To continue from my last blog, I want to argue that Paul seems to assume that the teachings of Jesus pertain to the New Covenant era.
The Law of Christ
In Galatians 6:2, Paul exhorts us to bear one another's burdens thereby fulfilling "the law of Christ". This law of Christ probably is to be identified with Jesus' teaching to love one another (see also 1 Corinthians 9:21, where Paul speaks of himself as "not God's lawless one, but Christ's enlawed one"). Evidence if this comes from Galatians 5:14 which echoes Jesus' teaching in Matt 22:34-40/Mark 12:28-34. The "loving one another" is explicitly cited by Jesus in John 13:34; 15:12, 17 as a command, which is of course related to the idea of a law. As a side note, in John 13:34 this command is called "new" and Raymond Brown has argued that this is related to the New Covenant. Furthermore, the new covenant passage in Jeremiah 33 speaks of a law being written on the heart. This connection would bolster the hypothesis that "the law of Christ" in Paul is definitely a new covenant idea--an idea going back to the teachings of Jesus. It is not an accident that much of Jesus' sermon on the mount has to do with one's heart and not merely outward appearance. This provides a nice segue to my next topic.
The Word of Christ
In Colossians 3:16 Paul exhorts to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". It's possible that the "word of Christ" concerns that message about Christ, but a case can be made it refers to the Message of Jesus, that is, the word spoken and taught by Jesus. Earlier in Colossians we read (3:12-14):
As God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord had forgiven you, so you must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.David Wenham has pointed out that this passage has similarities with Matthew 5:48/Luke 6:35, 36. This is evidence that the "word of Christ" in 3:16 is related to Jesus' teachings.
Theological Upshot
The gambit to claim that Jesus' teachings are obsolete flies in the face of too much New Testament, that is, post-advent-of-New-Covenant material. I find it interesting that what many find troublesome about Jesus' teachings in the Gospels are repeated by Paul in his letters! This is a strong indication that evangelicals are getting Paul wrong.
i find 2 tremendous holes in this thought process.
ReplyDelete1) You try to use Pauls mention of the Law of Christ & Word of Christ as an argument for the words of Christ being part of the New Testament. The fact is that the whole bible is the Word of God.or Word of Christ. [John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God],all talking about Jesus. We should not conclude that words he spoke as a human supercedes anything else in the word of Christ.
2) The bible itself clearly & undeniably states that a Covenent NEVER goes into effect while the one who made it is living. Read Heb 9:15-28 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16 In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18 This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19 When Moses had proclaimed every command of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20 He said, “This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep.”[e] 21 In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22 In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23 It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with human hands that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. 25 Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. To say that this was all part of the New Covenant totally contradicts the bible.
I think the argument stems from one side trying to over emphasize the red letters and the other recognizing the whole bible as the Word of Christ. But we are admonished to 'rightly divide the word.2 Tim 2:15 Clearly the New Testament and its teaching began at the death of Christ. Does this diminish the importance of the red letters. No but it puts them in proper perspective as lessons to learn and principles to draft our lives after. Not to be used to build New Testament doctrine upon.
My first response is pretty simple, the RATIFICATION of a covenant does not mean that prior communication is not part of the covenant. For example, Moses received the law (Exodus 20:2-17; 20:23-23:33) and told the people the words of the Lord and the ordinances (24:3) BEFORE blood was used in the ceremony (24:5-6) and read the book of the covenant (24:7) BEFORE he dashed the blood of the covenant on the people (24:8). So, just because Jesus' teachings occurred before his death does not mean that they are not part of the New Covenant. In fact, a phrase that occurs in Matthew when Jesus discusses the blood of the Covenant ("forgiveness of sins"--Matthew 26:28) occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry in John the Baptist ("baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins"--Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). Matthew's equivalent to this verse (3:2) does not mention forgiveness of sins. It seems then that forgiveness of sins was part of Jesus' mission (he took up John the Baptist's teaching (compare Mt. 3:2 and 4:17)) for the very beginning and forgiveness of sins is part of the New Covenant. Jesus' whole ministry was geared to the restoration of Israel as was the New Covenant passages (Jer. 31:27-30; 32:44; 33:26; 50:4-7; Ezek. 47-48). I think it is not an accident that the four Gospels are part of "The New Testament"--early Christians were keenly aware that the advent of Jesus brought something new (the Good News, the Kingdom of God, Forgiveness of Sins, the New Covenant).
Delete