Truth, Tried and True!

Why wasn't this posted in the Daily Devotions section of the forum instead of the Questions about Doctrine and Theology board? Is there some point of inquiry or comment in Newell's writing that you wanted answered or discussed? 

If not, then I have a few questions. 


1) My first question is, "Did you intend for us to be discussing the place of the law in the life of the regenerate saint's life?"


Newell states, "Paul’s blessed doctrine that those who are in Christ Jesus are dead to the law and discharged therefrom, is absolutely necessary to those who would walk in the Spirit and make progress in their spiritual growth." Presumably, Newell is referring to Paul's comments in Romans 7:4-6 and possibly Galatians 2:19. 

2) To what law do you think Paul is referring? If the answer is, "the law of sin," then what specifically is that law? Where might I find it stated in the Bible?

3) (Since Newell's not here to answer these questions for us), how do you reconcile Newell's reading with the fact Paul repeatedly applied the Old Testament laws to his audiences in all his letters? So too did all the other New Testament writers. In other words, if they were "discharged therefrom," as Newell states, why then do the New Testament's epistolary writers continue to educate them, remind them, and direct them to the law? I don't see Newell addressing that in this article.

4) How do you reconcile Newell's comments with Jesus' words "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"? This implies heaven and earth will pass away before the law does the same and passes away. We therefore (I assume you agree) should not construe Paul to be directing the saints to do believe or do something contrary to Jesus' words.

5) The article does a good job of emphasizing it's not the law that is dead (nowhere does the New Testament state the law is dead in its entirety). The repeated message of Paul is we are dead to the law (it is us who are dead, not the law).  How is it the statement, "" made?

6) Do you think the "rebellious people" of Titus 1:10 were believers, saints in the Church? 

Perhaps, but that is not an answer to the question asked. 

Why are we starting out this way? 

Okay. Thanks. If the law to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law (capital "L" Law) and Paul does not promote its continuation why then does he (along with ALL the other New Testament writers) repeatedly quote it, reference, and apply it to the first century churches? 

Sure. One of the ways ANYONE can recognize the New Testament's use of the Old Testament is observing the phrase, "It is written..." Or one could simply do a word search for the use of "Law" in the New Testament. This isn't rocket surgery. An example of this that comes specifically, directly from the Mosaic Law is found in Deuteronomy 25:4, where we read the Law stating, “You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing." In his letter to the Corinthians Paul applies this Law in reference to the apostles deserving material support for their work. 


1 Corinthians 9:1-12

Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock? I am not speaking these things according to human judgment, am I? Or does not the Law also say these things? For it is written in the Law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle the ox while it is threshing." God is not concerned about oxen, is He? Or is He speaking altogether for our sake? Yes, for our sake it was written, because the plowman ought to plow in hope, and the thresher to thresh in hope of sharing the crops. If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.


When Paul wrote Timothy about his fledgling role as a Church leader Paul said, 

1 Timothy 5:17-22

The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages." Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also will be fearful of sinning. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin.




With the addition of "The laborer is worthy of his wages," Paul is directly referencing what Jesus said several times when he sent out the disciples to preach, "Take no bag for the road, or second tunic, or sandals, or staff; for the worker is worthy of his provisions" (Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:7). We see that Jesus often uses the Law to show how the Jews were falling short in BOTH letter AND principle. In fact, they were often very meticulous with the letter of the law while entirely missing the principle or "spirit" of the law. It turns out, in this example, that the Law against muzzling the ox was not just about oxen, muzzles, and grain threshing. There is a larger principle at work having to do with nourishing the laborer, just recompense, and peripheral matters of responsibility and generosity, etc. We understand Jesus' use of the Law more readily because he is speaking as a Jew, to Jews, about Jews. This, of course, changes immensely with Calvary and Pentecost because Jesus fulfilled the Law on the cross. If the Law (and the prophets and the psalms) testify about Jesus, how then would we think that testimony is no longer relevant or applicable for this in Christ? This is why I so often ask (or cite) the use of the Law in the epistolary. The letters were all written post-Calvary and post-Pentecost. They are post-Calvary applications of the Law (and the prophets and psalms ).


Another example is Peter's appeal to Leviticus 20:26. The Law is stipulating "clean" and "unclean" creatures, and Peter literally quotes the Law in his application for the ifrst century converts to Christ. 

1 Peter 1:13-16

Therefore, prepare your minds for action, keep sober in spirit, fix your hope completely on the grace to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, "You shall be holy for I am holy."

Notice that on this occasion Peter is asserting a causal relationship between the Law and the Christian life . 


Here's an example is one that is implied and not explicit. John, among the most Jewish of the New Testament writers (he references the Old Testament more than 340 times in the book of Revelation alone), defines sin in 1 John 3:4 as, "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." How many times have you heard/read Christians appealing to this verse to define sin? You yourself may well have done so. Many do so completely while also claiming we are freed from the Law! If we're free from the Law, then how can sin be measured by lawlessness? Some do this completely oblivious to what is at best a paradox and at worst an outright contradiction. 


And..... if we take the whole of the Old Testament as an extension of the Mosaic Law, then the New Testament's use of the prophets and the psalms are also examples of the apostles applying the Law to both Jewish and Gentile converts to Christ. There are literally scores of examples where this occurs in the post-gospels New Testament. 

Hence my questions. Since you've said the Law to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law (and I agree for the most part), let me ask my questions again . 







3) How is Newell's reading of the Law reconciled with the fact Paul repeatedly applied the Old Testament laws to his audiences in all his letters? So too did all the other New Testament writers. In other words, if they were "discharged therefrom," as Newell states, why then do the New Testament's epistolary writers continue to educate them, remind them, and direct them to the law? I don't see Newell addressing that in this article.



4) How are Newell's comments reconciled with Jesus' words "For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"? This implies heaven and earth will pass away before the law does the same and passes away. We therefore (I assume you agree) should not construe Paul to be directing the saints to do believe or do something contrary to Jesus' words. Let me add, given your appreciated response, that your answer is not very Dispensationalist. Newell would have taught us to read scripture literally, even if Jesus on this occasion was entertaining a certain hyperbole. Either that, or Newel would have been contradicting the core hermeneutic principle, foundational to Dispensationalism, of reading scripture literally. I will agree with you that Jesus is being hyperbolic but what then is the meaning of the hyperbole? Is he not saying the Law is enduring? How could we possible read Jesus' words to mean, "The Law is going to be completely gone, done away with, and no longer applicable in any way in less than three years"? That interpretation does not comport with the actual words, or the context in which they were spoken. 


5) The article does a good job of emphasizing it's not the law that is dead (nowhere does the New Testament state the law is dead in its entirety). The repeated message of Paul is we are dead to the law (it is us who are dead, not the law). How is it the statement, "The Law is dead (or abolished)," can be made? My apologies. I see I did not complete the inquiry when it was originally asked. My point is that Paul, and Newel, correctly identify the dead component: US!, not the Law. The Bible does not actually say the Law is dead. It says the Law is abrogated, abolished, or annulled and it specifies the context(s) in which it is canceled (I'll temporarily withhold further commentary on that specific context in hopes of enticing the lurkers to deeper study ). 


6) Do you think the "rebellious people" of Titus 1:10 were believers, saints in the Church? I ask this because questions for a couple of reasons. One is because Paul is couching his commentary in the Law. He's also referencing the mythical, pagan Greek philosopher or seer Epimenides (and none of us would consider him inspired ). 

7) If the law to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and you have stated it is that Law, and Paul does not promote its continuation, as you have also just stated, why then does he (along with ALL the other New Testament writers) repeatedly quote it, reference, and apply it to the first century churches? This is a re-wording of the first question, but I think it is worth asking again because it gets to the crux of the issue, the correct view of the Law as it is applied in the New Testament, and how the matter of the Law in the lives of those in Christ is often badly taught. 



Shouldn't we be practicing our faith in a manner consistent with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles? 

Or.....

...worded in a more affirmative declarative statement.... 

We should be practicing the Old Testament in a manner consistent with the New Testament's use of the Old Testament. We're NOT Jews! We're Christians and the previously Jewish Christian apostles repeatedly directly quoted and implicitly referenced the Law and applied to both Jewish and Gentile converts in Christ. 

We will have to cease from discussing the issue of the Law being done away. There is too much Scriptura to attest to the fact that it was "finished," and "taken away"; and the new covenant has come (Heb 10:9; also 7:18, 19; 8:7, 8; 2Co 3:11; Eph 2:15; Col 2:14; Gal 3:24, 25).