Page 54 - BV3

In his book, The Sabbath and the New Testament, Dr. Bacchiocchi devotes an entire
chapter (Ch. 6) to "Paul and the Law." The section "A Resolution of Tension" contains these
words about Paul:

"Is it possible to reconcile Paul's apparently contradictory statements about the law? How
can Paul view the law both as 'abolished' (Eph. 2:15) and 'established' (Rom. 3:31), un-
necessary (Rom. 3:28) and necessary (I Cor. 7:19; Eph. 6:2, 3; I Tim. 1:8-10)?

"A popular explanation has been to say that Paul's negative statements refer to the Mo-
saic, ceremonial law, while the positive ones refer to the moral law of the Ten Command-
ments. Such as explanation, however, is based on an arbitrary distinction between moral
and ceremonial laws which cannot be found in Paul's writings.

"The correct explanation is to be found in the different contexts in which Paul speaks of
the law. When he speaks of the law in the context of salvation (justification -- right stand-
ing before God), he clearly affirms that law-keeping is of no avail (Rom. 3:20).

"On the other hand, when Paul speaks of the law in the context of Christian conduct
(sanctification -- right living before God), then he maintains the value and validity of
God's law (Rom. 7:12; 13:8-10; I Cor. 7:19). For example, when Paul speaks of the vari-
ous forms of human wickedness in I Timothy 1:8-10, he explicitly affirms 'now we know
that the law is good' (verse 8)."

Dr. Bacchiocchi then goes on to make some of the same points, from scripture, that I intend
to make to you. He concludes this section with a very succinct conclusion that attempts to explain
why many have easily accepted, and presumed to be true, Romish teachings about Paul's attitude
on the Law of God. I think his own words say it best:

"The conclusion that emerges from the foregoing considerations is that Paul does not
attack the validity and value of the law as a moral guide to Christian conduct. On the con-
trary, he emphatically affirms that Christ specifically came 'in order that the just require-
ments of the law might be fulfilled in us' (Rom. 8:4). What Paul criticizes is not the moral
but the soteriological understanding of the law, that is, the law viewed as a document of
election that includes the Jews and excludes the Gentiles.

"The mounting pressure of Judaizers who were urging circumcision upon the Gentiles,
made it necessary for Paul to attack the exclusive covenant-concept of the law. 'But,' as
George Howard points out, 'under other circumstances he [Paul] might have insisted on
the importance of Israel's retention of her distinctiveness.'

"The failure to distinguish in Paul's writing between his moral and soteriological usages
of the law, and the failure to recognize that his criticism of the law is directed not toward
Jewish-Christians but toward Gentile Judaizers, has led many to fallaciously conclude
that Paul is an antinomian who rejected the value and validity of the law as a whole. Such
a view is totally unwarranted because, as we have shown, Paul rejects the law as a method
of salvation but upholds it as a moral standard of Christian conduct."

54