Comments on: Wrapping Up the Law

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:09:21 +0000

It is my understanding that Barcellos’ book “In Defense of the Decalogue…” approaches the subject from a Covenantal (1689 Baptist Confession) position. I know that Sproul’s Tabletalk published an article by Barcellos on the topic.

By: David d

David d — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:08:54 +0000

Wow! That was a lot hermeneutical gymnastics about whether the O.T. is still relevant or not today. Hebrews 10 pretty much takes care of the ceremonial law of sacrifice, so before we hold a position of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Let’s remember what Paul wrote Timothy about O.T. teachings (sacred writings, Scripture):

14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3)

I hold Paul’s position that the O.T. is still applicable and yes, relevant in “teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

I didn’t write it Paul did, and I believe Jude would concur that this faith has been “once and delivered”. Finally, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12).

Yes, the above passage includes the O.T. and it still today sharper than any two-edged sword. Remember, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Peace,

David
(2 Peter 3:17-18)

By: patrick rauh

patrick rauh — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:18:07 +0000

wake;
i cant help also chuckling at the incredibly conflicted statements you make that i thought jesse was going to challenge, but didnt. you write:”..we are in the New Covenant. That covenant wasn’t made “with the Church…”” Do you not see a rational contradiction? you imply that we are in the New Covenant, but it wasn’t made with us? Then, how are we in it? The source of your error is your hermenuetic..revealed in your very next sentece: “unless you can find such wording in your version of the Old Testament – I can’t…” Progressive revelation dictates that the mysteries have been revealed to us…in the New testament…”in these last days He has spoken to us in His Son…” The OT, by PR dictate will not reveal anything, but the “picture” of things to come. Christ fulfills the “picture” of the: law (heb 9:9, 10:1); the feast days/sabbath (col 2:16); Israel (Hos 11:1/Mt 2:15; Psalm 80:8/John 15:1; Gal 3:16; hos 14:4-7; the Levitical preisthood (Heb 7:12); the sacrifice (heb 10:14); the temple (Jn 2:19-22)the manna from heaven; the water from the rock etc etc etc. Circumcision of the flesh is the “picture” of the real circumcision…of the heart by the Spirit (rom 2:28-29); the “Land” of palestine promised to Abraham is a “picture” of salvation/heaven/recreated earth (heb 11:8-16.) Unbelieving ethnic Israel of the OT is, likewise, the “picture” of the believing nation created BY the New Covenant (Mt 21:43; 1 cor 10:11; 1 pet 2:9…compare to Ex 19:4-5!) You will not find this info in the OT..the NT reveals the “mysteries” or “reality.” You dont read the NT epistle writers talking any longer in the “picture” language of the OT: land, circumcision, ethnic heritage..you read about the fulfillments of the “pictures”…salvation, the Holy Spirit, and a recreated earth for believers. You continued to write: “It’s perhaps a small, but extremely important matter of wording that we need to take care to state properly, especially as we contend against the evils of replacement theology.” There is more wrong than wording here. There is a failure to see that Jesus IS the culmination of God’s promises to Israel. True Israel “hear” the gospel message and believe in Jesus! He IS the Messiah. God’s plans are perfect and everything is going perfectly according to His plan. “All Israel” is being saved and has been for 2K years. the coming of the HS is the coming of the kingdom is the coming of the New Covenant and the establishment of “true” Israel. Replacemet theology truly distorts the Church as “replacing” Israel and wrongly places us under Mosaic law and assumes are babies are saved because they are “our” babies…so they baptise their children. Equally distorted and evil is the view that God’s plans have been thwarted by an unbelieving ethnic Israel and He has had to resort to plan b. all those chosen to believe are believing. He is sovereign and in control. Most ethnic Jews ever having lived are in hell right now (chosen to be there! 1 pet 2:8) and they will never, ever be the focus of God’s plans, inherit His promises or be His inheritance. They were just a “picture” the Church is the reality.

By: Jesse Johnson

Jesse Johnson — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:08:46 +0000

Wake,

Thanks. That helps. I just chuckled when I read your first comment because you are probably the first person to say that Nate’s view boarders on Covenentalism, as the comments last week seemed to be labeling him as a foaming at the mouth dispensationalist.

By: Wake

Wake — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:17:23 +0000

Jesse: Of course we participate in the New Covenant, without question. My point was that it is wrong to say there is some sort of “covenant with the Church”. No such thing is stated that way in Scripture. What Jesus does say at the inauguration of the communion of bread and wine, is that He is the mediator of the new covenant and is ratifying it by his blood. His disciples are being brought into the new covenant. (FWIW they were all Jewish so this had particular meaning for them and this is why he made it explicitly clear to them that what He was doing during his Advent was ratifying the new covenant promised to them in the Old Testament prophets.
My point is that it should be stated simply that we are in the New Covenant. That covenant wasn’t made “with the Church” (unless you can find such wording in your version of the Old Testament – I can’t), but the Church does take part in it. It’s perhaps a small, but extremely important matter of wording that we need to take care to state properly, especially as we contend against the evils of replacement theology.

By: Jesse Johnson

Jesse Johnson — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:28:09 +0000

Wake,

In what sense do Christians participate then in the New Covenant? Do you take communion, which is the New Covenant in his blood?

Jesse

By: Jesse Johnson

Jesse Johnson — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:24:17 +0000

Brian,

You asked why the 10 commandments were treated differently than the other Laws. What did you have in mind? Do you mean that Biblical authors or prophets saw them as different than the rest of Torah or that Jewish tradition developed around them differently?

Inside the Scriptures, I’m not sure they are reflected on differently. In other words, prophets did not look back at them and call Israel to follow them in a particular way differently than they called people to follow other specific commands in the Law. If anything, you could make a case that that the most common elements of the Torah neglect that prophets addressed were idolatry (1st and 2nd commandments), failure to love the poor ((Exodus 22, Deut 10:18-19, 24:17-21, etc.), failure to drive out the foreigners (Deut 33:52), and others. While certainly the root of much of their failure is seen in their neglect of the first two commandments, it does not seem that the OT viewed the 10 commandments as especially distinct from the rest of the Law in application.

They were given differently, and Moses reflects on that fact in Deut 4. One could make a case that in that chapter Moses is saying that the rest of what he commands to Israel (Deut. though, not Leviticus) is going to flow from the first 10 words on the tablets that he was originally given. And this is where the Jewish custom of viewing them as the source for the rest of the Law developed. There have been Christian attempts to show that the all of Torah could be an extension of one of the ten commandments, but I have not seen this done persuasively. If anyone knows of a source that does that, I’d be interested.

Thanks,

Jesse

By: Wake

Wake — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 15:15:13 +0000

“First, believers must recognize that the Mosaic Law is not binding for Christians. This includes all of the individual precepts that make up that Law. These commands, whether deemed moral, ceremonial, or civil, were part of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not part of His covenant with the Church. ”

That’s problematic. The Bible never talks about a covenant with the Church. There is only the new covenant, made with Israel, ratified by Christ on the cross, but yet to be fulfilled with its original recipients (Israel). Of this we gentiles are spiritual beneficiaries. There is no “Church covenant”. To distort this is dangerous, imho, and borders on the Covenantal view, which holds to replacement theology.

By: Steve Lamm

Steve Lamm — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:41:56 +0000

Nathan,

Thanks for your reply. I do agree with the approach you outlined regarding how to mine principles from the OT. This is what I have done in the past with regard to the Mosaic Law.

I also agree that the OT Law gives us tremendous insight into the character of God.

I’m going to be at Shepherd’s Conference next week. I hope to see you there and perhaps talk a bit more about some particulars.

I would like to study this issue further. Can you recommend one of two books on the subject?

Blessings,
Steve Lamm

By: Winston

Winston — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:10:59 +0000

I have been studying the Ten Commandments recently. I have not completed my study of the significance of the Ten Commandments. Yet, here is what I have. The Ten Commandments are what God spoke directly to Israel (Ex 20:1-21, Deut 5:4-22). The other commandments were given through Moses. Contracts at that time were commonly written on two stone tablets, one for each party. The two tablets were probably copies of each other. The two tablets containing the Ten Commandments were the covenant contract, the Tablets of Testimony (Ex 34:29). The other commandments were an extension of the Ten. God carved and wrote on the first set of tablets. Moses carved the second set. Most translations read that God then wrote the second set yet in the original it could be Moses (not sure if this has any significance). They were then placed in the Ark of the Covenant or Ark of the Testimony (Ex 25:16, 40:20). Then two tablets containing the Ten Commandments were written on stone because they were the covenant contract. Being carved in stone has no relevance to whether they are binding now. The Mosaic Covenant has been fulfilled. Therefore the Ten Commandments have been fulfilled regardless of how they fit into the Mosaic Covenant.