Is every law of God bound to a particular covenant?/nl

⮜ Beantwoorde vragen

Deze belangrijke vraag raakt de kern van de relatie tussen wet en verdrag. Veel Christenen hebben een hekel aan (wat zij beschouwen als) de "hardheid" en het gedetailleerde karakter van YHWH's gerechtelijke wet die aan Mozes is geopenbaard. Deze christenen nemen een theologische positie in die in wezen de concepten van wet en verbond door elkaar haalt. Zij zullen beide beweren:

1. dat de begrippen "wet" en "convenant" identiek zijn, of
2. dat ze ontologisch onafscheidelijk zijn

Door het aannemen van deze conceptuele samenvoeging geloven deze Christenen dat ze een argument hebben dat het bindende karakter van de juridische wetten van YHWH in het Nieuwe Verbond ontkent. Zij redeneren: als al deze wetten verbondsgebonden waren, dan - tenzij de wetten/boetes expliciet in het Nieuwe Verbond werden geherformuleerd - zijn ze samen met het ter ziele gegane Sinaïverbond afgeschaft.

Dit argument, dat gebaseerd is op conflatie, mislukt echter, omdat het leidt tot een tegenstrijdigheid met Jezus' eigen woorden. Hier is waarom.

Either:

1. Some of God's laws can exist ontologically separately from (meaning that their existence is not bound to) a particular covenant, or
2. None of God's laws can exist ontologically separately from a covenant.

If you assert #2 above (thus conflating law and covenant), then you are going to have trouble explaining why Jesus said "Do not think that I came to abolish the law ... I did not come to abolish [the Law]" (Matt. 5:17)

[For a deep exposition of Jesus' fulfillment of the law, see How did Jesus "fulfill" the Law? (Matt. 5:17-19) ]

Jesus was talking about "the Law" of God in place at the time. Any theology which asserts that Jesus abolished the Law that he himself was living under, and obedient to, is going to contradict Jesus on this point.

Yet we know that Jesus abolished the Sinai Covenant. That is evident from Hebrews 8:13, combined with the historical fact of the God-ordained destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

If Jesus abolished the Sinai Covenant, and no part of God's law (the law Jesus was talking about in Matt. 5:17) could exist apart from a covenant (the assertion in #2 above), then Jesus must have abolished the whole law along with the Sinai Covenant.

But Jesus explicitly said that he didn't come to abolish the law.

Therefore, it must be within God's power and authority both to create and enforce laws apart from a covenant. The moral laws (including many of the judicial laws) are exactly these laws. They are not covenantally-bound.

YHWH enforced his law against all the wicked men at the time of Noah. YHWH enforced his law against Sodom and Gomorrah. He enforced his law against the Amorites and Canaanites. He was about to enforce his law against the Ninevites when he sent Jonah to them.

If you hold to a theology that claims YHWH is not allowed to enforce his laws apart from a covenant, then please answer these questions and provide the scripture reference showing the covenant:

1. What covenant was being enforced against the wicked men destroyed in the Flood?
2. What covenant was being enforced against the Ninevites when Jonah was sent to them?
3. What covenant was being enforced against Sodom and Gomorrah when YHWH brought destruction upon them?
4. What covenant was being enforced against the Amorites and Canaanites (Lev. 18, Lev. 20)?