What Does “the Law” Mean in the Bible? Commandments, Torah, or All Scripture?

Few words in Scripture are as important, and perhaps as easily misunderstood, as the word Law.

For some Christians, the word immediately suggests the Ten Commandments. For others, it brings to mind the whole Mosaic system of sacrifices, priesthood, purity laws, feast days, dietary commands, and civil regulations given to Israel (in other words, everything tied to the Old Covenant). Still others hear “the Law” and think of the first five books of the Bible, the writings of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. And at times, especially in phrases like “the Law and the Prophets“ (Matthew 5:17), the word seems to extend even further, referring not merely to commandments but to the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole. The question, then, is not a small one. When the Bible speaks of “the Law,” what exactly does it mean?

The answer, I believe, is that “the Law” is not less than commandments, but it is often more than commandments. The word has a range of meaning, and careful interpretation requires us to ask how it is being used in each passage. Sometimes “Law” means a specific commandment. Sometimes it means the Mosaic Law as a covenantal administration given to Israel. Sometimes it means the Torah, the five books of Moses. Sometimes it functions as a shorthand for the Old Testament Scriptures themselves. If we collapse all these meanings into one, we will misread both Jesus and Paul. We may wrongly imagine that Jesus merely preserved a legal code, or we may wrongly suppose that Paul rejected the Old Testament as though it were opposed to grace. Neither conclusion is biblical.

The Old Testament Background: Torah as Instruction

The Hebrew background is essential. The Hebrew word commonly translated “law” is Torah, but Torah carries the broader sense of teaching, instruction, or divine direction. In Jewish usage, the Hebrew Bible is traditionally divided into three major sections: Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim; that is, the Law or Teaching, the Prophets, and the Writings. While the acronym “Tanakh” is a later rabbinic formulation, the threefold canonical structure it represents was well established in the Second Temple period.

The Torah, in this canonical sense, refers especially to the five books of Moses, while the Prophets and Writings comprise the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. This threefold division is reflected in the New Testament itself, especially when Jesus speaks in Luke 24:44 of what was written about Him “in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.” The Psalms there likely stand as a representative title for the Writings, with Psalms being the most prominent book in that third division.

“These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

Luke 24:44

Yet the New Testament goes even further: both Jesus and Paul occasionally use the word “Law” (nomos) as a comprehensive designation for the entire canon of Scripture, including the Writings and the Prophets. In John 10:34, Jesus defends His divine sonship by asking, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?”—yet the passage He quotes is not from the Pentateuch, but from Psalm 82:6 in the Writings. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 14:21, Paul writes, “In the Law it is written: ‘By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people,'” directly quoting the prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 28:11–12). In both instances, “the Law” functions as an umbrella term for the authoritative Word of God in its entirety.

This already helps us. When a first-century Jew heard “the Law,” he might think of divine commandments, but he might also think of the Torah as Scripture, the foundational writings of Moses. And when he heard “the Law and the Prophets” (or saw “the Law” used as a shorthand for all inspired text), he would understand a broader reference to the sacred Scriptures, not merely a list of regulations. This is especially important when we come to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17–20.

Jesus and the Law in Matthew 5

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.”

Matthew 5:17

Jesus does not say merely, “I came not to abolish commandments.” He says, “the Law or the Prophets.” That phrase points to the great body of Old Testament revelation. Christ is declaring that His mission is not a rebellion against Moses, not a contradiction of the prophets, not a repudiation of the Scriptures of Israel, but their fulfillment.

The word “fulfill” is crucial. Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets not by tossing them aside, nor by leaving them untouched as though His coming made no difference. He fulfills them by bringing them to their intended goal. The promises find their Yes in Him. The types find their substance in Him. The sacrifices find their Lamb in Him. The priesthood finds its Great High Priest in Him. The kingdom finds its King in Him. The moral will of God is embodied perfectly in Him. The prophetic hope of Israel converges upon Him. To read the Law rightly, therefore, is to read it in relation to Christ. The Law is not an autonomous ladder by which man climbs to heaven. It is God’s holy instruction, His covenantal revelation, and His witness to the One who alone can redeem sinners.

John Chrysostom, preaching in the fourth century, understood Matthew 5:17 as a defense against the suspicion that Christ was opposed to God’s former revelation. In Homily 16 on Matthew, Chrysostom says that Christ fulfilled the prophets by accomplishing what they foretold concerning Him; he also says that Christ fulfilled the Law in more than one way, including by obeying its precepts and by bringing about what it anticipated. Chrysostom’s point is not that Jesus merely repeated Moses, but that Jesus vindicated Moses by bringing the Law to its appointed completion. The Law was not destroyed by Christ’s coming; it was honored, completed, and interpreted in Him.

Augustine also treats the Sermon on the Mount not as an overthrow of the Old Testament, but as the mature expression of righteousness in the kingdom of Christ. In On the Sermon on the Mount, Book I, Augustine describes the sermon as containing, with respect to morals, a perfect standard of the Christian life. In his anti-Manichaean work Contra Faustum, especially Books XVII and XIX, Augustine addresses the charge that Christ contradicted Moses. Against the Manichaean rejection of the Old Testament, Augustine insists that Christ came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them, and he connects this fulfillment with grace, truth, and the accomplishment of divine promise. Augustine is especially useful here because he is not merely solving an abstract exegetical puzzle; he is defending the unity of God’s revelation against those who would sever the New Testament from the Old.

That ancient debate still matters. There is a perennial temptation toward a practical Marcionism, even among Christians who would never formally deny the Old Testament. We may treat the Old Testament as though it were merely the age of wrath, law, externals, shadows, and failed human striving, while the New Testament is the age of grace, love, spirituality, and fulfillment. But Jesus does not permit us to divide the Bible that way. The Old Testament is not an embarrassment to Christian faith. It is the Word of God. Yet it is the Word of God that must be read in light of Christ, because Christ Himself tells us that Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms speak of Him.

Paul and the Works of the Law in Galatians 3

At the same time, we must be equally careful when reading Paul. In Galatians 3, Paul insists that justification is not by “works of the Law.” He writes that those who rely on works of the Law are under a curse, because the Law demands comprehensive obedience.

“For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written: ‘Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all the things written in the book of the law, to do them.'”

Galatians 3:10

Paul’s argument is not that the Old Testament is evil, nor that Moses was mistaken, nor that commandments are contrary to the character of God. Rather, Paul is addressing the fatal error of seeking right standing before God through obedience to the Mosaic Law. The issue is justification. Can sinners be declared righteous before God by doing what the Law commands? Paul’s answer is no. The Law is holy, but we are not. The Law commands righteousness, but it does not create righteousness in fallen man. The Law exposes sin, pronounces a curse upon transgression, and drives us away from self-righteousness to Christ.

This is why Galatians 3 must not be interpreted as though Paul were saying, “The Old Testament is opposed to the Gospel.” Paul does the opposite. He argues from the Old Testament. He cites Abraham. He cites Deuteronomy. He cites Habakkuk. He cites Leviticus. His doctrine of justification by faith is not a rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures but an exposition of them. The same Old Testament that gives the Law also declares that Abraham believed God and was counted righteous. The same Scriptures that pronounce the curse also promise blessing to the nations through Abraham’s seed. The Law, therefore, is not the enemy of the promise, but neither is it the ground of our justification. It has a real function in God’s redemptive economy, but it was never given as a sinner’s ladder into the presence of God.

Martin Luther, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, presses this point with characteristic force. Luther sees Galatians as a defense of justification by faith alone against every attempt to smuggle human works into the ground of acceptance before God. In his comments on Galatians 3:10–19, Luther argues that those who seek justification by the Law come under the Law’s curse, because the Law does not merely ask for sincere effort; it demands obedience. Luther also says that the Law served the promise until the Gospel of Christ was openly revealed. His tone can be severe, but the theological instinct is right: if the Law is made into a means of justification for sinners, it will not save them; it will condemn them.

John Calvin is perhaps even more helpful for holding the pieces together. In his Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, on Matthew 5:17–19, Calvin says that Christ’s doctrine is not contrary to the Law, but agrees with the Law and the Prophets and brings their complete fulfillment. Calvin also insists that Christ’s coming does not free believers from the authority of the moral law as a rule of holy life.

Yet in his Commentary on Galatians and Ephesians, especially on Galatians 3:10–14, Calvin explains that those who desire to be justified by works of the Law place themselves under a curse, since no one renders the obedience the Law requires. In Calvin’s treatment, the distinction is clear: the Law as God’s moral rule remains holy and useful, but the Law as a covenantal basis for justification cannot give life to sinners.

The Reformed and Puritan Distinction: Moral, Ceremonial, and Judicial Law

This distinction later receives confessional clarity in the Reformed tradition. The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 19, “Of the Law of God,” distinguishes between the moral law, ceremonial laws, and judicial laws. It teaches that the ceremonial laws given to Israel prefigured Christ and are now abrogated under the New Testament. It also teaches that the judicial laws given to Israel as a body politic expired with that particular national polity, except insofar as their general equity may still require application. The moral law, however, continues to bind all people, not as a way of justification, but as the abiding revelation of God’s righteous will. Westminster also explicitly says that Christ does not dissolve the moral law but strengthens its obligation.

Thomas Watson, the Puritan, follows this same stream in The Ten Commandments. Watson writes that while the ceremonial and judicial laws are abrogated, the moral law remains of perpetual use in the church. Watson’s concern is pastoral as much as theological. He opposes both legalism and antinomianism. Against legalism, he would deny that sinners are justified by their obedience. Against antinomianism, he would deny that grace makes holiness optional. That balance is desperately needed. A Christian is not under the Law as a covenant of works, but neither is he lawless. He is under Christ, and Christ writes the will of God upon the heart by the Spirit.

John Owen, in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, gives one of the most careful Puritan treatments of “works of the Law.” In the section dealing with the exclusion of works from justification, Owen argues that Paul’s phrase cannot be limited merely to ceremonial works. He says that the moral law was the foundation, while the ceremonial and judicial laws were particular forms of obedience required of the Old Testament church in its special worship and polity. Owen’s point is weighty: when Paul excludes works of the Law from justification, he excludes all works as the ground of acceptance before God, not merely Jewish boundary markers. For Owen, justification rests upon the righteousness of Christ received by faith, not upon anything wrought in us or done by us.

Thomas Aquinas, writing before the Reformation, also contributes an important distinction. In the Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Question 107, Aquinas asks whether the New Law fulfills the Old. He answers that the New Law is related to the Old as the perfect to the imperfect. The ceremonial precepts, he says, were shadows whose reality is found in Christ, while the New Law brings to fulfillment what the Old Law promised. Although Protestants will not follow Aquinas at every point in his doctrine of justification or sacramental theology, his treatment of fulfillment is still useful. He recognizes that fulfillment does not mean destruction. The Old was preparatory, promissory, typological, and incomplete; the New brings reality, grace, and completion in Christ.

So What Does “the Law” Mean?

All of this helps us answer the central question: does “the Law” mean specific commandments and regulations, or does it mean all Scripture? The answer is yes, but not in the same way in every text. In some contexts, “Law” means commandments, especially when contrasted with obedience or transgression. In other contexts, it means the Mosaic covenantal administration given to Israel. In still other contexts, it means the Pentateuch, the writings of Moses. And in broader expressions such as “the Law and the Prophets,” it can refer to the Old Testament revelation as a whole. Context must govern the meaning.

This matters greatly for Matthew 5. When Jesus says He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets, He is not merely saying, “I came to preserve moral rules.” He is saying that His mission is in full continuity with the Old Testament Scriptures. He did not come as an enemy of Moses, Isaiah, David, or the prophets. He came as the One to whom they pointed. Yet His fulfillment also transforms the believer’s relationship to the Mosaic order. We no longer bring animal sacrifices, because Christ is the sacrifice. We no longer approach God through the Levitical priesthood, because Christ is the Great High Priest. We no longer treat Israel’s civil laws as the direct constitution of a modern nation-state, because the old covenant theocracy has reached its terminus. But we do still receive the Old Testament as the Word of God, profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. We do still learn the character of God from the Law. We do still see the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. And above all, we see Christ.

This also matters greatly for Galatians 3. When Paul denies justification by works of the Law, he is not telling Christians to discard Genesis through Deuteronomy, nor is he telling them that the Old Testament belongs to a different God or a different religion. He is denying that obedience to the Mosaic Law (or to any divine commandment) can serve as the ground of a sinner’s righteous standing before God. That is the heart of the matter. The Law can command, but it cannot atone. The Law can expose, but it cannot cleanse. The Law can diagnose, but it cannot heal. The Law can say, “Do this and live,” but it cannot give life to those already dead in trespasses and sins. For that, we need Christ crucified and risen.

Here I find it helpful to say the matter as plainly as possible: the Law is good, but it is not the Gospel. The Law is holy, but it is not the Savior. The Law is God’s Word, but it is not God’s final redemptive act. The Law reveals righteousness, but Christ provides righteousness. The Law exposes sin, but Christ bears sin. The Law curses the lawbreaker, but Christ becomes a curse for us. The Law shows us what love for God and neighbor requires, but the Spirit pours the love of God into the hearts of those united to Christ.

Two Errors to Avoid

Therefore, we must avoid two opposite errors. The first error is legalism, which treats the Law as though it were a pathway to justification. Legalism is not simply taking obedience seriously. Every faithful Christian must take obedience seriously. Legalism is seeking acceptance with God on the basis of our obedience, our performance, our moral record, our law-keeping. Paul’s answer to that error is devastating: all who rely on works of the Law are under a curse.

The second error is antinomianism, which treats grace as though it made obedience irrelevant. But Jesus will not allow that either. The same Christ who fulfills the Law also teaches His disciples a righteousness that exceeds the scribes and Pharisees.

“For I say to you that unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:20

Grace does not make us lawless; grace makes us lovers of God’s will.

The Christian, then, reads the Law neither as a Pharisee nor as a Marcionite. Not as a Pharisee, because we do not turn the Law into a system of self-justification. Not as a Marcionite, because we do not cast away the Old Testament as though it were unworthy of Christ. We read the Law as disciples of Jesus Christ. We read Genesis and see the promise of the seed of the woman. We read Exodus and see redemption by blood and power. We read Leviticus and see the holiness of God and the necessity of atonement. We read Numbers and see the seriousness of unbelief and the faithfulness of God in the wilderness. We read Deuteronomy and hear the covenantal demand for love, loyalty, and obedience. And then we look to Christ, who obeyed where Israel disobeyed, trusted where Adam rebelled, suffered where sinners deserved judgment, and rose as the mediator of a better covenant.

Conclusion: Christ, the Fulfillment of the Law

This is why the Law is not less than commandments, but it is more than commandments. It is Torah: God’s covenant instruction, especially as given through Moses. In some contexts, it refers specifically to the Mosaic commandments; in others, to the Pentateuch; and in broader phrases like “the Law and the Prophets,” to the Old Testament revelation as a whole. Jesus fulfills the Law by bringing the Old Testament Scriptures to their intended goal. Paul rejects “works of the Law” as a means of justification, not because the Law is evil, but because sinners cannot be justified by covenant obedience. The Law remains God’s holy Word, but Christ is its fulfillment, goal, and true interpreter.

If we say less than that, we risk dishonoring the Old Testament. If we say more than that, we risk confusing Law and Gospel. But when we say it carefully, we discover the beauty of God’s unified revelation. Moses is not against Christ. The Prophets are not against the Gospel. The Psalms are not against grace. The Scriptures are one grand testimony to the righteousness, mercy, holiness, justice, promise, and saving purpose of God. The Law commands, instructs, reveals, exposes, condemns, foreshadows, and guides. But Christ fulfills, redeems, justifies, sanctifies, and brings the people of God into the blessing promised long ago to Abraham. The Law is good because God is good. But Christ is the end, goal, and glory of the Law, so that all who believe in Him may be justified, not by the works of their hands, but by the grace of God in the righteousness of His Son.