In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New Testament writers.<\/p>\n
The first concept is that of Scripture<\/em> itself. As Christians we are familiar with this term. We use it all the time to refer to our complete Bible. However, this understanding can also lead us astray. For the Early Church, their Scriptures, their Bible, if you will, were the writings of the Old Testament.<\/p>\n Thus, when we read statements in the New Testament in regard to Scripture, we must understand that those statements, in the clear majority of cases, refer to the Old Testament. This is important, for the term Scripture occurs over thirty times in the New Testament. It is also important because this term is used by all New Testament writers bar one, Jude.<\/p>\n Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, \u201cAll Scripture<\/em> is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work<\/span>\u201d[1]<\/a>, he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states that, \u201cno prophecy of Scripture<\/em> is a matter<\/em> of one\u2019s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God<\/span>\u201d[2]<\/a>, his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.<\/p>\n A second important concept has to do with the phrase, \u201cIt stands written\u201d, which is often used by the New Testament authors to introduce the Old Testament Scriptures. This phrase is important, first, because of its frequent usage and, second, because it occurs in the Perfect Tense. As the name implies, the perfect tense points to perfected action. In Greek, the perfect has the connotation of something that is completed in the past, yet has abiding validity in the present. As such, the use of this term in this tense to introduce Scripture makes a potent statement about the nature of the Scriptures being quoted. In other words, this tense suggests to us, very strongly, that the Old Testament Scriptures are still valid and authoritative and that they are not to be easily forsaken, overturned, or discarded.<\/span><\/p>\n Next, we want to demonstrate just how widely the Old Testament was relied upon by the so-called New Testament writers. Now, please understand, the point here is not simply to multiply texts or Old Testament quotes. It is, rather, to display the importance of the Old Testament text, the range of the texts relied upon, and the speaker\u2019s or writer\u2019s emphasis upon the validity of the Old Testament for founding, making, or completing an argument.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.a Jesus:<\/span><\/p>\n Equally, we must see that there are three topics in view when Jesus uses this term \u2013 the Sabbath, Sexuality \/ Marriage, and the Resurrection. Let us look at each briefly:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sabbath<\/em>: Jesus shows that the Law of the Sabbath is by no means contrary to mercy, compassion, or genuine service (to God). To prove this, Jesus brings in two historical events, one concerning David (1 Samuel 21:6) and the other from the practice of the priests via the phrase, \u201cHave you not read in the Law<\/em> how \u2026?<\/span>\u201d Jesus caps of this teaching with a further rebuke, \u201c\u2026 if you had known\u201d \u2013 implying very clearly that His opponents did not know \u2013 and then quotes Hosea 6:6, \u201cFor I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.\u201d<\/p>\n The point here is that Jesus does not dismiss the Sabbath as no longer relevant<\/em>. Jesus does not expunge the Law of the Sabbath<\/em>. Rather, by appealing to the Law and the Prophets, Jesus shows to us the true nature of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is then a sacred and hallowed day in which we must cease from our labours and turn our thoughts and actions unto God, but it is also a day that is pre-eminently about mercy and compassion.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n The important point, in regard to our argument, is that Jesus does not simply quote the fourth Commandment and give some instruction. No, Jesus, quotes from history, the Law, and from a prophet to show the validity of the Sabbath and its true meaning. If it is only the Ten Commandments that are valid and authoritative, Jesus must have made a grave error or, the more likely scenario, we have contrived a falsehood when we insist that the Ten Commandments are<\/em> the Moral Law.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Sexuality \/ Marriage<\/em>: Jesus is asked one of those sticky questions by the Pharisees regarding divorce. In answering, Jesus goes first to Genesis 1:27 (5:2), the Cultural Mandate, to establish the fact that Man was crated male and female with genuine, purpose built sexuality and then moves to Genesis 2:24 to show that this sexuality reaches its acme in the covenant bond of marriage. In short, male and female being fruitful, multiplying, and ruling, only occurs legitimately in the permanent bond of marriage.<\/p>\n Again, note that Jesus\u2019 answer is not the quotation of the sixth command, but a restatement of God\u2019s creation order and purpose. In taking this tack, Jesus is upholding the summary of the Law in the Ten Commandments, but He is also showing that God\u2019s Moral Law and God\u2019s Morality can be found in narratives that predate the Law and the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n This point is essential for our understanding and for pressing home the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in our daily lives. Take, as one example, the issue of homosexuality, which looms large today. There is much nonsense peddled in Christendom today with the result that many are confused. Our local Anglican Bishop came forward and stated that he could not see that homosexual marriage would be in anyway contradictory to the teachings of Christ. Such a position can only be arrived at through gross and wilful ignorance. Jesus, in the passage before us, upholds God\u2019s creation order. In doing so, Jesus, by good and necessary consequence, upholds the fifth, seventh, and tenth Commandments as well as validating texts like Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Revelation 22:15. Jesus 1; Bishop zip!<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Resurrection<\/em>: In regard to the resurrection, all that needs to be noted are these basic facts: 1. Whist the OT acknowledges eternal life and resurrection, it does not give much information; 2. We would expect that Jesus may have given us clearer information regarding the resurrection; 3. What Jesus did, however, was quote the narrative of Exodus 3:6 to show that God is the God of the living.<\/p>\n Once more, we see that Jesus went back to the Law<\/em><\/span> in order to make an authoritative statement regarding a little known subject. Using the narrative of Exodus, Jesus simply affirmed that the patriarchs were alive. The implication then being that all Abraham\u2019s true children will live. What Jesus gave us was not a new revelation, but an authoritative restatement of what was already known, but not grasped and understood.<\/p>\n Equally, we cannot miss the point that there is authoritative and valid information contained in the Law, occurring outside the Decalogue and on subjects to which the Decalogue does not speak.<\/p>\n 2.What is the Law?<\/span><\/em> Most Christians know the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it has come to be known. Here is a young man who declares that he has kept the Law from his youth. What many people miss, particularly in Matthew\u2019s[4]<\/a> account, is the very nature of what is to be called \u201cthe Law\u201d.<\/p>\n Most Christians generally refer to \u201cthe Law\u201d as the Pentateuch, the Torah, or as the first five books. This is acceptable, in one sense. However, as we have seen, many or most Christians, when pushed, would state that it is the Ten Commandments alone that are the real \u201cLaw\u201d, the Moral Law, which unaccompanied is binding and valid. With this view in mind, let us see what Jesus\u2019 encounter with this young man reveals.<\/p>\n Jesus is asked concerning life eternal. Jesus\u2019 reply is \u201ckeep the commandments.\u201d It is an aside, but it is very interesting that Jesus asserts that keeping God\u2019s law goes hand in hand with eternal life! Anyway, in response to Jesus\u2019 statement, the young man asks, \u201cWhich ones?\u201d Jesus then gives this reply: \u201cYou shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Looking at this list of Commandments, and thinking of the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law, do you notice anything odd?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s go through them. Jesus lists six Commandments. They are, in the order Jesus gives them, six, seven, eight, nine, five, and \u2026 whoops, what happened?<\/span> The last Commandment that Jesus gives is actually a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 and it is this same partial quote that forms the second great commandment, recorded in Matthew 22:39.<\/p>\n Now, it is very possible that Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 as a parallel to the tenth Commandment, \u201cDo not covet\u201d, for, indeed, to covet your neighbour\u2019s wife or possession is to show an extreme lack of love to your neighbour, especially if this errant desire is acted upon. However, in regard to our argument, it is imperative that we once more grasp the fact that Jesus gives Moral teaching from the Law, but not from what we so often label the Moral Law. Once grasped, we must acknowledge that equating the Ten Commandments with the Moral Law, as done by the moderns, is in fact a modern aberration. The Reformation Church, with its teaching that the Decalogue is a summary of the Moral law, had a much sounder and more Biblical belief.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.b Paul:<\/span> The Apostle, Paul, has some interesting uses of the Old Testament Law that are instructive. They are so precisely because the moderns would never, by their standards, classify these Laws as applicable, abiding, or moral\u2014indeed they would categorise them as those particular to Israel and of no benefit to modern man\u2014yet Paul picks up these Laws and applies them to his day and in such a way that they must be understood as applicable, abiding, and Moral.<\/p>\n First<\/em>, we read in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, \u201cLet the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says<\/em>, \u201cYou shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,\u201d and \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages<\/span>.\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n Here, we come face to face with two case laws that would be, by most modern Christians, placed in the \u201cjudicial law\u201d category, which is supposed to have passed away with Israel and therefore be of no relevance to us. Yet, Paul picks out these two Old Testament case laws, one dealing with a threshing ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other dealing with a labourer\u2019s wages (Leviticus 19:13), and applies them squarely to the issues of the sustentation and honour of the Elder. In making such an application, Paul demonstrates that these Laws were of Moral importance in their original setting and, in applying them to Elders, a continuing office of the Church, he makes these Laws applicable to every situation and for all time.<\/p>\n Next, we must understand, and we do mean must<\/strong>, that these Laws did not take on an authority because Paul, the Apostle, quoted them and somehow filled them with authority and validity. No, Paul quoted these Laws because they were already filled with authority; for they contained the very breath of God<\/em>.<\/span> Paul, in quoting the case laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was but practicing his own advice that he gave to Timothy, his son in the faith: \u201cAll Scripture is God breathed and useful!<\/em><\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Second<\/em>, in 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul confronts a real issue of morality with the words: \u201cIt is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father\u2019s wife<\/strong><\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n In looking at this text, it seems a bit pedestrian on the face of things. However, if we focus on the last three words \u2013 his father\u2019s wife<\/em> \u2013 we will see that these words bear a striking resemblance to certain Laws contained in the Old Testament. For example, we could look at texts like Leviticus 18:8, \u201cYou shall not uncover the nakedness of your father\u2019s wife<\/em>; it is your father\u2019s nakedness<\/span>\u201d; Deuteronomy 22: 30, \u201cA man shall not take his father\u2019s wife<\/em> so that he shall not uncover his father\u2019s skirt<\/span>\u201d; or Deuteronomy 27:20, \u201cCursed is he who lies with his father\u2019s wife<\/em>, because he has uncovered his father\u2019s skirt<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n To make sense of this, let us look more closely at the text. Note that Paul states that there is \u201cimmorality\u201d in the midst of the Corinthians. Immorality implies that a sin has been committed. What sin? The Greek word used (porneia) means any unlawful sexual transaction. This term does not specify the sin exactly; only that it is of a sexual nature. To make clear why this fellow is guilty of a sin, Paul then makes reference to the Law. Thus, once more, it is the Law that is the authority; it is the Law that has been transgressed; and because the Law has been transgressed, the man is guilty of a sin, which is classified as immorality<\/span>.<\/p>\n Please also grasp the fact that Paul did not simply appeal to the fifth Commandment, \u201cHonour father and mother<\/em>\u201d, but looked passed the summary to actual laws that embodied this principle and showed exactly how to honour one\u2019s parents by elucidating specifics.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Third, and briefly, we will make reference to Romans 1:32: \u201calthough they know the ordinance of God<\/strong>, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Focussing upon the phrase \u201cordinances of God\u201d, there are two points to be made. The first is that of understanding the term \u201cordinance\u201d. It is not a term familiar to us in common usage. We might be more familiar with the term through our televisions, for the Americans use terms such a \u201ccity ordinance\u201d more commonly. That usage shows to us that the term ordinance<\/em> has at its root the concept of law. Thus, Paul is not speaking of a vague concept in regard to God, but rather of His law and His righteous decrees.<\/p>\n The second point comes in the form of a question, \u201cTo what is Paul referring?\u201d The only possible answer that makes any sense is to say that Paul refers to the sins that he has listed in the immediate context, namely, the preceding verses.<\/p>\n Once more, Paul takes his stand in the Law of God. Man is to be condemned because he has turned from the knowledge of God and wilfully broken His righteous decrees even though Man knew that to do so was to court death.<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 3.c Peter:<\/span> Lastly, let us consider a few words from Peter. In regard to the first quotation, it is to be admitted that we will change tack slightly. The point at this juncture is that the New Testament writers understood the abiding validity and significance of God\u2019s word. Says Peter, 1:1:23-25, \u201cFor you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, <\/em>through the living and abiding word of God. For, \u201cAll flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.\u201d And this is the word which was preached to you.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Peter\u2019s contrast, so it seems, is between the transient nature of man and the abiding Word of God. Man is but a \u201cflash in the pan\u201d compared to the eternity of God and His word. We are perishable and perishing, but God\u2019s word is imperishable and abiding.<\/p>\n However, when we dig deeper we see that the brilliance of the passage is in its correlation of salvation for God\u2019s covenant people. Peter quotes from Isaiah (40:6f), an Old Testament prophet who spoke to God\u2019s wayward covenant people concerning God\u2019s great day of redemption. Peter, speaking on this very same topic, only from the point of fulfilment, not type, highlights that the abiding Word which brings life is the Gospel. It is the Word proclaimed by Isaiah, preached by Peter. It is the abiding Word that not only brings life, but which then governs and orders life so much so that we must \u201cfervently love one another<\/span>\u201d.<\/p>\n The second text from Peter, returns us to the point that God\u2019s Morality can be found throughout the Old Testament and not just in the Decalogue. Likewise, this Morality, precisely because it belongs to God, is eternal and binding. Noting that there is to be a moral and righteous relationship between Christians on the basis of our redemption, Peter says (1:3:8-12), \u201cTo sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, \u201cLet him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. \u201cAnd let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. \u201cFor the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Can you see Peter\u2019s methodology here? First, Peter<\/span> makes certain statements in regard to what Christians should be and why. Then, to prove the correctness of his position he gives an extended quote from Psalm 34:12-16<\/span>. Once more, the Old Testament does not become authoritative because it is used by Peter. Much rather, Peter uses the Old Testament because it is authoritative.<\/p>\n Similarly, we must see that the Psalm, not being part of the Decalogue, is nonetheless considered to be both Moral, valid, and abiding.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/span>:<\/p>\n When the Biblical evidence is assembled, it shows that Theocracy and Theonomy are not terms to be shunned, much rather, they are to be embraced. Furthermore, the very lack of understanding in regard to these concepts stems from the fact that we are using the World\u2019s wisdom to gain understanding instead of turning unto God\u2019s wisdom.<\/p>\n For example, we are being told by the word that Theocracy is bad and that it equates with tyranny (as if the World does not have a barrow to push!). We are told that a Secular government is right because it alone is neutral and will govern for all citizens. The simple fact is that both of these are lies, blatant lies!<\/p>\n Yes, from the Caesars to Idi Amin there have been those who have believed that they have been given a divine right to rule. In one sense they are right. God appoints all rulers and their place and time in history (Job 12:23; Daniel 2:21), but this act of Sovereignty by God is by no means equivalent to a genuine Theocracy. The true Theocracy is a rule established by God and for God. It rules by God\u2019s law and for His glory. Despots with a \u201cJesus complex\u201d or who delude themselves are rightly to be called rebels not theocrats. Even in regard to Israel, whilst we use the term Theocracy readily, we must understand its use in a loose manner. If the king, like an Ahab, did not fear Yahweh and seek to fulfil His commands, such a king was rebellious and not theocratic. He was in the truest sense a usurper and a pretender.<\/p>\n So, let us not use cases of abuse and cases which are not Theocracy to deter us from believing in the truth of a genuine Theocracy<\/span>.<\/p>\n The second lie is that of Neutrality. All governments must be biased. They will of necessity be biased toward their fundamental belief system. Even a Theocracy \u2013 the very reason it is denounced \u2013 is not neutral but actively biased to God. Thus, when Bill Shorten, as one example, campaigns under a slogan of government for all Australians, he is nothing but a bold faced liar. Mr Shorten peddles the politics of Socialism. Therefore, he will discriminate against one group in favour of another, based on his belief system. For example, he has pledged to introduce same-sex marriage within so many days of taking government. This is not governing for all, as it immediately discriminates against every person who believes homosexuality to be errant.<\/p>\n So let us not as Christians, continue to peddle the Myth of Neutrality and concepts like religious freedom and the right of a Secular government, and so on, for it is this plurality that has led us into the current crisis<\/span>. By admitting that there are many ways that are right, we have denied the exclusivity of God, His right to rule, and His right to rule by His law. In taking this stand, we Christians have opened the door to pluralism and fostered its uptake. Now the chickens are roosting and we are to pay the piper. How long will we halt between two opinions?<\/em><\/p>\n Lastly, let us remember the words of Paul: \u201cFirst of all, then, I urge that entreaties and <\/em>prayers, petitions and <\/em>thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity<\/em>.<\/span>\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n Paul calls God\u2019s people to prayer. Paul calls God\u2019s people to pray for those in authority. This must, of course, include those who form government, no matter what form that government takes. For us, the importance comes when we consider the purpose<\/strong> for which we are to pray \u2013 that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity<\/em> (NIV: holiness; we like \u201creverence\u201d).<\/p>\n If we take these words seriously, then we cannot just pray a flippant prayer; we cannot just pray for a good government; No, we must pray for a righteous government! It is only righteousness that leads to peace and tranquillity. Godliness cannot be achieved through a Secular government; neither can holiness or reverence.<\/p>\n Therefore, if we are to be true to Paul\u2019s command, we must be praying for a government that fears and honours Jesus Christ and such a government can only be had when the hearts of those men forming government are yielded to Jesus by His Spirit!<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders<\/strong>; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace<\/strong>. There will be no end to the increase of His <\/em>government or of peace<\/strong>, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.<\/span>\u201d<\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 1)<\/a><\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 2)<\/a><\/p>\n Controversial \u201cTheo-\u201d words (Pt. 3)<\/a><\/p>\n Footnotes:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> 2 Timothy 3:16-17.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> 2 Peter 1:20-21.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Even the Westminster Divines, who are big on worship and Sabbath acknowledge this point: WCF 21:8 \u2013 This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23,25\u201326,29\u201330, Exod. 31:15\u201317, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15\u201319,21\u201322) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy.<\/strong> (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1\u201313)<\/span><\/p>\n [4]<\/a> Matthew 19:16-22.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> 1 Timothy 2:1-2.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New … Continue reading \n
\n
\n