I think I was fairly clear earlier:There are several responses:the Biblical answer to the injustices of the world and injustice of governments is the Second Coming, not a return to the punishments of the Mosaic Law (theonomy), or enforcing true religion by the sword (theocracy). And because a desire for the state to punish sinners in this life for not following our religion is in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel, by Biblical command the church’s only mandate concerning unbelievers....As you are aware, in the Spanish Inquisition, the RC church and Spanish monarchy put what they considered blasphemers to death. I am saying that is wrong in itself, not just wrong when the wrong guys do it.
a) If it is really wrong in itself, why was it not wrong for Old Testament Israel?
b) If as to (a) one appeals to an "intrusion ethic" that governed Israel, where does Scripture teach this?
c) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" (by the civil magistrate) in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel?
d) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" as to honoring God's name, title, attributes, ordinances, words and works in conflict with such a calling but punishing them for not "following our religion" as to honoring father and mother, not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery not in conflict?
-TurretinFan
P.S. I should point out that earlier in the same thread, Todd had indeed relied on the Klinean intrusion ethic approach:
Why are we so dead set against the state enforcing the first Table? Our early forefathers notwithstanding, the Biblical answer to the injustices of the world and injustice of governments is the Second Coming, not a return to the punishments of the Mosaic Law, or enforcing true religion by the sword.But this answer is patently false and contrary to Romans 13. Moreover, this argument on its own terms cannot differentiate between the first and second table. Finally, it remains unestablished that the Mosaic punishments represent an intrusion of the eschaton.
76 comments:
In answer to your questions:
a) I'm assuming he meant it was wrong in itself in the NT era.
b) Regarding where Scripture teaches the intrusion ethic, here's a long response.
c) I would think this is self-evident. Where does Scripture teach that the civil magistrate should punish sinners for not professing faith in Christ? Even if it weren't self-evident, if the essay I linked above answers question #b, then question #c would have to be withdrawn.
d) It's a matter of jurisdication. The civil magistrate's calling is the maintenance of peace and order in society and the punishing of those specific acts that threaten it.
Oops, I think I accidentally invented a new word in my response to #d....
Why do you suppose that blasphemy and sabbath breaking don't threaten the peace and order of society?
Again, I would have thought this is self-evident. Do you really think we would have greater peace and order in American society if the US government were to begin to enforce sabbath observance? If so, I would have to disagree. But I can see where your question would flow from your 1k position.
Yes. There was greater peace and order back when the American society did enforce sabbath observance.
It's interesting that the defense of your position relies on asserting that disputed points are self-evident. You should think about what you are implying about the other side. It's not very complimentary to them.
No offense intended. It's just that everyone has blind spots. And I think an African-American might evaluate things differently than you.
There's little hope for communication if your argument is that I'm blind in a particular area, nor if you assume that race is an issue in this discussion (it is not).
I posted my argument in my original post. You then asked me why I suppose sabbath breaking doesn't threaten the peace and order of society. (I can just as easily ask why you suppose it does.) You asserted that things were better when sabbath observance was enforced. I then suggested that an African American might not think so. Perhaps you can either clue me in as to the basis of your assertion, or explain why the African American who finds there to be greater peace and order now then back in the days when Sabbath observance was enforced is wrong.
David R. for your original argument to have any weight, you need to demonstrate that 2nd table issues affect the peace and order of society, and the 1st table do not. You can't just assert it and then demand that I prove you wrong. But I did offer you an example of evidence. To which you replied that you think if I were of a different race I wouldn't think that the blue laws were good, but I prefer to assume that all races have the same rational mind.
Not to be too overly simplistic about it, but the slave was probably grateful for the observance of the Sabbath. It gave him a day of rest not granted to his Irish and German northern factory working neighbor.
Sorry, what evidence did you offer that things were better when the sabbath was enforced? Can you please restate it?
Also, the issue isn't really one of 1st table vs. 2nd table. That's okay as a kind of shorthand, but it's really a way of speaking of the light of nature vs. the light of Scripture.
So what is the conclusion?
"Sorry God things just work better when we shirk your laws. Besides the unbelievers don't like us when we do that"
David R.: That things were better is evidence that they would be better. I wasn't trying to prove that they were better. Men were not forced to work on Sundays. Even the ungodly benefited from this rest.
The light of nature extends to the first table too. You sure you want to appeal to the light of nature?
From an anonymous friend:
Eschatological punishment doesn't consist of the death penalty, but damnation.
"c) I would think this is self-evident. Where does Scripture teach that the civil magistrate should punish sinners for not professing faith in Christ?"
That's a straw man. Traditional Calvinists like Rutherford don't think the civil magistrate should coerce unbelievers into professing Christian faith. Rather, it's about behavior, not belief. Requiring a certain level of behavior.
"d) It's a matter of jurisdication. The civil magistrate's calling is the maintenance of peace and order in society and the punishing of those specific acts that threaten it."
Except that 2k proponents are inconsistent on this score. On the one hand they invoke Rom 13 to forbid civil disobedience or revolution. On the other hand, they say the civil magistrate has no right to "meddle" in religious affairs. Yet the Roman Emperor certainly meddled in religious affairs. Indeed, the Roman Emperor was the Pontifex Maximus. And you have the whole business of the imperial cult.
So you assert that things were better, but I provided evidence that they were not, at least not for whole class of people. And your response is that things were better because men had Sunday off?
Yes, I'm happy to appeal to the light of nature. I'm quite sure it doesn't reveal the Christian sabbath.
David R.: Are you trying to suggest that American slaves were worse off because of the blue laws? or simply that American slavery was worse than what exists now? If the latter, isn't that a red herring?
The light of nature teaches that there is a God who created all things and rested, that there is a seven day week, and that periodic rest from work is necessary. Maybe it doesn't teach the Christian sabbath with all the detail and explicitness of the stone tablets, but it certainly does teach it. Scripture provides more detail more explicitly, but not a different law.
c) Tfan's question was: "How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" (by the civil magistrate) in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel?" Certainly "following our religion" entails professing faith in Christ. So I don't see how my response is a strawman.
d) Sorry, I'm afraid I don't see the inconsistency.
Well, "following our religion" was in quotation marks. Apparently demanding that people not openly blaspheme or engage in unnecessary labor on the sabbath is forcing them to "follow our religion." If so, then it does not entail professing faith in Christ. If you mean "professing faith in Christ" by "following our religion," then that is where your straw man was committed.
How is that a red herring? You stated that "There was greater peace and order back when the American society did enforce sabbath observance." My observation to the effect that American slavery was widespread and legal back then seems to the point.
I am more than happy for the civil magistrate to enforce whatever the light of nature teaches about the Christian sabbath.
I took the words at face value, but I'm glad you don't think magistrates should coerce professions of faith. Though if his jurisdication does extend to the first table, he would need to enforce a whole lot more than simply not publicly blaspheming and taking it easy on the sabbath.
It's a red herring because the sabbath observances were beneficial in states that had blue laws and no slavery, as well as before the widespread adoption of slavery, and after the abolition of slavery. In fact, whatever you think of American slavery, it is a separate issue (nearly entirely) from the question of the effect of sabbath observances.
"I am more than happy for the civil magistrate to enforce whatever the light of nature teaches about the Christian sabbath."
Seeing that the light of nature teaches the 4th commandment (albeit not as clearly as Scripture does), why not simply say that you are happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the 4th commandment? What good reason could there be for not utilizing the more clear revelation of Scripture on that matter?
David R.:
I'm not sure you've properly considered what the civil magistrate would need to enforce. Folks like Hart are constantly throwing out propaganda to the effect that a Christian nation would have to exile all unbelievers in order to enforce the first table. That, however, does not follow.
But yes - certain other things, like open idolatry, proseltyzing for false religions, and so forth would be on the list of forbidden things.
-TurretinFan
Presumably you would have the civil magistrate enforce after the example of godly Israelite kings, right? This would have to be the case since there is absolutely no New Testament template whatsoever for civil enforcement of religion.
You must have not read the gospels closely, brother. Did you not read where Jesus told his apostles that the Sanhedrin sits in the seat of Moses? Or perhaps you were simply unaware that the Sanhedrin was the civil magistrate in Judea, under the authority of the Romans.
Even better than the moral example of the godly kings and of the godly judges is the actual laws that were given to Moses. In some cases it is better to refer to them, because they can provide better clarity and a standard by which we can judge the actions of the kings.
But you don't seem to have answered my question.
I'm still waiting for your demonstration that "There was greater peace and order back when the American society did enforce sabbath observance."
"... why not simply say that you are happy for the civil magistrate to enforce the 4th commandment?"
Because that might not sufficiently guard against the misguided notion that he is to enforce the New Covenant sabbath on those who are not parties to that covenant.
David R. I already provided several examples. In order to satisfy your request, please tell me how you measure peace and order, so I can find you the right kind of evidence to please you.
Of course, the sabbath is not a distinctively new covenant ordinance. It's a creation ordinance. It's part of the moral law. It's not like the sacraments, except that like them it points to something better.
To which we may add: and where is the justification for the claim that it would be a misguided notion to enforce such? and if the laws are the same, how does not saying you are happy about the civil magistrate enforcing the fourth commandment guard anything better than any other mode of expression?
Appealing to the Sanhedrin is no more legitimate than appealing to the godly Israelite kings. You're forced to appeal to models drawn from Old Testament religion (yes, the Sanhedrin is OT) because there is no biblical template for civil enforcement of religion under the New Covenant.
To which question do you refer?
It's a little hard for me to stomach that Jesus own teachings to the disciples are not "new covenant" teachings or that it is not "legitimate" to appeal to them, even if I were willing to grant your dispensational (certainly not Reformed) premise that I need a distinctively New Testament template.
But please provide the justification for your premise that the old testament templates are illegitimate.
I've scrolled up and down the thread several times and I believe the only example you've provided in support of your assertion is that people didn't have to work on Sunday. If that's all ya got, then forgive me if I'm not persuaded. But I'm fairly sure we measure peace and order by roughly the same criteria.
I agree with your second paragraph.
In the case of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, the nation and the church were one and the same entity. Israelite magistrates and citizens were by definition part of the covenant people. Whereas, under the New Covenant, prior to the return of Christ, the church has not yet entered into its eternal inheritance and its members inhabit a common realm together with non-covenant members. The church is a distinct entity from the state, and neither magistrates nor citizens are necessarily members of the covenant people. That's what makes the difference, and that is not a dispensationalist hermeneutic so far as I know.
a) But the laws of the nation of Israel also applied to resident aliens. So, in fact the scope of the civil authority was not the same.
b) Moreover the civil magistrate, the king, was the head of the state, but not of the church. He could not even offer offerings or burn incense, as one presumptuous king learned. In fact, there was a two kingdoms division between the two (more like Geneva than Escondido, but two kingdoms nevertheless).
c) Even I were mistaken about a & b, though I am confident I am not, it still wouldn't follow that just because the church is distinct from the civil magistrate today, that therefore the principles of equity that underlaid the economy of Moses are no long equitable. In other words, to the extent that those laws were good laws, any change in the relation of church and state may be a difference that doesn't matter. Equity didn't change - the moral law didn't change. If equity and the moral law were embodied in the laws of Israel, then that general equity still applies today.
David R,
Regarding TF's c below, let me just add that God gave moral and religious laws to one body who were a religious people and civil government; those laws were to reflect God's character, wisdom and justice in a fallen world. You would find those civil laws obsolete in their general equity with respect to modern government because the government to which they were originally issued has expired. Why isn't that arbitrary since all nations are accountable to be disciples of King Jesus? In other words, if a nation is to follow Jesus without remainder, wouldn't their duty encompass their political life too?
Not only does your position seem arbitrary to me but also inconsistent, for if a nation wants to please God then why wouldn't it be responsible to consult those OT laws no less than an individual under the newer economy would be expected to follow the OT moral code in his religious life? One could just as easily say that the moral law was given to the nation of Israel, so if you wish to argue abrogation of the civil code based upon the expiration of the nation, then why not apply such logic to the moral code, which was also given to that nation? In your response, please defend the premise upon which your conclusion will rest. That's critical to avoid question begging.
Finally, it is simply hazardous to operate under a principle that requires God to repeat himself if he is to be obeyed perpetually. If that were the case, the Supper would only apply to the Twelve and the expired church at Corinth.
I won't bother to preempt all other things you might say.
a) The laws applied to resident aliens too because the land was uniquely holy.
b) The state and the church were one and the same, though of course the offices of king and priest were not.
c) Our disagreement is not about the principles of equity underlying the Mosaic economy.
David R.: As to (a) is it your contention that the wilderness was also holy? The law was given in the wilderness, and it was enforced in the wilderness (Numbers 15:32-36).
As to (b), what's your evidence that the church and the state were the same, given that the "offices" were not the same and given that there were resident aliens within the land who were under the state but not within the visible covenant?
As to (c), if you really agree with me about the principles of equity underlying the Mosaic economy, then you ought to affirm that the civil magistrate should enforce the 2nd, 3rd and 4th commandments as to outward, obvious infractions. I think that it is indeed an area of our disagreement, brother.
Natamllc,
What characterizes dispensationalism is a woodenly literal reading of Old Testament prophesy and the positing of a radical distinction between the OT people of God and NT people of God. But classical covenant theology doesn't deny legitimate discontinuities between the OT and the NT. The question is where precisely those discontinuities lie. I don't think it is helpful to level the "dispensationalist" accusation at those who disagree with you on this. None of us here are dispies. Rather the disagreement here is between postmils and amils. Postmils (some of them, including apparently you) see God's kingdom taking on geo-political dimensions prior to the eschaton. Amils (such as I), on the other hand, don't.
a) Resident aliens were apparently subject to (some of?) the stipulations and sanctions of the Covenant. Such is not the case under the New Covenant economy.
b) See my response to #a.
c) Yes, our disagreement is over what in the Mosaic civil code constitutes general equity as opposed to typological intrusion.
David R.
a) You seem to be confusing law and grace. Resident aliens were under law, not grace. The same is the case in the New Testament economy.
c) Actually, we first disagree about whether "typological intrusion" is even a valid category.
It seems to me that the confusion here is not between law and grace, but between the moral law and the Mosaic civil code.
Are you saying that Mosaic civil code was a covenant of grace?
No.
So, then we're back to my point about law vs. grace.
I'm not grasping your point. If you're simply observing that all men are subject to God's law, that of course is not where our disagreement lies.
David R.:
You wrote: "Resident aliens were apparently subject to (some of?) the stipulations and sanctions of the Covenant. Such is not the case under the New Covenant economy."
I objected that this represents a conflation of law and grace. The aliens were under law, the Israelites were under grace. That's the same in the New Covenant economy: Christians are under grace, all are under law. The parallel suggests continuity, not discontinuity.
Yes, it does suggest continuity. Here's some additional continuity: The Law of Moses applies to those who are subject to the Mosaic Covenant; not those who are not. The Law of Christ applies to those who are in Christ; not those who are not.
But, in fact, the law of Moses applied also to those who were not within the Mosaic Covenant. The civil laws applied both to circumcised and uncircumcised alike. So, we're back to continuity.
But wouldn't that be discontinuity (since the Law of Christ does not apply to those who are not in Christ)?
Well, maybe we are speaking past each other. What is "the Law of Christ" in your view?
David,
thanks for your response.
"... I don't think it is helpful to level the "dispensationalist" accusation at those who disagree with you on this....". Pardon me if my question felt like leveling an accusation at you! Please accept my apologies for that. That was my question. And if by asking it you felt I was accusing you of being a dispensationalist, please forgive me?
David,
you implied: "... Postmils (some of them, including apparently you) see God's kingdom taking on geo-political dimensions prior to the eschaton. ..."
Hmmmmm, well, no, I do not consider myself post mil.
What I consider myself is a very ignorant disciple of Christ learning a lot when I come in here and learn things from doing so.
I guess it would now be fair to say that your rendering of those verses posited by me in my inquiry of you leads you to see someone other than Christ in charge of all geo-political dimensions prior to the eschaton?
Would that be a fair assumption on my part and fairer a question?
David,
I suppose one can conclude that the meat inside of the nut being cracked in here goes in line with this assertion made:
"... But classical covenant theology doesn't deny legitimate discontinuities between the OT and the NT".
How so in your view, if I might take the inquiry further?
I would chime in here, TFan, and add that Ruth, in my view is an excellent example of that point you are making!
Once she married into the gracious Family of God, how amazingly gracious that is is amazing in and of itself, we have the developing story of the progeny of Christ manifested!
The moral law in its New Covenant expression.
Oh well, then in that case I would not agree with you that the moral law (in whatever expression) is not universally binding. It is.
We agree that the moral law is universally binding. However, you apparently hold that the law in its third use, which under the New Covenant includes Lord's Day observance, applies to the unregenerate. I'm trying to argue that it doesn't.
If you are using the usual Reformed order, the third use of the law is the use for the edification of believers. The first use is to lead us to the gospel. The second use is the civil use, namely to restrain evil. That's the use we should be talking about here, not the third use. All three uses were the same under both covenants, and consequently again argue for continuity.
I guess we're back to square one then, since I know of no biblical evidence that Lord's Day observance, which by its nature can only belong to the third use, is to be enforced on non-church members.
Natamllc,
No problem. But I wonder what it was I said that caused you to think I might be a dispensationalist. I had merely pointed out that in the case of OT Israel, church and state were one, whereas under the New Covenant, they're not.
Reformed Apologist, I think the link I included in my original comment largely answers your questions.
"I guess we're back to square one then, since I know of no biblical evidence that Lord's Day observance, which by its nature can only belong to the third use, is to be enforced on non-church members."
That's an interesting claim. On its face it also belongs to the first and second use. The law points us to our creator and redeemer, and the law restrains those who would profane the day that belongs to the Lord. Why do you think otherwise?
Hi David. I would disagree with the way you decribed the dispensationalist reading of Scripture . Both sides agree with the literal grammatical method of interpretation. The area of issue is over the application of that through out Scripture. But I feel this is an irrelevent point for the topic here. The real contrast in this topic is Continuity & Discontinutity and neither will claim it is total within their system as well as variations within each one. This issue goes well beyond the debated issues of Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology on ecclesiology and eschatology. ( though there can be some overlaping issues that need not be applied directly ) . I am the resident dispensationalist here so you stand corrected. lol I do often take part of the discussions in the comments sections on this blog. I have felt welcomed here by TF. :) I basically limit myself to areas of agreement with him. I don't go around pushing my dispensationalism around here since this is his blog and not mine. I have just been sitting back watching what is going on in the comments section here. :) While dispensationalist do fall within the discontinutity they are not the only ways but it also includes in general Lutherans and some Reformed scholars such as Dr. Douglas Moo. So I believe you are right on pointing out the " dispensationalist accusation " since the discontinutity perspective is more broad than dispensationalism.
The Lord's day is sunday. Church service for that day is after the pattern based on the book of Acts as taking place 1st day of the week which is sunday. ( see Acts 20:7 ) While I personally do not hold to a " christian sabbath " but still the christian church did fellowship on the Lord's day. I believe we are free to fellowship on any days though. I follow Paul's example on this point in Romans 14:1-12 as far as that is concerned. Since you are talking about the Lord's day relating to non-christians you should make use of the book of Acts and the epsitles on this to see who took part of it and who did not for support of your arguments. This would better serve this discussion and help make your point.
No, I don't see how it can belong to the first or second use. While the fourth commandment is universally binding, the command to observe the Lord's Day is given only to the New Covenant saints. Yes, unregenerate masters should be restrained from working their slaves to death, but it would be a confused civil magistrate who thinks that profanation of the Lord's Day can be restrained in the civil realm via the threat of (capital!) punishment. Ironically, that would be a profanation of the Lord's Day.
Hi ChaferDTS,
No problem, I'm happy to be corrected. Though I never intended to imply that we all don't subscribe to the grammatical-historical method. I guess we agree on how to figure out what the text says; we just disagree on how to figure out what it means. I described the dispensational hermeneutic as "literalistic" (rather than literal) because in my view, there is an inadequate recognition of the typological features of the OT kingdom and OT prophecy. I'll admit that I was a militant dispensationalist for at least a decade, but that changed through an encounter with Calvin's Institutes. (It took Calvin to finally trump Ryrie and Fruchtenbaum.) I agree with you of course that the issue here is continuity vs. discontinuity. BTW, Moo is not Reformed as far as I know; he refers to his view as a "modified Lutheran" view—I suppose "modified" due to his emphasis on redemptive-historical features in his law/gospel hermeneutic. Thanks for the input!
ChaferDTS,
I know of some dispensationalists who argue against the classic Protestant view of Revelation 1:10; glad to know you're not one them. I'm sure Tfan realizes there's no NT evidence of non-Christians gathering on the Lord's Day or magistrates requiring them to do so. But as you can see, his argument is built on inferences from the Creation Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. Some of those inferences are valid, and others ... well, I don't quite see it. I do think his main problem is his denial that there is a typological intrusion of eschatological judgment at work in the Mosaic Covenant. I think if he could be brought to see that, he would eventually have to acknowledge that stoning blasphemers and Sabbath breakers doesn't directly carry over from the Israelite theocracy, and that (though he doesn't like to hear it) the command to "purge the evil from among you" is now carried out exclusively via excommunication (1 Cor 5:13).
David,
in response to TFan, below, after pondering what you were getting at, the thought occurred to me that you might have been or were a dispensationalist.
Here's your quote republished so you don't have to go looking for it:::>
"In the case of Israel under the Mosaic Covenant, the nation and the church were one and the same entity. Israelite magistrates and citizens were by definition part of the covenant people. Whereas, under the New Covenant, prior to the return of Christ, the church has not yet entered into its eternal inheritance and its members inhabit a common realm together with non-covenant members. The church is a distinct entity from the state, and neither magistrates nor citizens are necessarily members of the covenant people. That's what makes the difference, and that is not a dispensationalist hermeneutic so far as I know."
I see in response to Chafer, the resident dispensationalist, you dabbled in it.
Let me ask a straightforward question.
With regard to the Mosaic Covenant, what was her purpose seeing we have the covenant of works under Adam and the covenant of Grace thereafter the fall? What do you believe God's intent is and was in such a burden, then, to be placed on natural Israel through that great Prophet, Moses?
"I'm sure Tfan realizes there's no NT evidence of non-Christians gathering on the Lord's Day or magistrates requiring them to do so."
And, of course, even the OT pattern does not include requiring non-Christians to gather on the 1/7 day. While some Christian governments may have proposed such a requirement (Mass. colony for example), that is not something I do or would argue for. So this is something of a straw man, my friend.
"No, I don't see how it can belong to the first or second use."
Yikes! I wonder if folks like DGH and DVD agree with you. It would interesting to see an explicit denial of the 1st and 2nd uses of the 4th commandment from them.
"While the fourth commandment is universally binding, the command to observe the Lord's Day is given only to the New Covenant saints."
That is a strange dichotomy.
"Yes, unregenerate masters should be restrained from working their slaves to death, but it would be a confused civil magistrate who thinks that profanation of the Lord's Day can be restrained in the civil realm via the threat of (capital!) punishment. Ironically, that would be a profanation of the Lord's Day."
Why would it be confused? If men rest from the labor on 1 day in 7, on its face that is compliance, not profanation, even if it is improperly motivated and even if the rest is squandered.
-TurretinFan
Okay. Help me understand something else if you don't mind: Why doesn't the general equity of the OT law require the people of God (rather than the civil magistrate) to execute the capital penalty against the sabbath breaker (since that's the OT pattern)?
I never denied that the 4th commandment has a 1st and 2nd use.
"That is a strange dichotomy."
I understand why you would think so.
"If men rest from the labor on 1 day in 7, on its face that is compliance, not profanation ..."
Like I said, I'm all in favor of men resting from their labor on one day in seven.
Natamllc,
It's a good question (though I'm not sure how your question is motivated by what I said, so I'm not sure what sort of answer you're looking for). I will attempt to briefly give my take....
I think in general, when we speak of the covenants of works and grace, we're highlighting the ordo salutis, that is, the transition from wrath to grace in the lives of individuals as redemption is applied to them by the work of God's Spirit. By contrast, when we speak of the Mosaic and New Covenants, we're highlighting the historia salutis, that is, the transition from wrath to grace in history through Christ's accomplishment of redemption and subsequent exaltation.
That's why, even though the covenant of grace is substantially identical in all ages, the Mosaic Covenant possesses features that draw attention to the broken covenant of works, namely: bondage under the law, vivid displays of God's wrath and judgment, (dare I say) severe penalties for blasphemy and sabbath breaking, etc. Whereas the New Covenant is characterized by freedom, grace, the enabling power of the Spirit, etc.
So in terms of the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant, Paul tells us that it was our tutor (or slave master or pedagogue) until the coming of Christ, that is, for the church underage (i.e., prior to the accomplishment of redemption) it served to expose sin, reveal God's wrath, point to Christ, and typologically point to the coming of Christ, the coming of God's kingdom, and the believer's pilgrimage to the heavenly inheritance.
Along those lines, we can point out things like: The land of Canaan typified heaven, the extermination of the Canaanites typified final judgment, the levitical apparatus typified Christ's priesthood and sacrifice, the pilgrim festivals, the wilderness wandering and the exile typified the believer's pilgrimage, etc. A whole lot more can be said, and certainly what I've said can be said a whole lot better. But that's my attempt at briefly answering your question. Probably you knew all this, but hope it helps....
And of course, lest anyone be surprised that I left this out: The Mosaic economy republished the covenant of works. ;)
Why do you suppose that Sunday is the Sabbath?
The Sabbath is clearly not part of the moral law. It was given as a special sign of the covenant God made with Israel (Ex 31:12-13). The law was not to be enforced on those traveling through Israel, but only on those residing within the city gates. Jesus clearly compared breaking the Sabbath to breaking other parts of the ceremonial law (Mt 12,1-12; Mk 2:23-28). In the same texts Jesus shows that life is more important than keeping the Sabbath which was not true of any other moral law. Daniel and his friends in Babylon refused to bow down to other God's, but nothing is mentioned about them refusing to work on a Sabbath.
TurretinFan,
What do you think of this comment by OPC Pastor Todd Bordrow, post 105:
“Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions, that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world. ”
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/qs-radical-two-kingdom-ers-68417/index3.html
a) If it is really wrong in itself, why was it not wrong for Old Testament Israel?
It was not wrong at all for OTI; it was mandated; it is holy, righteous & good. Today, it is wrong for the USA. We are a constitutional democracy, not a theocracy. Our founding docs are not the Pentateuch but the Constitution, etc.
b) If as to (a) one appeals to an "intrusion ethic" that governed Israel, where does Scripture teach this?
Call it what you will, it was an ethic for ethnic Israel that rules Christ's church, not this world. The old is gone; the new has come. Hello: Hebrews?
c) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" (by the civil magistrate) in conflict with our calling to reach sinners with the gospel?
This isn't evident? Oh dear. There is no NT mandate (example or command) to the magistrate to punish sinners for religious infractions of OT ceremonial law. Christ calls his people to evangelism, not extermination.
d) How is punishing sinners for not "following our religion" as to honoring God's name, title, attributes, ordinances, words and works in conflict with such a calling but punishing them for not "following our religion" as to honoring father and mother, not killing, not stealing, and not committing adultery not in conflict?
The magistrate punishes according to the laws of our nation. It is generally agreed that murder & theft are no-nos. Considerably less agreement over parental dishonor and adultery. But except for some ultra-orthodox Jews, no one's religion is old covenant law.
Post a Comment