Admin
|
Dispensationalism and the Shadows of the Old Covenant in Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 16-17
Posted : 5 Oct, 2013 05:51 AM
Dispensationalism and the Shadows of the Old Covenant in Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 16-17
The natural man (I Corinthians 2: 14) with a dialectic mindset will argue against the absolute truth of scripture from the side, that is, not dealing directly with the doctrine being presented, but changing the subject to some extent. Or the natural man with a dialectic mind will pick just a very small part of the presentation of a doctrine and quarrel against that, somehow thinking he can defeat the doctrine almost by a process of witchcraft.
An example of doing both of these dialectic tactics happened a few days ago on a Christian forum. The subject of a post was the limitation in categories of thought among church Christians, that either the Catholic Church replaced physical Israel or physical Israel; now stands alongside the church as two peoples of God, violating John 10: 16, Galatians 3: 28, Ephesians 2: 15. A guy tried to start a quarrel against Hebrews 8: 13, 10: 1, and 9: 1-14, that the Old Covenant was done away with and that the New Covenant is superior to the Old, and also Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 17, that the the things of the Old Covenant like animal sacrifice, the temple building, circumcision, the feast days, the new moon, etc were mere shadows of the substance to come which was Christ, but that most of the moral law in the Old Testament was not done away with. He cited Exodus 24, 3, 8. "And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do................And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words."
Supposedly, citing Exodus 24: 3,8 would disprove the doctrine that the Old Covenant was taken away and the New Covenant was established and that the things of the Old Covenant, not part of the moral law were mere shadows of the substance to come. This regarding of the Old Covenant, the Torah, as being one whole thing which is not divided up into two parts, the moral law and what has been called the ceremonial law is not a New Testament doctrine.
This failure to distinguish the moral law from that which was mere shadow in the Old Covenant is exactly the problem found in Acts 15: 1-2, 5, where the Pharisees said Christians must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, and in Acts 21: 17-20, where James told Paul that many thousands of Jews who believe are zrealous of the law.
Apparently the dispensationlists or many of them believe that though the New Testament, especially Hebrews says the Old Covenant shadows were done away with, that somehow these shadows must still be honored, and that the compromise of James in Acts 15: 19-21 is New Testament doctrine. Acts 15: 19-21 says "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20. But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
In verse 20 James mixed a part of the moral law with the shadows, saying that Christians should abstrain from fornication, but that they should also abstain from things strangled and from blood. And verse 21 implies that Christians must learn and obey the law of Moses preached every Saturday in the synagogues. Although James did not say that Christians must be circumcised, he retained something of the entire system that has been called the ceremonial laws, or the shadows in Hebrews 10: 1 and Colossians 2: 17.
Post Reply
|
