Did the early Church fathers believe the Law of Moses was never able to justify?

Upvote:1

Have you followed the trail of Ezekiel in this? Ezekiel 20:25 in the ESV reads, “Moreover, I gave them statutes that were not good and rules by which they could not have life.

It is not a simple matter of whether it can justify. God can act independently of His Own Laws. Abraham was justified but it was on faith. Now Abraham could follow the Law and be justified aside from the Law. [ I realize this is hypothetical ]

SOme of the whole Law was only given in view of the sinfulness of Israel and was not God's original intent, which appears to have been only the 10 Commandment, which are natural law almost totally, with the Sinaitic context only adding divine sanction to what was already rationally binding. Nobody heard that stealing is forbidden and said "wow, what a surprise"

I am following the thought of John Henry Newman in some of this. Though the natural law basis of the commandments is from Aquinas

Upvote:1

Here's Justin Martyr circa 150 CE.

But we [believers], because we refuse to sacrifice to those to whom we were of old accustomed to sacrifice, undergo extreme penalties, and rejoice in death,—believing that God will raise us up by His Christ, and will make us incorruptible, and undisturbed, and immortal; and we know that the ordinances imposed by reason of the hardness of your people’s hearts, contribute nothing to the performance of righteousness and of piety.” Dialogue with Trypho Chapter XLVI

Irenaeus circa 175 CE echos the same thought that the Mosaic Law did not afford justification.

  1. The laws of bondage [from Moses], however, were one by one promulgated to the people by Moses, suited for their instruction or for their punishment, as Moses himself declared: “And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments.”4002 These things, therefore, which were given for bondage, and for a sign to them, He cancelled by the new covenant of liberty. Against Heresies Book IV Chapter XVI Paragraph 5

Tertullian circa 200 CE will make the same argument that the Law has passed, which means it cannot be necessary for justification.

Christ marks the period of the separation when He says, “The law and the prophets were until John”5239—thus making the Baptist the limit between the two dispensations of the old things then terminating—and the new things then beginning, the apostle cannot of course do otherwise, (coming as he does) in Christ, who was revealed after John, than invalidate “the old things” and confirm “the new,” and yet promote thereby the faith of no other god than the Creator, at whose instance5240 it was foretold that the ancient things should pass away. Therefore both the abrogation of the law and the establishment of the gospel help my argument even in this epistle, wherein they both have reference to the fond assumption of the Galatians, which led them to suppose that faith in Christ (the Creator’s Christ, of course) was obligatory, but without annulling the law, because it still appeared to them a thing incredible that the law should be set aside by its own author. Against Marcion Book V Chapter II

So, to answer the OP, yes, the early church fathers believed the Law of Moses could never justify.

More post

Search Posts

Related post