I have found that in approaching the Sacred Scriptures, it is always best to go to the original Greek. Some of the Western translations are
ATROCIOUS! Just as one example, the word "aion" which means "age," is translated as "world" in Matthew 24:3, and has led to the rise of the goofy and unbiblical idea of Matthew 24 and 25 speaking about a pre-millennial end of the world, with a tribulation and a "rapture of the church" eschatology.
Your question is of high interest to me, so let's see what Strong's has to say about this passage:
- doctrine, decree, ordinance
- of public decrees
- of the Roman Senate
- of rulers
- the rules and requirements of the law of Moses; carrying a suggestion of severity and of threatened judgment
- of certain decrees of the apostles relative to right living
Blue Letter Bible online is a nice study tool. It gives a multitude of translations, including Young's Literal. It also gives cross-references:
Eph 2:15 the enmity in his flesh, the law of the commands in
ordinances having done away, that the two he might create in himself into one new man, making peace,
Col 2:14 having blotted out the handwriting in the
ordinances that is against us, that was contrary to us, and he hath taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross;
Col 2:20 If, then, ye did die with the Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as living in the world, are ye subject to
ordinances?
So what are these "ordinances" or "the law" that Calvinists are so fond of pointing to?
Heb 9:1 It had, indeed, then (even the first tabernacle)
ordinances of service, also a worldly sanctuary,
Heb 9:10 only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly
ordinances -- till the time of reformation imposed upon
them.
It is the ethics of the Old Covenant. Now go back to first century Israel and put yourself in the church then. What was the big -- BIG -- issue for the Church? What was the very first church council called about?
CIRCUMCISION!!! The keeping of the ordinances (the "law") was being demanded by the Judaizers. They taught that unless you whacked off a bit of your flesh, you couldn't really be a believer. The whole point of Galatians was Paul speaking against this idea that any of the Old Covenant ordinances were required of believers in "The Way." Christ took the ordinances of the Old Covenant, which were part of keeping covenant with God and remaining in good stead as an Israelite, and nailed them to His Cross, thus destroying them and the need to keep them.
Christ didn't "Keep the Law for us" and we are still under condemnation if we don't keep the law - HE DESTROYED IT!!!!
But Calvinists have forgotten that this is grace and run right back to the law and said that we must keep it. Unbelievers are said to be condemned because they are "law-breakers." It ceases to be grace.
Calvinists go to certain passages which you mention, point to them, and then make up their own "law" and say that unless you keep these demands, you are not really a Calvinist (and by extension, not one of "the elect" nor a believer at all!!)
Are you getting what I am saying?
So . . . what are the "ethics" of the New Covenant? The old "ethics" are passed away, destroyed on the Cross by Christ, and the Old Covenant has ceased. What demand does the New Covenant make on us. I am going to suggest that it is love . . . as indicated when Christ answered the question "What is the greatest of all the laws?"
"Love God with all your heart, mind, and being, and your neighbor as yourself. Upon these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
The Jews missed this entirely and became hung up on the minutiae of keeping the tiniest of demands. We see how this overwhelmed their thinking when instead of rejoicing that a man was healed, they were incensed because the man picked up his cot and carried it on the Sabbath. Keeping rules overruled the most important aspect of our covenant relationship with God - that of love for God and neighbor.
Does this make sense? I hope so.
