LEGGE EBRAICA. — In the writings of the New Testament, L. often means, besides the Sinaitic legislation and the books containing it, also the Old Testament or Mosaic economy, founded upon L., in opposition to the Christian one, informed by faith
and Grace (cf. Rom. 6, 14 sqq.); thus, not only the five books of Moses, as when L. is distinguished from the “prophets” and the “other books,” that is, the “hagiographa” (Eccl., prologue; cf. Lc. 24, 44), and still less merely the strictly legal sections of the Pentateuch. For the origins, content, and historical vicissitudes of L. V. MOSÈ; PENTATEUCO; EBREI. L. in relation to Grace, which is attained through faith, is especially expounded by St. Paul.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews (v.), which must at least be acknowledged to have considerable affinity with the thought of St. Paul, one encounters the antithesis between the economy established through the angels (cf. Act. 7, 53), which was only a L. or a revelation (λόγος), and that inaugurated by Christ, which is a salvation (σωτηρία), that is, a religious institution that saves (Hebr. 2, 2 sqq.); between the first covenant, which was not without defects (ibid. 8, 7), and the second, which has its laws written in minds and hearts rather than on stone (ibid. 8, 8 sqq.).
St. Paul’s judgments concerning L. might at first sight seem contradictory (F. Prat [V. BIBLICA.], I, p. 214 sqq.; A. Schweitzer, Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus, Tübingen 1930, p. 184 sqq.; J. Bonsirven [V. BIBLICA.], p. 135). On the one hand, it is said that L. was given for life and is holy and spiritual (Rom. 7, 10 sqq. 14); that it was communicated through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3, 19; cf. Hebr. 2, 3), and is therefore Israel’s principal distinction (Rom. 9, 4), leading it, as a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3, 24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. 2, 13; 10, 5; Gal. 3, 12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ (Col. 2, 16), in whom it found its fulfillment (τέλος; Rom. 10, 4). On the other hand, L. is accused of having brought nothing to perfection (Hebr. 7, 19); of provoking God’s wrath (Rom. 4, 15), because it multiplies transgressions (Gal. 3, 19; Rom. 5, 20), awakening the moral conscience (Rom. 3, 20) without offering the strength to combat sin; consequently, those who live under it are subject to divine malediction (Gal. 3, 10). L. is the letter that kills (II Cor. 3, 6), the cause of death and condemnation (ibid. 3, 7 sqq.; cf. Rom. 7, 6), since it belongs to the sphere of the flesh (Rom. 7, 5; cf. Gal. 3, 3).
How are such conflicting assertions to be understood? It cannot be believed that the severe judgments are due to the ardor with which Paul defends his “Gospel” of freedom from L. against the attacks of the Judaizers. Indeed, while the Epistle to the Galatians brings us into the heart of this controversy, the Epistle to the Romans is more theoretical and doctrinal. Nor, conversely, can the laudatory expressions concerning L. be reduced to an apostolic device intended to attract the Jews, as the brief panegyric of Rom. 9, 4 sqq. might suggest. It should be noted that praise and blame sometimes alternate within the same context (Rom. 7, 7–13 and Gal. 3, 19 sqq.); this suggests that the anthologies are due to differing points of view in the consideration of these matters.
If Paul regards L. theoretically and in itself, he recognizes its goodness: it comes from God and contains excellent norms for moral conduct. But, with his characteristic sense of reality, he immediately proceeds to consider L. in practice, where concupiscence and sin come into play, against which it is powerless; on the contrary, it worsens the situation, since, by forbidding sin, it stimulates concupiscence but does not supply the strength to tame II. Is it not, therefore, the letter that kills (II Cor. 3, 6)? The fault of L. was that it commanded without giving the strength to carry out the command. And this provoked in man the illusion of self-sufficiency, of being able to be justified by his own works.
Instead, righteousness, even under the regime of L., was a fruit of Grace, obtained through faith in the divine promises. The case of Abraham, elucidated in Gal. 3, 6–18, and which also remains central in the Epistle to the Romans, is an example of how faith operated before and above L. Having come much later, L. could not remove the efficacy of faith, which had communicated Grace to the righteous of the pre-Mosaic age. For its part, L. made the relations of fallen humanity with God more difficult through the multiplication of transgressions; nevertheless, a providential plan made these serve practically to demonstrate to man his inability to be righteous without the aid of Grace (Gal. 3, 19; Rom. 5, 20). Only through this Grace could the true heirs of Abraham’s faith and promises observe L.: an unbearable yoke (cf. Act. 15, 10) of innumerable and minute prescriptions, almost as many stumbling blocks on the path of moral and religious life.
Yet in L., understood as the divine Revelation of the Old Testament, there was not only the perishable element of properly legal and ceremonial prescriptions, but also the heritage of true religion, namely monotheism, with its morality and its messianic prophecies. This is the law that Jesus (Mt. 5, 17–20) came not to abolish but to perfect, teaching a more spiritual and perfect observance, which tends to imitate the perfection of the heavenly Father (ibid. 5, 21–48).
For the question whether, for the righteous of the Old Testament—the heroes who acted under the inspiration and by virtue of faith (Hebr. 11)—sanctifying Grace was also an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, V. GRAZIA. Cf. G. Philips, La Grâce des justes de l'Ancien Testament, in Ephemerides Theologicae Lavanienses, 23 (1947), pp. 521–56.
BIBL. in addition to the entries relating to faith, Grace, and justification. L. in the various biblical and theological dictionaries (with very abundant bibliography), cf.: E. Tobac, Le problème de la justification dans le Paul, Louvain 1908, reprint Gembloux 1941, pp. 63–70, 102–14; F. Prat, La théologie de St. Paul, I, 15ᵉ ed., Paris 1927, pp. 197–242; F. Amiot, L'enseignement de Paul, I, 5ᵉ ed., there 1938, pp. 149–57; J. Bonsirven, L'Évangile de Paul, there 1948, pp. 135–142; L. Cerfaux, Justice et justification, in DIB, IV, cols. 1474–1478 (with bibliography). Teodorico da Castel San Pietro