Comments on The Vossed World: The Law of Christ: believe and love

Brian, Paul’s words to the Corinthians (2Cor.5) su...

2008-05-03T23:12:00.000-04:00

Brian,

Paul’s words to the Corinthians (2Cor.5) sum up the essence of obedience in the New Covenant (3.6):

In 5.14, Paul speaks of our actions springing from the love of Christ for us, in His having died (5.15) for us. This alone is the exclusive cause of our not living for ourselves but for His sake.

For, in Christ, we are no longer regarded according to the flesh (5.16), but are now partakers of the new creation (5.17) through the ongoing transforming ministry of the Spirit (3.6,8,18); all of which is of God (5.18)!

We then are partakers of a most glorious and permanent ministry of righteousness (5.21; 3.9,11), and are equipped with the weapons of righteousness (6.6,7), not waging a fleshly warfare (10.3-5), according to a ministry of death and condemnation that no longer has any glory (3.7,9,10)!
So then, it is Jesus Christ we proclaim (1.19; 2.17), in whom all the promises of God are fulfilled (1.20) and by whom we are enabled freedom by the Spirit (3.17) from every defilement of the body (physical sins) and spirit (idolatry) (7.1) unto a maturing holiness unto the Lord.

Our having fellowship with the Holy Spirit (13.14) – who writes His letter upon our heart (3.3) – is antithetical to a ministry of Stone (3.6).

Being mindful of these things, we maintain a sincere and pure devotion to Christ and resist the Devil’s first lie (11.3) that mere knowledge of “right and wrong” suffices, which is nothing more than “another Jesus,” a “different spirit,” and a “different gospel” (11.4).

Brian,I came back to this blog (I actually don't f...

2008-05-02T15:26:00.000-04:00

Brian,
I came back to this blog (I actually don't frequent here) because I remembered that I left out a point from my post (I was half asleep when I wrote it). I'm glad to see you took the time to read my input and to respond. I didn't realize you were a dispensationalist so I'll just add the crucial point concerning the transformation of the law by the gospel.
When Paul calls these child saints (cf Eph 1:1) in 6:1 to 'obey your parents,' he is not referring to generic things such as take out the trash or help set the table when they tell you to. No. The promise is tied to the command and the promise for these new covenant children is eternal life in the land above, not in earthly Cannan. If the obedience Paul had in view was common obedience to one's parents, then salvation would be by works. But the obedience is tied to the child's obedience so how can that be if salvation is by faith and not by works of the law? Because the new covenant (of promise) has transformed our reading of the old covenant (of law). Paul calls these children to obey their parents *by believing in the gospel that their parents impart to them at home* so that by believing in Christ for forgiveness of sins, they will 'live long in the [heavenly] land.' Therefore, Paul is not placing these gentile Ephesian children under the law, but seeking to nurture faith in them by which they take hold of Christ who has entered the heavenly land before us and by whose merit we are made citizens of his kingdom (cf Eph 5:5).
Paul is not interested in children living a long natural life by obeying their parents to not drink and drive (which could end their life), but as a pastoral biblical theologian, Paul is looking after the childrens' souls so that they will participate in eternal life even now by embracing the faith of their parents. The gospel does not guarantee that believers will 'live long' in this fallen world simply because they obeyed their parents.
On the church's use of the OT, I suggest MG Kline's 'The Structure of Biblical Authority' and on the hermeneutical front, GK Beale's article, 'The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?' which has recently rec'd new attention.

>So all I have to do is "love" >and "believe"...th...

2008-05-02T07:28:00.000-04:00

>So all I have to do is "love" >and "believe"...that is the >entire law of Christ?

You tell me. I asked you a while back to go through all of the passages (I even listed them for you) speaking of the Law of Christ and define for us what those passages tell us about the Law of Christ. Show us in *those* passages where the Law of Christ is equivalent to the Decalogue. Stick to the text. To reiterate what I've heard Bill Dennison ask time and again: what does the text say?

>Now I see why some NC theologians >argue for marrying their sister. >Why not?

This is dodging the issue. I haven't said anything here warranting being painted with the same brush. Those NC theologians who argue for marrying their sister do so because their hermeneutic is dispensationalist... this is why I said some NCT amounts to nothing more than warmed over dispensationalism.

The OC law *informs* the NC ethic (such as Eph. 6:2), but it does not *define* the NC ethic. Those NCTers who argue for marrying a sister have a hermeneutic that will not allow the OT to inform the NT. Their discontinuity fails to recognize the organic flow of redemptive history and its connectedness, even as Christ has fulfilled all.

So all I have to do is "love" and "believe"...that...

2008-05-02T06:33:00.000-04:00

So all I have to do is "love" and "believe"...that is the entire law of Christ?

Now I see why some NC theologians argue for marrying their sister. Why not?

>Moses didn't present his law - he >presented God'...

2008-05-01T20:43:00.000-04:00

>Moses didn't present his law - he >presented God's law.

The Decalogue and Moses are one and the same era... they both share the same OC inferiority. So much so that Christ himself calls it "Moses' law"... in fact, one can lose count the number of times that the NT speaks of the "law of Moses". It came from God... but was identified with Moses. If Moses is inferior... so too is his "law".

>it honors the Lord when children >obey their parents

This is true... partly. However, its reality is not grounded in the Decalogue. The Decalogue merely speaks to its reality. Further, it doesn't honor the Lord when an unbelieving child obeys his/her parents (Heb. 11:6).

>This was true before Moses, >during Moses and after Moses.

Which is an argument *against* the eternal binding of the Decalogue.

>The decalogue has its basis in >the holy character of God - I >believe you have said this >yourself.

Correct. But it is certainly flawed logic, not to mention flawed exegesis to leap from God's unchanging, eternal character to an eternal Decalogue. The Decalogue was temporal.

> I don't look to Moses for >sanctification

You do if you look to the law that is identified with Moses and the covenant of his era.

> I look to the same moral laws >that God gave to Moses.

And thus, one is looking to Moses for sanctification, something Galatians 3:3 expressly forbids.

>Laws that were perfectly >fulfilled by Jesus Christ and >laws that do not hold penalty >over me as a new covenant >Christian.

Penalty and "in force" or "binding" are all of the same essence and same reality. Galatians makes this clear in speaking of the removal of the curse and the temptation to return to the law for sanctification all in one stroke.

> I rejoice in the law of Christ (which is essentially the same as >the decalogue

We've already proven this to be not correct. Nowhere does the NT equate the law of Christ with the Decalogue. In fact, we've already shown that everywhere the law of Christ is spoken of or alluded to, "love" and "believe" define the law of Christ, not the Decalogue. Stick to the text rather than rational arguments that fail the exegetical test.

>and yet I can't fulfill any of it >as God intends.

Which is why Paul says it is a ministry of death and says those who look to the law for sanctification are "bewitched". Every time one attempts to fulfill *any* of the law in sanctification the only possible end is: O wretched man that I am.

Chad:Moses didn't present his law - he presented G...

2008-05-01T20:08:00.000-04:00

Chad:

Moses didn't present his law - he presented God's law. The fact is - it honors the Lord when children obey their parents - and it is a sin when they don't. This was true before Moses, during Moses and after Moses.

The decalogue has its basis in the holy character of God - I believe you have said this yourself. I don't look to Moses for sanctification - I look to the same moral laws that God gave to Moses. Laws that were perfectly fulfilled by Jesus Christ and laws that do not hold penalty over me as a new covenant Christian. I rejoice in the law of Christ (which is essentially the same as the decalogue since the NT repeats 9 of the 10) and yet I can't fulfill any of it as God intends. Instead, I rest in Christ who fulfilled it all.

What makes more sense? I could just as easily say...

2008-05-01T16:14:00.000-04:00

What makes more sense? I could just as easily say the same thing about what you're doing to Eph. 6:

For your justification, goto Christ.

For your sanctification, go back to Moses.

Repent and believe in Christ, but for your holiness, please look up the Decalogue. It'll work its ministry of death on you and increase your sin, but too bad... that's what Christ left you with.

The problem with this whole thing is that a false disconnect has been inserted between justification and sanctification. If the law can't help us for our justification, it certainly can't help us in our sanctification. We make *some* distinction between justification and sanctification over against Rome... but too much disconnect runs us afoul of scripture.

I like it!The Gospel-event transforms:a)The *Revel...

2008-05-01T13:16:00.000-04:00

I like it!

The Gospel-event transforms:

a)The *Revelation of God*
- Gal 6:16; 2Cor.3
[Dante]
b)The *People of God*
- Rom.8.15; Gal.4.7
[Steve Fuchs]

Chad:So, Paul gives a command in verse one, then q...

2008-05-01T12:58:00.000-04:00

Chad:

So, Paul gives a command in verse one, then quotes the commandment from the OT immediately after, and does so because he is showing that the latter is no longer in force? So, should I do the same thing as follows?

You should repent and believe in Christ, the final sacrifice for sins. If you have sinned unintentionally, offer the prescribed animal sacrifice for forgiveness.

Would that make any sense?

>If Paul has no need for the Old >Covenant law the...

2008-05-01T09:43:00.000-04:00

>If Paul has no need for the Old >Covenant law then why did he >quote it to support his command >in verse one?

He's showing how the original command has been transformed by the change in redemptive history. There is a new criterion for the new covenant "man" (Eph. 2:15): "in the Lord". As Dante said, "The work of Christ transforms the handling of OT revelation for the "one new man" of Eph. 2:15.

>Why is Paul quoting the decalogue >unless it is f...

2008-05-01T09:38:00.000-04:00

>Why is Paul quoting the decalogue >unless it is for the purpose of >indicating that it should be >obeyed?

Why is the writer of Hebrews quoting Exodus in Heb. 9:20?

I could probably list 5-10 reasons why Paul could or would quote the Decalogue or any other portion of the OT. You've skewed the exegesis by presupposing something that isn't necessarily warranted. In fact, the question here is tilted (by use of "unless it is") in favor of a predisosition or conclusion already arrived at. This text, like any text, must be interpreted on its terms, not ours -- and Dante has done an excellent job of giving us the text's own terms.

It's bad logic. Paul quotes the Decalogue. The Decalogue was to be obeyed in the Old Covenant. Therefore, Paul believes the Decalogue must be obeyed in the New Covenant? The last has no warrant from the previous two. Why? Because in order to arrive at the conclusion, you must predispose yourself to "quoting = still in force" AND to a continuity of Decalogue between covenants. And there's plenty of warrant from the rest of the NT (including the book of Ephesians) to call into serious question the validity of either predisposition. NT authors quote the OT for all sorts of reasons that don't necessitate the old order of things still being in force. In fact, the NT authors quote the OT everywhere primarily to show fulfillment and to show the radical difference between the Old and the New. The Decalogue, just like all other OT and OC realities, is not immune to the redemptive-historical shift brought about by the Christ event.

Given all that the NT says about abrogation, fading away, making obsolete, fulfilled, etc. (including the abolishing of the Decalogue in Eph. 2:15) there's nothing that compels us to believe that "quoting = still in force". In fact, what we find in the rest of the NT is the opposite: "quoting" is more likely to = change, not "still in force".

danteThat doesn't make any sense to me. If Paul h...

2008-05-01T06:31:00.000-04:00

dante

That doesn't make any sense to me. If Paul has no need for the Old Covenant law then why did he quote it to support his command in verse one?

As far as the land goes, nowhere does the Bible negate the literal fulfillment of a material piece of land. Yes, we all look to a city whose maker and builder is God, but that is the "not yet" of our future. We are seated in the heavenlies with Christ but that doesn't mean we are removed from this earth.

As for Israel being "spiritual", there is no warrant for that in scripture. The verses you suggest that show Israel is now the church only indicate that gentiles and Israel share spiritual blessings and salvation. However, Romans 11 is very clear that God has not forsaken His people with respect to their ethnic future. There will be a day when all Israel will be saved. These are the times of the Gentiles, but there is more to come!

Brian,Paul employs Ex 20:12 in Eph 6:2-3 according...

2008-04-30T18:38:00.000-04:00

Brian,
Paul employs Ex 20:12 in Eph 6:2-3 according to his own place (time!) in redemptive history. In other words, he used the law as one who was a member not of the old covenant, but of the new covenant. Is the long life in the land that the Paul and the Ephesians hoped for mere sand in the Middle East? Certainly not! As Heb 11 makes plain, what was promised is eternal life in the kingdom of God of which the land was typological. Paul reads the law *thru the truth of the gospel* because in Christ who inaugurated the new creation, the law has come to its divinely intended end (Gal 3:23ff). The law has fulfilled its role because the promised Seed has come, died, risen, and sent his Spirit (Gal 4:4; 1:4; 3:14). Paul's appeal to Ex 20 therefore agrees with what he said in Eph 2:15 - he is not under the law because he is in Christ who is his head. The work of Christ transforms the handling of OT revelation for spiritual Israel (Gal 6:16 cf 2 Cor 3).

Why is Paul quoting the decalogue unless it is for...

2008-04-29T09:57:00.000-04:00

Why is Paul quoting the decalogue unless it is for the purpose of indicating that it should be obeyed?

Paul quotes it immediately after commanding that children are to obey their parents. Why would he quote something that is to be ignored without any explanation?

I think you're a man without a point. :-) I've no...

2008-04-28T22:48:00.000-04:00

I think you're a man without a point. :-) I've nowhere denied that Paul is quoting from the Decalogue. I deny that in quoting from the Decalogue Paul is enforcing the Decalogue on the Ephesians. Those are 2 very, very different propositions. The former does not necessitate or warrant the latter.

Chad:I have yet to find a commentator who doesn't ...

2008-04-28T22:25:00.000-04:00

Chad:

I have yet to find a commentator who doesn't acknowledge this passage to be a quotation from the decalogue. That is the issue I'm trying to make. I just reviewed a handful and all of them say Paul is quoting from the Decalogue.

Appealing to commentaries and "names" on this issu...

2008-04-28T19:12:00.000-04:00

Appealing to commentaries and "names" on this issue is easily dismissed. We are not discussing an NCT perspective of Eph. 6:1-3 (in fact, I don't speak for NCT... as I stated before, there are 3 streams of NCT, 1 of which I emphatically disagree with). We are discussing the non-third-use of the law view of Eph. 6:1-3. My view is shared by more than a few dispensationalists, not to mention Covenant theologians such as Kline and most Lutherans since Melanchthon (not to mention, Bridges, Piper, Carson, Moo, Beale, etc.). There are more than a few commentators that would not accept Eph. 6:1-3's quote of the Decalogue as justifying the eternal binding of the Decalogue. The two (Paul's use of the Decalogue AND the Decalogue as eternal) are not one and the same.

It would be interesting to know which non-Presbyterian/Anglican (denominations steeped in the third use error) commentaries of Ephesians would equate Paul's use of the Decalogue in Ephesians with the eternal validity of the Decalogue.

Even those dispensationalists who use the "if it's repeated in the New it is still binding" hermeneutic rarely speak of the eternality of the Decalogue. It lives on as Pauline principle for them. After all, the dispensationalist mantra is "not under law, but grace" (most affirm the notion of Decalogue as third use is included in that statement). Growing up dispensationalist, I never considered the "eternal binding" issue until I was exposed to Presbyterianism. And it didn't take me long to figure out that the logical end of Decaloguianism is theonomy and Sabbatarianism.

Chad:Here is the problem with your accusation that...

2008-04-28T18:51:00.000-04:00

Chad:

Here is the problem with your accusation that I only have "one verse" that argues against NCT: I actually have more passages in mind (some we've discussed) and I doubt if I will find two commentators among twenty who would approach Ephesians 6:1-3 from a NCT perspective.

Of course I come to the text with a preconceived n...

2008-04-28T13:33:00.000-04:00

Of course I come to the text with a preconceived notion. Everyone does. I was merely pointing out yours: Paul's use = Mosaic law in the New Covenant.

And of course, Paul is "using" the Decalogue... but it is a huge leap in logic, not to mention exegesis or theology, to go from "use" to "eternally binding Decalogue".

So... what we're left with is that your argument exclusively rests on 1 verse. You have one verse and I have the entire New Testament saying the Decalogue has been abolished, cancelled, faded away, made obsolete, etc. That's kind of like me saying "baptism doesn't save" and you saying, "yes it does... there's a verse in 1 Peter that explicitly says so." :-)

No, Chad, you are the one reading with preconceive...

2008-04-28T11:22:00.000-04:00

No, Chad, you are the one reading with preconceived notions. In fact, you are reading it with a theological presupposition. I am reading it as a letter to Gentile believers. It is Paul giving instruction and using the Decalogue to emphasize his point.

It seems to me that the only readers who would make a distinction between "command" and "imperative" are those who bring a New Covenant framework to the text.

It only seems clear to you because you approach th...

2008-04-28T09:03:00.000-04:00

It only seems clear to you because you approach the text with a presupposed opinion before reading the text: Paul's use of the commandment automatically means the Mosaic law must still be in force.

I (and many others) don't approach the text with that assumption. Therefore, such a conclusion isn't warranted or necessary.

Further, your exegesis completely ignores the context... this isn't an imperative to "children", but to regenerate children. And the fact that this is an imperative for regenerate children is an argument *against* the Mosaic law still being in force (the Mosaic law was for believers and unbelievers alike).

I am still left with Ephesians 6:1-3.This passage ...

2008-04-28T08:56:00.000-04:00

I am still left with Ephesians 6:1-3.

This passage has Paul using one of the ten commandments to emphasize his imperative to children. I've read it over and over and in light of 2:15 and still come away with the inescapable conclusion that it is still in force. The discussions regarding this passage have not come close to persuading me otherwise.

The text seems very, very clear.

Your post has me thinking lately about the need to...

2008-04-26T00:59:00.000-04:00

Your post has me thinking lately about the need to articulate the difference between the reality that transcends the law code, and the code itself.

If the code is merely a textual (and partial) reflection of God's (real) Righteousness, it is in a sense incomplete, but whereas on the one hand we express accurately that going back to Moses for sanctification is returning to much too low a standard, on the other hand we need to discuss what this higher standard looks like.

Yes, it is Christ himself, but WOW, anyone who wants to live in obedience to THAT example as a law shall be overwhelmed before starting...and rightly so.
But therein lies the awesomeness of Christ as living law. It's not His example that we are under, but His own personal active force upon us.

Ultimately God's call is for us to be 'Christ LIKE' and 'Holy as He is Holy' and 'One with Him as He is one with the Father.'

In other words, Christ is EXACTLY what the code-transcending righteousness, that gave rise to the Decalogue, looks like, but moreso than as a definition/example.

So, how do we obey his perfection?
This may be the first question that comes to mind, and the answer is: We cannot via our Adamly flesh.
What does the scripture tell us except that we must 'Walk in the Spirit'

So what does that mean?
It means we rely on His indwelling Spirit for righteousness in every life situation. Not just to show us, but to actually produce it in us...and this requires Faith - especially for patience to see Him finally do it in me for each area of my sinfullness.

What looks so radically different about being under 'Grace' rather than 'Law', is that Grace is NOT simply compassionate merciful forgiveness as we tend to perceive it via our English use of the word.
Grace is not an inactive love that simply withholds justice in lieu of forgiveness out of mercy and compassion.
Grace is much more than that.
Grace is an active love which divinely alters the heart; right where the root of our problem lies.
Law merely demands change to our fleshly actions, and Grace does much more than demand change even to our heart. Grace is the act of God changing our heart.

We are no longer 'Under' Law because we are no longer under the influence of law codes governing our flesh in order to produce total Christ-like righteousness in us (which it could never do)

Instead we are 'Under' Grace in that we are under it's ACTIVE changing of our hearts to eradicate the sin INside us.

Grace is not just compassionate and merciful forgiveness.
Grace is heart circumcision and transformation...which always has an element of pain, but results in genuine Christ-likeness...without any of our own doing.

The Decalogue is far too low a standard because:
a) It's only a partial reflection of Christ's complete righteousness
b) It's primarily a flesh-oriented reflection/shadow
c) It cannot be followed perfectly, although
d) It can be followed enough to give us confidence in ourselves and
e) make us forget we must be changed of the heart to be fully like Christ
When we realize the NC law, whatever we think it is, necessarily causes us to be utterly like Christ, it's not hard to see the Decalogue as insufficient.

Grace is that divine force in the heart and union/oneness with Him that makes us completely righteous w/o an ounce of our own doing.

To be Under Grace instead of Law means we are solely under the influence, and utterly dependent upon, Christ's divine modification of our heart via our union with His indwelling Spirit.

The only way to cling to and hope in this indwelling law's ability to make me completely righteous is Through FAITH.

Well said brother.

2008-04-23T14:58:00.000-04:00

Well said brother.

Really appreciate the time you put into explaining...

2008-04-23T12:34:00.000-04:00

Really appreciate the time you put into explaining this, Chad. You've cleared up a few things for me. Hope to glean more from it as I sift through it again and again.