Resurrected What?
November 13, 2007 at 2:57 pm (Federal Vision)
I confess genuinely to be puzzled at chapter 20 of RINE. Wilson starts with this enigmatic statement: “When Jesus died, the law died. And when He rose again, so did the law” (pg. 163). He references Colossians 2:13-17 in support of this assertion. However, it is by no means clear that Colossians supports this contention. Here is the text of verse 14, which is the important verse:
ἐξαλείψας τὸ καθ’ ἡμῶν χειρόγραφον τοῖς δόγμασιν ὃ ἦν ὑπεναντίον ἡμῖν, καὶ αὐτὸ ἦρκεν ἐκ τοῦ μέσου προσηλώσας αὐτὸ τῷ σταυρῷ:
In translation: “Having wiped away the ‘against us’ hand-written note with its decrees, which was against us, and He removed it from our midst, nailing it to the cross.” This is a bit wooden, but I want us to see the difficulties. First of all, it is by no means clear what the hand-written note is. It could refer to the law, but that is by no means certain. It would not be a natural way to understand something that is hand-written. Some commentators have asked whether this might not be an ironic use of the word, with Paul regarding the law as nothing more than a hand-written note. Possibly. I think it is more likely that it refers to an IOU. At any rate, it is the hand-written note, not the regulations, which was nailed to the cross. Plainly the neuter singular αὐτὸ(”it”) refers to the χειρόγραφον (”hand-written note”), not to the plural “regulations.” Now, we mut be careful here, since Paul is using metaphorical language. Obviously, whatever the hand-written note is, it was not literally nailed to the cross. However, given the uncertainty of the referent, I would not be willing to say that the law was nailed to the cross. The KJV rendering, which Wilson uses (”handwriting of ordinances”), takes the dative to be a possessive dative (that the handwriting consists of the ordinances), which would, of course, point to the law as the referent. Although this is not impossible, it would be more natural to take the dative as a dative of accompaniment. The understanding then would be that the law has shown us our debt, and our consciences have written an IOU to the law because of the ordinances of the law. It is that metaphorical IOU which is laid to rest at the cross. If this is correct (and I am certainly not going to die on this hill, especially given the fact that I here disagree with Calvin), then the law was not crucified. At any rate, I would be hesitant to build any theology on such a text, which is not very clear to me.
I do disagree with Wilson’s take on whether the moral law is included here. The things mentioned in verse 16 are not aspects of the moral law. The Sabbath mentioned is not the weekly Sabbath, but the special Sabbaths that were part of the OT ritual observance. Plainly, verse 17 regards these things as having passed, which the moral law plainly has not. These things are plainly called indifferent. It doesn’t matter whether one observes them or not (verse 16’s “Let no one pass judgment on you”). That is not true of the moral law. Therefore, even if verse 14 is talking about the law, the moral law is not in view. It is therefore somewhat surprising that Wilson brings in Ephesians 2:15, which he admits is not talking about the moral law (the word “abolition” being used). I am not sure how this supports his contention that the law died at the cross and was resurrected. Now, do please understand. I don’t view this particular issue (of whether the law has died and has been resurrected) as being of particular moment. I am just wondering if it is biblical. I don’t see it forced out of the text.
This brings us to the next exegetical issue. It is well-known that Paul uses the word “law” in many different ways. It can certainly mean the Torah. However, it can also mean a simple “rule.” Romans 7:21 is an obvious example of this usage. The Torah is sin and death to us because of our sin. This is plain from verse 3. But this cannot be the same referent as the “law of the Spirit of life,” since the former is that from which we have been set free by the latter. The question comes down the usage of “law” in the first part of verse 2. I believe that this is the same “rule” that Paul mentioned in 7:23. If this is true, then the “law of the Spirit of life” does not refer to the Torah at all, but to the operative principle at work in the believer to do good, which is the Holy Spirit. I do not have anything to say about the rest of the chapter.
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
Sam Steinmann said,
November 13, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I would have thought “handwriting of ordinances” was a reference to the law, via Exodus 31:18
And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
greenbaggins said,
November 13, 2007 at 3:57 pm
The Greek of the LXX there in no way corresponds to the Greek of Colossians. Besides, the IOU understanding is the more natural understanding of the cultural meaning of the word.
pduggie said,
November 13, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Christ is the Word, Tabernacled among us.
(that image is taken from the Torah in the Tabernacle)
Christ died and was raised again bodily.
Therefore, the one who was the Word underwent death and resurrection.
Therefore we should not be surprised to think of the law going through death and resurrection.
“If this is true, then the “law of the Spirit of life” does not refer to the Torah at all, but to the operative principle at work in the believer to do good, which is the Holy Spirit. ”
But all the promises of the new covenant were that God would put his torah in our hearts and his Spirit in our hearts and we would obey it. So when we find Paul talking about Torah done by the Spirit, that’s the natural referent.
The Spirit inspired the torah, after all.
rey said,
November 13, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“When Jesus died, the law died. And when He rose again, so did the law”
Certainly I agree that the statement above is wrong, but I arrive at that conclusion in a different way. I would correct the above statement to “When Jesus died, the Law died. However, when Jesus was resurrected the Law stayed in the tomb and is now ‘decaying and waxing old.’”
Ephesians 2:14-16 is emphatic that Jesus slew the Law on the cross and that this was necessary to uniting Jews and Gentiles into one body. The Law itself is the enmity that separated the two, “the middle wall of partition” that stood between them and separated them. To resurrect the Law after slaying it would be to bring back the very thing he was seeking to get rid of, a barrier between Jews and Gentiles. Then when we look at Hebrews 8:13 we see that that “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” The Law is clearly depicted as having died, and as staying dead, even decaying. The tomb of Jesus is not totally empty - the Law is still there.
Of course, this does not mean (and this may be what they were trying to say) that the moral aspects of the Law were not brought over into the New Covenant. Hebrews 7:12 “For the priesthood being (ex)changed, there is made of necessity a(n) (ex)change also of the law.” The Law of Moses was nailed to the cross, and an exchange was made (which was necessary to establishing a new priesthood) - the Law of Christ replaced the Law of Moses. Of course the Law of Christ contains the same moral teachings (you will not kill, you will not steal, you will not lie, &c.) but that does not make it a resurrected Law of Moses. It is properly a New Law for a New Covenant and New Priesthood.
(PS: If anyone disagrees with me rendering “exchange” rather than “change” in Hebrews 7:12, please note that the Greek word is the same as that used for “translate” with respect to Enoch in Hebrews 11:5, and surely refers not to a mere alteration of the Law but to an exchange of one Law for another.)
rey said,
November 13, 2007 at 11:45 pm
“…the IOU understanding is the more natural understanding of the cultural meaning of the word.”
It ignores parallel passages and the word ordinances. Never in a million years would I ‘naturally’ understand “handwriting of ordinances” to mean an I-owe-you. Especially since I would automatically in my mind be comparing Ephesians 2:15 “having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances…by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:” to this passage Col 2:14 “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” — It is very clear that he slew the Law and blotted it out by the cross. But as I said above (comment #4), the moral aspects of the Law are contained in the New Law, the Law of Christ.
tim prussic said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The law comes with various in the text of the NT (as Pastor Lane mentioned) and is considered in various ways.
As a descriptive consideration, I don’t have any problem with the 3 uses of the law. I start to get itchy when descriptive terms are used in prescriptive ways, especially when they’re used inflexibly, as if God’s word explicitly mandates a 3-uses view of the law, which it doesn’t.
That said, I prefer an “aspect” view of the law. The ceremonial aspect of the law was put to death in Christ (or, he put it to death), while the moral aspects of EVERY law apply always. The civil aspects apply perpetually insofar as they’re possible to apply (general equity). As to the “resurrection” of the Law - we have resurrected Law-giver. If we love him, we’ll keep his commandments. Now that faith has come, we establish the law… in the fashion of a resurrected Law-giver and resurrected subjects.
Roger Mann said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:51 pm
4: Rey wrote,
It is very clear that he slew the Law and blotted it out by the cross. But as I said above (comment #4), the moral aspects of the Law are contained in the New Law, the Law of Christ.
I have to agree with what you’ve said so far, and disagree with Lane’s comment here: “Therefore, even if [Eph. 2] verse 14 is talking about the law, the moral law is not in view.” While the moral aspect of the Law has certainly been brought over into the New Covenant, Scripture seems to clearly teach that the Old Covenant as a whole was done away with for New Covenant believers. In addition to what Rey has already pointed out (in reference to Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 7:12), the following passage treats the Old Covenant Law as a unit (to include the moral law which was “written and engraved on stones”) that was “passing away” with the arrival of the New Covenant.
“[God] made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious [“the letter,” “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones,” “the ministry of condemnation”], what remains is much more glorious.” 2 Corinthians 3:6-11
Roger Mann said,
November 14, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Sorry for the repeat post, but that first one didn’t come out correctly.
4: Rey wrote,
It is very clear that he slew the Law and blotted it out by the cross. But as I said above (comment #4), the moral aspects of the Law are contained in the New Law, the Law of Christ.
I have to agree with what you’ve said so far, and disagree with Lane’s comment here: “Therefore, even if [Eph. 2] verse 14 is talking about the law, the moral law is not in view.” While the moral aspect of the Law has certainly been brought over into the New Covenant, Scripture seems to clearly teach that the Old Covenant as a whole was done away with for New Covenant believers. In addition to what Rey has already pointed out (in reference to Eph. 2:14-16; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 7:12), the following passage treats the Old Covenant Law as a unit (to include the moral law which was “written and engraved on stones”) that was “passing away” with the arrival of the New Covenant.
“[God] made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious [“the letter,” “the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones,” “the ministry of condemnation”], what remains is much more glorious.” 2 Corinthians 3:6-11
tim prussic said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Is Paul ministering death in Ephesians 6:1-3 - applying OT law DIRECTLY to Gentile children sitting in children’s church? Necessarily implying that “the Land” now includes places like Ephesus, as Paul does, is intriguing, no? Paul doesn’t sound quite as antinomian, nor is he as focussed on the land of Judea as some folks are now-a-days, huh?
Our abstractions of the apostolic doctrine really ought to make room for the apostolic practice.
Roger Mann said,
November 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Tim, in Ephesians 6:1-3 Paul is simply quoting an Old Covenant moral command that has been carried over into the New Covenant administration, so I honestly don’t see the point you are trying to make. The command to “honor your father and mother” (with every other moral command) applies equally under the New Covenant as it did under the Old Covenant (only under a New Covenant context), as Rey and I clearly stated. So what’s so “antinomian” about that? And what do you mean by “Our abstractions of the apostolic doctrine really ought to make room for the apostolic practice?”
tim prussic said,
November 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Mr. Mann, I don’t want the Old/New distinction over-done, nor do I want it under-cooked. I find that folk who want to write off all or parts of the OT law tend to make a great deal more of the O/N distinction than does the Bible. That’s kind of what I’m after. I think it’s too much to say that only the “moral law” makes it through into NT ethics. The whole of the law make it though, but it’s to be viewed and applied through the cross. (I think that’s what Pastor Wilson’s getting at with the Resurrected Law.) See, neither Paul nor the Westminster divines say: “We establish the Moral Law.” Too often, folk want to wriggle out of the social, economic, political aspects of the law of God by saying that such laws aren’t “moral.”
The way Paul applies the law (with attendant blessings and curses) to Gentiles and extends the “land” to Asia Minor. That’s WAY more than most people do when “applying” the law. Antinomianism varies by degree.
rey said,
November 14, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“I find that folk who want to write off all or parts of the OT law tend to make a great deal more of the O/N distinction than does the Bible.”
I find that people who make statements like that tend to want to prop up a corpse so they can justify Christians fighting in wars, or the concept of holy water still existing (Num 5:17), or incense, or priestly vestments, continued Sabbath observance, continued circumcision observance as a religious necessity, permissive divorce and remarriage, polygamy, instrumental music in worship (i.e. adversarial relationship against the regulative principle), revenge as being man’s prerogative rather something to “give place to” or let the Lord handle (ala an eye for an eye). Basically, those who want to claim to be Christians but live as Jews (such as Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians ala infant baptism which is just a weak rehashing of circumcision) can’t allow the reality of the death of the Law. I’d point out too for your edification (because I know this is why you want to resuscitate the corpse of the Law) that the comparison of baptism and circumcision in Col 2:11-12 only goes so far the cutting off aspect (circumcision cut off flesh and in baptism the Holy Spirit cuts off sins) and does not extend to the recipients–rather that very passage contrasts the recipients when it says “buried with him in baptism, in which you were raised with him through faith….” not to mention Hebrews 8:8-11 “…I will make a new covenant…Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers…And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.” The New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant, and one of the main differences is nobody in the Covenant will be ignorant of God, i.e. there will be no infants membership. You can let the Law rest in peace my friend, because with or without it, infant baptism is a Romish superstition and nothing more.
tim prussic said,
November 15, 2007 at 1:12 am
Rey, you’re great at knocking down the straw men you erect.
Was circumcision a sign and seal OF and TO FAITH? I guess, then, that infants weren’t included, right? Also, is there absolutely NO ignorance of those in the new covenant? Are those words meant absolutely?
As to the continuity of the OT law, you’re right, I guess when Paul said ESTABLISH the law he meant forget about it and let it “rest in peace.” When Christ said that not one jot or tittle would fall from the law, he meant every jot and tittle would disappear. When he said that the least in the kingdom would despise the law and teach others to do the same… he was talking about you.
The Law can’t “rest in peace” because Jesus, the Law-giver, rose from the dead. The only way the law could rest in peace is if Jesus didn’t come back from the dead. Praise God that the Law isn’t resting in peace. Praise God that Paul, the minister of the New Covenant to the Gentiles applies to OT law explicitly to New Covenant Gentiles, thus, showing its liveliness. In short, praise God you’re dead wrong regarding the OT law in the New Covenant.
As to infant baptism, the whole of Christendom is Romish - all of it except that tiny little radical sect called the anabaptists. Yup.. that sounds about right.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 15, 2007 at 11:18 am
Rey,
Respectfully, I encourage you to pursue more worthwhile activities. Your view of the continuity (or radical lack thereof) between the Old and New covenants causes you to come to very different conclusions than those of us who see a much higher degree of continuity. While discussing the underlying disagreement (degree of continuity) could be fruitful, debating the down-stream logical consequences probably would not. We could call each other a bunch of names, but what’s the point in that?
On the other hand, if your intentions are to rebuke us rather than discuss, then have done with it and move on.
Grace, and peace,
Keith
greenbaggins said,
November 15, 2007 at 11:23 am
Rey, these comments of yours border on sectarianism. They also border on being moderated. We don’t view our Baptist brothers and sisters in Christ as being outside the pale of orthodoxy because of this issue. Neither do most of the best Baptists view paedo-baptists as Catholics just because we baptize infants. Look at Piper, Mohler, Mahaney, and even Dever (whose position is stricter than, say, Piper’s). Baptism is not central to the Christian faith, unless you are at heart a sacramentarian. Presbyterians believe that we are saved by faith alone through grace alone.
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 11:49 am
“Was circumcision a sign and seal OF and TO FAITH?”
Only for Abraham himself, Tim. Your problem is that you read Paul as saying what you want him to say rather than saying what he actually says.
Romans 4:11 “And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he (Abraham) had yet being uncircumcised:…”
If you try and extend that argument to everyone in the Old Covenant, you end up with this problem: Everyone in the OC did not have faith prior to circumcision for circumcision to be a seal of! This argument only applies to Abraham, and is not given by Paul to design a new circumcision for the NT, but to show that Gentiles are able to be accepted by God without circumcision, as Abraham was.
Roger Mann said,
November 15, 2007 at 12:38 pm
11: Tim, you wrote:
I find that folk who want to write off all or parts of the OT law tend to make a great deal more of the O/N distinction than does the Bible.
I agree that some people indeed do that (Rey’s comments in post #12 would be a perfect example!). But that is certainly not my intention (I’m a Confessional Presbyterian). It just seems that passages such as Galatians 3:10; 5:3, Ephesians 2:14-16, Colossians 2:13-17, Hebrews 7:12, James 2:10, and especially 2 Corinthians 3:6-11 treats the Old Covenant as a unit (to include the moral law which was “written and engraved on stones”). Thus, while many of the Old Covenant’s commandments and principles have been carried over into the New Covenant, the Old Covenant as a unit appears to have been done away with as legal code. We are now under the New Covenant instead.
That’s kind of what I’m after. I think it’s too much to say that only the “moral law” makes it through into NT ethics. The whole of the law make it though, but it’s to be viewed and applied through the cross.
I would have to disagree with you here, and agree with what WCF chapter 19 states on this point:
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
IV. To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
V. The moral law [which has been carried over into the New Covenant] doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
Too often, folk want to wriggle out of the social, economic, political aspects of the law of God by saying that such laws aren’t “moral.”
That may be the case in some instances. But, as the Confession points out, the Old Covenant’s “sundry judicial laws” are no longer obligatory “further than the general equity thereof may require” (WCF 19.4). Again, I agree with the Confession on this point.
Antinomianism varies by degree.
Legalism “varies by degree” as well. But if it would be inaccurate to label your position as “Legalistic,” then it should be equally inaccurate to label my position as “Antinomian.” Neither of us appear to be arguing for Legalism or Antinomianism under their proper definitions.
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 1:47 pm
“I agree that some people indeed do that (Rey’s comments in post #12 would be a perfect example!).” (Mann)
Ignore my comments on infant baptism, and I think you’ll agree with the rest of what I said: “I find that people who make statements like that” (the one Tim made) “tend to want to prop up a corpse so they can justify Christians fighting in wars, or the concept of holy water still existing (Num 5:17), or incense, or priestly vestments, continued Sabbath observance, continued circumcision observance as a religious necessity, permissive divorce and remarriage, polygamy, instrumental music in worship…”
In other words, Are we supposed to go around exterminating our neighbors, burning incense, making women drink holy water, wearing priestly vestments and being polygammists? There is a clear distinction between the OT and NT. In fact, the morality of the NT is HIGHER, BETTER, yea, even stricter than that of the Law.
Now, you ought to agree also that if one simply says “the moral portions of the Law still apply” then someone could go poking around in the Law first (rather than the NT first) looking for their morality and grab up the permissive divorce laws of the OT and try to apply them to today….and yet they would be wrong, since Jesus’ law on divorce and remarriage supersedes those permissive OT laws on the subject.
The same again with “an eye for an eye” which is superseded by Jesus’ “you have heard it said ‘an eye for an eye’ but I say….” When we recognize that the NT itself is the source of our morality and that we only refer to the OT when the NT tells us too (Acts 15, for example refers us to the OT definitions of idolatry and fornication) then we will not botch up Christian morality the way many today do by starting in the Law and then trying to justify things clearly morally wrong according to Jesus because the Law allowed those things under those old permissive days when God winked at ignorance - yes he winked at ignorance back then, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. (Acts 17 in case you don’t know).
So, the attitude towards the Law I see in the Reformed tradition is like the Pharisees asking Jesus “why then did Moses command to write her a bill of divorce and get rid of her?” Jesus’ answer is that he did not command any such thing but rather “because of the hardness of your hearts he permitted it.”
In the Reformed tradition that truth is ignored and the attitude is “the Law commands stoning for blasphemy, so let’s chop the heads off on antiTrinitarians like Servetus” (e.g. Calvin) and for the Lutherans “the Law commands stoning, so let’s drown the anabaptists” (e.g. Luther, “slay them like rabid dogs in the street, stab them…”
etc. etc. They are fully ignorant that Jesus rebuked James and John when they wanted to call down fire like Elijah on the city of Samaria that had rejected Jesus, saying “you know not what manner of Spirit ye are of, for the Son of man came not to destroy life but to save life.”
greenbaggins said,
November 15, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Rey, you are painting with way too broad a brush here. Not all Reformed folk are such rabid theonomists. Plus, you are ignoring the fact that there is some continuity in the Sermon on the Mount from OT to NT. The moral law does not change. If you do not start moderating your tone, you will be banned.
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 2:40 pm
“The moral law does not change.” I will agree with that, in the sense that the natural moral law is unchanging. But concerning the Law of Moses Paul says “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Galatians 3:19. The written Law of Moses was added because people were transgressing the natural law and a check on that transgression was needed to serve “till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” and then what? Then the seed, Shiloh himself, to whom the scepter truly belongs would give a Law not merely meant to check transgression but to illuminate the full morality of God, a law no longer permissive of sin because of the hardness of the hearts of those who would not bare with an absolute Law (as Jesus indicates the Mosaic Law permitted things God did not really approve because he knew the Jews would not bear with it otherwise). If we lose sight of the Law as a temporary addition between Abraam and Christ, then I think we’ve lost sight of Paul’s teaching on the Law and set the Law up as something permanent, to our detriment because it will make us (because were are fleshly men) tend to hold to the old permissive temporary Law rather than the absolute and permanent Law of the Seed to whom the temporary Law looked forward. This is my last word on the Law.
greenbaggins said,
November 15, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Rey, you have not dealt with the Sermon on the Mount, which clearly upholds the **Mosaic** Ten Commandments (which equals the moral law). In fact, Jesus brings out aspects of the moral law which had been obscured by the Pharisees. Passages that you are seeing as abrogation of the Mosaic law aren’t abrogations of the entire Mosaic law, but only of the ceremonial and civil aspects of it. The Moral law, which is the Ten Commandments, still applies in all three of its uses. On this topic, you should read the Reformed commentaries on Romans 10:4.
Roger Mann said,
November 15, 2007 at 3:37 pm
18: Rey, you wrote:
Ignore my comments on infant baptism, and I think you’ll agree with the rest of what I said.
No, I disagree with quite a bit of what you said. I believe that Christians are still permitted to fight in wars (and in some circumstances are obligated to do so), I believe that the weekly Sabbath is now observed on the first day of the week as the “Lord’s Day” (as explained in WFC 21.7-8), I believe that instrumental music in worship is compatible with the “regulative principle,” I believe that the various post-lapsarian covenants are simply different/progressive administrations of the one Covenant of Grace (e.g., Eph. 1:4; Tit. 1:9; Heb. 13:20), and I believe that our elect infants are members of the Covenant of Grace (regardless of what administration it has been in).
In fact, the morality of the NT is HIGHER, BETTER, yea, even stricter than that of the Law.
On some issues, such as the divorce laws, I would agree. There has been a certain amount of progression in the various administrations of the Covenant of Grace.
Now, you ought to agree also that if one simply says “the moral portions of the Law still apply” then someone could go poking around in the Law first (rather than the NT first) looking for their morality and grab up the permissive divorce laws of the OT and try to apply them to today.
Some people may do this, but that is certainly not the “Reformed” position. The traditional Reformed position is that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament, not vice versa. So the Old Testament “divorce laws” don’t pose a problem for any informed Reformed Christian. By the way, the “moral law” as it is used in the WCF (which “still applies”) refers solely to the 10 commandments, not to all of the Old Testament’s “moral duties” (see 19.2-3).
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Rey, you have not dealt with the Sermon on the Mount, which clearly upholds the **Mosaic** Ten Commandments (which equals the moral law).
If the ten commandments equaled the moral Law, then “remember the Sabbath to keep it holy” would not be one of them. If you say that all ten commandments are the moral Law, you are saying that the Sabbath commandment still applies today. Further, in limiting the moral law to the 10, you remove other obviously moral laws such as the definition of incest in Leviticus 18. Nowhere does the ten commandments say anything about sexual morality other than “you will not commit adultery”, so where does “you will not commit fornication” come from? Leviticus 18.
The Moral law, which is the Ten Commandments, still applies in all three of its uses.
I have already said that although the whole Law of Moses was properly slain at the cross, it was also replaced by the Law of Christ which takes all of the moral aspects of the Law of Moses and makes them more moral. If someone, therefore, would know the moral Law, they will look first to the New Testament. If there is anything needed from the Old Testament, it will be quoted or referenced by the New. So, Jesus and Paul quote the 10 commandments (minus the Sabbath one) as applicable under the NC. Also, the apostles refer the Gentile churches to the Old Testament for the definitions of idolatry and fornication in Acts 15 when they say to “flee fornication” and “abstain from things polluted by idols.” I’m not arguing that there is not morality left, but that the New Testament has replaced the Law as the centre of morality and that the Law was in fact too permissive of sin. The Law was not God’s absolute will but his permissive will, and therefore Paul makes it very clear in Galatians 3:19 that the Law had a job to do between Abraham and Christ, but that that job is finished now that the Seed has come.
greenbaggins said,
November 15, 2007 at 5:43 pm
On the Sabbath, see this post:
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2005/09/15/from-sabbath-to-lords-day-2/
You have no exegetical basis for saying that the law of Moses was *replaced* by the law of Christ. Christ explicitly said that He came *not* to abolish the law, *but* to fulfill the law. This is what Romans 10:4 means as well. You do not have a good grasp on the distinctions that Reformed theologians make about the law, nor do you have a good grasp at the scope of the Ten Commandments. Read a couple of Reformed commentaries on the Ten Commandments. Read Ryken’s Exodus commentary for starters. There is also Turretin’s Institutes, which includes a major commentary on the Ten Commandments. See also Wilhelmus a’Brakel. You are making statements and arguments that you would never make, if you had read these authors carefully.
tim prussic said,
November 15, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Mr. Mann (#17) - thanks for the response. My tone may have been overly insistent. If it was, I apologize. I appreciate you bringing the confession into the conversation, as that’s where my thinking started. When I say the whole law applies, but as viewed through the cross. I mean something very similar to what the confession is saying. The dietary laws apply to us in Christ. We Gentiles are unclean, but have been brought near unto the covenants of promise through the cross of Christ. It’s not that we don’t eat shellfish. It’s that we see ourselves as those shellfish and we understand that, in Christ, Peter was to eat us, that is to welcome us into the one new man. Is that application? You bet. It’s application THROUGH the cross.
The problem with descriptive terms applied prescriptively is that our thinking tends to be limited greatly. I don’t want Christians reading ANY passage of God’s word and thinking, “Well, that’s not for me,” and disregarding it (which happens a great deal). ALL Scripture is God-breathed… We should be reading every part of the law (et al) in Christ and knowing that, in him, it teaches, guides, and instructs us.
Further, his laws are holy and righteous, period. Laws that men devise from their own hearts are a mixed bags at best. Thus, God’s righteous laws form a basis of righteous legislation down through the ages. The requirements of the general equity of civil legislation in the Bible is, I think, far broader and more expansive than is usually assumed. The principles undergirding the civil law give foundation to all civil law. Are God’s laws not better? Don’t they give understanding to the soul? Do they not protect from the tyranny of sinful men?
tim prussic said,
November 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
The OT is the foundation of the NT. The NT gives more light, thus we interpret the OT by the NT. The OT gives the very basis of NT ethics - there is no NEW ethical code given by the NT… no new commandment. Thus, I think it’s good to “go poking around” in the inspired Word of God, not at an Old Covenant Jew, but as a New Covenant Christian who’s to establish every jot and tittle of the OT law, to teach it and do it, in Christ.
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 9:48 pm
“The OT gives the very basis of NT ethics - there is no NEW ethical code given by the NT… no new commandment.”
Really? John 13:34 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.”
rey said,
November 15, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Of course killing one another “for God and country” becomes a lot easier when we forget that new commandment of John 13:34 and turn back to the OT to become Jews again.
greenbaggins said,
November 16, 2007 at 10:39 am
To love one another is not a new command in the sense that it had never been seen before. Just look up Leviticus 19:18. What is new is that the disciples should love one another *as Christ had loved them.* See Kostenberger’s commentary on this. You still have to deal with the sermon on the mount where Christ directly quotes the Ten Commandments, and says ” I say to you,” then follows an exposition of that commandment. You are bordering on the Marcionite heresy here.
rey said,
November 16, 2007 at 11:15 am
I know that loving your neighbor was commanded in the OT. So yes, this is a new command only in extent, “as I have loved you.” But this is the point. When you say that nothing of the morality in the NT is new, that’s it’s all in the OT, you are confusing people. They’re going to go read “an eye for an eye” and permissive divorce laws and polgyammy, genocide, etc. and say “all that stuff is allowed in the NT - greenbaggins and tim prussic said aint nothing new in the NT.” Maybe you can make the weak argument that “any Reformed person will know better” and that’s fine, maybe that’s the case. But shouldn’t we seek to be accurate enough to be understood by all in what we say? Especially on the Internet? “You are bordering on the Marcionite heresy here.” That’s just laughable. It’s be like if I said that you are bordering on the Ebionite heresy.
greenbaggins said,
November 16, 2007 at 11:32 am
I never said, and Tim didn’t say, that there was nothing new in the NT concerning morality. You are extending what we said beyond what we said. We are merely saying that the substance of the moral law isn’t new, and that the OT in the moral law of the Ten Commandments still applies. You are denying any normalcy to the OT law for the believer today, because you think it is “Judaizing.” Look carefully at how the WCF handles the law in chapter 19. Rejecting the OT as being the norm for Christian behavior is *precisely* what Marcion did. So, laughing it off is a rhetorical ploy, but is not an argument. The Ebionites have nothing to do with this discussion, since that was a Christological heresy, not a heresy about the Bible per se.
rey said,
November 16, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“Rejecting the OT as being the norm for Christian behavior is *precisely* what Marcion did.”
Not *precisely* - Marcion said that the God of the OT was a different God altogether and therefore threw away the OT completely and totally. I’m not alleging that the God of the OT is a different God, nor saying that the OT should not be read or that it is worthless for doctrine, reproof, etc. I’m just saying that the morality of the old Law was not absolute morality, as Jesus says on the divorce subject “Moses permitted this because of the hardness of your hearts.” Some of the things allowed in the OT are no longer allowed in the NT because NT gives God’s absolute will concerning morality. That’s why polygamy was allowed in the OT, but in the NT if you divorce your wife and marry another you commit adultery–notice how the NT implies very strongly that to marry another you must first divorce–their is an implicit rejection of polygamy, and also explicit “in the beginning he made them male and female and the two became one flesh” is emphasized by Jesus in this context in a way not done in the OT. I believe the same thing applies to carnal warfare, that God had the Jews participate in it only because of the hardness of their hearts, etc. But I’m done. If you are going to stoop to calling me Marcion as if I were teaching the existence of two (or maybe more) Gods, I’m not going to stick around for that.
greenbaggins said,
November 16, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Rey, it is quite a leap from saying “some things allowed in the OT are no longer allowed” to saying that the Ten Commandments is not absolute morality. If you say that the OT is not normative, then why does Jesus treat it as such? If law changes so dramatically between testaments, then are you not saying that God has changed dramatically between testaments? Maybe the two gods are differentiated for different reasons than Marcion did, but you are still rejecting the OT law in a way that looks distinctively Marcionite.
rey said,
November 16, 2007 at 8:35 pm
The 10 commandments don’t include anything about fornication (other than the specific subset of it called adultery), so I don’t see why you persist in making them the whole moral law? Does your church teach that it is OK to sleep around before marriage? or to marry your own mom? If not, clearly you need to expand your definition of the moral law beyond the 10 commandments. Try including Leviticus 18 as part of the moral law. As I said, in Acts 15 the apostles refer us back to the OT (obviously to Leviticus 1
for our definition of fornication when they write letters to the Gentile churches concerning what parts of the Law are brought over into the New Testament (other, obviously, than that which is already explicitly understood such as the 9 commandments), where they write to them “that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.”
greenbaggins said,
November 17, 2007 at 10:58 am
Rey, read the Westminster Larger Catechism, question 99, available here. It will take you all of two minutes, and then you will understand how Reformed people interpret the law.
http://www.opc.org/lc.html
rey said,
November 17, 2007 at 12:46 pm
So, do you see the 10 commandments as forbidding the phylum and genus or things that it forbids in species? If not, defining the whole Law as the 10 commandments is inadequate.
rey said,
November 17, 2007 at 12:49 pm
That should read “do you see the 10 commandments as forbidding the phylum and genus OF things that it forbids in species?” In other words “thou shalt not commit adultery” - does that forbid sex before marriage? If not, then as I said, you can’t define the 10 commandments as the whole moral Law. Perhaps this defining of the 10 as the whole is why so much premarital sex is being engaged in by Protestants these days!!! You really need to edge Leviticus 18 back into your concept of the moral Law that still applies for today.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 26, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Lane or Bob or Someone,
Would you consider adding a “RINE” tab to your blog categories? I’m interested in looking at the engagements going on here, esp. wrt. the Synod of Dort.
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
greenbaggins said,
November 26, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Jeff, I had thought to post an index to my review of RINE after I finished it. However, since that may be a while, I will hopefully get around to it soon (I will include links to Wilson’s responses, as well).