> Chad writes: > Actually, it's not my language. It's Christ's, it's John's, it's > Paul's, > etc. It's exegesis of John and Paul who are both telling us that > Christ is > the New Torah. > A proof text of this exact point would be nice. "Christ is the New Torah" Inform me. I will acknowledge my ignorance. "Christ is the New Torah". First you should define Torah, and then show where the Bible teaches that Christ the Second Person of the Trinity is somehow ontologically the thing that can only merely represent Him, or reflect Him. The Son of God will not conform to your lowered view of Him. Undoubtedly you will want to change the definition of "is". > Chad writes: > The law foreshadowed Christ himself. The exegesis of John and Paul > (and any other NT author) require us to see what is in the OT as a shadow of > the reality. Christ is the Lawgiver, Lawkeeper, and Law. *All* of it > (Luke 24) > foreshadowed Christ. It's not merely metaphor. It's not merely > analogy. > It is a shadow of the reality, with the reality working backward > behind the > shadow. > Mike writes: Chad your logic sometimes reminds of that Beatles song that goes something like, "I am he and you are me and we are altogether, I am the eggman we are the eggmen I am the walrus goo goo ga joob." It is hard to argue against because it doesn't abide by the definitions of words and their correspondence to the "things" they signify. You say the Law foreshadowed Christ, and then Christ is that Law. Is He that which merely foreshadows Him? It will not due to say "both" goo goo ga joob. >> Chad writes: > First, the Torah of Moses is evident in the New Covenant in that > Christ, > Paul, James, and John all quote various portions of the Torah as if > they are > still realities in their day. The uses of the Torah are in present > tense. > It is simply a reductionist hermeneutic to simply wipe large > portions of > passages off the screen by quoting Romans 6 or Galatians 2. There's > a > reason our CT brethren tend toward the error they do... the Torah is > > actually in the text. They aren't concocting verses... they are > reading > *what* is there. We cannot delude ourselves into thinking that we > can > simply dismiss the way they are reading those verses with a slight > swing of > our Romans 6 wand, as if it is obvious for all to see. We *have* to > spend > the hard exegetical work necessary to harmonize the existence of > Torah in > the New Covenant with Romans and Galatians and James without > resorting to > what amounts to proof-texting verses from contexts in which they > must > remain. We cannot do justice to the text by simply slapping a > "we're no > longer under law, but grace" verse over against CT when the verse > does not > answer *why* Christ, John, James and Paul are using Torah as > command. > Mike writes: I think you raise some excellent points here. However in our attempt to combine the presence of the Torah in the New Testament with clear and numerous passages which declare our death to that Torah, or more properly, nomos, I do not think that we should resort to saying, "OK therefore Christ is that Torah or a New Torah". That equation does not fly and it does not acknowledge the level of discontinuity called for in the light of Paul's statements like the one in Romans 6:14. "Sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under law but under grace". Rather it elevates nomos to a place that Paul does not allow. It confuses law and grace, Christ and Moses, the old covenant and the new, as if there were no major distinctions between them. That which foreshadows is less than that to which it points. Col. 2:17 "things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ". I think JGR's recent post speaks to this issue of the Law as it is brought in to the New Testament. It is NOT the same law unchanged-certainly in regards to its penalty- but also in my opinion in regards to its content. And certainly it is not Christ Himself. Chad writes: > Second, Christ and the New Torah is part and parcel to that newness > of the > new walk... it is not antithetical. >> Correct. We are fruit-bearing slaves, images of the Son. > Mike writes: I agree commands are not antithetical to grace. Grace to you Chad, Mike PA > > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > >