Round 2: Continuity/Abrogation vs. Discontinuity/Reiteration

Here we go again. Once again, Tony has returned to "correct" us Reformed folk. I had thought it would be a better exchange than last years clash. It started out pretty good, but in Tony's recent rebuttal, I get this indictment against me:

I’ve never seen anyone, even in the Reformed tradition, rape the scriptures like an existential-postmodern Schliermacher, using a question-begging method

Tony says this right afterwards:

I couldn't agree more.

As much as Tony says to not "let [his] post reflect [his] attitude," it would be difficult to do so. To "rape the scriptures" is to put me in league with heretics who are worthy of eternal damnation. Sorry, but the slams last year pushed the limits of my charity, and I'm not going to tolerate it this year.

So, Tony, if you aim any more invectives towards my direction, whether it is coming directly from you or your colleagues, I will remove your posts and the discussion would be over. In trying to get climb the mountain of truth, I need your help (if I do indeed need it), not your drag. Towards Ehud, on the other hand, well, he's a different beast, so he'll scrap with you. You two can go ahead and sling the cow-pies and horse-cakes 'til you both produce enough methane to solve America's energy issues.

My Response

I have no problem with saying that the "new covenant" is "new" as defined by Tony. But what Tony hasn't shown is that "new" means every aspect of the covenant is different (fallacy of division). Lets just look at what is being said in verses 32 and 33:

"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.

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time," declares the LORD.
I will put My law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people."

Tony claims that "not like the covenant" is "exegetically an absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant. He's railing against this idea that I hold to a position of "renewed" covenant, but I don't. It's just a strawman he's setting up. I agree that the Old Covenant is done away with and the New Covenant is not a renewed form of the Old Covenant. Perhaps it is the way Tony defines "new" that has lead him to think that our (the Reformed) definition of "new" is "renew." And even if some in the Reformed circle do hold to a "renewed" covenant, I am not one of them.

He states later in his rebuttal that "since the Old Covenant will be abolished (Seilhamer, 1976:235), so will its Torah, which cannot be divorced from it (Hartley 1980:1.405)." He then goes on with more authors citing how "if the Ark was to perish and be forgotten, the Law must also be annulled." The problem with Tony is that he cites authors without bringing forth how they come to such a conclusion. It is very much the tactic he used last year. How do I know that those same authors are not engaged in the fallacy of division? If Tony can't show this, then I have no reason to believe that the Mosaic Law must be completely abolished as well.

Of course, his response may just as well be the same as last year where I and my Reformed brethren must submit to the academics of New Testament "Scholarship" just because they are "experts" in their field. Would he submit to worldviews that are antithetical to the Christian worldview because their "experts" say theirs is the true worldview? I think not. And why not? Because say-so can only go so far.

But even if we are to assume Tony's position of complete abolishment of the Mosaic Law, he is in a very odd position. He maintains that Nine of the Ten Commandments were reiterated in the New Testament, therefore it is binding upon the Christian. But wait a moment here! That's bringing back abolished Mosaic Laws! That's Old Covenant! I brought this up before when talking about Ephesians 2:14-15 but he has never answered this oddity. How can the "Ark of the Covenant...be forgotten and will not be missed" when you have Mosaic Laws to follow and are constantly reminded of it?

That's a glaring problem with Tony's position of discontinuity/reiteration. The Old Covenant and the Mosaic Laws are inseparable and are abolished together, yet we are bound by Mosaic Laws because they are reiterated?

However, Tony would disgree with my last 2 paragraphs since Jeremiah is, in his view, talking about ethnic Israel, and the promises therein have yet to happen in the future. And yet, we see the author of Hebrews using Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Chapters 8 and 10 to describe Christ's ministry and the advent of the New Covenant. Plainly, 9:15 reads:

For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance-now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (emphasis mine)

The author of Hebrews makes the "new covenant" connection to Christ and is contrasted with the "first covenant." So, is the "new covenant" now or still something in the future for Israel? Tony will have to contend with the author of Hebrews (therefore with God) concerning when the "new covenant" is to take place. After all, it is the author who cites Jeremiah 31 to emphasize his doctrine and then takes the liberty to expound upon it to, I would argue, Jewish Christians.

So let's see if we've got this straight. If Christians are not under the Old Covenant, then we have a New Covenant, but it's not the New Covenant that Jeremiah 31 is talking about because that is specifically talking about ethnic Israel. Does this mean there is a 3rd covenant, one especially made for Israel in the future? Does this mean that Israel is actually still under the Old Covenant since their New Covenant is still in the future?

And what is this "new law" that Tony brings up? He quotes Clark Wood that it is "'a divinely authoritative direction,' which is not formulated or a codified law like the Mosaic Law (Wood 1976:41)." Again, how he arrives to this conclusion is never explained. It's not only an assertion, but speculation as to what "law" means in verse 33. That really is about as far as it goes since Tony has already dismissed all of the Mosaic Law, therefore it is a different beast, a "new law". And since he abhors our use of analogy of faith, he is stuck only within the confines of the immediate text to which there is no definition of this "new law."

And a "new law" it has to be for Tony based on his presupposition that a "new covenant" means a complete disconnect with the Mosaic Law. That's like saying getting a new car means a complete disconnect with the laws of science and mechanics, but that's absurd. All the Mosaic Law did was codify the moral laws; laws based on God's character and nature. It clearly marked the line between good and evil. Furthermore, it marked out how to administer justice when the laws were transgressed. Under Tony's interpretation, God would get rid of the standard of measure of what is good and evil and replace it with a "new law" that has no definition. "Divinely authoritative direction?" Well, the Mosaic Law is exactly that since it is God's Law on how to live a holy, righteous and good life.

My Take

In verses 32 and 33, God is the one who makes the contrast between the Old Covenant and the New. Shouldn't this be obvious from just reading the passages? And what is this difference? "I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts." How the covenant is implemented by God is what makes the New Covenant "new." That's just a simple reading of the text. No gymnastics, no twisting of the text. The New Covenant isn't "new" because there is a "new law," but instead, the manner in which this New Covenant is implemented is what makes this "new." We can know this by knowing how God implemented the Old Covenant:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates. (Deuteronomy 6:4-9, emphasis mine)

I may be accused of "using a question-begging method" here, but frankly, I could care less since Tony's method must begins with a fallacious understanding of what it means to be "new." Not only that, but the simplicity of drawing out from the text of what God is going to do should naturally lead us to question, "What did God do before?" All I have done here is look at how God defines the New Covenant, see that He is implementing it in a specific way, then look at the Old Covenant and see how He implemented it there. In the Old Covenant, He calls the Jew to put "these commandments (His Laws)...upon [their] hearts...and bind them on [their] foreheads"; in the New Covenant, it will be God who will "put [His] law in their minds and write it on their hearts." It's novel! It's fresh! It's unprecedented! It had not existed back then! It is of a new kind...a new kind of covenant! It's unheard of! Gee, take your pick.

Now, I'm not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, but the tranlators of the Bible should know their languages, right? So then, in looking at all the english translations, each of them say, "My law" in verse 33. Not "new law"..."My law." "My," of course, is God referring to Himself. It is "God's law" that God is writing upon the heart. Again, a simple reading of the text, one which an Old Testament Jew could look at and marvel at this promise. God's Law, the same law that the Jewish author of Psalms 119 praised, is going to be put his mind and written on his heart. That is a much greater hope than being promised a "new law" which has no definition and, frankly, is foreign to Scripture. What the Jew could not do in the Old Covenant, God was going to do in the New Covenant. That's novel! That's fresh! That's...er, we've gone through this, huh?

But not only the Jew, but the Gentile as well. The New Covenant is for the Jew, but since Jew and Gentile are one under Christ, without a wall of separation, it is a covenant for the Gentile as well. It is not something in the future and it's not a separate covenant. It is a present reality, one which the author of Hebrews indicates explicitly. The New Covenant for the Jew is the same New Covenant for the Gentile.

Summary of Tony's Position

In trying to maintain his position, Tony must:

1. Hold to the fallacious idea that "new" means having every detail be different from before.
2. Turn "My law" (aka God's law) to mean something else, meaning a "new law", which is nothing more than a foreign law undefined by Scripture.
3. Contradict the author of Hebrews, and ultimately, God, in his interpretation and understanding of Jeremiah 31:31-34. Reading chapters 8 through 10 makes the "new covenant" a present reality, unlike Tony's rendering of it to the future.

Then in the consistency of his position, he must also try to make sense of the strange reimplementation of Nine of the Ten Commandments (his evaluation, not mine) since it rebuilds 90% of the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile. Wasn't it Tony who said that the Mosaic Law is supposed to do nothing with the "new covenant" because there is an "absolute emphatic negation" of the Old Covenant, which the Torah (Mosaic Law) "cannot be divorced from it"?

WWTD? - What Will Tony Do?

Tony knows that I am not a Hebrew or Greek scholar, so he continues to work that angle (this tends to smack of academic elitism). Yet when brought under scrutiny, no matter how much Hebrew or Greek he brings up, his position does not make any logical sense. If Tony still wants to make a case for his position, then he needs to provide more than just assertions.

Show us how your interpretive method works, because at this point, the clearness of Scripture is trapped under the muddiness of fallacious imposition, foreign law, and anachronism.

In Christ,

Victor

From The Desk Of Pastor Paul Viggiano

Who wants Proposition 85 to fail in November?

The California measure requires a doctor to notify a parent or guardian of an under-18-year-old-girl 48 hours before aborting the girl's baby.

By Paul Viggiano

Proposition 73 is making another go at it, this time as Proposition 85; the measure requires a doctor to notify a parent or guardian of an under-18-year-old-girl 48 hours before aborting the girl's baby.

Perhaps my 50s are showing, but a stupefied paralysis overcame me when this measure failed to win voter approval last November. Black-and-white films reeled in my head of Aryan boys and girls liberated from the limited knowledge and wisdom of their incompetent parents and ushered into the loving and omnipotent arms of the government who would transform them into model citizens.

As a student, and as a teacher, I recall the necessity of getting notes from parents for missing school, field trips, exams by the school nurse, a work permit to wipe off tables at the Redondo pier and delivering papers for the Daily Breeze.

But any 13-year-old girl can find herself under the bright lights of this grotesque and invasive chemical or surgical procedure if her boyfriend is willing to ride her to the clinic on the handlebars of his bike. If she's lucky, she'll have the assistance of a nameless social-service agent or moderately recognizable government educator. For some reason, we're voting for this over Mom and Dad.

From where is this "let's-keep-the-parents-out" wisdom generated? I thought there was conventional agreement that there should be dialogue between children and their parents, especially during trying times. Do we truly prefer a detached public servant over a loving, albeit struggling parent? Do we not believe, in the final analysis, that parents will be the superior decision makers regarding the best interests of their children?

Always willing to be swayed by good argumentation, I listen attentively to the arguments against Proposition 73, which will be before California voters in November as Proposition 85. Few are willing to argue that the government cares more than parents.

It would appear that the only good argument for keeping Dad and Mom in the dark is the possibility that Dad is the perpetrator, as the measure's opponents have argued. Is this one good argument actually good?

I tried to make a list of all the people who would oppose this proposition. Who would be happiest to see it fail? Who would benefit most from no-questions-asked abortions for the under-aged? Planned Parenthood obviously has something to gain. I'm sure the American Civil Liberties Union would have a party, and certainly there are kids who don't want to be forced to talk to their parents about these terribly important and personal issues.

But it became readily apparent that it's the pedophile parent who has his fingers crossed. The father who has impregnated his own daughter is head and shoulders above all on the list of people who want this proposition to fail. The last thing an abusive dad wants to deal with is communication with the authorities. And what about his wife?

Would Mom not insist that the perpetrator-dad take their daughter to the clinic where he must stand before doctors and nurses? Of course they've done this hundreds of times so they profile him. They begin asking questions:

What if they ask who the unborn child's father is? Are they going to be curious as to why the father doesn't care? Mom would sure like to know. What if someone suggests a DNA test? Will he not start sweating? The last thing in the world he wants is to face the music.

It is that evil, abusive and depraved parent, above all, who is hoping this will once again fail. No questions asked of his daughter and no questions asked of him. Nervously wringing his hands as he listens to the propaganda against the ballot measure and wondering if enough people will "buy it," he spoils for a defeat.

Think of the atrocious cycle:

The frightened teen is allowed to go through this no-questions-asked-no-mom-no-dad process, and the vile parent -- the poster-parent used to defeat the proposition last fall -- is given the freedom to do what we all know he'll continue to do until he's put behind bars or his scarred-for-life daughter is old enough to leave home. What tragic irony!

Yes, I am pro-life. But one need not be pro-life to see the absurdity of defeating Proposition 85. Unless you truly believe the government is better equipped than parents to deal with the difficult and intimate issues surrounding teenagers, this must be made law. And the one good reason offered by opposition to this law may be the biggest reason to have it.

Just Couldn't Stay Silent

I caught this piece of news several days ago. I wonder if Matthew 18 meant anything to her? Now, because of her outcry, non-Christians have fodder to throw at Christians. I guess she just couldn't stay silent.