You are not logged in.
Tom Wells puts forth what "Christ's Law" is :
Let me suggest its parameters.
First, it consists of the commands of the Lord Jesus himself as he gave them in his public ministry and as they are informed by his own example.
Second, it consists of the demands laid upon believers in the NT, the New Covenant document. These two are basic, and both are subject to the further illumination of the Holy Spirit who has been given in greater measure, in part, for this very purpose.
Finally, as a personal and secondary suggestion, I would add the re-examination of the OT with the idea in mind of finding those things that are moral laws in the light of the NT and that are in keeping with the explicit demands of the Lord Jesus Christ in the NT. One field in which this might be pursued is the book of Proverbs. In these, it seems to me we have the Law of Christ.
Last edited by bob_2 (08-02-13 8:21 pm)
Offline
I finish off the fourth chapter of New Covenant Theology, using mainly Wells' words so we don't miss a critical part of the transition from OT to NT and his words about Christ's Law and it's make up:
What is this thing called the New Covenant? We may now sharpen the definition that we gave earlier with our findings on Israel and the law:
The New Covenant is the bond between God and man, established by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ, under which all who have been effectually called to God in all ages have been formed into the one body of Christ in NT times, in order to come under his law during this age and to remain under his authority forever.
Read the difficult parts. I was brought up an SDA, this all being foreign to me. Now it makes all the sense in the World and to Infinity and beyond. I still have to reread parts, sometimes because it has such beauty to the resolution of the way of life Jesus has laid out for us all in the New Covenant Age.
Last edited by bob_2 (07-23-13 7:03 pm)
Offline
Chapter 5
Matthew 5:17-20
The History of the Interpretation
Fred G. Zaspel
For all the centuries of lively discussion concerning the relation of law to gospel, the subject still finds surprisingly little agreements.
Chapter 5 speaks about what happened to the Mosaic Law when Jesus lived on Earth, if anything. Several groups gathered different ideas about what Jesus taught or said. I will take each separately. Matthew 5:17-20 this passage in particular is what the discussion turns on:
1. Early Church: Qualitative Advance
Harvey McArthur demonstrates that the early church theologians, while denying any outright abolition or contradiction of Moses , consistently speaks of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 in terms of a qualitative advance on the older revelation. Phrases such as "fulfilling and extending" Moses (Irenaeus), "supplementary additions by Christ... add what was was wanting" (Tertullian), "completion" (Origen), "greater commandments"(Chrysostom ),"perfecting" (Theophylact), and "greater precepts of righteousness" (Augustine), are common in their writings. They unanimously understood Jesus' teaching as an addition to Moses' law, an advance whose requirements were significantly higher. The opinion idea was, what was begun at Sinai. In this sense there is no destruction or even contradiction of Moses but a growth as from seed to tree (Augustine).
Last edited by bob_2 (08-05-13 9:23 pm)
Offline
Just a short note. Tom Norris has been pushing me to get to the Sabbath discussion in this book. What he does not understand, which this book gets into, is how the Bible was put together and what was deemed important from Jesus life on earth. As we go on, one important message comes forward, that the Decalogue, was made obsolete (Heb 8:13). When Jesus came to earth, He was to show the character of God by His own presence, by act and words, and Christ's Law(1 Cor 9:21) the center of the New Covenant. Other Scripture that we have are those of the writing Apostles as directed by the Holy Spirit. As you read, ask yourself who/what is the more important mirror for us to use to recognize sin?? The Decalogue or Jesus Himself. Also, Jesus told the apostles that he had more to share with them (John 16:12,13) but would send the Holy Spirit to complete that task. He also told Paul in his conversion on the way to Damascus that he was selected by Jesus to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, based on what he had seen, AND WHAT HE WOULD BE SHOWN (Acts 26:16). Should we not be interested in what was told to Paul that Jesus didn't get around to telling the Apostles??? This is at the heart of this book. Read it carefully with me.
Last edited by bob_2 (08-01-13 8:23 pm)
Offline
Again, when Christ came and the Gospels were written and the Pauline letters and other Apostolic letters canonized, when the last page of Revelation was completed, there was confusion about the law and the Gospel. Does the Christian just have to believe and can ignore the way he should act. Does the commands/Commandments mentioned in the Decalogue, still mean the same as Christ's Law in 1 Cor 9:21 that Paul mentions as his behavioral guide, and in Revelation 14:12? This discussion has been debated since Christ's Ascension to today. "John Wesley complained that 'There are few subjects within the whole compass of religion so little understood as this.'"(NCT page 77) Even today, there is no consensus. The groups we will discuss in Chapter 5 will bring forth their understanding.
2.Medieval Church: Evangelical Counsels
So in medieval times, did they see what Jesus contributed, as an addition, extension, modification or replacement of the OC/OT? They saw them as "evangelical counsels". As "counsels" they saw that they were not binding on the regular Christian, except for Monks, "whose righteousness was to exceed that of the ordinary Christian." They could see that the Monks were held to "not to hate thy brother" but the ordinary believer met the extended law by not murdering. Ironically they saw not taking any oaths as the best way to avoid perjury. They saw this "fulfillment" Christ brought was an extension of the Mosaic, this being a qualitative advance, being a little different from the Early Church.
Last edited by bob_2 (08-05-13 8:00 pm)
Offline
Reformed View: True Exposition of Moses
(Up front let me be clear that "Reformed" here, is not the Tom Norris "reformed" Sabbath. I personally am still trying to visualize his concept. Later the issue will be dealt with.)
Reformers: taught that Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was but the true exposition of Moses
Luther: regarded the antitheses in Matthew 5:21ff as the "correct explanation of several of the Ten Commandments".
Calvin: considered the Medieval Church's "counsels" as a pollution of what Christ taught and an arrogant trifling of God's eternal law. Calvin saw Christ's teaching only a restatement of the "original intent of Moses," adding nothing new.
Puritans: That Christ's teachings could make no change or even advance on the older revelation, the Decalogue. They saw the Law of Moses and Christ's Law as identical.
Clearer statement of Reformers view of Jesus words: If the law was originally given perfectly then in their view it must still remain binding as written. Some modern day Reformer or Puritans do not stay as pure to this exegesis as all, but there is a flatness (continuity) to the Covenant Theology when taught that leaves the Law of Moses the same, though they discard the continuity of the ceremonial and civic aspects of the Mosaic Law/OT. (This is true of SDAism when the Sabbath was presented to them in the mid 19th century.) The Decalogue is plucked out of the middle of the Mosaic Law/OC to maintain it though it does not address modern day, even issues at Jesus day, that one has given pause with this thought. Probably given the Pharisees pollution of the Mosaic Laws and ceremonies, the Reformers may have over cautiously feared to see their own modification of the original Law of Moses. Some see Jesus' teaching as a radicalizing of Moses demands, a deepening and internalizing of his requirements. But still it is merely an articulation and clarification of what the law originally intended. Although, the Reformers could dispose of the ceremonial and civic aspects of the Mosaic Law/OC, they were overly cautious and saw no room for the idea of improving on the old law (Decalogue).
Last edited by bob_2 (08-07-13 5:11 am)
Offline
Anabaptist View: Old Law Replaced
Most of the Anabaptists believe that there is a total change from the OT/OC to the NT/NC. Rather than pointing to example of laws throughout the NT, they emphasize the Sermon on the Mount as replacing the whole of the OT/OC not just the Decalogue. The Sermon on the Mount is the basis for any questions of Christian ethics. "The idea here is not so much that of "advance" as it is change" --page 83 of New Covenant Theology
Offline
Other factions of Christiandom are discussed and their views either pointing to continuity of the Decalogue or discontinuity of the Decalogue with Christ's Law or the Sermon on the Mount replacing, adding to, or replacing with some similarity but a net amount of expansion and increase in quality.
Let me take Zaspel's last section in this chapter and give his words as he has:
The Contemporary Discussion
Present-day interpreters face essentially the same issues that have been discussed for centuries. Namely, 1) how does Jesus' teaching relate to the law of Moses? Was it a mere reissuing of Sinaitic legislation? Or did it constitute an advance? If so in what sense(s)? And 2) If Jesus' teaching went beyond Moses, what effect did this have on the older law? Was Moses' law abolished after all?
These issues bristle with various intricate exegetical theological, and hermeneutical difficulties. But the pursuit of the discussion is well worth our while, for at stake, among other things, are one's view of the relationship of the Testaments and of law and grace, the nature of the New Covenant, the interpretation of many other NT passages which speak of the law's abrogation and/ or continuing relevance, the basic framework of biblical hermeneutics, and the whole approach to Christian ethics. In all this Matthew 5:17-28 is pivotal. A right understanding of this passage is a necessary first step.
-- pg 89-90 New Covenant Theology
Last edited by bob_2 (08-21-13 1:32 am)
Offline
Let's take the Gospel according to Matthew as our point of discussion.
I believe that the Gospel authors wrote for the immediate consumption of their local area. If this is true, then Matthew's report on the life of Christ became a valued standard of God's will for his local congregation. As I read Matthew, I get no impression that the Sabbath was discontinued. Jesus' words about the Sabbath are wonderfully supportive.
Thinking about the Sabbath certainly changed, but I don't believe that Matthew's local congregation supported a discontinuation of the Sabbath.
I don't believe that the Old Testament, or Hebrew Bible, was allowed to limit the message of Christ. Some have suggested that Matthew's Gospel represents a Jewish outlook where the law of Moses is still considered in full effect. I think Matthew reports too many changes for that to be true.
Offline
Don, in Acts 15 what was required of the Gentiles was simplified. It does look like they came each week to the synagogue to fellowship and worship. But the rest of the NT is pretty quiet about any mandated worship day. When Paul shook his clothes and left the Jews and went next door to teach, the day they met was not the issue, that first meeting was probably on a Sunday and the excitement they felt, Monday probably was the 2nd worship day. Note Acts 18:6.
Offline
The four things mentioned in Acts certainly do not cover all the 'law' understandings of the NT Church. In the Sabbath accounts found in Acts, one of the most interesting ones is where they meet on Sabbath; the Jews leave the synagogue; and on the next Sabbath the whole town meets to hear the Gospel. Acts 13:42-44. Of course, if Sunday had been taught to, and then by, these Christian missionaries, they would have said, "Let's meet next Sunday". One can say that meeting the next Sabbath is not a command, correct of course. But, I see a practice which fits my understanding of the ongoing practice of Sabbath observance.
Enough ambiguity exists in the accounts, but to assume that Sunday or Monday was probably the day of gathering is to insert our own imagination into the text. The Sabbath in the book of Acts is often mentioned as the day of meeting.
If a person does not want to enjoy the gift of the Sabbath, I rather doubt that God would force a gift upon a person. The Sabbath is different than, let's say, the law regarding murder. I see God as insisting "Thou shalt not murder". Jesus never called the prohibition of murder a gift; He did refer to the Sabbath as a gift.
I am rather pleased with the gift. I find the historical tampering with the gift's features troublesome. If we respect God, we will allow Him to gift to us in His way.
Last edited by don (08-22-13 3:52 am)
Offline
Remember Don, salvation is from the Jews that have that command they take seriously. When the Jews began to abuse Paul he shook his clothes and said, your blood be on your own heads. You don't think that changed the landscape a little in who kept worshipping in the synagogue????
Offline
Chapter 6: Conclusion of the Antitheses (Matthew 5: 21-48)
The common explanation that Jesus is merely correcting mistaken view of the law's original meaning does not fit the evidence. This is surely involved in some of the cases but in none of the cases is this explanation sufficient by itself. Rather it seems that Jesus, 1) claims an authority that is superior to that of Moses and 2) exercises that authority by taking the Law of Moses in whatever direction He sees fit. In some cases He leaves the particular command intact (#1,2,3?,6). In still other cases he seems to rescind the original legislation (#3, 4)or at least restrict it (#5). There seems to be elements both of continuity and discontinuity. And there seems to be elements both of continuity and discontinuity. And there appears to be no simple explanation for this other than that Jesus has claimed an exercised a prerogative that is uniquely His . Indeed, he is greater than Moses, and greater than the law itself.
Several "antitheses" (You have heard it said... but I say to you) are given in this chapter but there is no consistency that points to what Jesus is doing, extending, modifying, reissuing, fulfilling or abrogating. Matthew 5: 21-48 should be the study of anyone interested in this subject. Was the Decalogue continued as the guide for the New Covenant, or was the Old Law fulfilled by our Savior Jesus Christ putting us under Christ Law in God's Kingdom started after His death .
Note if questions arise about the numbered antitheses, read over Matthew 5:21-48 and each time Jesus says, (You have heard it said...but I say to you) it is an antitheses that must be looked at to determine if the Decalogue is pulled through from OT to NT as our guide to Christian behavior. It appears that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and gave us Christ's Law as our new guide for Christian behavior.
Offline
Chapter 7
Matthew 5:17-20 -
The Messianic Mission
What were God and His Son trying to accomplish with Jesus coming to earth???
"The phrase "the law or the prophets refer to OT Scripture as a whole." - pg 110 New Covenant Theology
Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
We've been over the definition of fulfill: completed, filled up
Acts 6:14 For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Here is another scholar that explains "fulfilling" and what it meant:
If, however, the law of Moses bears the same relationship to men today, in terms of its binding status, then it was not fulfilled, and Jesus failed at what He came to do. On the other hand, if the Lord did accomplish His goal, then the law was fulfilled, and it is not a binding legal institution today. Further, if the law of Moses was not fulfilled by Christ—and thus remains as a binding legal system for today—then it is not just partially binding. Rather, it is a totally compelling system. Jesus plainly said that not one “jot or tittle” (representative of the smallest markings of the Hebrew script) would pass away until all was fulfilled. Consequently, nothing of the law was to fail until it had completely accomplished its purpose. Jesus fulfilled the law. Jesus fulfilled all of the law. We cannot say that Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system, but did not fulfill the other aspects of the law. Jesus either fulfilled all of the law, or none of it. What Jesus' death means for the sacrificial system, it also means for the other aspects of the law.
Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-ful … z2dkz8wqQ1
Last edited by bob_2 (09-02-13 1:49 pm)
Offline
Chapter 8
The Law of Christ in Matthew 5:18-20 and Related Passages
Fred G. Zaspel
For Matthew, then, what Jesus has to say has an eschatological significance to it. He has not merely reissued Moses. Nor has he abrogated Moses. Nor has he merely replaced, intensified, or expanded him. Jesus "fulfilled" Moses.
- page 123, New Covenant Theology
Did Christ's teaching become the basis of a new Law, Christ's Law referred to in 1 Corinthians 9:21?
1 Cor 9:21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
If you say no, Christ's commands were just a clarifying or the Decalogue, what do you do with the new commands that are part of this verse:
Matthew 7:21 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Was there continuity of the Decalogue into the 2nd, New Covenant, or discontinuity where the Sermon on the Mount and "words of mine" set up the Law of Christ. AND does the Law of Christ include a Sabbath? Read Col 2:16-17 before you answer, if there is no civil, moral or ceremonial break down as some in Reformed Churches (based on the Westminister Confession) and the SDAs with EGW see a halo around the fourth commandment of the Decalogue.
Last edited by bob_2 (09-03-13 10:42 pm)
Offline
God speaks of His Son as the prophet to come, with God's words in His mouth. Anyone that does not listen and does not do what is spoken of by this prophet, His Son, God says, "I myself will call to account...."
Deut 19:18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name.
Why would God just reiterate with Jesus, in the New Covenant, what He stated to Moses, in the Old Covenant. Jesus came to fulfill Moses and Moses Law.
Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
Cross references:Luke 24:44 : Lk 9:45; 18:34Luke 24:44 : S Mt 1:22; 16:21; Lk 9:22, 44; 18:31-33; 22:37Luke 24:44 : S ver 27Luke 24:44 : S ver 27Luke 24:44 : Ps 2; 16; 22; 69; 72; 110; 118
There is no Biblical splicing of the Law into Civil, Moral and Ceremonial. It was one whole to be fulfilled by Jesus. The NT is also a whole directing Christians what Christ, the apostles and the writing apostles received from Him.
Fulfillment is what Jesus mission was. Don't feel bad, the disciples/apostles didn't understand and had to receive help to understand what Jesus was telling them:
Luke 24:44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Last edited by bob_2 (09-04-13 3:55 am)
Offline
The copy in blue is from the book New Covenant Theology pg 136, 137
Paul's stern opposition to the Judaizers at Galatia is summed up in the words of:
Galatians 5:1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
The changes effected by the coming of Christ are significant and wide-sweeping, and as a result the old requirements of Sabbath keeping (Galatians 4:10) and circumcision (Galatians 6:12) must be reevaluated in light of Him
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
This is an important point, and I have had some people surprised that NCT is not a "free from law" recklessness. A lot of Evangelical Protestants preach free under grace, the law being done away with at the cross. "Christ's Law" is even more expansive than the Law of Moses, the Decalogue, and NCT is not antinomian as some expect. The Decalogue was not abrogated but fulfilled.
1 Corinthians 9:19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.
Not to be misunderstood, he explains that he is not "without law" absolutely. He is not obliged to Moses' Law... but rather he is "subject to the law of Christ". ... Just how "the law of Christ" relates to the law of Moses, Paul does not explain here, but he is clear that it is to Christ and not to Moses that his obedience is directed.
Last edited by bob_2 (09-19-13 12:32 am)
Offline
Conclusion to Chapter 8
That Christ is the eschatological fulfillment of the law of Moses is the unanimous affirmation of the New Testament writers. The nature of the law's teleological relationship to Christ as taught by Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is pivotal; it is basic, summary statement of the doctrine that is expounded later throughout the New Testament. So far from "tension" or contradiction, there is happy and extensive agreement among all the inspired writers.
Last edited by bob_2 (09-19-13 12:19 am)
Offline
Chapter 9
The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law
Let's start with a quote about those that did not have the law prior to Moses:
Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
One might ask about the Sabbath of the Sinai Law, no desecration of God's Holy Sabbath day is mentioned in why He killed all except 8 in a global flood. That is because only one group met the Exodus 20 and Deut 5 identifiers of those obligated to the Decalogue, Israel. The earmarks are Creation AND Deliverance from Egypt. "As men made in God's image, they knew better. And when their "iniquity became full," they were judged accordingly". (Page 141 of New Covenant Theology)
Back to what is Divine Law, Fred Zaspel reasons:
The picture we see of divine law in the OT, both in pre-Mosaic times and in "extra-Mosaic" contexts is one of inner witness, conscience. God's image in man impresses within him an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Formal code or no, it was a sufficiently clear rule of life, which all men , in varying degrees have both obeyed and suppressed. It is to this that men were and are justly held accountable.
Last edited by bob_2 (09-28-13 5:09 pm)
Offline
Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Just a little clarification about the term "Divine Law". When I think of "Divine Law" I think of laws that existed in heaven before the earth was made and before the Jews were rescued from Egypt. This is fairly well agreed to by most societies as "natural law", what makes sense to the average man/Gentile. If he is acting badly he is suppressing what God created him with, the way the mind worked, with a conscience. I do not believe the Sabbath doctrine is one that makes that sort of natural sense to average man/Gentile. I believe that the ultimate goal for the Christian, is forgiveness for their sin, whether original sin, or sins committed literally by them. Once granted that forgiveness, one experiences rest
Acts 10:36 You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.and peace.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
14 For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
Now does Col 2:16-17 make sense:
Colossians 2:16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
Sabbath was all about peace. "For He Himself is our peace." Eph 2:14 This could be said of Jesus as He fulfilled the Sabbath in His flesh, that produced forgiveness of sin. Tom, you have asked how can Jesus fulfill a day. Eph 2 states it and it should be the goal of all believers.
Last edited by bob_2 (09-29-13 2:43 am)
Offline
The point that God when He created man, imprinted on his mind a sense of right and wrong. What sort of things does the Bible state as sins before the Law and after Creation??
Genesis 15:16. Note the various sins for which men were condemned by God in the pre-Mosaic times:
1. Covetousness (Gen 3:6)
2. False Worship (Gen 4:5 whatever the exact nature of it )
3. Murder (Gen 4:8-11)
4. Adultery/sexual profligacy (Gen 6:1-7, 19:4ff)
5. Evil thinking (Gen 6:5)
6. Dishonor of parents (Gen 9:22-25)
7. Pride and selfishness(Gen 11:4ff)
8. Injustice (Gen 16::5ff)
9. Incest (Gen 19::31ff)
10. Lying deceit (Gen 27)
11. false gods and idolatry (Exodus 12:12; Roman 1:25)
, etc. Guilt was justly established in all these apart from formal legislation. However subjective, divine law is specific and detailed - pg 141 - New Covenant Theology.
Offline
Can you see the difference between Divine Law (eternal) and the Mosaic Law (for a special group)?
"Important also is the recognition that this law of God in men's hearts from creation onward is nearly identical with the Decalogue which came by Moses. Other than the fourth commandment (Sabbath) virtually all of the "ten words" were in force well before Moses; it would seem, since the beginning of human history. Idolatry, murder, theft, adultery, and the like, did not first become wrong when Israel was at Sinai. The great bulk of the Decalogue is clearly but a formal codification of the law of God that was (and is ) in man's heart naturally. These matters are reflective of the very character and holiness of God and are thus eternal principles of righteousness that are binding upon all men regardless of formal codification -- Mosaic or otherwise. With or without formal legal codes, all men are judged by this standard. The law of God exists quite independently of Mosaic legislation. There is indeed overlap but not exact duplication. "
page 143 New Covenant Theology (Fred Zaspel)
Last edited by bob_2 (10-02-13 12:10 am)
Offline
That the Decalogue is the summary statement of the Mosaic law and [Old Covenant] seems to be the implication of :
Exodus 34:27 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” 28 Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
and also Paul makes it clear that the Old Covenant was that: "engraved in letters on stone" 2 Cor 3:7
2 Cor 3:7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! 10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. 11 And if what was transitory came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!
12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate[a] the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
So why does a lot of Christianity not realize the 10 Commandment are no longer in effect after the New Covenant is in force and that Christ's Law (1 Cor 9:21)is in effect, written on the believer's heart from diligently studying the Word of God's New Testament. --- pg 144 New Covenant Theology. The verses 12 to 18 describes the effect of the Holy Spirit on the believer, promised by Jesus just before His Ascension, not the Old Covenant Law. It seems so clear, but it "tears up" some churches' hermenutics and exegesis.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-08-13 1:56 am)
Offline
I have given some thought to why Tom Norris, for his reasons, and the SDA Church have ignored Exodus 34:27 and 2 Cor 3:7 and clear words of Heb 8:13.
Recently I spoke with an SDA Conference President about the Sabbath, the sticking point in talking covenants and law. When I got to specific applications, he said, "I don't want to talk about application." It appears he leaves some of the "detail" of running the church to the local Pastor, at least until all is not quiet from the parishioners.. The question was, if I am evangelizing a water treatment plant manager with every other weekend duty, can he be an SDA. He said he didn't want to talk application. How can a Conference President under the General Conference that is upholding a Gospel that includes the Sabbath, preach a pure Gospel if he doesn't know how to apply it????
The Sabbath as a gift is a warm fuzzy tradition. It is unique in Christendom, with a few other denominations. But is the Gospel to be preached that until you agree to worship on Saturday, every Saturday, you can not be a member. Is that not making an idol out of a day??
Last edited by bob_2 (10-13-13 5:23 am)
Offline
I am not making an argument based on silence, but for all the emphasis Tom Norris and the SDA Church give to the 4th Commandment and Saturday the Sabbath, why did Jesus not pick that day to make such an emphasis after His death? Note:
John 20:19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
John 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!”
Jesus seems concerned for the disciples that they realize He is resurrected in body, i.e., Thomas putting his hand in Christ's wounds. He did not come to emphasize a day of worship, neither Saturday or Sunday.
Offline