In my first post I should have defined what I meant by the term "Theocracy." I meant a state that strives to be in subjection to God and to submit to His revealed Law. I did not mean a church-state. Perhaps its a bit late, but I do want to point out the difference.
Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
When Scripture says we are not longer under the Law, I don't know how much clearer it gets. I don't say that to be argumentative, please understand. I just think that out of all things Scripture says, this has to be right near the top of the clarity list.
RO 6:14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.
If the second part of this verse were the only NT passage that spoke to this matter, I think that the answer would be pretty clear. But it isn't the only verse that speaks to it, and it too must be taken in context to be rightly understood. The first part of this verse strongly implies the continuing validity of the Law (as well as the verses immediately preceding and following), as the law defines the 'sin' that we are to avoid. The antithesis of law is not grace; the antithesis of the law is sin.
And there are other NT passages to be considered a well. There's no way that I could exhaust them all (and I continue to discover 'new' ones as I explore this subject.) But I do wnat to list a few that I struggle with.
MT 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
MT 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.
MT 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Whatever we may decide that "fulfill" means in v.17, it cannot mean abolish, that is, Christ did not say "I did not come to abolish (the Law) but to abolish it." I don't widh to be argumentative either, as I am genuinely wrestling with this, but it seems pretty clear in the words of our Lord that the Law is not being done away with.
1JN 2:3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments.
1JN 2:4 The one who says, "I have come to know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
What commandments is John talking about? Are not the commandments of Christ the same as the commandments of God? Is not Christ God, the same in purpose? There's more:
LK 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
RO 7:12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
RO 8:7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so;
RO 8:8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
1CO 9:9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, "YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING." God is not concerned about oxen, is He?
1CO 9:10 Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops.
(Here Paul makes specific application from the OT
Law)
What I see in the NT is a condemnation of seekiing righteousness in the Law, apart from faith. All the Christian church must join in condemning the works of the Law as a means to attain righteousness. But I do no see that the Law has been set aside.
Its becoming apparent to me that most of this boils down to a matter of the principle of interpretation, that is whether we follow a model of continuity or discontinuity. I'm sure yiu are aware of what I mean, but for others let me say that a method of continuity stresses that whatever is stated or required under the old administration continues to be in force in the new administration
unless it has been specifically set aside. A model of dis-continuity stresses than anything stated or required under the old administration (OT) has been set aside unless it is restated in the new. The argument for continuity is compelling and seems to carry the strongest weight, even though it is in the minority today.
I appreciate your discussion on this. I do want to be balanced as I try to resolve this, and any input is helpful.
