The Old Testament and Angels

[sorianofan]

I am going to propose the following opinion, though the only people it would really both are adventists:

The Old Covenant was mediated by angels while the New Covenant was mediated by God Himself.

Scripture attests to this several times:

Galatians 3:19

Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.

Hebrews 2:2

For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?

Acts 7:53

You who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.

Hebrews twice explicitly names the Holy Spirit as the author of a passage from Deuteronomy and Jeremiah respectively. So, the Old Testament just like the New was written by God by the Holy Spirit.

Knowing this, this makes all of Scripture God breathed, but it makes the New Covenant permanently binding unlike the Old Covenant.


That being said, I believe that a slew of OT laws unless explicitly commanded also in the NT are not binding. For example, in Acts 15 Gentiles are explicitly told to follow certain laws and not others. Paul in Galatians 6 says those who live by the Spirit are essentially above the Law. Yet, in Acts 20 Paul himself still ritualistically follows the Jewish Law.

I believe Paul lived by the Law in order to not offend Jewish Christians, because he did not want to give an opportunity to undercut his ministry.

/end of random thoughts

 

[erowe1]

I believe that a slew of OT laws unless explicitly commanded also in the NT are not binding.

I agree with most of your general point about the Mosaic law being temporary. But this point is a problem to me. The moral laws that are binding for the Church didn't need to be repeated in the New Testament books for them to exist. They've been around for all time written in people's hearts.

 

[Sola_Fide]

That being said, I believe that a slew of OT laws unless explicitly commanded also in the NT are not binding.

Hmmm. This seems to be turning the regulative principle on its head.

It would probably be stated better if it was like this: Anything not specifically changed or abrogated in the NC is still binding from the OC.

 

[sorianofan]

Hmmm. This seems to be turning the regulative principle on its head.

It would probably be stated better if it was like this: Anything not specifically changed or abrogated in the NC is still binding from the OC.

I agree with that well said. I need to expand upon my meditations here, with a discussion of Colossians and the OT.

 

[libertyjam]

I am going to propose the following opinion, though the only people it would really both are adventists:

The Old Covenant was mediated by angels while the New Covenant was mediated by God Himself.

Scripture attests to this several times:

Galatians 3:19


Hebrews 2:2


Acts 7:53


Hebrews twice explicitly names the Holy Spirit as the author of a passage from Deuteronomy and Jeremiah respectively. So, the Old Testament just like the New was written by God by the Holy Spirit.

Knowing this, this makes all of Scripture God breathed, but it makes the New Covenant permanently binding unlike the Old Covenant.


That being said, I believe that a slew of OT laws unless explicitly commanded also in the NT are not binding. For example, in Acts 15 Gentiles are explicitly told to follow certain laws and not others. Paul in Galatians 6 says those who live by the Spirit are essentially above the Law. Yet, in Acts 20 Paul himself still ritualistically follows the Jewish Law.

I believe Paul lived by the Law in order to not offend Jewish Christians, because he did not want to give an opportunity to undercut his ministry.

/end of random thoughts

While the OT and the NT contain the covenant and the Law, the entirety of either is not the covenant or the Law. IMB = In My Belief.

 

[YumYum]

The New Testament does not change the law regarding the stoning of disobedient children. So, let's pretend that if the secular laws permitted parents putting their children to death, why can't Christian parents stone their kids who refuse to be obedient?

And, why is it, that today, stoning your kids is considered "barbaric", when it was a "law" made by the God of the Old Testament?

 

[Sola_Fide]

The New Testament does not change the law regarding the stoning of disobedient children. So, let's pretend that if the secular laws permitted parents putting their children to death, why can't Christian parents stone their kids who refuse to be obedient?

And, why is it, that today, stoning your kids is considered "barbaric", when it was a "law" made by the God of the Old Testament?

Again, your wrong. The judicial laws perished along with the covenental nation-state of Israel. Also, you are (probably intentionally) misrepresenting the laws against incorrigible people.

"Hey Saul, my kids didn't feed the goats today...really ticked me off."

"Well Eli, just stone em to death. You can always start out with new ones right?"

"Thanks Saul! I forgot that God said we could kill these kids for being disobedient!"

 

[Brandon2012]

This has always been an issue for me as well. I'm no theonomist, but I understand their point. But for me, eschatology plays an important role. Something I've still not figured out entirely.

Yeshua says : "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

Notice what Yeshua says here. It's not "until heaven and earth pass away", that the law passes away. This is an eschatological statement. Heaven and Earth played a significant role in "end times" prophecy. Matt. 24 is in reference to the destruction of the temple. Many interpret this to mean the end of the world. Yeshua says this regarding the heavens and earth: "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

So what does all this mean? The law passing way clearly has to do with the timing of heaven and earth passing away. Well without going into great detail, here is my summation. The law and the heavens and earth here represent the old economy. The old covenant. Heavens and Earth represents government, not literal heaven and earth. This prophetic language is used throughout the prophets. Hebraic understanding testifies to this when hearing the dream of Joseph that the stars, moons and sun would bow down to him. Jacob rightly interpreted that to represent Joseph's brothers, himself and Joseph's mother. This was a form of hierarchy or government that would have been understood by the Jewish Priests. Within the same context of Matt. 24, our Lord talks about the end of that epoch through the destruction of the temple. That would change everything. Think about it...no sacrifices, so how would they be atoned. No mediation of the high priest. Their records destroyed. They would be scattered and have no identity.

So it's here that I believe where Yeshua means that the law passes away. The law being fulfilled in Christ. We no longer live to the law but through faith in Christ. But what's done away is not the law itself. What's done away is living to the letter of it (it's fulfilled). Now we live to the spirit of it.

 

[erowe1]

Again, your wrong. The judicial laws perished along with the covenental nation-state of Israel. Also, you are (probably intentionally) misrepresenting the laws against incorrigible people.

But earlier you suggested that all laws except those that are explicitly abrogated are still in force. In order to take that position, don't you have to say that the Church is the covenantal nation-state Israel? And if so, then on what basis would the judicial laws have perished?

 

[erowe1]

So what does all this mean? The law passing way clearly has to do with the timing of heaven and earth passing away.

That isn't clear to me.

He also says, "until all is accomplished." And from the rest of the sentence, I think it's at least reasonable to think that all being accomplished is another way of referring to Jesus fulfilling the law. This could fit very well with what other NT passages teach about the law if the point when Jesus fulfilled the law, and when all was accomplished, was when he died on the cross.

 

[Brandon2012]

That isn't clear to me.

He also says, "until all is accomplished." And from the rest of the sentence, I think it's at least reasonable to think that all being accomplished is another way of referring to Jesus fulfilling the law. This could fit very well with what other NT passages teach about the law if the point when Jesus fulfilled the law, and when all was accomplished, was when he died on the cross.

I understand your point. But his statement of "Until heaven and earth" pass away wasn't hyperbole. He meant it. So, there's an actual timing to this. When heaven and earth pass away. This law is represented as the old covenant (heavens and earth). When the New heavens and earth (new covenant) would be fully established is when all would have been accomplished.

 

[erowe1]

I understand your point. But his statement of "Until heaven and earth" pass away wasn't hyperbole. He meant it. So, there's an actual timing to this. When heaven and earth pass away. This law is represented as the old covenant (heavens and earth). When the New heavens and earth (new covenant) would be fully established is when all would have been accomplished.

But when you have two "untils" then the thing that will last until A until B, only has to last until one of the two things A or B happens. In this case, all things being accomplished happened before the passing away of heaven and earth.

 

[bubbleboy]

Quit trying to disobey God's Law. It revives the soul. It is Righteousness. Not EVERY time the word law is mentioned refers to the Ten Commandments. This is the Royal Law. God is the same forever.
The law that Paul refers to is the sacrificial law that was ADDED because you broke the Ten Commandments. Obey, fear God and Keep His Commandments, Not of your will but His. This is the duty of man. Amen

 

[erowe1]

Quit trying to disobey God's Law. It revives the soul. It is Righteousness. Not EVERY time the word law is mentioned refers to the Ten Commandments. This is the Royal Law. God is the same forever.
The law that Paul refers to is the sacrificial law that was ADDED because you broke the Ten Commandments. Obey, fear God and Keep His Commandments, Not of your will but His. This is the duty of man. Amen

What is the sacrificial law? Does the Bible ever distinguish which parts of the law are the sacrificial law, and which parts aren't?

 

[Sola_Fide]

But earlier you suggested that all laws except those that are explicitly abrogated are still in force. In order to take that position, don't you have to say that the Church is the covenantal nation-state Israel? And if so, then on what basis would the judicial laws have perished?

Hmm. I might have to revise what I said because it could be read as more theonomic than Id want it to. What I was trying to express is the confession here:

IV. To them [Israel] also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.

In the NC the judicially-specific laws of national Israel have expired, only their general equity remain. So I think the NC did specifically change it in this regard.

 

[TER]

I'm reading this great book 'Holy Angels' and would strongly recommend it for anyone who is fascinated with angels!

 

[Brandon2012]

But when you have two "untils" then the thing that will last until A until B, only has to last until one of the two things A or B happens. In this case, all things being accomplished happened before the passing away of heaven and earth.

But you're missing the timing of it. It's to happen when "heaven and earth pass away".

 

[erowe1]

But you're missing the timing of it. It's to happen when "heaven and earth pass away".

I don't think it does. If you take it literally, then if all is accomplished first, then from that point on it could happen any time, whether heaven and earth pass away or not.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually. That is quite debatable. Jesus said he did not come to replace the law but to fulfill it. Jesus as savior and as the son of God is also the judge. Therefore Jesus fulfills mosaic law when he is ultimate judge over peoples life .

 

[erowe1]

Actually. That is quite debatable. Jesus said he did not come to replace the law but to fulfill it. Jesus as savior and as the son of God is also the judge. Therefore Jesus fulfills mosaic law when he is ultimate judge over peoples life .

Maybe.

Or did he fulfill the law when he stood in the place of others to suffer the punishment the law requires for their sins?