Van Til: "the heathen yet have enough knowledge of the law or will of God to render them without excuse."
There are some who, in order to preserve a system that reinforces what they need to be true about theology and the covenants, try to make the case that the Gentiles were not lawbreakers because they didn't have the Sinaitic law and were not under the Mosaic Covenant. Of course, Paul anticipates such a claim in Romans 2, and he makes an aside to make sure that we understand that the Gentiles, while not having the law, do have the law written on their hearts and in fact are lawbreakers both unlike and like the Jews. Cornelius Van Til points to Romans 1 as the grounds for this thought in Paul in Romans 2:“Paul is not saying that we deal with a group of people that are master simulators, having been in contact with the highest requirements of the law of God, and a group that is able to “dress as well as the best.” On the contrary he is arguing that even those who have not had the special revelation of the oracles of God given to the Jews must yet be said to be sinners, that is, covenant-breakers. All men need the justice of God, for all are sinners. Yet there is no sin unless there be transgression and there is no transgression unless there be knowledge of the law. Having not the externally promulgated law, the heathen yet have enough knowledge of the law or will of God to render them without excuse.
"Do some think that the wrath of God is revealed upon the heathen unjustly on the ground that they have no knowledge of the will of God? Let them realize, says Paul in effect, that the revelation of God is present with all men everywhere. Let them know that even from the beginning of history this knowledge has been about all men everywhere. All men are responsible for the original positive revelation of God to mankind, as well as for the natural revelation that still surrounds them. Do some wonder whether that revelation of God has been persistent and insistent? Let them realize that that revelation is so close to all men as to be psychologically one with them. It is so close to them that, in spite of all their efforts to bury it, it speaks through their own moral consciousness. The law of God as a demand of God is written on their very hearts." – Cornelius Van Til, Common Grace
posted by Chad Richard Bresson at 4/07/2008 11:45:00 PM
84 Comments:
Interesting quote...thanks Chad.
My first thought, when I read Romans 2, is that the "law" Paul references is the corpus of the moral componenet found in the decalogue. After all, non-Jews were held responsible for violating these commands (do not kill) long before Sinai. And, these same laws are now written on the hearts according to his letter to the Corinthians.
Certainly, laws against eating blood or wearing mixed fabric aren't in view as being "written on the heart", are they?
This is another reason why I believe God wrote the Decalogue on tables of stone, distinct from the rest of the Mosaic law.
I don't believe the scriptures would have us make a one-to-one correlation between what is written on the heart of flesh in the New Creation (2 Cor. 3) and what is written on the conscience of humanity. 2 Cor. 3 is making a stark, radical and antithetical contrast between "tablets" and "the Spirit of the living God". That kind of radical antithesis doesn't just include form but also content. The tablets have disappeared and with them what was written on them. One cannot have one (form) without the other (content) because Paul makes no distinction here between them and in fact has both in mind (the content functions as a "letter of recommendation" -- 2 Cor. 3:1,2).
What Van Til (and Paul) is getting at is that what is written on the heart of humanity in the conscience is enough of the same essence that the condemnational effect of the law written on the heart is the same for the Gentile. They too have the law... the fact that they didn't have access to the national constitution of Israel is no excuse.
That said, I think this is where many in NCT and dispensationalism fall short in their understanding of the law and sin... there is correlative unity between the law in the Gentile and Jew and as a result, a unity in the doctrine of "sin" for both Jew and Gentile. Attacking the unity of the Old and New covenants must have other grounds than attempting to throw discontinuity into the grounds for Gentiles and Jews' condemnation. That discontinuity, by extension, implicitly denies Christ's federal headship and what Christ has accomplished in his death... such a discontinuity renders two kinds of sinners with needs for two kinds of accomplishments in Christ's death and makes a hatchet job of Paul's soteriological argumentation throughout Romans and Galatians (with some sections applying to Gentiles and other sections applying to Jews).
Chad:
You seem to be missing Paul's point in 2 Corinthians.
You indicate a contrast between "tablets" and "the Spirit of the Living God." However, that is not at all what Paul is comparing. He is comparing the tablets with the heart. The law that was once written on tablets (decalogue) is now written on the heart by the Spirit of the Living God.
I don't think I'm missing Paul's point. The contrast is *primarily* between tablets and the Spirit, and secondarily stone and heart. The contrast is between what has passed away (the tablets and their ministry of death) and what is here in greater glory (the ministry of the Spirit).
Form is part and parcel to the argument, but it is not Paul's primary point here.
Even if that were the case, how is the Law of Christ different than the Law of the Tablets? It is very easy to see that the Bible emphasizes obeying the decalogue from the heart prior to Moses, during Moses and on into the New Covenant. That is the point Paul seems to be making. The Ten Commandments are all over the place. Is this not why Jesus corrected "you have heard" with "but I say to You"?
He didn't do away with the law but rather fulfills it.
The Law of Christ, as it is unveiled in the New Testament, is substantially different than the law of the tablets. The first was a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3), a delineation of sin (Rom. 4-5) that produces all sorts of sin (Rom. 6-7). The Law of Christ (Gal. 6:2) does nothing of the kind. It is a ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor. 3) and is defined or marked by "walking in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16), being "led by the Spirit" (vs. 18), manifesting "the fruit of the Spirit (vs. 22-24)", and summarized by "love" (1 John 4:21).
One cannot say any of the above about the old covenant simply because its purpose was to condemn and kill (Rom. 6-7, 2 Cor. 3, Hebrews 8-10). I do not agree that the Bible "emphasizes" obeying the decalogue from the heart. Yes, the Old Testament clearly states that obedience to the Decalogue is to be from the heart. That thought is found throughout the Pentateuch and certainly in the prophets. But that is not the *emphasis* of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant emphasized obedience for life and in doing so was a ministry of death. The reason why the Pharisees were inherent legalists is because the entire code *leaned* that way... it was meant to produce in them all sorts of legalism (and should have driven them to the sacrifice for salvation). The Sermon on the Mount, as its eschatological progression and fulfillment, inverts and flips the entire paradigm on its head. What was in the background, the heart, is now in the foreground.
As for Christ's comment that he didn't come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, that comment *must* be taken in the context of which Christ said it... pre-cross and resurrection. Eph. 2:15 is clear that the law (of commandments, the Decalogue, no less) *has* been abolished. This is further developed by Paul in 2 Cor. 3 and Hebrews 8-10. The Decalogue is no longer the defining standard for the holiness that God requires. Christ himself is that standard. The law has been fulfilled in him and in being so fulfilled, Christ has become THE Torah (John 1:1,17) who is the standard by which all righteousness is measured (1 John 1:5). This is the import of "but I say to you". The phrase is a contrast, not merely of correction, but of fulfillment. "But I say to you" sets Christ himself as the new standard to whom all men must listen. This is the point of the Mount of Transfiguration where Christ is presented not just as the new Moses, but as the new Torah: this is my beloved Son; listen to HIM (rather than Moses and the Decalogue). When Christ descends the Mount it is not as Moses with the Decalogue, but AS the New Moses and Himself as the new standard of righteousness.
It then becomes very reductionist to insist that the law of Christ is equivalent to the Decalogue. That idea is among those elementary principles of the Old Covenant (the world, in Col. 2) that must be jettisoned. The Decalogue, just like everything else in the Old Covenant, is merely a shadow. Whatever one says about the Old Covenant, one must say about the Decalogue because the two are inseparable as temporal copies of realities much greater.
I should add that the day I affirm the Decalogue as eternally binding is the day I become a Sabbatarian because Sabbatarianism is the logical end of "third use". The two are inseparable to the point where an affirmation of Decaloguianism without Sabbatarianism is inconsistent.
Decaloguianism is inherent to the Judaistic legalism against which Paul diatribed in Galatians.
You're entire argument is only valid if you see no difference between a moral law and a set of codes and ordinances that were unique to Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.
The context must allow for how "law" is to be interpreted throughout the Bible.
"Oh How I love thy Law" was the Psalmist's cry and yet Paul said the law is death.
Those two things aren't the same.
The Sabbath was abrogated in Colossians 2:16 and Hebrews 4. None of the other nine commandments of the Decalogue were abrogated in the NT. That's why Paul quotes them in Ephesians and Romans (and perhaps other places).
Abrogate the Sabbath and the entire Decalogue is abrogated (which is why the Decaloguian argument is a non-starter from the get go). The Decalogue is *never* treated as individual commandments in the canon. It is always a unit, a thought that is foundational to James' comment in James 2:10. What James says about violation is as true about abrogation.
You're correct that the argument rides on the moral law being no different than the set of codes and ordinances that were unique to Israel. The Decalogue was unique to Israel, despite the fact that its principles speak to greater realities.
The canon never treats the codes and ordiances as *different* than the Decalogue. The three categories of law is an artificial imposition onto the text for the purposes of (erroneously) importing law into the New Covenant and does not arrive via exegesis. It is pure eisegesis.
I should add that Christ says he came to fulfill the law, and that he did. He did not come to fulfill part of the law, but all of it. The dirty little secret of Decaloguianism is that it creates a situation in which Christ only fulfills the ceremonial and civil laws, but not the moral law. That cannot be substantiated from the text.
You're right that we must understand law in its context. David was speaking of revelation. Paul was speaking of the content of the Decalogue itself.
*Nowhere* in scripture is "law" contextualized by so-called three uses. It either speaks in terms of revelation, covenant, decalogue, Pentateuch, Torah. Never three use. IOW, Paul and the NT authors *never* contextualize the law in terms of civil vs. ceremonial vs. moral. That is an artificial imposition on the text that isn't support by the context.
Further, even if Paul did (for the sake of the argument) incorporate some kind of three use template, he explicitly says the Decalogue itself is abolished in Eph. 2:15. So... in the end, it really doesn't matter. We have texts that say all three uses have been abolished/abrogated. Eph. 2:15 cannot be read any other way (though some Decaloguians have tried).
And Paul says in 2 Cor. 3 that the moral law (the tablets of stone) has passed away. He's not merely speaking of form but the entire *age*.
Paul said:
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (B"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise), - Ephesians 6
Here we have Paul giving the imperative "obey your parents" and then appealing to the Decalogue for further emphasis. In fact, he even indicates it is the first command that gave a promise.
Sorry, it is abundantly clear that the Decalogue was still pertinent according to Paul. And, this is even more significant when you consider that the church in Ephesus wasn't a Jewish church. These were gentiles, not Mosaic law-keepers.
You said:
The dirty little secret of Decaloguianism is that it creates a situation in which Christ only fulfills the ceremonial and civil laws, but not the moral law. That cannot be substantiated from the text.
My response:
What??
Yeah, yeah, every time the obvious abrogation of the law is asserted, Decaloguians drag out Eph. 6:2 as if it is the mother of all rebuttals to end the discussion. It isn't and it doesn't. The reality is that long before we get to Eph. 6:2, Paul has already informed us in Eph. 2:15 that "honor your father and mother" has been abolished, abrogated, done away with, etc. because it was no more than a shadow pointing forward to the reality. Eph. 2:15 trumps whatever one might begin to think Paul is doing with an Old Covenant code in Eph. 6:2... i.e. Eph. 6:2 is to understood in light of Eph. 2:15, not the other way around.
The question isn't whether Paul is invoking "honor father & mother" as a *law* to be obeyed in Eph. 6:2. Eph. 2:15 says he's not (it has been abolished). The question is not one of invocation but eschatological fulfillment. Obedience to parents is *not* the same in the NC as it was in the OC. Obedience to parents in the OC was not "in the Lord". It was possible under the OC to keep the commandment and still be unregenerate. That's impossible in the NC. The "in the Lord" qualification alone makes what Paul is saying in Eph. 6:1 of a different substance than is contained in the Decalogue. For Paul, obeying parents in the Lord is the eschatological reality to which the "honoring father and mother" shadow pointed. The Decalogue is no more *real* now than the OT sacrifice... both are equally shadows and both have equally been fulfilled in Christ. What's amazing to me is how decaloguians who normally trumpet the New Testament as an interpretation of the Old somehow give the Decalogue a pass from such a hermeneutic.
So... pertinent? Absolutely, as a shadowy revelation pointing forward to and informing the NC reality. Clearly Paul believes the OC command helps us better understand the new covenant relations between parent and child and in the new covenant relationship ("in the Lord") he finds the eschatological fulfillment of the fifth (or fourth, if you're Lutheran, Catholic, or Anglican:-)) commandment.
Morally binding in the same direct manner and application as OC believers? Absolutely not. Paul's main concern in 6:2, as it is in the rest of the house tables is the behavioral characteristics of the "one new man" (Eph. 2:15); to suggest that Paul is invoking Old Covenant law is simply antithetical to a new creation being built together in a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.
Chad said:
"*Nowhere* in scripture is "law" contextualized by so-called three uses. It either speaks in terms of revelation, covenant, decalogue, Pentateuch, Torah. Never three use. IOW, Paul and the NT authors *never* contextualize the law in terms of civil vs. ceremonial vs. moral. That is an artificial imposition on the text that isn't support by the context."
I'll tell you what - you refrain from believing in a "covenant of works" and I will try my best to avoid the distinctions in the law.
For the same reason you once posted a defence of the unbiblical "covenent of works", I believe in an unbiblical separation of moral, civil and ceremonial. I use the term "unbiblical" to indicate an argument that isn't explicitly supported by chapter/verse.
>isn't explicitly supported
And neither is it implicitly supported. It is neither a good or necessary consquence.
I said:
>The dirty little secret of
Decaloguianism is that it creates a situation in which Christ only fulfills the ceremonial and civil laws, but not the moral law. That cannot be substantiated from the >text.
Brian's response:
>What??
Yes. Check out this answer in a Q & A posted on the OPC website: "the ceremonial laws and the civil laws are fulfilled by Christ and abolished." Noticeably absent in that sentence is any mention of the "moral" law. That's because they deny that Christ fulfilled the whole "law".
"Law" is not qualified in Matt. 5 or Eph. 2 or Heb. 8-10 or Gal. 3-4. Christ fulfilled the *whole* law and the *whole* law has been abolished.
Chad:
The normal, Bible reading Christian will read Ephesians 6:1-3 and see exactly what Paul is doing. One need not stumble over something as incredibly simple as the fact that Paul is using one of the Ten Commandments to support his exhortation that children obey their parents. It is utterly obvious.
Your "explanation" of the true meaning of this passage is tortured and complicated. I guess it has to be in order for you to support your theological grid. Your explanation actually doesn't make sense. "Eschatalogical reality"?
This is perfect example of undue violence being done to a text in order to support a theological position.
Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. Honor your father and mother (which is the first command with a promise), so that it may be will with you, and that you may live long on the earth.
That is beautifully simple and clear. No explanation needed.
"And neither is it implicitly supported. It is neither a good or necessary consquence."
The moral distinction of the decalogue as compared with civil and ceremonial is implicitly supported as I've shown by the fact that Paul uses the commandments in several of his epistles to support moral conduct. See Eph. 6; Romans 13:8-10 and 1 Tim. 1:8-11.
Chad:
I read the Q&A from the OPC site.
The answer given does not say Christ doesn't fulfill the moral law. It says he fulfills all three but then abrogates the civil and ceremonial. The point of the answer is that we are still exhorted to live a morally pleasing life, which is exactly what Christ did.
I don't see the author saying Christ didn't fulfill the moral law.
"The normal, Bible reading Christian will read Ephesians 6:1-3"... in America will read it completely differently than the original first century Christian and read it differently than Paul intended.
The original readers presumed an eschatological trajectory... it was inherent to the way they understood life and the scriptures.
You're highlighting the fatal flaw of "literalism".
I would add that yes, I do see where the author acknowledges fulfillment of all three. However, given that Eph. 2:15 says the moral law has been abolished, it would then be "nonsense" to suggest that the third "carries over into the New Covenant", as if the Law exegetically can be split into three pieces. It can't.
"Paul uses the commandments in several of his epistles to support moral conduct."
I have nowhere denied that Paul uses the commandments to "support moral conduct". But "support" does not equal "carry over". He is using the commandments to show how the shadow is fulfilled in the New Covenant realities.
>The point of the answer is that >we are still exhorted to live a >morally pleasing life, which is >exactly what Christ did.
I'm not sure that's the point of the answer. The point of the answer is to defend non-abrogation of the moral law. Obviously, as you have pointed out, I erred in suggesting they deny Christ's fulfillment of the whole law. Where this answer goes awry is in its failure to recognize fulfillment as abrogation.
That said, the end result of the answer is to place a severe burden on the reader (see Paul's comment in Gal. 3 about "bewitching"), and encourage him to adhere to something that is nothing but a ministry of death producing in the reader all kinds of sin (see Rom. 6-7).
And... to the point I originally made, while it is not true of this answer, in these kinds of conversations I have seen many explicitly deny that Christ fulfilled the whole law and that he only fulfilled 2/3 of it... because they (like Paul in Eph. 2:15) rightly understand that fulfillment eventually necessitates abrogation.
Chad:
The next time I sit down with my children and share Ephesians 6, I will be sure to emphasize the eschatalogical trajectory, greco-roman confusion and danger of "literalism" so that they get the point.
Heavy sarcasm, but with a whole lot of truth.
Chad said:
"Obedience to parents is *not* the same in the NC as it was in the OC. Obedience to parents in the OC was not "in the Lord"."
However, look what Solomon wrote to his son:
" My son, do not forget my teaching, but let your heart keep my commandments," (Proverbs 3:1, ESV)
" My son, keep my words and treasure up my commandments with you; keep my commandments and live; keep my teaching as the apple of your eye; bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart." (Proverbs 7:1-3, ESV)
It seems to me that it was possible to obey from the heart in the old covenant.
The question isn't whether obedience from the heart was possible in the OC. The question is whether that's the point of emphasis in the Mosaic Covenant of Works. It wasn't.
One could obey *not* in the Lord and still be faithful to the Old Covenant because Old Covenant membership was indiscriminate. Solomon understood the true nature of faith, but he was an exception in the Old Covenant, not the rule.
I haven't said anything here that would make Eph. 6:1-4 unintelligible to my children. But you'll never hear me pointing my New Covenant kids to the law in order for them to obey. Paul is not doing that here... and to suggest such is to miss the point of what he is saying through the whole of the book (esp. ignoring Eph. 2:15).
Further, the phrase "in the Lord" means the entire verse is only applicable to those of your children who are in the New Covenant. So... any application for unbelieving children is secondary, at best. You cannot strip these verses out of their context as if they have meaning on their own (such as a wall placard). That is a misuse of scripture... something that idealistic Greco-Romans would do, but no good exegete would do.
Chad:
Yes, Paul IS quoting from the decalogue to support his exhortation. You have not proven otherwise. Why is he quoting from the decalogue immediately after telling them to obey their parents in the Lord? You are asserting that he isn't quoting the law and yet he specifies it is the first command given with a promise. That is exactly how that command is worded.
The text is from the decalogue! No gymnastics can change that. I'll quote these verses again:
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. (B"Honor your father and mother" (this is the first commandment with a promise)"
And, chapter six follows 2:15 so whatever you think 2:15 is saying, it is not abrogating the decalogue since Paul quotes it to support his imperative four chapters later.
This is as clear as anything in scripture can be. You can blame it on "greco-roman" influence if you want, but your argument is very, very weak.
One of us is reading the text and comparing scripture with scripture, the other seems to be defending a theological position.
I have never denied that Paul is quoting from the Decalogue. In fact, I have affirmed such over and over again in this conversation. But the fact is that a quote does not "eternally binding" make.
The theological position being imported into the text is one that insists that quoting the Decalogue means the Decalogue is still valid, when in fact scripture interpreting scripture (via Eph. 2:15) tells us the Decalogue and its contents have been abolished. The fact is that Paul is quoting (Eph. 6:2) from something that has been abolished/abrogated (Eph. 2:15), done away with (2 Cor. 3) and obsolete (Hebrews 8-10). That's scripture interpreting scripture.
It does not follow (and in fact it is eisogesis) that just because Paul is quoting from the Decalogue and using it to support his original statement in verse 1 that Paul believes the Decalogue constitutes something that is eternally abiding and binding on the believer. That is importing into the text what is not there... Paul doesn't even imply such a thing and in fact has already explicitly stated that the Decalogue is not eternal nor eternally binding (Eph. 2:15).
The Decalogue is just like anything else in the tabernacle and the Old Covenant: a shadow of greater realities... and when THE Greater Reality has come, the Decalogue, like the rest of the shadows around it, is done away (2 Cor. 3).
But then again, this is precisely what the Judaizers were arguing in seducing the Galatians and the Colossians with Sabbath-keeping and circumcision. The theology and the argument is all the same.
Chad:
So, Paul is quoting from something that is abolished. Why is he doing that? Why quote something to support an imperative if it has no use?
And, why did you say you would never give the law to your children when Paul is giving the law in Ephesians 6?
>Why quote something to support an >imperative if it has no use?
Why would the writer of Hebrews quote the Old Testament shadows of the tabernacle? Why would any writer of the NT quote from the OT shadows? Just because something is quoted doesn't mean it is still "binding". That kind of hermeneutic has all sorts of problems throughout the rest of the New Testament.
>And, why did you say you would >never give the law to your >children when Paul is giving the >law in Ephesians 6?
1. Paul isn't giving the law in Eph. 6. He is quoting the law, not giving it. HUGE difference.
2. To give covenant children the law is tantamount to giving them a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3) which will produce in them all kinds of sin (Rom. 7:8). If I want for sin to come alive in my kids (Rom. 7:9), sure I'll give them the law so that it can work its death on them (Rom. 7:10; 2 Cor. 3:6).
To give someone the law is the last thing I will do to someone who has been freed from the law. To give someone the law is to be bewitched and foolish (Gal. 3:1-3).
Now... if I have children who have not professed faith in Christ, certainly the law can be brought to bear in showing them sin and convicting them of sin. But that's not what this discussion is about. The Decalogue is abolished, abrogated, done away, and obsolete in not just form, but content. The principles contained in the law live on in the person of Jesus Christ, the New Torah delivered on the Mount of Transfiguration("listen to Him" i.e. instead of Moses and the old law that is passing away).
It's hard for me to ignore one glaring inconsistency here.... I think it's absolutely fantastic that you believe that Paul is quoting the Old Testament; and while I'm bothered that you seem to think he is invoking the law directly onto New Covenant believers there, I have to applaud your belief that Paul *is* quoting the Old Testament in its context and applying it in the New.
Such a thought is absolutely antithetical to Horner's hermeneutic (the NT writers do not quote the OT in context). I find it ironic that a dispensationalist is arguing for the eternal morally binding law when the foundational hermeneutic for *proving* the eternal Decalogue is not one that is dispensational (literalism it is not). :-)
Has it not occurred to you that most who argue for an eternal decalogue are paedobaptist and/or amillenial? At some point, something has to give. :-) Ready to try a-mil on for size???? :-)
But, like I said earlier, to be consistent with that position, one *must* find themselves a Sabbatarian. There is no piecemealing the Decalogue.
Chad:
You make conclusions without convincing proofs.
For example, yes, Paul is quoting the law but you say he is doing so in order to show the shadows of the old versus the new, then you give Hebrews as an example.
And yet, if I read Ephesians six I see that Paul is giving a command for children to obey and he immediately quotes one of the ten commandments in order to strengthen his imperative. There is nothing in that text that leads me to believe the quotation of moral law is in contradistinction to his command "obey your parents in the Lord."
Then, you show how quoting the law is bringing death to new covenant believers. Again, you arrive at this conclusion by assuming that the moral law is exactly the same as civil and ceremonial. You haven't proven this. I can show you moral laws that virtually match the decalogue before, during and after Sinai! You can't show civil and ceremonial laws before Moses or after. This is why I assert the Bible teaches a distinction.
And, for the Sabbath, I again take you to Col. 2:16 and Hebrews 4, where it is specifically abrogated by the Holy Spirit.
First, Paul is not giving a command in Eph. 6:1. He is giving an imperative, a new covenant distinction that must be maintained in light of 2 Cor. 3 and Romans 7.
Second, this imperative is for "new covenant" children, not all children indiscriminately. You completely ignore the import of "in the Lord", especially its "union in Christ" use throughout the book of Ephesians, not to mention the whole of the Pauline corpus. The fact that this is for "new covenant" children, children who are "in the Lord" by necessity has an exegetical influence on how we understand what Paul is saying in verse 2. He is *not* merely importing a law to be obeyed in the New Covenant. Why? Because that command was *never* given to only those who are "in the Lord". In order for your eisogesis to work, you must presume continuity between the covenants. At the very least, you are arguing as an inconsistent dispensationalist (and my gut feeling is that you're less of a dispy than you realize. hahaha! :-)).
If the Sabbath has been abrogated by the Spirit as it says (and I agree with you), then so too has the entire Decalogue. Paul *never* treats the law in distinct categories... every place he speaks of abrogation he is speaking of the sum total of all of the law. Further, covenant and law are also a sum total... and again, unless you are going to argue for continuity between OC and NC, if there is no covenant, there is no moral, civil, or ceremonial law still in effect because Paul never treats them in distinction from one another. If the Sabbath has been abolished so too has the whole law (James 2:10).
Further, I've never stated that I believe the moral principles are the same as the civil and ceremonial. But what I have stated is that, according to the scriptures, Paul always speaks of the sum total of the law wherever he talks about it. You have yet to show a passage in which Paul says only the ceremonial and civil laws have been abrogated. You can't do it. In fact, Eph. 2:15 explicitly mentions the Decalogue being abolished. 2 Cor. 3 specifically mentions the Decalogue having passed away. Those are *sum total* law mentions in Paul. You can't prove piecemeal from those passages.
And... if I were to go back through your answers, you have not answered any one of these other passages, including Eph. 2:15. You run to Eph. 6:2 as your *only* argument against all of the other passages. Your entire argument rests on some very flimsy presuppositions about Eph. 6:2 and that's the sum total of the argument. The entire weight of the New Testament scriptures is against that kind of interpretation of Eph. 6:2. Eph. 6:2 must be interpreted in light of Eph. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:10ff, Hebrews 8:13, Gal. 3:19,24,25, and Rom. 6:14. Let's just say when Paul asked in Gal. 4:21 "tell me, you who desire to be under the law..." he's not speaking highly of those who are the "you" in that passage. No is he speaking of ceremonial or civil law. The desire to be under the sum total of the law is not a good thing. It's a desire to be placed under a ministry of death that has been abrogated, abolished, and done away.
>First, Paul is not giving a command in Eph. 6:1. He is giving an imperative, a new covenant distinction that must be maintained in light of 2 Cor. 3 and Romans 7.<
Are you saying Paul never gives commands in the New Covenant? Or, is this unique to Ephesians? He certainly gives commands here:
“For you know what commandments we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus.” – 1 Thess. 4:2
“…and to make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you.” – 1 Thess. 4:11
>Second, this imperative is for "new covenant" children, not all children indiscriminately. You completely ignore the import of "in the Lord", especially its "union in Christ" use throughout the book of Ephesians, not to mention the whole of the Pauline corpus. The fact that this is for "new covenant" children, children who are "in the Lord" by necessity has an exegetical influence on how we understand what Paul is saying in verse 2. He is *not* merely importing a law to be obeyed in the New Covenant. Why? Because that command was *never* given to only those who are "in the Lord". In order for your eisogesis to work, you must presume continuity between the covenants. At the very least, you are arguing as an inconsistent dispensationalist (and my gut feeling is that you're less of a dispy than you realize. hahaha! :-)).<
Yes, Paul wrote this command to believers, but he wrote everything to believers. Therefore, how does this distinction matter? You say I can’t see this as a law to be obeyed because “that command was never given to only those who are ‘in the Lord.’” Please explain this sentence. I don’t understand what you’re saying here. And, yes, there is continuity with God’s transcendant, moral law; that is exactly what I am saying.
Romans 2:14-15 shows us that Gentiles do not have the law in its external, written form (because they are not of the covenant) but they do have its truth written on their hearts.
>If the Sabbath has been abrogated by the Spirit as it says (and I agree with you), then so too has the entire Decalogue. Paul *never* treats the law in distinct categories... every place he speaks of abrogation he is speaking of the sum total of all of the law. Further, covenant and law are also a sum total... and again, unless you are going to argue for continuity between OC and NC, if there is no covenant, there is no moral, civil, or ceremonial law still in effect because Paul never treats them in distinction from one another. If the Sabbath has been abolished so too has the whole law (James 2:10).<
This isn’t true. You claim Paul never treats the law in distinct categories and any abrogation includes the total.
" Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." (Colossians 2:16, ESV)
Paul is identifying the Sabbath, festivals (ceremonial distinctions), and food or drink (ceremonial and civil – certain foods were not permissible under Moses). This contradicts what you claim. Also, Hebrews 4 shows that the purpose of the Sabbath was fulfilled in Christ and we are eternally resting in Him, therefore there is no observation of a Sabbath anylonger.
You quote James 2:10 to show that the Sabbath is included anytime law is mentioned. However, that verse says, “For He who said ‘Do not commit adultery’, also said, ‘dDo not commit murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.”
This is showing the fact that any transgression of any law of God makes one a sinner, effectively a transgressor of all laws. This says nothing of the Sabbath. And, by the way, why is James, a new covenant believer, citing the Ten Commandments in order to make a point? Shouldn’t he be talking only of the Law of Christ (whatever that is, exactly)?
>Further, I've never stated that I believe the moral principles are the same as the civil and ceremonial. But what I have stated is that, according to the scriptures, Paul always speaks of the sum total of the law wherever he talks about it. You have yet to show a passage in which Paul says only the ceremonial and civil laws have been abrogated. You can't do it. In fact, Eph. 2:15 explicitly mentions the Decalogue being abolished. 2 Cor. 3 specifically mentions the Decalogue having passed away. Those are *sum total* law mentions in Paul. You can't prove piecemeal from those passages.<
Ephesians 2:15 – “…by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace,”. Please explain where you conclude the Decalogue is abolished by this verse? Romans 2:15 says the law is written in the heart of all men, gentiles included, and this predates Moses and post-dates the cross. Therefore, how do you conclude the Decalogue is abolished in this verse? Further, Paul actually quotes several of the Decalogue in Romans 13:8-10:
" Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:8-10, ESV)
With respect to 2 Cor. 3, yes, the giving of the law brought death, which is exactly what Paul also says in Galatians and early in Romans. However, Jesus Christ, our new covenant King, has fulfilled all God’s commands and now we are able to “keep” the commandments because we are in Christ. His obedience imputed to us.
If the moral laws contained in the Decalogue are to be tossed, then why does Paul quote them (Eph. 6 and Romans 13) as examples for us? It sounds an awful lot like Calvin’s “third use” to me!
>And... if I were to go back through your answers, you have not answered any one of these other passages, including Eph. 2:15. You run to Eph. 6:2 as your *only* argument against all of the other passages. Your entire argument rests on some very flimsy presuppositions about Eph. 6:2 and that's the sum total of the argument. The entire weight of the New Testament scriptures is against that kind of interpretation of Eph. 6:2. Eph. 6:2 must be interpreted in light of Eph. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:10ff, Hebrews 8:13, Gal. 3:19,24,25, and Rom. 6:14. Let's just say when Paul asked in Gal. 4:21 "tell me, you who desire to be under the law..." he's not speaking highly of those who are the "you" in that passage. No is he speaking of ceremonial or civil law. The desire to be under the sum total of the law is not a good thing. It's a desire to be placed under a ministry of death that has been abrogated, abolished, and done away.<
I have addressed Eph. 2:15 earlier in this post. Yes, we compare scripture with scripture and I agree, but we are apparently arriving at quite different conclusions.
>Are you saying Paul never gives commands in the New Covenant?
I’m saying one cannot make a one-to-one correlation between the commands of the OC that were a ministry of death and the commands of the NC. They are categorically *different*.
>Yes, Paul wrote this command to >believers, but he wrote everything to believers. Therefore, how >does this distinction matter? You say I can’t see this as a law to be obeyed because “that command >was never given to only those who are ‘in the Lord.’” Please explain this sentence. I don’t >understand >what you’re saying here.
OK... let’s start from the very beginning of the house codes. Everything in the Ephesians house codes flows out of vs. 21 of chapter 5... 5:22ff is what it means for the one new man to submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Husbands, wives, masters, servants, and children are all included (btw, this same new creational indicative/imperative relationship exists in the Colossians house codes).
Believing husbands and believing wives are given imperatives in light of their being a new creation (one new man) in Christ Jesus. Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Wives are to submit to their husbands as the church submits to Christ. These are relationships that have been transformed into the new creation (one new man) that is being prepared as the bride of Christ (vs. 26-27).
Skip down to verse 5... believing slaves are to obey their masters as they would to Jesus Christ. And Masters are treat their slaves as they would treat Jesus Christ (vs. 9). In fact, Paul goes as far to say that Christ is the Master of both the slaves and masters to whom he is referring... thus, these are believing slaves and masters whose relationships, like the husbands and wives, have been transformed in the new creation.
Sandwiched in between the New Covenant husbands/wives and slaves/masters are children. If Paul were talking about all children indiscriminately (believing and unbelieving), this would represent a huge break in thought in the middle of the so-called house codes. And in fact, it does not represent a break because Paul qualifies his entire directive to fathers and children with “in the Lord” (vs. 1 and 4). Just as is true when Paul says “husbands, love your wives” he is saying “those of you husbands who have been regenerated and made into one new man in Christ, love your wives as Christ loved the church”, so too here he is saying “those of you children who have been regenerated and made into one new man in Christ, obey your parents”. These children are “in the Lord”... they have been united to Christ in the new creation. That kind of distinction, a parent-child relationship that is new creational, is absent in the Old Covenant. The law was given without distinction to believer and unbeliever alike. This command in Ephesians is not, precisely because the law has been abrogated and abolished (Eph. 2:15). Honor Father and Mother has been given a whole new meaning in the New Covenant, a meaning that not only was absent in the OC, but impossible.
> And, yes, there is continuity with God’s transcendant, moral law
Nowhere does the Scriptures say this, implicitly or explicitly. There is continuity in God’s character out of which flows the Decalogue given at Sinai... a Decalogue that reveals to all men what God’s character (and ultimately Christ Jesus, God Incarnate) not only requires of them, but has always required of them, even before the law was given. That does not mean that this transcendence is constituted as a “moral” law.
>" Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a >festival or a new moon or a Sabbath." (Colossians 2:16, ESV) Paul is identifying the Sabbath, >festivals (ceremonial distinctions), and food or drink (ceremonial and civil – certain foods were not >permissible under Moses). This contradicts what you claim.
No it doesn’t contradict what I claimed. You have yet to show how the word *law* or *commandments* are not used as a sum total unit. Colossians 2:16 is irrelevant to what I claimed. I never said the authors didn’t identify any types of categories... I said when it comes to the way they handle *the law*, it’s always sum total. And in fact, if Colossians 2:16 is speaking to 3 categories, it still proves my point. Those three words are merely symbolic of the entire categories... so that moral, civil, and ceremonial have all been abrogated. Paul, by use of all 3, is still treating the law as if it were a “sum” total. And I would wager, in doing so, Paul is anticipating a false distinction being placed on the law by including all three in his Col. 2 abrogation argument.
>You quote James 2:10 to show that the Sabbath is included anytime law is mentioned. However, >that verse says, “For He who said ‘Do not commit adultery’, also said, ‘dDo not commit murder.’ Now >if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.”
>This is showing the fact that any transgression of any law of God makes one a sinner, effectively a >transgressor of all laws. This says nothing of the Sabbath.
Of course it has everything to do with the Sabbath. If it is true that to break the Sabbath means the entire law has been broken, so too it means that to abrogate the Sabbath is to abrogate the entire law. You cannot have “broken” without abrogation... both equally apply.
>And, by the way, why is James, a new covenant believer, citing the Ten Commandments in order to >make a point? Shouldn’t he be talking only of the Law of Christ (whatever that is, exactly)?
Actually he cites the Decalogue in contrast to the “law of liberty” as it is understood in the New Covenant. It’s the same argument Paul makes in Galatians. They are not to act as if they are under the Decalogue. They have been transformed as new creational firstfruits (James 1:18). “Speak and act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty” is a parallel in contrast with the law, not a comparison. The “law of liberty” is a parallel in comparison with the “royal law”, which is the New Commandment for the New Covenant given by Christ in John. As Moo points out, “it is not the Old Testament law per se that (James) urges perfect compliance with, but with the royal law (James 2:8), the law of liberty (2:12) – a law that takes up within it the Old Testament law, but as it is understood through Jesus’ fulfillment of it. This “law of liberty” is not the Old Testament law, but the law written on New Covenant hearts (James 1:21). This “law of liberty” is none other, as MacArthur no less points out, than the gospel itself. The “law” category in the New Covenant has been flipped on its head. Law, as understood in the OC, no longer holds the New Covenant member in its reach.
>Please explain where you conclude the Decalogue is abolished by this verse?
The “Law of Commandments” is none other than the Decalogue (commandments) AND all of its attending ordinances. Paul once again sees the law as a sum total... here he identifies the Decalogue AND the civil and ceremonial wrapped up in one word: ordinances. Decalogue + ordinances equals the entire law. The ordinances are not the commandments themselves; otherwise, Paul is unnecessarily redundant.
>How do you conclude the Decalogue is abolished in this verse?
Because the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the Decalogue, has been abolished. The Gentiles may have had the law on their hearts, but they did not have ordinances.
>With respect to 2 Cor. 3, yes, the giving of the law brought death, which is exactly what Paul also >says in Galatians and early in Romans. However, Jesus Christ, our new covenant King, has fulfilled >all God’s commands and now we are able to “keep” the commandments because we are in Christ.
Nowhere does Paul say we are able to keep the commandments because we are in Christ... in fact, he warns us against trying to do so in Romans 7 and in Galatians 3. If the new believer attempts to place himself back under the law as if he were under the law, it will continue its ministry of death on the new believer by producing all sorts of sin in him (Romans 7). The law is what imprisoned us before (because of its demanding nature – Gal. 3:23) and it will imprison us again if we attempt to live by it (Gal. 3:3,). To go back to the law for our sanctification is to submit to the yoke of slavery (Gal. 5:1).
>If the moral laws contained in the Decalogue are to be tossed, then why does Paul quote them (Eph. >6 and Romans 13) as examples for us?
Calling his quotes “examples” is eisogesis. You come to the text with a preconceived notion about the function of the law in the New Covenant and you import meaning to these verses that is not there. Further, I don’t believe I’ve ever stated anywhere here that the *principles* of the law are not incorporated in the New Covenant ethic. Paul does use the revelation of the law to inform the ethic of the new creation. But that’s an entirely different situation than suggesting the law is binding. It is no longer binding (Eph. 2:15, etc.)
> It sounds an awful lot like Calvin’s “third use” to me!
Of course it does. Calvin was wrong on this point. So were the Puritans. They were also Sabbatarians because they rightly understood that the abrogation of one point of the law is an abrogation of the entire law. Rather than the Sabbath’s abrogation being a tip-off for them that the entire law has been abrogated, they opted for no abrogation at all. They rightly understood the implications of James 2:10, even as they argued in error for no abrogation. Sabbatarianism and "third use" are "interlockingly" (yes, new word) joined at the hip.
And I’d be a little slow to invoke Calvin’s name on a doctrinal point like this. Calvin was also a paedobaptist, an idea that was informed by his understanding of “third use”. :-)
It would be better said that Calvin's "third use" has the same continuity hermeneutic as his paedobaptism.
One piece that is missing from my own apologetic here (because of time) is the fruitlessness of looking to the law for our sanctification and what it is that the Spirit does in transforming the entire rubric of obedience. Paul's indicative-imperative "Be what you are" has radical implications for how we understand commands and obedience in the New Covenant.
>I’m saying one cannot make a one-to-one correlation between the commands of the OC that were a ministry of death and the commands of the NC. They are categorically *different*.<
That is an assertion that has no support. The ministry of death was such because no one can keep the law as God commanded. Christ comes, under the law, fulfills the law, and imputes his righteousness to us. That is why the tablets of stone were a ministry of death. In the new covenant, I've shown that Paul uses the ten commandments to exhort believers to obey, in Christ.
Your discussion of "house codes" and how the imperative command for children is sandwiched between this and that is, to be perfectly frank, totally confusing and needless. Chad, I am pretty sure Occam's razor is appropriate here. Let's make fewer assumptions and just read Ephesians as the letter it is. It is a beautifully simple progression. If I have to go through complicated analysis like you've done in order to claim Paul isn't actually commanding children to obey (since you say Paul never commands in the New Covenant), then I confess, I'm lost. Somehow, I think you are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.
>Because the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the Decalogue, has been abolished. The Gentiles may have had the law on their hearts, but they did not have ordinances.
>Because the distinction between Jew and Gentile, the Decalogue, has been abolished. The Gentiles may have had the law on their hearts, but they did not have ordinances.<
Am I the only one who thinks this is double-speak? Ok, the Gentiles had the law on their hearts (Romans 2) but not ordinances? That's like saying Paul didn't give commands but rather gave new coveant imperatives. Chad, one of the goals in Bible teaching is clarity. This is double-speak, in my opinion.
>Nowhere does Paul say we are able to keep the commandments because we are in Christ... in fact, he warns us against trying to do so in Romans 7 and in Galatians 3.<
Again, I'm left shaking my head. Ok, so all the imperatives in the epistles (steal no more, do not commit adultery, love one another, on and on and on); all these commands are impossible to keep in Christ? Notice, I put quotes around keep in my original post because I acknowledge that no one keeps the law perfectly. But, we are able to obey the Lord because He has brought us near and is our advocate and righteousness. Do you never obey anything the Lord asks of you? Is that what "gospel sanctification" means? I hope not!
There is more to say but we are starting to repeat ourselves. You keep bringing up that the law is one unit and there is no decalogue in the new covenant, I keep bringing up the fact that you do see nine of the ten commands in the new covenant and you also see many of them (perhaps all?) prior to Moses. What you DON'T see are the civil laws and ceremonial guidelines. And, these are the laws that were not written on tablets of stone. I've asked the question before - why did God only write the ten commandments on stone? Why didn't He write all other commands on stone? I think He is indicating a distinction in the timeless nature of the moral law and the temporary laws for Israel.
Thanks for the discussion.
One other thing...
I'm ok with you tossing Calvin's opinion of this or that, and anyone else for that matter since I believe, as do you, that the Bible alone is our authority.
BUT.......
When your theological position is only held by very few people and it is opposed to the reformers, and nearly all evangelicals then I would recommend you step back and examine it. After all, if it's "new" and nearly no one has come across it before, there is a good chance it's wrong.
Besides John Bunyan, who isn't the first name on a list of the greatest theologians, who holds to New Covenant Theology?
D.A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, Doug Moo, Jerry Bridges, John Piper for starters. And those who deny importation of the law into the New Covenant would be just about every dispensationalist I know.
Where has John Piper explicitly said he holds to NCT? I don't doubt you - I'm just curious.
It's not about who claims the label... it's about the theology held by these men. Jerry Bridges is the only one I mentioned that will actually say it. The others just keep cranking out the theology behind it. :-)
fwiw... Piper has been noncommittal. :-)
Here's what he says: "In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology..."
If he says he is closer to NCT in "law", and if it's a given that the only other possibility to CT's view of law is abrogation, Piper agrees with NCT on its most fundamental point.
oh... I forgot my Presby brethren who believe in abrogation... Meredith Kline, Greg Beale, and depending on the day it is... Michael Horton. :-)
>just read Ephesians as the letter >it is.
I have explained the letter as it is. You're trying to read it as an American reading a conversational email. The Bible was never intended to be read that way and it wasn't written that way. It is a theological book that is Jewish in its approach. We cannot read it as if God meant for us to read it as any other conversational letter.
If you don't bother to take the time to try to understand Eph. 6 as Paul meant for the original readers (who are not like us with entirely *different* expectations from the author) to read it (a series of new covenant relationships that have been transformed by the gospel) then you have no hope of really understanding what Paul really meant. It's not complicated analysis. It's bothering to read it like a first century Jew would have heard it (i.e. they would not have heard it like an American). Instead of letting the text speak for itself, you're imposing "beautiful simple progression" onto the text.
If there's one thing I've learned from Vos, it's that my literalism was *me* foisting my own expectations onto the text, rather than allow it to speak to me on its own terms.
>The ministry of death was such >because no one can keep the law >as God commanded.
Not so. Romans 7 tells us that the law is a ministry of death even for sanctification in those who are able to keep it.
>doublespeak
Did the Gentiles have the sacrifices (ordinances) written on their hearts? Did the Gentiles have "don't touch a dead body" written on their hearts? No... which is why Paul says Gentiles had the *work* of the law written on their hearts. They had a general gist, but they didn't have the specifics... they didn't have the covenant or the entire Torah which was a "wall of hostility" between Jew and Gentile. This isn't double-speak. This is recognizing the text for what it says... it is drawing a contrast between what the Jews had and the Gentiles didn't have before the wall came down.
>all these commands are impossible >to keep in Christ?
The issue with bringing the law of the OC into the NC isn't about "ability to keep". Of course Christ has made it possible to keep his directives. The question, the only question, is whether the OC law exists as "the law" in the NC. That is a separate and different question. Just because we have the ability to obey, it does not follow that the law is being imposed on us in the New Covenant. Just because we have the ability to obey, it does not follow that *that* obedience is at the demands of the law. We obey in the NC, but we obey Christ, not the law. Christ may have subsumed the principles underlying the law and we obey those principles, but its form is *not* the law. That has passed away. It's gone. It's abrogated. It's obsolete.
>we are able to obey the Lord >because He has brought us near >and is our advocate and >righteousness.
Of course. But this is a different matter than obeying the law.
>Do you never obey anything the >Lord asks of you?
I'm to obey everything the Lord asks of me. But he's not asking me to obey an abrogated, abolished, passed away, obsolete law. He's asking me to obey *Him* (see Mount of Transfiguration).
Further, casting our sanctification *primarily* in terms of obedience is itself an improper foisting of the Old Covenant into the New. Our sanctification is *primarily* in terms of being conformed to Christ's image... yes, via obedience, but obedience in the New Covenant does not have the same kind of syllabic emphasis in the New Covenant (which is why James calls the gospel a law of *liberty*). Obedience may still be demanded, but those whose hearts have the law on them *will* obey. They cannot help themselves. This is something the law could not do (and why it is now obsolete). The law could not produce in me sanctification. The law could not produce life. It still can't. "Do this and live", because Christ has obeyed on my behalf, has taken a back seat to the gospel of grace and truth (John 1:17-18). The gospel is the emphasis in the New Covenant, producing in me obedience to Christ's commands to love one another as he has loved us.
>why did God only write the ten >commandments on stone?
Because he knew they would eventually break in two. "Stone" implies temporary... not just form, but content. There's nothing eternal about stone.
In looking back over what I've said here, there was an overstatement I made to make a point and sure enough, there was some preoccupation with that statement... which is why I overstated the case to begin with. :-) I said that Paul is not giving a command in Eph. 6:1, but an imperative.
Of course Paul is giving a "command". But if our mindset approaches that verse as if it is a command like any other command of the Old Covenant, we've completely missed the point of the Spirit being written on hearts of flesh. And that's true of any imperative we find in the New Testament. The entire obedience paradigm in the New Covenant... from the motivation to the nature of the commands themselves... has been flipped on its head. The New Covenant is radically different from the Old. We cannot approach the New Covenant "commands" in the same manner that the Israelites approached their own Old Covenant commands. To do so is to make the mistake of the Judaizers in Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, and Romans.
So I make that statement (it's not new with me) when I get the feeling the "commands" in the New Covenant are being approached with an Old Covenant orientation.
New Covenant regeneration and its subsequent sanctification are not merely about "enablement". There is much to not like about "enablement theology"... but I don't have the time now to get into it... and I think I've already alluded to it in the discussion. At the end of the day, while it looks very biblical, "enablement theology" is veiled moralism.
>If there's one thing I've learned from Vos, it's that my literalism was *me* foisting my own expectations onto the text, rather than allow it to speak to me on its own terms.<
Chad:
How can you ever know for sure exactly how the original receipients read this letter? You say it's a Jewish letter and yet Ephesus was a gentile city. Yes, Paul was a Jew but do we read it as a Jewish letter or a gentile letter? How can you be sure?
It seems strange that you are so negative toward literalism and yet you are being very careful to understand literally what Paul meant. This is where a consistent hermeneutic gives me peace of mind. I just assume it is literal when I read the scriptures unless the genre is clearly figurative (poetry, anthropomorphic passages, etc.) or the Holy Spirit inspires the writer to explain something allegorically. If I had to go through such analysis every time I read any passage or book, and wonder what hermeneutic to use, and wonder if a text has a double-meaning, then I would find study of God's word incredibly complicated. In addition, a consistent hermeneutic of looking at the grammar and considering the historical circumstances (dare I say dispensation?) gives me a clear look at redemptive history without unrest. Stated differently, I can read Daniel 9, Revelation, 1 Thessalonians, Matthew 24 and Mark 13 and not see a problem passage anywhere. It all makes sense. I'm using an eschatalogical example here, of course.
Nevertheless, I've learned much from this conversation. For those reading this who don't know me or you very well, I want to say you have given me "permission" to engage these friendly debates. I disagree with NCT but I appreciate your love for God and His word and am grateful for our friendship. These are the same discussions we have had in person...so neither of us are hiding behind a blog site :-)
>How can you ever know for sure >exactly how the original >receipients read this letter? You >say it's a Jewish letter and yet >Ephesus was a gentile city. Yes, >Paul was a Jew but do we read it >as a Jewish letter or a gentile >letter? How can you be sure?
Ever notice how much Old Testament is either outright quoted or alluded to in the so-called Gentile letters? Between some letters seemingly written to Gentile recipients and the text itself being Greek, pastors and scholars have been "baited" into presupposing "Greek" rhetoric and literary devices. The chiastic structures abound in these letters... so not only do the Jewish authors expect their audiences to be familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, they are using Jewish arguments with Jewish literary structures. And that includes Luke, who is typically considered the "Greek" author.
>you are so negative toward >literalism and yet you are being >very careful to understand >literally what Paul meant.
We are to read our Bibles as literal, but not literalistically. There is a major difference.
>This is where a consistent >hermeneutic gives me peace of >mind.
I don't see anything consistent about the literal hermeneutic... which is why I gave it up a long time ago. Understanding the prophets, Revelation, narrative, etc. frustrated me to no end. Everything was disjointed and disconnected. I finally realized the hermeneutic was dysfunctional. Once I realized there was a basic unity to the scriptures (which started when someone pointed out to me there's a garden at the beginning, a garden at the end, and two gardens in the middle), it all made sense.
>I just assume it is literal when >I read the scriptures unless the >genre is clearly figurative
In order to "assume" this, you have to first presume that the Bible was meant to be read this way.
In fact, the red flag I have with this kind of approach is that there's no expectation that the Holy Spirit is necessary at all to understand the text. I don't need the Holy Spirit to read an email. If my expectations are the same for the scriptures, I don't need him to interpret or illumine most of it for me. I can read it with my analytical sense in neutral. That's a red flag in light of Hebrews 4:12 and other passages that speak to Bible's theological orientation.
>the Holy Spirit inspires the >writer to explain something >allegorically.
I don't believe the HS does any such thing... which takes us back to a conversation via email a few months back which ended with you affirming Grudem's understanding of inspiration. :-)
But again, in order for you to make that statement, you must first presume that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to explain allegorically, a presupposition that frankly, if you want to bring history into this, is shared by virtually none of the Reformed world.
>I had to go through such analysis >every time I read any passage or >book
You really think you can make sense of Galatians 3-4 without analysis?
>and wonder what hermeneutic to use
I don't... and haven't for years.
> and wonder if a text has a >double-meaning
The entire canon has two speakers, constantly in tandem and never in conflict: the original human author and the divine author, The WORD.
>a consistent hermeneutic of >looking at the grammar and >considering the historical >circumstances
This is a false presumption of the redemptive historical hermeneutic. One can't get too far into Beale, Kline, or Vos before one realizes they begin with the grammar and the historical circumstances. The redemptive historical hermeneutic begins with the grammatical historical. But... it doesn't end there. The text doesn't end there. Grammar and historical context are only the beginning of the exegetical endeavor.
>I disagree with NCT
If my friend Barcelou is right, I'm probably better described as "modified CT". :-) A lot of what I have written here also rubs many NCTers the wrong way (IMHO, many are dispensationalists with a new name). :-) However, NCT is a widely diverse label which is home for many who do not feel comfortable with either dispensationalism or covenant theology. I have enough disagreement with things like "third use", I find myself in that in-between group.
Yes, Brian, thanks for pulling back the curtain a little on this discussion. It is helpful for others. You know I think the world of you and I'm thrilled you have the opportunity that you do in the new church plant. Their gain is most assuredly our loss. But that "loss" is merely temporary... it is to our own church's detriment if we cling too tightly to a blessing meant for others.
These kinds of discussions grow me as well... esp. as they force me to "see" my thoughts on "paper". As for your apologetic, I think you acquitted my friend Barcelou quite well. :-)
Ok Chad, let's get practical:
What is the law of Christ? Is the New Covenant believer under it?
Appreciate the effort here, Chad, to spell out this distinction between OC and NC, and the covenant context for ethics in each. As you know, you’re not alone in this endeavor to understand and explain how it is that Christ’s coming as the “change in the priesthood” necessitates that we be very careful not to miss that there is a corresponding (one-to-one) “change in the law.”
Thanks for taking the time you did to address many common objections and for continuing to labor in what amounts to a maturing science of theology. Shame on us if we think we’ve exhausted all truth, or assume that those who went before us did so.
Godspeed!
Matthew @ Gospel Muse
>What is the law of Christ?
Given very little is said of it the answer must come from a contextual profile where there are allusions to it.
First, what does Galatians 6:2 say the “law of Christ” is?
Second, what commonality (idea, phrase, argument, imagery, etc.) is there between Galatians 6:2 and 1 John 3:11 and 23?
Third, given 1 John is a commentary of John, how are 1 John 3:11 and 23 interacting with John 6:29, John 20:31, and John 13:34-35?
Fourth, what commonality (idea, phrase, argument, imagery, etc.) is there between Galatians 6:2 and John 13:34-35?
Fifth, is there anything in the context of James 1:25 that has commonality (idea, phrase, argument, imagery, etc.) with Galatians 6:2, 1 John 3:11 and 23 and John 13:34-35?
Sixth, is there anything in the context of 1 Corinthians 9:21 that has commonality (idea, phrase, argument, imagery, etc.) with Galatians 6:2, 1 John 3:11 and 23 and John 13:34-35?
Last, while you’re in 1 Corinthians 9:21, what is Paul juxtaposing over against the law of Christ? :-)
>Is the New Covenant believer under it?
Yes. 1 Cor. 9:21.
Cheat sheet: :-)
The law of Christ is explicitly mentioned in Gal. 6:2 and 1 Cor. 9:21.
There is allusion to it in 1 John 3:23, John 13:34-35, and James 1:25, 2:8,12.
If John in 1 John 3:23 has John 6:29 in mind (and I think he does), it provides an interesting interpretation of "work" in John 6:29. While "work" in John 6:29 cannot be reduced to the law, certainly law is in "work's" purview.
NCT teaches that nine of the ten commandments are repeated (although not as OC law but rather something else) in the NT.
Do you agree with this?
If so, what is substantively different in the NT application of these imperatives from the OT law?
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?
Hey Chad, this is your good friend Steve who would just like to enter the mix with some observations, albeit somewhat sub-academic considering the previous schalarly posts. Much has been put forth here concerning The Law, even to he point of attempting to determine whose or what Law it is that we may be referring and to which or what is to be obeyed/ignored and by whom. To be rather simplistic regarding this, I enjoy reading Ps. 119 with regards to His Law and statutes abiding forever and settled in Heaven.
My real concern goes back to hermeneutics, or how we interpret the Word God has given us. While I make no apology whatsoever for implementing a grammatical-historical method, I have read much to the contrary with various degrees of disagreement. Instead of what is in the Old concealed and in the New revealed, Reformed methods seem to have opted a "the Old is in the New restricted and the New is on the Old inflicted."thus Wm. VanGemeren. It seems to me that if we in fact do interpret the Old Testament by the New, a dual hermeneutic is bound to be imposed i.e. imposing the theology derived in the New and then placing that theology upon the Old. Lest I sound overly simplistic and be written off as a died in the wool Dispy who doesn't know there is another view out there, I have read several who would offer opposition,at least eschatologically. LaRondelle,Bavinck,Kuyper,Robertson,Voss-to name but a few. It could be noted, however, that even though these have similar eschatological views, Berkhof admits that many writers on Hermeneutics agree that the grammatical-historical approach meets the requirements for a proper interpretation of Scripture.
None other than Wm Tyndale as quoted by Packer decribed the literal sense when he stated "Thou shalt understand, therefore, that the scripture hath but one sense, which is but the literal sense. and that literal sense is at the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave, thou canst never err or go out of the way. Nevertheless, the scripture uses proverbs, similitudes, riddles, or allegories, as all other speeches do; but that which the proverb, similitude, riddle or allegory signifieth, is ever the literal sense, which thou must seek out dilligently"
While the Redemptive-Historical may put a helpful reminder as to the centrality of Christ--and who would deny this--it can lead to what Thomas Smail in The Forgotten Father called a blind prominence given to the preeminence of Jesus Christ, as though impossible to challenge, while in fact it is a biblical distortion. Even Bernard Ramm, who listed 5 principles for interpreting prophetic segments of Scripture ( in his book Protestant Biblical Interpretation) was a bit more balanced and included in his 5th principle "Keep in mind the centrality of Jesus Christ" I would never negate the position or importance of our Lord Jesus Christ throughout the Scriptures, but I would agree with (I believe it was Barry Horner-forgive me if I am in error) that a proper Trinirarian perspective with regard to the headship of the Father be maintained.
Chad, if I understood you correctly before, you stated our understanding must be as the original hearers would have understood. This just can't always be the case. Without getting into what was divinely penned or what contribution the human authors had, take the book of Daniel as a tiny example. When Daniel, in ch. 12 states that although he clearly hears, he does not understand. Clearly bewildered, he even rephrased his original question and was told to go thy way and that the words were sealed until the time of the end. Daniel is not admonished because of his curiosity, but is told that this was not to inform him but,rather, to inform those living at the time of the end.
Just a thought or two--take care!
Steve
fwiw... I haven't forgotten the posts and questions. I'm ignoring them. :-) Temporarily. I took the fam to the Creation Museum yesterday and I'm preparing a sermon for Sunday PM. I'll get back to this when I get the chance.
Chad:
The Truth War. Share that on Sunday night - (I double-dare you)
:-)
I'm jumping in rather late in this conversation, but since Chad is temporarily distracted, I'll add some thought to Brian's questions..
..what is substantively different in the NT application of these [9 or 10] imperatives from the OT law?
There may be some who claim the title NCT that wouldn't agree with me, but I think Chad does...so let me take a stab at it.
In simplest terms, for believers they become indicative because they reflect the righteousness of Christ who now indwells them.
James says, before he gets into being a doer of the Logos, that anger does not reflect righteousness (v1:20)
The goal of any law is to be righteous. It's also the promise of God to make us a righteous people, and usually the 10 commands are considered the means to practice that, or train in that, be that. It is viewed as the standard of righteousness even though it doesn't contain the entire law.
But James goes on...
21 Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the logos implanted, which is able to save your souls.
Jesus Christ IS the Logos implanted. He saves our souls.
The Decalogue reflected his righteousness, or part of it, but it never contained him or fully expressed Him OR his full righteousness. He is God's final expression of righteousness.
The 10 had glory, but pale compared to HIS surpassing glory.
Many like to say the 10 commands are a gracious gift from God, but that term 'Gracious' explicitely means "divine influence on the heart and its effect on the life"
This is exactly what the Commands did not (and still do not) achieve whereas the indwelling Christ does.
Is it any wonder James then goes on to use the analogy of a man glancing at himself in the mirror but forgetting the quality of person he is; contrasting it to the man who looks intently at the completed law and remains?
The glance at oneself in the mirror contrasts with looking intently into the implanted Logos - Christ himself.
So, what's substantively different about the 9 or 10 commands is that they, though a partial glorious reflection of Him, serve to give sin opportunity to show itself in fullness within us (Rom 7:13) but do not lead us or train us in righteousness anymore than they ever did for Paul who counted his perfect 10 training as loss.
They are indicative in that they reflect His righteousness (at least in part) since He now lives within us, and they make sin obvious.
Here's why:
Using the decalogue for training in righteousness (even if you don't believe it to be salvific) has the unfortunate effect, just as it did before Christ, of focusing on my righteousness rather than loving others, my will instead of His indwelling Spirit, my flesh over my heart, and the weak Law rather than Christ.
Essentially the Symptoms of unrighteousness rather than the Cure who brings righteousness.
Being freed by the law of liberty from the law of commands is not wonderful because the standards of righteousness are finally abolished, nor made easier to achieve. They are actually made higher (but i say unto you, if you even look at a woman...)
Being freed is joyful because He's finally transforming my heart to BE righteous which can then begin to be seen by righteous actions that begin to flow out of it in every life context. That's liberty as well as promise fulfilled.
The 10 still reflect him, but He indwelling me surpasses their fading glory.
He will achieve the promise of righteousness within me in ways no command could even begin to.
The impact of His indwelling Spirit over me will be fully efficacious where the Law never was and never will be. I will become righteous; he will complete the work he started in me.
The commands serve as a reflection of what He's making me to be from the heart, and both a reminder that I can't do it as well as evidence that He IS doing it.
Remember, those who live according to the flesh (by the Law) will die, but putting to death the deeds of the flesh BY the indwelling Spirit of Christ brings life.
Worry about Lawkeeping, and you're attention is in the wrong place.
Focus on the indwelling Spirit of Christ Jesus, and you will be putting to death the deeds of the flesh.
And you will live.
Romans 3:31:
Do we then nullify the Law through faith ? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
How does NCT interpret this verse?
Rom 3:31 Do we then abolish Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish Law.
Paul is answering your very question: Do we become antinomian then by this faith? Are Law and Faith contradictory??
May it never be!, we uphold Law.
Faith upholds or establishes the Living indwelling Law.
You might say Paul is indicating we become supernomian in that we're upholding a much broader, deeper, preeminant Law.
Not one of commands that is weak in that it focuses on the flesh and does nothing in the heart, but of Faith in the indwelling or implanted Spirit which works in us to both WILL and DO His pleasure.
Faith in His Spirit working within me is a greater Law upheld. He actually changes me to be righteous. Finally, an efficacious Law.
Also, I need to correct one statement I made yesterday: "Worrying about Lawkeeping is focusing in the wrong place,"
because it would better be expressed this way:
"Worrying about command keeping, and which ones apply in what manner and time, is focusing in the wrong place entirely. It's looking to the wrong Law for righteousness, one which is focused on my flesh and changes not my heart."
Rather we must look via Faith to the Living Law who fulfills/completes righteousness within us as God promised to do.
When Jesus said: I came not to abolish law, but to Fulfill it, he was indicating more than just acting out the commands in his flesh. He did that of course, but if that were all He did to fulfill law and achieve our righteousness, we're left unchanged and unable to enter the Kingdom.
He came to fulfill it completely, which means he will complete the work of righteous transformation within us. Circumcise our hearts, make them entirely new to no longer love sin but solely the Lord's will.
Without transforming us into righteous creatures by placing His seed within us, becoming ONE with us, no Law would be fulfilled. We would not BE righteous through and through.
Our hearts would still crave sin, and our actions would still render it to be true.
BTW, this indwelling Law is not only efficacious (finally), but it also cannot be broken.
In Ez 36 God said he would give us a new heart and place His law within us. Then we would walk in his ways. Not that we would be able to, but the implication is that He causes it by the transformation of our very hearts.
So then, Jesus lived under the law (which includes the Decalogue) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Does He impute active obedience to the Decalogue to New Covenant believers?
He fulfilled the Law AND the Prophets. Everything the OT promises; and remember fulfillment is more than just living it himself in the flesh for 30yrs or getting us to live it via fleshly effort.
Whether active or not; Did he impute obedience to the Decalogue? is the wrong question.
The Decalogue is not the goal, thorough righteousness is. Be perfect as I am perfect.
The decalogue is too low a standard. It's merely a partial description of His righteousness given as commands to point out sinfulness. Paul actively obeyed the decalogue and claimed to be blameless in terms of action, but it didn't make him thoroughly righteous. It was loss to him bc it only made him proud and showed his unrighteous heart. It was useless effort compared to knowing Christ within.
Here's the issue - We bear the penalty of Adam's sin (death) not arbitrarily but bc we inherit Adam's sinfulness. We sin because we are just like Adam much in the way we are just like our Fathers. We have their nature. We have Adam's nature. We are in him. We were made from him. We are one with Adam, as far as the flesh goes anyway.
Similarly, we are now in Christ, and we aren't just compassionately benefitting from His righteous behavior anymore than we're arbitrarily paying for Adam's unrighteous behavior.
The imputation isn't merely fleshly obedience to 10 commands that served to show the sin crouched within us.
The imputation is a new nature of perfect, complete and penetrating righteousness identical to Christ - bc it IS Him in us.
It's not just a credit on our behalf, it's a recreation of our inner selves to be made of Himself.
It's about BEing righteous, not obeying commands.
We possess Adam's sinfulness in our very being.
We now possess Christ's perfection in our very being. Implanted. Indwelling. At war with the flesh of Adam. We are of a new stock, breed, lineage, inheritance.
So again, it's not simply about the outward action of obeying the decalogue.
Violating any of the Law or Prophets is indicative of our dieing old Adamic nature/heart.
Conversely, Righteousness is indicative of our growing new Christic(?) nature/heart.
He didn't obey the decalogue so he could give us a credit for obeying that check list. Obeying it isn't the point.
BEing righteous in the heart is the point.
From a righteous heart flows love for others more than self. The Law of Christ. And eventually (when the flesh dies) the actions that will reflect a perfect heart will of course obey anything and everything God says 'in spirit and truth'.
Even Jesus wasn't righteous merely because he obeyed commands, he never sinned bc he was righteous by nature. Any active obedience he portrayed reflected that, it didn't procure it.
He is imputing his own full righteous nature within us, via indwelling union (akin to the sinful seed of Adam inextricable from our flesh) so that we will never sin in the Kingdom either.
That is imputation - not of behavior, but of a righteous heart which action may then reflect.
So, you do not believe Christ's full obedience to the Father's laws are imputed to us so that we participate in the active obedience of Christ?
A very succinct explanation of Faith and Law, Steve. Well done!
Looking forward to weighing out what else you might add here.
Brian asked:
"So, you do not believe Christ's full obedience to the Father's laws are imputed to us so that we participate in the active obedience of Christ?"
I didn't say that exactly.
His full obedience to the Father in all things is imputed to us both backwards - in our forgiveness, and forward - in His fulfillment of Law/righteousness within us.
To focus on just the OC commands (let alone just 10) is to focus on the flesh, and Paul is pretty clear:
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.
[the OC law focused on exposing sin in the flesh]
3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law [Righteousness] might be fulfilled **in** us, who do not walk according to the flesh [codes] but according to the Spirit. [who walks us toward real righteousness of the heart]
5 For those who **are** according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh,
[obeying codes for training in God's righteousness]
but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
[following Christ and His lead of loving God and others IN ALL THINGS AND CONTEXTS more than self]
6 For the mind set on the flesh [obeying codes] is **death**, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God,
[the indwelling Christ doing it in my heart]
for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God."
He's not just talking about really carnal heathens who cannot please God, although that is true as well, he's also talking about those who claim to know God by staying focused on the OC codes which governed the flesh, believing therein lies the real righteousness Christ bought for us. That the OC Law, or at least a portion of it (the Decalogue) fully contains and expresses all the righteousness of God and is the full expression of what it means to be Holy as God is Holy.
Christ is that full expression, and His Spirit within us is a force to make us truly like Himself rather than simply the decalogue.
The codes, even with threats, could not begin to do this. That's why Paul counted his impeccable code practice as dung.
What the Law could not do, God did!
The Law could not make us BE like Christ.
The reason focusing on the code meant for the flesh does not please God is because it denies what exactly God is doing (making us to be FULLY like Christ) and that it is His indwelling Spirit alone who is doing it.
Such a mind is thus hostile toward Him.
I forgot to add that is also is hostile to God because it does not make us to BE like Christ anymore than it did Paul during his code following days.
The Pharisees were not seen to be closer to Christ-likeness even though they had good decalogue practice.
; )
Just curious, Steve, of your whereabouts and whatever else you might have online?
What exactly is written on the hearts of Gentiles in Romans 2? The entire Mosaic law or just part of it?
Brian asked… “What exactly is written on the hearts of Gentiles in Romans 2? The entire Mosaic law or just part of it?”
The Gentiles (all unbelievers) have a standard of righteousness (alluded to in Jn.16.8ff) written on their hearts, which is the *functional equivalent* or “work” (“Do this and live!”) of the Moasic order.
v12 All […Gentiles] who have sinned [which is ALL Gentiles] without the law [of Moses] will also perish without the law [of Moses]
v13 …the doers of the law [Law of Conscience (Gentiles) & Law of Moses (Jews)] who will be justified.
v14 …Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a LAW TO THEMSELVES, even though they do not have the law.
v15 They show that the WORK of the law is written on their hearts, while their CONSCIENCE also bears witness…
Matthew:
But, Chad has argued that you can't take apart the Law. It is the entire Mosaic corpus. Therefore, do the gentiles know not to wear mixed fabric? Do they know how many times to wash if they have leprosy?
Where & who am I? & Where do I exist online?
I live in the Seattle area.
Am a member (albeit a fish outta water credo with an NCT-leaning or Modified CT stance) of a local PCA (in the vicinity of the more famous "Mars Hill")
which has many former MH saints in its flock.
As a retired Microsoft geek from the late 80s & 90s, I should be embarrassed to have not yet embraced the world of personal blogging, but I am typing this on an iPhone so I guess I can't be considered a total relic. ; )
I do exist on Facebook, but mostly to stay current with the RUF students at the U-Wash where I help out, rather than to keep the world current with me.
Most of my online presence can be found on the NCT SoundOfGrace list alongside Chad, with an occasional post on the Reformed Baptist list as well.
NOTE - I am most definitely Not the famous Divorce Lawyer who pops up if u Live or Google search my name.
Brian asked: What exactly is written on the hearts of Gentiles in Romans 2? The entire Mosaic law or just part of it?
If you take the whole chapter in context, I believe Paul is comparing Jews who have the commands and rely on adherence to them for pride and judgement of others to Gentile Christians who do not have the commands but show evidence of the Spirit of Christ within their hearts, and will Judge the Jews more than vice-versa.
Thus, the Law on the Gentile believer's heart is not the Mosaic commands all or part, it is the indwelling Spirit of Christ himself which brings true circumcision of the heart and obedience to God as indicative. He's describing an active, living, effective Law at work and visible by its transformation of even Gentiles who never possessed or taught the commands.
The command Law has been replaced by the Person Christ Jesus, who is superior Torah and abundantly effective in ways the written law wasn't and still isn't.
Steve:
So the old covenant Law is not at issue in Romans 2? Are you saying it is the Law of Christ that is written on the Gentile's heart?
I'm saying that Paul is contrasting the OC Law (which the Jews had and are trying to cling to) over-against the indwelling Spirit of Christ Himself, that is visible even in Gentile believers.
Don't think of the Law of Christ as a set of commands or written codes/instructions to obey. It's the more powerful living Spirit of Jesus Christ placed in the elect's heart effectively transforming Him into the very righteousness of Christ via union with himself and His nature. We were (and our flesh still is) one with Adam's nature (of the same essence) and we are reborn spiritually into oneness with Christ and His nature.
The Law that transforms us into holiness is the living indwelling person of Jesus Christ.
It's more akin to a law like gravity, or genetics, than a law of commands.
Commands have been abolished as the means of producing righteous people of God.
The seed/spirit/person of Jesus Christ himself, one with our hearts, is its effective replacement.
Codes inform but don't transform us.
Oneness with His Son as indwelling Spirit does.
Brian asked,
“But, Chad has argued that you can't take apart the Law. It is the entire Mosaic corpus. Therefore, do the gentiles know not to wear mixed fabric? Do they know how many times to wash if they have leprosy?”
WADR, Brian, I’m not sure how to reply nor do I have the wherewithal to carry on a lengthy discussion here. It’s difficult enough to just read find time to read this blog and others than engage in much discourse. My apologies for dipping my toe in the water here and then pulling it out. I’m sure Chad, Steve and others are more apt to carry the ball than I.
Again, neither am I sure how to reply...looking again at what I said and then reading your reply, I can’t make sense of how the two directly relate. It would appear that you either missed the point or it wasn’t made clear enough.
The gist of it...Gentiles don’t have THE “written code” (2:27) but have the “work” of the law on their heart, that is, no codified law of words but a functionality of right/wrong at work. There is a momentum within each and every person that reflects something of His maker’s original design, which is testified to by even their conduct (albeit not perfect) as its natural reaction to common injustice is retribution. Their consciences also bear witness to this reality in their inner man, though they do not credit God for such.
Those in Adam continue living according to the remnants of the first covenant made with man, that broken covt of works. Hence, fallen humanity limps along a path with some semblance of righteousness, and yet no law of Canaan or conscience will provide what it demands. These laws do not grant life but relentlessly demand what sinners cannot possibly render. Thus, *God did what the Law could not*, and He keeps on doing something within His people, even when they needlessly turn back to shadows and faded glory in hopes of becoming what they are.
Perhaps that helps. If not, I’ll leave it to our brethren here to hash it out with you. And Brian, I do appreciate the willingness you have to continue churning this stuff over. What I’m afraid of though is that you might linger too long here and end up very convinced that what is obsolete is never resurrected.
Peace.
Steve replied...
“I live in the Seattle area. Am a member (albeit a fish outta water credo with an NCT-leaning or Modified CT stance) of a local PCA…”
Thanks for the reply, Steve. Hey, I had you pegged as the Church of Christ minister in Ohio (Googled). ;-)
Peace, bro.
Church of Christ??
May it never be!
Post a Comment
<< Home