Complete and total abrogation of the law.

[DonP]

Jesus begins to teach the inner life principle and the abrogation of the laws.

He says the outward obedience by the letter of the law is not what we are to do. He explains it is the heart desire that is vital and always was supposed to have been that way too; though some Jews missed this.

Matt 5:33 "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old,'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; NKJV

Matt 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. NKJV

Matt 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; KJV

Now it is being made clear that not only can we not be saved by keeping the law but we are not even to live by those laws. They were for that time before Christ.

Col 2:20 Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations — 21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle," 22 which all concern things which perish with the using — according to the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh. NKJV

God does not want us just to follow rules, he wants our heart changed, a new creature. New desires. Not just obedience but from a heart desire.

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. NKJV

Galatians not only tells us we are not saved by keeping the law but that the laws were just a tutor to bring us to Christ, shadows until Christ, so we drop them now and walk by the Spirit not the outward letter of the laws. It should be written on our hearts what to do. This can't mean the moral law because we are still to obey it as a rule of life but not any of the rest.

Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Gal 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. 4 But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!" 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. NKJV
Gal 4:9 But now after you have known God, or rather are known by God, how is it that you turn again to the weak and beggarly elements, to which you desire again to be in bondage? 10 You observe days and months and seasons and years. 11 I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.

Gal 4:24 Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the freewoman through promise, 24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar —

Gal 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman." 31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. NKJV

The bondage is the OT laws. They with Israel the nation are gone forever!

 

[LawrenceU]

Praise God that the Law has been fulfilled. However, to say that the law has no bearing today because of that fulfillment, if I am reading you post aright, is a bit askew. Did not Agricola use the same line of reasoning and take it to its logical extension?

 

[DonP]

Praise God that the Law has been fulfilled. However, to say that the law has no bearing today because of that fulfillment, if I am reading you post aright, is a bit askew. Did not Agricola use the same line of reasoning and take it to its logical extension?

I did not say that. I said it was abrogated and the laws themselves are not binding on us to obey as the moral law still is.

1 Cor 10:10-13
10 nor complain, as some of them also complained, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.
12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 13 No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. NKJV

I think this is why the Confession tells us to seek to find the General Equity exemplified in these things.

And if a legislator thought an OT law was still suited to us today in our culture they could use the same one with no modification. But it is not required, just the GE exemplified is there. ie we should not require a company to pay millions to one who gets a skin burn from spilled coffee.
No more than an eye for an eye would be a good guideline to follow in these instances. But it could be we decide to prevent corp negligence in our day we say an eye and a half for an eye. The one to one maybe for personal man on man manslaughter injury, etc..

 

[LawrenceU]

I've re-read your post. It seems to me that an element is missing. God never desired Israel to focus upon the external observance of his law. The prophets continually called people to repentance because that was their view of the law.

Hos. 6.6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Is. 29.13 And the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are endeavouring to write.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I think this is why the Confession tells us to seek to find the General Equity exemplified in these things.

And if a legislator thought an OT law was still suited to us today in our culture they could use the same one with no modification. But it is not required, just the GE exemplified is there. ie we should not require a company to pay millions to one who gets a skin burn from spilled coffee.

I’m not following. What specific OT law that has been abrogated would require a company to pay you any amount for spilled hot coffee?

No more than an eye for an eye would be a good guideline to follow in these instances. But it could be we decide to prevent corp negligence in our day we say an eye and a half for an eye. The one to one maybe for personal man on man manslaughter injury, etc..

What is the “eye for an eye” restitution in the matter of spilled coffee? Do we sit the CEO of the company down and pour hot coffee on them? (Lev. 24:19,20) Why would the CEO be responsible for your negligence?

What would be the appropriate civil punishment for, say, public blasphemy?

 

[DonP]

I've re-read your post. It seems to me that an element is missing. God never desired Israel to focus upon the external observance of his law. The prophets continually called people to repentance because that was their view of the law.

Hos. 6.6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

Is. 29.13 And the Lord said, Because this people draw near with their mouth and honour me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are endeavouring to write.

Great point. I edited this into my 1st clause: and always was supposed to have been that way too; though some Jews missed this.

Thanks for helping me clarify this.
My post is to encourage dialogue since so many today think we should hold on to or use some of the OT laws. Like tithing or theonomists, or those who say no tatoos but skip the adjacent line no cutting of hair on the temples. Many today, though maybe not legalistic like the Pharisees, are fundamentalistic or moralistic and would put us under the laws like theJudaizers sought to do. Whether for salvation or sancitification we are not under those laws we are to walk by faith.

Was hoping to generate some discussion and support on the subject.

Good book I recommend as often as possible Scougal, Life of god in the Soul of Man.

 

[Peairtach]

There's no simplistic or simple solution as the Dispensationalists or Theonomists would have us believe. See John Frame's lecture on "Applying the Law" in his series on "Pastoral and Social Ethics" here:-

http://http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=ethics&B1=Go

Is there nothing moral of abiding validity in the law against tatoos? Or is there not?
What was the purpose of that law/these laws?

The moral law of Moses can't be restricted to the Ten Commandmants otherwise it would be allright for Christians to marry their aunties! Therefore each law of Moses must be looked at and studied to see what, if anything, is provisional and what, if anything, is moral and abiding.

 

[DonP]

Is there nothing moral of abiding validity in the law against tatoos? Or is there not?
What was the purpose of that law/these laws?

The moral law of Moses can't be restricted to the Ten Commandmants otherwise it would be allright for Christians to marry their aunties! Therefore each law of Moses must be looked at and studied to see what, if anything, is provisional and what, if anything, is moral and abiding.

If there is an implication tatoos are wrong then wouldn't the continuing verses that say do not cut the hair on the side of the head be equally valid and offensive to God?

And could we not learn about the auntie other ways?
Just as though we are free to eat whatever meat we want, according to Peter's vision, some have decided there is wisdom in avoiding pork that has certain toxins in it that especially affect some people, and others avoid bottom feeding fish because they get all the filth and toxicity that sinks.

So there can be personal convictions, and practical and scientific reasons.

And we do consider the General Equity represented in these laws, but we would not just blanket adopt them directly.
Else how would we know which one to use and which not to?

 

[Peairtach]

If it was likely that we would know or not need to be told which relatives we cannot marry, why did God tell us? The patriarchs seem to have been confused in this regard.

Re hair and tatoos etc. Such laws may not be directly applicable - like the incest laws - but sometimes contain a moral principle/s. E.g. look after your body, your body is not your own, don't blindly follow pagan trends and styles, be separate- in a moral sense - from the heathen, some styles of dress/fashion may also be unacceptable for the Christian.

So we have to study the laws of Moses to see which laws are directly applicable to us and which are indirectly applicable and which we can learn from theologically rather than morally.

See Matthew 5:17-20 and I Timothy 3:16.

 

[TimV]

If it was likely that we would know or not need to be told which relatives we cannot marry, why did God tell us? The patriarchs seem to have been confused in this regard.

There's another possibility, that you may not be as much smarter than the Patriarchs as you think.

Something is bad because God says that it is bad. He never told the Patriarch Abraham that marrying your half sister is bad, so when Abraham did it he was not confused, any more than Adam's descendants were confused.

Later when He told Moses that marrying your Aunt was wrong it became wrong, because God said it was wrong.

 

[DonP]

So we have to study the laws of Moses to see which laws are directly applicable to us and which are indirectly applicable and which we can learn from theologically rather than morally.

See Matthew 5:17-20 and I Timothy 3:16.

Well we know for sure Matt 5 can't be referring to the laws because they have in deed passed away and we are told not to keep some of them specifically
So to me this only applies to moral law, the 10 commands.

What criteria do you use to determine which OT laws to keep directly, or indirectly?

And if we can't keep all directly what is the basis of keeping some and not others?

 

[akennethjr]

Lawrence said that we should not focus on the externals.
I would beg to differ the moral law involves not only the heart but also the actions.

 

[Peairtach]

If it was likely that we would know or not need to be told which relatives we cannot marry, why did God tell us? The patriarchs seem to have been confused in this regard.

There's another possibility, that you may not be as much smarter than the Patriarchs as you think.

Something is bad because God says that it is bad. He never told the Patriarch Abraham that marrying your half sister is bad, so when Abraham did it he was not confused, any more than Adam's descendants were confused.

Later when He told Moses that marrying your Aunt was wrong it became wrong, because God said it was wrong.

There may have been some situational reason why in the time of the Patriarchs it was not immoral. Or maybe it was immoral but God pemitted it for good reasons of His own, as he seemed to permit/indulge polygamy for a while.

Obviously Adam's children were in a position where they would have to marry close relations.

 

[TimV]

There may have been some situational reason why in the time of the Patriarchs it was not immoral. Or maybe it was immoral but God pemitted it for good reasons of His own, as he seemed to permit/indulge polygamy for a while.

Obviously Adam's children were in a position where they would have to marry close relations.

So it was wrong but God didn't have any choice but to allow it due to circumstances beyond His control?

 

[LawrenceU]

Lawrence said that we should not focus on the externals.
I would beg to differ the moral law involves not only the heart but also the actions.

You are taking what I said completely out of context. Your statement insinuates that my position pays no attention to external activity. That is a straw man.

God's word is clear that 'holy' actions not stemming from a holy heart are a stench in the nostrils of God. Obedience to the moral law of God begins in the regenerate heart. It will become moral actions as the law is lived out. To do otherwise will always lead to legalism.

 

[Spinningplates2]

....and the next question in these cycles is; why should Christians have only one wife? Nothing new under the sun. Maybe we need a new "provocative" questions such as, Is it wrong to have a tattoo on our forehead that reads, "God is Love!"

Maybe we really do need more tattooed sporting, ear ring wearing, men with ponytails in the Church and especially in the pulpit. And why not some women preachers too?

 

[toddpedlar]

Lawrence said that we should not focus on the externals.
I would beg to differ the moral law involves not only the heart but also the actions.

Lawrence argued against a FOCUS on the externals; apparently you've misunderstood him. He most would agree with you, if I may speak for him, that the law involves actions. His argument is with the Pharisee who claims a right standing because he's tithed his mint, cumin and everything else, but begrudges the fact that he "owes God 10%". That man may have his externals correct, but because he's focusing on getting them in line, he's missed the point of the Law.

 

[Peairtach]

There may have been some situational reason why in the time of the Patriarchs it was not immoral. Or maybe it was immoral but God pemitted it for good reasons of His own, as he seemed to permit/indulge polygamy for a while.

Obviously Adam's children were in a position where they would have to marry close relations.

So it was wrong but God didn't have any choice but to allow it due to circumstances beyond His control?

I'm just speculating. I don't know why Abraham was allowed to marry his half-sister and no comment be made on it. As far as I'm aware the incest laws are moral and therefore rooted in God's nature and the nature of the human family which images Him forth. I can't see any major difference between the human family in Abraham's time and now - or Abraham's time and Moses' time - which would make for a significant situational difference. Were consanguinious marriages less likely to lead to genetic problems? Were marriages of affinity less likely to lead to family tensions and sexual problems?
Seems unlikely and even if there were no problems would that make it right?

Therefore Abraham was not following the ideal moral pattern and neither were the polygamists.

Something may be morally wrong but permitted by a wise and loving God. In a similar way, a parent may allow a child freedom to do certain things, in order to teach them a lesson. The patriarchal and Mosaic churches were in a childhood state. Since Christ the church has been in an adolescent state, although I believe it is advancing towards glorious maturity (Ephesians 4:10-13).

Re "Who was Cain's wife?", I believe Dabney speculated that if man had not sinned God may have made other provision for this. I'll look out the quote.

The circumstances are never beyond God's control, but he may decide to do things in ways we might not expect. E.g. "tolerating" incest and polygamy, (and co-operating with slavery?),
at earlier childhood phases of his Church. It's not God that's changing; but He is responding to different levels of maturity of His Church in the light of redemptive history.

 

[akennethjr]

Lawrence: what did you mean when you said, "God never desired Israel to focus on the external observance of his law." ?

 

[LawrenceU]

Paul, I've already answered that question. But, I will do so again.

A focus, by definition, is primary. External observance is not what God was desiring as a primary for his people. Obedient observance comes from a primary that is internal, not external.

 

[TimV]

I'm just speculating. I don't know why Abraham was allowed to marry his half-sister and no comment be made on it. As far as I'm aware the incest laws are moral and therefore rooted in God's nature

Then by putting Adam and Eve and their kids in a place where they were forced by God's command (be fruitful) to act contrary to God's nature you make God the author of sin.

It's not theonomy you are attacking but basic confessional orthodoxy.

It's far easier to just let God define sin.

 

[Peairtach]

Good point about Adam and Eve's children.

I wasn't directly addressing theonomy - that is crimes and punishments - here but responding to Peacemaker who was saying that the law was abrogated, including the laws regarding who we're allowed to marry.

Quote from Peacemaker
"And could we not learn about the auntie other ways?"

 

[timmopussycat]

There's no simplistic or simple solution as the Dispensationalists or Theonomists would have us believe. See John Frame's lecture on "Applying the Law" in his series on "Pastoral and Social Ethics" here:-

http://http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=ethics&B1=Go

Is there nothing moral of abiding validity in the law against tatoos? Or is there not?
What was the purpose of that law/these laws?

The moral law of Moses can't be restricted to the Ten Commandmants otherwise it would be allright for Christians to marry their aunties! Therefore each law of Moses must be looked at and studied to see what, if anything, is provisional and what, if anything, is moral and abiding.

Not so. Even though the moral law is the Decalogue (WCF 19:1-3) it is not OK for Christians to marry their aunties as even though the laws of consanguinity given to Israel expired as a system with the state of that people, the general equity underlying thos laws may be shown to apply today.

 

[Peairtach]

The Decalogue is a summary of the moral law.

I would consider the laws against incest to be moral, but the fact that they were crimes, and the punishment for them, to be judicial. This judicial aspect of these laws contain a general equity which should be applied by modern governments.

Incest as set forth by Moses should be a crime but the punishment should be less than death because death was imposed upon those who did not have a sacrifice. (Numbers 15:22-36; cf. Hebrews 10:26-28)

Dabney,himself, seems to have been confused on the subject of Cain's wife:-

This curious fact may perhaps throw some light on the difficult question whence Adam’s son’s drew their wives without incest. We, who hold to the unity of the race, must answer that they married their own sisters. Must we admit then, that an act which is now monstrous, was then legitimate? Does not this admission tend to place the law against incest among the merely positive and temporary precepts? The only reply is that the trite say, "Circumstances alter cases," has some proper applications even to problems essentially moral. The peculiar condition of the human family may have rendered that proper at first, which, under changed conditions became morally wrong. Among these circumstances, was the purity or homogeneity of the blood. There was absolutely but the one variety of the human race, so that deterioration of the progeny by physical law could not follow. But now, in consequence of the dispersions and immigrations of the race, the blood of every tribe is mixed, and breeding in becomes a crime against the offspring. But we know too little of the scanty history of the first men, to speculate with safety here. The command to replenish the earth was given to Adam and Eve in their pure estate, in which, had it continued, incest, like every other sin would have been impossible. Who can deny, but that the marriages contracted between the sons and daughters of the first parents, after the fall, were sinful in God’s eyes? It is not unreasonable to suppose that, thus, the very propagation of the degraded race, to which its present earthly existence under the mercy of God is due, began in sin and shame; that its very perpetuation is the tolerated consequence of a flagrant crime!

 

[akennethjr]

Lawrence: thanks for your response about the outward observance of the moral law.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Incest as set forth by Moses should be a crime but the punishment should be less than death because death was imposed upon those who did not have a sacrifice. (Numbers 15:22-36; cf. Hebrews 10:26-28)

Richard,

I’m not following. It appears there is a distinction in Numbers 15 between unintentional and presumptuous sins. In the case of unintentional sins, a sacrifice would be made to atone for the offense. There was no sacrifice for those who sinned presumptuously. Incest is a presumptuous sin, therefore it deserves an appropriate sanctions.

Besides, wouldn’t your argument also apply to murder? Since there is no sacrifice there can be no capital punishment?

I’m not sure I see how you are trying to apply the “general equity” of this situation to our age.

 

[Peairtach]

Well the fact that the death penalty for murder was given to all mankind through Noah long before Moses means that that stands as the ultimate sanction today.

The multitude of death penalties for the grossest breaches of the Ten Commandments which were added at the time of Moses as appropriate penalties for those who were without a typological sacrifice, doesn't change what has been established before Moses through Noah when the Mosaic judicials are abrogated apart from their general equity.

In a system which has animal sacrifices, it is only appropriate that an offender be executed for a particular sin if he is denied a sacrifice for that sin. This must be taken into account when discerning the general equity of these judicial laws.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Well the fact that the death penalty for murder was given to all mankind through Noah long before Moses means that that stands as the ultimate sanction today.

The multitude of death penalties for the grossest breaches of the Ten Commandments which were added at the time of Moses as appropriate penalties for those who were without a typological sacrifice, doesn't change what has been established before Moses through Noah when the Mosaic judicials are abrogated apart from their general equity.

In a system which has animal sacrifices, it is only appropriate that an offender be executed for a particular sin if he is denied a sacrifice for that sin. This must be taken into account when discerning the general equity of these judicial laws.

I’m afraid I’m still not following. (Pardon me for being so dense.)

Where is it taught under the Mosaic code that the sanction for a presumptuous sin (ala Numbers 15:30-36; murder, adultery, incest, idolatry) could be mitigated by an animal sacrifice?

30 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.' " 32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."

Are you saying that the man in this instance could have offered a sacrifice and his life spared from the civil penalty? I do not see that in the text.

I'm not grasping the flow of your argument.

 

[Peairtach]

Under Moses there had to be the shedding of the blood of an animal for every sin or the death of the offender for his/her sin.

If sacrifice for sin was barred to certain offenders, they had to die.

Without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22)

In the New Covenant the typological sacrificial system is removed and hence New Covenant governments aren't bound to execute people for e.g. flagrant Sabbath-breaking.

The system of death penalties for various offences, not only served as part of Israel's penal law, but also typified the fact that without an atonement for sin we all deserve death.

 

[tcalbrecht]

Under Moses there had to be the shedding of the blood of an animal for every sin or the death of the offender for his/her sin.

That is not the way it is presented in Number 15, which you quoted in the early comment. Sacrifice was permitted for unintentional sins. Punishment was required for presumptuous sins.

You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.

But a sacrifice could never be offered in place of one who was to be “cut off” from the congregation. He always carried his own guilt.

If sacrifice for sin was barred to certain offenders, they had to die.

But that was based on the nature of the sin, not on the availability of the sacrifice. Those who sinned “knowingly, wilfully, obstinately” (JFB) had to suffer the consequences. Atonement was only for the penitent.

Without the shedding of blood their is no remission of sins (Hebrews 9:22)

In the New Covenant the typological sacrificial system is removed and hence New Covenant governments aren't bound to execute people for e.g. flagrant Sabbath-breaking.

I’m not seeing that from the Scriptures. I do not see any necessary abrogation of the civil penalties based on an absence of animal sacrifices.

The system of death penalties for various offences, not only served as part of Israel's penal law, but also typified the fact that without an atonement for sin we all deserve death.

True, but the latter does not nullify the former. It may still be appropriate for the state to exercise capital punishment in certain flagrant instances.