Theology Thursday - More from Reformed Baptists on the Christian & the Law

[Larry]

Again, I would say that the NT’s assumption of continuing moral force of at least 9/10 the Decalogue (the issue of the 4th being the only item in question) argues this very thing.

Have you considered that the “continuing moral force” is not of 9/10 of the Decalogue, but of the principles that existed before the Decalogue. The engraving on stone was for Israel’s benefit, not ours, and I would be cautious of using that to make any statement about the significance of it. To enforce the Decalogue is to do the very thing the NT says you can’t do, namely, divide the Law.

I truly don’t understand the argument here.

My point is that we don’t not steal (???) because it is in the Ten Commandments. That was Israel’s law. We don’t steal because of God’s creative principle of the right of private property that predates and postdates the law. The Decalogue proper belongs with the dress codes, the farming codes, etc. Those were for Israel. And that system of law stands or falls together.

God Himself divided the Law by putting 10 words on two stone tablets, separating it from the rest. And keep in mind that Jesus recognized that some matters of the Law are “weightier” than others.

That’s not a division per se. And weightier is certainly true, but that doesn’t mean that we can simply dispense with the others.

[Larry]

I truly don’t understand the argument here.

My point is that we don’t not steal (???) because it is in the Ten Commandments. That was Israel’s law. We don’t steal because of God’s creative principle of the right of private property that predates and postdates the law. The Decalogue proper belongs with the dress codes, the farming codes, etc. Those were for Israel. And that system of law stands or falls together.

God Himself divided the Law by putting 10 words on two stone tablets, separating it from the rest. And keep in mind that Jesus recognized that some matters of the Law are “weightier” than others.

That’s not a division per se. And weightier is certainly true, but that doesn’t mean that we can simply dispense with the others.

And my point is that God put it in the Decalogue because it’s a universal moral law that predates and postdates Moses. It doesn’t get much more basic than “You shall not steal.”

Exactly, but that’s the point. We don’t tell people “Don’t steal” because it’s in the Decalogue. We tell them that because it is outside the Decalogue. Paul’s point in the NT is that if you enforce any of the Law, you have to keep all the Law. You can’t divide it. So the Decalogue is not authoritative for the church. The decalogue simply happens to be the same as something that is authoritative, not just for the church, but for all humanity.

Can’t dispense with them? Do you tithe mint, dill, and cumin? I hope you haven’t dispensed with justice, mercy, and faithfulness. [Wink]

Context. He is talking to Pharisees who are very particular about tithing mint, dill, and cummin, but not so particular about justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Remember the end of that comment from Jesus? “These are things you should have done and not left the others undone.” In other words, Jesus wasn’t dividing the Law. He was condemning those who had divided the Law. He is telling them they must do it all.

But where else, in antiquity, can you find the Moral Law based in God’s eternal nature, expressed?

I am not an expert in ancient legal codes (or anything else for that matter), but I think many ancient and modern law codes contain provisions of God’s moral law that is based in his eternal nature and his will for his creation.

When God provided a clear negative expression of it in 10 words, He gave Israel a great blessing of incalculable value.

I agree. He gave it to Israel. (And we can eavesdrop on it in a fashion.)

We are under the Law of Christ as contained in the NT, not the Law of Moses as contained in the Torah. The reason we are under 9/10 of the Decalogue is because those 9 commands are in the NT.

[Greg Long]

We are under the Law of Christ as contained in the NT, not the Law of Moses as contained in the Torah. The reason we are under 9/10 of the Decalogue is because those 9 commands are in the NT.

Apostolic teaching

Greg is right. I would include this teaching to come from the apostles, NT prophets, and all others that had divine enablement to give special revelation before it was put in written form. There was no shortage of the knowledge of God’s intentions.

[Rolland McCune]

Greg is right. I would include this teaching to come from the apostles, NT prophets, and all others that had divine enablement to give special revelation before it was put in written form. There was no shortage of the knowledge of God’s intentions.

I’m having difficulty tracing the argument here. I don’t think we have the same ground rules or criteria for the interaction. The Q and A between the two positions seems not to advance the issue. May I list a few of mine?

1. The Law of Moses was the written Mosaic code, a covenant given to and was incumbent on and enforced solely by the nation Israel (Ex 19:3; Lev 26:46; Ps 147:19-20;Mal 4:4; Rom 9:4); it was not given to any Gentile peoples (De 4:8; Rom 2:12-14).

2. The Law consisted of three general aspects (civil, ceremonial, moral) but was an indivisible whole. Technically, the Law was interpenetrated, and thus governed, by the infinite morality of Yahweh the Lawgiver. Therefore each proposition and rubric was a moral principle in its own right, and each infraction (even if calibrated by humans as “small”) thus incurred infinite moral liability because it excited the wrath of the One who gave all the Law (Jam 2:10).

3. The Law had inseparable penalties (Gal 3:10) with culpability determined by the code, or given by direct revelation if guilt was uncertain (Num 5:11-31; 15:32-36). Dr. McClain often intoned the statement by (Daniel Webster??): “A law without penalty is simply good advice.”

4.The Law of Moses was the constitution or charter that formed Israel into a theocracy (a union of “church and state”) with Yahweh worship as the compulsory civil religion (De 6:4). Redress for infractions (i.e., sins) was through the Levitical forms at the central altar as administered by the designated clergy (e.g., high priest, priests, Levites) who had been appointed by Moses as the civil ruler or king in effect.

5. To be “under the Law” means to be under “the entire Mosaic legal system in its indivisible totality—subject to its commands and liable to its penalties” (Alva J. McClain, Law and Grace, p. 43).

If this is all true, the phrase “(the believer) is not under the Law but under grace” (Rom 6:14) or “the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) would seem to have a self-evident meaning and solution to the present discussion.

Part of what muddies the waters so much is folks using “law” where they mean “the Law” (i.e., Mosaic Cov.) or using “the Law” where they mean “law” (i.e., God’s standard of righteousness, His commands).

Nobody in creation is ever out from under law, but only Jews were ever under the Law.

Though I can’t supply examples at the moment it seemed that in my Romans study, there were places where “law” (no definite article in Greek, which may or may not be a pattern) refers to God’s authority/commands/standard of righteousness generally rather than Moses in particular. Rom. 2:14 would be a good candidate.

I really thought some of that was going on in Rom. 7 as well, if memory serves.

And it has to be going on in Romans 8.

For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Rom 8:2)

Then later you have 8:4.

in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Ro 8:4)

In particular, can 8:4 possibly mean “law of Moses”? (8:4 does have the definite article, by the way, so that answers my earlier musing about whether there was a pattern. I was kind of hoping to see that nomos without article was not Mosaic Cov. but nomos with the article was Moses. That would be too easy. :-) )

Anyway, there is definitely more than one use of “law” in the NT, so when we’re theologizing, we’ve got to be clear about what sort of sense of “law” we mean… especially when generalizing.

I believe when Paul says we are not under law but under grace, he is saying “We are not under the Mosaic Covenant, but under grace.” We are still very much under “the law of the Spirit of life” and the “law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

Given the distinction, how would this impact the present discussion on the NT Christian’s relation to the Mosaic Law, such as the Decalogue (or 9/10 of it), or the OT moral prescriptions and the like? Texts such as Jam 2:10; Rom 2:14; 6:14; 8:4; Gal 3:24; et al.

How would it affect my ground rules/criteria and the conclusion above? I would also like to see more proof that Classical Dispensationalism divorces Law from Grace and divides the biblical Testaments, and the like.

I think the distinction just may help in general in a few ways. (a) It can sharpen/clarify the language everybody uses when talking about how Moses relates to NT Christians, and (b) to a lesser degree it may help those who react against dispensationalist understandings of how Moses realites to NT believers, and (c) help clear up some of the confusion we see nowadays in Reformed variants of “nomophobia.”

I don’t expect epiphanies all around and everyone suddenly saying “Oh, now I understand what you mean” or even “Oh, now I get it, but you’re still wrong.” But I do often see people talk past eachother, react, over react, etc. because of unclear language.

Dispensationalism has a lot of enemies on this point. Sometimes because they’re just not listening. Other times, we’ve made it easy to misunderstand.

As for this particular discussion, ground rules, etc., I completely agree with...

If this is all true, the phrase “(the believer) is not under the Law but under grace” (Rom 6:14) or “the Law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17) would seem to have a self-evident meaning and solution to the present discussion.

I think Andrew is having some difficulty seeing the distinction though maybe, between Moses and “law” in the broader sense.

Andrew, if you’re still tracking this one, I offer an analogy… imperfect but maybe helpful.

Suppose I wrote a letter to my first child containing much of my advice for living. Later, for three more of my children (I only have two, so we’re very much into thought experiment land here), I wrote a second letter, and this one was much longer and more detailed and included a good bit of more functional information about how to repair cars, manage accounts, plant gardens, manage large quantities of snow, etc.

But in my second letter, I quoted verbatim, several parts of my first one.

Finally, years later, for my grandkids, I wrote a third letter on the life well lived. It quoted much of my first letter, parts of my second letter and had some new material as well.

• A. Would it be accurate to say I want my grandkids to follow “letter #2”?
• B. Would it be accurate to say I want my grandkids to follow “part of letter #2”?
• C. Would it be accurate to say I want my grandkids to follow “letter #3 and the parts of letter 2 that are repeated in letter 3”?

It should be clear that…

A. would just be needlessly confusing.
B. would be similarly unhelpful.
C. Is accurate enough, but redundant… why bother?

It’s enough to say “follow letter #3, and sure, parts of it are also in #1 and #2, but that isn’t really your concern.”

If we say the ten commandments “are” God’s moral law, we’re saying that ten items (really only 9 of them) that were expressed in one form or another before the ten commandments and expressed again, in so many words, after the ten commandments are “the ten commandments.”

In other words, we’re saying the parts of letter 1 and 3 that are also in letter 2 are all really letter 2. It’s arbitrary… and ultimately not fair to the intent of letter 2 (much less letters 1 and 3).

I don’t know if that helps, but it’s a start. I’m sure a better analogy is already out there somewhere… or I’ll come up w/a better one myself eventually.