His Hand is on the Door

24 Comments Add your own

• 1. Colin Day  |  November 18th, 2007 at 11:30 am

  The law, in part, is an answer to a key question: what does God want to establish on the earth that is reflective of what He has established in heaven?

  I’m intrigued by this statement. Can you elaborate on this, using scripture to explain?

• 2. Josh Hawkins  |  November 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

  Colin - by the way David ended the last few paragraphs, it seems like he is setting it up to more precisely answer your question in part 4 of his series

  However, I think he already alluded to the answer in that God’s desire is to establish human agreement and unity with His heart by which those things that He values and cherishes are openly manifest on the earth as it is already openly manifest in heaven. Jesus did not pray John 17:20-26 in a vacuum nor did He tell us to pray Matthew 6:10 wishfully hoping it would come to pass some day. The Father is looking for a worthy partner for His son that fully embraces and embodies what He values, not a trophy bride with half a brain that is programmed with robotic obedience.

  The coming pressure, shaking, and testing will produce the optimum conditions for Jesus’ prayer to be answered, birthing a new kingdom on the earth in which Jesus’ commandments will go forth from Jerusalem and will be observed by the whole earth.

  This is definitely a vast subject…..

  Josh

• 3. Jeremy  |  November 19th, 2007 at 10:54 am

  This series is certainly challenging me and the way I’ve thought in the past… I’m certainly enjoying it!

  The more you talk about it, and I ruminate and comment, I find that my heart, though not under the light, is actually getting excited about it. I’m beginning to ‘delight’ in God’s heart behind it all…and that was the point all along.

  I think a lot of our evangelical problems related to the law have to do with perspective!

• 4. Colin Day  |  November 19th, 2007 at 12:10 pm

  Thank you Josh. I fully agree with a few things that you said (mostly that God has not willed us to be trophy brides with half a brain, etc…).

  John 17 and Matthew 6 do not clarify the assertion that the law is partially what God wants to establish on the earth at the fulfillment of that which has been prophesied. Both passages point towards a lesser described will, purpose, and desire of God. The question is not whether God’s values are partially illustrated in the law (this, I would imagine, is not up for debate), but whether God’s will for his new heaven and new earth would be that the same law is put in place with the same focus as in the Old Testament.

  So I struggle to see this message in scripture, and if it’s there, I’m just missing it. This is why I ask whether there are portions of scripture that describe God’s will as in having the law in place in the new heaven and earth. Is there scripture that describes the law of OT earth being parallel to some law that was/is in place in heaven?

• 5. Colin Day  |  November 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm

  I want to clarify something I posted above.

  Both passages point towards a lesser described will, purpose, and desire of God.

  Whew, that sentence makes no sense! I mean to say that both passages refer to God’s will, but they don’t define it in specifically the same way David has in this post.

• 6. Jake  |  November 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am

  David, can you comment on this response from a friend of mine via email about your article thus far please???

  “Hey Jake,

  Are you trying to vex my spirit? lol It is the same old stuff…he misses a major point in trying to neuter Heb 8-10…the author is using the temple system to illustrate his point, but his point is at the covenantal level, not a part of the Law. i.e. it is a new covenant NOT LIKE THE OLD ONE…he is placing to much weight in the example the author is using to illustrate his main point that the covenants have changed. Not just the temple/sacrificial system. The shadow analogy applies to the whole covenant…Paul uses the same analogy in Colossians and applies it even to the Sabbath, one of the 10 Commandments. He is right to point out that the Law has not yet disappeared…but for us (believers) it is obsolete! He focuses on the not disappeared part but does not let the ramifications of the word obsolete have it’s full weight. It is not the sacrificial law that is obsolete, but the covenant as a whole. I could go on but I wholeheartedly disagree with his interpretation of Heb 8-10. Jason”

• 7. David  |  November 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm

  Ha ha ha. I like his style. The problem is that his view of the “Old Covenant” is more in line with his theological system and background. What exactly is “the Old Covenant”? Why did Paul refer to covenants and promises in the plural in Rom. 9:3? What exactly has faded and been rendered obsolete in relationship to the new and living way provided by the blood of Christ?

  Rather than define it, your friend is content to oversimplify it without thinking through the actual question: when was the law rescinded, and why did Jesus answer the question by stating “not until heaven and earth pass away”?

  Is it a shadow of things to come? Absolutely. Does that shadow still serve a purpose? Yes! What purpose? Or, I’ll ask the question in a different manner: is the law rescinded or fully expressed through Christ? If the latter is the answer, than what does that mean for the manner in which we are to live, serve, and obey God?

  So, I wholeheartedly disagree with your friend’s absolute certainty that he has figured out the mystery of the incarnation and its implications for our lives before God.

  I only answered since you asked so nicely. I didn’t write the article for your friend.

  David

• 8. Jake  |  November 21st, 2007 at 3:07 pm

  David,

  I am wrestling through this issue with several leaders at our church and its so difficult at times. I have felt for a long time now that we were only teaching “half” the message of Grace and freedom from the Law. Your writings are resonating in my spirit and I am trying to really understanding what I believe on this issue. Jason, is the resident expert on the Law and Grace theology at our church and it has some amazing fruit in our congregations life. However it feels like we have gone to far in one aspect and not far enough in responsibility. The message left taught “in half” has produced a license mentality among money and stripped the heart of discipline and urgency from our midst. We must behold both the goodness and the severity of God. Everything He has created and done are good and right. This includes the Law.

  Though we are not under its weight in Christ and though it is powerless to justify neither are we absolved from responsibility or daily choices to live upright as we long for the perfection that is maturity in Christ; IE full statured Christ-likeness. I’m rambling now. Thanks again for your feedback. I love and appreciate you my brother!

• 9. Jake  |  November 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm

  sorry, that was among many not “money”.

• 10. Jake  |  November 22nd, 2007 at 10:53 am

  David, I don’t have your email or I would have just sent you this but I wanted you to see it. Blessings and again, thanks so much.

  Hey Jake,
  Please forward this to David and read it also, I hope it will help you in your contemplations! God bless. Jason

  David,

  I appreciate your response and welcome some good theological dialogue! I was not trying to do a point by point debate in my response. I was more then anything shooting from the hip and not looking to cover all my bases. Let me be a little clearer.

  First as far as the plural form for covenants in Romans this could refer to two different possibilities. First it could refer to the multiple covenants made with the patriarchs (Abraham…then renewed with Isaac and Jacob) It could also refer to the renewing of the Law we see in Deuteronomy. Maybe all of the above. In either case I fail to see the relevance of the point. Hebrews 8-10 and Jeremiah are very clearly making reference to the covenant mediated through Moses specifically the Law.
  Jer. 31:31 (Also quoted in the Hebrews passage which is in question) “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

  32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD…

  I do not see how Paul’s general mention of the whole covenantal history of Israel going back to the Patriarchs in Romans expands the author of Hebrews limited discussion of the Law in 8 through 10. It is not an overly simplistic view to say that Hebrews is referring to the Mosaic Covenant of Law. This is clearly seen in the context. If you want to expand the meaning of covenant to refer to the plurality of covenants from Israel’s history the burden of proof is on you to show the text in Hebrews is talking in such broad terms. I do not see any evidence of this. I see the author making a very clear contrast of the New Covenant established through Christ with the covenant made when they left Egypt of which the priesthood of Aaron was established, this is what he is referring to specifically as the Old Covenant in this passage.

  Secondly with regard to what is fading away and is obsolete. I have actually thought quite a bit about this question. It is a bit presumptuous and premature to gather from my brief comment that I am “content to oversimplify” the actual question. Let me respond more fully to the issue so you can know what I think the answer is. I think Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5 is one of several key passages which give us insight to the temporal nature of the Law. Jesus gives us a very clear statement that it will not end until the end of the Age, specifically when the old heavens and earth pass away. Then it will pass away. It is interesting to note in this same passage that Jesus said He came to earth to fulfill the Law, and indeed He did. So we are left with this picture, Jesus came and fulfilled the Law, yet the Law remains until the end of the Age. When combined with the Hebrews passage we see this picture colored in a bit more. Jesus fulfilled the Law and in some way this has made the Law obsolete, but still the Law remains though it is aging and will soon pass away. Clearly Jesus is the central force in the Law’s status and role, and something big changed when He died on the Cross and rose again ratifying this “New Covenant.” There are some other passages which fill in this picture even more. Went we read in Galatians 3
  21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

  22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

  23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

  24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

  25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

  This is part of Paul’s explanation to his question,”what then is the purpose of the Law?” Here we see another bit of coloring in of the picture of what happened when Christ came. From a Christian perspective the Law was given to show us our need for a savior, to lead us to Christ. Galatians 3:19 says the Law was added because of transgressions. This is echoed in passages like Romans 4

  14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless,

  15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.

  and

  Rom 3

  20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

  21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

  From these two passages we see that the Law trapped us within the confines of acknowledged sin. When the Law came everything changed because sin was now clearly defined, we now were transgressing or law breaking. In addition to this the statement in Gal 3:19 means something else also.

  In Romans 5:

  20 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

  21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

  We see how the trespass increased by defining sin more clearly but it also had an added effect. It was weakened through the sinful nature…

  Rom 7

  7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “Do not covet.”

  8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead.

  9 Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died.

  10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

  11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death.

  12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

  13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

  In light of this 1 Cor. 15:56 makes allot of sense…

  1Cor 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

  From a New Covenant/Christian perspective the purpose of the law is very clear. It afforded sin with the opportunity it needed. It empowered sin in my life and I was a complete slave to sin. Thus my need for a savior was evident. This brings us to the specific question of what happened when Jesus came. I propose that for the Christian their relationship to the Law as a whole radically changed. I believe that when Jesus came He freed anyone who believes in Him from the jurisdiction and authority of the Law. We are no longer under Law because we died. And in the same way when one dies, the covenant of marriage is ended, so it is with our “marriage covenant with the Law.” This is what is taught in Rom 7

  1 Do you not know, brothers– for I am speaking to men who know the law– that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives?

  2 For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.

  3 So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

  4 So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

  5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.

  6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

  I would offer that the new way of the Spirit is the same thing as the new and living way through the blood of Jesus. This makes sense with Romans 10:1-4 as well…

  Rom 10:1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved.

  2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.

  3 Since they did not know the righteousness that comes from God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

  4 Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

  From these passages we can color in the picture even more. Because Jesus fulfilled the Law then died for us we are able to die in Him and be freed from the Law, and receive righteousness which is apart from the Law and is from Him. As Romans 7 and Gal 3 say now that faith has come I am no longer under it’s supervision or authority, I am now under a new covenant which is the jurisdiction and authority of Christ. Romans 10:4 communicates this very clearly. Christ is the end of the Law for those who believe. The word end should be taken in the same way that a finish line is both the goal and the termination of the race, so Christ is both the goal and termination of the Law for those who believe. This gives us the meaning of what is meant by “obsolete” in Hebrews. For the Christian the Law in it’s totality (the written code Romans 7) has become obsolete. The new and living way Christ purchased is affected not by adhering to a written code which brings death , but is rather affected by the Spirit producing righteousness from the inside out by conforming us the very image of Christ. I no longer look to a list, but to a Person.

  1Cor. 3:6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant– not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

  7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was,

  8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious?

  9 If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!

  10 For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory.

  11 And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!

  12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold.

  13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.

  14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.

  15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts.

  16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.

  17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

  18 And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.

  This answers the question of in what sense has the Law become obsolete. Now lets look at how it endures until the end of the Age. The answer to this is found back in it’s original purpose as described by Paul in Galatians 3. It still has a function to perform in the earth. Why? Because not everyone has come to faith in Christ. Therefore the Law continues to condemn the unsaved lawbreakers trying to lead them to Christ. Should they come to Christ the Law has fulfilled its purpose in their life and comes to an end. This makes sense with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 5 as well. The Law will stay in affect until the end of the Age when all is fulfilled, until that time there will still be unbelievers in need of a savior.

  The conclusion I reach from these passages is that yes the Law is both obsolete and at an end, as well as not yet disappeared and still in effect. Christ and the new and living way He is offering us being the deciding point on which way we will relate to the Law. This is my answer to the question when was/is the Law rescinded…God bless

• 11. David  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  Whew! Lots of words. The problem is that, since I have had these conversations before, I knew what the response would be. And it’s an oversimplified one that is content (as I stated) to leave the conversation about the law in the mysterious realm of imputed righteousness with little thought given to what the Spirit wants to impart by way of righteousness.

  In other words, since there is no further thought given to the law, only to Christ, can someone tell me what that actually means, practically? How does one live the Christian life with only that statement to go on?

  Are we to live every jot and tittle of the law? No. Can we? No. Is there grace to live out a righteousness GREATER than the Pharisees through grace? Yes - and the answer lies in something beyond that which has been imputed. For if our life in God is only about what is imputed, than by what standard does the believer repent, and what does he repent from?

  David

• 12. ian  |  November 23rd, 2007 at 4:53 pm

  Wow, I love this. Though the theological broadsides you guys are firing at each other make me wonder why I am about to post this.

  I did not see 1 Tim 1:8 anywhere in the last discussion. Maybe it was used earlier, if so sorry. Paul makes room for an active use of the law in the context of the New Covent that a believer enters into through Jesus. In my opinion this is more than the tutor concept that we all know and love (in a bitter sweet way)
  If the law can be used lawfully than the question of “obsolete” and “faded” power is in relation to its power to convict not its power to enter into convent with God. If the old convents are capable of fading or becoming obsolete in regard to God’s commitment and ability to maintain them than the covenant we have in Christ has no effect. His ability to secure us in covenant is undermined by the dispensational theology that has bled into the “evangelical” thought that Dave mentioned earlier in the post. With out Gen 3:15, Gen 12:3 (and following) up to Jeremiah’s declaration in 31:31. Jer. 31:31 is a bridge not a declaration of a new paradigm of Covent. This is the clarion call of the Holy Spirit who will now produce a greater power to convict and keep convent behavior than the law as covenant (exemplified in the giving of law as covenant in the Decalogue).
  I know you are going to say that is not what you are getting at. But really that is where the argument leads. Jesus is alone of some theological island because we have created an argument about the law that Paul never intended to make. Paul is never calling into question the continuity of the covenant. This is done with a myopic argument from dispensational views by attempting to juxtapose covenant promises rather than use them to build greater revelation of the same intent found in the original covenant. That intent is to normalize relations (through covenant) between God and man and to bring perfect fellowship between created and creator.
  Jake the mention of the convents being obsolete in your earlier post will frustrate theologically any attempt you make to establish the law under Jesus. If you dismiss the covenants you have to dismiss the law which is what your argument did earlier. If not dismiss than at the least reduced to a level not worthy of much thought, as is currently the case, broadly speaking, in the church today.
  I am running out of time so I will open the door to a lot of criticism and say in bullet points some of the things the law is intended to achieve.

  The Law informs our conscience that has been renewed (see Heb 10) by the blood of Jesus.

  Jesus in John 17 is sure to include the law (his words) as a springboard (not a tutor) into faith (John 17:8. Fellowship was part of the original intent of the Law. Jesus establishes this in the New Covenant.
  This is much like David when he says that the law is perfect reviving the soul. David was not claiming the law as a means of salvation but as a tool used by the Holy Spirit for those walking in faith as David was.
  The Law is an agent used in Sanctification. This is more than conviction. The Law reconstitutes the spirit of man by being able to keep us in the Name of God.

  OK got Go. Sorry flamed out on the use of the Law but will post more after I become a kabob on someone’s theological skewer.

• 13. Colin Day  |  November 24th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

  I appreciate all the discussion going around surrounding this subject and that very few cheap or presumptive shots have been taken. It’s encouraging that civil discussions like this can actually exist and hopefully all of us are being sharpened by it.

  There’s an awful lot of reference to “the law”, and I wonder if you (David) would be willing to take a stab at exactly what you mean when you refer to “the law”. The reason I ask is because some refer to the law as simply the Ten Commandments (I’d say that’s oversimplification, but let me know if that’s what you mean). Other’s would say that “the law” means the law and the prophets (the entire volume of OT teachings on morality). Some would say that “the law” includes all of the commandments of the OT minus the Levitical law which was intended only for the descendants of Levi (including Kohanim). So how would you, David, define “the law”?

  I figure it makes sense to clarify this so we’re all talking about the same thing.

• 14. Jake  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:19 am

  Just to clarify for everyone that I (Jake) am not the person writing those responses to David. That person’s name is Jason and he is one of the leaders at the church that I attend and also used to be on staff at. Thanks!

• 15. Jason  |  November 25th, 2007 at 12:20 pm

  Dave,

  You responded to me with the statement that I oversimplified your question of when the Law was rescinded, my response was to give you a fuller answer to when it was rescinded.

  Quote from above:” Rather than define it, your friend is content to oversimplify it without thinking through the actual question: when was the law rescinded, and why did Jesus answer the question by stating “not until heaven and earth pass away”?

  Instead of responding to what I said you moved to say now it is oversimplified because I did not move my answer into the process of sanctification. I was not trying to answer that question because in your first article, the one I was responding too, you asked the question when the Law was rescinded. That was all I was trying to answer. If you now want to discuss the process of how we practically walk out righteous living apart from the Law we can. Once again you are premature in assuming I am “content” to stay in the realm of imputed righteousness, I was simply answering your first premise and question. I guess I was hoping to resolve the initial question, before progressing to the next one.

  I have had the concern from the beginning of this conversation (and after watching your podcast where you mentioned cheap grace) that I would not be debating my actual position, but your assumption of my position based on your past discussions with cheap grace people. Your response has comnfirmed this concern. I am not a person who believes in sinful license, but rather holy living in line with the character and nature of God.

  I also hope you are not basing your beliefs on the Law because you do not see a responsible way for righteousness to be walked out practically apart from Law, or out of reaction to error you have witnessed. This always produces more error. Frankly I don’t think your view stands up to what the Scripture has to say regarding the Law, but you haven’t engaged me on the actual Scriptures I brought out, except to say I have oversimplified things. If you would do me the courtesy of responding to my answer to your main question…when was the Law rescinded… I would appreciate it. I also am very interested in answering your concerns regarding the process of sanctification.

  Before we get to this I have a couple of additional thoughts on some ways you use verses regarding when the Law was rescinded…

  A couple of times you have mentioned that when Paul said we or no longer under the tutor in Gal 3:25 that he is saying we are no longer under the curse or punishment of the Law. I find this interesting. While this belief is true regarding us not being under the curse, Paul is not discussing that at this point. He has already established that earlier and is now answering the question of the Laws purpose. The NIV rightly brings out the idea of supervision, when it says we are no longer “under the supervision of the Law” and in the previous verse stating that the Law was put in “charge.” The Greek word for tutor is very much a “behavioral” term which was used to describe a teacher who instructed a youth. This refers to the role of instructing us. Therefore the idea here is the Law’s authority and jurisdiction over our behavior. While this includes its authority to curse it is much more then just that. This does not mean we cannot glean wisdom and principle from the Law, certainly 2 Tim 3:16 communicates this.

  16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
  17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

  Here this most certainly refers to the sacred writings of the Torah. The way I see these two passages working together I can best explain in an example of how I use the Law to instruct in righteousness without putting us back under its authority. I use…

  NIV Leviticus 19:19 “‘Keep my decrees. “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals. “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

  …to illustrate this. Why does the Lord command those under the authority of Law to not were mixed fabrics? This Law illustrates a very real aspect of God’s nature. There is no mixture in Him! He is wholly set apart and pure. As New Covenant believers we need to live our lives in the same way. We need to live lives of purity and holiness. We need to look like our Father. We do not do this now by wearing non-mixed fabrics, but instead by loving Him and loving others the way He loves us.

  In using the Law this way I have used it for instruction and training in righteousness. But I did not put the people under the authority of the Law by telling them they can only where one kind of fabric! They are not obligated to keep the Law anymore. Which bags the question Dave, what Laws are we to follow still? I know you don’t believe we have to follow the temple/sacrificial laws, but can we were mixed fabric? Can I trim my beard? Can I have a tattoo? Am I under a curse if I do not tithe? What do I do if I have mildew in my house, or I have a bodily discharge? Who decides what Laws I must obey to walk out righteousness and repent from when I do not follow them? You? My Pastor? Me? The Holy Spirit? What if I believe the Holy Spirit is saying we can’t where mixed fabric but you think He is saying that doesn’t matter. Who is right? What rules from the Law must I keep to practically walk out righteous living? And on what basis do you choose for those who are following your leadership?

  Secondly, you have made the statement that the sacrificial system was what was a shadow of Christ and I think tried to limit it to that (please correct me if I am mistaken regarding your point here).

  Quote from part 1: “What was taken away, once for all time? Was it the whole of the law, “having a shadow of good things to come”? No! The shadow that is within the law is the sacrificial system - specifically in this passage, the Day of Atonement.”

  The problem with this is that Paul extends this idea of type and shadows much farther then you have in another passage. I think in deciding what shadow was in the Law we should look at any passage that speaks to it, not just the one that could fit your position.

  Col 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins,
  14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.
  15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
  16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
  17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

  I find it especially interesting that Paul lists the Sabbath (1 of the 10 commandments and the seal of the Mosaic Covenant) as a shadow. He also mentions dietary laws, and festivals. To me this communicates a much broader picture of the Law as a shadow of what was to come in Christ. That even the righteousness which the law portrayed was just a shadow of the real righteousness we have in Christ that is why Jesus makes such a broad sweeping statement regarding all the Law and Prophets:

  Matthew 22:37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
  38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
  39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
  40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

  We have the royal law of love, and the whole Law is summed up in it…if your interpretation of the Law and how it applies to us takes you anywhere other then here you are in error. True and real righteousness from Christ is love. Time and time again the apostles appealed to this in their writings. This is why a written code is just a shadow of the reality. A list cannot love, only a person can do that.

  I have other thoughts, especially regarding sanctification and living righteously through the Spirit and not the written code…but I have written to much already After we have finished answering your initial question maybe we can discuss this issue…God Bless.

• 16. David  |  November 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am

  Jason -

  Let me be clear on a few things:

  1. I agree with all of your assertions, just not your conclusions.

  2. This would be true in both huge postings.

  Your analysis of the law through the lens of Paul’s writings is one that I can wholeheartedly agree with. I think that part of the problem is that you are assuming on my conclusions, which I haven’t fully shared yet. This is my fault, entirely.

  That’s why I wrote the beginning section of pt. 3, so that a framework of new testament orthodoxy could be established lest I be greatly misunderstood. The life of the New Testament believer cannot be found in trying to keep the statutes of the law, but by seeking out the Spirit of the law. I agree that we are fine to wear clothing of mixed fiber and that we no longer have to bury our feces outside of the camp.

  Yet here is where I differ in my opinion - the whole of the law is summed up by loving the Lord with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength…but how does one do that? Are there any instructions in the New Testament regarding this subject? From where do these instructions come from?

  Is there something to the promises / blessings of Deut. 28, which come when Israel “carefully” observes the law? Is this promise of blessing rescinded as well? Again, I ask, what does God want to establish on the earth that is reflective of what He has established in heaven?

  Secondly, when is the end of the age? When does heaven and earth pass away? Exploring these key questions, I think, gives us insight into the nature and expression of the law both today and in the days to come.

  To summarize, it may be an exercise in semantics, but I think that our difference is found in the details: while you say that the whole of the law is both rescinded and obsolete for the NT believer, I say that the penalty of lawbreaking has been paid and the righteousness of God has been imputed, freeing us to search out with loving devotion the Spirit or the heart of the law to discover the Lawgiver.

  Does this mean then that we are to be “lawkeepers”? In a sense - but lawkeepers in the truest sense by grace, holding to the heart behind the law that is there to discover if we seek it out. In that sense, the law has more relevance, not less, for the NT believer.

  To say it differently, where OT Judaism was (and still is) obsessed with “what” the law says and how to keep it, NT Christianity is free to become obsessed with who God is and search out why He said what He did.

  I appreciate the dialogue and your heart in laying out your perspective - thanks for taking the time to be so careful in your communication.

  David

• 17. Jason  |  November 26th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

  Thank you for your response David.

  I want you to know that I am not trying to bog down your blog with massive posts! lol It was a holiday weekend so I had free time to write more fully. Now I am back at work….so I will brief.

  I think that there are some points of agreement in your last post. We both see the Law as a valuble tool for learning about God’s character, and His plan of redemption. At it’s most basic level I think the law as a shadow is not just about Christs sacrifice, but beyond that a dim outline of Jesus/God in His character and attributes. There is no question we can glean from this for instruction in righteousness.

  As far as the approach of seeking out the Spirit of the Law as a means for establishing orthodoxy I tend to disagree with this. I think love is not as nebulouse as you make it out to be….John says, “this is how we know what love is Jesus Christ laid down His life for us and we ought to lay down our lives for each other.” This is why Paul says …”the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

  As well as Romans 10:9 The commandments, “Do not commit adultery,” “Do not murder,” “Do not steal,” “Do not covet,” and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
  10 Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

  The Spirit is not revealing the Law that was shadow, He is revealing himself the reality that the shadow pointed to…The Law is summed up in love for your neighbor, and now we have the personification of Love in the person of God in us…love is the throbbing heart of the NT. It is all that counts. If we walk in love we fufill the Law and walk in righteousness.

  We do not “need” the Law to know the truth although it is a tool available to us that the Spirit can and does use…Jesus did not promise us the Law will lead us into all truth however He promised us the Spirit would.

  In 2 Cor 3 we see the ministry of the Law contrasted with the ministry of the Spirit as the means to being transformed into His image…practically walking out His nature and character. In this chapter we are instructed not to set our hearts and minds on the Law the way David did, but rather to behold Him in personal revelation of the glory of God as revealed in the face of Christ (this is in chpt.4). It should not suprise us that this can happen without the written revelation of the Law. Copies of the Torah were not always readily available to the early gentile churches…the Spirit is who will create orthodoxy for believers conduct this happens independent from the Law (although hHe can use it to bring revelation like He can through many other avenues) and results in us loving the way He does.

  This is getting long again so I will just stop there…:) God bless…

  (my spell checker isn’t working for some reason sorry for any mistakes)

• 18. Jake  |  November 26th, 2007 at 7:06 pm

  David can you elborate on what you see as the answers to the questions you posed please?

• 19. Jason  |  November 27th, 2007 at 8:59 am

  quote “Yet here is where I differ in my opinion - the whole of the law is summed up by loving the Lord with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength…but how does one do that? Are there any instructions in the New Testament regarding this subject? From where do these instructions come from? ”

  My last post was in response to these questions….

  As far as the following quote:

  :Is there something to the promises / blessings of Deut. 28, which come when Israel “carefully” observes the law? Is this promise of blessing rescinded as well? Again, I ask, what does God want to establish on the earth that is reflective of what He has established in heaven? ”

  The problem with trying to use Deut 28 in this way is that it is incompatiable with the Covenant of faith God has established in Christ. Deut. 28 is a straight conditional promise based on my ability to keep the Law, it is a works and wages system, where if I perform the right works I get the promised wage. We receive blessing from the Lord under the new covenant the same way Abraham did by faith…in my opinion:)

• 20. David  |  November 27th, 2007 at 11:37 am

  I figured that your first post was your answer to the first question. The problem is that you need more space to flesh out your viewpoint, because your current definition seems content to not read or study dozens of chapters of what Paul deemed beneficial to our spiritual growth in 2 Tim. 3:16 in the name of “New Testament love”. Your interpretation of 2 Cor. 3 seems to bear this out. I am sure that you do not believe this, yet at the same time you aren’t working too hard to dispel this notion.

  In other words, a “the law is helpful but we don’t need it to learn truth” is a way of affirming it’s importance while justifying our freedom to ignore the passages - and that’s how you presented the context of 2 Cor. 3, which doesn’t say what you are saying as clearly as you are saying what it says.

  Secondly, your assessment of Deut. 28 is one you may want to re-examine. For if that passage is purely conditional and my take on it “incompatible” than we must also dismiss hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that connect back to this idea and look forward to its fulfillment. You have thus consigned not just the “law” to irrelevance for the NT Christian, but much of the “prophets” as well.

  I am sure you do not mean to do this.

  But still, you have taken the statement of Jesus regarding the law and the prophets and said, in essence, “Aha! See! It’s about love! That’s the New Testament!” You have appealed to love without defining love. You have summarized the NT and the words of Jesus and Paul as love without telling me how to love. Thus I walk away with a certainty that love is important, and that loving my neighbor is important too, but I am still uncertain about how to do either of those things.

  Does the law reveal how to love? Did the prophets tell us how to bless our neighbor? Yes and no. They clearly do reveal how God loves in a way that reveals God’s (and, more particularly, Jesus’) leadership and value system - which gives us insight into how God loves us and how we can therefore love in return.

  We do “how” better when we know “why” - yet you (unintentionally) keep appealing to the “what”. It may have the air of sound theology, but it isn’t very practical or helpful once you get an inch deeper. I say this tenderly, knowing that tone and relationship don’t translate well in this medium. In other words, we don’t really know each other and you can’t hear how I’m “saying” what I am saying. So please understand that I give you the benefit of the doubt in a hundred areas related to theology and practical Christianity.

  In this one area, however, you are giving me the standard Reformed viewpoint in many ways without laying out some of the implications of what you are saying. I realize again that space and time mitigate against clarity, so no penalty. But I want to be clear - as clear as I can be - about what I am hearing from you.

  So, to sum up there are two things here that are unclear on your end:

  1. “As far as the approach of seeking out the Spirit of the Law as a means for establishing orthodoxy I tend to disagree with this.” I have no idea what you mean here, because I don’t think I said that.

  2. ” I think love is not as nebulouse as you make it out to be…” To be clear, I am saying that you are making it nebulous. I think the Bible is very plain and clear regarding love - how to receive it and how to express it.

  Thanks so much for taking the time. I appreciate your zeal for truth.

  David

• 21. David  |  November 28th, 2007 at 10:25 am

  Colin Day linked me (and us) to a Mark Driscoll sermon in the same spirit as the podcast I did recently (which I enjoyed immensely).

  I appreciated one point in particular that Mark made regarding 2 Tim. 2:5 related to rewards and “competing according to the rules”. The question is, by what rules do we compete, in Paul’s thinking?

  The same “rules” that Jesus referred to - our standard for what is sexual immorality comes from the Mosaic law, not the New Testament. Thus Jesus (and Paul) were able to reference back to an already established concept (sexual immorality is bad) rather than introduce that concept as if the hearers had no frame of reference. They did - through the standard, or “rules” established via the law.

  I appreciated how another put it in a different forum:

  “His (Jesus) teachings were based on the Old Testament Laws. Again, Jesus’ teachings constantly rely upon the Old Testament Laws. For instance, Jesus tells us “murder” and “sexual immorality” are sins. Other than that, nothing. The only place we can find out where “murder” and “sexual immorality” are defined is in the Laws. Without the Laws we simply cannot complete the picture Jesus was making. To say Jesus made it so “the OT isn’t needed” is to contradict Jesus’ own words when He said He was not abolishing the Law.

  As stated before: if there is no Law, there is no sin. Jesus confirmed sin, He confirmed the Law. The Law still applies to us, even to this day, but we are saved from the condemnation the Law brings if we only accept Christ’s gift. Christ’s salvation isn’t just an arbitrary “accept Me or die” deal. It’s a “accept Me as I perfectly followed the Law, in place of your failure to follow the Law. Accept Me as I did no sin, while you sinned.” The reason we need salvation is because we are still under the Law.”

  David

• 22. Jason  |  November 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm

  David thank you for your gracious response…I am swamped at the moment and will respond closer to the weekend…I agree this medium is diffuicilut to communicate in and can cause massive misunderstanding at times…I will try and clarify my thoughts later…God bless

• 23. Jason  |  December 1st, 2007 at 1:22 am

  QUOTE: “Does the law reveal how to love? Did the prophets tell us how to bless our neighbor? Yes and no. They clearly do reveal how God loves in a way that reveals God’s (and, more particularly, Jesus’) leadership and value system - which gives us insight into how God loves us and how we can therefore love in return.”

  I do not have a problem with this statement. There is so much to learn from the Law. I think the example I gave a few posts back of how to use the Law properly lines up with this concept. My issue with your position is that you do not stop here. To search out the Law to discover the Lawgiver and His value system is great. It is limited however because it is merely a shadow, and is no replacement for the reality of Christ as revealed by the Holy Spirit. To take the Law and say it still applies as a specific code of conduct is wrong however. If you disagree with this, then I return to my previous question what laws do I have to follow? In your last post you picked some for me. I am to follow the sexual laws…on what basis do you dismiss the mixed fabric law then?

  QUOTE: “As stated before: if there is no Law, there is no sin. Jesus confirmed sin, He confirmed the Law. The Law still applies to us, even to this day, but we are saved from the condemnation the Law brings if we only accept Christ’s gift. Christ’s salvation isn’t just an arbitrary “accept Me or die” deal. It’s a “accept Me as I perfectly followed the Law, in place of your failure to follow the Law. Accept Me as I did no sin, while you sinned.” The reason we need salvation is because we are still under the Law.”

  This statement shows how you want to walk both sides of the issue. You say we are under the spirit of the Law and we need the Law to help define Love for us…if this was all you believed we would be close to agreement but you go further with this language. You believe Christians are “under the Law.” You have attempted to point out inconsistency in how I apply the Law…

  QUOTE: “In other words, a “the law is helpful but we don’t need it to learn truth” is a way of affirming its importance while justifying our freedom to ignore the passages -

  But this is not the case. I have never said we should ignore passages. The Law is the inspired Word of God. My issue is how it is applied in light of the covenants. I see a sharp difference between the Law Covenant and the New Covenant. This demands I view a passage in Numbers about not trimming my beard in a different light then a passage in Peter regarding keeping the faith in the midst of suffering. I am not under the authority or jurisdiction of the Law (Rom 7:1-6) therefore I can trim my beard. I am under the jurisdiction of the New Covenant therefore if I loose my faith in the midst of suffering I must deal with God on the basis of that covenant.

  Your position of us being “under the Law” demands I keep the Law. To be under it is to be under its authority. Your position requires that either I must keep all the Laws or someone must pick and choose what laws the Church is to follow based on some yet to be defined hermeneutic. When I posed this question before you responded with, we are to discover the spirit of the law and the Lawgiver not keep specific laws. This contradicts your statement above, of us being under the Law. You cannot have it both ways. Either it’s authority in my life has ended or you have to keep all of it. Down to the last jot and tittle. If we are under the Law we have to keep it all.

  QUOTE: “Secondly, your assessment of Deut. 28 is one you may want to re-examine. For if that passage is purely conditional and my take on it “incompatible” than we must also dismiss hundreds of Old Testament prophecies that connect back to this idea and look forward to its fulfillment. You have thus consigned not just the “law” to irrelevance for the NT Christian, but much of the “prophets” as well. “

  I have not consigned the Law or Prophets to irrelevance. You forget I have repeatedly mentioned the Law is a very relevant source for learning about principles of Gods nature and righteousness. Perhaps this is a limitation of this medium, and I am not being clear. My issue here is that the promises listed in Deut. 28 are tied to my ability to keep the Law perfectly, plain and simple. If I keep ALL the laws I get to be blessed like this. The looking forward to the fulfillment is found in the reality of Christ (who is the end of the Law for those who believe) and dare I say it, love. Now all my needs are met in Christ Jesus according to His riches and glory, not by earning them through keeping the whole Law.

  As far as the prophets are concerned, massive amounts of the Prophets are concerned with God’s dealings and judgment with natural Israel regarding the Law. These passages do not apply to the Church. If you have a hermeneutic that says the Church is spiritual Israel (which I believe) and therefore every prophecy has a secondary spiritual application to the Church (which I do not believe), then you would disagree with this. Once again however you are set up with the need to pick and choose what applies and what does not or at least how it applies with no objective principle to guide you.

  QOUTE: “I think love is not as nebulous as you make it out to be…” To be clear, I am saying that you are making it nebulous. I think the Bible is very plain and clear regarding love - how to receive it and how to express it.”

  I believe the Bible is very clear regarding this matter as is the person of the Holy Spirit living in both of us. You are saying we need the Law to know how to love and I say no we do not, it is a useful tool for which I am thankful, but it is not the primary “mechanism” of the New Covenant for revealing what love is. We need Jesus as our model, we need to learn to live in the Spirit and keep in step with the Spirit. He can and does use the Law but He also does not need it to accomplish His purpose. The early gentile churches are evidence of this. That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

  QUOTE: “We do “how” better when we know “why” - yet you (unintentionally) keep appealing to the “what”. It may have the air of sound theology, but it isn’t very practical or helpful once you get an inch deeper. I say this tenderly, knowing that tone and relationship don’t translate well in this medium. In other words, we don’t really know each other and you can’t hear how I’m “saying” what I am saying. So please understand that I give you the benefit of the doubt in a hundred areas related to theology and practical Christianity.”

  I appreciate your remarks regarding our communication. I have been concerned when I write the heart and tone is not clear. I appreciate your care here and share your desire to keep this in mind. I am not really sure what the first sentence is about in the above quote. I do not feel like I have been impractical. I think an ethic that says love as revealed by the Holy Spirit is the deciding factor in my behavior gives us the practical guide we need. The Law can and does inform us regarding love. But it is the Spirit who leads us into truth. He is very capable, and can actually function and accomplish this apart from the Law. The power of the Gospel is found in the Spirit. He leads us in the “selfless” love that Christ modeled. He convicts and exposes the motives of our heart, and leads us in righteous behavior. The most practical (effective) theology there is, is learn to follow the Holy Spirit. He is the key to revelation, love, and righteous living. And sometimes He uses the Law to lead us in this journey but He does not lead us in keeping the Law. Otherwise He would be leading me to not trim my beard and not wear mixed fabrics.

  2 Cor. 3 teaches us it is His ministry which brings righteousness not the written code. The works of the flesh are obvious, Paul tells his gentile churches, he tells the Roman church these commandments are fulfilled when we love, why because love does no harm to it’s neighbor. Now I know in my behavior I should do no harm to my neighbor because of Love. My reason for not committing adultery is not the Law. I do not commit adultery because I have received the ultimate gift of Love and therefore can no longer do harm to my neighbor. Adultery would harm my neighbor in terrible ways. It doesn’t get more practical then that. This is not the “air of sound theology” it is the throbbing heart of the NT and the life of the believer in my opinion.

  This unfortunately has turned into another really long post. I am getting to busy to keep up the discussion at this level as I am sure you are as well. Please do not feel obligated to respond, but if you want to great. I am starting to feel like we are at a bit of a dead end…maybe if I ever make it out to IHOP I can track you down and we could finish the discussion face to face. I appreciate your passion and hunger for truth, and wish you the best.

• 24. Economy In The Kingdom. &&hellip  |  December 27th, 2007 at 3:42 am

  […] I was thinking about economy long before that. See it all started (I think) with this post that David Sliker wrote entitled “When Was the Law Rescinded?” Now that may seem like an odd topic to lead into […]

Leave a Comment

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed