The Dividing Wall in Ephesians 2:14: What is It? Who Made It? How was It Broken Down?

Many people interpret Ephesians 2:14 as teaching that the Torah [Law] was done away with so that Jew and non-Jew could be “one new man” in Yeshua. Is this what Paul was teaching? This paper looks at the context, the grammar, and the words of the text in order to properly interpret the passage. 16 pages

Link to article by Tim Hegg (you will be directed to a PDF file on his site.)

You might begin reading on page three and skip the introduction which has little to do with the Text.

This is very detailed, so if you like to have all of the possible support for a position, this will be it.

Sean Daily

Colossians 2:16-17 and my frustration.

I’ve had a few conversations about this text recently and I thought a short essay may be helpful. Certainly not the complete answer to this text for most of you, but enough to start a conversation.

Honestly though, I have found most people to simply dismiss my comments and not engage in a discussion. I assume it’s because they are unable to do so since the argument I make 1)is to different from what they have always thought, or 2)they have no real ability to counter what I see as the obvious.

We shall see if any of you can engage…

Colossians 2:14-15: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances [dogma] that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” KJV

I use the King James Version only because I think the most literal version possible is best when discussing a text at this level. Some versions actually put the phrase “Mosaic Law” in place of “ordinances” which is poor translating.

In context these verses fall within an argument that Paul is making against “man made rules” which are “destined to perish.” See Col. 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

We see here that Paul has begun to contrast mans’ law or mans’ philosophy with that of Christ and of God. In verse 16 Paul says, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.”

In verse 16 Paul is speaking about God’s Law and not mans’, and he tells the Colossians not to let anyone judge them in regards to these things which are a shadow of Christ. So the contrast in Paul’s argument is set with mans’ Law on one side, and God’s (and Christ’s) law on the other.

By the time we get to verse 20, “Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances [dogma], … which all are to perish with the using; after the commandments and doctrines of men?”

Here the same word (dogma in Greek) is used and is clearly related to “living in the world” by “doctrines of men” and not in Christ. What was nailed to the cross with Jesus then? The Torah of God? The Law which is “for our good always” and “is your life”? This same Law that David speaks of as a light to his feet and lamp for his path? Even Paul calls it “good and holy” and says it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”? Is this what “was against us, which was contrary to us”?

I am really amazed that so many of us read Colossians 2 as a rebuke of following the Mosaic Law. Even if you hold that belief, which most Christians do, this still is the last place one would think to go.

Without the slightest understanding of the world in which Paul is writing to and without any historical back ground at all, still the simple plain meaning of the text spells it out so clearly. Man’s laws and philosophies are destined to perish; they were nailed to the cross with Christ. Jesus defeated the world with all its rules and lame wisdom.

To suggest that Paul could have ever spoken of the Scriptures as being against us is absurd in every way.

Sean Daily

Is the Mosaic law tripartite?

This link is a very well written short essay on when the Law began to be divided into 2 or 3 parts.

You can also see his other posts on this topic by following links on his blog.
Post #1 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Historical Overview)
Post #2 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? Analyzing Aquinas’ arguments
Post #3 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? Analyzing Calvin’s arguments
Post #4 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Wrapping up with two more historical views)
Post #5 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Entertain generic arguments for flaws in the tripartite assumption)
Post #6 intitled: Is the Mosaic law tripartite? (Some final thoughts)

Sean.

List of important passages relating to our question.

We are now well into April, and since I run a seasonal business, my time availability has been seriously reduced. Posting will therefor be sparse at best.

In the mean time, I felt that it would be good to compile over time a list of passages that have often been used when discussing our question. This list is still in the making. Should you have some I miss, or have not gotten to yet, feel free to comment.

When added, these will be put in order as they appear in the Christian Bible.

Gen 15:6 “Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.”

Deut 12:32 “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”

Deut 13 – link to complete quote in NASB

Psalm 119 – The whole chapter is made up of 22 love poems centered on the Mosaic Law.

Psalm 119:152 “From studying your laws, I found out long ago that you made them to last forever.” CEV

Psalm 119:160 “All you say can be trusted; your teachings are true and will last forever. “

Jeremiah 31 – Link to complete quote in NASB

Matt 5:17-20 “
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplish. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Mark 7:1-23 -Link to complete quote in NASB

John 14:15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments.”

John 14:21 “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him.”

Acts 2 – Link to complete quote in NASB

Acts 2:42 “They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to [the] prayer[s].” (“The prayers” is the actual literal translation from the Greek, but usually translated as simply “prayer” in English Bibles.)

Acts 6:13-14 “And they set up false witnesses, who said, This man does not cease speaking blasphemous words against this holy place and the Law. For we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered to us.”

Acts 10-11

Acts 15

Acts 15:5,10,19-21

Acts 21:17-26

Acts 21:27-29

Acts 24:14-16

Acts 25:8

Acts 26:20

Acts 28:17-18

Acts 28:22

Romans 2:14-15

Romans 3:19,20

Romans 6:14-15

Romans 7:7, 12, 14, 22

Romans 10:4

Romans 14

2 Corinthians 3:3, 6-18

Gal 3:22-25 “But the Scripture shut up all under sin, so that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under Law, having been shut up to the faith about to be revealed. So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But faith coming, we are no longer under a trainer.”

Eph 2:15 “…having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;”

Colossians 2:14 “…blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and has taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross.”

1 Timothy 1:8-11

Heb. 10:1

To be continued . . .

Is the Sabbath Binding on Christians Today?

John MacArthur wrote the following article which is quoted almost is its entirety here. It was originally posted on this site:

I will be responding to each point that Dr. MacArthur makes which will hopefully help readers understand why his argument is, at best, weak.

Is the Sabbath Binding on Christians Today?

by John MacArthur

Rebutted by Sean Daily

It is believed that the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses’ law that prefigured Christ. Here are the reasons we hold this view.

>Nowhere in Scriptures is the Law divided up into parts. While arbitrarily dividing it may be useful for discussion purposes, to go the next step and declare that what man calls ceremonial has become null and void is breaking that very Law. Deut. 12:32 “See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it.”

1. In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase “a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day” refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4, 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word “Sabbath?” He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons.

   > The Sabbath is in view in this passage, but the passage never says, “which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come.” The passage is contrasting God’s Holy Festivals and Laws with man made “rules . . . [things] destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings.” The Sabbath is not “man made” nor is it “based on human commands and teachings” but God instituted; so Paul’s mentioning that “these things are destined to perish” can not be referring to the Sabbath which is a “shadow” of the Messiah. Paul’s use of shadow is not negative, but a positive. These God given days and Laws are a shadow of the Messiah who is the body, while the man made “rules” are destined to perish. If Paul called the Sabbath a man made rule, he would have been a heretic, and if he declared it null and void, he would have broken the command of Deut 12:32 and would have been run out on the proverbial rail. If he said the Sabbath was no longer important, he would have contradicted the Law, the Prophets, and every Jew and Gentile’s current belief.
   

2. The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant.

   > Saying we are now under the New Covenant and no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant again divides the indivisible, and contradicts the passage of the New Covenant which is found in Jeremiah 31. Clearly it is the “Torah” that is written on the heart, and by “Torah” Jeremiah is speaking specifically of the Law’s given through Moses.
   > An additional note on dividing the Covenant into parts. Even an elementary study of a covenant would confirm that it is a single agreement with stipulations. The agreement, “We will do everything the Lord has said” is the covenant agreement by the Israelites in Ex. 24. The stipulations are all of the laws and ways to live in that covenant. Throwing out parts of the stipulations would be similar to having a signed contract, which after codifying it, one party decides to cross off sections and no longer abide by those sections. If that were to happen, the whole contract would be broken, since it is one unit with many parts. One must either abide by the whole thing, or throw out the whole thing. There is no middle ground.

3. The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath.

   > It is quite disappointing to have someone of Dr MacArthur’s stature propose such an argument. An argument from silence is baseless and does not even deserve a response.

4. In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7).

   > Of course just because a group got together to meet on a particular day does not indicate in anyway that these people meet on that day regularly, nor does it mean that they abandoned the Sabbath. If this is the best passage he can find to make his point that the Sabbath has been abandoned, then he really has no support here. Also, since MacArthur is willing to use the “argument from silence” above, then we also can use the “argument from silence” as well. Never does Paul, nor any New Testament writer declare that the Sabbath is no longer binding.

5. Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle.

   > And why would God command Gentile nations, who were not in covenant with him, to follow covenant stipulations. It makes no logical sense to make this point unless you a) want to prove that the Sabbath is not a “moral” Law, as if there were any declaration in the Scriptures that ever delineates between moral and non moral law; or b) you genuinely do not believe that Gentiles are grafted into the covenant with God and therefore none of the Laws of Moses would apply. I assume he is trying to make point ‘a’, for making point ‘b’ seems somewhat absurd. Again, I draw your attention to the first mention of the “New Covenant” in scripture where the covenant agreement is changed from “we will do it” to “I [the LORD] will write the Torah on your heart and in your mind.” (Jer. 31). The stipulations are not different, only our relationship to them.

6. There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai.

   > As is the case for just about all of the commands found in the Mosaic Laws including most of the so called “moral” laws. This argument is obviously baseless and again, a disappointment to see such a man use it. (Maybe he uses it because certain Sabbatarians try to assert this point and MacArthur is simply batting away their assertions by pointing out the obvious? I hope that is the reason.)

7. When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers.

   > Nor did they include almost all of the commands within the Law. Here is a good place for me to point out an historical fact. In the first century times in which Paul is living and speaking, not one Jew nor Gentile disputed the Sabbath being the seventh day, nor did any single person whether Jew or Gentile ever assert that any day other than the seventh day would be the Sabbath. Paul never brings it up because there would be no point in doing so. It was not a point of contention or disagreement in his day. The seventh day was a day of rest as spelled out in the Law and no one had a problem with it, nor disputed it. They certainly disputed how one should live on that day, but not which day it was nor whether it should be observed. It is not until the church fathers of the second century that we have any indication that there was an issue about what day to worship.

8. The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them.

   > Again, see #7. And let’s not forget that the Gentiles had access to the only Scriptures available to Paul or them, that being what we Christians refer to as the Old Testament which is littered with Sabbath commands and rebukes for breaking it. Should the Sabbath have been nullified, one would think Paul would make that point quite clear, but he does just the opposite (see Col. 2, a passage Dr. MacArthur unbelievably tries to use to make his point that the Sabbath is done away with.)

9. In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath).

   > This passage can be viewed as speaking of God’s appointed times or pagan appointed times. Here is one of MacArthur’s stronger points, but unfortunately this article did not provide him the means by which to make his point so he simply states it as fact. I, like wise will not provide a conclusive statement given the space allowed, but will point you in the right direction.
   >In Gal. 4:9, Paul states that the Gentiles are “turning back to the weak and worthless elemental things.” Since the Gentiles are new to the faith, how can they “turn back” to the Law. It makes more sense that they were turning back to the Pagan Emperor worship days, or were tempted to do so. Also, Paul refers to these things as “weak and worthless” which does not fit his love and admiration for the Torah which he clearly says he is living in obedience to. (Acts 21:17-and on.)
   >Historically it is important to know that the Jews had a special privilege in the empire. They were not required to observe any of the pagan holidays or participate in the worship of the Emperor. Any one else, who was not a Jew, would be cast as an Atheist by Rome for not participating and be jailed, persecuted, and possibly even killed. In light of the dispute between Gentile followers of the Way and the Jews, especially those who did not accept Jesus as Messiah, the Gentiles stood a good chance of being tossed out of the synagogue (which eventually happens) and then being liable for failing to worship the Emperor (which they were) and persecuted (which they were.) If we lived in that time, we too would be tempted to say, “I’m going to the [pagan] festival and going through the motions, but my heart isn’t in it. I don’t really believe it.” Paul is telling them clearly not to follow that temptation.

10. In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers).

    > “It is without historical foundation to presume that Paul’s mention of various days automatically refers to a choice between Sabbath and the first day of the week. It is without warrant to read the late practice of the medieval Church back into Paul’s day. When he was talking of days, and one observing one day over another, he cannot be referring to the much later Sabbath/Sunday debate.”¹
    “Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, indicates that this change had BEGUN to take place as early as about A.D. 115. Also, the Didache, a manual of church instruction written around A.D. 120, also directs Christians to come together on the Lord’s Day to worship.”² So again, the dispute of what day to worship on should not be placed back on Paul’s audience at Rome in the 50′s A.D.
    What is Paul speaking of? Two possibilities: 1) There is known to be at least three Jewish sects which calculated the date of Pentecost (Shavuot) differently as well as the date of First Fruits and even the day of Passover. 2) Paul is speaking of scheduled fast days, something that we see continues even into the 2nd and 3rd century with the Christians.
    See Tim Hegg’s commentary on Galatians for a more in depth study.

11. The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day Sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).

    > Early church fathers certainly did say what MacArthur claims, and any Sabbatarian who disputes it is stupid. The texts are available for anyone to read. Yet, these same texts also prove that many still followed the Law completely and followed the seventh day Sabbath.
    > There is a large amount of primary sources which prove that at the very least, Christians were following the seventh day Sabbath even past the fourth century, although they became increasingly persecuted by the Church for doing so.
    > There are many things the early church fathers said and believed that we cringe at today. They were ruthlessly anti-Jewish which strongly tainted their theology, and they all came from Greek backgrounds rather than Hebrew. However, with all of the nasty things they have said in their writings, we ought not to be too harsh on them. (Nor should we hold them up to the level of the Apostles, but rather we ought to respect them for their labors in the LORD.) Why not be harsh on them for where they erred? Because they lived in a different time where persecutions were rampant and disputes between followers of the Way and the Jewish synagogue became strained. The dating of the split between Christian and Jew into separate religions is not precise, but it certainly became codified between 90-100 C.E. when Gamaliel II excludes sectarians (including Christians) from the synagogues.
    >Also, I refer you back to #10, where we clearly see these same church fathers saying that the dispute did not begin until after A.D. 115.

12. Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord’s Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11).

    > Thankfully Dr MacArthur agrees that Sunday did not replace Saturday as the Sabbath, something that I can not find taught until after the Reformation period. He seems, however, in the second half of this statement to agree with those who say that our “work” from which we are resting from is our “work” in attempting to secure our salvation through our own works the way they did in the Old Testament days. The problem with this view, which may not be Dr. MacArthur’s view, is that the Old Testament never teaches a works based salvation. Also, the word translated “work” from which we were to rest from according to the Law has absolutely nothing to do with “spiritual labor” in any way.
    

In conclusion, there is no Scriptural evidence to suggest that during the life of Paul there was any person or sect which denied the seventh day Sabbath, nor do we see Paul or any New Testament writer even hint at abandoning the Sabbath. Contrary to all historical and archaeological evidence, the entire argument does not even begin until after all New Testament writings have been completed.

Should one want to argue for the worship of God on the Lord’s Day, he certainly can make his case, but to attempt to impose that idea onto the first century period in which the Christian church was emerging is anachronistic. And finally, for someone to persecute those who do observe the Sabbath, either overtly, or by turning their nose at them “theologically” contradicts even Dr. MacArthur’s view of Romans 14, and it would put that person in direct contradiction to Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and all of the rest.

I’ll finish with a compelling quote by Jules Isaac, “The Jewish rejection of Christ was triggered by the Christian rejection of the Law . . . . The Rejection of the Law was enough; to ask the Jewish people that they accept this rejection . . . was like asking them to tear out their heart. History records no example of such collective suicide.”³

Sean Daily.

1. “Galatians Commentary” by Tim Hegg, Page 156-60
2. “Our Father Abraham” by Marvin R Wilson, page 79
3. Cited in Jacques Doukhan, Drinking at the Sources (Mountain View, California: Mountain Press Publishing Association, 1981), p. 25

Home Education (completely off topic)

Sorry, but this is too important for us for me to ignore simply because it is off topic.

The following is a letter written to Michigan Representative Dave Agema, my rep., concerning H.B. 5912 which would require Home School families to register with the local superintendent among other things. I can not over emphasis the importance of this issue, because it strikes at the heart of our rights as parents. These rights are from God, not the state, and not the majority of voters. They are fundamental.

Even many conservative Christian’s who are mighty Rush Limbaugh fans have a hard time seeing this. If you think the state ought to monitor a child’s education to make sure they are learning in the home, then you really need to read this post. I hope you do so openly, because it’s not just about Home Education.

And one more point that I did not include in the letter to Mr. Agema. Our state is consistently failing our children. Far too many of them are “behind” in several areas and many graduate without being able to read. It’s beyond comprehension that these people can insist that they try to remove our parental rights in this area.

I did not follow this argument below because it accepts the premise that the state would have this authority if they did know how to educate a child. They do not have the right regardless, but it’s curious how failures can impose their system upon those succeeding.

And now the letter:
Dear Rep. Dave Agema,

Concerning H.B. 5912 and Home School families.

I would like to know how you intend to fight against this bill and how much effort is planned on defeating it.

Parents have the fundamental right given to them by God, not the state, to care for their children. It is contrary to the fundamental principals of which this country was founded upon for the state to, without cause, remove a parents rights concerning their children. Unless probable cause of some harm or wrong doing can be established, the individuals home, family, and particularly children need to be beyond the reach of the state.

We already have laws in relation to the fourth amendment which give the state authority when a child’s welfare is at stake.

Michigan has been a safe haven for Home Educators for a number of years now, and we are attracting many more families who are devoting their time, resources, and energies into training their children. Many statistics show that, from the view point of the state, an educated well disciplined populace which cares for family life is beneficial in many ways. Michigan at this time is reaping the benefits of not having inappropriate laws devaluing family education. As our children enter adulthood, the positive impact on our state will easily be noticed.

In addition, there are countless statistical studies that show Home Education to be far superior to any publicly founded school in our state. I hesitate to use this argument, however, because in doing so, I am accepting the premise of the writers of this bill. Regardless of the supposed quality of Home Education, the state does not maintain the right to infringe on the home without cause. This “cause” is on an individual bases, not something imposed upon the entire populace. Unless we stand firm on parental rights in our state and country, whenever they are under attack, we will lose our rights as parents because the state will strip them away one at a time.

And one final personal note: Currently on HBO there is a mini-series about John Adams. He is one of my favorite founders. I read the book the series is based on and at some point it will be clear how John Adams feels about his children’s education and who is responsible. Many of the founders of our country were not schooled, but were taught at home and self-taught through books and life. It has amazed me how earnestly they sought books to read and the lengths they would go to acquire them. From Benjamin Franklin to George Washington; John Adams to even Abraham Lincoln; over and over again we see people who hunger for knowledge and learning; yet they, for the most part, were unschooled. While we do not live in their times, we do have the desire to provide that love of learning to our children. We desire to see them eager and longing to follow their passions and dreams, something which is far more possible when educating at home.

But if the state steps in with tests, evaluations, and benchmarks, we stand to lose much of that natural flowing curiosity about our world while instead we “get them ready for some test.”

Many families in the Home Education movement can attest to the fact that at times their child may be far behind in some subject because their passions lead them in other areas where they are far ahead. But guess what, it takes weeks only to get caught up when it’s necessary. It is amazing how much faster an older child learns when they are ready. The state’s “educators” stuck in their paradigm of how one learns best in large monogamous groups, all at the same level, will nearly faint at the thought of what I just said. Believe me, my family is filled with “educators” and I know. Yet, when they see it – when they see it with their own eyes, they marvel. They see children reading many books about historical figures, about horses, about some foreign country mentioned in church, and they discuss it at age eight or nine with adults, because they have a desire that they are allowed to follow.

But the state will strip this from us. They will see children behind in area “x” and pull the whole thing down. Maybe I forget what it’s like to be of the old paradigm (I was trained to be an elementary teacher), because I have been doing this with my family now for a number of years. I live it and love it; but an educator stands back all nervous because I’m not on target in some area. They miss the whole picture by seeing only the part.

Please help us fight for the rights of parents, all parents, in the state of Michigan.

—end letter—
Rep. Dave Agema personally called me on the same day that this email was sent to his office. He assured me that he opposed this bill and was a strong advicate for Home Schooling in Michigan. He sited a number of examples of what he has done to support Home Schooling in Michigan.

See the following links for more information if you are interested in Home Education, live in Michigan, or want to do more to protect Parental Rights.

http://www.homeedmi.net/
http://www.hslda.org/
http://www.parentalrights.org/
Link to the actual bill in PDF form: House Bill 5912

What exactly is meant by the “Old Covenant”?

At Mt. Sinai, the Israelites accepted God’s offer to be His people. They took on the yoke of the Torah and the covenant agreement was thus,

Exodus 24:7 “Then he took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the people. And they said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will faithfully do!’”

Here we see that the “Covenant” is the agreement. It is short and to the point. The people, for their side of the covenant, agree to faithfully do all the LORD has spoken.

What is it they agree to do? They agree to do the stipulations of the covenant. The stipulations are not the covenant. However, since the agreement is inspirable from the stipulations, it becomes difficult to see the distinction. We often hear sermons preached and read commentaries or books referring to the entire Mosaic Law as the covenant rather than the laws being the stipulations of the covenant. ¹

Why is this fine distinction important? Because how one understands the Apostolic Scriptures will depend heavily upon it.

The New Testament is called the “New Testament” because it reveals how God intends to bring about the New Covenant foreseen in the books of Moses and the prophets, and spelled out clearly in Jeremiah 31. If the entire Mosaic Law is the covenant rather than the stipulations of the covenant, how could one read Jeremiah 31 without wondering exactly what was so “new”?

Jeremiah 31:31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers…”

Clearly the LORD is going to make a completely new covenant, unlike the one he made with the Israelites who were led out of Egypt. So what is this new covenant like?

Jeremiah 31:33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my [Torah] in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. . . .”

But I thought it was going to be a new covenant. Why does Jeremiah keep all of the Mosaic Law? How is that new?

If your understanding is that the covenant equals the whole of the Mosaic Law, then you are tripped up here. It is clear God is going to make a new covenant, yet the only thing that changes is our relationship to the stipulations of the covenant. The “old covenant” was “We will faithfully do it!” and the “new covenant” is “I [the LORD] will put it on their hearts.” You may find it easier to speak in terms of “the Old Agreement” and the “New Agreement.” The agreement changed, not the laws that follow. ¹

This then also impacts greatly to how we read the New Testament especially as it relates to the covenants both old and new.

The most comprehensive book in the Apostolic Scriptures concerning these issues is the letter to the Hebrews. This is probably one of the most difficult letters to understand for most Christians today. The entire book is based on a sound understanding of the Old Testament Scriptures especially the last half of Exodus and the book Leviticus, one of the most ignored sections of the Bible. Without a clear understanding of what the Tabernacle is, why it is constructed, and how it functions, one can not clearly follow the line of argument that the writer of Hebrews makes. Furthermore, a failure to understand the audience of this letter makes is additionally difficult to grasp. Commentator after commentator has assumed that the writer is telling his audience that they need to abandon the Mosaic Law in their lives lest they fall away from the Lord. Yet, the whole book is based on an argument patter that states, “If such-and-such [in the Torah]is true…how much more is such-and-such [in Messiah].” But the common premise one takes when reading the book would negate the whole line of argument. Following these commentators, would one read the arguments in Hebrews as follows: “If such-and-such [in the Torah] … is done away with…how much more is such-and-such [in Messiah] … done away with?” Obviously not! But rather, since the Law was and is eternal, so much more is Jesus and his ministry eternal.

For a comprehensive study of Hebrews see: http://www.bereansonline.org/outlines/hebworkbook.pdf and for audio downloads search the http://www.bereansonline.org/ site (at this writing these files were missing from their site.) You can also get a good audio commentary on Hebrews here: http://www.bethimmanuel.org/audio-archives.html

Both of these sites teach about the covenant as described in this article.

A snippet on Hebrews because I can not resist: The writer to the Hebrews says in chapter 6 that he needs to get “beyond these elementary teachings.” (The Jews started their children at age five in the study of Leviticus.) And what are the elementary teachings? “Baptisms, the laying on of hands…” And what do these things mean? Why are baptisms and the laying on of hands elementary? For starters, they have everything to do with Leviticus and the Tabernacle. Baptism was not invented by John the Baptizer. It was invented by God and taught in Exodus and Leviticus. In addition, some Jews in the days of Jesus were baptized almost daily, especially if they lived near the Temple. Second, the “laying on of hands” was tide to the sacrifice. You laid your hands and your full weight on the head of the animal symbolically transferring your identity and life to the animal. Then you killed the animal and the Priest caught the blood/life of the animal, now representing you, and sprinkled it on the altar. It was the life of the animal, not the death, which was important. These are the so called elementary things that the writer wanted to get past and that most Christians have not been taught.

1. Deut 29:1 “These are the terms of the covenant . . .” This passage specifically delineates between the agreement and the terms of the agreement.

The Letter to the Romans in Context

Claudius, who reigned from 41-54 C.E. expelled the Jews, some 20,000, from Rome. (See Acts 18:2) This event is referred to by Suetonius and others and can be dated to C.E. 49 (McRay, pp. 225-226). ¹

After the death of Claudius (or possibly earlier)² , his expulsion decree expired with him and the Jews returned to Rome in 54 C.E. and following. It is most probably that this return was rapid.²

The Book of Romans was likely written between 56-58 C.E.²

Nero blames Christians for the fire in Rome in 64 C.E.

This historical background is necessary in understanding Romans. Gentile believers were apparently left in Rome to fend for themselves. They did not have the Torah by nature given to their forefathers and passed down for generations. With the Jews believers gone, there was no one there to teach them the Law and the manner in which it ought to be carried out. When the Jews return, they find these Gentile believers, now a majority of the synagogue attendees, living out the Torah of God as they best understand it and in light of their belief in Jesus as the Messiah. (Romans 2:14-15)

It takes some time to grasp all that is going to be happening here in Rome in the next few years. Not all of the returning Jews are believers in the Messiah and there were not yet “Messianic” Synagogues.³ We have every sect of Judaism trying to get along (something they couldn’t do earlier which resulted in their expulsion from Rome by Claudius)⁴, and now we add a new sect called, “The Way,” or Christians which are including Gentiles. Paul writes his letter to the believers, both Jew and Gentile, in Rome with an understanding of what is occurring. After all, word of the believers in Rome has spread all over the Empire by this time.

In addition, even between the believing Jews and the believing Gentiles there are tensions and difficulties. The Jews who grew up with the Torah did not appreciate the difference in “walking it out” that the Gentiles were living. The Jews after all were the “people of God” and the “receivers of the Torah” and the Gentiles ought to know their place and follow the correct way to “walk.” In addition, years of indoctrination had taught the Jews that all Gentiles were “unclean” and one should disassociate with them and certainly not eat with them.⁵ (Acts 10-11) It was also taught that salvation was for the Jew only, and Gentiles could join in the covenant only through ritual conversion – becoming a Jew. Jews were saved simply because they were Jews by birth and therefore already in the covenant. As long as they were faithful to the covenant, they would not be “cut off” from their people. Since circumcision was a major part of the conversion process, it was the very act that symbolized becoming a proselyte.^{5 and 6} Yet the Mosaic Law did not sanction this process, and only a misunderstanding of the Prophets promoted it.

Thus, in light of this, for a Gentile to become a proselyte, he would have subjected himself to the false teaching that salvation was for the Jew only. Becoming a proselyte would be the means to acquire salvation though his own “works” rather than faith in the Messiah.⁶
So was Paul against Circumcision? Or was he against Gentiles needing to become proselytes? If the act of “circumcision” became synonymous with “proselytism”, then when Paul says in Galatians, “…if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.” Is he against the physical act of circumcision, or is he against the teaching that becoming a proselyte (ie. circumcised) would earn you a place in the World to Come? If he was against the act itself, then why does he circumcise Timothy in Acts 16:3? Is it to “be all things to all people?” This hardly fits what we know of Paul who “bears the marks on his body” for that which he testifies. If, in the Galatians letter he “wishes they would go the whole way and castrate themselves,” then why does he here, most likely after the writing of Galatians, circumcise Timothy? We certainly know that it had nothing to do with becoming a proselyte in order to have a place in the World to Come!

This hornets nest in Rome was about to initiate the separation of believers in Jesus as Messiah from the rest of Israel and begin to forge itself as a separate religion. The final nail in the separation coffin between Jew and Christian is hard to nail down and may be a topic for further study latter.

This short introduction is important, because many people approach the book of Romans as if Paul is writing it in the same manner as someone like Calvin when he wrote his “Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Certainly this is Paul’s magnum opus, his most theologically packed letter, but even this letter was written to a specific audience in a specific time. Reading it out of that context may cause some difficulties.

1. “Archaeology and the New Testament”, by John McRay ISBN-13: 978-0801062674
2. A critical and exegetical commentary on The epistle to the Romans: in two volumes by C.E.B. Cranfield Published by Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004 ISBN 0567084051, 9780567084057 Pgs. 16-20
3. Suetonius apparently had no detailed information about the cause of the Jewish community’s agitation other than that it concerned the name of a person, “Chrestus.” Some speculate that is may have been a Roman misunderstanding of a debate about the Messiah [Christos for Greek-speaking Jews], since the emperor took unprecedented action against the whole community rather than a single agitator.
4. By the time of Paul’s writing, the Jewish community may very well have separated based on belief in the Messiah. There may have been a “Messianic” assembly separate from the non-believers in Jesus.
5. This article by Tim Hegg, while addressing the topic from another text, provides much evidence for this statement. http://www.torahresource.com/EnglishArticles/Eph%202.14.pdf Also, Tim Hegg, The Letter Writer: Paul’s Backgournd and Torah Perspective 2nd Addition, gives primary sources for this statement: see pages 29, 97, 103, 108. ISBN 13: 978-0-9759359-2-7
6. The entire book of Galatians.

Discontinuity View

Discontinuity View: Kevin Moore

Article linked to: The Christian and their Relationship to the Law of Moses

Short synopsis: (Direct quote from his article) “God has an eternal and unchanging Divine Law. God’s Divine Law is the general way He desires people to live because for Him to desire otherwise would contradict His character and nature. Not only does God have a Divine Law but He also has a moral standard for His people. God’s moral standard is His specific desire for how His creatures should live. In comparison, God’s Divine Law is eternal and unchanging whereas God’s moral standard is not eternal and does change according to His purposes. However, God’s moral standards are always extrapolated from the same foundation—God’s eternal and unchanging Divine Law. This common foundation does not necessitate that each of God’s moral standards be identical but it does ensure their relatedness. In keeping with this, the theological view of discontinuity sees no clearly defined categories or portions of the Mosaic Law that are identical to God’s eternal and unchanging Divine Law. Therefore, the Christian, having died to the Law, is no longer under any portion of that era’s moral standard. Christ’s Law, the Christian’s moral standard, shares a common foundation with the Mosaic Law providing similarity at times; however, these similarities do not equate bondage to a previously established moral standard.”

Strengths and Weaknesses: I am hoping to engage Kevin Moore in a discussion on his site, or on this one if he prefers, in an attempt to draw out some of his thoughts.

Conclusion: I do not know where to put this article but it’s well written so I want to link to it for a least some time as a separate category. I do not want too many different categories, so if this view fits a more theologically defined category, I will move it there. Let me know.

Also, this is not a in depth article. It provides a well written summary of Kevin’s understanding, but not a detailed footnoted scholarly thesis.

Sean Daily

Commentary on Romans 1:18-32

NOTE: I will be using Tim Hegg’s commentary at times to help buttress my opinion, however; Tim Hegg does not share (yet) my conclusion. It is my plan to send this along with a letter explaining the context to Mr. Hegg to get his feedback.

Thesis: Understanding Romans 1:18-32 to be speaking of Jewish men during the time of the prophets who have received the knowledge of God through His Torah (Law), but did not regard it, but rather exchanged it for the lie.

Context: This post is in response to a comment thread on The Inoculator. In our discussion of Romans 2:14, it became necessary for me to post a lengthy article supporting some of my comments. Please note that this has yet to be vetted.

Romans 1:18 reads, “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness.”

Tim Hegg’s commentary, of which I will use to make my point anytime he helps me, says, “It seems most likely that Paul has Gentiles particularly in mind in these verses, but we should consider this more carefully. In using the term ‘men’ and nowhere using the word ‘Gentile,’ it may be that while the heart of unregenerate mankind is best portrayed in the immoral passions of the pagan nations, yet the idolatry mentioned in v. 23 echoes language of Ps 106:20 and Jer 2:11, passages directed toward the Jewish nation. What is more, the heart of the section 2:1-3:20 teaches precisely that the Jew, who thinks himself entitled to sit in judgment on the Gentiles, himself does the very same things that he condemns in them.”

Also, since these men “suppress the truth” they must have obtained the truth. It seems unlikely that Paul is speaking of pagans, who have no direct revelation, are able to sufficiently suppress the truth from other pagans who are in the same boat. Rather, it makes much more sense in the present text and in the context at large, that these men are those who were entrusted with the truth of God, but have suppressed it (from other Jews, but more likely in our context from Gentiles) by their wickedness.

Two other quotes from Hegg’s commentary that I’ll mention without further comment, “Some have suggested that the two terms fit well the transgression of the two tables of the Torah, the first table being sins against God (ungodliness) and the second against man (unrighteousness).” And then, “Thus, the Scriptures remain our foundations, and we strive to know the truth from them.”

Romans 1:19 “since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.”

This verse states that God has made the truth plain to them. In light of the Jewish history, there is only one people to whom God has made the truth plain or manifest. While general revelation through creation is a form of truth pointing to God, it is far less plain than the Torah, the Tabernacle and the miracles performed during the exodus.

Hegg’s commentary states,

“Paul no doubt cast the phrase this way in order to maintain aspects of God which are mysterious, unrevealed, and thus beyond our knowledge. Consider Deut 29:29 – ‘The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this Torah.’

Therefore, the things “revealed” or made plain, belong to the Jews.
And then later he says,

“… our text stresses the fact that God Himself has taken the initiative to make His existence known. Thus, such knowledge of God of which the Apostle speaks in not a knowledge gained from passive facts, but is the direct effect of God’s intended purpose to make himself known.”

He’s saying that even though the Jews have received the Torah direct from God, there are still mysterious things beyond their knowledge, and that this text does not indicate passive facts, but direct effect of God’s intended purpose…the God directed initiative. This all seems very close to saying, as I propose, that Paul is speaking of truth and knowledge gained from the Torah.

Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.”

If I was a deceptive man, I’d simply skip this verse, because if any verse betrays my direction in understanding these passages, this would be it. That being said, let me take some stabs at making the text fit my interpretation…after all, everyone does it to some degree.

All through the Torah, it is through the created world—the things that have been made—by which God communicates to His people. The two trees, the cherubim, the coverings for Adam and Eve, the sacrifices, the Tabernacle just to name a few. God communicates always through his creation, and not through esoteric mysticism. Therefore the “men” who are without excuse are the men who have received these created things. Hegg himself says, “…invisible attributes are ‘clearly seen’ may actually put an emphasis upon the physical act of ‘seeing’ more than the sense of ‘see with the mind’s eye…’”

Romans 1:21, “For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”

Clearly these are people who “knew God.” In light of the Hebrew that may be associated with the Greek here, to “know” is to be in relationship with. Either way, the text seems to point to a once held relationship with God since they either knew God in a personal sense or they knew about God in an impersonal way like many ridged Christians of today. This doesn’t seem to point to an esoteric knowledge obtained simply because they noticed stars and seasons at some point.
Also, in reading the following, “..nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile…” How might one give thanks to a god known about only by observing the general revelation? Any attempt to give thanks apart from the revealed Word would almost definitely fall into idolatry.

Romans 1:22-23, “Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”

Here again we see that they “exchanged the glory of…” How does one exchange something if one does not obtain it first. I can not exchange an old car for a newer car if I don’t first possess the old car. And on top of that, they are exchanging the “glory of the immortal God.” They are not exchanging some vague idea of an all powerful God. They are exchanging the “glory” of the immortal God. This “glory” is what we see on Mount Sinai and what we see descend and rest on the Tabernacle. It is this “glory” that God causes to pass in front of Moses, but His face Moses can not see. To say that pagans can possibly exchange this kind of ‘glory’ is unthinkable.
Further more, they exchanged the glory of God for images. We see this clearly in the prophets. Israel did this very thing even 40 days after accepting the Torah. Also, since all of these texts are being spoken of in the past tense, then we must be speaking of “men” who in the past did all of this. The Jews in Rome would have known the Scriptures, and so they would have equated this part of the letter with the Jews who lived during the days of the prophets. This, and the lists coming up, match that generation quite well as Hegg states, [Under Romans 2:1]

“We may note, however, that the sins enumerated in 1:18-32, while characteristic of the pagan Gentile in particular, describe in broad strokes the sin of idolatry, a sin with which Israel is constantly being charged by the Prophets.”

This quote from his text is the closest he comes to showing me that he already has given this interpretation some thought.

Romans 1:24-27

Here is some of the lists that fit the nation of Israel during the times of the prophets quite well.

Romans 1:28, “…did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God…”

Again, we see that they must have had the “knowledge of God” in order to “not think it worthwhile to retain.” In this I see a contrast between God constantly telling the nation to teach these decrees to their children against the fact that they did not teach the decrees to them. They did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge throughout their generations. Obviously, once you “know” something, if knowledge spoken of here is simply knowing facts rather than having a relationship with, you can not simply stop knowing it. However, to fail to pass this knowledge onto your children would fit the statement somewhat better, and also fit my interpretation of this section.
One can also have a factual knowledge of God, and then live as though he or she does not have that knowledge. This also can fit this verse, but not nearly as neat.

Romans 1:28-31

Again, more examples of Israel during the days of the prophets.

Romans 1:32, “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death…”

If no other verse makes my point, than this one certainly does, for here we actually have Paul stating clearly that they “know God’s righteous decree.” There is literally only one way they could know God’s righteous decree, and that is through hearing it read (or reading it.) If Romans 1:20 is my downfall and the text I need to “bend” to fit my interpretation, than certainly this one is the downfall of the rest of the commentators who need to “bend” this text to fit their understanding. Hegg’s statement that this decree is somehow “embedded in the creative order” is untenable. No disrespect intended.

One more point. How would the original readers have understood this section? Do we think that the Jews in Rome would have given any thought to Gentiles being able to “know God” through general revelation? While current commentators may have a correct ‘idea’ in general, the Text can never mean what it never meant. If this text did not originally mean to say that “Gentiles” apart from the Torah and the Messiah could have a general knowledge of God through creation, then we can not be anachronistic. Putting myself into the shoes of Paul’s original audience, I do not see how they would have arrived at our current interpretation of this section of scripture. If Paul indeed was saying what many commentators claim he is saying, it would seem natural that Paul would have made it explicitly clear to them by actually saying “Gentiles” rather then “men.”

Sean Daily

Link to Hegg’s commentary available for sale on his site.