Christians and the old covenant
prompt
Folks,
I work for Blue Letter Bible, dear friends of mine in SoCal,
answering bulletin board postings for them. They also generate FAQs
from time to time. I think it is my constantly referencing Ray that
has made them fully aware of the New Covenant especially in regard to
tithing, the Sabbath, etc. Otherwise these dear friends are sort of
Chuck Smithites. They love Ray now by the way!
BLB is mostly a set of Bible search tools, http://blueletterbible.org/
They have developed the following FAQ which I want to disagree with
(somewhat). I think the weakness in this position paper has to do
with the relationship the Christian has to the Law and the fact that
the moral Law does carry over from the Old Covenant to the New. For
instance:
1. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.
2. The law is just and good.
3. I would not have known sin... (Rom 7)
4. Do we nullify the law, by no means we uphold the Law...
Seems to me their position paper leans a bit too far towards
antinomianism? What do your good people think?
May I have some comments from some or all of you that I can then pass
along to BLB?
Thanks,
position paper
The Believer's Relationship to the Mosaic Covenant
At the Blue Letter Bible, we consistently receive questions on
tithing, on which of the often-strange Levitical laws (e.g., Don't
weave two kinds of fabric together) apply to the believer today, on
when to celebrate Old Testament feast days, et cetera. These are all
questions born out of an inadequate understanding of the agreement
made between God and Moses on Mount Sinai.
Properly understanding the covenants and their importance seems to be
one of the most eluding pieces of theology for the modern believer.
The Mosaic Covenant was directed specifically toward the nation of
Israel and was concerned in its chiefest aspect with Israel's
inheritance of and blessing in the land of Canaan-the Promised Land.
The laws that attended this covenant, while revealing God's desire
for this nation to be set apart from all others as an example, do not
give us any necessary basis for understanding morality.
The real question then presents itself: What responsibility does the
believer owe to the Mosaic Covenant?
The fact is: none. The standards iterated from God through Moses upon
Sinai were directed at the nation of Israel simply as the terms of a
contract for possession of a certain portion of land. Deuteronomy 28
makes clear the stipulations of this covenant; essentially God would
bless Israel for obedience by granting great prosperity in the land
but curse Israel for its disobedience with all manner of catastrophe
culminating in the loss of Canaan. Despite God's longsuffering,
Israel fails to uphold her portion of the covenant and reaps the
curses God promised-climaxing in the Babylonian capture in the
Seventh Century B.C. It was here that the contractual aspect of the
Mosaic Law ended that the true meaning of Law could be seen clearly.
The Law (both the covenantal and the universal, Ten Commandment
aspects of it) now serves to lead mankind to understand his
corruption. Just as Israel, a nation born of the fruit of God's own
grace, could not stand under the righteous requirements of the Mosaic
Law, neither can any man stand under the condemnation of God's
universal requirement - absolute obedience of mind and action. Paul
speaks of the Law as one who leads us step by step to grace, for it
points out our dire need of such (cf. Galatians 3:23ff). And having
taken hold of grace by faith, the believer no longer heeds the
condemning beckon of the Law (cf. Romans). So then, is there any
reason to look to the Levitical laws for ethical guidance unto
righteousness? No - for their only service now is to guide men to
Christ.
What then? Is this merely freedom for the believing Gentile? Or does
the believer of Jewish decent likewise bear this liberty? As
certainly as the Jew holds to Christ is his freedom from the Mosaic
Law assured. The chief redemptive aspect of the Mosaic Covenant has
been done away, leaving only the condemnation. The blood of bulls and
goats is useless and perfectly replaced by the sacrifice of the one
Son of God Himself; to return to the Mosaic Law is to deny the
sacrifice of Christ. This was the impetus driving the apostles as
they stood against the Judaizers (those who were requiring believers
in Christ to bear up under the Mosaic Law) proclaiming, "Beware the
dogs, the evildoers, the mutilation!"
Where then do we find our Christian ethic? Quite simply, in Christ's
words: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with
all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and you
shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). And we find
extrapolation of these ultimate commands in all the writings of the
New Testament authors. That is our ethic-and it is borne by our faith
in and love for Christ rather than from our fear of breaking the law.
first comment
For what it's worth, here are my comments. A bit lengthy, but why should
this be anything different from anything else I write?
"The laws that attended this covenant, while revealing God's desire for this
nation to be set apart from all others as an example, do not give us any
necessary basis for understanding morality."
What, pray tell, does?
"The fact is: none. ... It was here that the contractual aspect of the
Mosaic Law ended that the true meaning of Law could be seen clearly."
This entire paragraph, to me, is making a blanket statement that implies
that the entire Torah is of no value. It needs to be very specific that it
is this particular covenant, defining precisely what its parameters, in
fact, are, and not everything that Moses wrote. God did reveal Himself to
Moses and the people of Israel. Deuteronomy 34:6-8 states:
And the LORD passed before him and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD God,
merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth,
keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,
by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon
the children and the children's children to the third and the fourth
generation." So Moses made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and
worshiped.
This reveals the character of God, not aspects of a covenant. How can we
interpret the implied term "guilty" if not from a moral law, if we say that
to obey the Law of Christ is a moral (and not an intellectual) decision?
What is the true meaning of the law? What is sin?
"The Law (both the covenantal and the universal, Ten Commandment
aspects of it) now serves to lead mankind to understand his
corruption. ... for their only service now is to guide men to Christ."
It has always been remarkable to me that the Law includes sexual sins of
diverse kinds. Apparently God had to tell people right from wrong from
murder to doing the nasty. Can anyone truly say that the believer is
somehow exempt from those laws? A lot of Jews understand the so-called
Christian perspective as saying that believers are not under these laws.
This is, and should be, repulsive to the Jew, who knows that the Law was
given for the protection of the nation and for individuals within that
nation. Granted, there are ceremonial laws and civil laws (and
punishments), but the Torah also gives us the basis for Creation and the
natural (physical, biological, and moral) laws that govern all of creation
and all who dwell in it.
One of Jesus' points regarding the Pharisees and their view of the Law was
that they blindly followed laws and the interpretations of men (rabbinical
spins so that the Law could be kept technically with as little effort as
possible--all with good intentions, but failing nonetheless) without
understanding the intent of the Law. So, Jesus did not assume that the Law
was meaningless or of no worth. He only pointed out that it was
misinterpreted and, therefore, misunderstood. If we follow Jesus, don't we
do what he said and did? He did not, as the Pharisees did, keep Himself
separate from the sinners. Israel was meant to be a light (of revelation)
to the Nations (Gentiles), and they did not always fulfill that. Jesus,
however, did. And, it is through His fulfilling the Law that we are able to
have His righteousness imputed to us.
"What then? ... breaking the law."
This is the tricky part. Here, the writers cite Mark 12:30-31, but it is,
in fact, Jesus' own reference to Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and 10:12, and then
Leviticus 19:18. And, the context in Mark is very much worth noting. Jesus
was being examined by the lawyers (Pharisees and Herodians), who had hoped
to catch Him in some kind of misstatement of the Law. In 12:24-27, in
response to a question of the resurrection, Jesus confronts them: "Are you
not therefore mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power
of God? ..."He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living You
are therefore greatly mistaken [deceived]" Needless to say, the Scripture
He was referring to is the Law, the Prophets, and the other Writings of the
Septuagint.
Immediately afterwards came the question about which was the first [in order
of importance] commandment. Jesus responds with the well-known Shema:
"'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one [Deut. 6:4-5]. And you
shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with
all your mind, and with all your strength' This is the first commandment
[Deut. 10:12--and in a very important context regarding "to keep the
commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your
good"]. And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as
yourself [Leviticus 19:18].' There is no other commandment greater than
these."
I think there's a flaw here, to suggest first that Jesus made up two
entirely new commandments that superceded the Law. No, He was pointing out
the error of his inquisitors; that's what the context implies. Secondly, if
Jesus is truly referring to the Law in a moral sense, He seems to be
asserting its validity and authority. Later on, Paul instructs the
Galatians of the law. And, part of the debate at the Jerusalem Council (AD
50) was dealing with the custom of Moses, circumcision. Of course,
circumcision was not part of the Mosaic covenant; it belonged to Abraham,
way before the Law was given. It was very relevant to Jews in general and
to the line of David regarding the Messiah.
But, it seems to me that in Galatians, Paul is emphasizing exactly what
Jesus taught, that blindly keeping a set of inanimate laws and statutes was
not necessarily evidence of true love, obedience, or righteousness. Abraham
did not have the law, yet he was the father of faith, and possessed the
promise through his son, Isaac. This emphasis on faith, too, may have been
the intent behind the letter sent to the believers in Antioch (a mix of Jews
and Gentiles). The Gentile believers had not come to faith in Jesus by way
of either Abraham or Moses; it was their faith that allowed them to receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the Pharisees, the life of David (and the
others mentioned in Hebrews 11) should have been more instructive; the
people questioning Jesus did not know their Scriptures, and neither did
those new believers who had been Pharisees!
A new covenant was promised through the Prophet Jeremiah (31:31-34), not by
the Gentile Church:
Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the
hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke,
though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD:
I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will
be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach
his neighbor, and every man his brother, sayings, 'Know the LORD,' for they
all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the
LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no
more."
Seems to me that the Mosaic Covenant was already broken. (Parenthetically,
the book of Judges, well after the Passover in Egypt, traces several times
of apostasy, repentance, and deliverance.) But what can this passage mean
when it says that God Himself will put His law in our minds and write it on
our hearts? One thing is that we can know Him! And, it is through our
knowledge of Him that we are set free from the sin that so easily besets us.
Our Redeemer has paid a price of eternal value for our past sin and to set
us free from its effects. He has sent us the Holy Spirit to continue His
work in us, to walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-18; 22-26), not according to
the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21). If we choose the "good", then we are
not compelled to do the "evil," but that is not in a terminological vacuum,
nor is it something that we can do apart from an intimate, personal
relationship with Jesus.
I think the overall response of these writers is simplistic, at best. I
don't really think that we can categorically say that we are exempt from the
moral law, that we are totally free to ignore what the Law contains. If it
does indeed act as a schoolmaster or tutor, then we should pay attention to
it. We need to know the Scriptures to be able to know what applies to all
of us and what doesn't. Freedom to me implies a choice; "you gotta serve
somebody." We read over and over how we are set free from sin; we "...have
escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ..." (2 Peter 2:20). Nevertheless, without an objective
standard, we have no basis to argue against abortion, homosexuality, or sin
of any kind; we have no basis for arguing fidelity in marriage or anything
else positive. And, if we do use the Law selectively, we'd better have a
reason: "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices
righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous" (1 John 3:7). How can
we define "righteousness" subjectively? Even in Romans 7, Paul assumes a
relationship between law and sin, and that the law cannot deliver from sin.
It is the Blood of Jesus that does that. "O wretched man that I am! Who
will deliver me from this body of death?"
Again, for what it's worth.
Peace and blessings,
second comment
I am in 100% agreement with the Blue Letter Bible
people on this issue. I know many believers try to
divide up the law into civil, ceremonial, and moral
categories and then assert that Christians are still
under the moral law for the purpose of sanctification,
but I just don't see the Apostle Paul doing that in
Romans or Galatians. I don't see those distinctions in
Hebrews, either. When Paul speaks of the law in
Galatians, he speaks of the entire law. He treats the
law as a single unit; he never divides it up into
categories. Those categories were developed by
theologians during the Reformation; they are not
directly from the NT. Paul never says we are under the
moral parts of the law as the rule of life, but not
under the civil and ceremonial. Instead, he says quite
plainly in Gal. 3:25, "Now that faith has come, we are
no longer under the supervision of the law." In
Romans, Paul uses one of the ten commandments ("Thou
shall not covet"), a moral law, as an example to show
that we are not under the condemnation of the law, and
to show that Jesus Christ sets us free from the law.
In Galatians, Paul uses the ceremonial law
(circumcision) to show that we are not under the law.
Paul then goes on to show that instead of being under
the supervision of the law, we are to live by faith in
Christ, and keep in step with the Spirit, who is the
life of Christ Himself in us. As Christians, how do we
know what the moral will of God is? We know through
the person of Jesus Christ, as expressed in Scripture
and as experienced in a personal relationship as we
walk with Him and are taught by His Spirit. We are not
justified or sanctified by the law. We are justified
and sanctified by faith in Christ Jesus.
Just some thoughts....
third comment
Dear ones in Christ,
Concerning the Law and Christians. It seems to me that we must ask
ourselves, "WHY?" Why should we obey the commandments, by why,
I mean to accomplish what purpose?
To Please God? This is impossible without faith. Some make faith a work;
as in "believing" God for their desires. Others attempt to twist and warp the
exhortations in Hebrews into a method of obtaining the power to obey the Law
but without examination of their motive or objective.
XXX quoted Mark 12:30-31, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength
and you shall love your neighbor as yourself" How does this look when lived
to perfection? Like Jesus. The only obedience acceptable to God is the
life Jesus lived. In other words, a life that fulfills the Law, not merely
giving it your best attempt.
This is possible but only as a gift of faith, We are offered Christ's
righteousness in place of our own. Imagine, Ted had so much love of God and
his fellow man that he lived 33 years without sin and then instead of
claiming his just reward, he lade down his life as a sacrifice for those who
killed him.
The point of this encouragement? When we are confronted with answering
questions about the Law, ask the seeker what for, not why for?
To what end, to accomplish what objective is the seeker asking about
tithing or certain days. Listen for the subtle sounds of the Christian
Pharisee who wants to please God with his behavior. Faith will produce
works but works will never yield faith. Faith is a Gift from God.
With a little bit of love but wallowing in grace,
fourth comment
This certainly looks like an interesting topic. All our attempts at
righteousness are fruitless; we all agree on that. And, walking in the
Spirit bears fruit. Motives and the attitude of our hearts are key. We are
not under the Law, yet the Law is a tutor.
I'm reminded immediately of raising children. We all have to teach right
and wrong in some fashion because we are all born with natures that twist
everything. And, because we have the Law from God Himself, we tend to pass
that along. We humans can get into the most disgusting situations; hence,
the prohibitions against fornication, murder and so on. Jesus even upped
the ante by saying that the thought was equal to the deed. We have no hope
of keeping the Law, "the yoke of bondage," as Peter said in Acts 15:10,
..."a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we
were able to bear..." Yet, that same Council of which Peter was part and
Paul in Galatians listed things that people should abstain from, and
fornication is one (and I'm only picking an example). Perhaps the bit about
things strangled was personal taste and a carryover from Jewish traditions,
but the council proscribed it nonetheless.
If the division of the Law into civil, ceremonial, and moral was a product
of theologians and other thinkers during the Reformation, it was probably to
reinforce the kinds of legalism that was so prevalent (and still is today).
We know that we are not subject to the obvious condemnation that the Law
brings, but we also know that we are to walk in the Spirit. That might not
be an easy lesson, and I think it is a result of our relationships with
Jesus through the Holy Spirit.
I came to the realization towards the end of my "Bible as Literature" class
that the New Testament letters were almost inscrutable to the non-believers.
(It was fun teaching the Ten Commandments; they are not anything similar to
what Buddha wrote.) But, what the heck was Paul talking about in Galatians
and Ephesians? And, the believers in Corinth were doing despicable things
that not only saddened Paul, but prompted a strong response. It wasn't an
easy thing to teach them that all those sins were works of the flesh, of our
carnal nature:
And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is
indeed flesh;... Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in
the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually."
Maybe there was a reason why John wrote to us as "little children." In
almost every pastoral situation I've known, those of us entrusted with
feeding the sheep have to deal with marital infidelity and wandering hearts.
People still need to be taught right from wrong, and, yes, the Law is the
tutor. The right is complete commitment to the Person of Jesus; we are
sanctified by the Spirit, not by any in-born moral strength.
I'm only trying to point out two things: (1) The Law is God's statement of
morality that none of us can keep by ourselves, and that, even if by virtue
of amazing will power we can minimize certain behaviors, it would be a waste
of time. We tend to become self-righteous and compare our "good" with the
evil of others. So, the point is not to denigrate the Law, which is good,
but to point the way to the Grace that we do indeed need to wallow in. (2)
We have to be careful in how we state the believer's relationship to the
Law, particularly the moral portions of it. Why? Because it may appear
that we take violence, murder and all other sin lightly. "Test all things;
hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil."
This reminds me of some reactions I got in Israel to the concept of
forgiveness. Goes something like this: "So, God can forgive all sins, no
matter how horrendous they might be?" Yes. "What about Hitler? I can't
believe in a God who could forgive Hitler. What Jew would want to go to
heaven only to see Hitler there?"
What kind of stance should the believer have towards all the child
molestation done by Catholic priests? To the world, these men are
Christians. I really don't think we can dismiss the Law out of hand merely
by saying that we are "not under the Law".
I hope I'm making myself clear. We need to point the way to the only
solution to the Problem of Evil, but we can't act like we condone evil, the
evil we ourselves commit. Repentance is a wholesome concept.
fifth comment
If I had been possessed of the same expertise, I would have said precisely
that! Each of these points has been fermenting in my thinking but
I've lacked the means to say so. Thanks so much for your
illuminating insight! Perhaps just one additional thought? I find
the flesh given to deceit, rationalizing, trivializing my
outward/inward behavior and thoughts. I need stated absolutes, just
as our foreparents in the garden needed clearly stated guidelines. I
want to be able to hear the Spirit so clearly that I need no other
voice, but (sigh) I still need to hear the "ten-der commandments" as
they are re-stated again and again throughout the New as well as the
Old Testaments. No wiggle room allowed.
sixth comment
Have enjoyed the "law" discussion. It is however a rather scary step of
faith for an old covenant "church" to not depend upon the tithing
concept to bring funds to the "storehouse".
seventh comment
The comments posted here thus far are excellent. I will eventually
pass all this along in condensed form to Blue Letter Bible so they
can improve their FAQ on the contrasts between the Old and new
Covenants.
More thoughts:
1. Salvation has always been by grace through faith. God has always
met man on this basis.
2. The unconditional promises to Abraham and the patriarchs predate
the Old Covenant.
3. The New Covenant is a renewing of the Old Covenant with better
promises, a better priesthood, and the inner power of a transformed
heart. All covenants are based on mutual trust and obedience.
4. The Law reveals the character of God and this never changes
5. The Law can not produce righteousness, it can only indict
6. The purpose of the Law is to bring us up short ,so we call out to
God for mercy and help
7. The Law has never been set aside and still reveals to us the
character of God.
8. Parts of the law relating to ceremonial cleanings, dietary laws,
feasts days, festivals, tithing, the Sabbath (all related to Israel
as a nation) are not carried over into the New Covenant. The moral
Law is, however, clearly repeated in the New Testament (lying,
stealing, cheating, murder, immorality, etc. are specifically
mentioned in the NT).
9. The Law serves to expose the motives of our heart constantly. This
is the great theme of Romans 7.
10. Antinomianism and/or licentiousness are the results of ignoring
the Law after one has come under the New Covenant.
11. The Sermon on the Mount intensifies the demands of the Law
showing that the motives of the heart matter-not merely outward
actions.
12. We do not know what love is apart from the Law and a relationship
with God wherein we meet His covenantal standards.
13. Without the Law we make up our own definitions of what we think "love" is.
Some New Testament statements about the Law.
Rom. 2:12 All who have sinned without the law will also perish
without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged
by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are
righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law
requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have
the law. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on
their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their
conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
Rom. 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those
who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the
whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For no human being
will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the
law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has
been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets
bear witness to it,
Rom. 3:28 For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from
works of law.
Rom. 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means!
On the contrary, we uphold the law.
Rom. 4:13 The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they
should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through
the righteousness of faith. 14 If it is the adherents of the law
who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15
For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no
transgression. 16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that
the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his
descendants-- not only to the adherents of the law but also to those
who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all,
Rom. 5:13 Ssin indeed was in the world before the law was given,
but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom. 5:20 Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin
increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom. 6:14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not
under law but under grace. 15 What then? Are we to sin because we
are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Rom. 7:1 Do you not know, brethren --for I am speaking to those who
know the law --that the law is binding on a person only during his
life? 2 Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long
as he lives; but if her husband dies she is discharged from the law
concerning the husband. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an
adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.
But if her husband dies she is free from that law, and if she marries
another man she is not an adulteress. 4 Likewise, my brethren, you
have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may
belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead in order
that we may bear fruit for God. 5 While we were living in the
flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our
members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are discharged from
the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we serve not
under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit. 7
What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it
had not been for the law, I should not have known sin. I should not
have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall
not covet." 8 But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment,
wrought in me all kinds of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies
dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the
commandment came, sin revived and I died;
Rom. 7:12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.
Rom. 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Rom. 7:16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good.
Rom. 7:21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right,
evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my
inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the
law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells
in my members.
Rom. 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then,
I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I
serve the law of sin.
Rom. 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set
me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the
law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the
likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,
4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in
us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Rom. 8:7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God;
it does not submit to God's law, indeed it cannot;
Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has
faith may be justified. 5 Moses writes that the man who practices
the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But
the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, "Who
will ascend into heaven?" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or "Who
will descend into the abyss?" (that is, to bring Christ up from the
dead). 8 But what does it say? The word is near you, on your lips
and in your heart (that is, the word of faith which we preach); 9
because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe
in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he
confesses with his lips and so is saved. 11 The scripture says, "No
one who believes in him will be put to shame."
Rom. 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he
who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
Rom. 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the
fulfilling of the law.
Gal. 2:16 yet who know that a man is not justified by works of the
law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by
works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be
justified.
Gal. 2:19 For I through the law died to the law, that I might live to God.
Gal. 2:21 I do not nullify the grace of God; for if justification
were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose.
Gal. 3:2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by
works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal. 3:5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles
among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith?
Gal. 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse;
for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all
things written in the book of the law, and do them." 11 Now it is
evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who
through faith is righteous shall live"; 12 but the law does not
rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ
redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us
--for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree"--
Gal. 3:17 This is what I mean: the law, which came four hundred and
thirty years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified
by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance
is by the law, it is no longer by promise; but God gave it to Abraham
by a promise. 19 Why then the law? It was added because of
transgressions, till the offspring should come to whom the promise
had been made; and it was ordained by angels through an intermediary.
Gal. 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly
not; for if a law had been given which could make alive, then
righteousness would indeed be by the law.
Gal. 3:23 Now before faith came, we were confined under the law,
kept under restraint until faith should be revealed. 24 So that the
law was our custodian until Christ came, that we might be justified
by faith.
Gal. 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son,
born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.
Gal. 4:21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?
Gal. 5:3 I testify again to every man who receives circumcision
that he is bound to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from
Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away
from grace.
Gal. 5:14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall
love your neighbor as yourself."
Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.
Gal. 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Hebr. 7:11 Now if perfection had been attainable through the
Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what
further need would there have been for another priest to arise after
the order of Melchiz'edek, rather than one named after the order of
Aaron? 12 For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is
necessarily a change in the law as well.
Hebr. 7:19 (for the law made nothing perfect); on the other hand,
a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Hebr. 7:28 Indeed, the law appoints men in their weakness as high
priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law,
appoints a Son who has been made perfect for ever.
Hebr. 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to
come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by
the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year,
make perfect those who draw near.
Matt. 5:17 "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the
prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. 18
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an
iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.
Matt. 23:23 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for
you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier
matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to
have done, without neglecting the others.
Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until John; since then
the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters
it violently. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass
away, than for one dot of the law to become void.
eighth comment
I would suggest changing #6 slightly from
6. The purpose of the Law is to bring us up short, so we call out to God for
mercy and help
to
The purpose (or function) of the Law is to show us that we come up short, so
that we call out to God for mercy and help.
The Law itself is that standard by which we are judged; the Judge is not the
Law. At some future time, we might want to discuss the covenant concept.
Yes, it was a formal agreement entered into by two parties; but it implies
(the shadow of?) the relationship available between God, Who is always
willing, and humankind, who always seems to rebel, sin, fall, repent, and
allow God to re-establish that relationship. So, in my humble opinion, lest
I get full of myself and fall on my face, I think that the new covenant,
clearly revealed in Jeremiah, is God's attempt at renewing His relationship
with man and man's with Him. His revelation is progressive, and He is
probably teaching us that we need to fear [respect] Him because He is, after
all, GOD; but also we are to try to learn more fully and completely what His
character really is. He has gone to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate
His mercy and grace, too. The "better" priesthood has always been there,
no? From the moment of Creation.
Blessings, all.
Peaceful and joyous Christmas!
ninth comment
We want to express a real or seemingly real change in us
that does both "bring" and "show" us that we have and will continue
to "fall" all the way to that hellish pit at the end. I think we need a #6
that expresses how the Law, like a stoplight, tells us what to do but
after we fail to stop, has become a charge against us and we are
no longer potential stoppers but violators. At this point one must be
careful not to become "Christian Lawyer" in regard to the Law.
first response
(The first response was a collection of the prior emails sent to the
authors.)
first reply
Thanks for your email on the Old/New Covenants. I have some thoughts
I would like to add to the discussion. I am taking a couple of weeks
off for vacation. So I may not be able to respond until I get back
around mid-January. I am also going to give a copy to the author who
wrote the FAQ.
God bless,
second response
Folks at the BLB, here are some further thoughts, fyi. My comments are
interspersed below.
> At the Blue Letter Bible, we consistently receive questions on
> tithing, on which of the often-strange Levitical laws (e.g., Don't
> weave two kinds of fabric together) apply to the believer today, on
> when to celebrate Old Testament feast days, et cetera. These are all
> questions born out of an inadequate understanding of the agreement
> made between God and Moses on Mount Sinai.
> Properly understanding the covenants and their importance seems to be
> one of the most eluding pieces of theology for the modern believer.
> The Mosaic Covenant was directed specifically toward the nation of
> Israel and was concerned in its chiefest aspect with Israel's
> inheritance of and blessing in the land of Canaan-the Promised Land.
> The laws that attended this covenant, while revealing God's desire
> for this nation to be set apart from all others as an example, do not
> give us any necessary basis for understanding morality.
This last sentence is false. There is no real basis for morality
apart from knowing the character of God Himself. This is made known
by means of the Law. This theme is extensively developed in Romans.
> The real question then presents itself: What responsibility does the
> believer owe to the Mosaic Covenant?
> The fact is: none.
This is patently false. The Sermon on the Mount only intensifies the
demands of the Law. "Not one jot nor tittle shall pass from the law
until all is fulfilled." If we did not have Christ to fulfill the Law
in us we would have no hope.
> The standards iterated from God through Moses upon Sinai were
> directed at the nation of Israel simply as the terms of a contract
> for possession of a certain portion of land.
This is also false. The Covenant of the Land at the end of
Deuteronomy is a separate issue. The right of the Jews to live in the
Land was contingent on their behavior.
> Deuteronomy 28 makes clear the stipulations of this covenant;
> essentially God would bless Israel for obedience by granting great
> prosperity in the land but curse Israel for its disobedience with all
> manner of catastrophe culminating in the loss of Canaan. Despite
> God's longsuffering, Israel fails to uphold her portion of the
> covenant and reaps the curses God promised-climaxing in the
> Babylonian capture in the Seventh Century B.C. It was here that the
> contractual aspect of the Mosaic Law ended that the true meaning of
> Law could be seen clearly.
Israel did not live up to the demands of the law, to be sure.
Israel's spiritual adultery finally caused God to divorce her under
the terms of the old Covenant and then promise to take her back under
the terms of the New.
> The Law (both the covenantal and the universal, Ten Commandment
> aspects of it) now serves to lead mankind to understand his
> corruption.
Yes, True.
The New Testament (New Covenant) dropped the dietary and ceremonial
aspects of the Law but reiterates and magnifies the moral law against
murder, immorality, adultery, etc.
> Just as Israel, a nation born of the fruit of God's own grace, could
> not stand under the righteous requirements of the Mosaic Law, neither
> can any man stand under the condemnation of God's universal
> requirement - absolute obedience of mind and action. Paul speaks of
> the Law as one who leads us step by step to grace, for it points out
> our dire need of such (cf. Galatians 3:23ff). And having taken hold
> of grace by faith, the believer no longer heeds the condemning beckon
> of the Law (cf. Romans).
This is clearly not correct! Paul disagrees with the above statement:
28 "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of
law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of
Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since God is one; and he
will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the
uncircumcised through their faith. 31 Do we then overthrow the law
by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."
(Rom. 3)
> So then, is there any reason to look to the Levitical laws for
> ethical guidance unto righteousness? No - for their only service now
> is to guide men to Christ.
The last statement is false. AFTER we come to Christ we only grow as
the Law probes our motives, or behavior, so we continue to repent, to
learn to grow in grace.
We still need the Law as a compass--all our lives. Romans 7
illustrates this: 6 "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to
that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old
written code but in the new life of the Spirit. 7 What then shall
we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for
the law, I should not have known sin. I should not have known what it
is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But
sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me all kinds
of covetousness. Apart from the law sin lies dead. 9 I was once
alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived
and I died; 10 the very commandment which promised life proved to
be death to me. 11 For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment,
deceived me and by it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the
commandment is holy and just and good. 13 Did that which is good,
then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me
through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and
through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure. 14 We
know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15
I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but
I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I
agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do
it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good
dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but
I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I
do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is
no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 21 So I
find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at
hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, 23
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind
and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of
death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then,
I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I
serve the law of sin."
> What then? Is this merely freedom for the believing Gentile? Or does
> the believer of Jewish decent likewise bear this liberty? As
> certainly as the Jew holds to Christ is his freedom from the Mosaic
> Law assured. The chief redemptive aspect of the Mosaic Covenant has
> been done away, leaving only the condemnation. The blood of bulls and
> goats is useless and perfectly replaced by the sacrifice of the one
> Son of God Himself; to return to the Mosaic Law is to deny the
> sacrifice of Christ. This was the impetus driving the apostles as
> they stood against the Judaizers (those who were requiring believers
> in Christ to bear up under the Mosaic Law) proclaiming, "Beware the
> dogs, the evildoers, the mutilation!"
We have to guard three things: Truth, Righteousness, and Love. We can
not be the people God wants us to be if we do not know God as He
really is. The holiness, justice, righteousness and moral character
of God are made known to us in the Law.
The author needs to stop and read through the Old Testament-even
once. As it stands I think this article is right on the edge. The author
is brilliant and I think the world of him, but he is getting quite a bit
off balance in this article I think. I don't want to lose this
greatly gifted brother to error! I love him a whole lot.
> Where then do we find our Christian ethic? Quite simply, in Christ's
> words: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with
> all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength and you
> shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:30-31). And we find
> extrapolation of these ultimate commands in all the writings of the
> New Testament authors. That is our ethic-and it is borne by our faith
> in and love for Christ rather than from our fear of breaking the law.
We ALSO find what we need in the Old Testament! "For whatever was
written in former days (i.e., the OT) was written for our
instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the
scriptures we might have hope." (Rom. 15:4)
Note 1 Cor. 10, verse 11:
"I want you to know, brethren, that our fathers were all under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into
Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same
supernatural food 4 and all drank the same supernatural drink. For
they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the
Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless with most of them God was not
pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these
things are warnings for us, not to desire evil as they did. 7 Do
not be idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, "The people
sat down to eat and drink and rose up to dance." 8 We must not
indulge in immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand
fell in a single day. 9 We must not put the Lord to the test, as
some of them did and were destroyed by serpents; 10 nor grumble, as
some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these
things happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for
our instruction, (as "types") upon whom the end of the ages has
come. 12 Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed
lest he fall."
========
How about asking the author to lead a group Bible study on Psalm 119??
Ps. 119:1 Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the
law of the LORD! 2 Blessed are those who keep his testimonies, who
seek him with their whole heart, 3 who also do no wrong, but walk
in his ways! 4 Thou hast commanded thy precepts to be kept
diligently. 5 O that my ways may be steadfast in keeping thy
statutes! 6 Then I shall not be put to shame, having my eyes fixed
on all thy commandments. 7 I will praise thee with an upright
heart, when I learn thy righteous ordinances. 8 I will observe thy
statutes; O forsake me not utterly! 9 How can a young man keep his
way pure? By guarding it according to thy word. 10 With my whole
heart I seek thee; let me not wander from thy commandments! 11 I
have laid up thy word in my heart, that I might not sin against thee.
12 Blessed be thou, O LORD; teach me thy statutes! 13 With my lips
I declare all the ordinances of thy mouth. 14 In the way of thy
testimonies I delight as much as in all riches. 15 I will meditate
on thy precepts, and fix my eyes on thy ways. 16 I will delight in
thy statutes; I will not forget thy word. 17 Deal bountifully with
thy servant, that I may live and observe thy word. 18 Open my eyes,
that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law. 19 I am a
sojourner on earth; hide not thy commandments from me! 20 My soul
is consumed with longing for thy ordinances at all times. 21 Thou
dost rebuke the insolent, accursed ones, who wander from thy
commandments; 22 take away from me their scorn and contempt, for I
have kept thy testimonies. 23 Even though princes sit plotting
against me, thy servant will meditate on thy statutes. 24 Thy
testimonies are my delight, they are my counselors. 25 My soul
cleaves to the dust; revive me according to thy word! 26 When I
told of my ways, thou didst answer me; teach me thy statutes! 27
Make me understand the way of thy precepts, and I will meditate on
thy wondrous works. 28 My soul melts away for sorrow; strengthen me
according to thy word! 29 Put false ways far from me; and
graciously teach me thy law! 30 I have chosen the way of
faithfulness, I set thy ordinances before me. 31 I cleave to thy
testimonies, O LORD; let me not be put to shame! 32 I will run in
the way of thy commandments when thou enlargest my understanding!
33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of thy statutes; and I will keep it to
the end. 34 Give me understanding, that I may keep thy law and
observe it with my whole heart. 35 Lead me in the path of thy
commandments, for I delight in it. 36 Incline my heart to thy
testimonies, and not to gain! 37 Turn my eyes from looking at
vanities; and give me life in thy ways. 38 Confirm to thy servant
thy promise, which is for those who fear thee. 39 Turn away the
reproach which I dread; for thy ordinances are good. 40 Behold, I
long for thy precepts; in thy righteousness give me life! 41 Let
thy steadfast love come to me, O LORD, thy salvation according to thy
promise; 42 then shall I have an answer for those who taunt me, for
I trust in thy word. 43 And take not the word of truth utterly out
of my mouth, for my hope is in thy ordinances. 44 I will keep thy
law continually, for ever and ever; 45 and I shall walk at liberty,
for I have sought thy precepts. 46 I will also speak of thy
testimonies before kings, and shall not be put to shame; 47 for I
find my delight in thy commandments, which I love. 48 I revere thy
commandments, which I love, and I will meditate on thy statutes. 49
Remember thy word to thy servant, in which thou hast made me hope.
50 This is my comfort in my affliction that thy promise gives me
life. 51 Godless men utterly deride me, but I do not turn away from
thy law. 52 When I think of thy ordinances from of old, I take
comfort, O LORD. 53 Hot indignation seizes me because of the
wicked, who forsake thy law. 54 Thy statutes have been my songs in
the house of my pilgrimage. 55 I remember thy name in the night, O
LORD, and keep thy law. 56 This blessing has fallen to me, that I
have kept thy precepts. 57 The LORD is my portion; I promise to
keep thy words. 58 I entreat thy favor with all my heart; be
gracious to me according to thy promise. 59 When I think of thy
ways, I turn my feet to thy testimonies; 60 I hasten and do not
delay to keep thy commandments. 61 Though the cords of the wicked
ensnare me, I do not forget thy law. 62 At midnight I rise to
praise thee, because of thy righteous ordinances. 63 I am a
companion of all who fear thee, of those who keep thy precepts. 64
The earth, O LORD, is full of thy steadfast love; teach me thy
statutes! 65 Thou hast dealt well with thy servant, O LORD,
according to thy word. 66 Teach me good judgment and knowledge, for
I believe in thy commandments. 67 Before I was afflicted I went
astray; but now I keep thy word. 68 Thou art good and doest good;
teach me thy statutes. 69 The godless besmear me with lies, but
with my whole heart I keep thy precepts; 70 their heart is gross
like fat, but I delight in thy law. 71 It is good for me that I was
afflicted, that I might learn thy statutes. 72 The law of thy mouth
is better to me than thousands of gold and silver pieces. 73 Thy
hands have made and fashioned me; give me understanding that I may
learn thy commandments. 74 Those who fear thee shall see me and
rejoice, because I have hoped in thy word. 75 I know, O LORD, that
thy judgments are right, and that in faithfulness thou hast afflicted
me. 76 Let thy steadfast love be ready to comfort me according to
thy promise to thy servant. 77 Let thy mercy come to me, that I may
live; for thy law is my delight. 78 Let the godless be put to
shame, because they have subverted me with guile; as for me, I will
meditate on thy precepts. 79 Let those who fear thee turn to me,
that they may know thy testimonies. 80 May my heart be blameless in
thy statutes, that I may not be put to shame! 81 My soul languishes
for thy salvation; I hope in thy word. 82 My eyes fail with
watching for thy promise; I ask, "When wilt thou comfort me?" 83
For I have become like a wineskin in the smoke, yet I have not
forgotten thy statutes. 84 How long must thy servant endure? When
wilt thou judge those who persecute me? 85 Godless men have dug
pitfalls for me, men who do not conform to thy law. 86 All thy
commandments are sure; they persecute me with falsehood; help me!
87 They have almost made an end of me on earth; but I have not
forsaken thy precepts. 88 In thy steadfast love spare my life, that
I may keep the testimonies of thy mouth. 89 For ever, O LORD, thy
word is firmly fixed in the heavens. 90 Thy faithfulness endures to
all generations; thou hast established the earth, and it stands fast.
91 By thy appointment they stand this day; for all things are thy
servants. 92 If thy law had not been my delight, I should have
perished in my affliction. 93 I will never forget thy precepts; for
by them thou hast given me life. 94 I am thine, save me; for I have
sought thy precepts. 95 The wicked lie in wait to destroy me; but I
consider thy testimonies. 96 I have seen a limit to all perfection,
but thy commandment is exceedingly broad. 97 Oh, how I love thy
law! It is my meditation all the day. 98 Thy commandment makes me
wiser than my enemies, for it is ever with me. 99 I have more
understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my
meditation.
tenth comment
LAW
(Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology)
Law is a term used about 200 times in the Bible, meaning a rule which
regulates human conduct. Six subdivisions of the Bible doctrine of
law follow:
1. NATURAL, INHERENT, OR INTRINSIC. That which God requires of every
creature because of His own character, as it is written: "Be ye
holy; for I am holy" (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16). This law was binding
upon all, from Adam to Moses (cf. Gen. 26:5; Rom. 2:14-15; 5:12-14).
2. PRESCRIBED BY MAN (Gen. 9:6; Matt. 20:15; Luke 20:22; Acts 19:38;
1 Tim. 1:8-10; 2 Tim. 2:5). That which human government requires of
its subjects.
3. OF MOSES. A rule divinely given through Moses to govern Israel in
the land of promise. It was commended to them because they were a
covenant people. Thus it defined the manner of their daily life. It
was itself a covenant of works (Ex. 19:5-6). This covenant they soon
broke. It will yet be superseded by the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34;
Heb. 8:8-13). This agreement will include the former Law of Moses
(Deut. 30:8).
The Law of Moses is recorded in three parts:
a. COMMANDMENTS. Embrace the moral government of Israel (Ex.
20:1-17). They are condensed and summarized in Matthew 22:36-40;
fulfilled by love (Rom. 13:10; Gal. S:14; James 2:8); proved to be
law in character (Rom. 7:7-14).
b. JUDGMENTS. Embrace the social requirements (Ex. 21:1-23:33).
C. ORDINANCES. Regulate the worship (Ex. 2 5:1-3 1:18).
These three forms of law satisfied all of Israel's requirements
before God. But the entire system, including the commandments as a
rule of life, ceased with the death of Christ (John 1:17; Rom. 10:4).
The Law of Moses, to be sure, was an ad interim dealing in effect
only until Christ should come. For the time being it gave to sin the
character of transgression (Rom. 5:13; Gal. 3:19). It was preceded
(Ex. 19:4) and followed (John 1:17) by grace.
4. REVEALED WILL OF GOD IN ANY FORM. That which has been disclosed in
addition to law codes. Observe the definite article with law in
Romans 7:15-25 because thus Paul may refer to something besides the
Law of Moses. The law as the will of God includes all His revealed
orders for any people at any time. The word law in Romans, then, is
used nine times without the article and many more times with the
article (cf. Rom. 8:4), and not always referring to Moses.
5. MESSIANIC RULE OF LIFE FOR THE KINGDOM. That which governs the
millennium (Matt. 5:1-7:29). Proof that the Messianic rule is pure
law may be gained in the following tests:(1) any action is legal
which aims to secure merit (Matt. 6:14-15); (2) any action is legal
which has been wrought in reliance upon the flesh (Rom, 6:14).
6. OF CHRIST. That which now governs the Christian (I Cor. 9:20-21;
Gal. 6:2). Observe the term "my commandments" which was used by
Christ only in the upper room (John 14:15, etc.). This form of life
direction includes all the teachings of grace addressed to the
Christian, who is not himself under law since grace has provided all
the merit that ever could be required (John 1:16; Rom. 5:1; 8:1; Col.
2:10). The saved one is "inlawed to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:20-21, lit.
rendering). The believer is not without law to govern his conduct
when "inlawed" to Christ.
second reply
I have read much of the emails and have asked the appropriate staff
members to make comments on them. However, as the emails continue I
am seeing some disturbing things. It's not even the questioning of
the FAQ, for I have some questions of it as well. Rather, it is the
accompanying statements that are being made as rebuttals. And rather
than spending a lot of time answering or commenting on each of these,
I want to address some of the general items I have noted. Then it
will make it easier to discuss the details in a later email.
Note: I am addressing some of the issues that have been expressed,
and am making no judgment upon the person in any way. It can get
easy to be defensive, any of us, but I just want to apply Acts 17:11
to the statements that are being made here. For some of them are
rather shocking! So again, I am holding the premises or conclusions
out for judgment, by Scripture, as that is the only standard we can
truly have.
I have read in the comments many logical fallacies, including "straw
man," "slippery slope," "guilt by association," "irrelevant
conclusions". Most of these are covered in the freshman level
college philosophy courses, but are also specifically dealt with in a
Christian context by Dr. Norman Geisler in his book "Come Let Us
Reason--An Introduction to Logical Thinking." I admit this is a
personal "bug-a-boo of mine," i.e., when we as Christians use the
same illogic that we vehemently accuse the cults of when they argue
their un-Biblical positions. I wish I was devoid of falling into the
same traps myself, but unfortunately I am still in the flesh and can
be as illogical as the next person. It's always easy to see it in
someone else's arguments and be blind to it in my own. So if I do
so, I apologize ahead of time and look forward to the responses.
Given that all of this is done in the love of Christ, with its
purpose of "iron sharpening iron."
I truly mean that for I am very appreciative of the fact that all of
you would take time to look at the FAQ (and would love to have you
look at others that are problematic in their subject).
In choosing some examples, I have taken liberty to choose primarily
Lambert's. This is because of our close friendship, he knows the
respect I have for his Biblical knowledge, and his dedication to the
Scripture. The rest of the group does not know me, and might be more
prone to taking the response personally. Which again I am not doing,
rather questioning some of the ideas, as a Berean might do?
Some general thoughts to begin.
1) I was not the writer of the FAQ, so I am not defending it as a
personal thing. We at BLB having a diversity of theological
backgrounds have learned to accept challenges to our way of thinking.
So again, we just want to compare the discussion to Scripture.
2) The subject, i.e., The Believer's Responsibility To The Mosaic
Covenant" is not easy to discuss in a short FAQ, as large works have
been written on the subject. So clearly there are large "holes" in
it. It is not a treatise on the Law or the Covenants, but trying to
answer a basic question, what is "required" of the believer in
relation to the "Law".
3) I see many of the comments seem to pick and choose the parts of
the Law that are addressed. I agree that, the divisions into
ceremonial, civil and moral, are not really BIBLICAL divisions, but
our interpretations and categorizations of them.
4) Jesus did not say that "He came to fulfill the MORAL portion of
the Law, or the CEREMONIAL portions of the Law. He came to fulfill
the Law--ALL of it. In scripture "the Law" is used to refer to
different aspects--depending on its context.
a) sometimes referring to ALL of the Mosaic writing,
b) most often referring to the Mosaic covenant in all of its
particulars
c) and a few times referring to the decalogue.
Since the FAQ specifically addresses the covenants, that is the
context in which the discussion should be based.
5) So I feel if one is to be honest with this subject, one needs to
deal with the LAW, all of it, all 500+ (depending on who is the
authority) individual requirements. If one makes a broad statement
about the Law (e.g., the Law is our tutor), then that needs to be
defended as it relates to the ENTIRE Law.
So if now the Law is to be our tutor as to morality, who gets to
choose which particular ones. The 7th Day Adventists have some
Biblical basis for their position. I mean, the breaking of the
Mosaic defined Sabbath was a CAPITAL crime. That certainly should be
one of our tutors. So, how many of us are observing the Law (as
given to Moses) in relation to Friday sundown to Saturday sundown.
And quite clearly, circumcision was the "mark" of the nation, so much
so that God was so angry with Moses for not circumcising his sons
that God contemplated taking Moses' life for this infraction. If
circumcision isn't a preeminent aspect of the Law then what would be?
But in contrast, the Book of Acts (Acts 15) and the Pauline epistles
(Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians) have quite a bit of
apostolic admonitions saying we as Gentile believers, under the New
Covenant, are not subject to these very prominent requirements of the
Mosaic Covenant. And if not to these, the very prominent portions of
the Law, then how can any argument be made for the dietary,
ceremonial, etc.
Galatians 3:24 quite clearly calls the Law our tutor. But tutoring
us in what? It states that it tutors us "...to Christ, that we might
be justified by faith."
1 Timothy 1:9 tells us that, "knowing this: that the law is not made
for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate..."
The Law has no ability to save us in any way, the Law points us to
Jesus Christ.
But I am starting to get too detailed here, leaving my original
premise of discussing broader concepts.
6) Some other comments received that are troublesome to me:
>>3. The New Covenant is a renewing of the Old Covenant with better
>>promises, a better priesthood, and the inner power of a transformed
>>heart. All covenants are based on mutual trust and obedience.
I would say this statement is not true, because its initial premise
is false. Jesus called it a New Covenant (Luke 22:20). This is not
just semantics. Jeremiah 31:31-34 talks about the New Covenant as
compared to the Old. In fact it states specifically that the New
Covenant is NOT the same as the Old Covenant (vs. 32). And then in
vss. 33-34 talks about aspects of the New Covenant that are
different, e.g., written by God on the hearts of man, not on stone.
Hebrews deals with this in quite a bit of detail. As just one
example, Heb 7:18-19, quite clearly states that the Old Covenant was
ANNULLED--not renewed!
However, the fact that it has better promises and better priesthood
is true. This comes right from scripture:
(Hbr 8:6 KJV) 6But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by
how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was
established upon better promises.
(Hbr 7:22 KJV) 22By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
But these very same scriptures quite clearly declare that this is a
different, better, more excellent covenant. Not a renewal of the Old
Covenant.
All covenants are not based upon mutual trust and obedience. God has
made unilateral covenants that are not conditioned upon Israel's
obedience (for example, the ultimate resolution of the land). As one
example, in Ezekiel 20, God says that He will do it for His Name's
sake, not for Israel because they have profaned Him. They did not
obey, but He will do it because it was a unilateral covenant. For
those interested, the topic "for His Name's sake" or "for My Name's
sake" is an interesting study to show other instances.
I have spent a lot of time on this one issue, because it is the
foundation of the whole matter. If Christ specifically came to
inaugurate a BETTER covenant, why are we trying to put ourselves
under the old one?
Gal 4:21 (KJV) Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not
hear the law?
For some reason, people for the entire New Testament period therefore
infer that this preaches license to sin. This is an example of the
"slippery slope fallacy." Well if you mean that we live under grace,
then one will have no reason to live according to the Law, and if one
is under that, then one will sin, and then one will live a licentious
life, and so on. This is not new, it occurred in Paul's time, for
Paul dealt with it very specifically...
(Rom 5:19 - 6:2 KJV) 19For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made
righteous. 20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound.
But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 21That as sin
hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through
righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord. 1What
shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer
therein?
Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit deals with our natural
tendency to assume that freedom from the Law leads to sin. But he
clearly states that grace does not mean license to sin. The Holy
Spirit dealt with this issue from the beginning of the New Covenant.
So to say that we are free from the Law, scripturally does not mean
that we have no moral guide. Rather, it is now because God's
desires are written on our heart!
Eze 36:27 (KJV) And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to
walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do [them].
God here states that our moral compass or tutor, is His Spirit. Not
just His Spirit as revealed by the Law, for it states in Jeremiah:
31Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32Not
according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day
[that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto
them, saith the LORD: 33But this [shall be] the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I
will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts;
and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And they shall
teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer 31:31-34
KJV)
Is the law spoken of here, which is being written on man's heart, the
Mosaic Covenant? Doubtful based upon the Pauline writings, Acts 15,
and Hebrews, as shown elsewhere in this email and others such as:
Rom 7:6 (KJV) But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and
not [in] the oldness of the letter.
Gal 3:2-3 (NKJV) 2This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive
the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3Are
you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made
perfect by the flesh?
Gal 5:18 (NKJV) But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.
Well some of you are saying, this guy is an antinomian. No! I have
never considered myself that. In fact, most would say I am very black
and white, judgmental, etc. So clearly not antinomian. But, I am
very "Pauline." But with respect to antinomianism: there are
comments like this one.
Here are some additional thoughts by Ray Stedman as excerpted from
the different studies indicated.
DO CHRISTIANS NEED THE TEN COMMANDMENTS?
http://pbc.org/dp/stedman/romans1/0015.html
"Here again he is pointing out something that rests upon the death of
Christ -- the fact that the whole of the old life must go,
completely, in the death of Christ, and that, therefore, as
Christians, we no longer have any excuse whatever for failure in our
lives. As long as we excuse any degree of failure at all, we are
slaves to it. That is what he is saying here. We are bound by it. You
see, it is not a case of "I can't" any longer. If we still continue
to live in failure after we have become Christians, it is not because
we can't have victory, it is because we won't! We won't be delivered.
That is what Paul is saying. Now, in Chapter 7, he has this other
question:
Do you not know, brethren ... that the law is binding on a person
only during his life? {Rom 7:1 RSV}
And in Verse 4 you get the other side of it:
Likewise, my brethren, you have died to the law... {Rom 7:4a RSV}
In other words, the Ten Commandments are no longer necessary as a
guide to proper behavior in the Christian life for we are not under
law but under grace. "
and later in the same work:
"Now, I recognize that when we, as Christians, choose to walk after
the flesh, the Spirit sometimes uses the Law to show us our folly,
and rebuke our barrenness, and bring us to our senses again...
Whenever we get into that state we need the Law, even as Christians.
But when we walk in the Spirit, allowing Jesus Christ to live his
life again through us, we need no law. If we attempt to put that life
back under the Law, what we are really trying to do is to be
faithless to our new husband, the risen Christ."
and from:
FALSE CONSECRATION
http://pbc.org/dp/stedman/romans1/0016.html
"In the first thirteen verses, that we looked at last week, we saw
that the Law has one great effect upon us: It shows us the sinful
nature we have in Adam. We learned that it is not only the things we
do that are wrong, but behind it, and in back of it, is a tainted
spring, a corrupt fountain, that keeps pouring out sin -- a sinful
nature. And we also learned that life in Jesus Christ (or Christ
living in us) doesn't have any need for the Law at all, no place for
it, even though it honors and highly regards the Law.
Now, that brings us to the last section of the seventh chapter where
we see further reason why the Christian must not be under law. This
section presents three things to us. Let me give you the headings so
that you may follow me: Chapter 7:14-20: The Behavior that Baffles,
Chapter 7:21-25: The Law that Limits, Chapter 8:1-4: The Force that
Frees."
from
THE NEW CONSTITUTION
http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/hebrews1/0090.html
"If there is a new arrangement, that suggests of course that there
must have been an old arrangement. For a brief instant we must look
at the predicted failure of the Law, the old arrangement.
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry which is as much more
excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since
it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second.
For he finds fault with them when he says:
"The days will come, says the Lord,
when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah;
not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
for they did not continue in my covenant,
and so I paid no heed to them, says the Lord." {Heb 8:6-9 RSV}
The Law of Moses was the first covenant, the Ten Commandments. Now
there was nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments and there is still
nothing wrong with them. The fault was with the people. God did not
find fault with the Law, but Verse 8 says, "he finds fault with
them," with the people, for they misunderstood the purpose of the
Law, as men and women all over the world today misunderstand the
purpose of the Ten Commandments.
The people of that day thought God wanted them to keep these Ten
Commandments as the only way they could please him. They felt he
demanded a rigid, careful, scrupulous observance of the Ten
Commandments. But what they did not understand, though God pointed
this out to them many times, was that God never expected them to keep
it. He knew they could not. He did not give it to them to be kept,
for he knew they could not keep it. He gave it to them to show them
they could not keep it so they would then be ready to receive a
Savior. But with presumptuous confidence they tried to keep it and
when they could not, as of course God knew they could not, they
pretended to keep it, just as we do today."
>>10. Antinomianism and/or licentiousness are the results of ignoring
>>the Law after one has come under the New Covenant.
This is the "guilt by association" logical fallacy. Although not
saying it directly, it associates those who are licentious with those
who hold to antinomian beliefs. It may be very true that there are
those who are licentious that are antinomian (as there are those who
are licentious and not antinomian). But it could just be that they
are licentious. It does not mean antinomians are licentious. It's
one of those logical fallacies again, of the type:
All rabbits are quadrapeds, but not all quadrapeds are rabbits. A
horse is not a rabbit just because he has four legs. An antinomian
is not licentious because licentious people do not regard the Law.
And as I read Gal 5:18, if I am being led by the Spirit, I do not
need to worry about the Law. So ignoring the Law does not
necessarily result in licentiousness, as stated in the above comment.
For one can simply follow Paul's admonition to walk after the Spirit
and not put myself under the Law. Paul states this in several places
in His writings.
7. Another one:
>> ...There is no real basis for morality apart from knowing the
>>character of God Himself. This is made known by means of the Law.
>>This theme is extensively developed in Romans.
The first part is arguable, since for example much of the pagan world
knows that murder is wrong, but they do not know the character of the
Eternal God. But I understand the concept that is being presented.
So we'll leave that for now, but what is interesting is the second
part,
"This is made known by means of the Law."
I believe this is quite questionable, in fact it is wrong in my
opinion. If it were true, then the world for 2500+ years prior to
the Mosaic Covenant could not: 1) know the character of God, nor 2)
have any basis for morality.
This does not hold up to the light of scripture. Abraham was called
the friend of God. Enoch walked with God. Adam held a relationship
we cannot even imagine this side of eternity. Cain was held to a
standard of morality. The entire state of humankind (short 8 people)
perished in the Flood because they were held to a standard of
morality that God fully expected of them, yet the Mosaic Law was
quite far in the future.
The Law is ONE mechanism that God has used to reveal His character.
Jesus Christ is another revelation of God's character. The Mosaic
Covenant is neither the source of His character nor the defining
statement of His character. For God is infinite, and the Mosaic
Covenantcannot reveal all of God's character. The Psalms tell us
that even the heavens declare His glory! The heavens were around
long before the Mosaic Covenant.
And with respect to the reference to Romans. The whole point of the
first few chapters of Romans is that the Jews (who had the oracles of
God) and the Gentiles (who did NOT have the Law) were BOTH held
accountable. That would only be justifiable if there were some
method of morality that was apart from the Law.
(Rom 1:20 KJV) For the invisible things of him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:
(Rom 2:10-12 KJV) 10But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that
worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11For there
is no respect of persons with God. 12For as many as have sinned
without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned
in the law shall be judged by the law;
Paul is saying here that it did not matter whether man had the Law or
not, that the very creation spoke of God, His power, His Godhead.
And all mankind is judged, whether Jew or non-Jew (read that, of the
Law, or not of the Law).
From Ray Stedman ( http://www.pbc.org/dp/stedman/romans2/3504.html) ...
"Chapter 2 of Romans is part of Paul's penetrating analysis of the
1st century civilization, beginning with its rejection of the God who
had revealed himself in nature and in man's conscience."
Ray rightly states that God reveals Himself apart from the law, in
nature and in man's conscience
8. There are a lot of "straw man" arguments coming back, i.e.,
arguing against a position that is never taken in the FAQ. So they
lead to irrelevant conclusions (although they may be true), because
the point was never in debate. For example:
One comment says:
"So, Jesus did not assume that the Law was meaningless or of no worth."
(Comment from the author) This is all well and true, but the article never
seeks to counter this notion. Rather, the article assigns it a
specific worth.
(Now back to me) In fact, it assigns the Law such significant worth
that it shows man his own sinfulness and to point mankind to Christ,
for salvation, not by the Law, but by faith in Christ's
substitutionary fulfillment of the Law.
(Rom 7:5, 7, 13 KJV) 5For when we were in the flesh, the motions of
sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth
fruit unto death... 7What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God
forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known
lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet... 13Was then
that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it
might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin
by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
I can appreciate these types of comments as points of clarification
and maybe possible enhancement for the article, but some (but not the
example shown above) come across as if there is an error in the
original article. Maybe they are just arguing against other comments
made in the forum.
CONCLUSION:
----------------------
In conclusion, I just wanted to make sure we were all on the same
wavelength even if on different parts of it. Are we in agreement as
to the definition of the Mosaic Covenant or the Law. Otherwise we
are talking to cross-purposes. The FAQ was trying to answer the type
of question that comes up so often, Hey is it ok for me to eat Ham
and Eggs for breakfast!
We often get questions on tithing. It is interesting to me is that
Lambert, you have always referred dozens of these questions to the
article by Paul Winslow(?) on Tithing on your website. Yet I see
very little difference in concepts between that article and the FAQ
we are discussing, other than a specific subject of tithing versus a
generic subject of the believer's requirement to follow the Law.
Well, what this does clearly tell us at BLB, is that we do need to
clarify some points in the FAQ, and maybe enhance some explanations.
What is difficult is that the person wanting to know if he can have
ham for breakfast, is probably not going to read a 30 page treatise
on the nature of the Old and New Covenants. But we can do a better
job of clarifying what we mean. Maybe we can jointly write that 30
page treatise, and have the FAQ refer those who might be interested
to it for further study.
With that said (as lengthy as it was) I am awaiting comments from the
group (ParacleteForum.org and BlueLetterBible.org) for further
discussion.
God bless,
third response
Thanks for the thoughtful missive. I sent your email along to the
Paraclete team for their comments.
Basically my only concern about this otherwise excellent FAQ really
is about the Law and its role in the NT.
If we say to people that the New Covenant sets us free to love God
and to be free of any legal demands on us, then I think we have to
add something so that people don't suppose that I can"love God and do
as I please." In order to love God I have to know what God is like as
a Person and this is what the Law defines for us. It takes a whole
life time to know God, to know ourselves, to repent, to change and
grow until we finally end up being conformed to the likeness of
Christ.(Philippians)
I think the FAQ needs only a small paragraph stating that the New
Covenant calls for a whole-hearted responsiveness from each of us,
and an obligation to know and love God as He really is. The Law is
one of the main means God tells us what He is like. The Law is
eternal and does not change because God does not change.
The best example of a covenant is marriage. It is personal, and
requires the trust and agreement of both parties. God's covenants,
though unconditional, do call for a response on our part.
http://ldolphin.org/Covn.html
http://ldolphin.org/Maincov.html
God does everything by means of covenants. Behind these covenants
with individuals and nations is what is called "the eternal covenant"
which is between the Persons of the Godhead--outside of time. So the
covenants are all related in a way.
The NT does tell us clearly that a life-style of lying, adultery,
murder, etc. (i.e., rejecting the moral Law) disqualifies us from the
Kingdom of standard, so these absolutes in the law are reaffirmed in
the NT)
Colossians 2 is good in telling us exactly the parts of the law we
can drop altogether as not relevant and not required for us. We do
not have to keep a literal sabbath but the true Sabbath rest God asks
of us places an even greater responsibility on us, 24/7/365. (Jesus
our Sabbath Rest, http://ldolphin.org/sabbathrest.html ) We do not
have to tithe 10%, but we are asked to give as we are blessed,
perhaps 30%, 50% as appropriate--to meet real needs of real people
around us, etc.
God is evident in nature--not a lot about God, but enough that all
men are accountable to God and without excuse.
Romans 2 says that men are accountable for the light they have been
given, and if they follow that light they will be given more light.
As you say, sometimes the OT (Psalm 119, for instance) refers to
whole of Scripture as the "Law of God" in a very broad sense. The
point is that to grow up into maturity we need the whole Bible. This
is because we do not know God very well and especially we do not know
ourselves. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things and
desperately wicked, who can understand it?"
As long as I am trusting Jesus and living by faith the Law has
nothing to say to me, i.e., "you are dead to the Law through the Body
of Christ." But, from time to time God brings the Law in to expose
my motives which I did not realize were flawed, or to show me deeper
truth, or to help me grow. When God speaks to me by means of the Law
all I have to do is consent, die to self, and receive new and
renewing resurrection life.
I am a bit of a stickler about sound and balanced theology so when I
see something that is not quite balanced my radar warning light
flashes on. I apologize for not being there in person to talk about
all this in person as I have the highest regard for you all, great
confidence in everyone at BLB, and i think the author is a real royal
prince frankly. My concerns are not serious really so I did not mean
to start a riot or a chain reaction.
eleventh comment
Well said. I guess one of my pet peeves is the assumption by some so-called
"New-Testament Christians" that the entire Old Testament (not a descriptive
name), a k a Tanach, is dismissed as irrelevant to the Christian life.
There is much much more to it than the various covenants. We cannot even
know who the Messiah is without it (or our need for Him). It is chock full
of wisdom, analogies, allegories, metaphors, the works. Just look at the
Hall of Faith of Hebrews--we are given examples to follow of people who
lived before Moses! How else can we understand faith.
I think I wrote in one recent message about my Bible as Literature course,
that I was really astounded how incomprehensible the so-called New Testament
writings are without an intimate knowledge of the OT. How many times does
Jesus refer to the Scriptures and the need to know them? How many times do
Peter, Paul, James, John, and Jude make reference to the Law and the
Prophets? Even to understand the two works of Luke, one needs to have a
serious grasp of God's revelation of Himself to the seed of Abraham, on
through the Son of David. The Book of Revelation would be completely
unknowable, and the rest of the NT would be quite one-dimensional. The
riches of the Tanach wonderfully demonstrate who God is and who we are.
Of course, the opposite is true, as well. One simply cannot know the God of
the Tanach without knowing Jesus. And, the NT writers were quite skilled at
exposition so that all could know how God revealed Himself through Israel
and to all the nations, a plan of salvation that no man could ever concoct,
one of true elegance and grace.
Blessings,
twelfth comment
Folks,
For a real thrill go to Dave Roper's PBC web site:
http://pbc.org/dp/roper.
You will find there 6 audio messages by Dave, "The New Covenant in
the Old Testament,"
http://pbc.org/dp/roper/newcovinOT/index.html
These messages date back to 1974! But, they are fresh and very
relevant. Dave compares the Old and New Covenants back and forth.
For those of you who do not know Dave, he was one of the very early
pastoral team members on the staff at PBC with Ray. Dave was always
extraordinarily good in the Old Testament.
These newly recorded MP3 files are clear as a bell! I think printed
versions of these messages have never been transcribed?
