Comments on: Appealing to the Law (Part 2) http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/ A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship Fri, 21 Nov 2008 06:04:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Yipeng http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111845 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 06:01:06 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111845 Applying the Old Testament Law Today by J. Daniel Hays suggests a 5 step methodology: http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html Applying the Old Testament Law Today by J. Daniel Hays suggests a 5 step methodology:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_law_hays.html

]]> by: fred http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111828 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:16:49 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111828 The law was our tudor and it could never save us. It pointed to Christ and it still does for those that do not believe. They are also good and will never pass away. It is the character of God and and if we live in Christ it will be our character also. Grace through faith in Christ saves us, but that faith works and the works that it does is obedience to the law, not of Moses that condemns us, but the law of Christ that is in our hearts and minds. Same law, but a different application for the believer. We are free from the condemnation of the law and now are free to live the law, the character of Christ, for Christ lives in us and it is He who fulfilled that law perfectly and it is He who now lives in us, both to will and to do His good pleasure which is represented in the law. Simply put, we are not under the law for now that very law is written in our hearts. Instead of being under it, it is now in us. That law was the love and mind of Christ and now that law lives in us, not to condemn us for Christ has made us free of that by His perfect obedience that is reckoned to us as a free gift. Now He can say, if you love Me, obey My commands. And if we love Him, that will be our hearts desire, for How I love your Laws O'God. The law was our tudor and it could never save us. It pointed to Christ and it still does for those that do not believe. They are also good and will never pass away. It is the character of God and and if we live in Christ it will be our character also. Grace through faith in Christ saves us, but that faith works and the works that it does is obedience to the law, not of Moses that condemns us, but the law of Christ that is in our hearts and minds. Same law, but a different application for the believer. We are free from the condemnation of the law and now are free to live the law, the character of Christ, for Christ lives in us and it is He who fulfilled that law perfectly and it is He who now lives in us, both to will and to do His good pleasure which is represented in the law.

Simply put, we are not under the law for now that very law is written in our hearts. Instead of being under it, it is now in us. That law was the love and mind of Christ and now that law lives in us, not to condemn us for Christ has made us free of that by His perfect obedience that is reckoned to us as a free gift. Now He can say, if you love Me, obey My commands. And if we love Him, that will be our hearts desire, for How I love your Laws O’God.

]]> by: Dustin S. Segers http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111795 Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:45:10 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111795 Hi Nate, You asked, "But how does this appeal to and appreciation for the Mosaic Law fit with the apostolic teaching that Christians are no longer under the Law? Are the two propositions indeed contradictory? Or can they be reconciled and, if so, how?" No, they are not contradictory, but complimentary. The solution is to interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New. This seems to be the expected biblical norm and when it comes to understanding the way the Bible fits together, this should be the supreme hermeneutical principle. Hi Nate,

You asked,

“But how does this appeal to and appreciation for the Mosaic Law fit with the apostolic teaching that Christians are no longer under the Law? Are the two propositions indeed contradictory? Or can they be reconciled and, if so, how?”

No, they are not contradictory, but complimentary. The solution is to interpret the Old Testament through the lens of the New. This seems to be the expected biblical norm and when it comes to understanding the way the Bible fits together, this should be the supreme hermeneutical principle.

]]> by: Jim McDermott http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111780 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:58:52 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111780 I apolgize, Nate and/or anyone who may have "gone" to www.gigmin.org to access Steve Lehrer's NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Questions Answered online. It (the book, online) was "up", but it's (temporarily, I'm sure) not now; again, Steve has just moved from Phoenix to Sussex, WI, and my guess is that he's "scrambling" about now. Also, Nate, as comments pertaining to "No Longer Under The Law, Part 4" seem to be closed, I'll just write here that I need write nothing more regarding the understanding of the rule of life of the believer mirroring that of NCT ... besides, I don't want to be unfriendly! Since Steve Lehrer's book may not be accessable this week, I'll briefly quote from it here as to the Fifth Commandment ["the first commandment with a promise" Eph. 6:2 (HCSB)] (emphases SIC): "We must be honest and admit that there are some Scriptures wheree it seems best to say that we can only be sure of what it does NOT mean. We can only give our best guess as to what it does mean. Ephesians 6:1 - 3 is such a passage. But I think that by taking into account how Paul and other authors of the New Testament view the Law of Moses and the whole Old Covenant system, (the shadows that pointed to the reality found in Christ and in the New Testament), we arrived at a persuasive interpretive option for Ephesians 6:1 - 3." The first step in said interpretation is to ask: "Who is the audience? The verses we have chosen to interpret are in the midst of a longer passage concerned with the necessity FOR BELIEVERS to submit in the various hierarchial relationships in which they find themselves. * * * In the New Covenant era, unbelievers receive no promises of reward from God for their outward obedience when their unbelieving hearts are in rebellion against God." Ultimately, Paul's "Appeal[ ] to the Law" at Eph. 6:1 - 3 is one of the New Covenant Scripture imperatives which, collectively, function as the rule of life for the believer. As you've indicated (and, I anticipate, will "flesh out"), neither this nor any other "Appeal[ ] to the Law" corroborates the Covenant Theology view that the Decalogue, being part of God's "Moral Law" (again, Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas was first to so categorize) is the ultimate law for Christians. Jesus, not Moses, is the ultimate lawgiver [John (not Ernest) Riesinger's BUT I SAY UNTO YOU is the definitive source for understanding such; Steve Lehrer's book includes such issue]. The Decalogue was, effectively, the "constitution" of the Old Covenant -- which as passed away (in every sense, as of A.D. 70); John Riesinger's TABLETS OF STONE and the History of Redemption is a must read as to such. Regardless of how your understanding of the rule of life for the believer has developed, Nate, I'm truly excited that you "get" it and hopeful that you're "contagious" among your colleagues! I look forward to the next post! I apolgize, Nate and/or anyone who may have “gone” to www.gigmin.org to access Steve Lehrer’s NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Questions Answered online. It (the book, online) was “up”, but it’s (temporarily, I’m sure) not now; again, Steve has just moved from Phoenix to Sussex, WI, and my guess is that he’s “scrambling” about now.

Also, Nate, as comments pertaining to “No Longer Under The Law, Part 4″ seem to be closed, I’ll just write here that I need write nothing more regarding the understanding of the rule of life of the believer mirroring that of NCT … besides, I don’t want to be unfriendly!

Since Steve Lehrer’s book may not be accessable this week, I’ll briefly quote from it here as to the Fifth Commandment [”the first commandment with a promise” Eph. 6:2 (HCSB)] (emphases SIC):

“We must be honest and admit that there are some Scriptures wheree it seems best to say that we can only be sure of what it does NOT mean. We can only give our best guess as to what it does mean. Ephesians 6:1 - 3 is such a passage. But I think that by taking into account how Paul and other authors of the New Testament view the Law of Moses and the whole Old Covenant system, (the shadows that pointed to the reality found in Christ and in the New Testament), we arrived at a persuasive interpretive option for Ephesians 6:1 - 3.”

The first step in said interpretation is to ask:

“Who is the audience? The verses we have chosen to interpret are in the midst of a longer passage concerned with the necessity FOR BELIEVERS to submit in the various hierarchial relationships in which they find themselves. * * * In the New Covenant era, unbelievers receive no promises of reward from God for their outward obedience when their unbelieving hearts are in rebellion against God.”

Ultimately, Paul’s “Appeal[ ] to the Law” at Eph. 6:1 - 3 is one of the New Covenant Scripture imperatives which, collectively, function as the rule of life for the believer. As you’ve indicated (and, I anticipate, will “flesh out”), neither this nor any other “Appeal[ ] to the Law” corroborates the Covenant Theology view that the Decalogue, being part of God’s “Moral Law” (again, Roman Catholic Thomas Aquinas was first to so categorize) is the ultimate law for Christians.

Jesus, not Moses, is the ultimate lawgiver [John (not Ernest) Riesinger’s BUT I SAY UNTO YOU is the definitive source for understanding such; Steve Lehrer’s book includes such issue]. The Decalogue was, effectively, the “constitution” of the Old Covenant — which as passed away (in every sense, as of A.D. 70); John Riesinger’s TABLETS OF STONE and the History of Redemption is a must read as to such.

Regardless of how your understanding of the rule of life for the believer has developed, Nate, I’m truly excited that you “get” it and hopeful that you’re “contagious” among your colleagues! I look forward to the next post!

]]> by: Pat http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111718 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:43:32 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111718 Great series, thanks Pulpit. seems to me as the end of the week approaches and the dust settles we will all have much more we agree on then when we started,may God give us grace and patience in the Scriptures to show us His marvelous redemption so we can make it known. I think Nate you are "on to something" that we are not "under" the Law but "under" Grace in its legal application BUT the Law is still in "function" to TEACH such an example would be Jesus' teaching to the (although hypocritcal) question of who is my neighbour so I can fulfill the command TO LOVE him. The Law such as Jesus in that example Teaches the commands Why? Because we are hard of heart! and need to be taught in-depth. So the Law of Christ in a nutshell John tells us to Love one another. But so we do not put OUR OWN definition of fulfilling that the Law expounds on HOW to fulfill that ONE command binding on all believers. Great series, thanks Pulpit.
seems to me as the end of the week approaches and the dust settles we will all have much more we agree on then when we started,may God give us grace and patience in the Scriptures to show us His marvelous redemption so we can make it known.
I think Nate you are “on to something” that we are not “under” the Law but “under” Grace in its legal application BUT the Law is still in “function” to TEACH
such an example would be Jesus’ teaching to the (although hypocritcal) question of who is my neighbour so I can fulfill the command TO LOVE him. The Law such as Jesus in that example Teaches the commands Why? Because we are hard of heart! and need to be taught in-depth. So the Law of Christ in a nutshell John tells us to Love one another. But so we do not put OUR OWN definition of fulfilling that the Law expounds on HOW to fulfill that ONE command binding on all believers.

]]> by: William du Plooy http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111697 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:22:40 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111697 Don Sandas, Glory to our great and merciful LORD God: Numbers 14:18 ‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’ I believe this portion from the Torah sums up these seemingly cotradicting charecteristics of the lORD and His standard in the Law, that GRACE may abound: Romans 5:20 "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more..." What a wonderful way to praise our LORD and woship Him than to realise our total depravity and inability to seek Him, apart from His grace,than to seek His will by the Law which did condemn us, but which is now our delight and joy in Messiah. Excellent stuff, the threads are coming to life! Don Sandas,

Glory to our great and merciful LORD God:

Numbers 14:18
‘The LORD is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’

I believe this portion from the Torah sums up these seemingly cotradicting charecteristics of the lORD and His standard in the Law, that GRACE may abound:

Romans 5:20
“Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more…”

What a wonderful way to praise our LORD and woship Him than to realise our total depravity and inability to seek Him, apart from His grace,than to seek His will by the Law which did condemn us, but which is now our delight and joy in Messiah.

Excellent stuff, the threads are coming to life!

]]> by: donsands http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111686 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:11:17 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111686 "He views the laws as embodying a standard of righteousness that we Christians are called upon to achieve by walking in the Spirit" The genuine Christian loves God law. "Oh how I love Your law! it is my meditation all the day". Psalm 119:97 And the true Christian understands the heart of God's law, which condemns us, is mercy. "Let Your mercies come also unto me, O Lord, even Your salvation, according to Your Word." Psalm 119:41 The law is good, mainly for it like a mirror shows us how filthy we are, and shows us our need to be cleansed. “He views the laws as embodying a standard of righteousness that we Christians are called upon to achieve by walking in the Spirit”

The genuine Christian loves God law. “Oh how I love Your law! it is my meditation all the day”. Psalm 119:97

And the true Christian understands the heart of God’s law, which condemns us, is mercy.
“Let Your mercies come also unto me, O Lord, even Your salvation, according to Your Word.” Psalm 119:41

The law is good, mainly for it like a mirror shows us how filthy we are, and shows us our need to be cleansed.

]]> by: eric http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111658 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:53:57 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111658 You're laying a good foundation. Looking forward to what's coming next. There are my thoughts on why the law of Moses approach failed: http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/law-of-moses-undergoes-clinical-trials.html You’re laying a good foundation. Looking forward to what’s coming next.

There are my thoughts on why the law of Moses approach failed:

http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/02/law-of-moses-undergoes-clinical-trials.html

]]> by: Ryan http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111656 Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:50:46 +0000 http://www.sfpulpit.com/2008/02/26/appealing-to-the-law-part-2/#comment-111656 I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full. Is this a correct statement? Indeed, now I can eat Big Mac's, fried Snickers, or 25 pop-tarts dipped in caramel sauce to get full. But, did I ever have to eat potato chips to get full? If the answer to this is no, is my postulate that I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full a true statement? If my previous postulate by assumption implies that before "now" I used to have to eat potato chips to get full, it is not a valid postulate. Now, should I even have eaten only potato chips for a meal? If I think all day long about not eating potato chips, and manage to not eat potato chips for my evening meal, will this still create in me a strong desire for something fried to eat for a meal? Does my now stating that I never had to eat potato chips for a meal make me healthy? Food for thought. I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full.

Is this a correct statement? Indeed, now I can eat Big Mac’s, fried Snickers, or 25 pop-tarts dipped in caramel sauce to get full.

But, did I ever have to eat potato chips to get full? If the answer to this is no, is my postulate that I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full a true statement? If my previous postulate by assumption implies that before “now” I used to have to eat potato chips to get full, it is not a valid postulate.

Now, should I even have eaten only potato chips for a meal? If I think all day long about not eating potato chips, and manage to not eat potato chips for my evening meal, will this still create in me a strong desire for something fried to eat for a meal? Does my now stating that I never had to eat potato chips for a meal make me healthy?

Food for thought.

]]>