You are not logged in.
... Jesus'statements in Matthew 5:17-20, examined earlier, are crucial There we saw that Jesus claims to make a significant advance on the older, Mosaic legislation. He presents the law of Moses as having a forward look, anticipating a fuller significance to come.It is progress as from caterpillar to butterfly. Moses is not left left intact -- he is fulfilled, brought to full maturity in Jesus. As stated earlier, Moses has taken back seat. No, he is not now to be ignored; but the law he gave remains relevant only in sofar as it is read through Christian lenses. Moses can no longer be read by himself. His fulfiller has come and it would be wrong to ignore Him for Moses' sake. It is no longer Moses, but Jesus who objectively informs our conscience. It is His moral instructionthat shapes our lives and defines true sanctification.
pg 153 of New Covenant Theology
How can one study what is happening here and not realize a change, a disconnect from Old to New is happening. It seems the fear of Tom Norris and the SDA church is worried about not everyone having the same "measuring stick" for moral compliance. Well, did Israel have a different standard from Sinai to the Cross?? Jesus continually talks of what His kingdom will be like and that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and is in charge of it's disposition during this change. To show antetype and type or to continue with the way things had been. Listen to Him trying to show a change is afoot.
John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
The very definition of "work" begins to formulate in the disciples mind. They knew not to work on the Sabbath, but here Jesus says that He and His Father have been working every Sabbath since creation, does he not????
Offline
The "Law" has it's purpose, to lead to Jesus because the believer knows the task is too big for him and he needs a Savior. So, what of 1 Cor 9:21?
2 Cor 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. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Is it clear the question of what the Law of Christ, or the Law of God is, how it differs from the Decalogue? No!! But worth some time and study:
Romans 10:1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness. 4 Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5 Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.”[a] 6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the deep?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,” that is, the message concerning faith that we proclaim: 9 If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Here is a guy in this next site that will give you something to study and dwell on: Read with an open mind:
http://kevinplarson.com/2013/01/17/rest … us-208-11/
Last edited by bob_2 (10-14-13 1:56 am)
Offline
The Old Covenant ended at Christ's death. Christ's Kingdom began at His death. He was born under the law and was obligated until his death to keep the Decalogue, that which he gave to the Jewish people. He did not expect them to keep something He was free from keeping.
The Christian Church from the Cross forward are under the New Covenant. Some of the behavior standards or laws (I dislike calling them laws, because like 1 Cor 9:21 confusion can set in unless you can decipher which law Paul is talking about. With discernment, one can follow what he is trying to say).
1 Cor 9:21 To those not having the [written] law I became like one not having the [written] law (though I am not free from God’s law [Divine, Eternal Law] but am under Christ’s law [which offers the solution to sin, Christ's living and dying for us], so as to win those not having the law.
1. To those not having the law-- the Gentiles who were not under the Decalogue but had the God made law on his heart (because he was created by God) as described in Romans 2:14–15:
Romans 2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the [written] law, do by nature things required by the law [God's Law or Divine Law], they are a law for themselves [conscience], even though they do not have the [written] law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law [God's Law or Divine Law] are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
These men have no excuse of not keeping what they knew to be right and wrong, impressed on their hearts from Creation. Law was given because of transgression so man could see right from wrong, that had been on their hearts, the difference from right or wrong. BUT, they still needed a Savior, Jesus, which is what Paul's mission was, Paul commissioned by God Himself, in the form of Jesus, to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles introducing the believer to Jesus Christ.
2. God's Law -- Paul mentions it as the Ultimate Law, the Divine Law that had been in force as long as God Himself. Is then Christ's Law greater or lesser than God's Law in this text? God's Law convicts as does the Decalogue, though not identical. Christ's Law offers the solution to Law, all law, Jesus our Savior. If the Law, whichever, does not point to the One that can save the law-keeper, then all are lost.
3. Christ's Law -- as stated, it gives the solution to sin. It has behavior standards, some, like the Decalogue, some, not included from the Decalogue. The one not included is fulfilled by Christ Himself. He is our REST and can bestow that on us because, He can forgive, not with empty words, but with blotting out of sins from the memory of God, Jesus and us. That is certainly a better promise the 2nd Covenant is based on, is it not??
Last edited by bob_2 (10-19-13 1:11 am)
Offline
Occasionally, you may see Tom Norris and I talk seriously about the law as spoken of in the Old and New Testament. I have had time to think like other believers as I do this report on the book "New Covenant Theology". As students of the Bible, Sinai was an ominous event, was it not??? Whether for the Jews shaking in their sandals at the foot of the mountain or "we" reading of the event 1000s of years later. We had better know whether that Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments,
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.”
As we read about this event, what should we as spiritual Jews, Christians, believe about our standards of behavior. Does God and Jesus have greater expectations of the Christian of His Church? Does it include the 613 laws of the Old Covenant or is there New Covenant as prophesied about in:
Jeremiah 31: 31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]”
declares the Lord.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.”
Offline
That New Covenant starts when??? Listen to Jesus in the upper room at the Last Supper:
Matthew 26:28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Now, with something new, like this covenant, we need to know some things. The Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments. Are they part of this New Covenant. If you speak to the Jews, the Old Covenant was the whole of the Old Testament. Note this about the Ten Commandments:
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.
Notice this about the Covenants:
Hebrews 8:13 By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear.
and
Hebrews 7:12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also.
Last edited by bob_2 (10-20-13 10:50 pm)
Offline
Now, let me quote some of the "New Covenant Theology" directly, because their wording is important:
Paul spoke like this earlier: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." (1 Cor. 7:19, NASB) Any man living under the Old Covenant would object, "But circumcision is the commandment of God." And so it was. But Paul discards it out of hand -- it is "nothing." Clearly, Paul's frame of reference was not Mosaic but Christological.
The writer to the Hebrews speaks the same way when he observes that "the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law" (Heb. 7:12). The Lord Jesus brought with Him a new law which has displaced the old.
James uses the curious expression, nomon basilikon, "law of the king" or perhaps "kingdom law"(James 2:8), and this may provide insight into James thinking that is relevant to our discussion here. James was and is well known as an apostle to the Jews and a lover of the law. He was and is also well known for his very heavy dependence upon the teachings of his half brother, Jesus, particularly those found in the Sermon on the Mount. In this verse specifically, James' "law" quotation is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18 cf Matt. 22:29).This he describes as law that belongs to the king and which pertains to the kingdom. For James, the law that guides him is "the sum total of demands that God, through Jesus, imposes on believers" (Reference to Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James, "Would it be possible to read this (nomon basilikon) in a Jewish Christian context without thinking of the kingdom of God and the kingship of Yahweh that was in Christian thought invested in Jesus? It is not most natural to see a reference to the whole law as interpreted and handed over to the church in the teaching of Jesus....? ")
pg 154 "New Covenant Theology
Last edited by bob_2 (10-20-13 11:32 pm)
Offline
Again, from the authors of "New Covenant Theology" :
All this is to say that his [James'] love for the law was not at all stifled by Jesus, but his view of the law had very evidently been altered by Him [Jesus]. This is the viewpoint offered here exactly -- we do not abandon Moses. But neither do we look to Moses directly. We look rather at Moses via Christ.
pg 155 New Covenant Theology
I read another article from a denomination that went through a change to "New Covenant Theology". Read this article authored by one of their leaders about what the New Covenant is all about. It is beautifully written and, humbly, I admit that I couldn't say it any better:
The New Covenant in a Nutshell
http://www.gci.org/law/nutshell
Last edited by bob_2 (10-21-13 3:10 am)
Offline
Another quote from New Covenant Theology:
For all the NT writers, Jesus has highest priority, even in terms of moral and ethical instructions. We will not go back to Moses, for it is in Jesus that Moses finds "completion,"
We have already seen something of the illegitimacy of the three-fold division of Moses (moral, civil, ceremonial) when used as a hermeneutical [Tom likes that word] tool. Here we observe another inconsistency in the way three-fold division is commonly used. Often this division of Moses' law is appealed to as an aid for understanding the NT statements (especially by Paul) regarding the abolition of [fulfillment of] the Old Covenant Law. It is commonly held that Paul means to say that the "ceremonial" and/or "civil law" is abolished [fulfilled] but not the "moral" (i.e., the Decalogue).In light of several wide-seeping statements regarding the law's abolition, this interpretation seems strained. Paul does not speak in such terms; he simply speaks of the law's passing. The understanding of Moses as fulfilled in Christ as offered here has the distinct advantage of showing that all of the law is fulfilled in exactly the same way. Moral, civil, ceremonial--all the law has the same prophetic function, looking forward to Christ; in his person, work, and teaching he "fulfills" it all as its eschatological realization. pg 156 New Covenant Theology
There is a footnote at the bottom of this page (156) worth consideration
John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord 1:70.
Here is the entire quote: "I apprehend the word 'fulfil' is used in the sense of 'complete,' 'fill up,' 'perfect.' This so common a use of the term, as to make it unnecessary to quote examples of it. It is as if he had said, 'My design is not to invalidate the Old Testament revelation but to complete it. It is but the first part of a great divine manifestation; I come to give the remaining and the most important part of it.' Our Lord came to complete divine revelation. ... In these words our Lord sanctions the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, and at the same time holds himself up as the person appointed by God to finish the work which they had left incomplete. ..."
Last edited by bob_2 (10-23-13 6:43 pm)
Offline
Have you as a Christian asked are we under the Ten Commandments or other behavioral standards stated in the New Covenant era?
Some have concluded that "the moral law" of Moses remains intact while the civil and ceremonial laws have passed away. Some have assumed that "all" of Moses remains binding unless specifically repealed by Jesus or the NT writers. Still others have assumed that nothing of Moses remains binding unless specifically restated by Jesus or the NT writers. In one sense the confusion is entirely understandable, for the NT writers both "abolish" Moses' law and continue to enforce many of its commands. It would seem that the NT writers want to have Moses and not have Moses all at the same time!
But the Gordian knot is easily undone when it is understood that Jesus is to Moses what the butterfly is to the caterpillar. Moses is not struck down. Moses did not "fall" (Luke 16:17). Nor was he "destroyed" (Matt. 5:17). Moses is "fulfilled". In Christ, Moses reaches maturity and emerges in full bloom. Moses' law still has relevance, but only as it comes to us from the hands of the Lord Jesus. Christians today must still read Moses, and for great profit, but when they read him they must be careful to wear their Christian lenses. Moses' law is not simply incorporated into the New Covenant as it was revealed through Moses -- it is fulfilled, advanced and brought to completion.
Plainly stated, Christ does not relegate Moses to the status of a museum showpiece. Neither should we expect to find Moses with the same status today that he enjoyed before the coming of Christ. Having been fulfilled, he is surpassed, and it is our pleasure today to read his law in the shape given it by the Lord Jesus Christ.
pg 157-158 New Covenant Theology
Last edited by bob_2 (11-03-13 9:59 am)
Offline
With the changing of the Covenants at the Cross, how do we know which standards of behavior are in force. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews as central to their Covenant with God, Ex 34:28. How does the Christian believer know what Christ's Law is. Note this in New Covenant Theology page 158, 159:
First, consider the Mosaic prohibition of bestiality (Ex 22:19; Lev 16:23; Lev 20:16; Deut 27:21). This command is nowhere repeated in the NT. Does that mean that bestiality is now allowed under the terms of the New Covenant? Of course not. But how can we know/ Must we depend upon the Mosaic code alone? No, bestiality in the NT is condemned on two grounds. First, in 1 Cor 7:2 and Hebrews 13:4, we have explicit prohibition of all sexual activity outside the marriage union. Even more to our point, the NT condemns porneia ("sexual immorality"; e.g., 1 Cor 6:18), and at this point the interpreter must ask what it is that constitutes porneia. To answer that question we are forced to recognize that for the NT writers porneia is informed by the OT. They had a whole-Bible-hermeneutic, and following their lead so must we.
Or, regard the Mosaic endorsement of capital punishment. Can this be justified on New Covenant grounds? Yes, in two ways. First, in Romans 13:4, Paul speaks of our governmental leaders who do not "bear the sword in vain." Obviously, the sword is not used for correction but for execution, and Paul acknowledges this right. Paul does not bother to provide an extensive list of what crimes are rightly punishable by death, but the right itself is assumed. Also, there is the pre-Mosaic stipulation that murder is an attack on God's image and, therefore, worthy of death (Gen 9:6). Murder as a personal attack on God is a notion that is not confined to the Old Covenant alone; it remains a capital offense in every age. pg 158-159 New Covenant Theology
Here is a discussion of how one sees the behavior standards for the New Covenant are formulated using Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Apostles. John 16: 12-15. Tom Norris would have us believe that only the word that came from His mouth while on earth constitutes Christ's Law. That last text would challenge Tom on that. It is clear that more truth was being given after Christ's ascension as He says directly to the Apostles. Tom's Reformed Sabbath is based on removing those verses from the Scriptures.
Last edited by bob_2 (11-10-13 12:37 am)
Offline
Does Christ change anything relative to behavioral standards?? or just accept what Moses put forth in the OC/OT? Compare Deut. 24:1-4 and Matt 5:31 with Eph 5:25-33 adn 1Peter 3:7. Christ, does He not advance what Moses held as behavioral standards. These are the cases with most of the OC/OT that seem familiar in the NT/NC. But it is a new and different law, Christ's Law takes the place of the Decalogue, expands on it and becomes Christ's Law. 1 Cor 9:20 The whole discussion of faith and works does not do away with behavioral standards, but gives the Christian the horse before the cart, not the other way around.
The subjects of murder, adultery, divorce, oaths and love are all given specific attention in Matthew 5... and each takes an unpredictable turn according to the sovereign will of Christ. The point is simply this: we may (must) still use Moses, but we must use Moses acknowledging the priority of Christ.
All this illustrates well that it is much too simplistic to assume either that all of Moses remains except that which is specifically repealed, or that none of Moses remains except that which is specifically restated. This does mean that the interpreter's task is more complex. Informing porneia ("immorality") and other such terms with our whole Bible demands study. Finding how a given law from Moses receives treatment by Jesus and/or the NT writers demands attention to detail. But this is the interpreter's task exactly -- he must use his entire Bible. He must read his entire Bible as a Christian, from his New Covenant perspective, to be sure, but he must use his entire Bible. The law of Moses finds its fulfillment in the law of Christ, and we must look to see how this is so in any given case. pg 159 - 160 of New Covenant Theology.
There is a footnote at the bottom of page 160 of New Covenant Theology that says, and I have it especially highlighted:
"The law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:20) should not be understood in terms of the teachings of Jesus only but of the NT writers also ([as mentioned earlier in this book]). This is evident from the fact that Jesus himself speaks of his teaching as coming to us via the apostles (John 16:12-15). A related expression is found in James 2:8 -- nomon basilikon, "law of the king".
...
This last point is important. From my discussions with Tom Norris and others of the SDA church, I realize that they do not think much of John 16:12-15. In fact one person I spoke with said, "I don't worship or follow Paul, but Jesus." I pointed to Jesus own words of John 16: 12-15 that tells the Apostles of the Holy Spirit to come and will lead them into all truth. I realized they see anything said or written or taught by one of the Apostles to be subjective and unless Jesus stated it, and it sheds New Covenant light on Christ's Law or texts like Col 2:16-17 they do not see it as a fulfillment or completion or a truth, but by their interpretation, ceremonial in nature. This is dangerous that one does not let the Bible speak for itself and put forth new light that the Holy Spirit was sent to give that Jesus would instruct Him to give , the third person of the Godhead, this is why the great confusion the SDAs have in not realizing the fulfillment of Mosaic Law by Jesus. It is why it is languishing in OT/OC territory and not advancing on to the New Covenant light, advancement and further truth. Jesus is our Sabbath Rest. We will get into that in Chapter 13. It is important to lay the groundwork for that chapter. Let me quote from the opening statement of Chapter 13.
It may be an oversimplification to say that disagreements regarding the subject of divine law are all settled on the question of the Sabbath. Then again, perhaps in some sense this is no oversimplification at all. It is common knowledge that disputes concerning the subject of divine law eventually and almost inevitably make their way to this subject and often with considerable energy. Moreover, much of what has been discussed in this book regarding the anticipatory function of the law of Moses would -- at lest could -- find wide acceptance on all sides of today's theological fences. Even with this much agreement, the question of the Sabbath remains. Did the Sabbath have a similar forward look? If not, why not? If so, does it also retain its former shape and significance? What transformation, if any, has the Sabbath undergone with the coming of Christ? And what warranted such changes? pg 211 of New Covenant Theology
However, there is more groundwork to lay in Chap 10, 11, and 12. You can always buy the book if you wish to read that chapter in isolation. But there is a reason for the delay in moving headlong into the subject of the NC and how it deals with the Sabbath, at Jesus, and the Holy Spirit's direction.
Last edited by bob_2 (11-24-13 4:36 am)
Offline
Chapter 10
The Meaning and Source of Moral Law
What ever else may be said, there is one thing on which all sides agree: questons concerning law are difficult. This is evident from the frequent references to law in this book. It is also evident from the vast amount of literature produced in the last quarter century on that subject. Much of this literature, however, has been devoted to specific codes of law, such as the law of Moses or the law of Christ.
Less attention, I think, has been focused on moral law as a category.
One reason for that is clear: the phrase moral lawis not a biblical phrase. Nor is the slightly broader phrase, the moral law. But as these are used by thelogians the intention is to cite them as having biblical content, and we will treat them them with that in mind.
Here is the definition of moral law that Tom Wells gives after studying the topic:
Moral law is the law that has its source in the unchanging moral character of God with the result that it is intrinsically right and therefore binds all men of every era and every land to whom it comes.
There is little, if anything, that most Christians will object to in this definition.
Last edited by bob_2 (11-27-13 5:55 am)
Offline
I lead an in home church and apologetics ministry.
I answered the *pelican* post already.
.well being one in Christ does not address teaching. We all are part of the body of Christ, and like all body parts they perform different functions each of which are crucial. Being a Biblican, I believe that all scripture should be plumbed by the totality of all scripture be it Old testament or New. For me it seems clear that women certainly have a place in the church, it just is not at the lead teaching function. Perhaps, if a church must wrestle with any scripture, then they have not placed their faith totally in the Holy Spirit and rely too much on themselves. I'll pray for your leaders that discernment from the Helper will help them solve their doubts. Weigh all scripture in proper application of exegesis and prayful asking for discernment. God Bless you in your search for His truths always.
Kevin
Offline
I've learned a lot about denomination and history, but
If you are new to the site and want to register, e-mail him personally at vandolson@gmail.com.
I think you and bob_2 are on the same page.
Kevin : Thank you, i'll pray on it.
Actually, in the past few years I learned alot about many of the denominations, and most teach doctrines that are not Biblical to varying degrees, which is why we have started a home church. I do admit that I know less about the Adventist than the other major denominations. If your doctrine is Biblicaly sound, then why reform? If it is for the sake of roll call then it is a bad choice. Changing sound doctrine for the sake of the fiscal bottom line will lead to false god worship. Perhaps if your doctrine is sound you should fight a different battle to save your sheep. As I've stated in many of my posts, the biggest threat to the church is the indoctrination of our kids into Darwinism. One year ago the percentage of college age kids leaving their faith due to this false science was sixty six percent. Recent polls show this number at eighty eight percent. Check out the websites that I have supplied in my posts and you will be blessed with the knowledge required to equip church leaders, parents and out kids. My book will not be presented to publishers for another eight months to one year. By then the Disciples of Darwinism may have a whole generation and if this happens, our battle will be lost. But there is an abundance of information available done by many that are more fluent on this subject than am I.
Offline
Sorry, wrong thread.
Re: Women Ordination.
Offline
Kevin, I don't know how you got in the middle of this conversation, but it looks like Tom Norris cut and pasted your post to the thread on New Covenant Theology. Use of l_miller by individuals that do not appear to be the person that opened the post and moniker, is not the way we operate. Both you and Lori need to ask to join by writing to Ryan Van Dolson to set you up. I believe Tom gave that email address in the transferred posts above. I would encourage you to do that. If you are blocked it would be for that reason. Please register, both of you using l_miller. Thanks.
Offline
continuation of Chapter 10 New Covenant Theology, "The Meaning and Source of Moral Law"
Tom Wells says:
Whatever else may be said, there is one thing on which all sides agree: questions concerning law are difficult. This is evident from the frequent references to law in this book. It is also evident from the vast amount of leterature produced in the last quarter century on that subject. Much of the literature, however, has been devoted to specific codes of law, such as the law of Moses or the law of Christ.
Less discussion, I think, has been focused on "moral law" as a category,
One reason for that is clear: the phrase moral law is not a biblical phrase. Nor is the slightly broader phrase, "the moral law" . But as these are used by theologians the intention is to cite them is as having biblical "content", and we will treat them with that in mind.
Definition of moral law as given by Tom Wells and his study of the subject:
Moral law is the law that has its source in the unchanging moral character of God with the result that it is intrinsically right and therefore binds all men of every era and every land to whom it comes
Last edited by bob_2 (12-13-13 7:26 pm)
Offline
Look at :
Titus 2:1 You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. 2 Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
6 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. 7 In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness 8 and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.
9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, 10 and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
Look at that passage as what is "intrinsically right":
Nearly every item in this list, when analyzed independently, can be seen as "intrinsically right" and not just in accord with the culture of that day....Certainly the interpersonal qualities asked of slaves (verse 9-10) are intrinsically right for any working situation and are asked of the slaves for that reason.... Certainly for a wife and mother to love her husband and children and be sensible, pure, and kind (verse 4-5) are intrinsically right and not just norms for first century culture.
(George W. Knight III, The Patoral Epistles: A Commentary on the Greek text...)
Discussion ensues about whether the moral character of God is progressive from man's standpoint, and the answer is an emphatic yes. Each revelation, the Decalogue, Jesus life on earth, the Sermon on the Mount and the New Covenant, the details of what is the moral character of God, is added to or expanded. Once we think we know what is "the Moral Character of God" it is expanded on and will be throughout eternity.
If we insist on using it today (the Moral Law), it would be best to confine it to the two great commandments on love, precisely because they are so short on details that our understanding can grow and develop within them. A detailed code, like the Decalogue, does not have this kind of elasticity. ... If it is argued that all moral law is implicit in the Ten Commandment, it is difficult to know what this means due to the ambiguity in the word implicit. This might mean that a process of logic properly applied to the Decalogue could reveal all the Law of Christ. I believe that this is simply false.
footnote page 164 New Covenant Theology
The point of this long discussion is this: it required the advance from promise to fulfillment, from Old Covenant to New Covenant, from shadow to reality, to make the category of moral law stand forth.
pg 165, New Covenant Theology
Note further about the changes, not just a renewal or replication of the Old Covenant, but something new, different and based on "better promises".
Hebrews 7:1 If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—and indeed the law given to the people established that priesthood—why was there still need for another priest to come, one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? 12 For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed also. 13 He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, 16 one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. 17 For it is declared:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind:
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.
Last edited by bob_2 (12-14-13 3:19 am)
Offline
I want to pause and address an important issue of those seeking truth. One must be honest about who "taught" the Gospel to you. Paul was, in the following passages:
Acts 26: “ ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. 16 ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen and will see of me. 17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them 18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Gal 1:15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.
18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
I have done my best to give credit to those who have said things that influenced me, and by quoting, I am saying I agree with what is said, rather than plagiarizing the view in to my speak. Each of you will have to evaluate how you have acquired your knowledge and state it as obvious to everyone else or it is a view you have acquired by reading certain authors until you can recite them as yours. Is this honest? Does it confuse the Bible reader who is seeking truth?? You be the judge!!!! The Bible is the inspired word of God and the Apostles given a mission to spread the Gospel with the Holy Spirit at their shoulder. To do otherwise is to preach another Gospel.
Offline
Finally in closing Chapter 10, answers to how Christ could fulfill a holy day, "For he himself is our peace" and how did He develop law for such diverse a group as Jews accepting the Messiah and Gentiles that knew nothing of Jesus. Could words be given by the Holy Spirit any clearer than the following:
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, [the Sabbath and circumcision] 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.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the
Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
Offline
In Chapter 11, a friend of the authors, Richard Barcellos in a book "In Defense of the Decalogue" challenges NCT by saying it is the Decalogue Jeremiah meant was written on the heart of the New Covenant believer. In order to believe this, one must split the the Old Covenant into ceremonial, civil and moral. In order to believe this, you have to do something with the phrase "fulfillment of the Law". Luke 24:44.
The author, Tom Wells proposes a parable of the caterpillar (Old Covenant) and the butterfly (New Covenant). A transformation and expansion of the caterpillar's existence. This then leads to three possibilities of what was written or to be written on the New Covenant believer's heart:
1. The Decalogue was the law written on the heart under the New Covenant
2. The New Covenant was new law.
3. The Decalogue written on the heart but under the condition of its fulfillment in Christ
Recently the 3rd position is being espoused by some scholars. In the adoption of the third option one must accept that Jesus as he states in Luke 24:44, has fulfilled everything in the Old Covenant including the Decalogue, turning the OC caterpillar into the NC butterfly.
Offline
Bob (this is in response to what you wrote yesterday at 6:44 pm)
In your first paragraph you speak of Barcellos who believed that it was the Decalogue that Jeremiah spoke of as being written on the heart. Your comment was:
In order to believe this, one must split the the Old Covenant into ceremonial, civil and moral. In order to believe this, you have to do something with the phrase "fulfillment of the Law". Luke 24:44.
There is a clear division between the Decalogue and the Ceremonial law in the Bible. The Decalogue was written by the finger of God on tables of stone. It was referred to as "the covenant or testament" and kept inside the ark. The Ceremonial law was given to Moses orally, and he wrote it in a book. It was never called a covenant or testament. And it was kept in the side of the ark.
A lot more can be said. Important also is that the Ceremonial law was not just one law, but a packet of laws and ordinances. The children of Israel were not always clear in their discussions as to what "law" they referred to. We often have to refer to context to see this. But to the Jews, "the law" might refer to the Decalogue, the whole corpus of the laws given at Sinai, ordinances, statutes, and judgments might be included. In some cases "the law" or "Moses" referred to the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible).
In all this, the Decalogue held first importance, and formed the basis of the legal system for Israel. The Decalogue defined sin, The sacrifices and priesthood offered a remedy (forgiveness and atonement) for sin. The Civil law was an expansion of the moral law, making it clear to common people what they needed to do to keep the Decalogue. Certain other laws had to do with sanitation, cleanliness, and holiness.
There is nothing in the Bible that says that the New Covenant replaced the Decalogue. Nor is anything said that Christ's fulfillment of the law replaces our need to keep the law. It is clear that Christ did not sin, He kept the Ten Commandments. He was not accused of breaking them in His trial! He declared that even Satan "hath nothing in Me." Meaning that Satan, who has an accurate record of all sins, had none that he could hold against Christ.
The apostle John, who probably gives the clearest picture of the character of Christ. He had a lot to say about sin in his later books; 1 John 1:6-10; 2:1, 3; 3:4, 6, 7, 9. Jesus had some very specific things to say about keeping the law. A rote keeping of the law is not pleasing to God. The law must be kept from the heart. It is this rote keeping of the law that is "legalism." Grace and the New Covenant are given to empower the Christian to keep the law. This grace is expounded in Exodus 20:2, where it is by the power of God in their deliverance from Egypt that He would fulfill the promises of the Decalogue in their lives. The same promise of grace is given with the Sinai covenant in Exodus 19:4.
Just a personal note: To deny the Law of God and the Sabbath is to leave one without a cover in the day of judgment. As you must know, we are entering the "time of trouble NOW." There is not much time left to get ready for His Coming.
Hubert F. Sturges
www.theeverlastingcovenant.com
Offline
Hubb said:
There is a clear division between the Decalogue and the Ceremonial law in the Bible. The Decalogue was written by the finger of God on tables of stone. It was referred to as "the covenant or testament" and kept inside the ark. The Ceremonial law was given to Moses orally, and he wrote it in a book. It was never called a covenant or testament. And it was kept in the side of the ark.
1. In your research did you talk to any Jews about what they consider the Law. Even Jesus spoke of the fulfillment of the Law and more:
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.”
God has the right to take away the Decalogue in His New Covenant:
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!
All 613 laws were the Old Covenant. Christ refers to other than the Decalogue and the Decalogue that He was to fulfill.
The real question is was the "ministry" ..."engraved in letters of stone".... "transitory" or not???
Offline
Hubb said:
There is nothing in the Bible that says that the New Covenant replaced the Decalogue. Nor is anything said that Christ's fulfillment of the law replaces our need to keep the law. It is clear that Christ did not sin, He kept the Ten Commandments. He was not accused of breaking them in His trial! He declared that even Satan "hath nothing in Me." Meaning that Satan, who has an accurate record of all sins, had none that he could hold against Christ.
I think 2 Cor 3 does say the tablets of stone were replaced. Also
Exodus 34:22 “Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign Lord, the God of Israel. 24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the Lord your God.
25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.
26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the Lord your God.
“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
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.”
Hubb, the wording is so clear, the "ceremonial law" is part of what was the covenant and it is now obsolete with the the stone tablets the Decalogue. 2 Cor 3. Heb 8:13. The Covenant is a whole of the 613 laws. Try counting how many rules/laws are in Christ's Law that replaces the Decalogue in the New Covenant. So many we need the Holy Spirit to bear the fruit expected of God/Jesus.
Last edited by bob_2 (01-02-14 4:30 am)
Offline
Hubb said:
Just a personal note: To deny the Law of God and the Sabbath is to leave one without a cover in the day of judgment. As you must know, we are entering the "time of trouble NOW." There is not much time left to get ready for His Coming.
Paul says that he is under God's Law still, Christ's law. To add the Sabbath to the Gospel, Paul warned the Galatians 3 of such heresy. After chiding the Galatians for adding keeping of holy days as added to the Gospel, He says:
Gal 3:29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Your book, more than a Promise, it was the Promise to Abraham believed by faith that saved him and will save us. John 3:16.
Read how Jesus can fulfill a day:
Eph 2: 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.
then read Col 2:16-17 for the same statement of the reality of the Sabbath shadow in Christ:
Colossians 2:116 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.
Hubb there is nothing wrong with creating a cozy nest of the Sabbath. The danger is that you mandate every convert must keep the Sabbath as you do to be saved. It is not salvific!!!!
Offline