The Law of Christ: believe and love
My, my… when the cat’s away the mice will make like Paris and Lindsay. :-) Rather than contribute to any already long comments section, here’s a reply to a couple of questions posed last week.
Brian:
>NCT teaches that nine of the ten commandments are repeated (although not as OC law but >rather something else) in the NT.
*Some* NCT teaches this… NCT is a catch-all for those who aren’t either CT or dispy; at present, some of us have identified 3 different streams of NCT. The most prominent stream (because it has done more blogging and publishing than the others) is In-Depth Studies (Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker). The hermeneutic that focuses on "the nine out of ten" is dispensationalist in different clothing, IMHO.
>Do you agree with this?
Nope. :-)
There are three ways this principle historically has been expressed, all of which, IMHO are problematic and should be avoided. The positive expression of the principle is this: "if it is repeated in the new, it is necessarily valid." Both CT and some NCTers *generally* affirm this principle. But dispensationalists and some NCTers have gone further than the above in the negative expression of the above: "if it is not repeated in the new, it is necessarily invalid" (it is on this point that I believe some NCT is nothing more than warmed over dispensationalism because they are sharing virtually the same hermeneutic). Covenant theology denies the second expression, but adds to the first, saying "if it is not rescinded in the new, it is still valid" (and this is equally problematic). And it is this addition that has been the identity for CT, especially as it manifests itself in paedobaptism.
All three expressions are problematic in that, more often than not, the implications of the impact on ethics of the Christ event, i.e. the intrusion of heaven into time and space via the incarnation, is either understated or ignored. The first and third expressions presume the Decalogue itself has not been altered. The second denies the organic progression of revelation and redemptive history. We must account for the abrogation of the entire law AND the organic continuity and progression of revelation and redemptive history.
>If so, what is substantively different in the NT application of these imperatives from the OT >law?
I think Steve F. has answered this a bit. We have to remember that the OT commands were not just functioning as *law*, but also as *revelation*. IMHO, *law as revelation* is a fundamental consideration that both Covenant Theology and many NCTers either ignore or deny. CT affirms law as revelation, but because the law keeps its enforcement characteristics as eternally binding, law as revelation is all but eclipsed. Revelation changes through the course of redemptive history, increasingly adding to what was known previously. So much more is now known about The Standard for holiness in our lives. In running back to Moses for sanctification, CT settles for what is not only a primitive standard, but one that was a shadow.
But some in NCT also ignore this “law as revelation” reality… they are so focused on making sure the law has been abrogated, it forgets that the law was telling us something about God’s unchanging character. NCT, IMHO, has not done very well in accounting for the fact that the law was divine revelation even as it functioned as a national constitution. It does not follow that because the law was primarily a national constitution, that the divine revelation inherent to it was limited to that national constitution. The codified law was both shadow and type of the law/covenant that was to come: Christ himself.
While CT is wrong to confuse the Decalogue with what they call the "moral law", CT is attempting to account for the reality that lays behind the law giving rise to it... a reality that transcends codification. I agree with that “accounting”, but CT trips up on reading the "eternalness" of the "law" found in various passages as if it is the decalogue itself. It is true that there are elements of the law that transcend law itself... which is why our CT brethren set themselves up to stumble. In an effort to account for those things that transcend the law, they create hard and fast categories that are not always hard and fast, and as a result pull shadow into the NC.
While CT makes the mistake of equating God’s eternal attributes with the temporal form in which it manifested itself to Israel, some in NCT fail to acknowledge the temporal form was manifesting God’s eternal attributes, eternal attributes that impose themselves on the creature (1 John 1:5). It’s in this area that some formulations of NCT tend to be functionally dispy, IMHO.
So… even as the New Testament is revealing to us the ethic of the New Covenant, those Old Covenant commands that reflect God’s character are informing the ethic. We must keep in mind that Augustine’s “Old Concealed, New Revealed” hermeneutic. Just as the Old Testament shadows provide us with a fuller, greater, and richer picture of Christ and His work on our behalf (don’t think for a moment the Passover lamb doesn’t inform our understanding of *what* Christ’s atonement accomplished), so too the law – as a shadow – provides us with a fuller and richer picture of the *why’s* and *wherefore’s* of the New Testament ethic.
IMHO, looking for which commandments are repeated misses the point of the redemptive historical trajectory of the Old Covenant, including the law. The question is backwards. Rather than looking for repetition, we should be looking for fulfillment… where in the New Covenant do I find the radical fulfillment and transformation of these shadow laws? To what (or whom) did they point? Reading the law is no different than reading a narrative passage in Genesis or Exodus. When we read narrative with the understanding that Christ is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament, we should always read with an eye to fulfillment in the New Testament… i.e. how is this passage treated in the NT? Where are the quotes or allusions? What did the NT authors understand this OT passage to be saying and how are they interpreting this passage in light of the Christ event?
Going directly to the Old Testament to find out how we are supposed to live (or even understand the scriptures) without consideration of the radical nature of Christ’s intrusion into time and space and its impact on both the indicative and imperative of the OT creates all sorts of problems and is fundamental to *legalism* (Paul deals with this specifically in Gal. 3-4 and Col. 2). This is why CT’s so-called “third use of the law” – the law as binding on believers – must be rejected. Some of CTers would argue that they do account for the cross and resurrection because they affirm it is now possible for the covenant member to obey the law, whereas before the coming of the Spirit, obedience was impossible. This is what I’ve called here “enablement theology” with the difference between the law in the OC and the NC is that the NC member has now been “enabled” to obey it. Nevermind “enablement theology” fails to account for Paul’s suggestion in Romans 7 that the law negatively works on believers that place themselves under it, the point here is that they misunderstand the eschatological *change*, not just to obedience, but to the law itself. The law is a type of Christ, and like everything else in the OT, there has been a typological fulfillment in Christ that radically alters the relationship between the law and covenant members.
Russ Kennedy, Pastor of Preaching and Spiritual Formation at Clearcreek Chapel, has created a graphic to help illustrate this hermeneutical problem. I used it in my sermon on baptism. I’m pasting it here, but if it doesn’t come through (if you don’t use html in your email), here’s the link... look for the section entitled “Flow: Old and New Covenants”:
Notice the dotted line between the Old Testament types and New Testament realities... that is the invalid way of understanding the law in the New Covenant. The most obvious “invalidities” in this regard are patriarchy and theonomy. But this is also what happens when Decaloguians attempt to go back to the OT and apply commands directly in the New Covenant with no regard to the Christ event. They are interpreting the OT without consideration that the NC has changed how those precepts function, if not done away entirely.
This doesn’t mean that the law has absolutely nothing to say to us now. The green arrow doesn’t stop at Christ, but moves through him. The law does not come through Christ’s fulfillment unaltered. There is a new form and new substance. Christ himself is now The New Torah, The Law applied to the hearts of New Covenant members as the Holy Spirit on hearts of flesh. ALL 10 “words” have been transformed by the One who kept the law perfectly and died to it. New Covenant members are not under the law, but under the law of Christ (the antithetical contrast drawn in 1 Corinthians 9:21.) That means the application to the New Covenant believer is not the Mosaic law, though the shadowy Mosaic law may inform the application. The application is the law of Christ (because the Law *is* Christ). The parallel in contrast between "through Moses" and "through Christ" in John 1:17 is unmistakable. Christ is the one who is presented as the New Covenant and New Torah. To be united to Christ is to be united to the law of Christ or Christ, the law. As the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ, it is also he who united us to the law of Christ or Christ, the law. Because of our union in Christ through the Spirit, the Holy Spirit *functions* as the law written on our hearts.
Which leads into Brian’s next question…
Brian:
>Also, it appears the law of Christ is to love and serve one another, if I'm understanding your >reply correctly. Is that a fair summary?
Generally speaking, I think that is a fair summary, though John in 1 John adds something that I think is often overlooked, but certainly comports with Hebrews 11:6 in terms of what it is that pleases God. 1 John repeats John 13:34-35’s mandate but then adds this: “believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ”. That added element places John 6:29 and John 20:31 squarely within the purview of the Law of Christ. The law of Christ is 1. to believe in him and 2. to love each other as He has loved us. “Bearing one another’s burdens” is a Pauline paraphrase of #2.
Of course I realize that CTers will jump on those two elements as the two greatest commandments, which also are summaries of the two tables, in modified language. But that’s precisely the point… modification has taken place. There’s a reason that “believe” and “love” don’t show up in the Decalogue: it was a Covenant of Works. Now that the Covenant of Works has been fulfilled in Christ, we are no longer under the Decalogue, we are under Christ and His grace. In removing the curse of the law, the law itself is removed (one cannot have one without the other). Christ now stands in the Law’s stead. The Law is now resident in a Person. Our subjection is to Him, a subjection that is characterized by “believe” and “love”. That kind of change is radical.
This notion that there is a one-to-one correlation between the “law of Christ” and the “Decalogue” cannot be justified by the text. In all of the passages I cited, nowhere is the law of Christ equated with the Decalogue, even in the language used. And even in the passage where the law of Christ is mentioned in close proximity to the Decalogue (James 1:25 and 2:12), the royal law or law of liberty is juxtaposed over against the Decalogue. The “Law of Christ” is not a new an improved version of the Decalogue. The Law *is* Christ. His Law, then, has its own reality, its own characteristics, and its own “demands”. Again, that's a radical change from the Old to the New. The text simply won't allow us to move from the Decalogue to "believe" and "love"... to do so does violence to how the NT authors understood the nature and the function of the law of Christ in the New Covenant.
One caveat... this "newness" of the law of Christ doesn’t mean that the “law of Christ” is brand new. It just means the fulfillment of what was old and is now gone has radically transformed the nature of law, lawkeepers, and lawkeeping. -- crb
Brian:
>NCT teaches that nine of the ten commandments are repeated (although not as OC law but >rather something else) in the NT.
*Some* NCT teaches this… NCT is a catch-all for those who aren’t either CT or dispy; at present, some of us have identified 3 different streams of NCT. The most prominent stream (because it has done more blogging and publishing than the others) is In-Depth Studies (Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker). The hermeneutic that focuses on "the nine out of ten" is dispensationalist in different clothing, IMHO.
>Do you agree with this?
Nope. :-)
There are three ways this principle historically has been expressed, all of which, IMHO are problematic and should be avoided. The positive expression of the principle is this: "if it is repeated in the new, it is necessarily valid." Both CT and some NCTers *generally* affirm this principle. But dispensationalists and some NCTers have gone further than the above in the negative expression of the above: "if it is not repeated in the new, it is necessarily invalid" (it is on this point that I believe some NCT is nothing more than warmed over dispensationalism because they are sharing virtually the same hermeneutic). Covenant theology denies the second expression, but adds to the first, saying "if it is not rescinded in the new, it is still valid" (and this is equally problematic). And it is this addition that has been the identity for CT, especially as it manifests itself in paedobaptism.
All three expressions are problematic in that, more often than not, the implications of the impact on ethics of the Christ event, i.e. the intrusion of heaven into time and space via the incarnation, is either understated or ignored. The first and third expressions presume the Decalogue itself has not been altered. The second denies the organic progression of revelation and redemptive history. We must account for the abrogation of the entire law AND the organic continuity and progression of revelation and redemptive history.
>If so, what is substantively different in the NT application of these imperatives from the OT >law?
I think Steve F. has answered this a bit. We have to remember that the OT commands were not just functioning as *law*, but also as *revelation*. IMHO, *law as revelation* is a fundamental consideration that both Covenant Theology and many NCTers either ignore or deny. CT affirms law as revelation, but because the law keeps its enforcement characteristics as eternally binding, law as revelation is all but eclipsed. Revelation changes through the course of redemptive history, increasingly adding to what was known previously. So much more is now known about The Standard for holiness in our lives. In running back to Moses for sanctification, CT settles for what is not only a primitive standard, but one that was a shadow.
But some in NCT also ignore this “law as revelation” reality… they are so focused on making sure the law has been abrogated, it forgets that the law was telling us something about God’s unchanging character. NCT, IMHO, has not done very well in accounting for the fact that the law was divine revelation even as it functioned as a national constitution. It does not follow that because the law was primarily a national constitution, that the divine revelation inherent to it was limited to that national constitution. The codified law was both shadow and type of the law/covenant that was to come: Christ himself.
While CT is wrong to confuse the Decalogue with what they call the "moral law", CT is attempting to account for the reality that lays behind the law giving rise to it... a reality that transcends codification. I agree with that “accounting”, but CT trips up on reading the "eternalness" of the "law" found in various passages as if it is the decalogue itself. It is true that there are elements of the law that transcend law itself... which is why our CT brethren set themselves up to stumble. In an effort to account for those things that transcend the law, they create hard and fast categories that are not always hard and fast, and as a result pull shadow into the NC.
While CT makes the mistake of equating God’s eternal attributes with the temporal form in which it manifested itself to Israel, some in NCT fail to acknowledge the temporal form was manifesting God’s eternal attributes, eternal attributes that impose themselves on the creature (1 John 1:5). It’s in this area that some formulations of NCT tend to be functionally dispy, IMHO.
So… even as the New Testament is revealing to us the ethic of the New Covenant, those Old Covenant commands that reflect God’s character are informing the ethic. We must keep in mind that Augustine’s “Old Concealed, New Revealed” hermeneutic. Just as the Old Testament shadows provide us with a fuller, greater, and richer picture of Christ and His work on our behalf (don’t think for a moment the Passover lamb doesn’t inform our understanding of *what* Christ’s atonement accomplished), so too the law – as a shadow – provides us with a fuller and richer picture of the *why’s* and *wherefore’s* of the New Testament ethic.
IMHO, looking for which commandments are repeated misses the point of the redemptive historical trajectory of the Old Covenant, including the law. The question is backwards. Rather than looking for repetition, we should be looking for fulfillment… where in the New Covenant do I find the radical fulfillment and transformation of these shadow laws? To what (or whom) did they point? Reading the law is no different than reading a narrative passage in Genesis or Exodus. When we read narrative with the understanding that Christ is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament, we should always read with an eye to fulfillment in the New Testament… i.e. how is this passage treated in the NT? Where are the quotes or allusions? What did the NT authors understand this OT passage to be saying and how are they interpreting this passage in light of the Christ event?
Going directly to the Old Testament to find out how we are supposed to live (or even understand the scriptures) without consideration of the radical nature of Christ’s intrusion into time and space and its impact on both the indicative and imperative of the OT creates all sorts of problems and is fundamental to *legalism* (Paul deals with this specifically in Gal. 3-4 and Col. 2). This is why CT’s so-called “third use of the law” – the law as binding on believers – must be rejected. Some of CTers would argue that they do account for the cross and resurrection because they affirm it is now possible for the covenant member to obey the law, whereas before the coming of the Spirit, obedience was impossible. This is what I’ve called here “enablement theology” with the difference between the law in the OC and the NC is that the NC member has now been “enabled” to obey it. Nevermind “enablement theology” fails to account for Paul’s suggestion in Romans 7 that the law negatively works on believers that place themselves under it, the point here is that they misunderstand the eschatological *change*, not just to obedience, but to the law itself. The law is a type of Christ, and like everything else in the OT, there has been a typological fulfillment in Christ that radically alters the relationship between the law and covenant members.
Russ Kennedy, Pastor of Preaching and Spiritual Formation at Clearcreek Chapel, has created a graphic to help illustrate this hermeneutical problem. I used it in my sermon on baptism. I’m pasting it here, but if it doesn’t come through (if you don’t use html in your email), here’s the link... look for the section entitled “Flow: Old and New Covenants”:
Notice the dotted line between the Old Testament types and New Testament realities... that is the invalid way of understanding the law in the New Covenant. The most obvious “invalidities” in this regard are patriarchy and theonomy. But this is also what happens when Decaloguians attempt to go back to the OT and apply commands directly in the New Covenant with no regard to the Christ event. They are interpreting the OT without consideration that the NC has changed how those precepts function, if not done away entirely.This doesn’t mean that the law has absolutely nothing to say to us now. The green arrow doesn’t stop at Christ, but moves through him. The law does not come through Christ’s fulfillment unaltered. There is a new form and new substance. Christ himself is now The New Torah, The Law applied to the hearts of New Covenant members as the Holy Spirit on hearts of flesh. ALL 10 “words” have been transformed by the One who kept the law perfectly and died to it. New Covenant members are not under the law, but under the law of Christ (the antithetical contrast drawn in 1 Corinthians 9:21.) That means the application to the New Covenant believer is not the Mosaic law, though the shadowy Mosaic law may inform the application. The application is the law of Christ (because the Law *is* Christ). The parallel in contrast between "through Moses" and "through Christ" in John 1:17 is unmistakable. Christ is the one who is presented as the New Covenant and New Torah. To be united to Christ is to be united to the law of Christ or Christ, the law. As the Holy Spirit unites us to Christ, it is also he who united us to the law of Christ or Christ, the law. Because of our union in Christ through the Spirit, the Holy Spirit *functions* as the law written on our hearts.
Which leads into Brian’s next question…
Brian:
>Also, it appears the law of Christ is to love and serve one another, if I'm understanding your >reply correctly. Is that a fair summary?
Generally speaking, I think that is a fair summary, though John in 1 John adds something that I think is often overlooked, but certainly comports with Hebrews 11:6 in terms of what it is that pleases God. 1 John repeats John 13:34-35’s mandate but then adds this: “believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ”. That added element places John 6:29 and John 20:31 squarely within the purview of the Law of Christ. The law of Christ is 1. to believe in him and 2. to love each other as He has loved us. “Bearing one another’s burdens” is a Pauline paraphrase of #2.
Of course I realize that CTers will jump on those two elements as the two greatest commandments, which also are summaries of the two tables, in modified language. But that’s precisely the point… modification has taken place. There’s a reason that “believe” and “love” don’t show up in the Decalogue: it was a Covenant of Works. Now that the Covenant of Works has been fulfilled in Christ, we are no longer under the Decalogue, we are under Christ and His grace. In removing the curse of the law, the law itself is removed (one cannot have one without the other). Christ now stands in the Law’s stead. The Law is now resident in a Person. Our subjection is to Him, a subjection that is characterized by “believe” and “love”. That kind of change is radical.
This notion that there is a one-to-one correlation between the “law of Christ” and the “Decalogue” cannot be justified by the text. In all of the passages I cited, nowhere is the law of Christ equated with the Decalogue, even in the language used. And even in the passage where the law of Christ is mentioned in close proximity to the Decalogue (James 1:25 and 2:12), the royal law or law of liberty is juxtaposed over against the Decalogue. The “Law of Christ” is not a new an improved version of the Decalogue. The Law *is* Christ. His Law, then, has its own reality, its own characteristics, and its own “demands”. Again, that's a radical change from the Old to the New. The text simply won't allow us to move from the Decalogue to "believe" and "love"... to do so does violence to how the NT authors understood the nature and the function of the law of Christ in the New Covenant.
One caveat... this "newness" of the law of Christ doesn’t mean that the “law of Christ” is brand new. It just means the fulfillment of what was old and is now gone has radically transformed the nature of law, lawkeepers, and lawkeeping. -- crb
posted by Chad Richard Bresson at 4/23/2008 09:35:00 AM
25 Comments:
Really appreciate the time you put into explaining this, Chad. You've cleared up a few things for me. Hope to glean more from it as I sift through it again and again.
Well said brother.
Your post has me thinking lately about the need to articulate the difference between the reality that transcends the law code, and the code itself.
If the code is merely a textual (and partial) reflection of God's (real) Righteousness, it is in a sense incomplete, but whereas on the one hand we express accurately that going back to Moses for sanctification is returning to much too low a standard, on the other hand we need to discuss what this higher standard looks like.
Yes, it is Christ himself, but WOW, anyone who wants to live in obedience to THAT example as a law shall be overwhelmed before starting...and rightly so.
But therein lies the awesomeness of Christ as living law. It's not His example that we are under, but His own personal active force upon us.
Ultimately God's call is for us to be 'Christ LIKE' and 'Holy as He is Holy' and 'One with Him as He is one with the Father.'
In other words, Christ is EXACTLY what the code-transcending righteousness, that gave rise to the Decalogue, looks like, but moreso than as a definition/example.
So, how do we obey his perfection?
This may be the first question that comes to mind, and the answer is: We cannot via our Adamly flesh.
What does the scripture tell us except that we must 'Walk in the Spirit'
So what does that mean?
It means we rely on His indwelling Spirit for righteousness in every life situation. Not just to show us, but to actually produce it in us...and this requires Faith - especially for patience to see Him finally do it in me for each area of my sinfullness.
What looks so radically different about being under 'Grace' rather than 'Law', is that Grace is NOT simply compassionate merciful forgiveness as we tend to perceive it via our English use of the word.
Grace is not an inactive love that simply withholds justice in lieu of forgiveness out of mercy and compassion.
Grace is much more than that.
Grace is an active love which divinely alters the heart; right where the root of our problem lies.
Law merely demands change to our fleshly actions, and Grace does much more than demand change even to our heart. Grace is the act of God changing our heart.
We are no longer 'Under' Law because we are no longer under the influence of law codes governing our flesh in order to produce total Christ-like righteousness in us (which it could never do)
Instead we are 'Under' Grace in that we are under it's ACTIVE changing of our hearts to eradicate the sin INside us.
Grace is not just compassionate and merciful forgiveness.
Grace is heart circumcision and transformation...which always has an element of pain, but results in genuine Christ-likeness...without any of our own doing.
The Decalogue is far too low a standard because:
a) It's only a partial reflection of Christ's complete righteousness
b) It's primarily a flesh-oriented reflection/shadow
c) It cannot be followed perfectly, although
d) It can be followed enough to give us confidence in ourselves and
e) make us forget we must be changed of the heart to be fully like Christ
When we realize the NC law, whatever we think it is, necessarily causes us to be utterly like Christ, it's not hard to see the Decalogue as insufficient.
Grace is that divine force in the heart and union/oneness with Him that makes us completely righteous w/o an ounce of our own doing.
To be Under Grace instead of Law means we are solely under the influence, and utterly dependent upon, Christ's divine modification of our heart via our union with His indwelling Spirit.
The only way to cling to and hope in this indwelling law's ability to make me completely righteous is Through FAITH.
I am still left with Ephesians 6:1-3.
This passage has Paul using one of the ten commandments to emphasize his imperative to children. I've read it over and over and in light of 2:15 and still come away with the inescapable conclusion that it is still in force. The discussions regarding this passage have not come close to persuading me otherwise.
The text seems very, very clear.
It only seems clear to you because you approach the text with a presupposed opinion before reading the text: Paul's use of the commandment automatically means the Mosaic law must still be in force.
I (and many others) don't approach the text with that assumption. Therefore, such a conclusion isn't warranted or necessary.
Further, your exegesis completely ignores the context... this isn't an imperative to "children", but to regenerate children. And the fact that this is an imperative for regenerate children is an argument *against* the Mosaic law still being in force (the Mosaic law was for believers and unbelievers alike).
No, Chad, you are the one reading with preconceived notions. In fact, you are reading it with a theological presupposition. I am reading it as a letter to Gentile believers. It is Paul giving instruction and using the Decalogue to emphasize his point.
It seems to me that the only readers who would make a distinction between "command" and "imperative" are those who bring a New Covenant framework to the text.
Of course I come to the text with a preconceived notion. Everyone does. I was merely pointing out yours: Paul's use = Mosaic law in the New Covenant.
And of course, Paul is "using" the Decalogue... but it is a huge leap in logic, not to mention exegesis or theology, to go from "use" to "eternally binding Decalogue".
So... what we're left with is that your argument exclusively rests on 1 verse. You have one verse and I have the entire New Testament saying the Decalogue has been abolished, cancelled, faded away, made obsolete, etc. That's kind of like me saying "baptism doesn't save" and you saying, "yes it does... there's a verse in 1 Peter that explicitly says so." :-)
Chad:
Here is the problem with your accusation that I only have "one verse" that argues against NCT: I actually have more passages in mind (some we've discussed) and I doubt if I will find two commentators among twenty who would approach Ephesians 6:1-3 from a NCT perspective.
Appealing to commentaries and "names" on this issue is easily dismissed. We are not discussing an NCT perspective of Eph. 6:1-3 (in fact, I don't speak for NCT... as I stated before, there are 3 streams of NCT, 1 of which I emphatically disagree with). We are discussing the non-third-use of the law view of Eph. 6:1-3. My view is shared by more than a few dispensationalists, not to mention Covenant theologians such as Kline and most Lutherans since Melanchthon (not to mention, Bridges, Piper, Carson, Moo, Beale, etc.). There are more than a few commentators that would not accept Eph. 6:1-3's quote of the Decalogue as justifying the eternal binding of the Decalogue. The two (Paul's use of the Decalogue AND the Decalogue as eternal) are not one and the same.
It would be interesting to know which non-Presbyterian/Anglican (denominations steeped in the third use error) commentaries of Ephesians would equate Paul's use of the Decalogue in Ephesians with the eternal validity of the Decalogue.
Even those dispensationalists who use the "if it's repeated in the New it is still binding" hermeneutic rarely speak of the eternality of the Decalogue. It lives on as Pauline principle for them. After all, the dispensationalist mantra is "not under law, but grace" (most affirm the notion of Decalogue as third use is included in that statement). Growing up dispensationalist, I never considered the "eternal binding" issue until I was exposed to Presbyterianism. And it didn't take me long to figure out that the logical end of Decaloguianism is theonomy and Sabbatarianism.
Chad:
I have yet to find a commentator who doesn't acknowledge this passage to be a quotation from the decalogue. That is the issue I'm trying to make. I just reviewed a handful and all of them say Paul is quoting from the Decalogue.
I think you're a man without a point. :-) I've nowhere denied that Paul is quoting from the Decalogue. I deny that in quoting from the Decalogue Paul is enforcing the Decalogue on the Ephesians. Those are 2 very, very different propositions. The former does not necessitate or warrant the latter.
Why is Paul quoting the decalogue unless it is for the purpose of indicating that it should be obeyed?
Paul quotes it immediately after commanding that children are to obey their parents. Why would he quote something that is to be ignored without any explanation?
Brian,
Paul employs Ex 20:12 in Eph 6:2-3 according to his own place (time!) in redemptive history. In other words, he used the law as one who was a member not of the old covenant, but of the new covenant. Is the long life in the land that the Paul and the Ephesians hoped for mere sand in the Middle East? Certainly not! As Heb 11 makes plain, what was promised is eternal life in the kingdom of God of which the land was typological. Paul reads the law *thru the truth of the gospel* because in Christ who inaugurated the new creation, the law has come to its divinely intended end (Gal 3:23ff). The law has fulfilled its role because the promised Seed has come, died, risen, and sent his Spirit (Gal 4:4; 1:4; 3:14). Paul's appeal to Ex 20 therefore agrees with what he said in Eph 2:15 - he is not under the law because he is in Christ who is his head. The work of Christ transforms the handling of OT revelation for spiritual Israel (Gal 6:16 cf 2 Cor 3).
dante
That doesn't make any sense to me. If Paul has no need for the Old Covenant law then why did he quote it to support his command in verse one?
As far as the land goes, nowhere does the Bible negate the literal fulfillment of a material piece of land. Yes, we all look to a city whose maker and builder is God, but that is the "not yet" of our future. We are seated in the heavenlies with Christ but that doesn't mean we are removed from this earth.
As for Israel being "spiritual", there is no warrant for that in scripture. The verses you suggest that show Israel is now the church only indicate that gentiles and Israel share spiritual blessings and salvation. However, Romans 11 is very clear that God has not forsaken His people with respect to their ethnic future. There will be a day when all Israel will be saved. These are the times of the Gentiles, but there is more to come!
>Why is Paul quoting the decalogue >unless it is for the purpose of >indicating that it should be >obeyed?
Why is the writer of Hebrews quoting Exodus in Heb. 9:20?
I could probably list 5-10 reasons why Paul could or would quote the Decalogue or any other portion of the OT. You've skewed the exegesis by presupposing something that isn't necessarily warranted. In fact, the question here is tilted (by use of "unless it is") in favor of a predisosition or conclusion already arrived at. This text, like any text, must be interpreted on its terms, not ours -- and Dante has done an excellent job of giving us the text's own terms.
It's bad logic. Paul quotes the Decalogue. The Decalogue was to be obeyed in the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul believes the Decalogue must be obeyed in the New Covenant? The last has no warrant from the previous two. Why? Because in order to arrive at the conclusion, you must predispose yourself to "quoting = still in force" AND to a continuity of Decalogue between covenants. And there's plenty of warrant from the rest of the NT (including the book of Ephesians) to call into serious question the validity of either predisposition. NT authors quote the OT for all sorts of reasons that don't necessitate the old order of things still being in force. In fact, the NT authors quote the OT everywhere primarily to show fulfillment and to show the radical difference between the Old and the New. The Decalogue, just like all other OT and OC realities, is not immune to the redemptive-historical shift brought about by the Christ event.
Given all that the NT says about abrogation, fading away, making obsolete, fulfilled, etc. (including the abolishing of the Decalogue in Eph. 2:15) there's nothing that compels us to believe that "quoting = still in force". In fact, what we find in the rest of the NT is the opposite: "quoting" is more likely to = change, not "still in force".
>If Paul has no need for the Old >Covenant law then why did he >quote it to support his command >in verse one?
He's showing how the original command has been transformed by the change in redemptive history. There is a new criterion for the new covenant "man" (Eph. 2:15): "in the Lord". As Dante said, "The work of Christ transforms the handling of OT revelation for the "one new man" of Eph. 2:15.
Chad:
So, Paul gives a command in verse one, then quotes the commandment from the OT immediately after, and does so because he is showing that the latter is no longer in force? So, should I do the same thing as follows?
You should repent and believe in Christ, the final sacrifice for sins. If you have sinned unintentionally, offer the prescribed animal sacrifice for forgiveness.
Would that make any sense?
I like it!
The Gospel-event transforms:
a)The *Revelation of God*
- Gal 6:16; 2Cor.3
[Dante]
b)The *People of God*
- Rom.8.15; Gal.4.7
[Steve Fuchs]
What makes more sense? I could just as easily say the same thing about what you're doing to Eph. 6:
For your justification, goto Christ.
For your sanctification, go back to Moses.
Repent and believe in Christ, but for your holiness, please look up the Decalogue. It'll work its ministry of death on you and increase your sin, but too bad... that's what Christ left you with.
The problem with this whole thing is that a false disconnect has been inserted between justification and sanctification. If the law can't help us for our justification, it certainly can't help us in our sanctification. We make *some* distinction between justification and sanctification over against Rome... but too much disconnect runs us afoul of scripture.
Chad:
Moses didn't present his law - he presented God's law. The fact is - it honors the Lord when children obey their parents - and it is a sin when they don't. This was true before Moses, during Moses and after Moses.
The decalogue has its basis in the holy character of God - I believe you have said this yourself. I don't look to Moses for sanctification - I look to the same moral laws that God gave to Moses. Laws that were perfectly fulfilled by Jesus Christ and laws that do not hold penalty over me as a new covenant Christian. I rejoice in the law of Christ (which is essentially the same as the decalogue since the NT repeats 9 of the 10) and yet I can't fulfill any of it as God intends. Instead, I rest in Christ who fulfilled it all.
>Moses didn't present his law - he >presented God's law.
The Decalogue and Moses are one and the same era... they both share the same OC inferiority. So much so that Christ himself calls it "Moses' law"... in fact, one can lose count the number of times that the NT speaks of the "law of Moses". It came from God... but was identified with Moses. If Moses is inferior... so too is his "law".
>it honors the Lord when children >obey their parents
This is true... partly. However, its reality is not grounded in the Decalogue. The Decalogue merely speaks to its reality. Further, it doesn't honor the Lord when an unbelieving child obeys his/her parents (Heb. 11:6).
>This was true before Moses, >during Moses and after Moses.
Which is an argument *against* the eternal binding of the Decalogue.
>The decalogue has its basis in >the holy character of God - I >believe you have said this >yourself.
Correct. But it is certainly flawed logic, not to mention flawed exegesis to leap from God's unchanging, eternal character to an eternal Decalogue. The Decalogue was temporal.
> I don't look to Moses for >sanctification
You do if you look to the law that is identified with Moses and the covenant of his era.
> I look to the same moral laws >that God gave to Moses.
And thus, one is looking to Moses for sanctification, something Galatians 3:3 expressly forbids.
>Laws that were perfectly >fulfilled by Jesus Christ and >laws that do not hold penalty >over me as a new covenant >Christian.
Penalty and "in force" or "binding" are all of the same essence and same reality. Galatians makes this clear in speaking of the removal of the curse and the temptation to return to the law for sanctification all in one stroke.
> I rejoice in the law of Christ (which is essentially the same as >the decalogue
We've already proven this to be not correct. Nowhere does the NT equate the law of Christ with the Decalogue. In fact, we've already shown that everywhere the law of Christ is spoken of or alluded to, "love" and "believe" define the law of Christ, not the Decalogue. Stick to the text rather than rational arguments that fail the exegetical test.
>and yet I can't fulfill any of it >as God intends.
Which is why Paul says it is a ministry of death and says those who look to the law for sanctification are "bewitched". Every time one attempts to fulfill *any* of the law in sanctification the only possible end is: O wretched man that I am.
So all I have to do is "love" and "believe"...that is the entire law of Christ?
Now I see why some NC theologians argue for marrying their sister. Why not?
>So all I have to do is "love" >and "believe"...that is the >entire law of Christ?
You tell me. I asked you a while back to go through all of the passages (I even listed them for you) speaking of the Law of Christ and define for us what those passages tell us about the Law of Christ. Show us in *those* passages where the Law of Christ is equivalent to the Decalogue. Stick to the text. To reiterate what I've heard Bill Dennison ask time and again: what does the text say?
>Now I see why some NC theologians >argue for marrying their sister. >Why not?
This is dodging the issue. I haven't said anything here warranting being painted with the same brush. Those NC theologians who argue for marrying their sister do so because their hermeneutic is dispensationalist... this is why I said some NCT amounts to nothing more than warmed over dispensationalism.
The OC law *informs* the NC ethic (such as Eph. 6:2), but it does not *define* the NC ethic. Those NCTers who argue for marrying a sister have a hermeneutic that will not allow the OT to inform the NT. Their discontinuity fails to recognize the organic flow of redemptive history and its connectedness, even as Christ has fulfilled all.
Brian,
I came back to this blog (I actually don't frequent here) because I remembered that I left out a point from my post (I was half asleep when I wrote it). I'm glad to see you took the time to read my input and to respond. I didn't realize you were a dispensationalist so I'll just add the crucial point concerning the transformation of the law by the gospel.
When Paul calls these child saints (cf Eph 1:1) in 6:1 to 'obey your parents,' he is not referring to generic things such as take out the trash or help set the table when they tell you to. No. The promise is tied to the command and the promise for these new covenant children is eternal life in the land above, not in earthly Cannan. If the obedience Paul had in view was common obedience to one's parents, then salvation would be by works. But the obedience is tied to the child's obedience so how can that be if salvation is by faith and not by works of the law? Because the new covenant (of promise) has transformed our reading of the old covenant (of law). Paul calls these children to obey their parents *by believing in the gospel that their parents impart to them at home* so that by believing in Christ for forgiveness of sins, they will 'live long in the [heavenly] land.' Therefore, Paul is not placing these gentile Ephesian children under the law, but seeking to nurture faith in them by which they take hold of Christ who has entered the heavenly land before us and by whose merit we are made citizens of his kingdom (cf Eph 5:5).
Paul is not interested in children living a long natural life by obeying their parents to not drink and drive (which could end their life), but as a pastoral biblical theologian, Paul is looking after the childrens' souls so that they will participate in eternal life even now by embracing the faith of their parents. The gospel does not guarantee that believers will 'live long' in this fallen world simply because they obeyed their parents.
On the church's use of the OT, I suggest MG Kline's 'The Structure of Biblical Authority' and on the hermeneutical front, GK Beale's article, 'The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?' which has recently rec'd new attention.
Brian,
Paul’s words to the Corinthians (2Cor.5) sum up the essence of obedience in the New Covenant (3.6):
In 5.14, Paul speaks of our actions springing from the love of Christ for us, in His having died (5.15) for us. This alone is the exclusive cause of our not living for ourselves but for His sake.
For, in Christ, we are no longer regarded according to the flesh (5.16), but are now partakers of the new creation (5.17) through the ongoing transforming ministry of the Spirit (3.6,8,18); all of which is of God (5.18)!
We then are partakers of a most glorious and permanent ministry of righteousness (5.21; 3.9,11), and are equipped with the weapons of righteousness (6.6,7), not waging a fleshly warfare (10.3-5), according to a ministry of death and condemnation that no longer has any glory (3.7,9,10)!
So then, it is Jesus Christ we proclaim (1.19; 2.17), in whom all the promises of God are fulfilled (1.20) and by whom we are enabled freedom by the Spirit (3.17) from every defilement of the body (physical sins) and spirit (idolatry) (7.1) unto a maturing holiness unto the Lord.
Our having fellowship with the Holy Spirit (13.14) – who writes His letter upon our heart (3.3) – is antithetical to a ministry of Stone (3.6).
Being mindful of these things, we maintain a sincere and pure devotion to Christ and resist the Devil’s first lie (11.3) that mere knowledge of “right and wrong” suffices, which is nothing more than “another Jesus,” a “different spirit,” and a “different gospel” (11.4).
Post a Comment
<< Home