The Schoolmaster
Farrell Till jftill@midwest.net
Mon, 3 Nov 1997 21:50:02 -0600 (CST) (00878637002, 199711040350.VAA24081@cdale3.midwest.net)
ESPOSITO
>In quoting Hebrews, Mr. Till writes, "Which would mean that the first
covenant was imperfect and had to be replaced with a "BETTER covenant, which
was established upon BETTER promises" (Heb. 8:6). If the "law of the Lord
was perfect," as Psalm 19:7 claimed, then how could a "better" law be
instituted? How can anything be "better" than that which is perfect?"
This is quite easy to understand. I may own a very good bicycle. It may be
the best bicycle money can buy. It is without flaw and does the tasks I
require of it flawlessly. It's the perfect bike for me. However, if I wish
to travel over 100 miles and do so in two hours time, then the bicycle is
not the perfect instrument for me to choose. It is perfect as a bicycle,
but not perfect for other tasks. The law was never designed to provide
salvation.
TILL
I'll interrupt here to point out that in my posting just before this one, I
quoted the entire context of Psalm 19:7 and noted that it said that "the law
of Yahweh is perfect, CONVERTING the soul." Psalm 51:13 says, "Then will I
teach transgressors thy ways, and sinners shall be CONVERTED to thee." In
Isaiah 6, one of the seraphims that Isaiah saw above the throne of Yahweh
flew to Isaiah and said, "Go and tell this people, hear ye indeed but
understand not, and see ye indeed but perceive not. Make the heart of this
people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart,
and CONVERT, and be healed" (vs:9-10). The last statement in this passage
certainly implies that there was a means for the people to convert and be
healed. All they had to do was hear and understand and do.
Esposito may argue that these passages were using "convert" in the sense of
turning to Yahweh but not in the sense of salvation, but there are OT
passages that speak of such salvation: "Return, O Yahweh, deliver my soul;
oh, SAVE me for thy mercies' sake" (Ps. 6:3). "Yahweh is their strength,
and he is the SAVING strength of his anointed. SAVE thy people, and bless
thine inheritance; feed them also, and lift them up FOREVER" (Ps. 28:8-9).
The truth is that OT writers did think that their law was a perfect law that
could save in the sense of redeeming the soul: "But God will REDEEM my soul
from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me" (Ps. 49:15). They
thought that their law was so perfect that Yahweh would preserve it forever
(as many OT passages clearly teach) and establish the kingdom of Israel
forever. NT writers, who wanted to give some kind of legitimacy to the
Christ movement that had developed into Christianity, painted a different
picture of the law. They saw it as something that was imperfect and
temporary, which had to be replaced with a BETTER covenant built on BETTER
promises. In comparing the "perfect law" of Yahweh to a bicycle, Esposito
has tried to sweep aside a problem that may not be directly relevant to the
issue of baptism but nevertheless one that a biblical inerrantist should
want to address. Why do the OT and NT present opposing views on the purpose
and importance of the law of Moses?
ESPOSITO
>It was as Mr. Till has quoted, "a schoolmaster" pointing out our need for
salvation. >To try and use it for salvation, as the Jews of the first
century did, was to apply it >inappropriately.
TILL
As I just showed above, those first-century Jews who tried to impose the law
on Christians did nothing more than what their ancestors had done, because
OT writers had themselves insisted that the law was perfect and could save.
The ones who applied it inappropriately were the first-century
Christologers, who tried to find in the law something that was never
there--prophecies and foreshadowing of their Christ in an imperfect law that
had to be superseded by a better one.
ESPOSITO
It was a perfect schoolteacher, and the teachings it gives are perfect.
TILL
If its teachings were perfect, then there would have been no need for a
second covenant: "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then would
no need have been sought for a second" (Heb. 8:7).
ESPOSITO
When someone graduates school they are not bound by the teacher's
assignments, but they still can use the knowledge imparted by the teacher in
their business and daily life. The lessons don't become void, they just
become accessible to the use of the student.
>
TILL
But the "lessons" of the schoolmaster had become void in this case, because
"he took away the first that he may establish the second" (Heb. 10:9). The
yearly sacrifices and feast days of the first were blotted out and nailed to
the cross; therefore, no one was to judge those under the new covenant in
respect to meat or drink or feast days or sabbath days. These are issues
that Esposito needs to deal with.
To better evaluate Paul's "schoolmaster" statement, let's look at it in context.
>19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained
by angels in the hand of a mediator.
No pun is intended, but does Esposito understand what the word "till" means?
Prior to this verse, Paul had been discussing the covenant that God had made
with Abraham, which was a promise to bless all nations through his seed. In
the verse immediately above, Paul said that God had made an addition to this
covenant, which was the law of Moses that was added "because of
transgressions." But notice that Paul clearly stated here that there was a
time limit on the law. It was added because of transgressions TILL the seed
should come. In verse 16 of this chapter, he had identified the "seed" as
Christ, so what could be clearer than what Paul said here. The law was
added TILL the seed should come, so after the seed had come, the law was
fulfilled and could be replaced. This is exactly what Paul and the writer
of Hebrews taught had happened (in the many passages I have already cited).
>20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
>21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there
had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness
should have been by the law.
Again, Paul points out the main flaw in the law: it could not give life.
Therefore, it was fulfilled, blotted out, and nailed to the cross. "He
taketh away the first that he may establish the second" (Heb. 10:9).
>22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by
faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
>23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the
faith which should afterwards be revealed.
>24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.
>25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
>26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
>27 For as many of you as have been BAPTIZED INTO Christ have put on Christ.
>
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we might be
justified by faith, but after that faith is come, we are no longer under the
schoolmaster. What could be plainer? I know from my long career as a
college English instructor that if true synonyms are substituted in
sentences, the meaning will not be altered. Thus, the law was our
schoolmaster; our schoolmaster was the law. The law was the schoolmaster;
the schoolmaster was the law. Therefore, if we altered verse 25 above to
read, "But after that faith is come, we are no longer under the law," that
would not change Paul's intended meaning. If not, why not?
In all that I have said about the fulfillment and abrogation of the law of
Moses, I have said nothing more than what the NT teaches, and no one can
accuse me of not supporting my arguments with scriptural references.
Another passage that I want to introduce in support of my argument is
Hebrews 7:11-25.
>11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it
the people received the law,) what further need was there that another
priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after
the order of Aaron?
So here again, the Hebrew writer was singing his favorite theme song: the
law was imperfect, and so there was a need for another one. This time he
applied it to the Levitical priesthood.
>12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change
also of the law.
What! A change in the law? Why, I thought that the law of Yahweh was
perfect! The Hebrew writer, however, thought otherwise.
>13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of
which no man gave attendance at the altar.
>14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe
Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
>15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of
Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
>16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the
power of an endless life.
>17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of
Melchisedec.
>18 For there is verily a DISANNULLING of the commandment going before for
the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
What! There is "verily a disannulling of the commandment going before"?
Well, why? Because of the "weakness and unprofitableness thereof." Let's
notice too that the KJV and ASV used the word "disannulling," as did also
Young's Literal Translation and others. Strong's also defined the Greek
word "athetesis" as a "disannulling," "cancellation," or "putting away."
What is the difference in the word "annul" and "disannul"? "Annul" means to
"abolish," "cancel," or "nullify," but "disannul" is a much stronger word.
Webster's defines it as "to annul completely, to render absolutely void."
So the Hebrew writer was very explicit in stating that the law was weak and
ineffective, and so it was disannulled or rendered absolutely void. I'll say
again that if Esposito intends to continue this discussion, he had better
steer clear of the book of Hebrews, because it is the last place in the NT
in which he can expect to find support for his view that the law continued
in effect after the death of the testator of the new testament.
>19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope
did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
There is the writer's theme again: the law made nothing perfect. And that
is in direct contradiction to what OT writers thought.
>20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest:
>21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by
him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:)
>22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Here the writer is talking again about a BETTER testament, and this is a
point that Esposito seems unable to see. If the first covenant (testament)
had been faultless, there would have been no need for a second (Heb. 8:7).
>23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to
continue by reason of death:
>24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
>25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto
God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
>
This is what the NT taught about the law of Moses. It was imperfect
(flawed), and so Christ fulfilled it, blotted it out, and nailed it to the
cross.
So now maybe Esposito will see the need to debate the place of baptism in
the NT salvation by discussing what the NT said about baptism AFTER the
death of the testator of the new testament. So let's hope that we have
nothing more from him and Bell about the thief on the cross or John the
Baptist or anyone else who may have been "saved" before the death of the
testator.
Farrell Till
Skepticism, Inc.
jftill@midwest.net