Before beginning the study of “ton nomon tou Cristou” and all relevant passages dealing with nomoV, it would be helpful to first define the terms being explicated, especially because of the variation of referents involved within the New Testament, as well as the Old. To start with the latter, two words are consistently used in the LXX in reference to “law”: “nomoV” and “entolh”; in a secondary and more peripheral sense, “prostagma” (ordinances) and “dikaiwma” (regulations) are used respectively in Leviticus 18:30 and Zechariah 3:8, and throughout Deuteronomy and the Psalms.[1] In the LXX, Genesis 26:5 contains all four words: …because your father Abraham obeyed my voice and observed my orders (prostagma) and my commandments (ehtolh) and my regulations (dikaiwma) and my laws (nomoV).
The Hebrew words that the Greek follows are “miswot” (commands), “huqqot” (regulations), and “toroth” (laws).[2] “Toroth,” or “tora,” the singular form, is significant because it is most often translated nomoV in the LXX, and according to P. Enns, the Hebrew term “refers to an authority and standard that was recognized by the community as binding and at least generally of divine origin.”[3] Furthermore, nomoV only appears in Genesis 26:5, and in Exodus it is used exclusively when referring to “law.”[4] Within the Pentateuch, apodictic and casuistic laws are distinct, but in the context of Genesis 26, Yahweh does not appear to be differentiating between the two. Abraham was obedient to God, and through the use of all four words there is a rather specific statement being made, one using similar terminology found elsewhere in the OT often being associated with the law given at Sinai.[5] The example of Abraham will be fundamental to understanding Paul’s thought on the promise and the law, which is addressed in Galatians 3. As Paul engages the community at Galatia regarding several problems, though many of his arguments may seem polemical, one should not quickly apply the hermeneutic of “mirror reading” to the text, lest the ethical statements in Galatians 6, specifically the law of Christ, be viewed as mere refutatio of Paul’s opponent’s ethical teachings and traditions,[6] thereby robbing the apostle of his theological savoir-faire.
In the letter to the Galatians, Paul addresses a number of issues plaguing the local church, including the works of the law (ergwn nomou), disruptive sects, and the onus of the Christian life.[7] It is in the context of the latter that Paul directs his argument to the community in Galatians 6:2, exhorting them to “bear one another’s burdens and thus fulfill the law of Christ.” Even though Paul does not explicitly make a distinction between “tw/ MwusewV nomw/,”[8] ‘the law of Moses’, and “ton nomon tou Cristou” in Galatians, there are such references found elsewhere in Paul’s writings.[9] It is important to distinguish between each, because Paul’s use of the word “law” is complex, having various referents that are bound to the context.[10] The question must be asked as to what law he is alluding to.
When Paul speaks of the Law of Moses in his arguments, generally it is never in a positive light. In the letter to the Galatians alone, “law,” every time it is used, except for 6:2, refers to its negative, condemning effects.[11] With that understanding it is difficult to separate “law,” as it relates to Christ, from the preceding negative connotations. However, the expression “ton nomon tou Cristou” ought to be read as antithetical to all other references to nomoV that surround it. The “law” that Paul is affirming seems to be analogous to:
prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel (usually embodied in the example and teaching of Jesus), which are meant to be applied to specific situations by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit, being always motivated and conditioned by love.[12]
Longenecker’s definition captures the meaning of the term as Paul uses it, but also the context from which it is spoken. “Prescriptive principles” is an adequate summation of “law” in this context, but before it is adopted as a divine directive other possibilities must be exhausted as to the exact nature of Paul’s thought on the law of Christ.
[1] Alfred Rahlfs & Robert Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006); and John William Wevers, LXX: Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1993), 400. In BDAG, prostagma is defined as “an official directive, order, command(ment), injunction” with no other references listed; there is no usage of the term in the NT. However, dikaiwma, is defined in three ways: 1. “A regulation relating to just or right action, regulation, requirement, commandment; 2. “An action that meets expectations as to what is right or just, righteous deed; 3. “To clear someone of violation.” It is used in both the LXX and the NT: Lk. 1:6; Rom. 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4; Heb. 9:1, 10; Rev. 15:4; 19:8 (Frederick William Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature 3rd Ed. [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 249-50, 884).
[2] Miswot is the most general term of the three, relating to demands that incur obligation; huqqot is typically used when referring to regulations; toroth is the plural form for the word that is used to encompass all Mosaic legislation, and also for the Pentateuch (John H. Walton, Genesis: NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 552).
[3] Peter Enns, “Law of God,” NIDOTTE ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:896-97. He notes that Genesis 26:5 does not specify precisely what these laws are, suggesting that either a post-Mosaic picture of Abraham is being presented or that these laws are general divine norms that have nothing to do with Mosaic legislation (896).
[4] Cf. Gen. 26:5; Ex. 12:49; 13:9; 16:4, 28; 18:16, 20; 24:12. NomimoV is only used here in Gen. 26:5 for the Hebrew hrrt “toroth,” and is almost always rendered by nomoV; nomimoV occurs only five times in the Prophets and once in Proverbs (Wevers, LXX, 400).
[5] Walton, Genesis, 552. The blessing spoken of in Gen. 26:4, which is contingent upon the oath God made with Abraham (v.3), continues to be a promise to Yahweh’s people because of Abraham’s faithfulness in keeping all of God’s commands; this particular understanding of the context has direct bearing on the covenantal relationship between God and his people. A more complete discussion on the relationship between the OT and the new covenant will ensue following the current study of “law” in Galatians 6.
[6] Richard N. Longenecker, WBC Galatians (Dallas: Word Books, 1990), 269.
[7] Ben Witherington III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 34-5. Witherington includes a “Rhetorical Outline” with divisions between arguments and excursus; it is from that outline that the issues were drawn.
[9] Rom. 3:27 & 8:2 both contrast “nomou pistewV” with “ergwn nomou” and “nomoV tou pneumatoV thV zwhV en Cristw/ Ihsou” with “tou nomou thV amartiaV kai tou qanatou” respectively. There is also an argument in 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul speaks of being “ennomoV Cristou,” “subject to the law of Christ.”
[10] When explaining Paul’s use of nomoV in 1 Cor. 9:21, C. H. Dodd observes other uses of “law” in Paul’s writings, and notes in regard to the use of “law of God” in Rom. 7:7-8:10 that “the sense to be attached to nomoV in any particular place is notoriously elusive”; in 7:7 o nomoV (without qualification) clearly refers to Torah. But there other terms used, such as o nomoV tou nooV mou, o nomoV tou pneumatoV thV zwhV, as well as (o) nomoV (tou) qeou, all lacking clarity as to how they relate to one another (C.H. Dodd, More New Testament Studies [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968], 136).
[11] Cf. Gal. 2:16, 19, 21; 3:1-2, 5, 10-13, 15, 17-19, 21, 23-24; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:3, 4, 14, 18, 23; 6:2, 13.
