The Function of the Law in the New Covenant

[Reformed]

@1689Dave , the thread you created on Israel is closed, so I am taking up some of what we discussed here.

Originally you posted:

The Law was in effect until the last circumcised before the crucifixion had died. And the destruction of 70 AD corresponds with this. So some in Paul's day were still under law but all new converts including gentiles were not. Circumcision = being a physical member if Israel. And being a physical Jew. But when God voided it, it is a worthless ceremony that means nothing. = no more physical Israel or Physical Jews. They are such by their own reconing.

I responded:

Please expound on this. Were these "some" under the Law because they chose to be or did God recognize that they were under the Law? Seeing as the Law was never meant to save, I am not sure what you mean by this comment.

You answered:

Thanks for asking. The book of Hebrews says the Old Covenant was ready to pass away during the time of its writing. All of that generation of Jews circumcised before the hour of Jesus' death remained under the Old Covenant until death, unless they converted to Christ. As Paul and thousands of jews did. And 70 AD finished off most of that lingering generation. But, circumcision became a dead form. And no longer made one a Physical Jew or member of Physical Israel. From the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New, Israel was made up only of believers under Christ.

In OT times, Israel was both a physical (unsaved) and spiritual (saved) church state. When Jesus removed the Old Covenant and circumcision, only the spiritual saved Israel remained under Christ. It is of this group God broke off the unbelievers, grafting believing gentiles into their place.

My primary concern with what you posited was an appearance of two economies under the New Covenant, albeit briefly. I believe that was due to my misunderstanding. I engaged with some esteemed friends of mine who are more accomplished theologians than me and one of them said:

"An argument can be made that there was an "husk" of the Old Covenant that continued for a time (about a generation or so). Depending on the intended meaning of the expression, you can debate about persons "remaining" under the Old Covenant. When the veil was rent (Mt.27:51; cf. Heb.10:20), there was no more legitimate (typological) mediation under the old forms."

He added:

"There is a period of grace (a 40yrs stay), which is an opportunity for the guilty to commit themselves to Him whom God vindicated. It's mercy, not something that can be demanded or expected."

Lastly, he said, "Israel is Christ, and in him alone is everyone who is entitled to that designation."

Are you in basic agreement with this understanding?

 

[1689Dave]

@1689Dave , the thread you created on Israel is closed, so I am taking up some of what we discussed here.

Originally you posted:



I responded:



You answered:



My primary concern with what you posited was an appearance of two economies under the New Covenant, albeit briefly. I believe that was due to my misunderstanding. I engaged with some esteemed friends of mine who are more accomplished theologians than me and one of them said:

"An argument can be made that there was an "husk" of the Old Covenant that continued for a time (about a generation or so). Depending on the intended meaning of the expression, you can debate about persons "remaining" under the Old Covenant. When the veil was rent (Mt.27:51; cf. Heb.10:20), there was no more legitimate (typological) mediation under the old forms."

He added:

"There is a period of grace (a 40yrs stay), which is an opportunity for the guilty to commit themselves to Him whom God vindicated. It's mercy, not something that can be demanded or expected."

Lastly, he said, "Israel is Christ, and in him alone is everyone who is entitled to that designation."

Are you in basic agreement with this understanding?

Thanks for checking this out. I agree completely with the analysis. Since you are interested, a valuable book on this subject is "The Seed of Abraham" by Albertus Pieters, (Western Reformed Theological Seminary in western Michigan 1940s-50s). But it is rare and out of print, I found a copy on Ebay. But it is priceless.

 

[prophecy70]

Thanks for checking this out. I agree completely with the analysis. Since you are interested, a valuable book on this subject is "The Seed of Abraham" by Albertus Pieters, (Western Reformed Theological Seminary in western Michigan 1940s-50s). But it is rare and out of print, I found a copy on Ebay. But it is priceless.

Thank you as well, I want to check this book out also!

 

[1689Dave]

The function of the Law in the New Covenant forms the backbone of Christian ethics. If you do the complete opposite of what the Law forbade, you end up with works motivated by love. Where the OT law forbids stealing, the New Covenant promotes giving instead. Where the OT Law forbade killing enemies, the NT promotes loving enemies. Where the OT forbids coveting, the NT promotes aiding in your neighbor's well being. And so on.

But, the Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments. They called it the Ark of the Covenant because it carried the Ten Commandments written in stone. Some other parallels follow:

“And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Exodus 34:28) (KJV 1900)

“And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:” (Leviticus 26:15) (KJV 1900)

“To such as keep his covenant, And to those that remember his commandments to do them.” (Psalm 103:18) (KJV 1900)

“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” (Deuteronomy 4:13) (KJV 1900)

So when Jeremiah said God abolished the Old Covenant replacing it with the New, Jesus abolished the Ten Commandments on the cross.

But, Jesus and the NT writers imported much of the moral aspects of the law into the NT. And it serves as a commentary and guide for our conduct.

An important point is, that the Ten Commandments hung from the two great commandments. The love of God with all of our body, soul and strength. And the love of our neighbor as our own selves.

So when Jesus abolished the Old Covenant, the two great commandments remained. And it was these Jesus fulfilled on the cross. He loved God with all of his body, soul, and strength, giving all in excruciating pain and death in love for God and his enemies on the cross. He loved God with all of his soul when he said "thy will be done". And he loved God with all of his Spirit, being the second person of the trinity.

More if interested.....

 

[HankD]

Though the law has ceased to be the Élan Vital or Way of Life for the people of God it still remains as a means of enlightenment as to our condition.

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So when Jeremiah said God abolished the Old Covenant replacing it with the New, Jesus abolished the Ten Commandments on the cross.

With respect, I think you need to change your name from 1689Dave to NCTDave. You are promoting New Covenant Theology.
The Ten Commandments are all older than Exodus 19 and they are still relevant to believers in the New Covenant.

If we love the Lord our God with all our heart etc., how can we
Put other gods before Him?
Cherish idols in our hearts?
Take His name in vain?
Abuse the day He has given us to keep?

If we love our neighbour as ourselves, how can we
Dishonour our parents?
Kill, or even hate, our neighbours?
Steal his or her spouse?
Steal anything else from him?
Lie about him?
Covet what he has?

According to the 1689 Confession, the moral law contained in the Decalogue has three purposes:
1. To restrain sin in the unconverted.
2. To convict men of sin and lead them to Christ.
3. As a rule of life for Christians. The law is no longer our righteousness, but it is our rule. 'Not without law toward God, but under law toward Christ' (1 Corinthians 9:21).

 

[HankD]

Whether 10 or 613 commandments (positive or negative) they show forth what we are.

You don't have to give a sheep a commandment "Thou shalt not eat garbage".

A pig, well that's another story...

 

[Reformed]

With respect, I think you need to change your name from 1689Dave to NCTDave. You are promoting New Covenant Theology.
The Ten Commandments are all older than Exodus 19 and they are still relevant to believers in the New Covenant.

If we love the Lord our God with all our heart etc., how can we
Put other gods before Him?
Cherish idols in our hearts?
Take His name in vain?
Abuse the day He has given us to keep?

If we love our neighbour as ourselves, how can we
Dishonour our parents?
Kill, or even hate, our neighbours?
Steal his or her spouse?
Steal anything else from him?
Lie about him?
Covet what he has?

According to the 1689 Confession, the moral law contained in the Decalogue has three purposes:
1. To restrain sin in the unconverted.
2. To convict men of sin and lead them to Christ.
3. As a rule of life for Christians. The law is no longer our righteousness, but it is our rule. 'Not without law toward God, but under law toward Christ' (1 Corinthians 9:21).

I agree that the Decalogue, God's moral law, has not be abrogated. The Decalouge was codefied in the Ten Commandments but as God's moral law it existed even back in the Garden. Of course, no one is justified by the Law, but that does not negate God's commands.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[1689Dave]

With respect, I think you need to change your name from 1689Dave to NCTDave. You are promoting New Covenant Theology.
The Ten Commandments are all older than Exodus 19 and they are still relevant to believers in the New Covenant.

I'm not NCT. I've studied it. But if you consider first the Ten Commandments = The Old Covenant.

They called it the Ark of the Covenant because it carried the Ten Commandments written in stone. Some other parallels follow:

“And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” (Exodus 34:28) (KJV 1900)

“And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant:” (Leviticus 26:15) (KJV 1900)

“To such as keep his covenant, And to those that remember his commandments to do them.” (Psalm 103:18) (KJV 1900)

“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” (Deuteronomy 4:13) (KJV 1900)


So when Jeremiah said God abolished the Old Covenant replacing it with the New, Jesus abolished the Ten Commandments on the cross.

““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33) (NET)


But I think the Law you see before Exodus are the Two Great Commandments that predated the Ten. Jesus said the Ten hung from the Two.

“On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:40) (KJV 1900)

These are the commandments all from Abel's time to Abraham, to Jesus, to us have written in the heart. The Ten Commandments were for the unregenerate wicked Jews.

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;” (1 Timothy 1:9–10) (KJV 1900)

So when Jesus abolished the Old Covenant, he abolished the Ten Commandments but the two Great Commandments remained. And Jesus and the NT writers imported portions of the Ten into the NT where they serve as commentary and instruction. We are not under the Ten. If we were we would still sacrifice cattle. Because the division of moral, civil, and ceremonial law is artificial. Only that the NT imports portions of the moral aspects of the Law.

 

[HankD]

Only the immoral need a moral law.

1 Timothy 1:9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

Galatians 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

 

[1689Dave]

I agree that the Decalogue, God's moral law, has not be abrogated.

Thanks for making this an interesting discussion. I believe all of the Law, moral, civil, and ceremonial went together, and that any division in the law is artificial and man made. So Jesus abolished all of the Ten Commandments and ceremonies on the cross. What remained was the Two Great Commandments the Ten hung from.

And Jesus imported large portions of the moral aspects into the NT. Especially in the Sermon on the Mount, and verses from the Law the NT writers quote verbatim. But if we are to return to the Law other than for commentary and instruction, we need to bring it all back with cows and lambs. Quoting the Law for guidance as the NT writers do, is not placing us back under the Law.

 

[1689Dave]

Only the immoral need a moral law.

Great point. God did not need to tell Abel, Job, Abraham and others OT believers not to steal. It is the born again nature to overcome the lust of stealing.

 

[HankD]

We are to walk in the Spirit, the unregenerate (children and adults) are under/guided by law.

 

[HankD]

We are to walk in the Spirit, the unregenerate (children and adults) are under/guided by law.

An addendum:

If we leave off walking in the Spirit we then come into the danger of submitting ourselves to the punitive aspects of Law.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

They called it the Ark of the Covenant because it carried the Ten Commandments written in stone. Some other parallels follow:

Well exactly so; the commandments were written on stone tablets in the Old Covenant, but in the New they are 'written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.' (2 Corinthians 3:3; c.f. Jeremiah 31:33 etc.).

I believe all of the Law, moral, civil, and ceremonial went together, and that any division in the law is artificial and man made.

This just isn't so. The Moral Law is separated from the other laws in a variety of ways.
Deuteronomy 5:22. These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly........with a great voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone and delivered them to me.' Here are two differences straightaway. God spoke these commandments to all the Israelites, and He wrote them down. The rest of the law was delivered to Moses by means of angels (Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2).
There is a ton of other verses (e.g. Psalm 51:16-17; Amos 5:21-24; Hosea 6:6) that show that God regards the Moral Law as more important than the sacrificial laws.

Also, the sacrificial laws were abrogated when Christ died upon the cross. His atonement is 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:18); the dietary laws were abrogated in Mark 7:14-20, again in Acts 10:13-15 and confirmed in Romans 14:14; the judicial laws were abrogated in John 8:10-11. We are no longer stoning adulterers but urging them to repent; but that does not mean that the 7th Commandment has been abolished.

 

[1689Dave]

Well exactly so; the commandments were written on stone tablets in the Old Covenant, but in the New they are 'written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.' (2 Corinthians 3:3; c.f. Jeremiah 31:33 etc.).

This just isn't so. The Moral Law is separated from the other laws in a variety of ways.
Deuteronomy 5:22. These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly........with a great voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone and delivered them to me.' Here are two differences straightaway. God spoke these commandments to all the Israelites, and He wrote them down. The rest of the law was delivered to Moses by means of angels (Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2).
There is a ton of other verses (e.g. Psalm 51:16-17; Amos 5:21-24; Hosea 6:6) that show that God regards the Moral Law as more important than the sacrificial laws.

Also, the sacrificial laws were abrogated when Christ died upon the cross. His atonement is 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:18); the dietary laws were abrogated in Mark 7:14-20, again in Acts 10:13-15 and confirmed in Romans 14:14; the judicial laws were abrogated in John 8:10-11. We are no longer stoning adulterers but urging them to repent; but that does not mean that the 7th Commandment has been abolished.

Think about it for a minute. If Hebrews and Jeremiah say the Old Covenant (Ten Commandments) no longer apply. And That the New Covenant replaces them, how does any of it apply to us in the NT? The only way is through the portions Jesus and the NT writers imported as commentary and as being "profitable for instruction".

We are not under any of it in any way, cattle included. But it serves as a guide so far as the NT quotes it. It also defines outward sin. But not inward sin. Only the two great commandments do this.

 

[HankD]

Well exactly so; the commandments were written on stone tablets in the Old Covenant, but in the New they are 'written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.' (2 Corinthians 3:3; c.f. Jeremiah 31:33 etc.).

This just isn't so. The Moral Law is separated from the other laws in a variety of ways.
Deuteronomy 5:22. These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly........with a great voice; and He added no more. And He wrote them on two tables of stone and delivered them to me.' Here are two differences straightaway. God spoke these commandments to all the Israelites, and He wrote them down. The rest of the law was delivered to Moses by means of angels (Acts 7:53; Hebrews 2:2).
There is a ton of other verses (e.g. Psalm 51:16-17; Amos 5:21-24; Hosea 6:6) that show that God regards the Moral Law as more important than the sacrificial laws.

Also, the sacrificial laws were abrogated when Christ died upon the cross. His atonement is 'once for all' (Hebrews 10:12; 1 Peter 3:18); the dietary laws were abrogated in Mark 7:14-20, again in Acts 10:13-15 and confirmed in Romans 14:14; the judicial laws were abrogated in John 8:10-11. We are no longer stoning adulterers but urging them to repent; but that does not mean that the 7th Commandment has been abolished.

Psalm 51;16-17
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Amos 5
21 I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies.
22 Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts.

Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

This is still an artificial man made designation. One would have to go through the Torah verse by verse and put each of the 600+ mitzvah in the man made categories.

God's view:
Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Deuteronomy 28:45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Break one, break them all because the same God made them all.

 

[Yeshua1]

Thanks for making this an interesting discussion. I believe all of the Law, moral, civil, and ceremonial went together, and that any division in the law is artificial and man made. So Jesus abolished all of the Ten Commandments and ceremonies on the cross. What remained was the Two Great Commandments the Ten hung from.

And Jesus imported large portions of the moral aspects into the NT. Especially in the Sermon on the Mount, and verses from the Law the NT writers quote verbatim. But if we are to return to the Law other than for commentary and instruction, we need to bring it all back with cows and lambs. Quoting the Law for guidance as the NT writers do, is not placing us back under the Law.

Jesus never abolished them, but he fulfilled them for us, by keeping the law perfectly for our behalf.
Do you hold that we are now just under the so called law of Christ then?

 

[1689Dave]

Jesus never abolished them, but he fulfilled them for us, by keeping the law perfectly for our behalf.
Do you hold that we are now just under the so called law of Christ then?

The Ten Commandments = the Old Covenant. The terms are synonyms. Hebrews and Jeremiah say the New Covenant abolished the Ten Commandments.
Jesus and the NT writers "imported" some of the law into the NT as commentary and for instruction. But we are not under it in any way. Because Paul says if you keep some of it, you must do it all. And that includes animal sacrifices, and not heating your house on Saturday in the winter.

Plus, Jesus fulfilled the two great commandments of loving God with all his body soul and Spirit. And his neighbor (enemy) as his own self. This also fulfilled the Ten Commandments. Had Jesus fulfilled the Ten only, he would not have coveted the soldier's sandals. Or reluctantly not killed his enemies without actually loving them. Or possibly avoided stealing Pilot's ring etc.... Remember the Ten Commandments were for wicked unbelievers who obeyed them under threat of death.

 

[Yeshua1]

The Ten Commandments = the Old Covenant. The terms are synonyms. Hebrews and Jeremiah say the New Covenant abolished the Ten Commandments.
Jesus and the NT writers "imported" some of the law into the NT as commentary and for instruction. But we are not under it in any way. Because Paul says if you keep some of it, you must do it all. And that includes animal sacrifices, and not heating your house on Saturday in the winter.

Plus, Jesus fulfilled the two great commandments of loving God with all his body soul and Spirit. And his neighbor (enemy) as his own self. This also fulfilled the Ten Commandments. Had Jesus fulfilled the Ten only, he would not have coveted the soldier's sandals. Or reluctantly not killed his enemies without actually loving them. Or possibly avoided stealing Pilot's ring etc.... Remember the Ten Commandments were for wicked unbelievers who obeyed them under threat of death.

So you would indeed hold to the NCT view regarding the law and us now!