The Fourth Commandment - Part I
Being a father of two and working graveyard shift doesn’t really afford me the time to delve as deep into Scripture as a seminary student or theologians and pastors who do this for a living. I’m just a layman who tries to find time to study and meditate upon His Word, and God willing, understand it. If I am really blessed with time, I also read comments by other theologians and pastors on the Internet to help round out my meditations. Eventually, once I think I have done enough reading to cause the synapses in my brain to go numb (which really isn’t that hard with 2 kids and working graveyard), I post my thoughts here on the blog.
In a couple of my past posts, I’ve written concerning the Fourth Commandment, but not directly. I questioned the idea about a non-sabbatarian day of rest and wrote about what would be considered work on the Sabbath, but have not written about Fourth Commandment itself. Frankly, I haven’t done so because better and more dedicated theologians have written about it, to which I could not do justice in a blog posting.
But since I believe in keeping the Fourth Commandment, I should at least share the knowledge I have gained from my own studies, as little as they may be. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but informative of the general ideas that I have found to be prominent in the Fourth Commandment. Still, there is a lot to write about, so I have the need to break this down in parts. When I will get to the next parts, though, God only knows.
The Moral Nature of the Fourth Commandment
The Fourth Commandment is found within the context of Nine Commandments that are moral in nature. And in several areas in Scripture, there is a civil penalty of death tied to the breaking of the Sabbath. This certainly expresses the moral nature of obeying the Fourth Commandment, even unto death.
It is thought that the first 4 Commandments defines our ethics towards God, while the other 6 Commandments defines our ethics towards man. It would be odd to say that the Fourth Commandment does not deal with any ethic at all given its context and its penal sanction, but that tends to be the position of Christians who find nothing morally observable in the Commandment. It’s easy enough to trace the moral decay of a society that doesn’t observe the other Commandments (idolatry, blasphemy, rebellion, bloodshed, adultery, theft, false witnesses, covetous hearts), but there just doesn’t seem to be anything to trace from the Fourth Commandment. If the Fourth Commandment is moral in nature due to the context it is found, then what moral decay comes from it when it is not observed? Here are my impressions and thoughts on this:
Work begets more work - In the late 70's, I remember Sundays being like Christmas. Hardly any cars on the road, lots of stores closed, and everything was quiet and serene (minus the decor and gifts). Now, those days are gone. Could it be that as more people broke the Sabbath, the more people started to work on Sundays? After all, why not profit from all this extra time? Or perhaps with all this free time, demand rose for venues to open, like restaurants and stores. What CEO wouldn't want to cater to these paying customers? And they needed someone to work to cater to these people, right? Mammon for the win.
Making it hard to be a Sabbatarian - With all this need for people to work on Sundays, it has become a requirement on many jobs where prospective employees must work on Sundays. Not even the government's protection of religious beliefs can help the lone Sabbatarian, who is considered an anomaly, even by other Christians.
Relatively less study and fellowship - This is not to say that Christians out there aren't studying and fellowshipping, but I really wonder how much more they would learn if they had a full day to do it? Not an hour of quiet time (when you have the time) or a couple of hours a week with a small group, but a full day where your fellowship is not only with your friends, but the pastor, elders and deacons. Imagine that: A full day to sharpen your thoughts on the Bible with the trifecta of church officers. Or even visit another Sabbath-keeping church, still open for study and fellowship.
My pastor mentioned before that there was a time when all the stores were closed on Sundays, a remnant of Sabbath-keeping still having its effect in America. Now, Sundays are like every day. There is nothing holy (set apart) about them, except for a few hours of church and maybe a bible study or two. Though I may be speculating on the effects of Sabbath-breaking, which has become the norm, I do not believe it is too far off the mark. There is a definite effect on the church and its members, but after a long while of just letting things be, neither of them recognizes that they are being robbed of time and rest in Lord.
In my next post, I'll get into the two versions of the Fourth Commandment. I hope it will help accentuate more the moral aspect of the Sabbath.
In Christ,
Victor
In a couple of my past posts, I’ve written concerning the Fourth Commandment, but not directly. I questioned the idea about a non-sabbatarian day of rest and wrote about what would be considered work on the Sabbath, but have not written about Fourth Commandment itself. Frankly, I haven’t done so because better and more dedicated theologians have written about it, to which I could not do justice in a blog posting.
But since I believe in keeping the Fourth Commandment, I should at least share the knowledge I have gained from my own studies, as little as they may be. This is not meant to be exhaustive, but informative of the general ideas that I have found to be prominent in the Fourth Commandment. Still, there is a lot to write about, so I have the need to break this down in parts. When I will get to the next parts, though, God only knows.
The Moral Nature of the Fourth Commandment
The Fourth Commandment is found within the context of Nine Commandments that are moral in nature. And in several areas in Scripture, there is a civil penalty of death tied to the breaking of the Sabbath. This certainly expresses the moral nature of obeying the Fourth Commandment, even unto death.
It is thought that the first 4 Commandments defines our ethics towards God, while the other 6 Commandments defines our ethics towards man. It would be odd to say that the Fourth Commandment does not deal with any ethic at all given its context and its penal sanction, but that tends to be the position of Christians who find nothing morally observable in the Commandment. It’s easy enough to trace the moral decay of a society that doesn’t observe the other Commandments (idolatry, blasphemy, rebellion, bloodshed, adultery, theft, false witnesses, covetous hearts), but there just doesn’t seem to be anything to trace from the Fourth Commandment. If the Fourth Commandment is moral in nature due to the context it is found, then what moral decay comes from it when it is not observed? Here are my impressions and thoughts on this:
Work begets more work - In the late 70's, I remember Sundays being like Christmas. Hardly any cars on the road, lots of stores closed, and everything was quiet and serene (minus the decor and gifts). Now, those days are gone. Could it be that as more people broke the Sabbath, the more people started to work on Sundays? After all, why not profit from all this extra time? Or perhaps with all this free time, demand rose for venues to open, like restaurants and stores. What CEO wouldn't want to cater to these paying customers? And they needed someone to work to cater to these people, right? Mammon for the win.
Making it hard to be a Sabbatarian - With all this need for people to work on Sundays, it has become a requirement on many jobs where prospective employees must work on Sundays. Not even the government's protection of religious beliefs can help the lone Sabbatarian, who is considered an anomaly, even by other Christians.
Relatively less study and fellowship - This is not to say that Christians out there aren't studying and fellowshipping, but I really wonder how much more they would learn if they had a full day to do it? Not an hour of quiet time (when you have the time) or a couple of hours a week with a small group, but a full day where your fellowship is not only with your friends, but the pastor, elders and deacons. Imagine that: A full day to sharpen your thoughts on the Bible with the trifecta of church officers. Or even visit another Sabbath-keeping church, still open for study and fellowship.
My pastor mentioned before that there was a time when all the stores were closed on Sundays, a remnant of Sabbath-keeping still having its effect in America. Now, Sundays are like every day. There is nothing holy (set apart) about them, except for a few hours of church and maybe a bible study or two. Though I may be speculating on the effects of Sabbath-breaking, which has become the norm, I do not believe it is too far off the mark. There is a definite effect on the church and its members, but after a long while of just letting things be, neither of them recognizes that they are being robbed of time and rest in Lord.
In my next post, I'll get into the two versions of the Fourth Commandment. I hope it will help accentuate more the moral aspect of the Sabbath.
In Christ,
Victor
posted by Soli Deo Gloria | 8/26/2006 02:59:00 AM
15 Comments:
The proper exegetical principal is this: The mosaic law is "katargesas" (Eph. 2.14-15 "abolish," to render inoperative, nullify, invalidate, reject, abolish, make ineffective, or powerless,) unless there is a specific injunction to the contrary in the New Testament.
All nine commandments except the Sabbath commandment are reiterated in the new testament to keep.
Therefore, the Sabbath commandment is not binding on new testament believers today.
Hi Anon,
Thanks for your response.
As you have already read, I hold to the idea that the Fourth Commandment is moral in nature. If my assessment is correct, then the Fourth Commandment is tied to the character and nature of God. And that is where I find your exegetical principle problematic since your interpretation of Ephesians 2:14-15 would mean that the immutable God has, in fact, changed. If the Fourth Commandment is truly abolished, then so is that aspect of the character and nature of God. If you can show me that the Fourth Commandment is not moral in nature, then you would have a better argument.
But there is another problem in your use of the passage. For those reading, here is the passage:
"For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace..."
The context of this passage is talking about the division that existed between Jew and Gentile because of the law, but what law is Paul talking about? The entirety of it? I don't think so since the moral laws of God put both Jew and Gentile under judgment. It didn't divide them, but united them under condemnation.
If not the moral law, then it would have to be the ceremonial law. Verse 11 hints at this in that the Gentiles were "called 'uncircumcised' by those who call themselves 'the circumcision'. There is derision on the part of the Jews against those who were "excluded from the citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise." (vs. 12) As it were, they were "without hope and without God in the world." (vs. 12)
The moral law did not offer hope. Fallen man could never live up to that holy standard. It shows our wretchedness and how far we fail to be as holy as God is holy. The laws that did give hope were those of the sacrifices since they foreshadowed Christ. The Jews had this, the Gentiles did not, and I'm sure the prideful Jews made sure they knew that.
But we know from Hebrews 8 and 10, and in Colossians 2, that Christ is the reality of those shadows, and once the reality is here, the shadows were done away (abolished). By doing this, He reconciled "both of them (Jew and Gentile) to God through the cross, by which He put to death their hostility." (vs. 16) Abolishing the moral laws cannot do this, but abolishing the shadows (ceremonial laws) does do this.
So, as before, if it can be shown that the Fourth Commandment is not a moral law, then you would have a better argument. Look forward to your reply!
In Christ,
Victor
Thanks for responding, BG. You definitely touch upon points that I hope to expand upon in later posts, time permitting.
I have just a couple of problems with your assessments:
1. I argue that the Fourth Commandment is a moral, not ceremonial, because of its context and its penal sanction. It seems to me, at times, you are interchanging the case laws with the Fourth Commandment and arguing from there. I hope to differentiate between the two, though I'm sure many will object to my approach. That's fine if that is the case, since I am always in need of sharpening.
2. We still do meet after 6 days of work, therefore, we still are meeting on the 7th day. The calendar is subject to the objectiveness of Fourth Commandment. Why it changed from Saturday to Sunday, I think Ehud has commented on that previously on a past post. I hope that I will make a good case on my own.
As for your exegetical approach, Anon, I wanted to comment earlier, but didn't have the time. The problem I have with your approach is that it relies upon a complete disconnect, and then seeks out continuity. Let me explain by way of analogy:
Johnny's dad put forth rules he must abide by. These are to help keep Johnny from hurting himself, hurting others, and to keep things in order. It prevents chaos. But then Johnny's dad dies. Does Johnny still have to abide by the rules? That is, are the rules abolished by the death of his dad?
But later, Johnny's mom marries another man. Are the rules now abolished because there is a new head of the household? Or should Johnny still obey them until his stepfather rescinds one or all of them?
A proper approach to Scripture is that there is continuity from the Old until it has been abrogated in the New. It's laws are there to prevent us from hurting ourselves, hurting others, and it maintains order. Morality is always continuous.
The law is now introduced, and the term "ho nomos" must refer to the whole Mosaic law and not just the ceremonial law as some suggest (i.e., Vic).
Since the Mosaic law has been rendered inoperative for Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ, it is a false dichotomy to distinguish between the moral and ceremonial laws, making only the ceremonial laws inoperative. There is nothing in the context [Eph. 2.14-15] that makes such a distinction and that only these laws were abolished. (Notice that it is nomos [“law”] which is the direct object of the verb and which Christ has rendered powerless.)
The scheme of a tripartite division is unknown both in the Bible and in early rabbinic literature. The division is a product of modern Christian theology and has no roots in the Jewish concept of the law. G. J. Wenham calls the three fold division “arbitrary and artificial” and one not attested in the N.T. Thus, the obvious problem with this position is the lack of evidence that Paul, or anyone in the first century, conceived of the law as divided into the moral law and “external nationalistic expressions.” The usage of the word “katargeo” is primarily religious. The thrust of the pericope is that of nearness to the Lord. With the abolishment of the law, there is free access to the Lord. As a consequence of this the division between Jew and Gentile is also overcome.
It must be understood that the Mosaic Law is viewed by the Scriptures as a corporate unit. The word Torah, meaning “law,” is always singular when applied to the Law of Moses, even though it contains 613 commandments. The same is true of the Greek word nomos in the N.T. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legal, and moral parts is convenient for the study of the different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided in this way by the Scriptures themselves.
The burden of proof is on the sabbatarian to show “textual” evidence where the text [Eph. 2.14-15] teaches this, and not merely assumed. To say, as Vic does, that “law” means only the ceremonial law in Eph. 2.14-15 has been abrogated seems too convenient for his view. Why not the civil laws? Since such divisions cannot be discerned by the word “law” alone, Vic’s arbitrarily choosing “law” to mean the ceremony laws seems to be a case of adopting the facts to fit a premeditated solution. The text does not make such a distinction and such division is illusory. So what dictates for you such distinction if not from the text?
It is the principle of the unity of the Law of Moses that lies behind the statement found in James 2.10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. Legal obligation to only a portion of the corpus is nowhere suggested.
Therefore, a wider reference to the Mosaic law is most plausible in this context, and Paul is alluding to the Jewish teaching about the Torah as a whole. The text suggests that it is the “law” itself which Christ has nullified. It has been “rendered powerless,” and thus “ceases to stand as an immediate authority for God’s people” (Moo, 367). What is abolished is the “law-covenant,” that is, the law as a whole conceived as a covenant. It is then replaced by a new covenant for Jews and Gentiles. Because the old Torah as such, that is, the law-covenant, has gone, it can no longer serve as the great barrier between Jew and Gentile.
The genitive following the term “the law” (ton entolon) is a genitive of content or apposition “the law consisting of commandments” meaning that the law had many specific commands (TDNT 2:551-52).
Lastly, the assumption that the Sabbath is a moral law, must be argued for, and not merely assumed. A textual argument must be given before this can be granted. Otherwise, the first premise still stands: The siniatic treaty in its entirety has been abrogated unless those commandments are reiterated in the N.T.
Hey Ehud, good to hear from you too. Just thought I'd stir a hornet's nest a-bit. School just began, and unfortunately time is not a luxury I have. If you guys feel like responding go ahead, but I can't continue. The goodnews is that I hope to visit branch of hope sometime in Sept. and hopefully we can get together and have a nice chat. Pat will let you guys know of my visit.
Blessings, Tony
Hey Tony,
LOL Looks like Ehud and BG recognized your style of writing. Had it been more polemical as it had before, I probably would have come to the same conclusion. :-) Anyway, welcome back and thanks for visiting again.
Now on to my reply…
I’ve gone over your entire argument, and though it addresses the issue of having a proper exegetical principle, it still fails to address your main issue: Is the Fourth Commandment binding on Christians? As I had said before, if you can prove that it is not a moral law, then you have a case. As it stands, you have not shown that.
The nature of this law is what must be argued for, pro or con. Why? Because if it is moral, then it must be based upon the immutable nature and character of God. It is, after all, God’s Law, so it’s objectively based Him, not subject to abrogation, whether codified or not. That is, even if you are found true in your interpretation of Eph 2:14-15, the abolishment of the law-covenant can not nullify the universal laws of morality. To say that we no longer abide by a moral law is to say that God’s character and nature does not require us to be holy as He is holy.
At best, you say that I am assuming that it is moral, but it is you that is assuming that it is not. One has to wonder if you had read my original post. My original post argued that it is a moral law (and if I ever get around to it, my future posts as well) due to the context it finds itself in, the Ten Commandments. It is a moral law, as well, due to the penal sanction of death given for breaking the Sabbath. (Exodus 31:14-15, 35:2, Numbers 15:32) This capital punishment puts a Sabbath breaker in league with murderers and adulterers, and it is considered justice. (Hebrews 2:2) How it can be argued that the Fourth Commandment is not a moral law, I just don’t see how.
As for the side issue of proper exegetical principle…
If “law” must be understood as the entire Mosaic law, whether it is “nomos” or “torah”, then the case for continuity/abrogation is much more pronounced when God says:
I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. (Jeremiah 31:33)
In presupposing your view of “law,” there is no “textual” evidence in Jeremiah 31 that shows any discontinuity or division in the law. The entirety of the law is put in our minds and on our hearts. It sounds like we are absolutely bound to the law, even the Fourth Commandment.
As for your use of James 2:10, if he is talking about the “whole law,” then it would seem he has a view of continuity as well. Breaking one does not mean breaking Nine Commandments.
There is an oddity in assuming the discontinuity/reiteration position concerning your take on Ephesians 2:14-15. If the law-covenant was completely abolished for the purpose of uniting Jew and Gentile, then why establish a new covenant that builds up 90% (Nine Commandments) of that wall of separation? That just strongly implies that the 10% is what really separated the Jew from Gentile. Either God completely tears one down then nearly rebuilds it, or He has just removed the very thing that separated them.
Finally, the discontinuity/reiteration position faces another oddity. Once the Old Covenant was abolished, were believers back then to assume that all the laws were abolished as well until someone told them otherwise? This goes back to my analogy of Johnny. Since the Gospel was preached first to the Jews, I think it’s safe to say that the first Christians knew the law. Were they now to forget all of that until an Apostle told them otherwise? Jesus lived under the law, but when He was crucified, should we not look back at how Jesus lived until an Apostle affirms a law? That’s taking discontinuity to its logical conclusion.
Anyway, thanks for dropping by again to our little corner of the blogosphere. Hope all is well with school and we’ll see you at Branch sometime. God bless.
In Christ,
Victor
Thanks for the response. I'll visit BOH, and respond in person. Just to give you guys a heads up, I would like you guys to prepare a a defensive respond to the following resolved: A reformed understanding of Rom. 9-11 actually destroys God's sovereignty rather than extoll it. See you guys soon, Lord willing.
Tony
Did BigCalvin "did justice" to his name? Hardly.
Oy! Back to 9-11 again?? You're just as bad as our ever-increasing totalitarian government! But if you really want to enter the Wayback Machine, maybe you'd like to respond to Ehud's responses to your interpretive method (found close to the end) before going further. After all, if he's right and your interpretive method is seriously flawed, then whatever understanding you have against the Reformed view of Rom. 9-11 wouldn't have any merit.
I haven't forgotten. We'll see if both of your writings can stand up to NTS scrutiny. The main reason I urge to visit BOH is because communication is much, much clearer in person. I've dealt with muslim apologists before, and here, it is no different... Tentatively, I'm look at the 2nd Sunday of Sept. How does that sound?
A colleague of mine read Victor’s response, and he said rather stridently, “I’ve never seen anyone, even in the Reformed tradition, rape the scriptures like an existential-postmodern Schliermacher, using a question-begging method” (i.e., analogy of faith [AOF]). I couldn’t agree more. His employment of a subjectivist approach has put him in a difficult quandary. I was then asked to toy with a small response of Victor’s citation of the Jeremiah. 31 passage and watch him respond—unknowingly—using questionable and arbitrary methods to escape an apparent difficulty. I said, “o.k., let’s try it and see if you’re right.” Of course, I believe he’s right, for most Reformed dogmatists are blinded by scales of intrusionistic fallacies.
Victor asserts, “In presupposing your view of “law,” there is no “textual” evidence in Jeremiah 31 that shows any discontinuity or division in the law. The entirety of the law is put in our minds and on our hearts. It sounds like we are absolutely bound to the law, even the Fourth Commandment.”
“Evidently, this guy clearly demonstrates that he has never sat in an interpretive methodology class.” Rightly so, for, concerning his alleged claim of denying discontinuity, he says this is so because, well, because he says so, and does not spew forth any laborious exegesis from Jer. 31. Victor selectively cited the only portion of Jer. 31 that says what he falsely wants it to say and then repackaged it to fit his unwarranted-preconceived assumptions (i.e., similarly, Ehud’s destructive citation of Mt. 5). If anything, Jer. 31 teaches “black and white” discontinuity. Any concept of “Re”-newal ideology is patently foreign to that particular context. And here’s why.
F. Adeyemi has done an superb job dealing with the morphology and nuances of the phrases and words that are syntactically linked together, militating a colossal-juggernaut blow to late medieval-renaissance theology. First, in Jer. 31.31b, neither the Hebrew adjective kadash nor the Greek adjective kaine means “renewed.” Rather, they mean “novel,” “fresh,” “unprecedented,” or “not yet in existence,” “recently made”, “unused,” “unworn,” “of a new kind,” unprecedented,” “uncommon,” “unheard of” (HALOT 1958: 279, [Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros]; Brown, 294; Gesenius 1884:303; BDAG 2000:497; ). Friber, “Analytical Greek Lexicon” defines kaine as “of what was not there before, new, recently made”(Clapp, Friberg, et al, 1991). The mother of all Greek lexicons, Liddell and Scott (Abridged), gives the primary usage of meaning “new,” “fresh,” and Lat. “recens,” and “novus.” In the classic literature connotes “newly-invented,” “new-fangled” (Lidell-Scott, 1996; so Thayer, Barclay-Newman, Gingrich, Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie). The adjective kadash is used for a “new” garment (1 Kings 11.29), a new house (Dt. 22.8), a new wife (24.5), a new song (Ps. 33.3), and a new king (Ex. 1.8), etc. [NOTE: This is not in any way to use the AOF, for there is a distinction in morphological and nuance word studies, which is part of exegetical methodology, and not the whole process itself]. Granted, the piel form of the verb kadash sometimes means “to renew” (as in 1 Sam. 11.14), and so does the hithpael (as in Ps. 103.5, “your youth is renewed like the eagle”). However, the verb in the piel form can also mean “new” or “fresh” (cf. Job 10.17). In the ADJECTIVAL form (which is the form in which this word occurs Jer. 31.32), kadash can only mean “new, fresh” (as in Job 10.17, “You bring new witnesses against me” [NIV].
As a side note, many exegetes object to an absolute cessation of religious instruction. For instance, historical-theological revisionist, John Calvin, insists that this phrase is a hyperbole to show that God will send a fuller light in the gospel age than what was true in the O.T. (Calvin 2000:4.135-38). However, there is no contextual evidence for taking this verse as a mere figure, since the particle in v. 32 is an absolute negation and the verse gives to reasons for that cessation which are not figurative. Moreover, quoting O. Palmer Robertson, Michael Horton rightly points out that when dealing with the “new covenant” phrase in Hebrews and in the original context in which it is cited (Jer. 31), it is not a question of treaty succession (“renewal with many reaffirmations” so Hendricksen, Calvin, and others), but instead, deals with treaty inauguration (Horton 2006:65). Let’s continue.
Second, and here is why the logic of the proceeding clause fixes the meaning of “new” here. The phrase kaberith (“not like the covenant”) in Jer. 31.32 is exegetically an absolute emphatic negation, hence the negative particle before the word berith, “covenant.” The phrase underscores the complete dissimilarity of this New Covenant with the old Sinaitic Covenant. This phrase does not suggest a mere renewal of the Mosaic Covenant. Victor, Bill, Ehud, and others, are blinded by their post-renaissance tradition. Thus, Victor wildly, and perhaps deliberately, overlooked the significance of this negative phrase in this text.
Third, the words berith kadasha (“a new covenant,” v. 31) points to the newness of this New Covenant, not its continuity with the Mosaic Covenant. The latter is in contrast to the former; not in continuum with it.
Fourth, to further capture the newness nuance that threads the discontinuity of towrah in Jeremiah’s context, in 31.31 the prophet wrote, “Behold, days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will karath [Lit., “cut”] a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” The word “karath” occurs almost three hundred times in the O.T. it is used of the cutting of trees (Deut. 19.5), extermination or killing (Jer. 44.11), divorce (using a cognate noun; Isa. 50.1), and for making covenants (Gen. 15.18). This word was used for making a covenant “because of the cutting up and distribution of the flesh of the victim for eating the sacrifice of the covenants (Briggs, 1972:503). E.S. Kalland adds that his usage “depicts the self-destruction of the one making the contract in an analogous way: that the fate of the animal should befall him in the event that he does not keep the “karath” (so also Harrison 1980:1.457). The phrase “to cut a covenant” is therefore an idiom derived from the ceremony accompanying the covenant, namely, cutting up an animal, and therefore has a powerful nuancing force that a “new” covenant, never “unheard of, or existing, is going to be inaugurated.
Further, in glaring contradictory to Vic, the context of Jer. 31 shows that these “days” refer to the yet-future restoration of ethnic Israel to her land, when the Messiah returns. Israel will be gathered from “the remote parts of the earth” (v. 8), and God will “keep him [Israel] as a shepherd keeps his flock” (v. 10. The nation will be filled with joy (vv. 11.14), her fortunes will be restored (v. 23), and she will be blessed by the Lord (v. 23). The promise, “Behold, days are coming,” also occurs in verses 31 and 38. th eland, God said, “will not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever” (v. 40). In our present time, Israel continues to be plucked up or overthrown, and they have been shamed by the Seleucids, by the Romans, by the Muslims, by the Germans, by the British, and most recently by the so-called Palestinians” and by just about everybody else. Therefore, it is obvious that this promise (Jer. 31) has yet to be fulfilled—but will be.
Also, and fifthly, I might add that the emphasis on the future by means of the repeated use of imperfect verbs in verses 33-34 points to something new. And the fact that Yahweh will inscribe that law on the hearts of His redeemed people at the time He “cuts” the covenant with the nation, point to a new law. Since this law will be obeyed completely by everyone in the nation, it cannot be the same as the Mosaic Law. Clark Wood calls the New Covenant law a “divinely authoritative direction,” which is not formulated or a codified law like the Mosaic Law (Wood 1976:41). And since the Old Covenant will be abolished (Seilhamer, 1976:235), so will its Torah, which cannot be divorced from it (Hartley 1980:1.405). William Henry Bennett notes that Jeremiah 3.16 predicts that the day is coming when the Ark of the Covenant will be forgotten and will not be missed. This, he correctly says, supports the point that the Mosaic Law will be annulled in the new era. “The Ark and the Mosaic Torah were inseparably connected; if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the Law must also be annulled” (Bennett 1895:352; see also Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard Jr., “Jeremiah 1-25, [WBC 1991:61]). Thus, “towrah” or “kadasha berith” is not to be equated or identified with the Mosaic Law.
Now, I can furnish a similar robust exegesis of Matt. 5, and Rom. 3 in its historical-grammatico-religious context, but I doubt Ehud and co. will be able to operate on the same plain level. Victor, like Ehud and Bill, will just ignore the exegesis of Jer. 31, run and hide to other contexts that they wishfully think it says what they want it to say. Of course, I can smoke them out of their pet-verse burials wherever they go in the bible, but again, time is not a luxury I have. As my collegiate says, “…seems like a bunch of arm-chair theologians that are pampering each other, playing theological twister in Calvinian underwear, and picking on the pee-wee Hermans of lay theologians.” Well, we’ll see what Reformed scholarship can offer by way of response. And it’ll be interesting if my friend’s prediction will turn out to be true concerning their usage of arbitrary methods.
Most thoroughly, the lexicographical evidence does not support a covenantal perspective. I would like to see responses to the killer lexical catalogues that destroys covenantal-theological notions into oblivion (i.e., the autonomous conjecture that “new” means “re-newal), and also some responses regarding the imperfect verbs and their grammatical and theological entailments, as well as to deal head-on with the piel form verbs found in Jer. 31, which clearly point to discontinuity, and the imperfect verbs which point to a yet-future age.
“This treaty has examined and torn to pieces a common assertion among covenantalists. And this exegetical point (supra) should not be confused with whether or not the Sabbath is moral. Rather, it shows blatant discontinuity, and not continuity. Especially, since the Siniatic treaty was a unilateral, instead of a bilateral, and a suzerain-vassal pact, rather than the royal grant that focus on the obligation of the master to his servant in the ANE. Unfortunately, I can’t develop this.
See you guys at BOH. And, study hard.
Tony
Tony, you make me laugh. You're so snide...but I know you're a good guy. Why the tude?
Don't let my post reflect my attitude. I'm looking fwd to meeting you guys, fellowhip, and have a nice round of discussion. We might disagree, but at least misunderstandings will be cleared up. Blessings!
Tony
I'm shooting for the 17th. How's that? It'll give us more time for preparation--our appetites, that is. I don't know about the "beans." Pat says it gives him gas pains. Email me, keep each other posted. You guys have a good and safe labor day.
When we meet, anxious to hear, specifically from you, why the post is fictitious. It'll be most delighting to hear your take on hebrew grammar.
Was the BBQ cancelled because I wasn't going to be there? I certainly hope not.
When I spoke to Pat, Tony, he basically said that you wanted to be sure that I was there. What's with the fetish? Is meeting me going to clear up some of the mess from last year? To be honest, an apology for your belittling would have been enough. The equity of your words cannot be undone by "finally meeting." An apology and the ceasing of using such tone would have been enough.
I'm sure we'll meet eventually, but the discussion between NTS vs. Reformed thought was the main purpose for getting this meeting up, not me.
Post a Comment
<< Home