Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

Post #1

Post by fewwillfindit »

Johnmarc and I have decided to discuss the widely held view among skeptics that Christians cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament they obey and which parts they do not obey. This discussion will surround the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants.

Johnmarc will be taking the skeptical position, and I will be defending it. This will not be a formal debate, but rather a non-combative discussion regarding the topic. Johnmarc has expressed a keen interest in the subject, as he has always wondered just why and how fundamentalist Christians arrive at the conclusions at which they arrive without cherry-picking. Johnmarc is a liberal Christian who doesn't believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened, doesn't believe in God, and is not a literalist.

I am a traditional Christian who does believe that the miracles literally happened, who does believe in God, and who reads the Bible as primarily literal. I contend that mainline orthodox Christianity does not arbitrarily cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament to obey, but instead has a sound Scriptural basis from which it determines that it is not bound to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant, and is instead under the New Covenant.

For those who are unfamiliar with Biblical terminology, a simplified explanation would be that I am going to demonstrate why the laws found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are not applicable to Christians.

It is my intention in this discussion to put to bed the continual cry from skeptics that Christian doctrine is arbitrarily cherry-picked as it relates to the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant. It is not my aim to convince skeptics to affirm this doctrine or to be convinced of its validity. I contend that all I have to do to show that we do not arbitrarily cherry-pick is demonstrate why, from Scripture, we believe as we do. To me, cherry-pick means, "I like that, and that, nope not that, definitely not that, but I'll keep that and that." That is exactly what is implied when the accusation of cherry-picking arises.

I look forward to our discussion, johnmarc.

I will begin by making the first post.
Last edited by fewwillfindit on Sat May 14, 2011 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #21

Post by johnmarc »

That's right! And how beautiful it is!
Good Grief, all that I can see is how long it is.

OK, I see four Scriptures. I will take them one at a time as I have time.

Thanks.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #22

Post by johnmarc »

Part four: The New Covenant (section one)

Romans 9:1-8 ESV wrote:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but "Through Isaac shall your offspring be named." This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.
Christians are the branch grafted onto the rootstock of Israel. This is a theme that is familiar to me. The children of the promise are the Christians. Yes, the Fundamentalist family of churches holds this position.

If I have interpreted the verse correctly, I will move on.

------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Each time we see the term, ‘Law’, can we safely assume that it means Old Covenant?


No. The 613 laws of the Mosaic Law were the terms of agreement for the Old Covenant. Also, there are times in the New Testament when law just means law. Its meaning is detemined by context. For instance:

1 Corinthians 6:5-8 ESV wrote:

I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!


Somehow I don't think that is what you meant, but there it is just in case.
No, what I meant is that each time that we see the word, 'law' in the context of covenant, will it be interpreted as OC? Will there ever be a time when the word, 'law' is used for Christians as NC?

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #23

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:No, what I meant is that each time that we see the word, 'law' in the context of covenant, will it be interpreted as OC? Will there ever be a time when the word, 'law' is used for Christians as NC?
Generally no, but there are exceptions:
Hebrews 10:15-17 ESV wrote:And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds," then he adds, "I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
James 1:22-25 ESV wrote:But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #24

Post by johnmarc »

I am probably making a mistake by not reading the whole and working backwards from that. But the truth is that I am a low IQ guy, but compensate for it by getting confused easily. There is no way that I could understand any of this in one pass. So I continue step by step.

But even I can see that the next three passages can be taken in one step.

Part Four: (section two, three, and four)

Romans 9:25-33 ESV wrote:
As indeed he says in Hosea,

"Those who were not my people I will call 'my people,'

and her who was not beloved I will call 'beloved.'"

"And in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,'

there they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay." And as Isaiah predicted,

"If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring,

we would have been like Sodom

and become like Gomorrah."

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written,

"Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense;

and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."

In the context of rootstock and grafted branch, all of this makes sense. The Jews have stumbled on the Law (a blind and rote adherence) and the Christians pursue righteousness by faith.

Romans 10:1-21 ESV wrote:
Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) or "'Who will descend into the abyss?'" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame." For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ. But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

"Their voice has gone out to all the earth,

and their words to the ends of the world."
But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,

"I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;

with a foolish nation I will make you angry."
Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,

"I have been found by those who did not seek me;

I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me."
But of Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people."

Same as the passage above. God seems to be laying out a new direction for a new people. The whole idea of a New Covenant People is an idea that I will not dispute. I grew up on this idea. This is not about what I believe, it is about what Fundamentalists believe and here there can be no question. They are the New Covenant People.

And again. To win this debate your verses do not need to be accurate or in context. They just need to be uniformly accepted by the Fundamentalist community. Your argument wins on consistency and comprehensiveness, not on Historical Critical accuracy. Can this chain of events be shown to have a consistent following and does the argument contain a completeness which does not allow a substantial part of the ‘law’ to be outside of the algorithm?

In my mind, we are still at the parameters of the debate. I have not yet seen the algorithm. Bear in mind, that I have not read ahead so this might be a little premature.

Bear in mind also, that I have sat in Fundamentalist churches for almost twenty years. As a result, I am using that experience to guide me as well. So far, there is nothing presented here that does not conform to my early Fundamentalist upbringing.
Romans 11:1-36 ESV wrote:
I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written,

"God gave them a spirit of stupor,

eyes that would not see

and ears that would not hear,

down to this very day."

And David says,

"Let their table become a snare and a trap,

a stumbling block and a retribution for them;

let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,

and bend their backs forever."

So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The Deliverer will come from Zion,

he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

"and this will be my covenant with them

when I take away their sins."

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

"For who has known the mind of the Lord,

or who has been his counselor?"

"Or who has given a gift to him

that he might be repaid?"

For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.


I will use your words:
But in answer to your question, we Gentile Christians, the wild olive branches, are grafted into God's covenant of salvation with Abraham, the cultivated olive tree, to which Israel, the natural branches, will be grafted back in as well. Thus we are co-heirs according to the promises made to Israel through Abraham regarding the New Covenant!
OK. That works for me.

Part one: Acceptance of my caveat

Part two: The Old Covenant (conceded with caveat)

Part three: The authority of Paul (conceded without caveat)

Part four: The New Covenant (conceded without caveat)

If this is clean and clear, let’s move on to Part Five

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #25

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:If this is clean and clear, let’s move on to Part Five.
Yes sir. Clean and clear.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #26

Post by johnmarc »

I suspect that Few and I have lulled most observers off to sleep. However, I remain fascinated. I appreciate the detail that Few has put into his work and thrilled to have the opportunity to work through this with him. I am rarely a detail person, opting instead for metaphor and generalization, but from time to time when the right topic comes along, I find this kind of thing stimulating and rewarding. Thanks, Few, for putting this together

Part Five: The Effect of the Law

Why the Law and what are its effects?

• It condemns mankind

Romans 3:19-20 ESV wrote:

Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

By our understanding the ‘law’ in this case is the OC and the passage refers to the Jews.


2 Corinthians 3:2-11 ESV wrote:

You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [the Ten Commandments], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.

• It brings death to mankind

It appears that the NC is in fact the people of Christ---that they themselves are the NC. The OC is a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation. This new ministry of righteousness (the people of Christ) exceed the OC in glory, the OC is brought to an end and the NC is permanent.

If I am interpreting this passage correctly, it is contrast with earlier passages.

(1) The OC up to this point has never been a ministry of death or condemnation. It simply has been the law set aside for the rootstock. It remains in force for all of humanity.

(2) The OC does not come to an end. It continues and we are all bound to it, but bound to it through the NC in a way that has not been broached yet.

This is going to need some clarification.
Romans 7:9-12 ESV wrote:

I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

• It empowers sin

Either this passage directly contradicts the passage above it, or the ‘law’ is meant to be the NC in which case we have an even worse contradiction. Once the ‘law’ can be interpreted as OC or NC the case for objectivity goes out the window.
1 Corinthians 15:56 ESV wrote:

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

• It imprisons everything under sin

Either the ‘law’ is holy or the ‘law’ is sin and we have to deal with that contradiction or the ‘law’ is OC or the ‘law’ is NC and we have to deal with that contradiction.
Galatians 3:21-22 ESV wrote:

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

• It holds a record of debt against mankind

The NC is faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe. This seems a throwback to Point Four. But we are still left with the OC described as ‘good’ in one passage and ‘bad’ in another.
Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:

And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

• It divides Jews and Gentiles

The cross excuses Christians from the trespass of Adam and Eve. (just guessing) There seems some contradiction here. The ‘sin’ of uncircumcision would relate to present day trespass and the ‘record of debt’ would seem to come from the OC (and therefore Adam and Eve) It could be that there is a listing here of two different kinds of ‘debt’
Ephesians 2:11-16 ESV wrote:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Prior to the NC, Gentiles were alienated from God, but in Jesus Christ, Gentiles are brought near by the blood of Christ. The law is abolished and both Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to Christ as one body.

If I have interpreted this correctly, this needs some work. There seems to be quite a dance between the OC ‘good’ and the OC ‘bad’. The OC seems at the same time to be abolished and retained. The Jews seem to be both condemned and restored.

Let’s hang around Point Five for awhile.

I have commitments for the next three days. Doesn't look like I will be at the computer much until Monday. Thanks

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #27

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:I suspect that Few and I have lulled most observers off to sleep. However, I remain fascinated. I appreciate the detail that Few has put into his work and thrilled to have the opportunity to work through this with him. I am rarely a detail person, opting instead for metaphor and generalization, but from time to time when the right topic comes along, I find this kind of thing stimulating and rewarding. Thanks, Few, for putting this together.
You're welcome. Thank you for your genuine interest in this subject. Not a lot of people would have the fortitude to plow through this information with the intent to understand it.
johnmarc wrote:Part Five: The Effect of the Law

fewwillfindit wrote:Why the Law and what are its effects?

• It condemns mankind
Romans 3:19-20 ESV wrote:Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.

By our understanding the ‘law’ in this case is the OC and the passage refers to the Jews.
Yes. It includes Jews, but is more broadly applied to anyone who is not under the New Covenant as per Romans 2:12-16 which we looked at earlier. Also, technically in the passage above, both instances refer to the Mosaic Law, and being under the law means that they are bound by the Old Covenant to its rules (law) and penalties.

johnmarc wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
2 Corinthians 3:2-11 ESV wrote:You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [the Ten Commandments], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
• It brings death to mankind

It appears that the NC is in fact the people of Christ---that they themselves are the NC. The OC is a ministry of death and a ministry of condemnation. This new ministry of righteousness (the people of Christ) exceed the OC in glory, the OC is brought to an end and the NC is permanent.

If I am interpreting this passage correctly, it is contrast with earlier passages.

(1) The OC up to this point has never been a ministry of death or condemnation. It simply has been the law set aside for the rootstock. It remains in force for all of humanity.
No. The Old Covenant has always been a ministry of death and condemnation. It was designed for this purpose; to show that no matter how diligently one may work to achieve the perfection that is required for salvation, it is a guaranteed impossibility. It was/is there to testify to the fact that mankind was in desperate need of a Savior, One Who was the embodiment of this required perfection, and Whose sacrifice on our behalf would achieve this salvation. The Old Covenant was not intended to save, it was intended to reveal the need for a Savior.

johnmarc wrote:(2) The OC does not come to an end. It continues and we are all bound to it, but bound to it through the NC in a way that has not been broached yet.

This is going to need some clarification.
The Old Covenant remains in effect until the "end," a point in time which has yet to arrive. Christians under the New Covenant are not bound to the Old Covenant; the New Covenant supercedes and replaces the Old Covenant, but only for those who are under the New Covenant.


johnmarc wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
Romans 7:9-12 ESV wrote:I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
• It empowers sin

Either this passage directly contradicts the passage above it, or the ‘law’ is meant to be the NC in which case we have an even worse contradiction. Once the ‘law’ can be interpreted as OC or NC the case for objectivity goes out the window.
There is no contradiction. The Law achieved exactly that which it was intended to achieve; to reveal our sin, reveal our inability to stop sinning, place every human being under the death penalty and guaranteed death because of that sin, and reveal a need for a Savior. Because it achieved its purpose, it is holy, righteous and good. The ministry of death and condemnation is holy, righteous and good because it did exactly that which God designed it to do.


johnmarc wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
1 Corinthians 15:56 ESV wrote:The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
• It imprisons everything under sin

Either the ‘law’ is holy or the ‘law’ is sin and we have to deal with that contradiction or the ‘law’ is OC or the ‘law’ is NC and we have to deal with that contradiction.
As shown earlier, the law illuminates sin by first defining it, then condemning those who disobey it. Without the Law, sin would have no power, thus when the passage says, "the power of sin is in the law," it is precisely right. There is no contradiction

johnmarc wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
Galatians 3:21-22 ESV wrote:Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
• It holds a record of debt against mankind

The NC is faith in Jesus Christ given to those who believe. This seems a throwback to Point Four. But we are still left with the OC described as ‘good’ in one passage and ‘bad’ in another.
Exactly. The Old Covenant is "bad" for those who do not achieve perfection by never once committing a sin, but it is "good" because it was designed to reveal our inability to be perfect thus revealing the need for a perfect Savior.

johnmarc wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
• It divides Jews and Gentiles

The cross excuses Christians from the trespass of Adam and Eve. (just guessing) There seems some contradiction here. The ‘sin’ of uncircumcision would relate to present day trespass and the ‘record of debt’ would seem to come from the OC (and therefore Adam and Eve) It could be that there is a listing here of two different kinds of ‘debt’.
No, they are one and the same. Don't get thrown by the term "uncircumcision." In this specific instance, because of the context, it means "unregenerate." Let's look at the passage again, but this time with the preceding verses attached:
Colossians 2:9-15 ESV wrote:For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

Here, "uncircumcision" is a metaphor for being in an unregenerate state. "Circumcision" is a metaphor for regeneration. So, they were dead in their sins because the Old Covenant condemned them to death. They were dead in their uncircumcision because they had yet to become transformed to new life by the power of the Holy Spirit. Now, because of Christ and the New Covenant, their sins are forgiven and they are regenerated and transformed to newness of life.

Personally, I think there is a duality of meaning here. Although the context clearly equates uncircumcision with the unregenerate state, when we look at Ephesians, it tells us that it also means "Gentiles," which fits nicely with our theme:
Ephesians 2:11-13 ESV wrote:Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Using this definition, being dead in the uncircumcision of the flesh can also mean that they were outside the promises to Israel, not having access to the Abrahamic Covenant.

johnmarc wrote:
Ephesians 2:11-16 ESV wrote:Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Prior to the NC, Gentiles were alienated from God, but in Jesus Christ, Gentiles are brought near by the blood of Christ. The law is abolished and both Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to Christ as one body.

If I have interpreted this correctly, this needs some work. There seems to be quite a dance between the OC ‘good’ and the OC ‘bad’. The OC seems at the same time to be abolished and retained. The Jews seem to be both condemned and restored.
Most of this I have covered above, but your summation that, "both Jews and Gentiles are reconciled to Christ as one body," needs some ammending. Jews are only reconciled to Christ and placed under the New Covenant when they accept Jesus as the Messiah.

The Old Covenant is "bad" in that it could never provide salvation and condemned all to death, but good because that is exactly what it was designed to do.

The Old Covenant is abolished for those who are covered by the blood of Christ. The Old Covenant is retained for those who are not.

Confused yet? ;)
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #28

Post by johnmarc »

I am going to upset the few folk who might be examining this debate from a Historical Critical perspective, but I am going to concede point five as clarified by Few in the last post. And I agree with the HC community. It makes no sense to give up contradictions just to allow Few to make a point. But I am doing so for three reasons.
Fewwillfindit wrote: Not a lot of people would have the fortitude to plow through this information with the intent to understand it.
(1) This isn’t and never was a debate. It is an attempt to understand. I have already conceded Point Four and I don’t see that we have progressed beyond that point. Point Five seems to be a detailing and reiteration of Point Four. I have no problem with the primacy of the NC. That seems a point universally accepted, even by us liberal folk.


(2) I have the advantage (or disadvantage, as it were) to have sat in Fundamentalist pews for years. What is described in the previous post sounds entirely in keeping with a Fundamentalist position. This is not a Historical Critical examination. It is a question of whether or not Fundamentalists themselves hold to a consistent and objective evaluation of 613 laws.

(3) In my opinion, I have conceded nothing thus far. I have seen none of the algorithm. I have seen no formula that might make rule 217 applicable and rule 374 inapplicable. All of this background information is pretty much what Fundamentalists believe. There is no need to hold the conversation captive to a debate over relevance of the NC.

Part one: Acceptance of my caveat
Part two: The Old Covenant (conceded with caveat)
Part three: The authority of Paul (conceded without caveat)
Part four: The New Covenant (conceded without caveat)
Part five: The effects of the New Covenant (conceded without caveat)

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #29

Post by fewwillfindit »

Good enough. Standing by for part 6.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #30

Post by johnmarc »

Part Six: The Law after Christ
fewwillfindit wrote:What happened to the Law after Christ?
  • It was cancelled, set aside and nailed to the cross
    Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
  • It was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
    Hebrews 7:18-19 ESV wrote:For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
  • It was made obsolete
    Hebrews 8:13 ESV wrote:In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
  • It was abolished
    Ephesians 2:15 ESV wrote:by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace
The Law was designed to lead us to Christ and to make us aware that we needed a Savior by revealing our sin and demanding a penalty for that sin. But in Christ, under the New Covenant, we are no longer under that guardian, or tutor as some translations say. Paul was quite upset when the Judaizers tried to rob the Christians of their freedom in Christ and attempted to impose the Law of Moses on them:
Galatians 3: entire chapter ESV wrote:O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
To summarize the passages above, we have seen that the Law of Moses under the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross (figuratively), weak, cancelled, abolished, a ministry of condemnation, a ministry of death, obselete, vanishing away, found to have fault, a curse, and was merely a shadow (foreshadow) that pointed to Christ.

Christians now have available to them the substance, which is Christ, and no longer shrink back to the shadow. This would be like a soldier leaving the love of his life to go to war. While away, he cherished and longed after her picture. After many years passed, he finally returned home, and when she ran to meet him, he turned his back on her and instead preferred the picture that he so cherished.

This is exactly what happens when Christians attempt to place themselves back under the Law of Moses. They are spitting in His face, in essence telling Him that they preferred all the regulations, ritual and ceremony which pointed to Him, rather than He Whom it all foreshadowed. Scripture calls it returning to "weak and beggarly elements." As a matter of fact, when a Christian turns back to the Law, they can no longer see Christ. They cannot even perceive him:
2 Corinthians 3:12-18 ESV wrote:Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
That's pretty explicit.


Apparently these Judaizers were also trying to force the Sabbath, the Holy Days and the clean and unclean food laws upon unsuspecting Christians as well. Here Paul makes it clear that these were all mere shadows that pointed to Christ. Now that we have the substance, Christ, we no longer need the shadow which pointed to Him:
Colossians 2:16-17 ESV wrote:Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Galatians 4:8-11 ESV wrote:Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

This quote from a recent discussion I had may be helpful as well (I altered my reply a bit for clarity):
fewwillfindit wrote:
A question: Are the Ten Commandments not part of the Mosaic Law? The Ten Commandments are given at least lip service by most Christian denominations and are certainly part of the Old Testament, included in the part allegedly written by Moses. Is there some fine technical distinction here?
Christians obey the commandments, but it is not because they are given in the Mosaic Law. It is because they are reiterated in the New Testament, with the exception of the Sabbath command. Some Christians see the Sabbath as a creation ordinance which preceded the Mosaic Law. Others do not recognize this and only keep 9 commandments. Yet others keep the principle of resting one day in seven, but do it on Sunday in accordance with the example of the New Testament Church. However you slice it, the bottom line is that the reason that Christians keep the commandments is not because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

Another way to explain this is to look at a hypothetical. If you are a U.S. citizen and U.S. law states that espionage is illegal, yet France, which coined the term, also has an identical law, you are not accused of placing yourself under French Law because you do not commit espionage. Rather, you are under U.S. law.

So, to conclude this first post, I briefly defined the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants, and showed a handful of Scriptures which explain why/how the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. I anticipate quite a few questions and observations, and I will do my best to address them.

But not at this point, however. It seems that we have already talked this to death. I don’t see anything new here. The OC is at one time nullified and restored. I can understand your thinking on this. The OC is interpreted through the NC in a manner that has not been laid out yet. The Ten Commandment interpretation was helpful. I don’t feel that we have moved any real distance from Point Four yet. The New Covenant trumps the Old Covenant. Jesus trumps God as it were (I know that this is not the way that the conservative tradition would put this)

Three points:

(1) The Jews (Judaizers) seem to have found a way around the strict laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy by applying some good old practical common sense to the whole. The vast majority of Jews interpret their Torah pretty liberally---they can hardly be called modern day Pharisees or Sadducees. I hope that this is not a slam on the Jewish faith.

(2) It seems that you have drug me across the tracks to knock on every door and interview each family to show me that they were poor. We never needed to get out of the car for that. That the NC trumps the OC in conservative theology seems pretty clear at the outset. Isn’t that why the NT was written?

(3) I have a bad feeling about this. If you are now going to now interpret the OC through the Great Commandment, it seems that the following should be noted: (A) This is what we liberals do. Obviously, it is more sophisticated than that, but not by much. (B) The whole thing could have been done in one paragraph. :D

Part one: Acceptance of my caveat
Part two: The Old Covenant (conceded with caveat)
Part three: The authority of Paul (conceded without caveat)
Part four: The New Covenant (conceded without caveat)
Part five: The effects of the New Covenant (conceded without caveat)
Part six: The Law after Christ (conceded without caveat)

Are we moving on to the good stuff?

Post Reply