Must Christians Obey the Old Testament Law?
Oct 15th, 2008 by Nathan White
My pastor at Berean Baptist Church Powder Springs just finished preaching through Matthew 5:17-20, spending three full sermons on these few verses. The first of these sermons is online, and the others will follow shortly. I’d highly recommend them to you.
But as I have contemplated his preaching through this text, I’ve formulated a few thoughts on this passage that I’d like to share here. Some of these are my pastor’s statements, either directly or indirectly, and some of these are mine. Also be warned: some of these things may come at you at somewhat of a shock, but I trust and pray that they will lead you back to the scriptures and to a further examination of truth.
First the text:
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” - Matt 5:17-20
Secondly, a few observations:
- Jesus here is warning people not to ‘think’ or ‘get the impression’ that He is doing away with the Law and the Prophets –despite what His teaching might sound like. He was correcting the Jewish interpretation of the Law in His day, not the actual Law itself.
- This text *specifically* references how a person is *saved* in the New Testament/New Covenant era. For verse 20 clearly references ‘entering heaven’, and the righteousness needed to do so. So what Jesus in this passage is teaching *US*, as well as His original audience, not to ‘think’ wrongly that He was doing away with the OT Law.
- Jesus is here teaching *us* to obey the OT Law in it’s entirety. For He condemns the breaking of even the least of the commandments.
- Jesus affirms that the binding nature of all OT Law did not end with His ‘fulfilling’ of the Law, but until the end of time, until heaven and earth pass away. So we as Christians (and non-Christians) are under full obligation to obey all of the OT Law, until heaven and earth pass away and all is finally accomplished.
- In other words, Jesus is crystal-clear in that His words were relevant for the OT age, the NT age, and the time in-between. Those hearing His voice that day on the mount need not worry that this teaching would change after His death and resurrection.
- Those who obey the Law, the OT and prophetic Law, will be called great in that Last Day, while those who advocate the breaking of even the smallest of OT Laws will be called least (or in other words, will be cast out of the kingdom).
Next, a few qualifiers:
- Obviously, we are under the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant. Thus, the administration of the Law has changed (but the substance of it has not). So our obligation and obedience to the Law will certainly be somewhat different in this day. (Please do not think I am advocating that we can no longer eat ham, for example).
- By contrasting the righteousness of the Pharisees, Jesus is specifically exposing the outward, self-righteousness adherence to the Law, to the *real* requirement of justification before God, namely perfect, heart righteousness.
- The true intention of the Law was never to be in outward performance or formality, and using the Law in that way leads to ‘never seeing’ the kingdom of heaven.
Lastly, a few necessary inferences:
- We must be extremely careful when we come to our conclusions on the Law of God, for we are walking on the holy ground of the very Righteousness of Christ that justifies us before God. In verse 20, Jesus makes it clear that righteousness (perfect obedience to the OT Law in this context) is indeed necessary to see the kingdom of heaven, but that not even the most religious of men is able to attain it. We know from redemptive history, of course, that Christ Himself is our righteousness by faith alone. HE fulfilled the Law perfectly for those who have faith.
- Thus, to misunderstand the purpose and binding nature of the OT Law is to misunderstand the very righteousness that justifies us before God. And to throw out the OT Law as no longer binding and/or necessary for the Christian to obey is to essentially deny (with our lips) that the OT Law justifies us before God. For scripture know nothing of a law that justifies as being different than a law that sanctifies.
- To decry the OT Law as inadequate, insufficient, only useful for death, no longer necessary for the righteous man, etc., is to essentially argue that Jesus Christ was not the final end and purpose to which the OT Law was given, and that the OT Law was insufficient for proper worship (through Jesus Christ) in the Old Covenant. If we separate the Law of God from redemptive history (for example, as Dispensationalism does, in all its forms, such as New Covenant Theology), we rip Jesus Christ completely out of the Old Testament.
Further reading:
In my own circles a recent question pertaining to the issue at hand was answered with a second question. What of the Law was not realized or filled up in Christ? He, in his very person, fulfilled the law and its righteous requirements. Nothing else be needed with regard to righteousness. He was and remains the eschatological goal of the Law and the Prophets.
In love,
Moe Bergeron
“Dispensationalism does, in all its forms, such as New Covenant Theology…”
I know this wasn’t really the point of your post, but to equate NCT with Disp., IMO, is somewhat of an exaggeration. I understand that the entire basis of dispensational scheme rises or falls on the discontinuity of the covenants, and that NCT also does indeed place more discontinuity than other systems. However, every system includes some kind of discontinuity, even the 1689 LBC, lest we fall into the Galatian/Hebrew error.
No big deal either way. Just had to give my two cents:) No need to argue over such an insignificant spat.
Moe–
Thanks for your comment. Excellent. I agree 100% with what you said. I hope that my words didn’t give an impression otherwise! As you said, He is certainly was, and is, the eschatological goal of the law and the prophets. To throw out the Law is to throw out that end!
Davide–
Good question, and a tough one to answer in a short space. Let me give a few reasons why I disagree with you.
NCT is indeed dressed-up dispensationlism because:
Let me first say that I’m not saying that it is classical Dispensationalism, but rather a form of progressive dispensationalism. So although I admit that this is somewhat a subjective question, I certainly see NCT as being a form of progressive dispensationalism, and I think many on both sides of the issue would agree with this statement.
But next, the men who began the NCT movement some 20-30yrs ago, along with many in this day, have explicitly stated that they are looking for an ‘in-between’ between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. That is, they see good points on each side, and have attempted to take the good from each side and mold them into one position. So naturally, NCT takes a form of what it comes out of, which leads me to…
Thus, secondly, since NCT is clearly a middle position between CT and Dispensationalism, one can easily examine just which side NCT leans towards most. And objectively speaking, it is without a doubt much closer to progressive dispensationalism that it is with CT. I’ll give you just one example of this: because of the radical break in the Covenants and in the Law, NCT sees that the Church did not come into existence until Pentecost. This is thus a foundational point of Dispensational theology (and actually, it undermines their own disagreements with full dispensationalism, IMO.)
So the way I see it, NCT agrees with Dispensationalism on the Law, but they agree with CT on just who is ‘the people of God’. But if their own position on the people of God is that the Church began at pentecost, which they must affirm if they hold to their view of the Law, then the very issue that distinguishes them from being fully Dispensationalism is in fact nothing but a dispensational doctrine at its core.
So personally, I could really care less about Dispensational’s misunderstanding of the people of God. Yes, I do not agree with their infatuation with Israel, but many forms of CT do the same with their post-millennialism. But the position of Dispensationalism that I disagree with most, and the point I see as the most dangerous to sound theology and living, is their view on the Law, which NCT has embraced on almost every point. So yes, this is a bit subjective, but when I see a group grab and agree with the foundational error of another system (in this case, NCT grabbing the chief error of Dispensationalism), then I see no reason why a distinction should be made between them –and I’m not the only one who sees it that way.
Thanks for your comment; hope that helps.
And one more thing, not to beat a dead horse
NCT agrees with Dispensationalism on the Covenants which are the framework and backbone of Covenant Theology. So, considering that NCT is an in-between between CT and Dispensationalism, NCT is clearly much more Dispensational than it is CT because they reject the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, as understood by CT, and which actually supports CT at its core.
Calvinists always end up tending towards Judaization and heading out of the New Testament to the Old because of their views on exclusive Psalmody and their emphasis on God’s wrath rather than his love. Calvinism is the road back to Sinai.
“Calvinism is the road back to Sinai.”
Rey–
You are the one who is arguing that human free-will and merit play a role in salvation. If anything aligns with the Jewish errors and ‘the road back to Sinai’ that Jesus was teaching against in Matthew 5, it would certainly be you.
By the way, you never answered me: are you a Roman Catholic? Your view on salvation seems to be exactly so, and it would help us better understand where you’re coming from.
I completely agree with your post, here, Nathan. I think you’ve summed things up quite nicely.
I have recently been told that I’m being shipped a review copy of a new book that purports to show definitively why the Reformed view of the Law is wrong and the NCT view is correct. I think it has to be because I’ve addressed the issue from a theonomic standpoint on several occassions…?
I’m wondering if you’re getting the same book?
Dead Horse! Beat Him Again! You wrote:
“NCT is clearly much more Dispensational than it is CT because they reject the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace, as understood by CT, and which actually supports CT at its core.”
Nathan, It all depends who you talk to. I’ve been close to the NCT dialogue since the 1980’s and I would have to say that most NCT advocates hold to a “one true people of God” view. All Dispensationalists hold to a view that has the ethnic descendants of Abraham being restored to a yet future and distinct economy from that of those saved out of the Gentile nations. Where we would find agreement is when we our discussion on what is evident of the New Covenant economy in the Now. There is within NCT a small but growing conversation around 2 Corinithians 3 with respect to the Letter/Spirit contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. The ramifications will ultimately be how we NCT advocates see and understand the superiority of the New Covenant with regards to sanctification. Blessings, - Moe Bergeron
Gordan–
Sorry if I gave that impression. I didn’t spend too much time in this post going into that, but I hope to one day.
I’m certainly not a theonomist
Let me know about that book, brother. From my perspective, everything that I’ve read from NCT seems to miss the point. It’s like reading Arminian stuff: they might have some valid points worth discussing if they could ever get down to the real issues and understand the CT position…but I better stop before I offend our NCT brothers.
Moe–
Once again, I don’t find too much in your words that I disagree with. In fact, I think you brought up some things that will help clarify the real issues here.
First, you said:
Agreed.
You said:
Agreed again!
You said:
Yes, and this is a helpful clarification lest Davide and others misunderstand me. Let me explain it this way: NCT and CT agree on the future and the ‘one people of God’, but NCT and Dispensationalism, in some measure, agree on the past and the people of God. In other words, though the middle wall has *now* been broken down and there is no future for the nation of Israel as a nation, NCT still makes a break at Pentecost (indeed they must to stay consistent), and I would argue that it is here that they are very close to the Dispensational view.
No matter which way you cut it, making a break in the Law forces one to say that there was something inherently different with the OT people, their worship, their sanctification, and in some cases, their justification.
You then go on to say:
Yes, and I praise God that NCT over the years have slowly but surely moved closer and closer to Covenant Theology, and I hope they will continue to do so.
But you raise a good point here about sanctification. Let me say two things to this:
1st: the disagreements between NCT and CT is on the issues of sanctification and therein, and they are *not* on the issues of justification, praise God. I wanted to clarify that because two people, Davide and Rey, have mentioned the Galatian/Judiazer heresies, which both concern justification and not sanctification. This issue has nothing to do with those controversies.
Secondly, I think you and I (CT and NCT) would agree on the essentials of sanctification. I don’t see a great disconnect until we get to the means of sanctification and the use of the Law. We would probably agree on the issue of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, the inability of the law to sanctify, etc. But, of course, I agree that the Law, which is not limited to the OT alone, but both OT and NT law, is a means used by the Spirit for our sanctification. NCT, as I understand it, somehow sees OT law as different that NT law, when I’d affirm that they both equally kill without the Spirit.
Just a thought. Thank you for your kind words. I read a post on your site and I think I might post a response on here one day.
Grace and Peace–
Dear Nathan,
This is indeed an important discussion which needs clarification (communication) on all sides. Sadly, I don’t have much time to enter into a long discussion about that long (it’s much older than just “some 20-30yrs ago”) disputed controversy (relationship between the old and the new Covenant, Law of Moses vs. Law of Christ, etc.) among reformed Baptists.
So, at this point in the discussion, I would just like to refer to a couple of websites that helped me personally to understand the discussion better.
http://ids.org/
http://lovebrokethru.com/
And please allow me to ask you a brief question.
Have you read Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel’s book “New Covenant Theology” or Steve Lehrer’s book “New Covenant Theology” or John G. Riesinger’s book “In Defense of Jesus, the New Lawgiver” or last but not least, Thomas R. Schreiner’s book “The Law and it’s Fulfillment”?
If not, you now have a list of reformed recommendations in regards to this important discussion between Calvinistic brethren, since many of your statements in regards to NCT seemed a little confusing (misleading) to me.
Semper Reformanda and Soli Deo Gloria!
Much love,
Dirk
Dirk–
It’s been a while since I’ve visited IDS.org, but last I recall, there were men on there saying that marrying your sister (incest) is not forbidden under the New Covenant, and even worse, some were outrightly denying the active imputation of Christ’s righteousness. If that is still the case, that’s not a place I am inclined to go to learn about anything.
And yes, I freely admit that some of my statements might be a little confusing and/or misleading. I’ve been accused of this many times and in many places regarding NCT -and I haven’t used the ‘antinomian’ label once!
But certainly you understand how diverse and developing NCT is. I find it very difficult (and others do as well) to stay on the ‘cutting edge’ of what they teach and how they are reforming –and so I am accused of misrepresenting.
But regardless, I find it a fact of history that NCT is no more than 20-30 years old, as defined by the men you mentioned above (example: the doctrine of the new law of Christ), and I would caution you against reading NCT back into the church fathers when it isn’t there.
Grace and peace…
Dirk–
By the way, I am familiar with the works you cited, yes. But certainly correct me where you see misunderstanding in my thinking. As I stated before, my comment about NCT-Dispensationalism was partly based upon my own perception. I see a system as starting with discontinuity, rather than the continuity of CT, as the foundation upon which all dispensationalism is built, as I explained.
Nevertheless, my post was not to combat or critique NCT, but rather shed some important light on the Matt 5 passage. I certainly didn’t mean to sidetrack the discussion in that direction…
SDG
Dirk,
Thanks for the info. I just visited IDS.org for the first time, and was really amazed how clearly, simply, and biblically accurate their description of NCT is. I will be looking at your information that you have offered shortly. (I know Nathan is pulling his hair right now:-)
Anyways, I truly respect Nathan and the traditional CT view. Although we may disagree somewhat, I don’t have a lot problem with CT. I mean, my church is a staunch 1689 LBC church, and it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Its a wonderful thing that we can offer disagreements, yet offer it in love and meekness. I’m encouraged by it, and can see the love of Christ in all these posts. Keep it up!
“Marrying your sister (incest) is not forbidden under the New Covenant”
The incest question comes up quite often when discussing ethics in relation to NCT.
Steve Lehrer in his book “New Covenant Theology” wrote a little chapter (16) about the subject, and it’s worth reading.
For example, we have no mention in the pre-Mosiac Covenant era about such a command being in force before the Mosaic Law was given. In fact, Cain would be circumstantial evidence to the contrary (Gen4:17). But under the new covenant and in the US (Rom13:1) “marrying your sister (incest)” is illegal.
“The active Imputation of Christ’s righteousness”
Imputation is a theological term (imputare ‘enter in the account’).
How would you define imputation biblically? Do you have a bible text so I may understand where you are coming from?
“And yes, I freely admit that some of my statements might be a little confusing and/or misleading.”
As long as you are willing to learn and are aware of your great responsibility while presenting other views publicly.
“But regardless, I find it a fact of history that NCT is no more than 20-30 years old”
Only in regards to American Baptist history, but the theme is as old as the New Testament itself.
But back to my question, did you read some of the books?
Honestly, brothers, I had no desire to specifically discuss NCT in this post, and thus we should probably stop here before I offend someone. It is not a doctrine that I find healthy to the church, nor one that I have much patience for. The shallowness in which the texts are approached, and the decided western lens in which NT passages about the Law are read through, do indeed cause me to ‘pull my hair out’ and walk away from such foolishness.
You guys go read the men who defend marrying your sister and such, and do the rest of your discussion and linking offline.
“How would you define imputation biblically?”
In summary: Jesus Christ’s obedience to the Law of God in His earthly life is the righteousness imputed to believers by faith, and which justifies us before God. Where I am an adulterer, Christ was pure. Where I break the Sabbath, Christ kept it perfectly, etc.
“the theme is as old as the New Testament itself.”
Dispensationals argue the same way. We can read anything we want back into the writers of old. Facts are facts my friend; I won’t argue with you over stuff even some of your own adherents admit to.
Davide said:
Davide, I don’t think you have an option whatsoever, for have you looked into NCT churches? Last time I looked into it (about a year ago) I could not find one, not even one church in the entire state that reflected an NCT leaning in their doctrinal statement. (This does not account for progressive-dispensationalism, a few of which I called to get clarification).
I found some NCT churches sporadically scattered in the south east, but none that I know of here in GA.
If that doesn’t say something about the kind of theological fad we’re dealing with here, then nothing will –especially when we consider the tens of thousands of Christian men in this state, and the tens of thousands of protestant-baptist churches.
I think you are right. I don’t know of any official NCT churches, at least not in the Atlanta area.
Going back to your original post– Again, I sincerely respect your exposition on Matthew 5. I realize that many godly, theologically astute men of the past have held to such an exposition. (You know I’ve held to it in the past). And I don’t believe, by any means, that you are ripping the text out of context either.
Here’s where we probably disagree. I don’t see a huge difference in the practical ramifications that result from the difference between CT and NCT. No doubt there are practical ramifications that result, but nothing of serious consequence. (Except for the quacks who believe that incest is okay:-) To me, the two could be compared to historic premill and amil.
However, I do see a huge philosophical outcome between the Dispensational camp and CT camp. I also do see it between the Calvinist and Arminian Camp. But at this point, I simply don’t see that the NCT or CT’ understanding of Mt. 5 is an issue worth “dying for.” Perhaps if I held the CT view, I would think it is a weighter matter. I don’t know.
Point is, I appreciate your seriousness in wanting to uphold the word of God and to follow it whole-heartedly.
Case in point. Piper has a wonderful ministry that is not 1689 LBC based. By the admission of Piper’s own words, he holds more to a NCT position. John Macarthur, obviously a dispensationalist would be closer to a NCT position than a CT position. Yet, their absence of holding to a CT’s interpretation of Matthew 5 does not nullify their ministry.
Davide–
I appreciate your kind words. Indeed, you would have deny about 99.% of Christianity, both historical and current, if you were to say otherwise. I wish I could say that same about the NCT position, but I cannot. It is a plague to the modern church in its consistent form. I’ve seen the laziness and personal compromise that it leads one to. And it hasn’t even been around long enough to present us with some time-tested fruit as to what it leads to.
A couple of things about your words:
-I’d be interested in how you would exegete the Matt 5 passage. Would you care to share your thoughts here for all to see and judge?
-Though you may see the incest guy as nuts, I would submit to you that you have no defense for arguing against incest. Incest is not repeated in the NT, nor does it appear pre-law in explicit form.
-I would also submit that holding to the imputed righteousness of Christ is illogical for NCT, since we are not bound to the Mosaic Law in any way, thus there is no reason why Christ should’ve fulfilled it in our place. The argument that we are sanctified by a different law than what we were justified by finds absolutely zero biblical support.
-Finally, MacArthur holds to a CT position on Matthew 5 and the three-fold division on the law. Piper, on the other hand, is very ambiguous. He has clearly said some things that lean him towards NCT (specifically, his denial of the Covenant of grace), but I’ve listened to him preach through Romans, and I would argue that he rejects some of the basic tenants of NCT based upon that series. Not only this, but his book on the imputed righteousness of Christ, I would argue, also leans heavily in a CT direction, and decidedly contrary to NCT. So although it might ease the consciences of some NCT guys by claiming them as their own (and others, particularly from church history), the facts remain that NCT is a novelty, and that few reputable men hold to it.
I have no desire to talk about Matthew 5. To do so, would breed needless contention.
“These things are excellent and profitable for people. But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the LAW, for they are unprofitable and worthless.” Titus
You and I both have the Spirit in us and therefore we both love the laws of God. We love Christ, we love His law, we love His gospel. We love God’s righteousness as revealed in the the OT law and the life of Christ. Through faith in Christ, we delight in the law of God after the inward man. As Christians, we continually strive to repent and oppose the works of the flesh and to walk in the spirit. We both read and study both Testaments, for the entire word of God is relevant and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc.
So what further need of discussion do we have?
Davide–
I certainly see your point and commend you for your attempt at peace. Of course I disagree that discussing these issues is pointless, or that it will always lead to dissension. These are serious issues with serious implications –much bigger implications than the general ‘people of God’ discussions we’ve had before.
And, for example, we often hear the same thing from Arminians concerning the doctrines of pre-destination –and that discussion certainly isn’t pointless either. But if you believe it will lead to contention then let’s certainly stop here.
I must say, however, that getting NCT guys to sit down and exegete this passage is like getting an Arminian to stay in and discuss Romans 9 without running to John 3:16. Clearly, on its face reading, Matt 5 contradicts the NCT position. So instead of running to Gal 3 or Rom 6, it falls on the shoulders of NCT to interpret it without hermeneutical gymnastics, like those used by dispensationals for example. I say this for any other readers who would like to discuss this passage here. The floor is open to love me enough to expose my error
One question though, Davide: who is the author of the OT Law given at Sinai? You do believe it was given by God to Moses, right? Do you believe it was written by the finger of the pre-incarnate Christ, or that it was mediated to Moses without the involvement of Jesus? I won’t argue with you; just want to know because you mentioned laws plural in your comment above.
SDG
By the way, I mean to add this: I do believe this is an important issue because I am accusing NCT of directly violating the ‘relaxing of the least of these commandments’ that Jesus warns against here. That is a serious warning, one where Jesus is saying that it could lead to being cast out of the kingdom of heaven. And so to take this lightly, in my case, would be to deny my conscience that is convinced that these brothers need a serious rebuke/admonishment.
SDG
As old as the New Testament:
“No one puts a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment…Neither is new wine put into old wineskins…But new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” (ESV- Matt9:16-17)
Nathan wrote:
“Honestly, brothers, I had no desire to specifically discuss NCT in this post, and thus we should probably stop here before I offend someone.”
“It is not a doctrine that I find healthy to the church, nor one that I have much patience for. The shallowness in which the texts are approached, and the decided western lens in which NT passages about the Law are read through, do indeed cause me to ‘pull my hair out’ and walk away from such foolishness.”
“You guys go read the men who defend marrying your sister and such, and do the rest of your discussion and linking offline”
“I wish I could say that same about the NCT position, but I cannot. It is a plague to the modern church in its consistent form. I’ve seen the laziness and personal compromise that it leads one to. And it hasn’t even been around long enough to present us with some time-tested fruit as to what it leads to”
I agree Nathan you should have stopped the discussion about NCT. If we are not able to communicate the truth in love we should not talk at all (Eph4:15). It’s pretty obvious that you are only “familiar with the works” I have cited. Take the time and read them by yourself and I am sure your tone will become more humble. For instance, if you read Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel’s book on “New Covenant Theology” you will find four full chapters that are devoted to Matthew 5:17-20. I do not think that you will be persuaded into the NCT viewpoint by reading the book, but I do believe (hope and pray) that reading the whole book would make you at least a “time-tested”, fruit bearing , and more loving brother in Christ Jesus.
Nathan wrote:
“Though you may see the incest guy as nuts, I would submit to you that you have no defense for arguing against incest. Incest is not repeated in the NT, nor does it appear pre-law in explicit form.”
Dear brothers, there is much more we can learn from NCT than disputing what the new covenant teaches us about incest. Remember Rom14:22-23 for instance. The NT nowhere forces us to marry our relatives. We don’t have to go against our consciences in this case. But on the other side we have to be careful to not pass on judgment too quickly (1Cor4:5) and define incest as “common or unclean” under the NC era. I know that sounds very strange (almost disgusting) to our ears. But, I am sure that Peter was pretty shocked as well when he first received the vision from the Lord (Act10:13-14). And please remember brethren, the NT clearly teaches us that there is a change in the law (Heb7:12), that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment (Matt5:17) of the law and that the whole law (no division between ceremonial, civil or moral law) served as a “guardian until Christ came” (Gal3:24).
So please, stop being so hyper about it Nathan and rather follow David’s advice who wrote:
“You and I both have the Spirit in us and therefore we both love the laws of God. We love Christ, we love His law, we love His gospel. We love God’s righteousness as revealed in the OT law and the life of Christ. Through faith in Christ, we delight in the law of God after the inward man. As Christians, we continually strive to repent and oppose the works of the flesh and to walk in the spirit. We both read and study both Testaments, for the entire word of God is relevant and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc.”
Amen David!
In a Berean fashion (Act17:11) and in a spirit of love (1Pet4:8).
Much love,
Dirk
I said, “We love the laws of God (plural)” because when Hebrews 8 says that the “law is written in our hearts,” the Greek word for law “nomos”is actually given in the plural, not singular. “i.e. I will write my laws in their hearts.” So, God’s laws are written in our heart.
Dirk–
Since we’ve butted heads in the past, when you likewise got upset at me for my Amillennial position and for disagreeing with John MacArthur, I’m frankly a little baffled as to why you keep coming back here to STF. Clearly there are other blogs, and much more popular at that, which agree with your theological convictions. I’m not dispensational. I’m not premillennial. I’m not NCT. I communicate this clearly in ‘what I believe’, and so maybe it’s best you move on to a place where men write about subjects you are more comfortable with. For frankly, your response is (again) emotive and thin-skinned.
In fact, I’m almost inclined (again, as before) to ask you not to come back. For your response to my words is clearly contrary to the good-ole-fashion, knock-em-out, theological debate that I find as healthy as iron-sharpening-iron. If I can’t tell you how I really feel about NCT), then what’s the use in pretending? I’ve put up with you guys throwing out the Galatian-heresy stuff, no?
But what bothers me most is how you see yourself as the one in control of this blog and this discussion. For example: this post was not about NCT in particular. Even more so, I have no intention to specifically critique and/or discuss the writings of NCT in this post –despite your insistence that if I don’t deal with them, then I don’t know what I’m talking about. (And for the record, I’m much, much more familiar with those writings, particularly Zaspel, then I’d ever feel inclined to convince you of.) You’re not in control of this discussion, Dirk. You don’t dictate the rules, the pre-reading, or the topic of discussion. And this is your last warning here at STF.
Listen, you guys so strongly disagree with me on this post, but you won’t deal with my arguments! What kind of arrogance is that? Others have been kind enough to say ‘hey, I’d prefer to keep peace and agree to disagree’, which is fine, but you’ve given me a list of books as if that is an argument in itself, and then you condemn me as full of pride because I continue to state my position in hopes that someone will step up to the plate and shed light upon the NCT understanding of this text.
But what’s ironic here is that I have been firm, no doubt. But what I have said doesn’t even come close to how harsh Jesus in Matt 5:19 condemns the one who ‘relaxes’ any OT commandment, and that includes incest my friend. If you find me harsh and stingy on the Law, you should meet my Lord.
***TO ALL***
I’m closing comments here because the discussion has strayed so far from the topic of this post. I was hoping that someone with strong convictions would share their disagreement with me on this text, but it appears as if the discussion has hopelessly turned to strife and discord.
Comments are now closed because this discussion is no longer edifying the body of Christ.
I will post again on this issue soon. If you’d like to discuss the specific assertions in my post, I welcome you to comment at that time. If you’d me to interact with other authors or other books instead of presenting me with your own arguments, then I’d encourage you to shoot me an email off-line so that the discussion does not get side-tracked.
Furthermore, I welcome all discussion of this post offline as well. Please email me if I can clarify anything for you, or if you’d like to correct me in anything I asserted. I, like us all, are by no means above correction on this all-important issue.
Grace and peace, brethren–
Nathan
[…] assertion made in the last post was that Jesus in Matthew 5:17-20 taught that there was no aspect of God’s Old Testament Law […]
One last thing I must say to this list:
My brother Davide pulled me aside the other night and corrected me on something above, and I owe an apology on the statement I made above:
As Davide gently pointed out to me, there must be a distinction made between relaxing the Law in practice and relaxing the Law in word. In this particular case, I am accusing NCT of relaxing the Law in their theology, but I am by no means accusing anyone of relaxing/breaking the Law with their lives. Even among those who abrogate the Sabbath, I certainly believe that they are not habitual Sabbath-breakers –even though they deny the relevance of the command.
Thus, I was too harsh and sweeping in my comment above, and I DO recognize that my NCT brothers and sisters in Christ, more often than not, live commendable, righteous lives, even much more fruitful than myself. I apologize and do ask forgiveness for my harsh words.
Grace and Peace to all~