MT writes,
7) Paul and Hebrews both explicitly identify the Ten Commandments, “the tablets of stone,” with the old covenant or ministry that was temporary. See Hebrews 9:4, especially in context of Hebrews 8:6-9:15. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:3-18 explicitly identifies the Ten Commandments, in the context of Moses’ coming down from the mountain and his face shining, as the old covenant, the ministry of death, condemnation, and of the letter that kills, in contrast to the new covenant, which he describes as the ministry of righteousness and of the Spirit that gives life. As if to remind us that he is talking about sanctification, not simply justification, Paul concludes that it is through this new covenant that we are “being transformed into the same image [of Christ].”
Previously we already pointed out, more than once, that the quoting of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8 teaches not the discontinuity that MT thumps for but rather it teaches the continuity of the law since the law that was written on tablets of stone in the Old covenant is now the law that is written on their hearts. In point of fact, Jeremiah and Hebrews teaches that what makes the new and better covenant new and better is that the same law, written on tablets of Stone in the OT, is now written on the hearts of believers.
Secondly, in terms of the Hebrews passage that MT cites (Hebrews 8:6-9:15) it is clear that what is spoken of as temporary is what we would call the Ceremonial aspects of the law. There is nothing in the passage that suggests that the Ten Commandments have been lifted or discontinued for the New Covenant believer. The tablets are mentioned in that passage solely as a description of the Tabernacle arrangements. The point is that now because of the finished work of the Lord Christ we now have obtained eternal redemption and have been delivered from dead works to serve the living God. The point is not that the Law that was written on tablets of stone, but which are now written on our hearts in light of this new and better covenant, is a law that we can summarily dismiss in order to follow a deracinated and abstracted R2K Jesus.
In terms of the Corinthians passage that young MT cites, the Apostle Paul also strongly suggests here that the very law that had been written on tablets of stone (Ten Commandments) is now written on the believers in Corinth’s hearts. In the new covenant God writes His laws on the hearts of His people. The reason why the Law is written on their hearts is because of the finished work of the Lord Christ, who was the very incarnation of God’s Character. God revealed His character in the Law in the Old Covenant but in the new Covenant God reveals His character in the Lord Christ. In the New Covenant the Lord Christ, in His life, death, and resurrection, keeps God’s law perfectly and dies as a substitute to satisfy God’s law. When God writes His law on the hearts of the new covenant community it is a writing of Christ upon their hearts at the same time. You cannot divide (though you can distinguish) between the Lord Christ as the Champion of God’s Law Word and God’s Ten Commandments. It absolutely boggles the mind that MT would be suggesting that the person who has God’s law written on their hearts can follow Jesus but not esteem God’s ten words.
MT writes,
8) Paul often explicitly identifies “the law” as that which came at a specific point in time, that is, at Sinai. It came “430 years” after Abraham as a guardian for the people of God (Galatians 3:17, 24). The Gentiles did “not have” the law, the “written code” (Romans 2:14-15, 27-29) because it was not given until the time of Moses (Romans 5:13-14, 20).
In Galatians Paul is dealing with Judaizers who are insisting that the Gentiles must become culturally Jewish before they can be Christian. As such what Paul is warring against is the attempt to add the works of the law to faith in order for people to justified. He is dealing with people who are seeking to use the law unlawfully. If this is not understood Galatians can not be understood. When Paul invokes against the law in Galatians it is often in the context of how the Judaizers were attempting to use the law unlawfully in order to bring people into a bondage that the Judaizers remained in, as they were seeking to use the law unlawfully as an addition to , and so a denial of, Christ alone and justification by faith alone.
MT is correct when he writes that, Paul often explicitly identifies “the law” as that which came at a specific point in time, that is, at Sinai. It came “430 years” after Abraham as a guardian for the people of God (Galatians 3:17, 24), but MT is in serious error when he implies that the law was opposed to the promise. In point of fact, St. Paul even says,
“Is the law against the promises of God? Certainly not! Gal. 3:21.
Paul is against those dogs who are seeking to use the law unlawfully as a means of securing favor with God, but Paul is not against the law being used lawfully because, after all, the law never was against the promises of God. Abraham and Moses are not opposed except when knuckleheads seek to be saved by law. If Paul can tell us that Abraham and Moses are not opposed then certainly it can not be the case that Moses and Christ are opposed.
The whole R2K project suggests that we are not to use the law (Ten Commandments) lawfully because the New Testament constantly warns against using the law unlawfully.
Mt writes,
9) In the same contexts as in Proposition 8, he interprets the same law as that which Christians are not under, because they are now in Christ. We are no longer under a guardian but have put on Christ (Galatians 3:25-27). We are not under law but under grace (Romans 6:14).
When the Master comes there is no need to be under a tutor because the Master is present. However, what MT is doing here is assuming that somehow all because the tutor did his job to bring us to Christ therefore Christ is opposed to the tutor. This, in no way follows. The tutor is not needed because the one whom the tutor taught and pointed to has come. With the coming of Christ we are now in union with the one whom the tutor was pointing to. One just can’t play off a lawful use of the law (the law as tutor pointing us to Christ) against the Master to whom the law was pointing to. Finally, we have to realize that when Paul says “we are no longer under a tutor” he is saying in the context of those who wanted to bring the Galatians back under a unlawful use of the law.
I also think that MT makes hash out of Romans 6:15. The point of Romans 6 is not that we have no relationship with the law. If we had no relationship to the law how could we know what sin is that we are to not let reign in our mortal body? If we are not under law the way that MT is advancing there could be even no category of “sin” for what else is sin except to walk contrary to God’s Moral law (Ten Commandments)?
“Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.”
Eliminate law the way MT and the Dispensationalists have historically done and you eliminate even the ability to categorize sin. Remember, Paul is writing to people who would have only had the OT at best. They would have had no understanding of a Law of Christ that was distinct from the Law of God (Ten Commandments).
When the Apostle says we are not under law the thrust is that we are not under the condemning power of the law. Sin can not have dominion over us because we are no longer under the condemning sanctions of the Law.
