
who deny that a commonwealth is duly framed which neglects the political
system of Moses, and is ruled by the common laws of nations. Let other
men consider how perilous and seditious this notion is; it will be
enough for me to have proved it false and foolish. (1502)

Thus, while personal behavior must be based upon biblical
instructions, the details of civil law do not have to imitate the civil
law of ancient Israel. Calvin accepts the categorization of Old Testament
law that Thomas Aquinas notes in his Summa Theologica. “We must
bear in mind that common division of the whole law of God published by
Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws” (McNeill 1960, 1502). In
the tradition of Aquinas, Calvin declares:

It is a fact that the law of God which we call the moral law is
nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience
which God has engraved upon the minds of men. (1504)

If the tables of the law can be seen as first involving one’s
relationship to God and, second, one’s relationship to other people, the
two tables have a practical relevance for Calvin, rather than the
implication in Luther that only the second table has such direct relevance
for Christians. The biblical laws relating to personal and societal
morality are explicit statements of principles that ideally would have
been understood by each and every human conscience:

Consequently, the entire scheme of this equity of which we are now
speaking has been prescribed in it. Hence, this equity alone must be the
goal and rule and limit of all laws. (McNeill 1960, 1504)

Laws involving disciplinary measures, enforcement procedures,
are linked to time, place, and the people involved:

Whatever laws shall be framed to that rule, directed to that goal,
bound by that limit, there is no reason why we should disapprove of
them, howsoever they may differ from the Jewish law, or among
themselves. (McNeill 1960, 1504)

The methods of enforcement in an ethical society need not
replicate those commanded to ancient Israel in the scriptures:

For the Lord through the hand of Moses did not give that law to be
proclaimed among all nations and to be in force everywhere; but when he
had taken the Jewish nation into his safekeeping, defense, and
protection, he also willed to be a lawgiver especially to it; and– -as
became a wise lawgiver—he had special concern for it in makings its
laws. (McNeill 1960, 1505)

John T. McNeill (1960) brings to the attention of the reader
of the Institutes that in Chapter 20 of Book 4, Secs. 11 and 12
are:

Directed against Anabaptist pacifism, and offer a concise rationale
of the resort to war by rulers under necessity to defend their subjects
from violence, whether it arises from sedition or invasion. The fourth
and sixth of the articles of Schleitheim had denied this. (1500)

In Book 2, Chapter 7 of the Institutes, Calvin surveys
” . . . the function and use of what is called the ‘moral law.’ Now, so
far as I understand it, it consists of three parts.” McNeill explains that
by 1535 Melanchthon, Luther’s colleague, was also writing about the same
three uses of the law (354).

For Calvin, the moral law of the Old Testament is valuable for
Christians because:

While it shows God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone
acceptable to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns,
every man of his own unrighteousness. (354)

Knowledge of the law brings humans to the humility necessary
to properly appreciate divine grace (McNeill 1960, 354-356). The
commandments of the Old Testament were recorded with penalties for their
transgressions along with dire warnings directed towards the individual
transgressors as well as the nation as a whole, should the community not
maintain proper standards. Calvin states that:

At least by fear of punishment to restrain certain men who are
untouched by any care for what is just and right unless compelled by
hearing the dire threats in the law. (McNeill 1960, 358)

The second use of the law is that, ” . . . this constrained and forced
righteousness is necessary for the public community of men, (sic) for
whose tranquillity the Lord herein provided when he took care that
everything be not tumultuously confounded” (McNeill 1960, 359).

In expounding on 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Calvin explains “that the law
is like a halter to check the raging and otherwise limitlessly ranging
lusts of the flesh” (McNeill 1960, 359). Those whom God has chosen to put
into His church are thus kept from degenerating before being
supernaturally called. Calvin remarks that ” . . . if [God] does not
immediately regenerate those whom he has destined to inherit his Kingdom
until the time of his visitation, he keeps them safe through the works of
the law under fear . . .” (360).

Ideally, people should want to have a positive relationship with
God, should want to please God, and should want to lead ethical lives. For
people who are selected by God to be placed into the fellowship of the
church of God, Calvin discusses the ” . . . principal use, which pertains
more closely to the proper purpose of the law . . .” (McNeill 1960, 360).
Moreover, ” . . . the law points out the goal toward which throughout life
we are to strive . . .” (362). In expounding upon the Decalogue, Calvin
notes that ” . . . the Lord has provided us with a written law to give us
a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law, shake off
our listlessness, and strike more vigorously our mind and memory” (368).

John Calvin did not encourage the observance of the biblical
festivals or the maintenance of biblical dietary restrictions. These
practices were evidently subsumed under the ceremonial law which:

Was the tutelage of the Jews, with which it seemed good to the Lord
to train this people, as it were, in their childhood, until the fullness
of time should come [Gal. 4:3-4; cf. ch. 3:23-24], in order that he
might fully manifest his wisdom to the nations, and show the truth of
those things which then were foreshadowed in figures. (McNeill 1960,
1503)

For Calvin the New Testament church did not need to recreate
a system of weekly, monthly, and annual occasions to replace the special
days in the Hebrew year. He did not see a need to establish specific
dietary laws to set apart the Christian community from non-believers. The
Catholic and Orthodox Churches had a priesthood which played an
intercessory role and a system of rituals reminiscent of Jewish Temple
practice. For Calvin it was not necessary to refashion the sacrificial
system and the Levitical priesthood. In a sense, Catholicism and Eastern
Orthodoxy have done so through their more standardized liturgy and system
of rituals. Calvin did remain in the historic tradition of normative
Christianity, retaining a simplified system of holidays, worship on
Sunday, baptism and communion.

Calvin’s separation from Roman Catholicism freed him to take a
fresh look at the Old Testament laws that he believed to be a reflection
of the will of God. Calvin was a reformer, but not a radical reformer.
Within the Radical Reformation movement of his time, there emerged a
practical theology based on a return to the perceived first century church
and even, in some circles, a return to the Jewish roots of that church.
Calvin’s theological writings opposed such an interpretation of New
Testament Christianity.

Commandment-keeping sectarians became a significant factor in
Christianity in the century after the demise of Calvin. The Calvinist
communities tended to strongly emphasize scripture and place less emphasis
on tradition. Such an approach can provide a basis for a sympathetic
climate to Bible believers who call for a revival of Old Testament holy
days and dietary laws.

The Calvinist heritage has come to be associated with an emphasis
on the re-ordained chosenness of the saints, and on good works as evidence
of being chosen. Commandment Keepers do not believe that people are
predestined for punishment or reward, but they generally emphasize the
divine selection of true Christians. Others receive their opportunity to
respond to God’s offer of salvation after the onset of the millennium.
Observance of the Saturday Sabbath, and Levitical holy days and dietary
laws are seen as signs of membership in the divinely chosen community.

The Catholic tradition, as exemplified by Aquinas, does not
consider Christians to be subject to the details of those Old Testament
laws which are thought of as civil or ceremonial. Regarding the latter,
Catholicism officially rejects the Saturday Sabbath, the festivals listed
in Leviticus 23, and the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Yet Catholicism developed its own set of instructions, created de novo,
based upon Old Testament precedents. Thomas Aquinas reflected the
traditional Roman Catholic respect for the Church’s Magisterium. He
accepted the replacement of Old Testament institutions such as the
Saturday Sabbath and annual festivals with Roman Catholic equivalents.

Martin Luther rejected the idea that the Church should institute
its own replacements for many, if not all, of the institutions of the Old
Covenant. Luther rejected this recasted system of ecclesiastical rulings
similar in nature to the specific rule by rule requirements contained in
the Pentateuch. For Luther, such an approach to Christianity is contrary
to the essential spirit of the New Testament.

Calvin also agreed that the Church need not, in fact should not,
attempt to reinvent the complete religious system of Ancient Israel. But
Calvin more explicitly emphasized the continuing spiritual value of the
Old Testament instructions. Within the Protestant tradition, the Calvinist
perspective reinstated a greater respect for Old Testament law.

Commandment-keeping Christians would find more common ground with
the Calvinist tradition than the religious tradition based on the
teachings of Luther. The theoretically greater affinity between the two
positions stems from the more generally positive respect for the
contemporary relevance of Old Testament law that can be found in the
Calvinist tradition. However, Calvin’s renewed respect for the ancient
commandments did not extend to returning to actual observance of specific
requirements, such as the Saturday Sabbath, the annual festivals, or the
dietary laws.

It was within the currents of religious thought released by the
Radical Reformation that historians can find a real openness to linking
Christianity directly with the specific commandments of the Old Covenant.
Radical Reformation communities such as the Anabaptists helped to foster a
religious climate in which non- traditionalist sects could flourish. These
sects could bypass historic tradition and attempt to reconstruct a
religious life more directly based on biblical instructions as they
understood them. Among these sects were those fellowships seeking to
recapture the original heritage of Christianity as recorded in the Book of
Acts.