Finally, Some Resolution
February 27th, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
After a week and a half, we are finally ready to propose our solution for the two propositions we have sought to establish: (1) that New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law; and (2) that at the same time the New Testament authors esteem and appeal to that same Mosaic Law.
Throughout church history, a number of solutions have been proposed. David Dorsey (in “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 323–24) summarizes six of these positions:
1. Marcion. This second-century heretic’s gnosticism led him to view the strict and harsh God of the OT as different from and inferior to the “good God” revealed by Christ in the NT. Consequently Marcion jettisoned the entire OT—with its “Jewish” law—from his canon. . . .
2. Dispensationalism. This hermeneutical approach holds that God has developed different programs for his people in different ages and that the particulars—including the laws—that belong to the “dispensation of law” (Exodus 20—Malachi) are not binding upon God’s people in this present “dispensation of grace.” . . .
3. Covenant theology. . . . Reformed theologians see a greater continuity between the Testaments, maintaining that … there are not two covenants but one, and Christians are part of that covenant. We live under the “renewed” covenant, not the “new” covenant. The Church is spiritual Israel, and the laws of the Mosaic covenant are accordingly our laws [although often spiritualized]. . . .
4. Seventh-Day Adventism. Adventists . . . protest that it is inconsistent to accept the Ten Commandments as normative for all times and then reject or modify the fourth commandment. The entire Decalogue, including the injunction to observe the seventh day, is binding upon all Christians. [They also observe some dietary laws.] . . .
5. Christian reconstructionism. Also called theonomy or the Chalcedon school, this recent spinoff from Reformed theology argues for the normativity of not only the moral laws but also the civic regulations. . . .
6. World-Wide Church of God. . . . Herbert W. Armstrong argues that only a few of the laws, such as the sacrificial regulations, are no longer valid because they have been fulfilled in Christ, and that the great majority of laws still apply to spiritual Israel, including the Ten Commandments, with the observance of the seventh day, the keeping of all the Jewish feast days and holy days, the observing of the dietary laws, and some of the ceremonial laws.
Clearly, numerous interpretations abound. A brief critique indicates that view 1 and possibly some forms of view 2 fail to adequately explain our second proposition (that the New Testament appeals to and embraces the Mosaic Law for much of its teaching, giving the Law a high priority and a place of authority). After all, the apostolic writers neither jettisoned nor ignored the Mosaic Law. On the other hand, views 3-6 fail to adequately explain the first proposition (that believers are no longer bound to any part of the Mosaic Law).
Perhaps there is a better way to explain the apostolic understanding of the Law, such that both propositions can be reconciled. This modified approach (which is admittedly dispensational in its bent) might be stated as follows: the overlap between the Law of Moses (which ended at the cross) and the Law of Christ (which began with the Church) can be explained in that both laws share the same Lawgiver. Although the Mosaic Law has no immediate jurisdiction over the New Testament believer, the apostolic authors nonetheless appeal to it because it clearly depicts the moral character God Himself.
The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. Because He never changes, and because His own moral essence is the basis for His commandments in any age, the Old Testament provides rich didactic material for New Testament saints—even though the Mosaic Covenant is no longer in effect. In other words, while God’s specific expectations for Israel (based on His character, essence, and being) are no longer binding (because God is not currently working through Old Testament Israel), the Mosaic Law remains a goldmine for learning about the moral attributes of God.
Moreover, because these same attributes are also the basis for His expectations in the church, the theological insights derived from the Law do have direct bearing on the lives of New Testament believers. Of course, the specific application may be different, but the basis (God Himself) is the same.
An illustration may help clarify this point. In Leviticus 19:2, God commanded the Israelites to be holy. The basis for this command stemmed from God’s own character, essence, and being—“because I am holy.” The application of this command for Old Testament saint included avoiding strange fire for sacrifices (Lev. 10:3), unclean foods (Lev. 11:44; 20:26), and shaving the edges of one’s beard (Lev. 21:6-8).
Peter repeats this command in the New Testament in 1 Peter 1:16. In citing Leviticus 19:2, Peter reaffirms the fact that God is holy. And because God is holy (as stated in Leviticus), Christians should also be holy. Again, God’s moral essence is the foundation for normative behavior. However, the specific application for New Testament saints does not include all of the same applications that it did for Old Testament saints (see 1 Pet. 1:13-15). Nothing is said, in 1 Peter, about avoiding certain foods or about how to trim one’s facial hair.
Thus, two different specific expectations (or applications) stem from the same moral quality of God (one application for the time of Moses and another for the time of Peter). In citing Leviticus 19:2, Peter recognizes a moral characteristic of God—namely that He is holy. Because this is still true of God (and will be eternally), Peter is quick to embrace that Old Testament theological truth. Yet, because he realizes that Christians are no longer bound to the Law, he is also quick to explain how this command (based on God’s unchanging moral essence) should be applied in a New Testament context.
This principle not only holds true for Israel and the Church, but also for every age (or, dare I say it, “dispensation”). In other words, there is overlap between God’s expectations in every age of human history because God Himself (as the Law Giver) remains constant. For example, New Testament believers can find instruction in Genesis (before the Law was given) because the God of Genesis is the God of today. His moral essence then was the same as it is now. It is no wonder, then, that all ten of the Ten Commandments are found before Exodus 20 (see below).
It is equally understandable that nine of those ten (with the exception of the fourth—cf. Col. 2:16) are repeated in the New Testament. After all, because God’s moral essence never changes, His basic moral requirements for believers (in any age) never changes either.
* * * *
The Ten Commandments before Moses, under Moses, and After Moses:
1) First Commandment (Polytheism) – Gen. 35:2; Ex. 20:3; 1 Thess. 1:9
2) Second Commandment (Graven Images) – Gen. 31:39; Ex. 20:4; 1 John 5:21
3) Third Commandment (Swearing) – Gen. 24:3; Ex. 20:7; cf. James 5:12
4) Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) – Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:8; Col. 2:16; cf. Heb. 4
5) Fifth Commandment (Obey Parents) – Gen. 27:41; Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1
6) Sixth Commandment (Murder) – Gen. 4:9; Ex. 20:13; 1 John 3:15
7) Seventh Commandment (Adultery) – Gen. 39:9; Ex. 20:14; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10
8) Eighth Commandment (Theft) – Gen. 44:4–7; Ex. 20:15; Eph. 4:28
9) Ninth Commandment (False Witness) – Gen. 39:17; Ex. 20:16; Col. 3:9, 10
10) Tenth Commandment (Coveting) – Gen. 12:18; 20:3; Ex. 20:17; Eph. 5:3
(This list was adapted from The MacArthur Study Bible, 124 and Walt Kaiser, Toward OT Ethics, 81-82)
* * * *
Nathan, I have something positive I would like to share with you but was not able to find an actual email address to contact you so if you would, could you please contact me by email. Thanks a bunch and thanks for all you do on this blog.
Great conclusion to a great series. I love the fact that you have aproached the topic from the two view points which by the way was a great way to do this series and tied them together to show that utimately the commond ground is God’s person and character. Thanks and I look forward to more topics of this nature in the future. Your brother in Christ.
Good study.
Good balance. There are those in the Church who are Law-Self-righteous, and those who are “cheap-gracers”.
Be not many teachers the Lord tells us. These are serious teachings. We need to know grace, faith, law, works, and how they must be understood.
I think you presented a very biblical and good study for us. It’s one of the most difficult teachins in the Bible, and in the Church. Thanks.
Luther has these words for those who receive the Gospel, and have no fear:
“If grace or faith is not preached, no man can be saved; for it is faith alone that justifies and saves. On the other side, if faith is preached, some will understand the doctrine of faith carnally and draw the liberty of the spirit into the liberty of the flesh. This may we see in all kinds of life. All boast themselves to be professors of the Gospel, and all brag of Christian liberty, and yet serving their own lusts they give themselves to covetousness, pleasures, pride, envy, and such other vices. The grief hereof makes me sometimes so impatient that at times I wish such swine which tread precious pearls under their feet still remained under the tyranny of their former tradition; for it is impossible that this people of Gomorrah should be governed by the Gospel of peace.”
If I understand the flow of History, Scripture and Theolofy arightly…IF, then does it mean that I could be right to feel a constant tension between Dispensational and Covenential Theology, within my heart? Does it mean that there is a balance between which both could opperate in the same direction? (Outside of New Covenant Theology of Course!).
Is it possible that the Theology surrounding the Law and Escathology is much like that of the Trinity and other Paradoxical Biblical Theologies? Is this the basis for “leaky” dispensational Theology, that in some ways it is actually an AFFIRMATION of Covenant Theology?
I do so very mucg struggle to think of all this in a HUMAN context of Theology, because I am finding that as I grow in the Knowledge of the Holy LORD God, that Theology seems too ridgid in it’s general assumtions, yet how else can I define in human terms what the Scritures say?
For example:
I describe myself as a Calvinist, yet there are also must be things that Calvin defined that I am sure are not substantiated in Scripture. Much the same with Luther, who was an Anti_Semetic despite Romans 9-11.
Yet I find much resistance from people who perceive Exclusivist Calvinistic tendancies among some brethren to be a GENERAL concensus among ALL Calvinists… Hence I am starting to find it difficult to describe my Theology proper.
Perhaps I ought to say my Theology is NOT Calvinistic, nor “leaky” dispensational although inlusive of a strong Covenental tendancy; but that my Theology IS JUST SIMPLY BIBLICAL. It would surly simplify discussions.
Dear brother Nathan,
I so appreciate these posts and discussions. I will look forward to a discussion on the state of Spiritual and National Israel?
A friend of mine posted a very intereting Blog entry which I include for your perusal:
Does the Church Replace Israel?
by Dr. Arturo Azurdia III
“And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this: ‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich), and the blasphemy by those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.” (Revelation 2:8)
… Poverty as a consequence of slander and accusations …. The source of their persecution: the Romans. Fomenting the Roman persecution was the inciting accusations of ethnic Israelites about whom Jesus here says are not worthy of that ancient and honorable name. “I know the slander [blasphemy] by those who say they are Jews and are not.” My friends that is a profoundly important statement. When we watch the flow of redemptive history, the storyline of the Bible unfold and we move from the epic of promise into the epic of fulfillment, God’s people are no longer defined genealogically, they are defined Christologically … Christocentrically. You say “what do you mean?” True Jews are those who follow Jesus as their Messiah. They are characterized by a birth not of the flesh, but of the Spirit. They are marked out by a circumcision not of the flesh but of the heart. So who then are these people? These people who claim to be Jews by virtue of their bloodline, but according to Jesus himself, they are not. Jesus defines them for us: “They are a synagogue of Satan.” It is like what Jesus says to the unbelieving Pharisees in John chapter 8, who claimed the paternity of Abraham. He says: “You are of your father the devil.” You see beloved, this is why we need to think clearly at this point. This is what is so utterly wrong today when people refer to the Judeo-Christian God. [They say] “Christians and Jews really in the end worship the same God.” NO! …To reject Jesus Christ is to reject the full and final revelation of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The truth is there is no such thing as an orthodox Jew, beloved, unless he is a Christian because if the Jews really believed in the Old Testament they would believe in Jesus Christ. If a person does not believe in Jesus Christ then, according to John chapter 5, then he does not believe in Moses either. “Moses spoke of me,” Jesus said. And so Paul says in Romans chapter 2 “A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly nor is circumcision merely outward and physical”, no “a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly and circumcision is circumcision of the heart by the Spirit not the written code.”
Now friends, people often ask me, “Do you believe that the church replaces Israel. The answer is “no of course not!!!” The church does not replace Israel. The fact is, Jewish people who reject Jesus Christ are apostate from Israel. Following Jesus Christ is the ultimate expression of true Judaism. Everything in the Old Testament pointed to Him. Israel and the church, then, are not in radical discontinuity, rather, the later is the consummated expression of the former. Beloved, a failure to appreciate that has profoundly determined strange things in our [own] country. By virtue of the influence of American evangelicalism we say silly things like “Always side with Israel, no matter what Israel does always side with Israel. God will take care of America if we always side with Israel. They are God’s people.” [But] Jesus says they are a synagogue of Satan. And is there a reason then why American evangelicals are notoriously ineffective in their evangelism of Arabs?
[Jesus is] The full, final, ultimate expression of Judaism. You are Abraham’s seed.
Excerpt from Dr. Arturo Azurdia III’s 81 part series on the Book of Revelation.
http://www.monergismbooks.com/An-Exposition-of-the-Book-of-Revelation-MP3-CDs-p-17658.html
Excellent and well said! this series has been so beneficial thank-you, and thanks to all the brothers who have written “as iron sharpens iron” the Quote above and Luther’s quote are very helpful thanks a lot. Seems we believers who truly desire to know truth and love the Lord Jesus can have understanding and come together to stand for the truth and the faith may God be glorified in and thriugh us in these last days.
Nate thanks for the Leviticus example and the verses regarding the Mosaic Law past-present-future very very helpful.
Throughout the whole discussion I have been confused about what we are calling the Law. Sometimes it seems Torah/Pentateuch and sometimes it seems Ten Commandments. At the beginning of this article series it was stated that the Law was a whole and cannot be separated. It appeared that the writer was then referring to the Torah/Pentateuch. Is Law used consistently throughout the articles? What is the definition used?
Too many big words cloud out the Light. The hardest thing that man has to accept is that we have little power to do or understand much of anything. God does not require a theology. He asks us simply to yield to Him and allow Him to lead us. When we yield, He asks us to obey Him.
We are powerless to overcome anything. No Doctrine or Theology changes the fact that we are finite in knowledge, wisdom, and life. We are three dimensional in a pan-dimensional creation. We are told that God is the Alpha and Omega and we impose upon that reality a time line. We worry and argue about the conflict between Free Will and God’s knowledge of what we will do tomorrow before we do it.
When I was younger I said that in the beginning there was Man and Man created god in his own image. I understand that now to be true. I understand now that that truth does not negate that in the beginning there was God and God made man in His own image.
Man needs to learn humility. We need to spend a lot of time washing the feet of the world, rather than creating new words and theologies to divide God’s people. I note on one of the comments a reference to “cheap-gracers” as if the idea that Grace is absolutely free somehow makes it of less value because we did not earn it.
The Christ Followers of the first century after Jesus left his material body were of course deeply concerned with the Jewish Law. They were Jews. It takes a long time for adults to unlearn what they have learned to be true. It was not like there was a New Testament for them to refer to, except the writings of the Apostles. Now 2000 years later, we still hold to the old because they did.
I choose to take Jesus at his word. He taught for three years and said a lot of things. He tried to put his message in simple terms that even the least educated, least intelligent person could understand.
Jesus walked the earth with no real possessions and built no real organization. he lived a very simple life and spoke a very simple truth. When Paul talks to us about being Christ-like, we need to reflect more on the simple life Jesus lead and the simple Truth he gave us.
While this series is of interest, who but scholars and theologians use words like “hermeneutical”. Will knowledge of the these words save us? Sure it is intellectually stimulating to partake of these debates that devolve trifling over that which is of man and not God. The real question is does it really bring us closer to being the servants that God asks us to be and that Jesus was.
Churches build big building and theologians build big words and big ideas. All very nice, but none of that will have any power over that which destroys man. Only yielding in humility and obedience to God through Jesus has the power.
We can never earn God’s Love. That Love was ours from the moment that we were conceived in the “mind ” of God. We purchase possessions; God in our lives is a gift and one that he asks us to give away once we get it. Ownership is a concept of man - in our case capitalist man - and ownership dies when our flesh dies. Grace is a gift. It is not for sale.
The Law we are under in the Flesh is death. Jesus offers a new Law of Life. That Law requires only one thing, Love, the Love that is God. The only thing we can do that affects anything is to offer up to God our acceptance of his Gift and obey His Love.
I can not prove any of this, nor can anyone else. It is a Faith, my Faith. I share it freely knowing that its is mine alone and that God will work through others so that they may find their Faith. I suppose that some may need words like “hermeneutical” to be able to find God. If that is the case who am I to argue. If I were smart enough to know what was best for everyone else, I would have to be God. I tried that Role for a while and like Bruce Almighty messed a lot of things up. So know I try to do what asks of me, Love. Not real good at it yet, but He is with me to help me when I fail.
In Love,
Roy
When you say some forms of view #2, are you thinking of progressive dispensationalism? Any quick thoughts on this particular form of dispensationalism?
This is a nice summary of the approaches to the New Testament and the Law.
One issue about the remark on Revelation 2:8, The Jews are considered a synagogue of Satan because they are persecuting the church (which means to persecute Christ). This doesn’t infer that all Jewish people are no longer considered part of the covenant or that Israel has been replaced by the church.
On a small side-note: reference #6 above, the Wolrdwide Church of God quoted has, since the writing of David Dorsey (in “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” (Sept. 1991), turned to a different view of Christianity in faith and practice than the previous OT view with it’s holyday and law-keeping previously observed.
They appear to have become more “Christ centered”-”seeker friendly”; also this caused a “split” (about 1994) in which some maintain the old view noted in #6 and that church is now called “United Church of God”.
I appreciate the articles and discussion at sfpulpit.
Nathan,
Here’s what I believe is the central question for you (and let me state it a few different ways for clarity): How should Church teachers properly use the OT?
When the OT gives a command, what guidelines do you use to decide if that command is still binding on Church believers?
When is it proper to apply an OT command to NT believers?
I have my own views on this, but I’ll hold off until you can respond.
I’d also appreciate responses from other brethren here, especially those who teach the Word regularly (pastors, Sunday School teachers, etc.).
Blessings,
Steve
Steve,
Allow me to try to help answer your questions.
You ask,
“How should Church teachers properly use the OT?”
~ They should interprete (I use the grammico-historical hermenuetic) and apply it, like any other text.
“When the OT gives a command, what guidelines do you use to decide if that command is still binding on Church believers?”
~ Here we can refer to Paul’s teaching that NT Christians are not bound by the Law in the same manner as in the OT (Gal 3:25). In Christ, we have been made free from the Law as given to the Jews in the OT.
“When is it proper to apply an OT command to NT believers?”
~ And here we have the flip side. It is always appropriate to apply the OT Law to NT believers in principle, not the OT application.
I have tried to illustrate this point in a recent posting on my own site dealing with the OT laws regarding parapets. While NT Christians don’t neccesarily have to have parapets on their roofs like they had to in the OT, there are some abiding principles in those laws that would carry over to today.
http://reformedpuritan.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/parapets-love/
While hermneutics might be a big word, it’s meaning is not. It is answering this question: How do you study and understand the Word of God? When God revealed Himself and His truth in the Scriptures, don’t you think it matters that we understand this?
When you write a letter or e-mail to someone, do you care whether someone reads it and understands the point of that letter? If not, then why did you bother to write it?
1. God is incomprehensible
2. God writes to reveal things to us in the Scriptures
3. If we expect to get to know God more intimately and deeper, we should expect that we are diving into the deep things of God.
2 Corinthians 2:6-13
“Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory; but just as it is written,
‘THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND WHICH HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM.’
For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the DEPTHS OF GOD. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, WHICH THINGS WE ALSO SPEAK, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.”
Anti-intellectualism sounds pretty spiritual, but that is not the case in this discussion about the Law & the New Testament.
Roy Pearson,
Sometimes the concepts discussed here are a bit technical, but not unimportant. Pulpit Magazine is after all, a blog for pastors and church leaders who teach God’s Word. Most of us would like to get it right since we’ll be held accountable before God (James 3:1).
By the way, I have read some of your articles posted on your blogs. You seem to hang your “personal theology” on the great commandments. The great commandments (to love God and our neighbor) are indeed important, but there are many other commands in Scripture which are binding on believers. In fact, Jesus said: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15 c.f. John 14:21,23,24)
The commandments of Christ would include not only the Gospels, but also the Epistles which teach that there is a morality that ought to mark every genuine believer (I Cor. 6:9-11).
Respectfully,
Steve Lamm
Steven Lamm,
You wrote: “Here’s what I believe is the central question for you (and let me state it a few different ways for clarity): How should Church teachers properly use the OT?”
That’s a great question, and one that my post tomorrow will address. So I’ll hold off until then to discuss that more.
Thanks for all your comments (both to you, Steve, and to everyone else). I’m enjoying the interaction.
- NB
In the promise of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, God specifically promises to put His law within us and write it on our heart. Again, in its corollary passage in Ezekial 36:26-27, He promises to put His Spirit within us and cause us to walk in in His statutes and observe His ordinances. In Jeremiah 32:40 He even promises to put the fear of Him in our hearts so that we will not leave Him.
The Law has always been and will always be God’s righteous standard, with even the unsaved having the knowledge of it in their heart (Romans 2:14-15), which we see an example of with the response of Pharoah when he learned that Sarah was Abraham’s wife, and this was before the Law was given. Yes, God does not change, and, as such, His standard of righteousness has not and will not change. However, in the new covenant we have been given the ability to keep the Law, and please God, by His indwelling Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, who perfectly kept the Law; and we have been given not only the ability to keep the Law, but the desire as well.
Part of the promise of the new covenant was that the Lord would take out our heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh. It is this heart of flesh, the circumcised heart by the circumcision of Christ (Romans 2:28-29, Colossians 3:11), where the Law now resides. What man could not do and would not do, God has done by His marvelous grace.
Morris
“he [Jesus]lived a very simple life and spoke a very simple truth.”
The Gospel is pure and simple. The truth of God can be very deep indeed, and that’s a good thing.
For me, some of our Lord’s teachings are very hard to understand, especially some of the parables. That’s why God has given his people gifts: some evangelists, some pastors/teachers. To equip us. I’m in a Bible study even now, and we’re studying the parables of Christ. It’s good to sit at the Lord’s feet.
But we surely need to serving the Lord. Martha was way too busy, and Mary chose the good thing by sitting at Jesus’ feet. But when Jesus had to move on, I wonder if Mary still sat around? I hope not. I’m sure she didn’t.
One quote that may also help Roy is from the Apostle Peter: ” .. the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom granted unto him has written unto you;
As also in all his Epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist [pervert] as they do also other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16
You seem to have a fire in your belly to serve the Lord, and that’s great. Keep the fire burning brother. We need encouragement from brothers like yourself to keep on taking the Gospel to a world where God is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
Have a blessed day in His grace.
How is it that the legalist sects ignore this scripture?
It seems to me that if the law were binding on anyone (and I’m not saying it is, since it is repeatedly described as obsolete, inferior, etc.)then it would be on JEWS only since the Gentiles were told…in Acts 15: 19-20…
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, “but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.
Any thoughts?
Great Series! Thanks Much Nathan!
David M.
While I would agree with you I can give you a arguement to your question that has been given to me.
The verses you cited are what was decided was the minimum that a Gentile needed to do to participate in religious activities with the Jews. It was supposed to be the starting point not the end. Verse 21 is used to say that they were supposed to then be taught the Torah/Law/613 in the synagogues. Eventually they were to follow all of the Law.
Nate,
One of your propositions was “That the New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching.”
This proposition perplexes me as an open door that may need to be shut. What other authoritative basis did they appeal to? If they appealed to other sources of authority, did scripture testify to that fact that this was an authoritative source?
Winston,
How would the person(s) who presented the “Gentile minimum requirement” view to you explain Paul’s adamant insistence on the Galatians’ avoiding circumcision?
I speak as a person who left the church. I grew up in the church and the separation was very difficult. I knew beyond any question that I wanted to have what my Mother and Father had. That was difficult because the clash of Doctrine and Man-Made concept of God just did not make sense to me. For most of my adult life I had no church home and my anger at religion and God were great. I understand clearly why Christian is such a dirty word to many.
My problem was that God had already entered my life. I could leave the Church but I could not separate from the abiding Love I felt from my Mother (my dad died when I was 19) and the constant tug from God. There were so many reason for me not to believe.
Then one day, just recently, it dawned upon me that the God that I did not - could not - believe in was not God at all, but an idol made in man’s image. Then things began to fall in to place.
When Jesus spoke with the disciples about his departure he said:
“If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. ”
(John 14:23-27) So yes, we are to keep his commandments, but what are those commandments? Did he not say that all commandments hang upon two? How then is that so complex? He states clearly that In John 14 that He is the way. He did not tell his Disciples that he would send scholars and theologians.
“Anti-intellectualism sounds pretty spiritual, but that is not the case in this discussion about the Law & the New Testament.”
If “intellectualism” can save anyone, why do we need Jesus?
I am not by any means anti-intellectual. I have spent a life seeking the truth and understand much more than I did at the beginning, but that which brought me to Jesus is unchanged. Anyone who calls upon the God can receive a Counselor from He who knows all, why would we settle for a theology of men of limited knowledge?
Steve Lamm:
“The commandments of Christ would include not only the Gospels, but also the Epistles which teach that there is a morality that ought to mark every genuine believer (I Cor. 6:9-11).”
“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
I guess you presume to be a judge of what is moral and not moral above that of God’s judgment? I make no point of obscuring who I am because I have given over to God my burdens. The epistles were written to a specific people about specific issues. If the intent were to make a new set of Laws why do we give our lives to God for Him to guide us?
I do not understand why Christians hold so dearly to the power of sin. We are free of it. We continue to sin but through the Grace of God we can accept God into our lives and He perfects us. Not overnight, but slowly in His time. By focusing on the Law and Sin we take the focus off of God who sent His son to free us of that which you seem to hold so dear.
I am a sinner. I will be until the day I die. That is no shame, for God loves all of His sinners and frees them to become more whole, more perfect, until that day when we are completely dead to sin.
There are but two commandments. Please show me where Jesus speaks of others that are not products (hinge upon) of the two?
Please tell me where it is stated there are certain classes of sins that are not forgiven. The only class that I can think of are the ones for which forgiveness is not asked.
I see why the state of the Church is so dire. Jesus gave us a simple message; it is His message not mine, so attacking me is futile. That message is that we are to Love God with all our heart and soul and Love our neighbor as ourselves.
In Love,
Roy
Hey Roy,
I don’t think anyone was attacking you. We were discussing the Scriptures at least I was.
There’s a lot more to the Bible than just loving God and loving your neighbor. There are 66 books that God wrote, and I’m sure He desires we read, study, and meditate upon all His truth.
I agree though, loving the Lord Jesus Christ is our first command, and loving others is like the first. Amen.
There’s so much in the Bible to help us do this! I love the Word of God, and like I commented earlier, some of Paul’s teachings are hard, and we need to study, and God has given us pastors to teach us as well.
The Old Testament, especially the Prophets are very difficult to understand.
Have you ever read Ezekiel? I’m reading it now, and it is very difficult to understand. But I believe God wants us to read His Word. Why else would He write it?
Have a blessed day brother.
Covenantalists often use the 10 Commandments prior to Moses argument to show that they are the law written on man’s heart, and thus applicable to all people (including the Christian). I wanted to address the verses used to show this as listed in the article:
The Ten Commandments before Moses:
1)First Command- Gen. 35:2, this is where Jacob tells his household and all who were with him to “put away the foreign gods which are among you”. Notice this is from a man to whom God had repeatedly revealed Himself (Gen. 28:10-15; 31:4-13; 32:1-2, 24-30; 35:1). At least one of the ‘foreign gods’ which they were to put away was the household idol that Rachel had taken from her father’s house. Jacob had lived all those years with Laban, who had a household idol. This example in no way shows that this law was written on man’s heart.
2)Second Command- Gen. 31:39, this verse says nothing about graven images. Chapters 32, 33, 34 and 35 don’t have 39 verses, so I’m not sure which verse you were referring to. I don’t think there is an example of mankind recognizing that a graven image is wrong prior to Ex. 20:4. If there is, it is because God had revealed Himself to a particular individual.
3)Third Command- Gen. 24:3, is where Abraham makes his servant swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and earth, that he would not take (or get) a wife for his son from the daughters of the Canaanites. Obviously, Abraham was a man to whom God had revealed Himself. Abraham makes his servant swear by the LORD that he would not get a wife from among the Canaanites for Isaac. This does not show that mankind had this law written on their heart (taking God’s name in vain). I’m sure that pagans swore by the name(s) of their god(s). There is no biblical evidence that mankind knew it wrong to misuse the name of the true God, especially since most of them believed in false gods.
4)Fourth Command- Gen. 2:3, this is the creation account. God, Himself rested on the seventh day. There is no positive command for Adam to do so. In fact, at this point, Adam (and thus the world) had not fallen, so there was no need for a ‘Sabbath rest’. There is no biblical record that anyone prior to Ex. 16 practiced a Sabbath, and Ex. 16 clearly shows that this was something given to Israel at this time, not to mankind at an earlier date.
5)Fifth Command- Gen. 27:41, Esau bearing a grudge against Jacob. I don’t know if this is the best example (Esau would wait until his father died before killing Jacob), but it is clear from Scripture that mankind recognized that it was right to honor/obey one’s parents, and wrong to dishonor them.
6)Sixth Command- Gen. 4:9, murder. There is good biblical evidence that mankind recognized that murder was wrong prior to Ex. 20.
7)Seventh Command- Gen. 39:9, Joseph knew it was a sin against God to sleep with Potiphar’s wife. I think there are even earlier examples that mankind knew to take another’s wife was wrong (i.e. Gen. 12:18-19).
8)Eighth Command- Gen. 44:4-7, Joseph’s brothers. There is biblical evidence that mankind understood it was wrong to steal prior to Ex. 20.
9)Ninth Command- Gen. 39:17, is Potiphar’s wife saying that Joseph had attempted to lie with her. This in itself doesn’t show that ‘bearing false witness’ was recognized as wrong, but there is evidence that mankind knew this prior to Ex. 20.
10)Tenth Command- Gen. 12:18, the Pharaoh took Sarah to be his wife because she was beautiful, and he did not know she was Abraham’s wife. Again, this is not a good example of coveting something that belongs to another, because the Pharaoh had been told that Sarah was Abraham’s sister. Gen. 12:11-12 might be a better demonstration (including murder), where Abraham says that the Egyptians will want her because she is beautiful and kill him.
Michael,
Thanks for the analysis. The list I posted was drawn from the two sources that I noted above … the pre-Exodus stuff primarily coming from Kaiser’s work on OT ethics.
The reference after the second command is obviously incorrect. So, I’ll have to go back to Kaiser to see what the correct verse there is.
Thanks for your thoughts.
NB
hmmmm…seems somewhat incomplete….
You’re missing New Covenant Theology (NCT) in your list.
See 5 Views on Law and Gospel (Douglas Moo).
NCT > Disp ;p
There is also a large disparty between Progressive Disp and Classical Disp, almost as much as there is between Theonomy and Covenant Theology (CT). Can’t simply call it “Dispensationalism” and do justice to it.
Michael and Nathan,
Regarding the scripture reference error after the 2nd command, I believe it should be Genesis 31:32.
donsands, no you did not but re-read Steve Lamm’s post and read my blog and see if you can see the connection. The two commandments of Jesus are not just “important”, they are the very basis of everything. It is hard to read the words, “upon these hang all the rest”, and get any other meaning. I am absolutely confounded that Jesus freed us from the power of sin, yet rather than focusing on the power of Love in our lives to heal and perfect, we focus on “other commandments” and sin. Obeying the commandments implies we have the power to do that. Paul clearly states in Romans that we do not.
Thus, “How the world still dearly loves a cage.” If you want to be free, be free. Jesus has already bought and paid for that freedom. When you cling to sin and the struggle not to sin ( a futile one ) then you denigrate the sacrifice Jesus made for us to be free.
Roy
“then you denigrate the sacrifice Jesus made for us to be free.”
Paul said he was the chief of all sinners. Did he denigrate the Cross of Christ?
I love the Cross of Christ. He died for my sins, and His forgiveness is beyond understanding for me. But my heart knows that Christ has forgiven me. Even the pride I have right now.
The commandment is to love God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind. And That’s exactly what Christ did every second of His life, and He imputes this righteousness to me, and He took my sins upon His broken body, and washed me clean in His blood.
i love Him now, because He first loved me. And if i do any boasting it’s in Him, and the Cross, where i have been crucified with Christ, and against the world, and the world is crucified to me.
Thanks for the dialog, but we are going to have to disagree I suppose.
If Paul was the chief of sinners, what’s that make us.
“Paul said he was the chief of all sinners.”
No we do not disagree.
“When you cling to sin and the struggle not to sin ( a futile one ) …”
I was not clear, it the attempt to rid ourselves of sin, or try to be “good” that causes the denegration. Paul says that only by yeilding to Christ do we die to the power of sin. Preachin g “commandments that must be met” as a cure for sin distacts us from the focus on the Love of God.
My trust is not in commandments, but in Jesus and his power to perfect me in his time, not mine or any other persons.
In Love,
Roy
“My trust is not in commandments, but in Jesus”
Amen.
Thanks for the response.
Grace and peace. All for Christ!
Tom,
Re:Regarding the scripture reference error after the 2nd command, I believe it should be Genesis 31:32.
If that is the verse meant to be quoted by Kaiser, I’m afraid that it also doesn’t show evidence of the 2nd command prior to Ex. 20. The situation: Rachel has stolen the household idols from her father. Laban chases them down and asks why Jacob ’snuck away’, so to speak, and in verse 30 asks “…why did you steal my gods?”. Jacob responds that if Laban finds them with anyone in his party, whoever has them will die. “For Jacob did not know that Rachel had stolen them.” (vs 32) Jacob is not saying that having an idol is such a great sin, that he will kill anyone who has it. Jacob is not actually making a statement about ‘idols’. He’s speaking about the theft. I would find this story/verse to be more representative of mankind recognizing stealing to be wrong. Remember Jacob lived all those years with Laban. Apparently he did not teach Rachel that an idol (graven image) was wrong, or she wouldn’t have wanted to steal them. I don’t see this as evidence of the 2nd command and in no way supports the position that this command was written on man’s heart.