The Magisterium of the Churches of Christ - Tripartite Dispensationalism
Hello all:
In my last post in this series, I spent a few moments criticizing our hermeneutical lenses of Command, Example and Necessary Inference. In this post, I want to focus on the theological system that we use in examining scripture and salvation history as a whole.
The magisterium, and to some extent, the Restoration Movement in general, holds to a three part, or Tripartite, Dispensationalism. This is ironic because we in Churches of Christ enjoy criticizing “dispensationalists” all the time, especially when it comes to talking about eschatology. I think that this is in part because we do not recognize that we are, in fact, dispensationalists ourselves, though of a different strain than the dispensational pre-millenialists we so often spar with.
Dispensationalism generally serves to separate periods of time into categories, and these categories describe how God dealt with his people during those times. For a full treatment of Dispensationalism in general, you can check out the Wikipedia Article on Dispensationalism.
Tripartite Dispensationalism divides the history of redemption into three parts: The Patriarchal Dispensation, the Jewish Dispensation, and the Christian Dispensation. We see a difference in how God dealt with the patriarchs versus the Nation of Israel, and we see a difference in how God dealt with Israel versus the Church. This is biblical fact. The problem comes when we see no connection between the differences, or dispensations, and declare that nothing God has said or done during the prior dispensations, nor anything that occurred in the prior dispensations, applies to us today.
This idea of disconnected dispensational time periods is most clearly seen in our view of the Old Testament as a whole. The magisterium holds that nothing in the Old Testament applies to us, because the Old Testament describes the Jewish and Patriarchal dispensations. For example, then, according to the Magisterium, the fact that we can read about Instrumental Music being used in the Old Testament to worship God does not mean that we can use it today.
A more obvious problem comes though, when we study the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, and the teachings of Jesus. Tripartite Dispensationalism claims that the Christian Dispensation started at Pentecost. What does this mean, then? It means that Jesus’ teachings are lumped in with the Old Testament, were only for first century Jews, and that his teachings have no bearing on our conduct and lives as Christians.
It is absurd for us to think that God came down as a man into time, lived life as a human for 33 years, then died on a cross for us, but to also think that God doesn’t want us to take note of how he lived his life on Earth, or what he taught his disciples during that time. Such a claim makes a mockery out of Jesus’ life; a pure, holy, undefiled, perfect life, that he gave up in order to give us eternal life.
Furthermore, such a view of the Old Testament is in sharp contrast with Paul’s words to Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work. Here, Paul is refering to the Jewish scriptures, not the “Christian” scriptures which haven’t yet been compiled into the Bible at the time of his writings.
Our Tripartite Dispensationalism is more damaging than pre-millenial dispensationalism. The premillenialists don’t deny the Old Testament its significance. We must find a more biblical way of talking and thinking about the History of Salvation. Removing our anti Old Testament bias isn’t enough; we must jettison our Tripartite Dispensationlism and adopt a biblical view. What that view might entail will be the subject of a future post.
-Clarke
============================
Thank you to Bobby Valentine for writing about the Old Testament and our Tripartite Dispensationalism, I was looking for sources and he provided a great one at just the right time.
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI
March 2nd, 2008 at 7:04
i’m not meaning to say you’re wrong, i really haven’t given different theologies regarding a covenant a fair hearing. but neither does it seem that you’ve given a fair hearing to the “magisterium’s” view either. Is it really as flat and un-nuanced as you present? i certainly grew up hearing far more detail and explanation than you’ve written here. Details like: continuity between covenants does allow us to jump around and use other covenants to understand our own, or even though Acts 2 was an official “shift,” nevertheless Jesus did come to introduce that shift in His life and teaching (though personally, i do think the sermon on the mount is not NT-introduction, but rather OT exegesis). And i really don’t see how this tripartite view *necessarily* implies that God doesn’t want us to take note of how Christ lived His life on earth. i’ve never heard that out of any preacher’s mouth growing up even when they were talking about this topic.
like i said, maybe the “magisterium” is wrong. but do you think you could cite some sources and interact with some authors that have meted this out at least a little more than you represent them to have done?
please don’t read me wrong, i’m not even meaning to disagree with you. i’m just a little surprised because a lot of your other blogs are so much more academically-cautious than this one. it’s one of the reasons i came to your blog. when i subscribed to yours i had just left Buff the Reformer’s blog. i had finally just given up on the usefulness of his writings. i had always been sympathetic to a lot of Buff’s views, but he habitually set the bar incredibly high for what his opponents needed to prove, and barely set his own bar as high as his ankle regarding his own research, justifications, and demonstration. i called him on it more than once, and his standard reply was something akin to “you just must be one of the magisterium.”
i became interested in your blog because it’s evident almost immediately that you’re far more intellectually honest and self-aware than Buff will ever be. But i’m sad to say, i didn’t really see those good qualities in this post.
March 2nd, 2008 at 11:05
There were covenants prior to Abraham (Gen 9 for example). And there was apparently some sort of covenant involving sacrifices prior to the flood (note Cain and Abel).
Jesus used pre-patriarchal law to correct the Pharisees on the subject of divorce (Matt 19:3-9). It seems that the standards established at creation were normative and useful for clarifying the Mosaic law. Similarly, Paul used the laws established at the fall from Eden to clarify and support the teaching on the role of women (1 Tim 2:11-15) So those very early principles were useful in clarifying and supporting even Christian doctrine.
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:08
Hi guys,
This will be a very unuanced critique and explanation, but the danger I see in both the dispensational and covenental hermeneutic is that they by default make periods of time or temporal promises the starting point instead of keeping Christ at the center. When we start with “the Scriptures that testify about me,” I think it brings the covenants more clearly into focus. All the promises in all the periods of time are made for one reason; to prepare and give people the message of salvation through Christ.
Blessings in Christ,
Adam
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:41
Hi Clarke.
Good posts here addressing the Magisterium, CENI and Dispensationalism. It has been my experience that the most common explanation for not viewing the OT as authoritative is a skewed understanding of Colossians 2:14. The accepted position is that this refers to the entire OT: its authority was taken away by Jesus’ death. Rather, I think this speaks to the LAW itself; i.e. the 600 or so regulations as contained in Leviticus and Deuteronomy; i.e. sacrifices, food regulations, etc. Now, does this mean that those are no longer useful for believers today? My answer would be NO. Especially in light of Paul’s writings. Essentially, we are not longer bound by all the rules and regulations of the LAW but they still serve as tool giving us an insight in the heart and mind of God.
Anyways, just my thoughts.
Ray
March 4th, 2008 at 11:47
There are many problems with dispensationalism itself. While you can make broad-stroke generalities in regard to dispensations you still have to deal with Melchizadek, Agabus, Apostles that are other than the 13 we typically think of. You also have God dealing direct with Peter in the NT. I have to ask,what drives us to want to “dispensate”in the first place? Why can’t we be satisfied with this simply being the story of God? Do we cut ourselves off from God by deciding beforehand what he can and cannot do in our own “dispensation”? Maybe I’m just being naive.
March 5th, 2008 at 21:48
Clarke,
Good stuff here. Glad you found my post helpful. But it looks like you would have done just fine without mine. Keep up the good work.
Seeking Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
March 7th, 2008 at 15:40
Clarke, calm down and think about your mistake here. First, there was no covenant. Then there was the Old Covenant. Then Jesus died and nailed the Old Covenant to the cross, and slew it (Eph 2:15-16, slew the enmity, i.e. the law contained in ordinances) thereby abolishing it (2 Cor 3:13), and its corpse “decayeth” and is ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13). And he established the New Covenant in its place (Heb 9:16-17) by his death. It makes no sense to assert that any of the dead old covenant applies today, seeing it is dead, unless something from that dead covenant was specifically carried over into the New Testament (as clearly 9 of the 10 commandments were, and as clearly the apostles carry over the OT definitions of idolatry and immorality in Acts 15). But we can’t, as you suggest, just go back and willy-nilly pick out any part of the OT we want and say it applies today. It only applies when something has been carried over into the NT specifically.
Now, you say “Our Tripartite Dispensationalism is more damaging than pre-millenial dispensationalism. The premillenialists don’t deny the Old Testament its significance.” Not so, for we do not deny the Old Covenant its proper place and significance. It is there to teach us about the character of God and to give us examples of how God deals with man (think Nadab and Abihu, the story you hate) but its purpose is not to establish any law or practice for us. The danger of the premillenialists is that their theory asserts that Jesus is coming back to rebuild the Jewish temple and reinstitute the animals sacrifices!!!! The danger of premillenialism is exactly what you are falling into, namely forgetting that Jesus died to kill the Old Testament off so that he could establish a New Testament. You, just like the premillenialists are trying to bring the Law of Moses back from the dead, and the result is an undoing of Christ’s work on the cross!
March 7th, 2008 at 15:47
I posted the above post too quickly, being a knee jerk reaction to this topic based on some things I have read by others on it. I agree with what I say in the preceding post, but it doesn’t highlight our substantial agreement on the following point, which I now want to do!
You said “It is absurd for us to think that God came down as a man into time, lived life as a human for 33 years, then died on a cross for us, but to also think that God doesn’t want us to take note of how he lived his life on Earth, or what he taught his disciples during that time.”
Now, with this I agree wholeheartedly, and say AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN. What Jesus taught while on this earth was meant for us, not for the Jews. It was properly New Testament teaching, not Old Testament teaching. This is made obvious in the sermon on the mount, when he says “you have heard…but I say to you…” where he contrasts the Law with his NEW doctrine. Those who assert that the teachings of the sermon on the mount were for the OT have lost their minds. BUT, and I will emphasize this, BUT, this does not justify the overall point of your article, the basic denial that the New Testament is really a New Testament! The FACT that the church started at Pentecost does not at all conflict with the FACT that Jesus was teaching the apostles and disciples the doctrines of the church BEFORE he established the church.
March 7th, 2008 at 16:33
BTW, just in case you are curious of Campbell’s take of this. This is from his sermon on the Law.
“But, query,–Is the law of Moses a rule of life to Christians? An advocate of the popular doctrine replies, ‘Not all of it.’ Query again–What part of it? ‘The ten commandments.’ Are these a rule of life to Christians? ‘Yes.’ Should not, then, Christians sanctify the seventh day? ‘No.’ Why so? ‘Because Christ has not enjoined it.’ Oh! then, the law or ten commandments is not a rule of life to Christians any further than it is enjoined by Christ; so that reading the precepts in Moses’ words, or hearing him utter them, does not oblige us to observe them: it is only what Christ says we must observe. So that an advocate for the popular doctrine, when closely pressed, cannot maintain his ground.”
This is the absurdity of the position being proposed in this blog. If we just say “some of the OT still applies” then every man becomes his own king and established his own law. But when we understand that only the parts of the OT that Christ has specifically carried over apply today, then we recognize the Lordship of Christ, that HE is King and He Alone. And what can be meant by Christ enjoining a commandment, unless it has reference either to the apostles enjoining it in their epistles or to Christ enjoining it in his sermons such as the sermon on the mount? Surely, Campbell means both, and is right on both counts….even as much as I don’t like the man. Alan is wrong in asserting that the sermon on the mount was meant for the Jews, and Clarke is wrong in (following the Calvinists in) asserting that the New Testament is not really a New Testament but that the Old Testament and New Testament are all the same and so also the pre-Old Testament period. The truth is in the middle (as it usually is) that the sermon on the mount is for the New Testament, that Christ delivered it prior to establishing the New Testament by his death in preparation for the New Testament, and that only those parts of the Law of Moses that are reiterated in the NT apply today. This, I will say is the “magesterial” view, and what was presented in the OP has no “magesterial” quality to it whatsoever but is simply the raving doctrine of madmen.
March 7th, 2008 at 20:08
Warning: This is a long comment.
Guy:
Thanks for your comments. You covered several things in your comment, and I’ll try and respond to all of it, hopefully I don’t miss anything.
Personally speaking, I have given the Magisterium a fair hearing, although I don’t know that I’ve done that publicly on the blog itself. I was taught all of our conservative doctrine as a child; my mother went to Harding and her father was a very conservative elder, my father went to Columbia Christian…they are both fairly conservative. During my childhood we were members of both mainline congregations and “anti” congregations, and our years at the “anti” congregations were spent week after week listening to sermons on doctrine. I believed it all, understood and embraced the logic, and could wage a decent war on my “denominational” friends. It has only been within the last two or three years that I have begun to seriously question our doctrine, as I study more and more and think more critically about our teachings.
Unfortunately, I cannot say, as you can, that I heard plenty of detail and nuanced arguments. Nor can I now. While I don’t hear those arguments, for the most part, where I am a member now, the arguments I read in our conservative journals often aren’t nuanced at all. They state their point of view and take the hammer to everyone who disagrees with them. I do not wish to do that myself, and I appreciate you commenting that you feel that I am not that way, at least usually!
I have to agree with you that I believe the Sermon on the Mount is Old Testament exegesis as well.
When I have time, I will attempt to site some sources and interact with some authors. One of the reasons I have not done so in this post is that there has been little to nothing written on our dispensationalism. Alexander Campbell probably covers it more in his sermon on the law than anyone else has. According to Bobby Valentine, the Jule Miller filmstrips are rife with it, but I’ve never seen them; our church has old copies of them downstairs, I’ll have to take a look! The only two substantial writings I’ve seen even mentioning our dispensationalism have been from Bobby Valentine and Tom Olbricht, and both were talking about our hermeneutics in general and not specifically about our dispensationalism. The only other sources I’ve seen are teaching it, and all they do is mention that there are three dispensations, Patriarchial, Jewish, and Christian. I’ll do some more digging and see what I can find.
Alan:
I agree with you 100%. Soon, I will post a study that I have been working on concerning the Priesthood. The order of the world at creation is important to my study, and, I believe, to the study of all Christian doctrine.
Adam:
I agree that this is a problem. We must look at the covenants truly as preparation for Jesus.
Raymond:
I completely agree. My understanding of the “law” is that it is the Levitical and Deuteronomic laws that no longer apply to us today. This doesn’t mean that the entire Old Testament goes out the window.
Joel:
Absolutely! A great question, too. Maybe the answer is that we desire too much to have a complete and full understanding of all spiritual things. We just can’t accept any mystery. A system helps us to do that.
Bobby:
Thanks for your kind words.
Josh:
I will deal with all of your comments in a post, probably the next one.
-Clarke
March 7th, 2008 at 20:23
“I have to agree with you that I believe the Sermon on the Mount is Old Testament exegesis as well.” (Clarke)
WHAT?!!?!?!?! I thought you were decrying dispensationalism! Apparently you have that problem where you say the opposite of what you actually mean. You said “It is absurd for us to think that God came down as a man into time, lived life as a human for 33 years, then died on a cross for us, but to also think that God doesn’t want us to take note of…what he taught his disciples during that time.” In other words, you said that the sermon on the mount is not Old Testament exegesis. But now John Kerry is reporting for flip-flopping duty!
March 8th, 2008 at 0:41
Josh:
That is not what I was saying. I said exactly what I meant. You either do not understand the hermenutical framework that I am speaking from, or you do and are attacking me with “Spiritual Sword” and “Firm Foundation” style word twisting. For now, I will assume that you don’t understand my hermenutical framework.
I am, in fact, denouncing our dispensationalism, and I did say what I actually mean.
What you don’t understand, and what you attack, is how I can see the Sermon on the Mount as Old Testament exegesis, but at the same time, how I can see the Sermon on the Mount also apply to us today. What does this mean?
It means that in this instance, I disagree with my beloved Alexander Campbell. It means that the Sermon on the Mount is an exegesis of the Old Testament. It means that truly, the 10 commandments do apply to us today. Yes, I do mean all ten; not nine.
I would challange you to look at your theology, and then look at the underlying assumptions behind it. What you will find is not biblical, but instead extra-biblical stories that are told to fill in the gaps.
You can take the red pill and follow the rabbit down the hole, or you can take the blue pill, and the story ends. Your choice.
-Clarke
March 8th, 2008 at 9:35
Well, I can assure you that I’ve never heard of “Spiritual Sword” and although I may have heard the name “Firm Foundation” before (not too sure) I’ve never seen it or read it. But yes, I suppose I misunderstood you. Ok, so you apparently were saying that the sermon of the mount is OT and yet still applies because whatever parts of the OT you want to apply applies. That is, my friend, a position that is very easy to misunderstand since it is chaos an anarchy by its very definition. But since this is your position and you wish to be understood, please explain this for me my dear Clarke: When Jesus says in the sermon on the mount “You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to not to resist…” is that just exegesis of the Old Testament phrase “an eye for an eye”? Jesus isn’t saying, Oh when the OT said an eye for an eye, limb for limb, etc. it was big joke, what God really meant was be a pacifist. Or again, and here Jesus doesn’t actually quote any OT passage but the general tenor of the OT histories, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” Yes, no passage says that exact phrase in the OT, but is this not what all the great men did? Did not David constantly pray (read the Psalms) for the deaths of his enemies and their destruction and that God would grant him the ability to crush them all and make the streets run red with their blood? Yes he did. And Jesus responds to that “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;”–If it is “Old Testament exegesis” in any sense then it is exegesis showing that the morality of the Old Testament is too low for Jesus and that he requires more morality out of us than the fleshly Law of Moses, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” (Rom 8:3) As far as your matrix analogy goes, I think you ought to stop taking either colored pill, as they are clouding your judgment.
March 8th, 2008 at 13:26
Josh:
The point of my opening words in my last comment was to point out your style of attack. It is intellectually dishonest. If you wish to be taken seriously here, by myself as well as by most of the readers of this blog, you will avoid making statements such as:
“Ok, so you apparently were saying that the sermon of the mount is OT and yet still applies because whatever parts of the OT you want to apply applies.”
That is not my position. It is not “what I say goes.” If it was, I would write a journal, and not in a blog.
Let me ask you a question. When you open your bible, and you come to the title page that appears before the Gospel of Matthew, what does it say? It says “New Testament”. Did Matthew start his Gospel off with that title page? Did Paul insert it? Or, did Moses insert the title page bearing the words “Old Testament”?
In a similiar vain, does “Old Testament” mean “Old Law” and does “New Testament” mean “New Law”? They do not. There is quite a difference between the Old Testament and “The Law”. “The Law” is the Law of Moses. What is the law of Moses? As Raymond said above, the laws given after the Ten Commandments, the Levitical and Deuteronomical codes.
An “Eye for an Eye” wasn’t a perscription of God to harm someone for harming you. It was a proscription of God, dealing with a wayward Son. An “Eye for an Eye” is meant to limit the retaliation of the injured person, not to cause it.
Or another way of thinking about these issues, read Exodus, Leviticus, and Dueteronomy. Why is Dueteronomy there? Did Moses feel like he needed to repeat the law before the people entered the promised land? No, he didn’t. He actually handed down new law. Why would he do that? Didn’t he already hand down the Levitical law and the laws in Exodous? Why more now? Because Moses, as a representative for God, was dealing with a reprobate Israel. The standards were lowered, and Israel still couldn’t keep the law. The Deuteronomic law predicted this, and it demanded Christ.
Jesus, in his teaching, set forth the true nature of God’s heart through his Sermon on the Mount. He set in front of the people the way in which God really wants people to live and act towards one another. The way in which he knows that we cannot even fully meet now. But the difference is, we have Christ, and not Moses.
-Clarke
March 8th, 2008 at 16:45
I will agree that “Jesus, in his teaching, set forth the true nature of God’s heart through his Sermon on the Mount.” But that is exactly why it is wrong to call the Sermon on the Mount “Old Testament exegesis.” The Law was, as you say, merely a restraining force. An eye for an eye was to restrain them from doing an eye a leg and arm and an ear for an eye. One could never interpret that restraining force into the full morality of God because it did not contain it. One could never, for example. have gotten Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage out of what the Law taught on the same subject, nor even from the book of Genesis! Jesus alone was able to fully reveal God’s hear on these matters because he was God in the flesh.
Now when you suggest that it is improper to call the New Testament the New Testament and assert essentially that we have no way of knowing what is New and what is Old. Maybe Habakkuk is New Testament and Mark is Old Testament, right? When you assert such things, whether you want to own up to it or not, you are saying that what you say goes and are making yourself equivalent to those journal editors which you so loath.
March 8th, 2008 at 17:34
“In the third place, the law could not be a suitable rule of life to mankind in this imperfect state. It could not to all mankind, as it was given to, and designed only for a part. It was given to the Jewish nation, and to none else. As the inscription on a letter, identifies to whom it belongs; as the preamble to a proclamation, distinguishes who is addressed; so the preface to the law, points out and determines to whom it was given. It points out a people brought from the land of Egypt, and released from the house of bondage, as the subjects of it. To extend it farther than its own preface, is to violate the rules of criticism and propriety. How unjust and improper would it be, to convey the contents of a letter to a person to whom it was not directed–how inconsistent to enjoin the items of a proclamation made by the President of these United States, on the subjects of the French government” (AC)
Lol. There’s a point lost on so many.
March 8th, 2008 at 21:00
Josh:
Actually, you are twisting my words, yet again. Looking at Jay Guin’s blog, I see that this is a standard tactic you employ.
What I suggested is that the “Old Testament” does not mean “Old Law.” I also suggested that the “Old Testament” was not so named by the authors of the books, nor was the New Testament.
The Law and the Old Testament are not the same. That is the point you need to take away from this.
-Clarke
March 11th, 2008 at 22:22
Isn’t true to a great degree we see Christ’s time on earth as Jewish in nature and not applicable for Christian today.
March 12th, 2008 at 9:38
Actually, the term “the Law” is often applied to more than just the commands from Moses’ writings, especially in John’s writings. In John 10:34, John calls Psalm 82:6 part of the Law. In John 12:34, he refers to quotes from Psalms and Daniel as the Law. In John 15:25, a quotation from Psalm 35 is noted as being part of the Law. In I Corinthians 14:21, a quotation from Isaiah 28:11 is said to be part of the Law. And so on. At least at times, the term “the Law” seems inclusive of all the written Word that the Jews had.
Furthermore, the term “testament” comes from the Latin “testamentum,” which is how Jerome translated the Hebrew word “b’rith” - covenant. The old covenant has been fulfilled and thus we are no longer under it. We are subject to the law of Christ, the new covenant.
March 12th, 2008 at 20:51
If the cross is the place we part old covenant fron new. Why do we have so much doctrine from the gospels?
March 13th, 2008 at 18:03
“If the cross is the place we part old covenant fron new. Why do we have so much doctrine from the gospels?”
Because Jesus was teaching the thigns of the New Testament before establishing it by his death. Have you read the gospels? Look at the sermon on the mount. “You have heard it said…by I say…” He was contrasting the Law (”you have heard”) with the gospel (”But I say”).
March 14th, 2008 at 7:22
“Jesus was teaching the things of the New Testament before establishing it by his death” ”
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:17-18)
When did heaven and earth passed away?
March 14th, 2008 at 14:42
Read it carefully my friend. Heaven and earth do not have to pass away for a jot or tittle to pass from the Law once “all is fulfilled.” The question then is not “did heaven and earth pass away” but rather “Did Jesus fulfill the whole Law?” Paul affirms that he did, saying that Jesus is the “end of the Law” (Rom 10:4) that the Law “is abolished” (2 Cor 3:13) that Jesus “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph 2:15) etc. etc. Jesus Himself even says in Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” The oft repeated misinterpretation that the Law cannot pass until heaven and earth pass is such an old and worn out interpretation by now that it is dead and we ought to let it rest in peace. Clearly, if Jesus has fulfilled all of the Law then there is no need for heaven and earth to pass because the Law by that very fact passes, since we no longer have a need of the schoolmaster when the subject matter himself has fulfilled its whole function. The question then is simply this: Did Jesus fulfill the whole Law or not, and if not, what did he leave unfulfilled of the Law? So much more than merely fulfilling the Law, Jesus even went beyond and did what the Law could not do due to its weakness. (Rom 8:3)
March 14th, 2008 at 23:33
Did Jesus fulfill the whole Law or not, and if not, what did he leave unfulfilled of the Law?
Rom 8 :13 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Paul says Love fulfills the Law.
“The oft repeated misinterpretation that the Law cannot pass until heaven and earth pass is such an old and worn out interpretation by now that it is dead and we ought to let it rest in peace.”
But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 2 Peter 3
March 15th, 2008 at 5:46
The Old Law *already* taught love for one’s enemy in personal relationships before Jesus ever delivered the Sermon on the Mount (Ex. 23:4-5; Prov. 25:21). In judicial penalties though, the law taught retribution equal to criminal-injury (Deut 19:21). The Pharisees taught that the passage about judicial penalties applied even to personal relationships. Clearly then, Jesus was not correcting the OT (as though God’s word needs corrected?!), but he was correcting the false teachings and false righteousness of the Pharisees–which is the very thing He said He would be doing in the sermon (Matt 5:20).
March 15th, 2008 at 13:03
“The Old Law *already* taught love for one’s enemy”
Like in killing off all the Ammonites and Philistines and praying for the deaths of your enemies (have you ever read the Psalms?) rather than for their good?
March 15th, 2008 at 14:08
“Tripartite Dispensationalism divides the history of redemption into three parts: The Patriarchal Dispensation, the Jewish Dispensation, and the Christian Dispensation.”
Though history has clear dividing points highlights of human achievement and interactions of a loving God. The core of Jesus Christ death was to merge all unto him as the last sacrifice. Thus the cross came the place where history stood unified in salvation. The power of Jesus death covered the sins of past and of future making one dispensation. Matt. 24:37-38: “But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. “For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark,”
March 16th, 2008 at 11:18
“Like in killing off all the Ammonites and Philistines and praying for the deaths of your enemies (have you ever read the Psalms?) rather than for their good? ”
Brother Josh,
No, not like in these cases you mention. I said that the OT taught love for enemies *in personal relationships.* Just listen to it:
“If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it” (Exodus 23:4-5).
“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink” (Proverbs 25:21).
Paul in Romans 12 teaches us to do good to those who do evil to us—to love our enemies; and the quote Paul uses in that passage is *from the OT.*
The first cases you mention are not about personal relationships. The examples you mention are of Israel as a nation acting as a civil body and an agent of God’s wrath. If we’re talking about the state, then you’re right, God clearly commanded the *state* of Israel to carry out vengeance and retribution toward their/His enemies. And the New Testament teaches the same thing. Just after Paul’s gets through teaching that Christians are not to take vengeance, Paul writes that the state is permitted and expected to enforce justice and retribution—even with the sword (Romans 13:4). But in personal relationships, both the OT (as cited above) and the NT teach love and kindness toward enemies.
As for the imprecatory Psalms, these also can be seen as expressions of a state agent. David was an earthly *king* after all. Of course, a nation will have enemies. And, of course, it was David’s responsibility as a national leader to protect and defend his nations interests *by force.* Even Psalm 137, could be understood as the Israelites *as a civil body* expressing their *national* sentiments toward their enemies (their Babylonian captors). The stark contrast between their time and ours is that Israel was a theocracy–*both* a religious and a *political* body. The church is not. Even though there is this difference, the OT still taught Jews to handle their personal relationships in much the same way the NT tells us to handle ours.
The point, of course, Brother Josh, is that if there is continuity between the covenants on this point, it demonstrates that Jesus was in no way criticizing or correcting or changing the OT, but rather He was criticizing a caricature of it—namely, the Pharisees caricature of it. Jesus’ sermon was not an “OT vs. NT” discourse, but rather, “OT vs. Phariseeism.” And there are many more reasons than that which tell us this must be what the Sermon on the Mount is about.
(1) He specifically tells His audience that they should obey the OT (Matt 5:19).
(2) He specifically tells His audience that anyone who *teaches* contrary to the OT is wrong (Matt 5:19).
(3) He specifically tells His audience that their righteousness must surpass that of the *Pharisees* (Matt 5:20).
(4) Everywhere else in the gospels when Jesus quotes the OT, He either mentions a specific author (“David said, Isaiah prophesied of you,” etc) or He uses the phrase “it is written.” Yet throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses the phrases “you have *heard* that it was *said*.” This deviation from Jesus’ well-established and well-documented pattern strongly suggests He was not aiming to quote the OT.
(5) Many of the specific issues Jesus deals with in Matthew 5—we have passages elsewhere that show us Jesus was specifically countering *Pharisaical* teaching, not OT teaching. For instance, His denouncing of oath-formulas (Matt 5:34-36), we later find out, was clearly in contrast to a Pharisaical practice (Matt 23:16-22). His teachings regarding divorce and remarriage (Matt 5:31-32), we later find out, was clearly in contrast to the Pharisees’ erroneous exposition of the OT on this point (Matt 19:3-12).
(6) Jesus, if taken to be quoting the OT, actually misquotes it (Matt 5:21, 43). Surely Jesus would be able to accurately quote a Law which He, Himself, wrote.
(7) Most of His topic in Matthew 6 was a condemnation of superficial piety. God never accepted superficial piety in the OT. In fact, God used several of the prophets to condemn this very practice among OT peoples (Isaiah 1:11-17; Jer 7:3-8; etc.). However, the Pharisees did practice a superficial, hypocritical piety (Matt 23:25-28). Thus, they would’ve been the ones being criticized in Matthew 6, not OT doctrine.
(8) Jesus gives specific applications that could only pertain to an OT worshipper. He speaks of how to apply His teachings while one is “at the altar” “presenting an offering” (Matt 5:23-24). I, as a Christian, don’t come to an altar to present a sacrifice. But the Jews certainly did. Thus, He was intending to instruct *them* about what to do; He was not telling His audience how *Christians* should live out this speech of His.
Just because the Sermon on the Mount concerns a correct exegesis of the OT over against Pharisaical heresy, this doesn’t mean that it doesn’t teach us, Christians, anything. In fact, it teaches us a great deal because the NT maintains all of these same teachings regarding personal righteousness that were already contained in the OT. (But saying it that way, probably much to Brother Clarke’s chagrin, identifies that at root I am one of these tripartite-dispensationalists he’s speaking of.)
Blessings,
Guy