|
4 registered (Bravus, Liz, mikeyswen79, 1 invisible),
28
Guests and
18
Spiders online. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Registered: 06/28/08
Posts: 1
|
|
Be sure to click on the free shipping at the checkout else you get charged.
- - - - - -
|
|
2935 Members
126 Forums
17011 Topics
162765 Posts
Max Online: 1237 @ 04/20/07 08:43 PM
|
|
|
#137739 - 08/14/07 04:00 AM
Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
CD Recorded Lecture:
Ratzlaff’s “Simple Gospel” Message—An Exercise in Bible Twisting
During the “Former Adventist Weekend”, in Redlands, Cal., on Feb. 17, 2007, Mr. Ratzlaff presented the key lecture on the “Astonishing Revelations” of the Gospel, or all the things that a Christian should find in the Bible in order to obtain salvation. According to his view of the “simple gospel”, that would exclude those “inconvenient” commandments that supposedly cause barrier, or are a “separation wall”, to someone to come to the truth. In that sense he quotes Ephesians 2:14, 15: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace”.
Now, it’s really amazing how a man, who is a pastor and even claims to be well knowledgeable of the Greek language, forgets that the “law of commandments” mentioned by Paul isn’t limited to the Sabbath and the dietary laws! In his interpretation of the quoted verse he clearly is thinking of the Ten Commandments and the dietary rules (or other rituals and ceremonies of Israel), but overlooks the fact that in his interpretation the mentioned “law of commandments” would deal also with such precepts as “ye shall not kill”, “ye shall not commit adultery”, “honor thy father and thy mother”. . . Why doesn’t he consider these contents of the “law of commandments” as also causing barrier to impede someone to accept the gospel? So, we can see how discriminatory is his theology.
At a certain point he says in rather triumphalistic tones: “Woe to those who stand in the way of the simple gospel”. But his “simple gospel” is a tremendous distortion of the Bible message, as we have already seen in many ways, and will see some more evidence of that in this article.
Now, speaking of “woe to. . .” I think he should pay attention to what Peter says also in 2a. Pet. 3:15-17, which deals with woe to those who distort the Bible message:
“. . . our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in t all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people. Distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you many not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position”. – NIV.
His lecture is divided into eight segments, each with a supposed “astonishing revelation” for those who examine carefully their Bibles. His key-text is Acts 10 that reports the vision Peter had of the sheet coming from heaven and bringing all sorts of animals and creeping creature, with the order coming from heaven to kill and eat. Commenting briefly on Peter’s resistance to eat unclean foods, Mr. Ratzlaff argues that he acted like that because of his attachment to the Torah. That is funny, because he forgets a simple detail: PETER WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CHRISTIAN LEADERS AT THE TIME. What attachment to the Torah was that?! Other day someone else said in a discussion group that Peter was Christian, but still hadn’t learned all the truth regarding the end of these laws. Well, that happened almost 20 years after the death of Christ, and learning the end of the supposedly ceremonial dietary laws, something that dealt with food, which is used in the day-to-day of anyone’s life, wouldn’t take more than five minutes, if that was the case. Any Christian instructor simply would have explained to him that those laws ended because it fulfilled their antitypical features, which were this, this, this and that. Was Peter such a slow learner?! I don’t think so. . .
Now, Mr. Ratzlaff recognizes that the vision had to do with a change of attitude on the part of the Apostle—to stop discriminating against the gentiles and go preach to them. That is all that there is in the vision, but he tries to stretch it to also include the “amazing revelation” that God really abolished the dietary rules. They would be part of these “commandments” that had to give way to a new mentality, since they would be detrimental to the attraction of gentiles to the gospel.
At the end of his conference he illustrates his point remembering an episode when he was a young pastor, when a man had lost his wife and he contacted him for making arrangements for the funeral. As he was invited by this man to eat in a restaurant, he says his host ate lobster, drank wine in his company, while he just ate vegetable and drank soda. Now he thinks that his attitude was not a good one, for after the funeral ceremony, as he invited this man to attend church, but he didn’t comply. So, according to him, his attitude of not eating the same food as the man, or not drinking the same beverage as he did, was a “stumbling block”, detrimental to attract the man to the church!
Why! According to this tortuous reasoning, if the man offered him a cigarette to smoke, he should accept it promptly. And how about if the man invited him to accompany him to visit the red-light district in town?! Should he, diplomatically, in order to later have him accepting his invitation to attend church, follow this man’s suggestions?
Well, what he should have done was to take advantage of the situation and give the man some good and tactful lessons on what God has to offer us in terms of advantage in following the regimen He set for man, whose good fruits we can see publicized by the press, with so many mentions to Seventh-day Adventists as having healthier, longer lives. This has been featured in such publications as Time and Prevention and the National Geographic magazines, even TV stories, as health researchers have confirmed the “Adventist Advantage” on their philosophy of life, including vegetarianism. By the way, there are Evangelical vegetarians, like the “Christian Vegetarian Association” or the “Early Christian Vegetarians” who highlight mostly the humanitarian aspect of this attitude—mercy towards animals.
Additionally to the health aspects of eating just vegetables, doesn’t it seem so selfish to sacrifice these creatures of God just to satisfy man’s appetite, when there are so many options in the green plants field for us to be well and nutritiously fed? After all, as God just created one wife for man at the beginning, so excluding the “polygamy” advantage, He also gave no meat and killing of animals for man in the ideal regime of Eden. Made sense then, why it doesn’t make sense now, especially as in the New Earth there will be no meat eating?
Well, we have our special studies about these points, but since Mr. Ratzlaff insists in quoting texts totally out of its context, like Genesis 9:3, which he understands as God contradictorily authorizing the eating of all types of meat, even after recently defining to Noah that there were clean and unclean ones to enter the ark, let’s examine this matter more carefully.
In our main study, we present four “difficulties” for every one of the classical arguments of the adherents of the “eat-it-all” philosophy. That is an attempt to lead them to see that we don’t acquire Bible knowledge merely quoting texts, without any commitment with historical and literary context, as well as neglecting to check the general tenor of the Bible teaching on the subject. So, additionally, let’s ask 10 questions to Mr. Ratzlaff regarding the specific text of Genesis 9:3, even though he never gave us any answer to any of the questions that we submitted to him before:
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137740 - 08/14/07 04:01 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
The Question of Clean/Unclean Animals During the Flood and its Aftermath
Genesis 9:3: One Difficulty Resolved, 10 Still To Be
Genesis 9:1-3: “Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything’”. – NIV.
The difficulty presented in these words is easily overcome when we take the Bible globally. The big problem of some false interpretations is always the undue segmentation of God’s Word, taking in isolation verses, clauses or even independent words to fit one’s presuppositions and prejudices, thus twisting the whole thought of the sacred author.
For example, the text says that all the beasts of the Earth would fear man. However, should we understand that in absolute terms? How about bears, leopards, lions, hippopotamus, crocodiles, sharks, animals man flees from, and with good reasons? It is certainly a serious risk to face such animals in their natural state.
Will be food for you. God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of the vegetation during the Flood. In the face of the emergency, man had permission to kill animals to eat. But this permission wasn’t certainly without restrictions. The phrase “all that moves upon the Earth” clearly excludes to eat cadavers of animals found dead by other beasts, as was later specifically recorded in the mosaic law (Exo. 22: 31; Lev. 22: 8). Even though the distinction of clean and unclean animals is not shown here, that doesn’t mean that the rule was unknown by Noah, as can be seen through Gen. 7:2 and 8:20.
Now, let’s remember that “everything . . . that moves” would include man himself! If the “everything” is to be taken too literally, wouldn’t that allow cannibalism among those early inhabitants of the planet?
Green plants. This involves the novelty of the permission to eat meat, besides green plants, which originally had been destined for man’s feeding (Gen . 1:29). But we should remember that although God gave man all green plants to eat, that is also limited to those non-poisonous ones. How about someone taking this order in absolute terms to eat “wild vine”? That would be a deadly attitude (see 2 Kings 4:39, 40). So, this “all” has its limitations. . . Man had also to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy food in the fields. . .
Meet that has its lifeblood. The prohibition applies to eating meat with blood, which was the costume of certain tribes in the past. This prohibition is an interesting counterpoint to the previous order. Now, the “eat-it-all” adherents understand that God changed His mind regarding discriminating what to eat and not to eat (now liberating everything for man’s consumption after having referred to the distinction of clean and unclean animals to Noah, later on reversing the order to set discriminatory rules on that again to Moses—a rather voluble God that doesn’t seem to fit the Bible picture of a God that “doesn’t change”. . .).
Among other things, this prohibition was a safeguard against cruelty towards animals and a reminder of the sacrifice of animals (and always clean ones), in which the blood, as life bearer, was considered sacred. Due to certain attachments to blood as a religious item in heathenism, besides other reasons not made clear (probably the fact that part of the blood itself is ‘unclean’, carrying bad toxins—before being oxygenated by the lungs), it was irrevocably prohibited to eat meat with blood. The apostles considered that this prohibition was still in force in the Christian age, as can be seen in the decision of what to recommend to the gentile Christians as things to abstain from (Acts 15: 20, 29). [Adapted from the SDA Bible Commentary, in Spanish].
And a final consideration: Moses’ writings don’t reflect a description of the diary journal type, being prepared as the events came to pass. He wrote on the scrolls at one time, and all was transmitted to the people jointly. There was not a report on Gen. 9:3 in a remote time, then a law about not feeding on dead animals found in the fields in another later period.
Specialists consider 1,450 BC as date to the Pentateuch writings, thus the people heard the reports all together and connected the narrated facts of ancient times with the divine instructions to them, which were consistent with the previous instructions. Besides, if the clean animals were taken sevenfold to the ark, in comparison to the unclean ones, and that was just because of serving to sacrifice, the fact is that we don’t see so many sacrifices to justify that much higher number of clean animals. It shows that they were supposed to be used for food, thus being intensely used and having to count with greater numbers for the supply not to become too scarce, in contrast to the animals that were not supposed to be eaten and that could multiply freely in the wild, since they were not supposed to be killed by man for food.
Well, since the Gen. 9:3 difficulty was resolved, how about our objecting friends to resolve these 10 below?
1 – Why did God classify the animals as clean and unclean as early as in the Flood episode (Gen. 7:2)? Did He simply decide arbitrarily that certain types of animals should be shunned by His people, without no logical and practical reason for that?
2 – If said division aimed at sacrifices, why did God sent to the ark seven times more clean animals than unclean ones, when nothing indicates that the number of sacrifices were so frequent and so numerous?
3 – Why did God only accept clean animals for sacrifice? [A tip: See 1 Cor. 9:13].
4 – Being a divine principle that we should glorify God with what we eat or drink (1 Cor. 10:31), how could unclean meats—that would be excluded from the sacrifices (since they certainly were not fit for that purpose)—serve to glorify God soon after the Flood?
5 – Why were the restrictions regarding the consumption of blood instituted when God authorized the consumption of meat (Gen. 9:4, 5)? Shouldn’t full freedom prevail for man to eat whatever he wanted?
6 – How can it be proven that the order to eat “everything . . . that moves” included the unclean animals, since Noah had been notified of the division of clean and unclean animals (Gen. 7:2, 3), and even the manner as the text is written gives the clear impression that such division was already known by the patriarch, not being something new to him?
7 – How do you prove that the order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the meaning of such order, as being prohibited to eat meat that have been “torn by wild beasts” in Exo. 22:31, i.e., they should eat only animals that were alive, not those found dead?
8 – What was the advantage for humanity for God to allow men to feed freely from all kinds of animals, such as rats, raven, cobras and lizards, since today it is known that the consumption of some of them, as in the case of Africans, bring terrible diseases, such as AIDS, ebola fever and the bubonic plague, transmitted by rats, which caused the death of millions of people in Europe during the Middle Ages?
9 –– Even though the divine order for Noah to feed on animals is contrasted with the previous order for man to feed on plants (Gen. 1:29), where is it said that as God spoke on “green plants” allowed for man’s consumption (Gen. 9:3), that excluded those that are poisonous for the human being?
10 – How would Moses explain himself to the people of Israel, as they heard the reading of his Genesis text, being also aware that the animals found dead were not to be eaten? Wouldn’t they see the contradiction of this rule with Genesis 9:3, if they understood that God allowed Noah to eat “everything . . . that moves”? Wouldn’t they think that God was somewhat voluble, for He treats with Noah on clean and unclean animals, including what regards to worship to Him (sacrifices only with clean animals), then gives orders to ignore that classification, especially when the collection of books with instructions to Israel was gathered in just one time (specialists attribute it to 1.450 BC)?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137777 - 08/14/07 05:52 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Please, consider that questions 9 and 10 were slightly reformulated.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137784 - 08/14/07 06:40 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 581
Loc: B,C.
|
Quote "God permitted man to eat meat due to the total destruction of vegetation"
I have heard about this red herring before! So when the cow came out of the ark what did she eat? Couldn't Noah have taken an extra sack of beans into the ark to begin with?
Should stop and think a minute before propogating nonsense!
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137800 - 08/14/07 07:42 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: melvin mccarty]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Were the supplies of food that Noah brought along in the ark unlimited? As far as I know, only Jesus performed the miracle of multiplication of food. Anyway, for further discussions on this subject of dietary laws, check the articles that I posted in another section, which can be reached by the following link: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=137799#Post137799See especially the subjects, "An Assessment of the Arguments Presented By the Adherents of 'Total Freedom' From the Bible’s Dietary Laws" and, "Divine Manual For the Operation of the Human Machine".
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137815 - 08/14/07 11:00 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 581
Loc: B,C.
|
So what did the cows and horses eat when they came out of the ark
?
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137855 - 08/15/07 08:28 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: melvin mccarty]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 581
Loc: B,C.
|
Looks like I will have to answer my own question! (smile). Seems likely they ate grass huh and there could easily have been some veggies for Noah and his crew. No there was no crises for food spoken of but there is actually a reason given if you want to check EGW. And the extra "clean animals" were needed for sacrifices
I was raised a vegetarian and have no axe to grind here. I just dont like to see people jumping to conclusions and then treating them as facts.
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137924 - 08/15/07 11:38 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: melvin mccarty]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
I didn't deny that Noah had a supply of food. The cows that concern you so much would be well served, okay?
On the other hand, how about having a word of appreciation and recognition for the good things that I also said? To just come with condemnation and criticism seems very "comfortable", but is not constructive at all.
And what I said about the lack of vegetation after the Flood was based on the SDA Bible Commentary, which takes EGW seriously.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#137945 - 08/16/07 03:10 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 581
Loc: B,C.
|
Ok could we just talk about it then. I'm sorry if I came on too strong there. Forget the cows. There were two elephants. They would need more food than all eight people. If food was provided for the elephants without going carnivorus it would be reasonable that God could have provided for the eight people dont you think? Also if it was actually an emergency thing it would only last until they could find some veggies.
No I think if you check a bit you will
find that Ellen says something like it was to shorten their lives that they were "permitted" not "commanded" to eat flesh. The Scripture also speaks of Noah sacrificing the "clean" animals. So the arguement made re clean/unclean is not valid as stated. But here again there is not complete information given so it behooves us to be less than dogmatic about it.
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#138020 - 08/16/07 11:10 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
I think there is some misunderstanding because I speak of "permission" that God gave for Noah and his folks to eat meat, not "order".
Then, in the final questionnaire, I really mention "order", but that is implied the understanding of those who are being questioned.
Then, I altered in another Forum (where I can change freely the text, which doesn't happen here), some of the language of the questionnaire to better express what I had in mind. For example, for question 7 I rephrased it to say, "How do you prove that the supposed order for man to eat “everything . . . that moves” included unclean animals, since later on the same author of Genesis, Moses, explains in Exo. 22:31 the . . ."
Seems better now?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#138025 - 08/17/07 12:09 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 581
Loc: B,C.
|
I have wondered why Moses used the wording he did. Surely he knew he was not being accurate!
mel
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#138156 - 08/18/07 04:03 AM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: melvin mccarty]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Oh, you will find much of that throughout the Bible, like Matt. 16:18. For Roman Catholics, it's very clear that the meaning is Jesus nominating Peter as the head of the Church, period!
The language seems ambiguous, indeed, and those who allege that Jesus gestured pointing first to Peter ("thou art Peter"), and then to Himself ("on this rock") are still to show us the video where we can see that. . .
May be some archeologist in a near future will be able to discover the video showing all this gesturing, than all doubts will be overcome . . .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#138912 - 08/27/07 09:44 PM
Re: Some Challenging Questions For a Challenger of Our Faith
[Re: A_G_Brito]
|
Registered: 04/28/07
Posts: 127
|
Mr. Ratzlaff’s Disappointing Assessment of the “LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART” Theme
1st Part: More Harmony Than One Could Expect
In the July/August edition of the Proclamation! Magazine, that I had access to through a different channel, since our subscriptions of the magazine (my wife’s and mine) seem to have been cancelled without previous notice, the main feature is the Cover subject THE LAW WRITTEN ON THE HEART, by Mr. Ratzlaff. He himself starts his article with some good questions:
* Who is to be included in the new covenant? Is the new covenant only for the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”? Is this promise also for the Gentiles who accept Christ?
* To what do “mind” and “heart” refer?
* What exactly is the “law” that will be written on the minds and hearts of the people included in the new covenant?
* Does the law written on the heart of the new covenant Christians differ from the law that was written on stone? If so, in what way is it different?
* How does the law written on the heart relate to the “natural law” that is written on the heart of everyone, including those who are unbelievers and are “without law”?
* Under the arrangement of the new covenant, how is the new covenant Christian to use and apply the letter of the old covenant law?
* How are we to understand that there will be no need to teach a brother to “know the Lord”?
* Last, and probably most important for the readers of Proclamation! Does the law written on the heart include the keeping of the Sabbath? If so, what Sabbath law applies to the new covenant Christian? How is one to demonstrate the he is keeping the Sabbath, if indeed the Sabbath is included in the law written on the heart?
Now, two things are really surprising in the development of the article, and the first is that practically everything that the author discusses is in full harmony with what the Seventh-day Adventists believe! The answers he himself provides to the opening questions of his article are perfectly acceptable to any SDA who knows well his/her Bible, as we will see in these new studies of ours.
We have no problem in understanding that the New Covenant was not limited to the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah”. It’s very clear to us that the promise God made to the nation of Israel to have a new heart and to allow Him to write His laws in their hearts and minds are reiterated to the “expanded Israel”—those who are the seed of Abraham by faith. One has just to compare Ezekiel 36:26, 27; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Hebrews 8:6-10 and 10:16 to understand that.
This certainly is better than some I have met who stubbornly insisted that Hebrews 8:6-10 refers to the literal Israelites, a view especially held by those who subscribe to the dispensationalist interpretation of a Israel-centered eschatology, involving secret rapture, Jewish Antichrist, Temple reconstruction, and the like.
So, we have no objection to his statement highlighted at the top of the article, “Paul never grounds the inclusion of the Gentiles into the new covenant promise by their obedience to any of the laws of Sinai. Rather, he always grounds the incorporation of the Gentiles into the gospel by way of the faith of Abraham”.
As a matter of fact, it is a strange theology the one that gives the impression that God established His old covenant expecting the people of Israel to have their obedience based on their own power to do it. Wouldn’t it be more logical to realize that God’s intent in both old and new covenants was that His people could say, as David expressed: “I delight to do Thy will, o my God: yea, thy law in within my heart” (Psa. 40:8)?
The SDA Bible Commentary explains very appropriately the matter and I don’t see where Mr. Ratzlaff could find fault in its exposition of the question, which is basically in harmony with what he says throughout his article:
31.
New covenant
The Israelites had not fulfilled the divine requirement because they had attempted to be just through their own useless efforts. The Lord knows this inherent human tendency, and promised them a “new covenant”, and through this means man is able to be holy by faith in the Redeemer and Sanctifier (Gal. 3; Heb. 8: 8-10; see com. Eze. 16-60). God wished that the repatriated experienced with all their hearts and soul the reality of the new covenant. But the nation failed in reaching this ideal. . . .
33.
I will write on their hearts
God’s law was not to be just an external norm of justice: it was supposed to be the determining tool that would guide and rule human conduct (see Rom. 8: 1-4; 2 Cor. 3: 3-6).
34.
they shall not teach every man
The failure of God’s servants, which in large measure didn’t transmit to the people the true knowledge of the Most High, due to the imperfect fulfillment of the rites and ceremonies of the old covenant, would be corrected through an intimate knowledge and the communication that the believers would enjoy with their Lord through faith, which the new covenant would provide them (John 6: 45-46; 1 Cor. 2: 6-16; Col. 1: 27-28). -- (Translated back into English from the Spanish edition).
So, what is wrong in this commentary? Doesn’t it correspond to Mr. Ratzlaff’s development of the subject throughout his article? I see no difference in approach between what he says and the way the SDA Bible Commentary puts it.
Later on he discusses Romans 2, where Paul dedicates some space to speak about the situation before God of “those who followed this natural revelation with a clear conscience”, followed by a brief discussion on the “natural law”, commenting: “we can say that natural law exists, should be followed, and when followed will point a person in the direction of God. All societies and cultures have an innate understanding of right and wrong”.
Yes, that is exactly what we believe, and the SDA Bible Commentary, again, says nothing contrary to that. If he has access to that wonderful collection I would urge him to check it there. He could be surprised to see in how many points the contents of this collection of scholarly commentary of the Bible is in agreement, not conflict, with what he advocates in many points of this subject and others.
He then engages in a discussion about the “difference” of the law in the old and new covenants, highlighting the famous commentaries of Jesus in Matt. 5:21ff—“ye have heard that it was said by them of old time. . . But I say unto you. . .”
He refers additionally to the “golden rule” of the love motive in regard to the neighbor, but errs in implying that to be a sort of “new” law that Jesus came to establish, replacing the old principles taught by Moses.
Well, since we already commented on that in previous of our studies regarding the Ratzlaff challenge, let’s briefly point out some few items that must be better understood on this question:
A – Jesus has no intention to establish any new and revolutionary law with new precepts, as some imply. He is simply showing that His hearers, due to the bad religious teachers of their time, had lost sight of the most profound, ethical and spiritual meaning of the law.
For some who insist in this theory of the “revolutionary” new “law of Christ”, with different precepts that make it a different rule of conduct to the “new alliance” Christians, I like to remember the episode in which Jesus addresses the Pharisees regarding their tithing habits (Matt. 23:23). They were so concerned with the technicalities of it, duly dividing the “mint, anise and cumin”, that missed the most important in the tithe law: “judgment, mercy and faith”. Now, I ask: Was Jesus adding these three things to the law of tithing at that exact moment, or were they there all the time, but not perceived by those religious leaders?
Let’s remember that looking at a woman with impure intentions was already mentioned by the patriarch Job as something he wouldn’t practice (Job 31:1). And to hate a neighbor was always wrong (Lev. 19:17). So, Jesus was not creating new rules and principles at that point, but showing features of the law that had been overlooked by His contemporaries. That is why He emphasized (after clarifying that He had not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it): “For I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20).
B - Oh, but how about the clear language of “new commandment”? Doesn’t Mr. Ratzlaff remember that this “new” was not so new, after all? Yes, because when Jesus uttered the famous “golden rule”, He was just repeating what Moses had already said! Just compare Matthew 22:36-40 with Deut. 6:5 and Levt. 19:18. Exactly the same words! So, how could these commandments be “new”?
Before discussing that, let’s review another episode that helps to clarify this point, found in Mark 12:28-34: Another scribe came individually to Jesus trying to trap Him subtly, in the face of the embarrassment of the previous ones who inquired Him about the lady who had widowed seven husbands. This man asks Him which was the most important commandment in the law. But his scheme backfires: His answer prompted only compliments on his part, “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth. . .”. Why he reacted that way? He expected to catch Jesus contradicting the traditions of Israel, certainly to have something to accuse him of. Nonetheless his inquiry ended up in total agreement with what Jesus said. The reason is that Jesus had not contradicted the law of Israel that the man knew very well: the most important command of the law was the double rule of loving God above all else, and loving the neighbor as oneself. Perfectly according to what Moses had taught.
Now, how come this is called a “new” commandment? Well, there are two different words in Greek for new: neos and kainos. The first is many times applied to things that are totally new, of a different substance, like the new wineskins that replaced entirely the old ones. On the other hand, the second applies to such things as “new creature” and “new heavens and new earth”, which refer to the same basic substance that undergoes a complete renewal.
So, they are “new”(kainos) commandments because the old law acquires a new meaning within the gospel message, things that had been lost sight of, not because the law was defective, but because of the people’s rebellion and spiritual blindness. That was the real cause of a new covenant being made necessary: “For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith: Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Heb. 8:7, 8).
C - But it is the same law, because God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and the ethics of His kingdom didn’t change. After all, the promise of the new covenant is that He would write what is called “My laws”, not “My new, different laws”, on the hearts and the minds of those who accept His new covenant [New Testament]. Now, that is something that prompted the question that I expected being resolved by Mr. Ratzlaff and someone in his staff, and never was. Even in this article he had an opportunity to do so, but disappointingly didn’t either. Let’s again see what the question was:
Where is it written that in the change from the Old to the New Covenant, when God writes what is called “My laws” in the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant [New Testament] (Heb. 8:6-10), transferring the contents of the cold tables of stone to the hearts warmed by the divine grace (2 Cor. 3:2-7), He
a – leaves out the 4th commandment of the moral law;
b – includes the 4th commandment, but changing the sanctity of the 7th to the 1st day of the week?
OR
c – includes the 4th commandment, but leaving it as a vague, voluntary and variable principle that can be reinterpreted as any day or time which is most convenient to the believer (or his employer)?
Basic texts: Hebrews 8:6-10; Jeremiah 31:31-33; Ezekiel 11:19, 20 and 36:26, 27.
There was also the equation to be resolved, and was not so far:
NEW COVENANT = NEW LAW
Mr. Ratzlaff emphasizes correctly, with our total agreement, that “the law is not the focus of the new covenant”. Then he quotes some few Bible texts, which don’t contradict absolutely our position: Gal. 3:10, 11, 14, 17-22. And that we can prove easily just by quoting the SDA confessional official document, the “28 Beliefs. . .”, item 10:
10. The Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God’s grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God’s sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.)
Doesn’t the statement—“Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God’s law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life”—correspond perfectly to what Mr. Ratzlaff preaches, regarding the character of that law that is written by God in our hearts? Isn’t the “law of God” the “law of love”, the same that is called “My laws” in Heb. 8:6-10?
Then he quotes 2a. Cor. 3:6-13, which is indeed a text that backfires on those who attempt to use it to prove anything that implies a “new law” for the “new covenant” Christian, which will be the subject of our next study. At this point I only would reproduce a very interesting clause he has in his article: “Paul makes it very clear that of the one who has sin in his life (and that is all of us) the letter of the law (old covenant law) works for death”. In this context he quotes Rom. 7:5, 6.
I already mentioned how Luther, the great champion of the righteousness by faith message, interprets Roman 6 and the meaning of the so much misunderstood phrase, “to be under the law”. Now, let’s see how Luther interprets the other often misunderstood phrase “delivered from the law”, based on the image of the death of the woman’s husband, which sets her free to marry another man. Again I quote from Luther’s classic work, “Preface to the Epistle of Paul to the Romans”:
Chapter 7 — Dead for the law and the conflict within the believer
In the seventh chapter, Paul confirms the previous through a comparison with the marital life: When a husband dies, the wife is unimpeded and one is separated and free from the other. Not that the woman couldn’t or shouldn’t take another man. She is apt to take another one, which she couldn’t previously do for not being freed from the first. In the same way, also our conscience under the law is attached to the old sinful man; but as he is dead by the Spirit, the conscience is free, and one is unencumbered from the other; not that the conscience could do nothing; but rather so that now it can be linked so much more to Christ, the new man, and produce fruits for life.
One can see that Mr. Ratzlaff’s interpretation of this Pauline picture is out of step with what Luther says. The article says at a certain point: “Now, in Christ we are released from the law in that the law can only condemn to death once. Once the law has carried out its execution, it no longer has jurisdiction over us!”
In saying that the law has no longer any jurisdiction over us he forgets that this applies to the law that condemns whoever is a sinner, a non-converted person, the one who is “married” to the “old man”. But those who legitimately accept Jesus as Savior, have to accept Him also as Lord. And He said to them: “If you love Me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Of course Christ’s commandments are the same as His Father’s, for He said: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30).
Besides, since Mr. Ratzlaff speaks of sinner and sin, let’s remember what is the Bible’s definition of sin: “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). What law is that? It can only be that law that Paul honored with his mind, and considered holy, just, good, spiritual, and has the precept, “ye shall not covet” (see Rom. 7: 12, 14, 22, 25, acd. vs. 7 and 8). After all, the prophecy regarding the Messiah was that He would save His people FROM their sins, not WITH their sins (Matt. 1:21).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index