The Function of the Law in the New Covenant..pt2

The law was added:

19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made; and it was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Gal 3

...then it was removed:

27 And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12

...abolished:

15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

...done away with:

14 but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. 2 Cor 3

 

Whatever law this verse is referring to, it is not the Decalogue since, as has been pointed out repeatedly, it predates the Sinaitic Covenant. The law mentioned in v.17 is the whole Sinaitic Covenant. That covenant did not annul the promises made to Abraham, which was the promise of Christ.

Psalm 119:142. 'Your righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and Your law is truth.' Whatever is being shaken, it is not the Moral law summarized in the Ten Commandments.

The 'enmity' here is the ceremonial law which separated Jew from Gentile, not the Moral law which applies to Jew and Gentile alike (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 9:20-21).

Again, it is the Sinaitic Covenant that is done away with, not the Decalogue (Matthew 5:19 etc.).

 

You were asked to give specific laws. How would you fancy having the thought police accuse you of not loving God or your neighbour sufficiently? How would you defend yourself?

Again, how would you defend yourself against such a charge? Would you not ask for a definite accusation to defend yourself against? Something like the Commandments?

And how do we treat others badly? When we kill or abuse them, lie to them, steal their goods or spouses or covet their possessions perhaps?

 

I'm not sure I understand your questions. Only that ““The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Mount Sinai. The LORD did not make this covenant with our ancestors, but with all of us who are alive today.” (Deuteronomy 5:2–3)

So, what were the Laws applying to Abel and all of the faithful listed in Hebrews 11? They were the Two Great Commandments written in the heart. Because, faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit, and comes no other way. These experienced the same circumcised heart Abraham and all the faithful experience. But to the uncircumcised in heart, the laws remained obscure and condemned everyone born of Adam.

 

No, it's what you're (or rather your Reformed dogma is) doing to the text. Let's streamline it and get to the point.

Which of the following highlighted portions from the text are descriptive of born from above, quickened, children of God?

7 to them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life: Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

10 but glory and honor and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek: Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

13 for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

14 (for when Gentiles that have not the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are the law unto themselves; Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

25 For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision. Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

26 If therefore the uncircumcision keep the ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Regenerate, yes or no? If not, why not?

Go search your 'reformed box' and find the replies appropriate to your system, unless of course you dare to think outside of your box.

 

Refresh me. Where exactly is that stated in the scriptures?

What is being shaken and removed is the heaven and the earth of the old covenant. We are now new creatures of the new heaven and the new earth of the new covenant.

 

My point is that the Decalogue was in existence long before the O.C., and that this talk of a' law of love' without law is desperately airy-fairy. The world is full of adulterers saying, "But we love each other so much! How can it be wrong?" Or, "I told a little white lie because I loved him/her so much," or, "I did a mercy killing, but it was out of love."

No they were the Moral law of God, which is summarized in the Decalogue and epitomized in the 'Royal law.' As I showed earlier, it was written on the heart of Adam, and is also in the heart of all men without exception (Romans 2:14-15), though smudged and defaced by the Fall.

Faith in Christ will lead you to keep God's Moral law. It is (re-)written on the hearts of all believers (Hebrews 8:10 etc.).

 

That would be eros, not agape.

Agape vs Eros - Beyond The Rim...

...but you know that already, don't you? ...and it doesn't stop you from throwing it out there.

 

Certainly. I posted this in post #95 on the previous thread, but here it is again

All the commandments in the Decalogue pre-date that [Sinaitic] covenant (Exodus 19ff).

1. You shall have no other gods before Me. Genesis 17:1.

2. You shall not make for yourself a carved image. Genesis 35:2.

3. You shall not take God's name in vain. Exodus 5:2.

4. Remember the Sabbath day. Genesis 2:1-3; Exodus 16.

5. Honour your Father and Mother. Genesis 9:22; 26:34-35.

6. You shall not kill. Genesis 9:5-6.

7. You shall not commit adultery. Genesis 39:9.

8. You shall not steal. Genesis 31:32.

9. You shall not bear false witness. Genesis 3:4-5.

10. You shall not covet. Genesis 3:6.

Also, I suggest to you that when Adam took the apple, he put Satan's word before that of God, made an idol of his stomach, dishonoured his heavenly Father, coveted that which God had withheld from him and stole it, and killed all his progeny. That's six of the ten Commandments broken 2,500 years before the Sinaitic Covenant.

We are certainly creatures of the New Covenant. But God's Moral law pre-dates all covenants. 'Forever, O LORD, Your word is settled in heaven' (Psalm 119:89).

 

No, it's philia. Or at least, they would say it is.

Have you read, Exegetical Fallacies by Don Carson?

 

The Decalog IS the Old Covenant and the New Covenant abolished it completely. They called it the Ark of the Covenant because it was the case where they kept the Ten Commandments. And as I already proved, it did not exist until Moses.

“The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today.” (Deuteronomy 5:2–3) (ESV)

 

I absolutely deny that the Decalogue is the Sinaitic covenant. All the 10 Commandments pre-date it. See my post #29.

We can certainly agree that the Ten Commandments occupy a higher position than the civil and ceremonial laws. I have agued that constantly. However, the Decalogue and the Sinaitic Covenant are not identical for three reasons:
1. Jeremiah 34:13-14; Ezekiel 44:6-8; Hebrews 9:1 & 9:18 are Biblical commentaries on the Sinaitic Covenant , but clearly identify that covenant with other things than the Decalogue.
2. Jeremiah 31:31ff says that the Ten Commandments will still function in the New Covenant.
3. All the commandments can be found in Scripture before Exodus 19.

 

Then that would be philia, not agape.

 

It still remains, the Ten Commandments were the Old Covenant.
Exodus 34:28
“And He (God) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.”
Deuteronomy 4:13:

“And He declared unto you His covenant, which He commanded you to perform, even the Ten Commandments.”

Deuteronomy 9:9:

“When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.”

Deuteronomy 9:15:

“So I turned and came down from the mount . . . and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.”

“There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when Jehovah made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt,” I Kings 8:9



“And there have I set a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of Jehovah, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” I Kings 8:21

 

Have you read Exegetical Fallacies by Don Carson?

 

No they weren't. They were included in the Sinaitic Covenant but did not comprise it:
Jeremiah 34:13-14. 'This is what the LORD, the God of Israel says: "I made a covenant with your fathers in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the land of bondage, saying, 'At the end of seven years let every man set free his Hebrew brother, who has been sold to him......'"'

By your own definition, this is the Sinaitic Covenant just as much as the Decalogue. See also Ezekiel 44:6-8 which is about foreigners coming into the sanctuary. This broke the covenant. How could it if the covenant was just the Decalogue?

Hebrews 9:1. 'Then indeed, even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service and the earthly sanctuary.'
So the Decalogue isn't the Sinaitic Covenant, but only a part of it.

Hebrews 9:18-20. 'Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses has spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."' Now it was God Himself who spoke the Decalogue to the Israelites, so the 'precepts' that Moses read (c.f. Exodus 24:3) must have been the ceremonial laws etc.



.

 

Have you read Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-39; John 13:34; James 2:8; 1 John 3:11; 1 John 4:7; etc.,etc.?

It's agape, not eros or phileo or storge, but agape.

 

no Ten Commandments before sinai

““The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Mount Sinai. The LORD did not make this covenant with our ancestors, but with all of us who are alive today.” (Deuteronomy 5:2–3)

 

Firstly, what do you do when this couple say to you, "Oh, but it is agape love. We seek each other's good before our own for Jesus Christ's sake." I know what I do; I point them to the commandment, which was there before the law and abides today.

Secondly, Don Carson has claimed that agape and philia are both general words for love and basically synonyms. He points out (amongst many other things) that the Septuagint has agape when referring to Amnon's love for Tamar in 2 Samuel 13. I am not totally convinced, but a lot of people are.

 

God did not make the covenant before Sinai, but He did make the Decalogue before Sinai, as I have shown.