| Author | Message | ||
| Bskillet Registered user Username: Bskillet Post Number: 744 Registered: 8-2008 |
I have realized over the past several months that one of the biggest fallacies of Adventist theology is that it confuses a covenant with underlying ethical principles. This it shares with any other theologican system that calls the 10 C's the "eternal moral law." Like a contract, a covenant spells out the duties by two parties to the agreement. Like a contract, some of these duties may be based on underlying ethical principles, but some may not have any underlying ethical meaning if separated from the covenant agreement. However, once one agrees to the covenant, it becomes unethical to not perform acts that would otherwise be ethically neutral. For instance, I may have a contract with an employer that says I will show up every week day at 8 am and work until 5 pm. It may also state that I agree not to steal from my employer. Had I not signed a contract with the employer, I would not ethically be required to show up for work at 8 am. In fact, to do so would make no sense if I was not under an employment contract. However, once I have signed the contract, I am ethically bound to show up for work at 8 am and work until 5 pm. But the second part--not stealing from my employer--I am ethically bound to abide by whether or not he is in fact my employer. I am just as wrong stealing from a company I don't work for as from one I do. However, the reason the contract demands me not to steal, is in order that both parties will agree that stealing constitutes cause for my employer to find me in violation of the contract. In other words, my contract says "thou shalt not steal" in order to allow my employer to bring upon me whatever recourse the contract gives him in the case of theft. This is why Paul refers to the Ten Commandments as "the ministry of death" and "the ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor. 3:7, 9). They were never set forth as the eternal definition of morality, but rather as terms of a covenant, complete with a given set of repercussions should the Israelites fail to keep their end. Murder, for instance, was always wrong even before the Torah was given, just like it is always wrong for me to steal from my employer. But similarly to my employment contract, the reason the Torah spells it out is in order to set up a mutually agreed-upon set of acts that would constitute violation of the covenant. And there would thus be corresponding liabilities that would be charged against the covenant-breaker for doing such acts. Like my contract, the Torah sets up a series of "liabilities" or punishments that Israel would face if they violated the covenant. That is why Paul says, "In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to one's account when there is no law" (Rom. 5:13). The purpose of the law, like the purpose of my employment contract, is not to eternally define sin, but to define my liability if I do what I agreed not to do, or don't do what I agreed to do. Now my contract is based on an underlying view of ethics. For instance, the contract wouldn't tell me not to steal unless both I and my employer understood that there was already something wrong with stealing. More deeply, the very reason for making a contract is that both I and my employer recognize that there is already some underlying reason why one is ethically bound to keep one's word. In the same way, the Old Covenant includes greater moral principles. Jesus said it was based on the two greatest commandments. But that isn't to say that it is itself the eternal definition of moral principles, any more than it would be to say that stealing is universally wrong everywhere and for everyone simply because of my own personal contract with my own employer. Stealing is wrong, but not because of my contract. Now if, in Christ, one has been redeemed from the Old Covenant, then it follows that there are certain acts one is no longer bound to do. This is the same as if my employer terminates me, I am no longer bound to keep showing up every day at 8 am. However, I am still bound by ethics to not steal from my former employer. But, if I do steal from my former employer after the contract has been annulled, then I am no longer responsible for the direct liabilities for stealing that were spelled out in the contract (I still would be liable to the government authorities, of course, but my employer could not terminate me twice). Similarly, when Jesus died, He became (Gal. 3:13) the curses enumerated in the Torah. Though He had not sinned, He was regarded as a Torah-breaker. In the terms of my employment contract, Jesus was "terminated" on the Cross. Since we who believe have been "terminated" in Him (Gal. 2:19-21), we have already received the curse through Him. Consequently, the contract is now annulled and we cannot be "terminated" a second time for any sins. Thus, we rejoice to read:
| ||
| Martinc Registered user Username: Martinc Post Number: 167 Registered: 9-2006 |
Excellent post, Brent. This helps bring clarity as to why the Ten Commandments can be holy, just, and good, yet we don't elevate them into eternal, absolute statements of morality. For us, God Himself is the sole, absolute statement of morality. He doesn't have to remind Himself to be behave. The Word who was made flesh IS our moral law. | ||
| Hec Registered user Username: Hec Post Number: 1290 Registered: 3-2009 |
Brent, you are a waste.... of teaching abilities. Who told you that you could be something besides a teacher? You explain things so well! Thanks Hec | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 6600 Registered: 9-2006  |
Amen to that Hec. | ||
| Philharris Registered user Username: Philharris Post Number: 2241 Registered: 5-2007  |
Brent, That was really good. 'Iron clad' biblical logic. Since you put it in the open forum I hope you don't mind if I save it to my harddrive. Fearless Phil | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 11613 Registered: 12-2003  |
Brent, that is an awesome post. Thank you! Colleen | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 1141 Registered: 7-2004  |
Brent - what a great explanation! | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 557 Registered: 1-2006  |
Brent Great post, above. Adventists are often unhappy that former members would step out into the sunshine. We've been accused of slipping into lawlessness. Hence, their morbid curiousity about why we left--was it perhaps some sin we really wanted to pursue? Jesus attempted to help His listeners understand their own moral bankruptcy when He told the parable of the Good Samaritan. The story appears to be about human compassion, but it is really about what happens to those whose focus is on keeping the old covenant law! Which of the 10 commandments was broken? The answer? None! Yet everyone was appalled by the low level of moral judgment exercised by the church leaders in the parable! That’s precisely the point! Focus on keeping the law leads to a low level of moral responsibility. Fixation on the law cannot ever produce Christian maturity. The New Covenant (Christ Himself is our covenant) is quite adequate. Bob |
