Anonymous
Presbyterian Asks Questions of Mr. Heaster (Christadelphian)
Question:
1. Ephesians 2:14-15 states: “For He himself is our peace who
has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing
wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its
commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself
one new man out of the two, thus making peace”. This abolishing
of the “law with its commandments and regulations” sound
remarkably similar to Col 2:14 where it states “having canceled
the written code with its regulations, that was against us”. You
contend that this refers to the complete law of God given in the
Old Testament because handwriting must somehow refer to the Ten
Commandments (even though you never prove this). Yet, Ephesians
2:14-15 says that these commandments are a “barrier” between
Jew and Gentile. John Calvin writes concerning this: “Ceremonial
observations were afterwards added, which, like walls, enclosed
the inheritance of God, preventing it from being open to all or
mixed with other possessions, and thus excluded the Gentiles from
the kingdom of God…. What has been metaphorically understood by
the word wall is now more plainly expressed. The ceremonies, by
which the distinction was declared, have been abolished through
Christ” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981], pp. 236-237). In addition Theodoret,
Calvin, Bucer, Grotius, Meier, Holzhausen, Olshausen, and
Conybeare and countless other scholars hold these passages only to
be referring to the ceremonial law. In light of all of this, and
the fact that the Gentiles were judged in the Old Testament for
disobeying laws based on the Decalogue, how can you say that these
passages refer to the whole Old Testament law?
Answer:
The quotation of “scholars” is hardly Biblical proof. A
number of the scholars mentioned didn’t believe in Sabbath
keeping- so in any case calling them as witnesses only serves to
defeat the argument being postulated: that Christians should
keep the Sabbath today. The “dividing wall” clearly alludes
to the wall beyond which Gentiles could not pass in Herod’s
temple. For those “in Christ” by baptism, all Jew / Gentile
differences are ended because they all become the true children
of Abraham (Gal. 3:27-29). Colossians 2 gives us one example of
this- in that the Old Covenant has been ended. The handwriting
of God is further defined in 2 Cor. 3 to mean that which was
“engraven on stones”- clearly the 10 commandments, which
were the epitome of the entire Mosaic Law. The link between Col.
2 and Eph. 2 doesn’t prove that Paul has in mind only the
“ceremonial” law. Col. 2:14-17 defines the law as including
the Sabbath. The reason this has been ended is because it was
fulfilled in Christ. The weekly Sabbaths just as much as those
of Lev. 23 were fulfilled in Christ. You would have to argue
that the weekly Sabbath was not fulfilled in Christ but those of
Lev. 23 were…and this is untenable. In addition to which it is
pure supposition to say that “Sabbath” in Col. 2 must not
refer to the weekly Sabbaths.
Question:
2. You claim that Gentiles could not be cursed by God for
disobeying the law (ie sinning) in your previous statements. Yet
God clearly states that He was driving the Canaanites out of their
land because of their sins against laws that He binds Israel to
obey: “9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God
giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of
those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you any one that
maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that
useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a
witch, 11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a
wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all that do these things are an
abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the
LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee. 13 Thou shalt
be perfect with the LORD thy God. 14 For these nations, which thou
shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto
diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee
so to do.” How then can you say that the law and curses were not
universal when God clearly is cursing Canaan for disobedience?
Answer:
I said that the Gentiles could not have been driven out of the
land because they disobeyed the Sabbath law, as you claimed,
because that law had not then been given. You are arguing from
silence. Scripture definitely says that the Sabbaths were given
by God to Israel as a memorial between them and Him- not to the
Gentile world. “I caused them to go forth out of the land of
Egypt, and brought them into the wilderness. And I gave them my
statutes, and shewed them my judgments…moreover also I gave
them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they
might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. But the house
of Israel rebelled…my sabbaths they greatly polluted” (Ez.
20:10-13). “Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai and spakest
with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true
laws…and madest known unto them thy holy sabbath…and a law,
by the hand of Moses” (Neh. 9:13,14). The whole sabbath
concept- and note that there is no difference made between
weekly and ceremonial sabbaths- was “made known” to Israel
by Moses. They didn’t know it before. So you can’t
reasonably argue that the Gentiles knew about it before Israel
did.
Question:
3. God states that Israel’s law is to be an example and model
for all nations, not simply for Israel: Deuteronomy 4:5 “Behold,
I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God
commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to
possess it. 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom
and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall
hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people. 7 For what nation is there so
great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in
all things that we call upon him for? 8 for what nation is there
so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all
this law, which I set before you this day?” The statutes and
judgments are righteous according to the Gentile nations, or in
other words tell them how to keep from being wicked or sinful. How
then can you say that this law is only for the Jews?
Answer:
You have stated that the Decalogue was for Gentiles and Jews,
but the rest of the Law of Moses was only for Jews. But now you
are saying that Dt. 4:5-8 is speaking about the 10 commandments.
But “statutes and judgments…that ye should do in the land
whither ye go” are clearly not the ten commandments. They were
to be obeyed a) by Israel b) in the land of Israel. Not by the
Gentile world. Israel’s obedience to them would make their
neighbours say “Surely this great nation is a wise and
understanding people”. There is no statement in the above
passage that the Gentiles had to be obedient to these
“statutes and judgments”. The passage prophesies that the
Gentiles would only come to know about God’s laws through
seeing the example of those who had been obedient to them. This
is proof positive that those nations didn’t know them
beforehand- so it cannot be that they knew those laws before
Israel did, and were expelled from the land for disobedience to
them. The Queen of Sheba came to visit Solomon because she had
heard of the wisdom and happiness of Israel as a result of their
obedience to the law of their God- but she hadn’t been
commanded by God to be obedient to the laws which Israel were
obeying.
Question:
4. You claim that whenever the Bible uses the word stranger it
refers only to those people who have latched onto Israel and have
decided to covenant with Yahweh, and that only these special
people had to keep the Sabbath day. Yet this is not how the Bible
uses the word stranger at all. In fact, God distinguishes those
strangers who DO latch on and covenant with Yahweh, from those
strangers that do not. Exodus 12:48 says “An alien living among
you who wants to celebrate the passover of YAHWEH must have all
the males in his household circumcised.” Notice carefully that
in order to partake of the Passover the alien or stranger first
had to want to do this, and then also have his household
circumcised! The Sabbath commandment however is binding upon all
strangers without exception, and even the animals. The stranger,
even if he did not want to observe the Sabbath, nevertheless had
to do so, even if he was not circumcised. The commandment is
universal. Therefore how can you say that the Sabbath is like
circumcision when the Sabbath is universally binding upon all
Gentile visitors and circumcision is binding only upon those who
wished to enter the Jewish covenant (i.e. go onto the Jewish side
of the ‘wall of partition’ mentioned in Ephesians 2:14-15)?
Answer:
If the Sabbath is a moral commandment, how can animals have to
be obedient to it? Surely they are a-moral? Are they really
going to be resurrected and judged and condemned for their
failure to sit down and rest on the 7th day? The Israelite owner
of animals was not to use his animals for labour on the Sabbath
because he had to observe the Sabbath- not them. What evidence
is there that God specifically requested all animals, fish,
birds etc. not to work on the Sabbath? Did He beam it into their
brain cells? Scripture is totally silent about this. You give no
evidence at all that Sabbath keeping was obligatory upon Gentile
visitors. If as you claim it was a moral requirement for the
whole planet, then why did God not instruct His prophets to tell
the whole planet about their duty to keep it? Israel were never
commanded to go and tell the Gentile world to keep Sabbath, and
there is no record of such instruction being given to Gentile
nations before the time of Moses. All these huge assumptions,
which have not the slightest Biblical proof, are required simply
because a wrong proposition has to be ‘proved’.
Question:
5. Jesus says in Matthew 5:17-20 “Do not think that I have come
to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish
them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and
earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of
a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything
is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these
commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches
these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Christ here clearly states that not the least stroke will
disappear from the law until all is fulfilled and heaven and earth
itself disappear. Therefore, He says if you teach others to
disobey the very least of the Old Testament law, you will be
called least in the kingdom. If you claim that fulfill involves
doing away with our need to obey His law (not for justification
but for sanctification, we are justified by faith alone), then you
cause Our Lord to contradict Himself by calling us to obey it! How
do you respond to this statement of our Lord?
Answer:
Nobody was free at the time Jesus spoke those words to disobey
the Mosaic Law- because the Torah was in force right up until
Jesus “took it out of the way” through His death on the
cross. Then the “heavens and earth” of the Mosaic system
ended. This phrase must be symbolic because the literal earth
and heaven will not be destroyed- God will not destroy His own
abode, and His eternal Kingdom is prophesied to come here on
earth (Ecc. 1:4). If you say that the ceremonial law has been
done away but the 10 commandments haven ’t been, then by
quoting Mt. 5:17 you are forced to assume that “the law”
meant only the ten commandments. And yet it is clear from the
usages of the phrase “the law” in the New Testament that it
clearly refers to the entire law. You are forced to conclude
that sometimes “the law” refers to the 10 commandments,
sometimes to the rest of the Law. How can you decide which
definition to apply? There is no Biblical warrant for this. And
you went further in your second paper to introduce yet a third
compartment of ‘law’: “Nowhere does the New Testament do
away with [God’s] civil laws and penalties”. You seem to be
saying that the “Law” was divided into: 1) the 10
commandments, 2) the “civil laws and penalties”, and 3) the
“ceremonial law” , and that only the last category of “the
law” was done away. These legalistic distinctions are purely
artificial and man-made. They cannot be sustained from the Bible
text.
Previous: Questions
by Duncan Heaster (Christadelphian)
Next: Summary
by Duncan Heaster (Christadelphian)
