LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

for many other penal sanctions of the Mosaic economy.”29 “Such provisions of the Mosaic law,” Murray explains elsewhere, “are so closely bound up with an economy which has passed away as to its observance, that we could hold to the continuance of these provisions no more than we could hold to the continuance of the Mosaic economy itself.”30 Willem A. VanGemeren likewise teaches that the “civil laws, and the penal code have been abrogated.”31

The rationale for singling out the civil laws varies. As Murray said above, sometimes these laws are said to be uniquely tied to ancient Israel.32 Sometimes the additional revelation and greater working of the Spirit in the New Covenant make such severe punishments now unnecessary.33 Still other times a cleavage is made between the moral law and the civil law.34 Since “the moral law of God . . . was based on the character of God,”35 it remains; the civil law was not, therefore it vanishes.

      Critique of Dispensational Version

      Antinomianism’s failure should not surprise the biblical student. If the granting of the Law was gracious (Ps 119:29), what should we consider its abrogation? As the New Covenant exceeds the graciousness of the Old Covenant, we should not expect the New to abrogate the Mosaic Law. But beyond this prima facie problem, other difficulties confront Antinomianism.

First, the Dispensational version allows what most would consider atrocious acts. According to it, God has eternal principles that have differing outward codified forms, and believers are only obliged to that form under which they live. Moo puts it this way: “Indeed, we can confidently expect that everything within the Mosaic law that reflected God’s ‘eternal moral will’ for his people is caught up into and repeated in the ‘law of Christ.’”36 In other words, if a law is not repeated in the New Covenant, it is not God’s eternal law nor binding on today’s believer. But when we think about what Mosaic commandments are not repeated in the New Covenant, we wonder if Dispensationalism is serious about this hermeneutic. The law prohibiting sexual relations with your sister (Lev 18:9) is not repeated. Is this then now morally permissible? Statutes forbidding tripping blind people or cursing deaf people (Lev 19:14) are not repeated. Are we then free in Christ to trip and curse? Mosaic laws banning cross-dressing (Deut 22:5) and sexual relations with animals (Lev 18:23) find no place in the New Testament. Does the Law of Christ permit dressing as the opposite sex and having relations with beasts? Undoubtedly, Dispensationalists personally repudiate these practices; nevertheless, their interpretation scheme allows them.37

      Second, Dispensationalism misunderstands the characteristics of the Law of Moses, and for this reason sees a great discontinuity between the ethic promulgated by Moses and the New Covenant ethic. This becomes obvious from Moo’s description of the New Covenant ethic:

The law of Christ “stands in Paul’s thought for those ‘prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel (usually embodied in the example and teachings of Jesus), which are meant to be applied to specific situations by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit, being always motivated and conditioned by love.’”38

      This description of the Law of Christ contains five characteristics. However, each characteristic equally applies to the Mosaic Law:

      (1) “Prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel . . .” In Romans 10:6–8, the apostle Paul quotes a passage from Moses (Deut 30:12–14) and then says that Moses here preached the same gospel as he preached. The Mosaic prescriptive principles stem from the heart of the gospel.

      (2) “. . . usually embodied in the example and teachings of Jesus . . .” Jesus lived according to Mosaic principles (Matt 4:4, 7, 10 quoting Deut 6:13, 16; 8:3). He also teaches the Mosaic ethic in his own ministry: citing “Do not defraud” (Mark 10:19), which is the ethical principle of Deuteronomy 25:4 (see Luke 10:7; 1 Tim 5:18); and commanding his audience to “love your enemies” (Matt 5:44), echoing the instructions of Moses in Exodus 23:4–5. Jesus’ example and teachings embody the laws of Moses.

      (3) “. . . which are meant to be applied to specific situations . . .” In Matthew 15:4, Jesus quotes the Mosaic prescriptive principle of honoring parents (Exod 20:12), and then quotes a Mosaic application of that principle (Exod 21:17; Lev 20:9). The Mosaic principles are meant to be applied to specific situations.

      (4) “. . . by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit . . .” Obedience to the Law of Moses always required the Spirit’s power (Ezek 36:27; Rom 8:4). How else could Old Covenant saints like Joshua, David, and Daniel, whose natures were no less sinful than ours, have obeyed God’s laws?

      (5) “. . . being always motivated and conditioned by love.” Love has always been the motivation to obey God, even during the Mosaic administration (Lev 19:18, 34; Deut 6:5; 10:12).

      A proper understanding of the Law of Moses, therefore, shows it to have identical characteristics to the Law of Christ. Second Timothy 3:16–17 buttresses this conclusion. Since here Paul ascribes moral sufficiency to the Old Testament Scriptures, New Testament revelation could only reiterate Old Testament moral teachings.

      In addition to allowing atrocious acts and misunderstanding Moses’ Law, Dispensationalism is subject to a third criticism: it misunderstands the New Testament phrase “Law of Christ,” not recognizing it as mediation terminology. For once Christ faithfully accomplished his earthly ministry, New Testament writers joyfully attach his title to well-known, well-established phrases. For example, all men are created as the image of God (Gen 1:26; Jas 3:9), and yet Paul speaks of our redemption as conformity to the image of Christ (Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49)—should we conclude that Paul speaks of another image altogether? Should we not rather understand Paul as using mediation terminology, that is, language emphasizing Christ’s mediatorial work in redeeming us back to God’s righteous image?

Here is another example: Christ is a mediatorial King. As uniquely God and man, he alone may mediate between God and man (1 Tim 2:5). As divine, kingly rule intrinsically belongs to him, but as the mediatorial God-man, this rule is bestowed on him. In other words, Christ, because of his obedience to the Father (John 10:18), secured this rule (Isa 53:11–12; Phil 2:8–9; Heb 2:9). Whereas God reigns over all (Ps 103:19), setting over mankind those magistrates whom he wills (Dan 5:21), and this in virtue of his creation (Jer 27:5–6), the mediatorial rule of Christ is “given” (Dan 7:14; Matt 28:18), “bestowed” (Luke 22:29), and “delivered” (Matt 11:27) to him by the Father. It takes place at a particular time.39 Therefore, God’s intrinsic rule and Christ’s mediatorial rule are formally different, and yet they are materially identical, that is, the people and bounds over which they rule are the same.40 God now mediates his kingdom through the Messiah. Consequently, we should not infer from the expression “kingdom of Christ” (Eph 5:5;41 cf. Col 1:13) that Christ rules over different people and different bounds than does the Father, any more than we should understand that a different Spirit is spoken of because in one place he is called the “Spirit of God” (Gen 1:2) and in others the “Spirit of Christ” (Rom 8:9;42 1 Pet 1:11). Alternate lingo must not derail proper theology.

      Likewise, we should not infer two different law structures from two different designations. As with all kings, Christ rules his kingdom by way of laws. He reigns over all the peoples

Скачать книгу