|
DOES THE NEW COVENANT
DO AWAY WITH THE LETTER OF THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW?
|
Recent Changes in WCG Doctrine Reconsidered
[Fourth revised version, with subtitles]
By Eric V. Snow
With the fourth commandment having recently been declared
a mere suggestion, it's worthwhile to review much of Pasadena's present
doctrinal agenda. Are the Sabbath, Holy
Days, and tithing all voluntary?[1] According to
Mr. Tkach, they are: "But the
Sabbath and Holy Days, along with the other ceremonial observances of the old
covenant, are fulfilled in Christ and are not binding in their physical
observance in the new covenant."[2] "Under the new covenant the tithe is
voluntary, done out of love and allegiance to Jesus Christ."[3] On the contrary, below it shall be argued
that the Sabbath, tithing, and the Holy Days are all still binding on new
covenant Christians, drawing heavily upon Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) and other
sources concerning the law and the Sabbath.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS OF PASADENA”S IN INTERPRETING THE
BIBLE
Certain key assumptions buttress Pasadena's reasoning
abolishing the Sabbath, the Holy Days, and tithing. As powerful and disturbing as its reasoning may seem initially,
once its principles of Bible interpretation are exposed for closer examination,
they become highly questionable. Often
little time has been spent really proving these assumptions, as opposed to
applying them in abolishing various Old Testament laws as applying to
Christians. Here we'll list some of
Pasadena's key assumptions and/or assertions:
1. Dispensationalism, the view that God
works with His people in [very] different ways during different stages of his
master plan for humanity, is the most important foundational belief of these
new teachings: "Prophecies [such
as Zech. 14's about the Feast of Tabernacles being celebrated in the
millennium] (whether New Testament or Old Testament, whether about Sabbaths or
sacrifices or circumcision) are not a reliable source of proof regarding
Christian practice. Our doctrines must
be based on scriptures that are applicable to the age we live in. . . . We
should use the law in a lawful way?and the new covenant, the law that Christians are now under,
does not permit us to dictate when and how much time other Christians should
give to the Lord. . . . We want to uphold the law in the way that is
appropriate to the age after the coming of Christ and the Holy Spirit."[4]
2.
Accordingly, a radical discontinuity is asserted to exist between
Christianity and Judaism, in which basically everything about the latter was
abolished or transformed by the death and resurrection of Christ, instead of
being merely reformed, modified, or fulfilled in the sense of completion, not
abolition: "Just as the
sacrifices were shadows that pointed to Christ and were superseded by him, the
old covenant worship days were also shadows that pointed to Christ. Now that he has come, the days are no longer
standards by which we are judged. The
proper standard is Jesus Christ. At the
last judgment, the definitive questions will not be about days, but about faith
in Jesus Christ. His coming has made an
enormous differences in the way God's people should worship in spirit and
truth. We have only recently begun to
realize how significant his death and resurrection have been to both faith and
practice."[5]
3.
Correspondingly, since in this new covenant dispensation Christ's
sacrifice has changed everything, an Old Testament law can only be assumed to
be in force if repeated in the New Testament [especially in Paul's
letters]: "A New Testament
authority is needed before any old practices are continued. That's because the law of Moses, the old
covenant, the Torah, is obsolete."[6] "We must look elsewhere in the Bible to
see which laws have continuing validity and which do not. We cannot assume that 'old covenant laws are
still valid unless specifically rescinded in the new'?the new covenant has
made the old covenant obsolete and the old laws have been set aside."[7]
4. The old
covenant is asserted to be the same thing as the Old Testament law, and the
former has clearly ended, thus abolishing the latter?s commands as binding on
Christians: "The Ten Commandments
were not separate from the old covenant?they were the old covenant (Exodus 34:28). They were the preamble and the core of the
covenant. . . . The law?the entire old covenant?was in force until
Christ came (Galatians 3:25; Hebrews 9:10)."[8]
5. The law of
Moses, the Torah, the old covenant and the Old Testament law are essentially
all one and the same thing, and it all got obliterated in one huge chunk: "When the book of Hebrews says that the old covenant is
obsolete, it is discounting the whole package of Old Testament law. Some individual laws, of course, are still
valid, but the package as a whole is not an authoritative package. . . . The
law of Moses included civil laws, religious ceremonies and prophecies. It referred to everything that Moses wrote,
the books of Moses, the Torah or the Law.
The law of Moses includes everything in those books, and that's what the
Jerusalem council [of Acts 15] was about. . . . The writings of Moses do not
have authority over Christians. Some of
the laws, of course, are still valid, but they are not valid merely because God
gave them to Moses. Rather, if they are
valid, they are valid for other reasons."[9]
6. Finally,
the argument from silence is employed, using implicit dispensationalist
premises: If a law isn't mentioned in
the New Testament, it must be abolished.
For everything must be changed, unless the New Testament (and Paul in
particular) says otherwise: "If
the Sabbath were a requirement, it would be astonishing that the New Testament
never mentions such an important command.
It has space for all sorts of other commands, including holy kisses, but
no occasion to command the Sabbath.
Sweeping statements are made regarding the old covenant law, but never
does anyone say, 'except the Sabbath.'
. . . Paul dealt with numerous problems of Christian living, and he
lists numerous sins that can keep people out of the kingdom of God, but he
never mentions the Sabbath."[10]
Such reasoning may initially sound very
persuasive. No doubt, because the
world's Christianity, especially evangelical Protestantism, believes these
tenets, they come to have an emotional resonance because rejecting them puts us
in a small, despised, "cultic" minority. However, surprisingly, some of
these positions summarized above are assertions that often got little or
no proof in the WCG writings announcing these changes, such as those favoring
dispensationalism and the radical discontinuity theses. (Indeed, Pasadena rarely uses the
"D" word in anything I've read, which may imply they are taken this
belief 's[11]
truthfulness for granted). Others, such
as the view that the old covenant and the Ten Commandments (or the Old
Testament law) are one and the same thing, are simply flatly wrong. The
assertion that all Old Testament laws are abolished unless repeated in the New
Testament, instead of them being in force unless specifically abolished is just
that: an assertion, based heavily upon
dubious claims about Acts 15 abolishing the entire law of Moses, not just
circumcision. The argument from silence is a logical fallacy, which is
furthermore assuming at its base that the dispensationalism and the radical
discontinuity theses are true: Saying
nothing obliterates the laws of the Old Testament, as opposed to assuming
silence means nothing has changed.
Let's begin to examine these assumptions below.
THE FOUNDATIONAL ASSUMPTION OF DISPENSATIONALISM
First, we
need examine carefully the foundational doctrine being pushed by Pasadena
nowadays: dispensationalism, laced with
some antinomian tendencies.
Dispensationalism can be defined as the view that God works with humans
in (often) very different ways at different times. Basically, it says the Old Testament was a regime of law, while
the New Testament revealed an era of grace.
Normally, it adds the view that the Jews are still God's chosen people,
and He will continue to deal with them spiritually differently,[12]
including even during the millennium (not just physically differently, as HWA's
"British-Israelism? evidently posited).[13]
Dispensationalism often is associated with antinomianism, which is the
belief the law is abolished and not binding on Christians. Here Pasadena hasn't gone whole hog: "In other words, we observe the
principles we find in the Ten Commandments, not because they were given at Mt.
Sinai, but because Jesus Christ and the apostles commanded them in the new
covenant."[14] Nevertheless, with tithing, the Holy Days,
and Sabbath observance being made voluntary, excepting the "forsaking our
own assembling together" (Hebrews 10:25, NASB throughout, unless otherwise
noted), the general antinomian tendency compared to our past is evident. The SDAs summarized the school of prophecy
now popular among evangelicals (the futuristic/dispensationalistic type of
premillennialism[15]) this way:
Along with this came the development of an
elaborate division of the Bible into dispensational compartments (with
antinomian tendencies), in a doctrine of mutual exclusiveness between law and
grace. . . . Stemming also from this futurist view that the Jews are to be
God's elect, to whom all the kingdom prophecies must yet be literally
fulfilled, is an unprecedented interpretive system with dangerous
tendencies. It embodied in a
dispensationalist emphasis that rebuilds the wall of partition between Jew and
Gentile that Jesus obliterated, that separates law from grace in thoroughly
antinomian fashion, and that deflects from the Christian church the promises
and the covenants and large portions of the Bible, especially the Gospels,
giving to the Jew, rather than to the Christian, not only the Decalogue, but
also the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer.[16]
Now, having seen this whole system influence WCG
doctrine, we should now ask ourselves the following question: Is dispensationalism true?
Hence, it
isn't mere coincidence that Pasadena's new emphasis on the differences between
the new covenant and the old covenant, a key teaching of traditional
evangelical dispensationalism, is closely tied to its present antinomian
tendencies. The way evangelical
Protestant theology often mixes together futurism, dispensationalism, and
antinomianism in greater or lesser amounts serves as the theological background
for these recent changes by Pasadena.
They aren't occurring in a vacuum.
IS DISPENSATIONALISM TRUE?
Whether or
not dispensationalism is true leads us to this question: Has salvation always been only by grace
through faith, or did God require literal works of ancient Israel to earn or
achieve salvation? For Abraham, the
patriarch, salvation must have been of grace, even as he obeyed God's laws
(Gen. 26:5), as we find in Gen. 15:6:6:
"Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as
righteousness." Compare Rom.
4:l-2. Noah "became an heir of the
righteousness which is according to faith" (Heb. 11:7). Did this change for Israel? Note Habakkuk 2:4: "But the righteous will live by his faith." Also note Jeremiah 31:2, especially when
compared to Hebrews 3:18-19: "Thus
says the Lord, 'The people who survived the sword found grace in the
wilderness--Israel, when it went to find its rest.'" (Compare the use of "rest" here
with Heb. 4:1-11, where it is referring to a condition of salvation
spiritually). Hebrews 11, the faith
chapter, goes from Abel and Enoch to David, implying no change occurred in how
men and women are saved by repetitively saying it was "by faith" over
twenty times, finally, coming down to verses 39-40, showing salvation was by
grace then as well: "And all
these, having gained approval through their faith [not by their works!], did
not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for
us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect." Notice David in Ps. 119:146: "I cried to Thee; save me, and I shall
keep Thy testimonies." Works are
the fruitage of salvation here, not the means of obtaining it. David knew in Ps. 51:17 that sacrifices
(i.e. works) didn't reconcile him to God, but a repentant attitude would: "For Thou dost not delight in
sacrifice, otherwise I would give it; Thou are not pleased with burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a
broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise." Paul sees David as speaking of
"the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from
works:[17] "'Blessed are those whose lawless deeds
have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into
account'" (Rom. 4:6-8). Yet,
Pasadena seems incorrectly to imply once or twice otherwise: "Christians have a relationship with
God based on faith, not on law. Of
course we obey God, but we obey according to the new covenant, not the old. . .
. The new covenant has a new set of laws, though many are the same, and our
relationship with God is on a different foundation, based on a different
agreement."[18] For never could anyone be saved (justified)
by obeying the law, because law-keeping doesn't expiate (wipe off) sin--only
Jesus' sacrifice does that.[19]
Now you may
say: So what? Why does the doctrine of dispensationalism matter in our current
doctrine crisis? Consider this
description of how extreme applications of dispensationalist ideas have damaged
even evangelical Protestant theology, as seen by an evangelical:
The age of law/age of grace division in
particular has wreaked havoc on dispensationalist theology and contributed to
confusion about the doctrine of salvation.
Of course, there is an important
distinction to be made between law and grace.
But it is wrong to conclude, as [dispensationalist theologian Dr. Lewis
Sperry] Chafer apparently did, that law and grace are mutually exclusive in the
program of God for any age. . . . Salvation has always been by grace
through faith, not by the works of the law (Galatians 2:16).[20]
Hence, the same problems will be apt to affect WCG
theology that trouble evangelical theology the more Pasadena accepts their
system of dispensationalism.
DISPENSATIONALISM VERSUS THE WORDS OF JESUS
An excellent
example of how dispensationalism works is how Pasadena in its study paper on
the Sabbath dismisses evidence from Eze. 44:24 showing the Sabbath is binding
in the millennium as being in force today:
"Prophecies (whether New Testament or Old Testament, whether about
Sabbaths or sacrifices or circumcision) are not a reliable source of proof
regarding Christian practice. Our
doctrines must be based on scriptures that are applicable to the age we live
in."[21] Similarly, John Curry stated: "Jesus was speaking to an audience who
were under the old covenant. [He also
was during the Sermon on the Mount?EVS]. Verse 23 [of
Matt. 23] records part of Jesus' condemnation of Pharisaic legalism (see the
entire chapter). . . . Just because
Jesus instructed this man [in Mark 1:40-43] to offer sacrifices according to
the requirements of the Mosaic law does not mean that his words have universal
applicability for Christians. The context
determines the application. Jesus was
speaking to a Jew under the old covenant."[22]
So--Why are
Jesus' words invalid? Because Jesus
was still alive when He said it! Or,
really, because Jesus lived under the old covenant, He had to obey the
ritualistic law to the extent it applied to Him as well as the moral law (the
Ten Commandments, etc). (Gal. 4:4
proves this, so long as the word "born" refers to Him, and not His
mother). Hence, Jesus' words, so long
as He was human, aren't necessarily considered valid for doctrine. However, on the contrary, He said in the
great commission to "make disciples of all the nations . . . teaching them
to observe all that I commanded you" (Matt. 28:20). This statement doesn't fit the view Jesus'
words and actions were mostly only for old covenant Jews or a restored Israel
during the millennium, but for Christians now.
Similarly, Paul said to "Be imitators of me, just as I also am of
Christ" (I Cor. 11:1), which becomes a progressively more useless or
misleading injunction the more Christ's statements or actions are seen as only
fit for old covenant Jews or Israel during the millennium. Peter, while he was speaking specifically
about suffering, stated a principle that can be taken more broadly: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving
you an example for you to follow in His steps" (I Pet. 2:21). Note also I John 2:6: "(T) he one who says he abides in Him
ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked." Jesus was the messenger of the new covenant
(Mal. 3:1; Dan. 9:27) and the kingdom of God (Mark 1:14-15), describing both
before being ushered in. Hence, we
should assume that His words are valid for doctrine unless specifically
and clearly set aside by Paul, Peter, etc. later due to being tied to
something that has been abolished (i.e., the offerings to priests for being
healed from leprosy).
THE OBSTACLE OF MATT. 5:17-19
The biggest obstacle Pasadena faces in
saying Jesus' sacrifice and resurrection massively changed God's ways of
dealing with humanity, ushering in a radical discontinuity between Judaism and
Christianity which obliterated the Old Testament law, is surely Matt. 5:17-19
(New World Translation (NWT)):
Do not think I came to
destroy the Law or the Prophets. I
came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; for truly I say to you that sooner would
heaven and earth pass away than for one smallest letter or one particle of a
letter to pass away from the Law by any means and not all things take
place. Whoever, therefore, breaks one
of these least commandments and teaches mankind to that effect, he will be
called 'least' in relation to the kingdom of the heavens. As for anyone who does them and teaches
them, this one will be called 'great' in relation to the kingdom of the
heavens.
Hence, Jesus says, "Do not think I came to
destroy the Law [i.e. the Torah]," but Pasadena in denial says: "Rather, the law?the books of Moses?was a temporary measure
until Christ, the Seed, came . . ."[23] Since the
Greek word translated "fulfill" in verse 17 is put in direct
contradiction to "destroy," it is illegitimate to claim
"fulfill" means something that sounds slightly different, such as
"transform," that amounts to the same result. This same word "plerosai" (to
fulfill) is used in Matt. 13:48 to refer to a net full of fish, in Luke 2:40 to
refer to Jesus becoming filled with wisdom, and Luke 3:5 to filling up a
valley. In such a context (v. 17), when
it's placed in contradiction to "destroy," it can't mean
"abolish," but it must mean "completion," or "addition."
Now,
dispensationalists will claim that in v. 18 the word translated "fulfill"
in the KJV (above in the NWT it was translated "take place")?"genetai"--still
allows for the Law to be abolished, by Jesus somehow "fulfilling" it
in a way that destroyed some parts of it.
Using the KJV translation, it gets treated as a second condition to the
statement that the heaven and earth must pass away first before the Law passes
away. However, this stratagem is
exposed when using a more modern translation that translates these two Greek
words?"plersoai" and
"genetai"?differently. Suddenly, Jesus isn't saying the law won't
pass away unless heaven and earth pass OR something else gets (NASB)
"accomplished." Instead,
Jesus is saying the law won't pass away "until ALL is accomplished"
i.e. the "period of restoration of ALL things about which God spoke by the
mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time" (Acts 3:21) up to the time a
new heaven and earth are created (Isa. 65:17; 66:22; Rev. 21:1). Simply put, the Law is continuously
binding on humanity up until at least the new heavens and earth are created, in
contradiction to this idea it gets abolished during a present age of grace just
to get restored during the millennium.
After all, just how does the second coming cancel out the effects of
Jesus' sacrifice supposedly abolishing the law?[24]
Also, Matt.
5:19 shows that Jesus didn't just mean that the Law (i.e. the Torah, the first
five books of the Old Testament) in the abstract are still binding on
Christians, but that their specific laws would be too. This view would contradict the idea all laws
are abolished unless repeated somewhere in the New Testament. The "least of these commandments,"
must refer to the Old Testament law, not just His new teachings bringing out
more clearly the spirit of the law.
Again, He sets up a rather similar parallel opposition in v. 19 between
the words "annuls" and "commandments" that exists in v.17
between "abolish" and "law." Indeed, the Greek word rendered "annuls" (luo)
in v. 19 is related grammatically to the word translated "abolish" (katalu)
in v. 17. "These
commandments" doesn't just refer to Jesus' "new commandments,"
for the reasons described best by The Expositor's Bible Commentary:
But what are 'these commandments'? It is hard to justify restriction of these words to Jesus'
teachings . . . for the noun in Matthew never refers to Jesus' words, and the
context argues against it. Restriction to
the Ten Commandments . . . is equally alien to the concerns of the
context. Nor can we say 'these
commandments' refers to the antitheses that follow, for in Matthew houtos
('this,' pl. 'these') never points forward. It appears, then, that the expression must refer to the
commandments of the OT Scriptures.
The entire Law and the Prophets are not scrapped by Jesus' coming but
fulfilled. Therefore the
commandments of these Scriptures?even the least of them . . .?must be practiced . . . The law pointed forward
to Jesus and his teaching . . . so he, in fulfilling it, establishes . . . the
way it is to be obeyed.[25]
Hence, it's illegitimate to say v. 19's
"commandments" don't refer to laws seen by Jesus as binding from the
Old Testament, who was the Jehovah God of Israel.
Notwithstanding
the hurdles posed by Matt. 5:17-19, dispensationalism is often pushed to
amazing extremes. Paul Wierville, the
founder of the unorthodox sect (I refuse to say "cult") the Way
International, maintained that the four Gospels were really part of the Old
Testament, since they were mostly concerned with Jesus' actions and words
before His crucifixion! MacArthur notes
encountering similar thinking:
Other dispensationalist writers did weigh
those ideas and went on to state in more explicit terms what Chafer only hinted
at: that the teachings of the Sermon on
the Mount 'have no application to the Christian, but only to those who are
under the Law, and therefore must apply to another Dispensation than
this.' This lamentable hermeneutic
[approach to biblical interpretation] is widely applied in varying degrees to
much of our Lord's early teaching, emasculating the message of the gospels. It is no wonder that the evangelistic message
growing out of such a system differs sharply from the gospel according to
Jesus. If we begin with the
presupposition that much of Christ's message was intended for another age, why
should our gospel be the same as the one He preached? But that is a dangerous and untenable presupposition. Jesus did not come to proclaim a message
that would be invalid until the Tribulation or the Millennium. He came to seek and save the lost (Luke
19:10). He came to call sinners to
repentance (Matt. 9:13). He came so the
world through Him might be saved (John 3:17).
He proclaimed the saving gospel, not merely a manifesto for some future
age. His gospel is the only message we
are to preach--any other gospel is under God's curse (Galatians 1:6-8). . . .
It is a mistake of the worse sort to set the teachings of Paul and the apostles
over against the words of our Lord and imagine that they contradict one another
or speak to different dispensations.
The gospels are the foundation on which the epistles build. The entire book of James, for example, reads
like a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount.
Those who want to consign the Sermon to another age must still deal with
the fact that nearly all its principles are repeated and expanded upon by later
New Testament writers.[26]
Yet, as documented above, Pasadena is beginning to
lead us down this road of making Jesus' words only conditionally applicable to
Christians, applying only upon Paul's, John's, Peter's, etc. seconding
them. Dare we trifle with the words of
God in the flesh so casually? Perhaps
publishers created those red-lettered Bibles to help us find faster what we can
now mostly ignore!
DISPENSATIONALISM VERSUS TITHING?
A key verse for tithing still being binding
on Christians is Matt. 23:23 and its parallel in Luke 11:42. The context of Matt. 23:23's affirmation is
especially interesting, for Jesus was blasting the Pharisees' legalism: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees,
hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill
and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but
these are things you should have done without neglecting the others." Unlike with the Sabbath, where He attacks
their overkills (such as in Mark 2:23-28), here He does not. There's nothing here about tithing setting a
limit on how much you give. (Hasn't the
WCG taken up offerings based in part upon what your heart was willing to give
in the past? On Holy Days, hasn't II
Cor. 9:7 been quoted?) He doesn't say,
"Give from the heart instead, you legalists!" or "You should be
willing to give far more." In John
8:5, 10-11, Jesus was willing to relax the law about executing adulterers before He died, which implies His ministry's
message is applicable to new covenant Christians, and wasn't rendered obsolete
by His death (until, perhaps, Israel's restoration in the millennium). In contrast, One can't find Him abolishing
the Sabbath, but rather he protests against legalistic abuses and overkills
concerning its application to God's people (Luke 13:15-16). For the Pharisees, and the oral law of the
Jews in general, had come to overemphasize the "stop" or "cease"
aspect of Sabbath observance as opposed to that of "freedom" from the
burdens of work or the "liberty" of rest and relaxation. Of course, since Jesus didn't abolish
Sabbath observance, but sought to reform the oral law's abuses of it, men will
seek to evade His words' authority over us today by such constructs as extreme
dispensationalism. However, the
presumption should be Jesus' words apply to Christians today unless Paul (etc.)
specifically and clearly
say otherwise.
RADICAL DISCONTINUITY IN HEBREWS 7?
Presently, as part of its present program to
prove a radical discontinuity exists between the contents of the Old and New
Testament law, Pasadena cites Heb. 7:12, 18-19 to abolish not just tithing, but
the entire Old Testament law: "How
much has been changed? It is not just a
matter of who receives the tithes, but the entire old covenant, with its
commands, is obsolete. . . . These verses [vs. 18-19] are discussing the same
law as verse 12 is--the entire old covenant has been set aside."[27] In context (especially note vs. 14-16), what
occurs here is a change in the law concerning the priesthood in order to allow
Jesus of Judah to become a priest when the old covenant's priests had to be of
Levi, with a corresponding transfer of duties from one priesthood
(Levi's) to the other (Melchizedek's).
Note how the translation of verse 12 in the Amplified Bible (its
brackets) contradicts Pasadena's expansive reading of this text: "For when there is a change in the
priesthood, there is of necessity an alteration of the law [concerning the
priesthood] as well." For, while
"the Law made nothing perfect" (v. 19), it was itself perfect (Ps.
19:7; James 1:25), and remains a guide to Christian conduct, even if knowing
its requirements can't make you obey them by itself. Hence, while one could argue about whether Heb. 7:12
"transfers" the law to tithe from one priesthood to another,[28]
or (I think) just changes the priesthood itself, it's clear these texts don't
abolish the whole Old Testament law, but just the Levitical priesthood. The dispensationalist spin placed on these
verses to annihilate the whole Old Testament law is absurd upon some analysis.
Indeed,
concerning the whole subject of dispensationalism theoretically a priori (that is, before examining the facts) we
could take two basic approaches concerning whether Old Testament laws still
apply to Christians:
1. The Old
Testament laws are done away with, unless specifically reconfirmed in Paul's
epistles, etc.
2. All Old Testament laws are still in force, unless specifically
abolished in Paul's epistles, etc.
Then, you need to judge whether or not and to what
extent Jesus' words are valid for doctrine for Christians despite mostly being
spoken while the old covenant was in force.
This summary simplifies things excessively, but it throws the issues
involved into stark relief.
THE GOSPELS AS RELEVANT TO CHRISTIANS TODAY
An
enormously powerful argument that His words should normally be seen as
applicable to Christians is the idea that the Gospels were written not just as
biographies of the life of Christ,
but as theological
handbooks to help promote the Christian faith.
The selection that the Evangelists made of what Jesus said and did was
determined by the prevailing concerns of their time. The fact that the Evangelists report no less than seven Sabbath
healing episodes in addition to the ensuing controversies indicates the great
importance attached to Sabbathkeeping in their respective communities at the
time they wrote their Gospels.[29]
Support for this view comes from how, without the
church yet in existence, Jesus made it the final decision maker in case of
disputes between brethren (Matt. 18:15-17).
Hence, Luke 23:56 suddenly becomes a much more powerful witness for the
Sabbath command still being in force after Jesus died, for this statement was
inspired by the Holy Spirit long after Jesus had been crucified (KJV): "And they [the women who would visit
Jesus' tomb] returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the
sabbath day according to the commandment." Nothing is said about it being a ?now? abrogated commandment.
Ample reason exists to believe we should put our weight toward the
second of the two options listed above.
Also,
evidence for the second viewpoint can be based upon the idea of a covenant only
including what was done before
it was ratified, for afterwards it can't be changed (Gal. 3:15; Heb.
9:16-17). Note what the SDA John L.
Tucker said along this line:
Here a
man's will is used as an illustration of Christ's will, testament, or
covenant. As is plainly stated (in the
above scriptures cited) and is an obvious fact, a man's will is of force after
the man dies. And after the man dies,
nothing more can be added to his will.
Here is a significant truth when applied to the new covenant. The new covenant is Christ's will. He ratified it with His own blood. All the terms, provisions, promises and
truths of His will must be written before He dies; for nothing can be added
after the death of the testator. "No
man . . . addeth thereto."
Galatians 3:15. Let us be
practical and apply this rule to our religious beliefs and practices. No doctrine, no commandment, no new truths
or religious practices, which Jesus did not teach or practice, are to be
required of anyone. Nothing can be
"added thereto." [Here
follows a list of twelve items. I will
cite only two, being as they are relevant to my purpose: Tithe paying--Matthew 23:23. . . .
Seventh-day Sabbath--Mark 2:27; Matthew 24:20. . . .] Thus we see that all these and many other precious truths
received the sanction of Jesus before He died.
Now let us raise the question on a widely accepted practice--the
observance of Sunday. Did Christ speak
of it before Calvary? Every student of
the Bible will say No! But remember
nothing can be added after He dies.
Ninety-nine Christians out of one hundred when asked why they observe
Sunday will quickly reply, "It is because Christ arose from the dead on
that day." But here we are faced
with the plain, pointed statement that nothing comes into the will of Christ,
or the new covenant, after His death.
Jesus died on Friday, the sixth day of the week; He ratified the new
covenant then. If Sunday worship
started two days after Christ's death, it is two days too late to come into His
will and to be required of men.[30]
Does Jesus' death abolish what He did or said during
His life? Or, rather, did the crucifixion
make them all the more binding? The
force of this argument is plain in implying Jesus' words are valid for
doctrine, unless clearly set aside in the epistles as being only relevant for
the old covenant.
THE NEW TESTAMENT BUILDS UPON THE OLD, BUT DOESN?T REPLACE IT
A remarkable fact about Pasadena's argumentation in favor
of the abolition of the law based upon dispensationalist premises is that
little actual time was spent, at least in the first six months of the new
teaching, arguing in favor of these premises.
Rather, they are taken almost for granted, including the assumed radical
discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity that comes from extreme
dispensationalism. Yet, one can find
almost endless citations by the New Testament authors of Old Testament books,
from both Moses and the prophets. Why cite so often something which,
"under the new dispensation of grace," had become largely irrelevant
as an authority for doctrine binding on Christian conduct? One can't say they did this merely to
convert Jews by showing the folly of what they now believed in, when Jesus
himself said He came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill
them (Matt. 5:17-19; Luke 16:17).
Citing the Old Testament to abolish its authority is a dubious proposition
at best, which Pasadena effectively maintains the author of Hebrews did in
citing Jeremiah 31 in dealing with the old covenant. Where was it prophesied in the Old Testament that the law would
be done away, instead of being written on men?s hearts?
In contrast, the New Testament will affirm clearly the binding authority
of the Old Testament. For example, note
I Cor. 10:6, 11: "Now these things
[that happened during the Exodus and the wanderings in the wilderness] happened
as examples for us, that we should not crave evil things, as they also craved.
. . . Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written
for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come." Similarly, consider Rom. 15:4: "For whatever was written in early
times was written for our instruction, that through perseverance and the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." Abraham's example in being justified by
faith also applies to us (Rom. 4:23-24):
"Now not for his sake only was it written, that it [righteousness]
was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as
those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead." Similarly, we find Paul saying that (II Tim.
3:15-17): "[A]nd that from
childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the
wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ALL Scripture [not just the New Testament,
or Paul's own epistles] is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness . . ." Paul's own letter told Timothy to look
primarily to the Scriptures he was raised with, which had to be the Old
Testament since that was all they had when he was young. Hence, when Paul repeatedly points to the
value and authority of the Old Testament for Christians today in general terms?indeed, the examples
cited in Romans 4, 15 and I Corinthians 10 were from the Torah!--he badly
undermines the extreme dispensationalists' fixation with his own letters as
describing what is mainly binding for Christian conduct today. They have failed to prove from the New
Testament in general, or Paul's letters in particular, that the Old Testament
can be safely ignored, outside of the highly questionable analyses of Acts 15's
council supposedly abolishing the law of Moses and Heb. 8-10's new covenant
supposedly destroying Old Testament law.
SHOULD WE ASSUME THE OLD
TESTAMENT IS ABOLISHED AS BEING BINDING?
In contrast to the extreme dispensationalists' fixation
on the epistles, the presumption should be that our Savior's words are
applicable to Christians, unless clearly only appropriate for the Jews of His
day (dispensation). Note, for example,
Jesus said almost nothing about circumcision, or people still needing to do it,
despite being circumcised Himself. By
contrast, He had a lot more to say about the Sabbath, which would imply its
continuing validity, using Pasadena's own argument from silence. Only in John 7:22-23 does He discuss it, and
only then while rebuking a legalistic overkill about the Sabbath, saying that
when these two laws conflicted, the law of circumcision was to be
followed. It's true Jesus ordered a
leper he healed to make an offering for his cleansing to a priest (Luke 5:14),
and one can't cite a specific verse in the New Testament abolishing giving
offerings for being cured of leprosy.
Concerning this problem, one
could say the end of the Levitical priesthood would indirectly end such
offerings so clearly tied to it (Heb. 7:12, 18-19; Lev. 14:2+), unlike tithing
(Gen. 14:20; 28:20). The "gifts
and sacrifices" noted in Heb. 9:9-10 were abolished. (See also Heb. 10:1-4). For if Abraham offered a tithe of his spoils
to Melchizedek, and the Melchizedek priesthood continues today, there's reason
to believe tithing does as well (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7: 1-11, 17, 21-25). (Whether tithing was voluntary for Abraham
can't be decisively settled with the scriptural evidence available, but we do
know Abraham did strive to obey God's law (Gen. 26:5): "Abraham obeyed Me and kept My charge,
My commandments, My statutes and My laws.") What Jesus said about tithing in Matt. 23:23 should be enough to
assume it is still in force, especially when it was mentioned in the form of a
command and when there's evidence this law existed before the old covenant
started.
Pasadena uses the "argument from silence" in
conjunction with dispensationalist premises to say various Old Testament laws
were abolished. So now, suppose we put
a twist on such reasoning, using the argument of Tucker above, and say evidence against a law still being
applicable to Christians can be found simply in Jesus' not mentioning it in the
New Testament: To oversimplify, if it's
never mentioned, it's gone. By this
line of reasoning, the commandment about not wearing clothes of different
material mixed together (Lev. 19:19) gets abolished since it's never mentioned
in the New Testament. Unfortunately,
for Pasadena's purposes here, tithing, the Holy Days, and the Sabbath all get
mentioned and/or observed by Christ. By
contrast, unlike the latter three doctrines, it's tempting to say Paul was
almost obsessed with the subject of showing circumcision was no longer binding
on Christians. Such words by him
constitute the plain and clear words necessary to set aside
anything Christ may have discussed which was actually only applicable to the
Jews.
Pasadena heavily relies on the argument from silence in
conjunction with an assumed extreme dispensationalism that maintains unless the
New Testament repeats Old Testament commands, the latter aren't binding. Besides noting in passing it is a logical
fallacy?a subject we will return
to later?it seems to assume the
God who inspired the Old Testament was a highly whimsical God concerning what
we ordered would be forgotten if enough time passed since a command was given,
like some human beings. Yet the Eternal
said (Mal. 3:6): "For I, the Lord,
do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Similarly, we find this description of this
same God who later came and died in the flesh
(Heb. 13:8): "Jesus Christ
is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever." Men, when ignoring such logic by extreme
dispensationalists, find silence indicates change has NOT occurred as the
following brilliantly pragmatic example by a UCG laymember in the Ann Arbor,
Michigan church shows:
I work in the automotive industry. I supervise the buildup of vehicles using
prototype parts. Both hardware and
software are constantly being changed during the development process. When I receive a "new" part, the
supplier tells me what has been "changed" from the "old"
part, not what hasn't been "changed." Silence on a particular point indicates no change took place, not
the other way around.[31]
This point powerfully argues why it makes more sense
to say the Old Testament laws are still in force unless specifically abolished,
than the other way around. After all,
neither the law against bestiality nor the second commandment against idolatry
is quoted in the New Testament,[32]
yet we wouldn't want to assume the literal letter of these laws were
abolished. For after all, would the
Eternal be such a poor planner as to create an entire system of law in the Old
Testament, just to scrap the whole thing and start over, instead of bringing
the existing system to something more glorious and complete? (Note Isaiah 42:21).
Let's
consider Pasadena's premise of the "radical discontinuity" between
Judaism and Christianity more closely, and how it affects interpreting the
Bible. Consider the key text in this
whole controversy, which is about the new covenant replacing the old covenant,
as found in Hebrews 8:8-10:
"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will effect a
new covenant with the house of Israel and with the House of Judah; not like the
covenant which I made with their fathers . . . For this is the covenant that I
will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their minds,
and I will write them upon their hearts . . ." Now?exactly how does putting
"MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS" obliterate the Old Testament's law? Couldn't someone, perhaps sarcastically,
reply, "Doesn't this mean the law of clean and unclean meats has been
written on my heart?" Surely, if
you could ask what Jeremiah meant by the word "laws" here, for this
is a quote from Jer. 31:31-33, he would have said it was a reference to the then
existing Old Testament law of the Eternal now being put into people's lives
better than it had been in the past.
For writing the law on our hearts makes the law all the more binding,
instead of freeing us from it.
Similarly, Jesus in the Sermon of the Mount pointed to the spiritual
intent of the law, over and above its literal letter (Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28,
31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44), making it all the more binding, as prophesied
(Isa. 42:21), instead of abolishing it.
The coming in of the new covenant changed the administration of the law,
not the law itself, as far as these verses of Jer. 31:31-33 point to. One must turn elsewhere, such as Eph. 2:15
or Heb. 9:9-10; 10:1-4, to find what specifically has been abolished. Yet, because of Pasadena's assumption of
radical discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity, it will read Scriptures
to make the Old Testament law and Christ's law very different, when in fact
they are largely the same, with a very different mode of operation (the Holy
Spirit, as opposed to physical human effort).
HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN OLD
TESTAMENT LAWS WERE ABOLISHED?
Now, how do we know whether certain laws in the Old
Testament are still in force for Christians today when they aren't cited again
by Jesus and/or Paul, John, etc.? For
it seems inconsistent to say the third tithe law is still in force, yet state
the command against (say) wearing
clothes of mixed materials isn't (Lev. 19:19, 28). Ron Dart's approach on the law concerning making tassels on
clothing (Deut. 22:12) was to note many such Old Testament laws were in the
form of judgments, which meant if certain situations arose, then people had to
obey certain laws or suffer certain penalties:
We
encounter some judgments in the law for which the underlying principle is
either dimly seen or entirely obscured.
In such a case one makes his own judgment and carries on. No one makes garments of linen and wool
mixed anymore, so there is no direct application. Does it apply to wool and dacron? Probably not. In any
case, it is not done to please God, but to protect man. . . . The meaning behind verse 12 has been lost in
antiquity. It probably has its roots in
customs long past and has no meaningful application. Remember that the law does in some cases address human customs
which can change (as in the law pertaining to men's and women's clothes). . . .
None of this means that any of these laws have been abrogated. However, some of them have no discernible or
meaningful application outside of the culture in which they were given. The law requiring fringes on garments
probably made a statement in that culture, but the meaning of the statement has
been lost. Scholars may someday tell us
what it meant. When that happens, we
probably will still not need to put fringes on a garment, but we will
understand an underlying principle that applies nonetheless.[33]
In contrast, if the Sabbath as part of the Ten
Commandments is still in force as part of the moral law, it is in a different
category of its own. For the Ten
Commandments say nothing directly about the Holy Days or tithing. (However, one could argue the Sabbath
command extrapolated spiritually would imply the Holy Days are still in force,
and that the eighth commandment, with an eye on Mal. 3:8-10, would imply the
tithing command is still in force).
Concerning the specific subject of the second and third tithes, it would
seem Jesus' discussion in Matt. 23:23 would include all three tithes as a part
of the general system and principle of tithing since the overly-zealous,
legalistic Pharisees when tithing their dill, mint, cummin, etc. would
presumably be doing all three tithes.
Jesus could well have been discussing not just first tithe here, but the
overall whole array of tithes.
THE TWO PARTS OF THE LAW OF MOSES
But now we
need to note that there's reason to believe the law of Moses had more than one
part, one of which is still binding.[34] It had both ritualistic laws,[35]
and civil laws, which gave more specific applications of the Ten Commandments'
general spiritual principles. The whole
Levitical system of burnt offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings, etc. are
examples of the former part of the law of Moses. Such laws would no longer be binding, since they were typical in
nature since they pointed to Christ's sacrifice. Also, the New Testament clearly abolishes them (Heb. 9:9-10;
10:1-10). The civil laws would include
such statutes as the laws prohibiting fornication, incest, bestiality,
homosexual sex, etc. as a broader, spiritual application of the seventh
commandment, which literally only prohibits adultery. Such laws can still be seen as being in force since they do what
Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount:
"magnify the law" (Isa. 42:21, KJV; "to make it great and
glorious," NASB; compare Matt. 5: 21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-40,
43-45). Should we assume that since the
command against bestiality isn't repeated word for word in the New Testament
that it is no longer in force? To
reply, "Christ's spiritual law prohibits that as well," evades the
point that since Jesus is God, Christ's law and God's law are going to be the
same. God was the author of the law of
Moses as well (Ex. 25:1; 31:1). Such
ritualistic aspects of the Holy Days, such as the wave sheaf offering
concerning Pentecost (Lev. 23: 11-17) would have ended with the Levitical
priesthood's end (Heb. 7:12, 18-19), while in their likely civil aspects
there's reason to believe Pentecost and the other Holy Days remained in force
after Jesus died (Acts 2:1; 18:21(KJV, NKJV), I Cor. 16:8). For they are memorials as well, not just
shadows of Christ or God's plan for humanity.
For it must be noted where the Holy Days are mentioned (Ex. 23), and Ex.
21-23 is generally an exposition of the civil law, not ritualistic. The death and other penalties for violating
the civil law are no longer in force, since God no longer has a direct
theocratic rule over any nation. For
the church is a very different kind of organization from the nation or kingdoms
of Israel, which had to punish criminals with their police powers like any
gentile nation or kingdom must today, or centuries ago. This possible aspect of the ministration of
death (compare II Cor. 3:3-9) is now gone.
You can't argue that because there was a death penalty for
Sabbath-breaking (Ex. 31:14-15), therefore, it is abolished, without also
saying ending the death penalty attached to raping an engaged woman legalizes
rape (Deut. 22:23-25). Once we realize
there is more than one part to the law of God outside of the Ten Commandments,
the ritualistic and the civil, and how Christ's death affected them
differently, much confusion over what is still in force can be cleared up.
THE MORAL LAW AND THE CEREMONIAL LAW
We can know
that the ritualistic law and the moral law (the Ten Commandments, Lev. 19:18;
Deut. 6:5) are different because the New Testament would be self-contradictory
otherwise.[36] For example, we know something got abolished
concerning God's law in the following verses:
Eph. 2:15: "by abolishing
in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in
ordinances." Heb. 9:9-10: "Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices
are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they
relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body
imposed until a time of reformation." (Compare Heb. 10:8-9). Heb. 7:12, 18-19: "For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there
takes place a change of law also. . . . For, on the one hand, there is a
setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing
in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God." On the other hand, other verses show the law
is still in force: Rom. 3:31: "Do we nullify the Law through
faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the
Law." James 2:10-12: For whoever keeps the whole law (compare
Gal. 3:10) and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,'
also said, 'Do not commit murder.' Now
if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a
transgressor of the law. So speak and
so act, as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty." Rom. 7:16, 22, 25: "But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree
with the Law, confessing that it is good. . . . For I joyfully concur with the
law of God in the inner man [with a yoke of bondage?] . . . So then, on the one
hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my
flesh the law of sin" [i.e., his evil human nature]. The two laws both get mentioned in I Cor.
7:19, with one being kept and the other abolished: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but
what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God." So, it's obvious extreme antinomians (whom
Pasadena hasn't joined) are wrong in saying God's law is completely done away.[37]
SHOULD LOVE BE LEFT UNDEFINED BY THE LAW?
But this
leads us to the next issue: Does the
fact Christians are under the New Covenant do away with the specific points
(i.e. "the letter") of the law in favor of an ill-defined, amorphous,
hard-to-fully-grasp "law of Christ" or "commandments of
love"? Do the latter two do away
with the Ten Commandments as binding on Christians, as well as the points of
the law of Moses which are civil and non-ceremonial in nature which build upon
the Ten Commandments' generalities?
(For example, the laws against incest (Lev. 18:6-15) are more specific
applications of the seventh commandment against adultery). Fundamentally, we need something to define
"love" so that the standards for Christian behavior don't fall into
subjectivism and/or relativism. If we
say the Holy Spirit is leading us to do such-and-so, how do we know it isn't
our carnal mind telling us to do it?
Suppose we thought "love" could be shown by killing our fellow
man on the battlefield. Would that
justify killing? We still need the
written word of God (i.e., revelation) to know what to do fundamentally, for
the law of God remains a mirror to correct bad conduct (James l:23-25), even
though the Holy Spirit will help us interpret it and apply that written word in
our daily lives.[38] For while the Holy Spirit will guide us into
all the truth (John 16:13), this doesn't mean the written revelation of God,
which the Holy Spirit also created through various inspired men, is
unnecessary.
True, Christ
in us will help us obey God's law, and the law is now written on our hearts
under the New Covenant. But, this
doesn't mean the individual, specific points of the law have ceased to exist
(i.e., the literal letter of the law).
We find many of the commandments quoted from in the New Testament
without anything said to abolish the law's specific points (James 2:11; Eph.
6:2-3; Matt. 19:18-19; Rom. 7:7). To
say wherever the law is still in force is "the law of Christ" while wherever it is abolished
or limited is "the law of
Moses" or "the law of the Eternal (Jehovah)" is to read
something into the texts in question unless such longer terms are being
used. It assumes, but does not prove, a
radical discontinuity existed between Judaism and Christianity. How Romans 13:8-10 mentions loving your
neighbor as fulfilling the law can't be used to abolish the Sabbath since it
discusses the love of other people to begin with (except by the indirect
principle found in I John 4:20-21), not the love of God as the first four
commandments do. (You should be able to
find plenty of secular humanists and agnostics who believe in loving their
neighbor, but not God). Nor can it
really be taken to mean specific commands listed are abolished, especially when Christ didn't understand it this way
(Matt. 19:16-19 with 22:36-40). Rather,
to love your neighbor as yourself is a shorter way to state the last six
commandments. To sum something up
doesn't mean the whole ceases to exist or be relevant, just as a book review
may summarize a book well, but doesn't make reading the book irrelevant. For the fact that the New Covenant means
that God's law is written on our hearts through the Holy Spirit doesn't mean
its specific literal commands are now done away with.
PAUL?S
CLEAR STATEMENTS AGAINST CIRCUMCISION
Let's compare Paul's strikingly clear statements about circumcision being unnecessary, with the vagueness of the three key texts by him used to do away with the Sabbath. "Was any man called already circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? Let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God [which, presumably includes the fourth commandment as part of the moral law of the Ten Commandments, etc.] (I Cor. 7:18-19). "Behold, I, Paul say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you" (Gal. 5:2). "If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? [Again, note we find the moral la