The Law: Abolished or Fulfilled? (Ephesians 2:14-15) John MacArthur

Christ forever broke down (the Greek aorist tense signifies completed action) every dividing wall by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances. When Jesus died on the cross He abolished every barrier between man and God and between man and his fellow man. The greatest barrier between Jew and Gentile was the ceremonial law, the Law of commandments contained in ordinances. The feasts, sacrifices, offerings, laws of cleanliness and purification, and all other such distinctive outward commandments for the unique separation of Israel from the nations were abolished...

The Key To The Ten Commandments

This clip is taken from the sermon "Jesus on Money, Idolatry, and Comedy," preached by Pastor Mark Driscoll at the Mars Hill Church Ballard campus in Seattle, Washington, on May 22, 2011. It is the 75th sermon in our sermon series on the Gospel of Luke. To watch the full sermon, visit http://www.marshillchurch.org/media/luke/jesus-on-money-idolatry-and-comedy

Does It Really Matter? Origins & Criminal Punishment

As you can see, metaphysical questions become practical very quickly. The essential question John brings out is this: What is the non-biblical basis for a universal, transcendent law? If you deny biblical authority, then you deny divine law, which is transcendent and universal (cf. Rom. 2:15, God wrote His law on the heart of every individual).

Positions on the Law of God

Nathan Busenitz provides at http://www.sfpulpit.com a helpful summary of the various positions to the issue:

(1) that New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law; and (2) that at the same time the New Testament authors esteem and appeal to that same Mosaic Law.

David Dorsey (in “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 323–24) summarizes six of these positions:

1. Marcion. This second-century heretic’s gnosticism led him to view the strict and harsh God of the OT as different from and inferior to the “good God” revealed by Christ in the NT. Consequently Marcion jettisoned the entire OT—with its “Jewish” law—from his canon. . . .

2. Dispensationalism. This hermeneutical approach holds that God has developed different programs for his people in different ages and that the particulars—including the laws—that belong to the “dispensation of law” (Exodus 20—Malachi) are not binding upon God’s people in this present “dispensation of grace.” . . .

3. Covenant theology. . . . Reformed theologians see a greater continuity between the Testaments, maintaining that … there are not two covenants but one, and Christians are part of that covenant. We live under the “renewed” covenant, not the “new” covenant. The Church is spiritual Israel, and the laws of the Mosaic covenant are accordingly our laws [although often spiritualized]. . . .

4. Seventh-Day Adventism. Adventists . . . protest that it is inconsistent to accept the Ten Commandments as normative for all times and then reject or modify the fourth commandment. The entire Decalogue, including the injunction to observe the seventh day, is binding upon all Christians. [They also observe some dietary laws.] . . .

5. Christian reconstructionism. Also called theonomy or the Chalcedon school, this recent spinoff from Reformed theology argues for the normativity of not only the moral laws but also the civic regulations. . . .

6. World-Wide Church of God. . . . Herbert W. Armstrong argues that only a few of the laws, such as the sacrificial regulations, are no longer valid because they have been fulfilled in Christ, and that the great majority of laws still apply to spiritual Israel, including the Ten Commandments, with the observance of the seventh day, the keeping of all the Jewish feast days and holy days, the observing of the dietary laws, and some of the ceremonial laws.

He also includes the Ten Commandments before Moses, under Moses, and After Moses:

1) First Commandment (Polytheism) – Gen. 35:2; Ex. 20:3; 1 Thess. 1:9

2) Second Commandment (Graven Images) – Gen. 31:39; Ex. 20:4; 1 John 5:21

3) Third Commandment (Swearing) – Gen. 24:3; Ex. 20:7; cf. James 5:12

4) Fourth Commandment (Sabbath) – Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:8; Col. 2:16; cf. Heb. 4

5) Fifth Commandment (Obey Parents) – Gen. 27:41; Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1

6) Sixth Commandment (Murder) – Gen. 4:9; Ex. 20:13; 1 John 3:15

7) Seventh Commandment (Adultery) – Gen. 39:9; Ex. 20:14; 1 Cor. 6:9, 10

8) Eighth Commandment (Theft) – Gen. 44:4–7; Ex. 20:15; Eph. 4:28

9) Ninth Commandment (False Witness) – Gen. 39:17; Ex. 20:16; Col. 3:9, 10

10) Tenth Commandment (Coveting) – Gen. 12:18; 20:3; Ex. 20:17; Eph. 5:3

(This list was adapted from The MacArthur Study Bible, 124 and Walt Kaiser, Toward OT Ethics, 81-82)

Appealing to the Law (Part 1& 2)

By Nathan Busenitz @ http://www.sfpulpit.com

Last week, we attempted to establish the first of two propositions: That New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law.

Today and tomorrow we will consider a second proposition: That the New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching. At first glance, this may seem surprising—especially if these same authors were equally convinced that the Mosaic Law was no longer binding for New Testament believers.

Jesus, of course, expounded the Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount (specifically Matt. 5). Paul cites the fourth commandment as the basis for why children should obey their parents (Eph. 6:1-2). Peter cites Leviticus 19:2 as the basis for why Christians should be holy. James appeals to Leviticus 19:18 in exhorting his readers to love one another (Jas. 2:8) and to Exodus 20:14 in contending that they should not murder (Jas. 2:11). Jude points to the Exodus (v. 5), Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), Moses (v. 9), Cain (v. 11), Balaam (v. 11), Korah (v. 11), and Enoch (v. 14) in order to make his point.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg. In fact, the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament lists over 150 New Testament references in which the Pentateuch is directly quoted (see chart 2 below). The UBS GNT goes on to list well over 600 additional “allusions and verbal parallels” between the Torah and the New Testament.

Here is the list of references where the New Testament quotes from Exodus through Deuteronomy.

Exodus 1:8 – Acts 7:18
Exodus 2:14 – Acts 7:27-28, 35
Exodus 3:2 – Acts 7:30
Exodus 3:5-10 – Acts 7:33-34
Exodus 3:6 – Matt. 22:32; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37; Acts 3:13; 7:32
Exodus 3:12 – Acts 7:7
Exodus 3:15 – Matt. 22:23; Mark 12:26; Acts 3:13
Exodus 9:16 (LXX) – Rom. 9:17
Exodus 12:46 – John 19:36
Exodus 13:2 – Luke 2:23
Exodus 13:12 – Luke 2:23
Exodus 13:15 – Luke 2:32
Exodus 16:18 – 2 Cor. 8:15
Exodus 19:6 (LXX) – 1 Pet. 2:9
Exodus 19:12-13 – Heb. 12:20
Exodus 20:12 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; Eph. 6:2-3
Exodus 20:12-16 – Matt. 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20
Exodus 20:13 – Matt. 5:21; James 2:11
Exodus 20:13-15, 17 – Rom. 13:9
Exodus 20:14 – Matt. 5:27; James 2:11
Exodus 20:17 – Rom. 7:7
Exodus 21:17 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10
Exodus 21:24 – Matt. 5:38
Exodus 22:28 – Acts 23:5
Exodus 24:8 – Heb. 9:20
Exodus 25:40 – Heb. 8:5
Exodus 32:1 – Acts 7:40
Exodus 33:19 – Rom. 9:15

Leviticus 12:8 – Luke 2:24
Leviticus 18:5 – Rom. 9:15; Gal. 3:12
Leviticus 19:2 – 1 Pet. 1:16
Leviticus 19:12 – Matt. 5:33
Leviticus 19:18 – Matt. 5:43; 19:19; 22:39; Mark 12:31, 33; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:9; Gal. 5:14; James 2:8
Leviticus 23:29 – Acts 3:23
Leviticus 24:20 – Matt. 5:38
Leviticus 26:12 – 2 Cor. 6:16

Numbers 9:12 – John 19:36
Numbers 16:5 – 2 Tim. 2:19
Numbers 30:2 – Matt. 5:33

Deuteronomy 4:35 – Mark 12:32
Deuteronomy 5:16 – Matt. 15:4; Mark 7:10; Eph. 6:2-3
Deuteronomy 5:16-20 – Matt. 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20
Deuteronomy 5:17 – Matt. 5:21; James 2:11
Deuteronomy 5:17-19,21 – Rom. 13:9
Deuteronomy 5:18 – Matt. 5:27
Deuteronomy 5:21 – Rom. 7:7
Deuteronomy 6:4 – Mark 12:32
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 – Mark 12:29-30
Deuteronomy 6:5 – Matt. 22:37; Mark 12:33; Luke 20:27
Deuteronomy 6:13 – Matt. 4:10; Luke 4:8
Deuteronomy 6:16 – Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12
Deuteronomy 8:3 – Matt. 4:4; Luke 4:4
Deuteronomy 9:4 – Rom. 10:6
Deuteronomy 9:19 – Heb. 12:21
Deuteronomy 17:7 (LXX) – 1 Cor. 5:13
Deuteronomy 18:15 – Acts 7:37
Deuteronomy 18:15-16 – Acts 3:22
Deuteronomy 18:19 – Acts 3:23
Deuteronomy 19:15 – Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1
Deuteronomy 19:21 – Matt. 5:38
Deuteronomy 21:23 – Gal. 3:13
Deuteronomy 24:1 – Matt. 5:31; 19:7
Deuteronomy 24:1,3 – Mark 10:4
Deuteronomy 25:4 – 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18
Deuteronomy 25:5 – Matt. 22:24; Mark 12:19; Luke 20:28
Deuteronomy 27:26 (LXX) – Gal. 3:10
Deuteronomy 29:4 – Rom. 11:8
Deuteronomy 30:12-14 – Rom. 10:6-8
Deuteronomy 31:6,8 – Heb. 13:5
Deuteronomy 32:21 – Rom. 10:19
Deuteronomy 32:35 – Rom. 12:19
Deuteronomy 32:35-36 – Heb. 10:30
Deuteronomy 32:43 – Rom. 15:10
Deuteronomy 32:43 (LXX) – Heb. 1:6

It quickly becomes apparent that, although the New Testament writers considered the Mosaic Law no longer binding, they nonetheless frequently referred to it in their instruction of New Testament believers.

Appealing to the Law (Part 2)

February 26th, 2008

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Today we are continuing to discuss our second proposition: That the New Testament Writers Repeatedly Appealed to the Mosaic Law (and to other parts of the Old Testament) as an Authoritative Basis for Their Teaching.

Not only did the New Testament writers frequently cite the Mosaic Law, they also evidence a high regard and personal esteem for it.

(From the outset, we will admit that much more could be said about this than what is written here. Thankfully, that’s why we have a comments section.)

The apostle Paul, for example, is clear that all Scripture including the Mosaic Law is profitable for the New Testament believer (2 Tim. 3:16). For contemporary theologians to then claim that certain parts of the Law are no longer relevant to Christians in any sense goes contrary to the New Testament evidence. After all, Paul (the New Testament author most outspoken regarding the abrogation of the Law) found great delight in the Law of Moses. Thus,

Paul writes that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy righteous and good,” (Rom. 7:12), that the “law is spiritual” (7:14), and that in his inner being he “delights in God’s law” (7:22). And to Timothy Paul writes that the law is good if it is used properly (1 Tim. 1:8). (Online Source)

As David Dorsey explains:

When Paul addresses himself specifically to the question of the value (and not the legal applicability) of the law, he expresses nothing but the highest regard for it. He considers the laws to be God’s laws (Rom 7:22, 25; 8:7; I Cor 7:19). They are “good” (Rom 7:12–13, 16; I Tim 1:8), “holy and righteous” (Rom 7:12), and “spiritual” (7:14). He views the laws as embodying a standard of righteousness that we Christians are called upon to achieve by walking in the Spirit (8:4). He considers the laws valuable in the identification and conviction of sin in one’s life (3:20; 7:7 ff.). He teaches, as did Jesus, that each individual law of the Mosaic corpus (and not just a certain category of laws) fleshes out the one overarching law: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (13:9; Gal 5:14). Paul holds the corpus in such high esteem that his inner being delights in it. Most significantly for the present inquiry, he maintains that the individual laws (speaking specifically of the law dealing with muzzling the ox; Deut 25:4) were given “for us” and are written “for us” (1 Cor 9:8–10). In no instance does he imply that only a particular category of laws possesses such high value. (David A. Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 (Sept. 1991): 331-32.)

Rather than steering clear of the Mosaic Law, the New Testament writers are quick to appeal to it and esteem it (as well as the rest of the Old Testament). Of course, this is to be expected since the Old Testament was the Bible of the apostolic church. The apostles would naturally have referred to it in their teaching and writing.

But how does this appeal to and appreciation for the Mosaic Law fit with the apostolic teaching that Christians are no longer under the Law? Are the two propositions indeed contradictory? Or can they be reconciled and, if so, how?

Our articles for the rest of this week will focus on answering these questions.

Posted in Ethics, Hermeneutics |

1. on 26 Feb 2008 at 3:50 am Ryan

   I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full.

   Is this a correct statement? Indeed, now I can eat Big Mac’s, fried Snickers, or 25 pop-tarts dipped in caramel sauce to get full.

   But, did I ever have to eat potato chips to get full? If the answer to this is no, is my postulate that I no longer have to eat potato chips to get full a true statement? If my previous postulate by assumption implies that before “now” I used to have to eat potato chips to get full, it is not a valid postulate.

   Now, should I even have eaten only potato chips for a meal? If I think all day long about not eating potato chips, and manage to not eat potato chips for my evening meal, will this still create in me a strong desire for something fried to eat for a meal? Does my now stating that I never had to eat potato chips for a meal make me healthy?

   Food for thought.

No Longer Under the Law-Continued

By Nathan Busenitz @http://www.sfpulpit.com

In today’s post, we will continue to discuss our first proposition: That in the New Testament era, believers are no longer under any part of the Mosaic Law.

This proposition is based on four premises, the first of which we considered yesterday (that the biblical saints regarded the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit, such that to be under part of it is to be under the whole, and vice versa).

Today we will consider a second premise: New Testament believers are no longer under the Mosaic Law because Jesus Christ fulfilled that Law perfectly and completely.

Not only was Jesus born under the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:21-24; Rom. 15:8; Gal. 4:4); He obeyed the Mosaic Law (Matt. 3:15; Luke 22:8; 1 John 3:4-5); and He commanded the Jews of His day to obey it also (Matt. 5-7; 8:4; 19:17-19). In fact, Christ says in Matthew 5:17-18 that He came to “fulfill” the Law – a promise He kept in every way possible.

First, He fulfilled all of the moral requirements of the Law, keeping every one of the commandments perfectly (Rom. 5:19) and taking away the curse of the Law for those who trust in Him (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:13; cf. Matt. 27:51). Second, He fulfilled the civil requirements of the Law, replacing the old constitution (the Mosaic Covenant) with a new constitution (the New Covenant — 2 Cor. 3:4-6; Heb. 8:7-13; 9:15; 10:14-17; 12:24; 13:20).

Third, He fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of the Law, as the ultimate and perfect sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 9:12). And fourth, He perfectly and completely fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies given in the Old Testament (both those found in the Pentateuch and those found in the rest of the OT — Matt. 1:22).

Of course, these divisions (moral, civil, ceremonial) are artificial. Yet, they help show the completeness with which Christ fulfilled every aspect of the Old Testament Law.

As the Spotless Lamb (1 Pet. 1:19), Christ fulfilled the Law’s moral requirements; as the King of Kings (Rev. 17:14), Christ fulfilled the Law’s civil requirements; as the great High Priest (Heb. 4:14), Christ fulfilled the Law’s ceremonial requirements; and as the Coming One (Matt. 11:13), Christ fulfilled God’s messianic promises (as delineated in all of Old Testament prophecy).

Moreover, what the Law could not do (namely, save), God did through Christ (Romans 8:3). Those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law of Moses, but are under the Law of Christ — since they are in Him who perfectly fulfilled the Law of God in every respect.

We will consider more of what it means to be under the Law of Christ in tomorrow’s post.

* * * *

For those interested, here are several lists showing additional aspects of the Mosaic Law that Christ perfectly fulfilled:

Christ’s Fulfillment of the Mosaic Offerings

1. Burnt Offering (Lev. 1:3-17; 6:8-13) — purpose was atonement — Christ’s sinless nature allowed Him to atone for our sins.

2. Grain Offering (Lev. 2:1-16; 6:14-23) — purpose was dedication/consecration — Christ was wholly devoted to the Father’s purposes.

3. Peace Offering (Lev. 3:1-17; 7:11-36) — purpose was reconciliation/fellowship — Christ made it possible for us to have everlasting peace with God.

4. Sin Offering (Lev. 4:1-5:13; 6:24-30) — purpose was propitiation — Christ took our place on the cross in order to save us.

5. Trespass Offering (Lev. 5:14-6:7; 7:1-10) — purpose was repentance — Christ paid it all for redemption.

Christ’s Fulfillment of Old Testament Feasts (Lev. 23)

1. Passover (March/April) — Death of Christ (1 Cor. 5:7)

2. Unleavened Bread (March/April) – Sinlessness of Christ (1 Cor. 5:8)

3. Firstfruits (March/April) — Resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:23)

4. Pentecost (May/June) — Outpouring of Spirit of Christ (Acts 1:5; 2:4)

5. Trumpets (Sept/Oct) — Israel’s Regathering by Christ (Matt. 24:31)

6. Atonement (Sept/Oct) — Substitutionary Sacrifice by Christ (Rom. 11:26)

7. Tabernacles (Sept/Oct) — 7. Rest and Reunion with Christ (Zech. 14:16-19)

OT Sacrifices Compared to Christ’s Sacrifice in Hebrews

1. Old Covenant (temporary) — New covenant (forever) Heb. 7:22; 8:6,13; 10:20

2. Obsolete promises — Better promises Heb. 8:6-13

3. A shadow — The reality Heb. 8:5; 9:23,24; 10:1

4. Aaronic priesthood (many) — Melchizedekian (one) Heb. 6:19-7:25

5. Sinful priesthood — Sinless Priest Heb. 7:26,27; 9:7

6. Limited-by-death priesthood — Forever priesthood Heb. 7:16,17,23,24

7. Daily sacrifices — Once-for-all sacrifice Heb. 7:27; 9:12,25,26; 10:9,10,12

8. Animal sacrifices — Sacrifice of God’s Son Heb. 9:11-15,26; 10:4-10,19

9. Ongoing sacrifices — Sacrifices unnecessary Heb. 10:11-14,18

10. One year atonement — Eternal propitiation Heb. 7:25; 9:12,15; 10:1-4,12

NOTE: These lists are adapted from The MacArthur Study Bible (pp. 158, 160, 186).

No Longer Under the Law (Part 3)

February 21st, 2008

(By Nathan Busenitz)

Today we will continue looking at our first proposition: That New Testament believers are no longer under (or bound to) the Mosaic Law.

As we’ve noted previously, this proposition is based on for premises, two of which we have already considered: (1) That the biblical saints saw the Mosaic law as a solitary unit, and (2) That Christ fulfilled the law perfectly and completely.

Today we will consider the third: (3) That Christians are under a new law, the Law of Christ.

Based on the fact that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law completely, those who are “in Christ” (a phrase often used by Paul to speak of Christians) are no longer subject to the Mosaic Law. What Christ fulfilled, the Christian no longer needs to fulfill. [1] Instead, New Testament believers are subject to the Law of Christ (also called the Law of the Spirit—Romans 8:1).

With this in mind, Robert Lightner identifies six passages that discuss the New Testament believer’s relationship to the Old Testament Law. [2] We will consider each of these passages briefly:

Acts 15:1-29. The fifteenth chapter of Acts details the decision of the Jerusalem council regarding what parts of the Mosaic Law Gentile Christians were required to observe. In verse 29, the apostles determine that Gentile Christians are not required to keep the whole Mosaic Law, but rather to avoid only a few things (including eating food offered to idols, eating blood, eating animals that were strangled, and practicing sexual immorality). But do these few restrictions indicate that the Jerusalem council thought that all Christians were still subject to some of the Mosaic restrictions?

In light of Paul’s later teaching (in 1 Corinthians 8 and Romans 14), the answer is clearly no. Instead, they placed these restrictions (specifically the first three) on the Gentiles so as not to be a stumbling block for their Jewish brothers and sisters in Christ (1 Cor. 8:7-13). Thus, the teachings of the apostles in Acts 15 (where Paul was present) and the teachings of Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 do not conflict. While the apostles understood dietary restrictions to have been ended (cf. Acts 10-11), they nevertheless encouraged Gentile Christians to be considerate of their Jewish counterparts.

(It is significant to note that the Jerusalem Council makes no mention of the Ten Commandments in this passage.)

Romans 6:14. In this passage, Paul is specifically discussing the process of sanctification in the Christian life. After all, those who have been buried with Christ (vv. 1-10) are also dead to sin (vv. 11-23). Verse 14, then, contends that sanctification cannot come from following the Mosaic Law, but rather by grace through Christ. The fact that Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law in verse 14 is evidenced in 7:4-7. As Lightner points out, “Rather than basing progressive sanctification on the deeds of the Law, Paul stressed that believers are not under the Law. For him the Law was not a means of sanctification any more than it was a means of justification.” [3]

2 Corinthians 3:6–13. Paul spends significant time in these verses contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant found in Christ (see v. 5). In fact, the Law of Moses is that which “kills” (v. 6), a “ministry of death” (v. 7), a “ministry of condemnation” (v. 9), and that which is “passing away” (v. 11). Clearly, the apostle leaves no room for even partial adherence to the old legal system. Thus, Gleason argues:

The use of this passage to advocate the end of the Mosaic Law for Christians fits well with Paul’s argument against the Judaizers. They were attempting to place the Corinthians under bondage to the covenantal stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. Paul’s discussion of the fading glory of the Old Covenant was designed to show that those stipulations were temporary and were replaced by the New Covenant. To ignore this fact as some do is to assume erroneously like the Judaizers that Gentiles need to observe part or all of the Law. Such an assumption violates the temporary function of the Mosaic Law within the framework of a covenant established between God and the nation Israel. [4]

Galatians 3:17–25. As in 2 Corinthians, Paul (in this passage) is arguing against the teachings of the legalistic Judaizers. Again, the apostle condemns those who would seek some sort of heavenly merit through their strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. In verse 24, Paul makes it clear that the Law was only temporary, serving as a tutor that pointed to Christ. When He came, the Law’s tutorial purpose was completed. Furthermore, because Paul references the entire Sinaitic event (v. 17), he must have the entire Sinaitic Law in view. Thus, the entire Mosaic Law passed off the scene with the death of Christ.

Galatians 5:18. Not only is the Law unable to save (as seen in Gal. 3), it is also unable to sanctify (as was also evidenced in Rom. 6). Thus, Paul argues that those who are living in accordance with the Spirit are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law. The fruit of the Spirit (listed in vv. 22-23) is not the by-product of the Old Testament Law. Rather, for the Christian, it is the by-product of the Law of Christ (Gal. 6:1-2).

Hebrews 7:11-12. In discussing the superiority of Christ’s priesthood over that of the Levitical system, the author of Hebrews also implies that Christ’s Law is superior to that of Moses. In fact, the writer directly says that if “the priesthood [is] changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law” (v. 12). After all, “the Law of Moses and the Levitical priesthood were inseparable. The one without the other would have been meaningless.” [5]

Charles Ryrie takes this passage to its logical conclusion:

If the law has not been done away today, then neither has the Levitical priesthood; but if Christ is our high priest, we cannot be under the law. Every prayer offered in the name of Christ is an affirmation of the end of the law. . . . [Thus] the evidence of the New Testament forces to the conclusion that the law—all of it, including the Ten Commandments—has been done away.” [6]

Tomorrow we will conclude this first proposition, by looking at a fourth premise and then by summarizing the discussion up to this point. Again, for those who feel the series has been lopsided so far (leaning in an antinomian direction), please remember that our second proposition is coming—and that it will bring some balance to the discussion. We will introduce that second proposition at the end of our article tomorrow.

* * * *

ENDNOTES:

[1] This contrast is made especially clear in Galatians 3:19-4:7 and 6:1-2. In denouncing those who cling to the Mosaic Law, Paul upholds those who live by the Law of Christ. Clearly, the latter has replaced the former. See, Richard N. Longenecker, “The Pedagogical Nature of the Law in Galatians 3:19-4:7,” JETS 25:1 (Mar. 1982): 71.

[2] Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy—Part 3: A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” BSac 143:571 (July 1986): 241-43.

[3] Ibid., 242.

[4] Randall Gleason, “Paul’s Covenantal Contrasts in 1 Corinthians 3:1-11,” BSac 154/613 (Jan. 1997): 79.

[5] Lightner, “Part 3,” 243.

[6] Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” BSac 124/495 (July 1967): 244.

No Longer Under the Law (Part 4)

February 22nd, 2008

(By Nathan Busenitz)

This will conclude our discusion of our first proposition: That New Testament Believers Are Not Under the Mosaic Law.

This proposition is based on four premises: (1) the Mosaic Law is viewed by the New Testament authors as a solitary unit; (2) Jesus Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law such that those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law; and (3) Christians are under the Law of Christ which is distinct from the Law of Moses.

A fourth premise is (4) that the Mosaic Law was specifically given to Old Testament Israel and therefore does not directly apply to the New Testament Church.

Due to the numerous arguments involved, a detailed discussion concerning the distinction between Israel and the Church is outside of the limits of this study. In our view, the mystery nature of the church (Eph 3:4-6), the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor 12:13), Christ’s promise to build (future tense) His church (Matt 18:17), Paul’s teaching concerning the beginning of the church (Eph 1:20; 4:7-12), and the New Testament’s references to Israel as a separate entity during the church age (1 Cor 10:32; Rom 9:3-4; 11:26) distinguish it from Old Testament Israel.

Because the Mosaic Law was Israel’s constitution—it was intended for them, not the Church.

Summary:

Before moving on to our second proposition, we believe it would be beneficial to summarize our first: That New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law. We have several reasons for holding this view. First, the Bible does not present the Mosaic Law in parts or categories—but rather as a unified whole. Thus, it follows that if part of the Law has passed away, the whole Law has passed away. Second, the Bible indicates that Jesus Christ fulfilled the entire Mosaic Law perfectly. What He has fulfilled, believers no longer need to fulfill.

Third, the New Testament teaches that, for the Christian, the Law of Moses has been replaced with the Law of Christ (and the Law of the Spirit). The apostles indicate that the Law of Moses was only temporary and that it has passed away. Finally, because the Law of Moses was for Israel (and not the Church) it is no longer binding during the Church age.

In light of these contentions, we have concluded that believers during the church age are no longer under the Mosaic Law.

Coming Up Next:

At the beginning of this series, I noted that my view is based on two propositions, of which we have only considered the first. Beginning Monday, we will consider the second, which might be stated as follows:

Proposition 2: The New Testament writers repeatedly appealed to the Mosaic Law, basing much of their own teaching on the Law and expressing their personal appreciation for it.

Though this proposition initially sounds contradictory to our first proposition, my goal in this series is to show how the two can be harmonized.

A Few Clarifications:

Before going on, I’d like to note a few clarifications based on some of the feedback I’ve gotten this week:

1. I am not advocating New Covenant Theology. It is true that I do see a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. But even Calvin, commenting on Galatians 6:2 noted a “contrast between the law of Christ and the law of Moses.” I believe we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, but that we are now under the Law of Christ. However, I am quite sure that does not make me a New Covenant Theologian.

2. I am not advocating antinomianism. I do believe that Christians are under God’s Law – even if the expression of that law for the church is the Law of Christ, and not the Law of Moses (which was given to Old Testament Israel). A thorough explanation of this will be given next week.

(By the way, for those who want to know where this series is ultimately going, please see my comment to David McCrory following yesterday’s article.)

3. I am not saying that there is no place for a three-fold division of the Mosaic Law. In fact, it can be helpful for our understanding of the Law’s contents to explain it in those terms (which is something I said on both Monday and Tuesday). My point is that such divisions are external additions which have been placed on the Mosaic Law, and which are not explicitly found in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or Old Testament Judaism.

I also believe that, when the apostles speak about the Law in the New Testament, they are usually referring to it as a solitary whole. Thus, when they teach that we are no longer under the Law, they mean the Law in its entirety.

4. Along those lines, I should note that my series is not the final or official word on this issue from Grace Community Church. Phil Johnson did an excellent series on the Law several years back (found here) which approaches the issue differently (though we ultimately end up in a similar place).

As I continue to study this issue myself, I recognize the need to grow in my own understanding of God’s Word. Posting articles like this helps sharpen my own thinking as I interact with our readers in the comments section. Even if someone does not fully agree with my position, I hope the process is helpful in causing us to think deeply about the things of God. I know its been good for me.

5. Finally, I would again ask for patience as the series unfolds. I made the mistake of drawing this series out over two weeks of time. In retrospect, I probably should have summarized my conclusions and done it all in one post. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.

As I’ve stated several times throughout this series, next week will bring the much-needed balance.

The Dispensational View of Law: "No Longer Under the Law" (Part 1)

By Nathan Busenitz @http://www.sfpulpit.com

Our study will begin by attempting to establish two basic propositions. The first is this: The apostles taught that New Testament believers are no longer under any part of the Mosaic Law.

This proposition is based on four premises, the first of which we will consider today, namely that (1) the biblical saints saw the Mosaic Law as a solitary unit.

Practically speaking, the Mosaic Law was everything to the nation of Israel. As both a personal code of conduct (Deut. 31:12; 32:46) and a national constitution (Ex. 19:4-6), the Law distinguished them from the surrounding nations (Lev. 20:22-23; Deut. 28:1). It articulated God’s expectations for His people—detailing the proper guidelines for worship (Lev. 1:1-7:38), purity (Lev. 11:1-16:34), and holiness (Lev. 17:1-27:34). Moreover, it established the Hebrew justice system, explaining how specific crimes were to be punished in the theocracy (Ex. 19:1-24:18; Deut. 4:44-28:68). Every aspect of Jewish life, from the personal and religious to the public and municipal was affected.

Thus, for the Old Testament Jew, the Law was a single, all-encompassing way of life. And while it certainly covered moral (Ex. 20), civil (Ex. 21-24), and ceremonial aspects of life (Ex. 25-31), “it is wrong [for New Testament scholars] to divide it into three laws, or as is popularly done, divide it into two laws, the one moral and the other ceremonial.” [1] After all, “although this three-fold division of the law is quite popularly accepted in Christian theology, the Jews either did not acknowledge it or at least did not insist on it.” [2]

Instead, the Jews divided the individual commands given in the Law (of which they counted a total of 365 negative commands and 248 positive commands) into twelve categories or families. Ryrie explains:

The twelve families into which the law was categorized were according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel. These were further subdivided into twelve families of affirmative and twelve of negative commands. The affirmative families concerned: (1) God and His worship, (2) the sanctuary and priesthood, (3) sacrifices, (4) cleanness and uncleanness, (5) alms and tithes, (6) things to be eaten, (7) Passover and other feasts, (8) rule and judgment, (9) truth and doctrines, (10) women and matrimony, (11) criminal judgments and punishments, and (12) judgments in civil causes. The negative families concerned: (1) false worship, (2) separation from the heathen, (3) things sacred, (4) sacrifices and priests (5) meats, (6) fields and harvest, (7) house of doctrines, (8) justice and judgment, (9) feasts, (10) chastity, affinity and purity, (11) marriages, and (12) the kingdom. [3]

Yet, even in categorizing the Law as they did (for the sake of teaching and memory), the Jews nevertheless saw the 613 commands as a single unit (see Joshua 1:8; 8:30). After all, “the Law of Moses never divides itself into these categories, but views itself as a single unit. The prophets of Israel also viewed the law as a unit, not to be broken in any one particular.” [4]

Furthermore, the categories that were given often combine moral, civil, and ceremonial instruction into the same family. Any dichotomy between moral laws, civil laws, and ceremonial laws (while sometimes helpful for understanding) is without Old Testament precedent.

The New Testament also views the Mosaic Law as a single unit. “Paul argued that all who were circumcised were ‘under obligation to keep the whole Law’ (Gal 5:3). And James insisted that whoever proposes to keep ‘the whole law and yet stumbles in one point . . . has become guilty of all’ (James 2:10).” [5]

In Ephesians 6:1-3, Paul cites the fifth of the Ten Commandments and refers to it as “the first commandment with promise.” Since none of the other Ten Commandments have promises attached to them, Paul seems to be referring to the whole Law as a larger unit (and not just the Ten Commandments or “moral law”). First Corinthians 9:9; 14:34; Romans 7:7; Galatians 3:17; Colossians 2:14-17; and Hebrews 12:18-21 also evidence a similar understanding. [6]

Of course, scholars must be careful to identify exactly what the New Testament author is referring to when using the term “law.” Walvoord, for example, cites six different nuances of the word as used by Paul in the book of Romans alone. [7] Nevertheless, McClain maintains that the vast majority of New Testament references to “law” point directly to the Mosaic Law code. In each of these cases, he argues, the New Testament writer has the entire Mosaic Law in view. [8] Both the Old Testament and the New Testament view the Mosaic Law as a solitary whole. It cannot be artificially divided or categorized. As Aldrich aptly summarizes:

Thus orthodox Jewish tradition, able commentators, and the Scriptures themselves recognize that the law of Moses is an indivisible unit. This presents an insurmountable problem for any degree of Mosaic legalism. No modern legalist wants to climb to the top of Mount Sinai with its fire and thunder but many think it is a good thing to take a short hike up its foothills. But to touch the mountain at the bottom was as fatal as climbing to the top (Heb 12:18–21). The unity of the Mosaic law leaves only two alternatives — either complete deliverance from or complete subjection to the entire system. [9]

If part of the Mosaic Law is still binding today, then all of the Law is still binding today — and vice versa.

(To Be Continued Tomorrow)

* * * *

Endnotes:

[1] Alva J. McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” BSac 110/440 (Oct. 1953): 334-35.

[2] Charles C. Ryrie, “The End of the Law,” BSac 124/495 (July 1967): 240.

[3] Ibid., 240-41.

[4] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israelology—Part 1 of 6,” CTSJ 5/2 (April 1999): 43.

[5] Robert P. Lightner, “Theological Perspectives on Theonomy—Part 3: A Dispensational Response to Theonomy,” BSac 143:571 (July 1986): 238.

[6] See Roy L. Aldrich, “Has the Mosaic Law Been Abolished?” BSac 116/464 (Oct. 1959): 322-24. Concerning Galatians 3:17, Aldrich argues that Paul is referring to the whole Sinai event and thus the whole Law. On Colossians 2:14-17, he notes that “ordinances” must refer to more than just the ceremonial Law since Paul includes “Sabbath” in his description of “ordinances.” See also McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” 333-34.

[7] John F. Walvoord, “Law in the Epistle to Romans—Part 1,” BSac 94/373 (Jan. 1937): 20-23. See also Brice L. Martin, “Paul on Christ and the Law,” JETS 26/3 (Sept. 1983): 272.

[8] McClain, “What is ‘The Law’?” 334.

[9] Aldrich, “Abolished?” 325.

Applying OT Law Today

From http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

J. Daniel Hays has written a helpful article called “Applying the Old Testament Law Today” [Bibliotheca Sacra 158: 629 (2001): 21-35].You can find the full article here. He notes:

What approach should believers follow in interpreting the Old
Testament Law? In accord with sound hermeneutical method, it should be an
approach that (a) is consistent, treating all Old Testament Scripture as
God’s Word, (b) does not depend on arbitrary nontextual categories, (c)
reflects the literary and historical context of the Law, placing it firmly into
the narrative story of the Pentateuch, (d) reflects the theological context of
the Law, and (e) corresponds to New Testament teaching.

Here is a summary of how he would apply his method to a particular passage:

• Identify What The Particular Law Meant To The Initial
  Audience

• Determine The Differences Between The Initial Audience And
  Believers Today

• Develop Universal Principles From The Text

• Correlate The Principle With New Testament Teaching

• Apply The Modified Universal Principle To Life Today

Thank God for His Law (1 Tim. 1:8)

By Charlie Wallace @ http://fromthepulpit.blogspot.com/

"But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully," (1 Tim. 1:8)

Paul is stating here that the law is good if used correctly. In other words, the God's law is beneficial for our lives when it is used for its purpose. Romans 7:12 says, "Therefore, the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good."

How is that? Well, since God created us, He knows exactly what we were created to do, which is to glorify Him. God's law, which is written on our hearts, in addition to being found in His Word, is there to protect us. It's interesting to really think about what the 10 Commandments are all about:
1) "No other Gods before Him." God says to make no other gods before him because he knows that we will be prone to do just that. Any Christian will tell you that we all struggle with putting other things in our lives ahead of God and when we do our lives start to spin out of control because we were created to put God first in our lives.

2) "No Idols" - Like the first commandment, we are guilty of serving the created things rather then the Creator himself. (Rom. 1:25) God knows that this also is a path that leads to unfulfillment because we were created to only serve the Lord.

3) "No taking the Lord's name in vain" - By bringing disripute on God's name we are slandering ourselves since we are made in our creator's image. Most importantly, we are cursing our loving lifeline.
4) "Remember the Sabbath" - God knows that we cannot work 7-days-a-week without getting rundown. We need a day of rest to re-charge our batteries and to, most importantly, thank God for all of the good things He has given us in our lives.

5) Honor Your Father/Mother" - At this commandment, God's law switches to our horizontal relationships, or our relationships with mankind. Previously, the first four commandments focused on our vertical relationship with God Himself. God gives us a special blessing if we honor the God-ordained people that he has put in our life to watch over us. Even if they have been horrible parents, we are still to honor them because that brings glory to God and he has made us with a natural love towards our parents that when we suppress harbor unforgiving thoughts that are disastrous for our lives.

6) "You shall not murder" - To kill is to kill God's creation which is to kill's part of God's image.

7) "You shall not commit adultery" - God has created sex and marriage to be between a man and a woman. He has chosen this relationship to be the foundation that a family is laid upon and society is birthed from. When we get out of line in these type of relationships we are living outside of God's revealed will of what is best for our lives.

8) You shall not steal" - Stealing is taking what is not our own and hurts other people deeply.

9) "You shall not bear false witness" - Decieving people and being untruthful is the opposite of who God is: Truth Himself.
10) "You shall not covet" - To covet is to tell God, "I am not satisfied with what you have given me and I want more." To covet makes us forget God's blessings and make us think that we deserve more then what we have when He has given us all that we need.

What's important to note is that these commandments were given because we are all prone to do the opposite. God knew this so he gave us a standard to live by to protect us and bring glory to Him. Therefore, to the law is good if used correctly.