| Author |
Message |
Bobj
Registered user
Username: Bobj
Post Number: 555
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 7:38 pm: |     |
After re-reading some of the above, I'd comment a bit further . . .
We can't artificially separate the law into the moral and ceremonial aspects, claiming that the ceremonial were carried in the side of the ark, and that only these were done away. It is safe to say that the Jews would never have allowed this separation, and in reality, these laws were mixed together. Both moral and ceremonial aspects are given in both the 10 commandments and in the additional 603. The papers carried in the side of the ark contained all 613 commands, including the 10 commandments repeated fully two more times in their proper context as part of the entire law which was written in ink and carried in the side of the ark. They were not separated into moral and ceremonial, but were mixed together, both on the stone tablets and on the papers at the side of the ark, so that argument vanishes. Further, the Sabbath was a ceremonial (not moral) law—oops—so when our adventist friends insist that it was the ceremonial laws that were done away with . . .
A word of explanation here may help. God’s eternal moral principles are just that: eternal. These principles are the eternal law of God, written on our hearts, the same unwritten moral law that is referred to throughout the New Testament. But the New Testament declares that the old law, the Ten Commandments, “the tablets of stone” and that which “was engraved in letters on stones” was abolished (2 Cor 3: 7, 11, 13) The Greek verb in 2 Cor 3:7, 11, 13 is “katargeo” which means “to render inoperative, cause to cease, abolish, to pass away” (W.J. Hickey, Greek-English Lexicon to the New Testament, Baker, 1977, p. 99)
SDAs also try to distinguish between the Sinai covenant and the law to say that the old covenant was not the same as the 10 commandments (and that it was therefore only the old covenant, not the law itself, that was abolished) but if you read Deut. 5:2-22, Romans 5:13,14, Galatians 3:17-19, Jeremiah 31;31-34, Heb 8:6-13, Deut 9:9, 2 Chron 5:10, 1Kings 8:9, 21 this question vanishes. All the words which the Lord spoke included the 10 commandments (which included both ceremonial and moral laws) along with other civil and ceremonial laws, and these were written in a book and sealed and ratified with blood. (Ex. 24:1-8) All were part of the old covenant, and with its abrogation, they came to an end. Paul says the whole thing was nailed to the cross—Sabbath and all. Col 2:14-17. Just to make sure, Heb 9:1-10 tells us that the whole thing, including the sanctuary, the ark with the tables of stone (Heb 9:4), and more, all applied only until the time of the new order. Now the new covenant “written not in ink . . and not tables of stone” (2 Cor 3:3) has taken its place. Hebrews 9:9 reminds us of the futility of returning to the old order. See also 2 Cor 3:3, 7-13. Compare this to Ex:34:29-34 for absolute proof that it was the 10 commandment law written on the tables of stone that was done away. There’s more to this than meets the eye, because Jesus Himself is the New Covenant. These scriptures are clear. The old covenant “gendereth to bondage” (Gal 4:21-30). We are plainly told to “cast it out.”
Bob |
Christo
Registered user
Username: Christo
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2008
| | Posted on Sunday, August 29, 2010 - 10:58 pm: | |
We also can't separate the priesthood from the covenants. The old covenant had an earthly priesthood, that was quite involved in the ceremonial aspect of the covenant.
The new covenant has Jesus as our high priest.
The covenants each had a specific priesthood, so the covenant you choose determines who you listen to. You cannot separate the covenants from their respective priesthood, because the priesthood satisfies the terms of the covenants. The people never satisfied the terms of the covenants. The yearly sacrifices that the priesthood preformed in the old covenant, gave the people one more year, of trying to get it right.
The sacrifice of Jesus, gives us eternal life, even though we don't get it right. The only thing we can truly get right is to have faith, and believe in Him.
Quite a big difference!!!
Even though the old covenant has passed away, their are many who fail to recognize this, and fail to have Jesus as their High Priest. So sad, and yet so sda. It reminds me of the Japanese soldiers hiding out in the jungles after WWII, thinking that the war was still raging on, not realizing that the war had been over for some 10-15 years, and that Japan, no longer had a funny way of looking at things, and that they had been forgiven, and embraced by their former enemy.
The sda ministry strikes me as a phony quasi- Aaronic priesthood that is terrified of blood.
Gratefully cleansed by his blood,
Chris |
Bskillet
Registered user
Username: Bskillet
Post Number: 750
Registered: 8-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2010 - 6:17 am: | |
There are other problems with saying that NINE of the Ten commandments in the Decalogue are eternal moral principles. For instance, the tenth commandment states that a slave is the property of his master. But human slavery is not God's eternal desire for us.
As well, the commandment against adultery only makes sense for a species with sexual reproduction, something that was not done by the angels before humans were created, and we are told by Christ will not exist for us humans in heaven. Thus, it cannot be eternal in the true sense of the word. But it nonetheless still applies to us here today. |
1john2v27nlt
Registered user
Username: 1john2v27nlt
Post Number: 103
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2010 - 7:33 am: | |
Bskillet, Oh THAT's good! I love the 'good questions that make me think'.
I will remember these to ask the next time the question comes up about the 10Cs being abolished!
J9 |
Psalm107v2
Registered user
Username: Psalm107v2
Post Number: 732
Registered: 10-2008
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2010 - 7:37 pm: | |
I'm about half asleep as I write this and perhaps a little off topic but hoepfully not off base. What clicked in my mind to help me understand is that when Colossians 2 says that the law was nailed to the cross it meant the whole law, the 10 cs the "ceremonial", all of it. So shall I sin because I am not under that law (Romans 6) no way. When I'm in Arizona and there's laws on the books that says don't kill am I free to kill when I jump on a plane to Toronto? Nope, I'm under a different law. If I kill somebody in Toronto, the Arizona law can't touch me. I'm under the new law.
I follow the law of Christ (Gal 6:2). By His blood, I have eternal life. What does He require--love Him, love my neighbor. If I love my neighbor I'm not going to commit adultery with her while he's off at work. If I love my neighbor, I'm going to feel his/her burden when they've lost their job or their child is rebelling. There may be components of the old law that look like the new law, but I've cast out the bondwoman (Gal 4) because I was not party to that covenant.
Enoch |
Nowisee
Registered user
Username: Nowisee
Post Number: 517
Registered: 5-2009
| | Posted on Monday, August 30, 2010 - 8:29 pm: | |
Christo, don't forget the cross--the sdas I know are very angry about crosses in any way, shape or form. ("They're Catholic!") So, they're probably terrified of it, too. |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 343
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 8:28 am: | |
Would it be correct to say that the injunctions given in the "whole law" as given to the OT Jews were to be seen as the basis or cause of God's acceptance of them, whereas the NT reiteration of certain principles give evidence of God's having reformed the Christian's character and of His acceptance of them as His property due to the atonement? |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 11646
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 12:22 pm: | |
Good question, Yenc. Actually, the law was never the basis or cause of God's acceptance of them but rather the evidence that God has sovereignly chosen them as His people.
Just as in the case of Abraham, it has always been believing God that is the basis of being right with God: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness" (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:9). The same was true for Israel and for every person who lives.
Israel was special because God chose them to be His people. The law was His revelation of His plan to atone for humanity's sin, and he gave Israel the job of being a "living metaphor" of God's saving work in the world. As Paul says, to Israel "belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen" (Rom 9:4-5).
The principles in the law were the "constitution" for Israel's nation...and they are the eternal attributes of God Himself given to His people as a way for them to know how God's people were to live . Romans is really, really clear that God gave the Law not to make Israel "good" but to make Israel become consciously unable to avoid sinning. Before humanity had the law, the specific behaviors of sin had become lost to people, and where there is no law, "there is no violation" (Rom 4:15) and sin is not imputed (Rom 5:13); the law came to "increase sin" (Rom 5:20) and to convict Israel that they were no less sinful than the pagan gentiles and to drive them to BELIEVE GOD and thus be counted righteous.
The Law, according to Romans, never had anything to do with Israel being accepted by God. It was always a negative thing: it defined sin and caused people to be convicted of their sin—because they could never keep it.
So, the law IS holy, righteous, and good--but not because it qualified Israel to be accepted by God. Rather, it is holy and good because it taught Israel that they were by nature unable to please God and unable to avoid sin. It told them the truth about themselves. At the same time, the law is holy and good because it included the shadows of atonement and the intercession of the coming Messiah. It convicted them of sin, and it demonstrated the reality of hope and redemption.
The moral principles in the law and in the NT are the same because God is the same. God does not "obey the law"--God MADE the law. God's righteous holiness is the standard by which both OT and NT people are judged, and in both cases, they are accepted by God on the basis of faith in God's declaration that He will save and bless them.
In the OT, the Law set Israel apart from the pagan nations by declaring standards of worship and behavior that the pagans could never have. Embedded in this law of shadows was the PROMISE, which God asked them to BELIEVE, that He would bring a Deliverer and would save them from destruction. It was this Promise that was the "basis or cause of God's acceptance of them".
In the NT, it is the same, only this time we're no longer dealing with shadows but with fulfillment. God's morality is eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and at attribute of HIMSELF. Now, as born-of-the-Spirit Christians, we have that very God with all His moral attributes living in us. This morality is now credited to us because of Jesus eternal sacrifice—and this morality was credited to OT believers as well because of the Promise of the eternal sacrifice.
Do you notice an oxymoron there? The "promise" of an "eternal sacrifice"? We can't totally explain or understand this...but Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. His death has eternally been a reality. But inside created time, it had to play out on the continuum of years. Abraham believed, and it was credited to Him as righteousness because of the Promise of the Eternal Sacrifice. We believe, and it is credited to us as righteousness because of the Realized Eternal Sacrifice.
And on both sides of the cross, the morality of God is the same. But He had to reveal the truth about human nature to Israel by giving the Law...and He explains how the finished work of Jesus renews our minds even though our bodies are mortal by giving us commands for Christian living.
Now, the Holy Spirit delivers the conviction of sin to us by making Scripture become real in our spirits by His Spirit, and He Himself convicts the world of sin, righteousness and judgment.
Colleen |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 347
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 1:07 pm: | |
Thanks, Colleen! Would you say, then, that the law was never intended as a guide for anyone, pre- or post-atonement? And that it was always (and still is) intended as a sort of "mirror" to show us how imperfect we are and always have been? And consequently to show us how much we need Jesus? (Or am I still not quite "getting the whole picture"? I know I'll have to reread your post a few times!!!) |
Martinc
Registered user
Username: Martinc
Post Number: 168
Registered: 9-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 2:58 pm: | |
That is a very good clarification of the Law's purpose, Colleen. I'm glad you asked the question, Yen. This question of "why the Law?" remains a hard test item not only for us formers, but most Christians. I was raised on the Conflict of the Ages series, and there, Mrs. White tells us that God's original intention for Israel, and the world, was that they would successfully obey the law. Their success would have been such a fine witness to God's goodness. But, alas, their failure thwarted God's good purposes for them. And their failure required a less desireable alternative, perhaps even a less Godly plan, which we see in the NT. So God still waits for someone to fulfill Plan A, which was for a whole people to obey and vindicate the Law.
How utterly contrary this is to Paul's theology of amazement in Romans 11, where he shows that Israel's failure was part of God's plan to save the world. Israel's failure, and ours, can only prove God's beauty and glory all the more. That was the original plan.
Martin C |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 351
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 7:10 pm: | |
Martin,
That view you mentioned, that God intended for the whole world to keep the law, is preposterous, no? It means that God was neither omnipotent nor omniscient: He wasn't in control of things and it all got out of hand in rebellion, and He didn't know that would happen!
I had never quite seen before how very blasphemous that teaching is! |
Hec
Registered user
Username: Hec
Post Number: 1319
Registered: 3-2009
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 7:38 pm: | |
Yenc,
Could you explain the above post? Thanks.
Hec |
Yenc
Registered user
Username: Yenc
Post Number: 352
Registered: 6-2008
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2010 - 9:37 am: | |
Hec,
I'll give it a whirl.
I was responding to Martin's 2:58 pm post, in which he referred to EGW's statement re. God's setting up the Law with the intention (and apparently, the expectation) that the world would successfully keep the Law, and thus be a "fine witness for His goodness." In other words, that God needed man's help to vindicate Him and when (surprise!) they let Him down, He was forced to implement Plan B. If this were true, it would mean God didn't know sin was going to occur, and couldn't prevent it! That would mean He was not all-wise ("omniscient") and not all-powerful ("omnipotent"). And I say it is blasphemy to make such claims about God, the Almighty Creator of everything, the One who knows the beginning from the end, who laid the plan of salvation from the foundation of the world! |
|
