As NEO has skillfully articulated in two posts over at Banned by HWA, the Armstrongist notion that Christians are obligated to observe the tenets of the Old Covenant as outlined in the Torah is wrong. Both posts elicited a number of interesting comments from Armstrongites in defense of their attempts to observe those laws. And, while their primary prooftext is Christ's statement that he didn't come to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17-19), another comment caught my eye as expressing one of the foundational notions of their beliefs in this regard.
The anonymous commentator asked: "Where are the terms of the 'New Covenant' spelt out in all this detail you talk about?" He/she went on to say, "I don't see it." In other words, Armstrongites have a hard time coming to terms with the fact that anything was wrong with the terms of the Old Covenant, and they can't seem to get their arms around the fact that anything needed to be changed. At any rate, I was struck by his/her blindness to the fact that the terms of the New Covenant are discussed in a number of places in the writings we refer to as the New Testament.
In his response to the commentator's question, NEO nicely summarized this fundamentally flawed Armstrongist notion regarding the terms of the New Covenant. He wrote: "There is an argument current among Armstrongists that I have encountered several times before. It goes like this. There is no covenant language in the NT. There are no laws in the NT. There are no terms in the NT. Hence, the NT must be all about the OT and the OT is still in force." NEO went on to point out: "The Sermon on the Mount contains a implementation of new litigation. It contains behavioral requirements just as the OT contained behavioral requirements. There are outcomes in the NT just as in the OT. There is a quid pro quo in John 3:16. And Jesus said "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you." Apparently Jesus thought that he had inaugurated something new and it was complete enough to be called a testament. Every time you take the Eucharist you sign up to this."
In addition to NEO's excellent musings on the subject, the folks over at Christianity.com did a pretty good job of answering the question What Is the New Covenant in Jesus Christ? by citing some of the actual scriptures which answer that question. However, before listing a number of those verses, they provide this summary of the New Covenant's terms: "The New Covenant is the promise that God makes with mankind that He will forgive sin and restore communion with those whose hearts believe in His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, and His death on the cross is the basis of the promise. He defeated death by His resurrection and restored life for those who believe in Him."
I have also included a few of the scriptures which they cited as an integral part of their answer:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." ~ John 3:16
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood." ~ Luke 22:19-20
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ~ John 14:6
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” ~ Jeremiah 31:31-34
But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." ~ Hebrews 8:6-8
In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. ~ Hebrews 8:13
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. ~ Hebrews 9:15
Who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. ~ II Corinthians 3:6
And to the above list, there are a few additional verses which I think are pertinent to answering the question:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." ~ Matthew 22:37-40
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." ~ John 13:34-35
"As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in My love. If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love. 'These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends. You are My friends if you do whatever I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you. You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, that whatever you ask the Father in My name He may give you. These things I command you, that you love one another." ~ John 15:9-17
"Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'You shall not covet,' and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." ~ Romans 13:8-10
So, that anonymous commentator may not have been able to find the terms of the New Covenant that NEO was writing about, but the above list provides a good start for the rest of us! Moreover, even without the above scriptures, common sense dictates that the very designation of "new" suggests a difference from that which formerly existed - the "old." And, when we're talking about the provisions of a covenant, the designation of "new" implies that the "old" has been abrogated. This, however, is the very point that causes Armstrongites to stumble! The Torah has not been abrogated, but its status as an active component/provision of the current covenant between God and "His" people has been rescinded. As NEO and I have pointed out, Christ summarized and expanded the spiritual principles that underpinned all of those dos and don't which belonged to the Old Covenant and made THAT part of the terms of the New Covenant.
Miller:
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your analysis. It is interesting how Armstrongists attempt in many crafty ways to roll the OT litigation into the NT. But they suffer from tunnel vision. They focus on a select few of the OT laws that they consider desirable such as the Sabbath, the Holy Days, dietary laws and tithing. But they seem to be unaware that these laws bring with them a mountain of baggage. There is no way for them to get just a piece of the litigation. To my knowledge, no Armstrongist has ever made an issue of how menstruating women should be treated in view of the OT laws. Their focus is always on something tamer like what counts as leaven and what doesn't. I have never seen the question about menstruating women go up to the minister at a Bible study. When you bring up the point that the much vaunted civil laws of Moses contain more than a few select laws, Armstrongists usually go silent. I think they understand that if they really force the implementation of some of the more unpopular provisions of the OT, the membership and, hence, the tithe base would shrink dramatically.
So there is a kind of brinksmanship going on among the followers of HWA. Justify the whole body of litigation, but only let a few laws through the gate, hold the rest at bay and hope that nobody asks any questions.
Something about this intrigues me. It is as if Herman Hoeh set up a situation that would be a point of departure for developing an extensive body of policy for the WCG based on the application of the civil laws of Moses, or whatever. But it seemed to have never happened. Did the leadership just not see the issue of observing the whole law or did they see the issue and decide that the best policy was strategic neglect? My guess is that everyone who would know is dead.
-- Neo
***** Click on my moniker for Disclaimer
Neo,
DeleteThanks! For whatever reason, Armstrong and his followers have never addressed the logical implications of their views regarding the law. Over time, I suspect that Herbie, Hoeh and the others became aware of the potential problems of wading into those implications and made a conscious decision NOT to go there!
I do think Armstrong deserves some credit for renewed interest among Christians in the Jewish roots of their faith. And, while I obviously share your view that Christians are not obligated to observe those Old Testament tenets, I do think that Christians who are unfamiliar with the Sabbath, Holy Days, clean and unclean meats, Levitical priesthood rituals and sacrifices, etc. have been deprived of a fuller experience of their faith.
Personally, I continue to observe the Sabbath, but I am not under any illusion that doing so contributes to my salvation or earns me anything. Moreover, I have no problem worshipping with my Sunday brethren (and I do regard them as brothers and sisters in Christ).
--Lonnie
Miller:
ReplyDeleteOver on Banned you wrote the following: "...that they are carried forward into the New Covenant as TRANSFORMED by Christ and his work."
I have seen this transformation process as happening in a general rather than in a specific way, except where Christ gets specific. I would see the Mosaic law concerning menustruating women having no specific spiritual rendition other than the Great Commandment itself. Whereas Jesus spoke specifically about swearing and said swear not at all. Is this what your statement refers to or am I in left field?
Thanks.
Neo
In some instances we have chosen different language to explain our positions, but I really think that we are in sync on this one (E too). The point I am/was trying to make is that the way that we present things matters. We must try to explain Matthew 5 in a way that these legalists can embrace. When we say that Christ has done away with the law, we immediately confirm their Armstrongist biases and lose any hope of making them understand that those dos and don't are NOT part of the terms of the New Covenant. Unfortunately, how we frame things can be very important to how our thesis is received by folks we are hopefully trying to persuade. Moreover, I'm afraid there are more than a few traditional Christians who think of the law in exactly these terms (that it is simply done away with or "nailed to the cross"). I'd like to think that most Christians understand the nuances behind the litigation which you articulated so well, but I'm afraid that more than a few lay folks have framed the question in the language which drives Armstrongists crazy (and doesn't reflect the reality you talked about in your posts).
DeleteMiller:
ReplyDeleteHere is the opening statement, page one paragraph one sentence one, of the book that was written in the UCG concerning the New Covenant, copyright 2007:
"Does the New Covenant negate God’s law and do away with
any need to obey the Ten Commandments and other laws of God?
The belief that it does has long been a popular teaching in traditional Christianity. We’ll thoroughly examine this question in this booklet."
This is a misrepresentation of a hyperbolic nature. (The only good thing about the statement is that the writer referred to "traditional Christianity" instead of religion or pagan churches.) My guess is that the statement is connected to the Armstrongist belief that grace is antinomianism. One of the commenters on my recent essay on Banned stated the following:
"So you say Jesus abolished ALL the law - so you live in anarchy?"
I did not respond to this comment - I don't think the commenter read my essay. But it seems like Armstrongists are like a broken record - saying the same thing over and over again without ever examining the issues. What is it that leads someone to read a false passage in a booklet and instead of researching and critiqueing it, they accept it unquestioningly, clutch it to their hearts and start parroting it?
I think you are right. I believe we are talking about the same kind of transformation of OT principle into a NT context. Just about anything with merit can be subsumed by love God and love your neighbor.
******* Click on my moniker for Disclaimer