Although it’s been a few months since I posted some initial thoughts and review of the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel, I’d like to pick the topic back up and, in time, give a full review of this book. Because of the length and depth of the book, my intention is to post a separate review of each author’s position on the subject of Law and Gospel. This is the second of what I hope to be six total sections of reviewing this book.
Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.
Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.
Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.
Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.
Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by '--NW']
P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”
p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”
P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.
P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.
P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”
P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.
P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.
P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”
P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.
P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”
P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.
P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”
P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.
P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (“love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”
P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).
P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”
P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”
P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”
P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.
P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.
P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”
P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).
P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”
P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).
P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”
P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”
Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:
P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”
P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”
P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)
P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck.
P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”
P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.
Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:
P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”
P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”
P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”
P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”
P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.
P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”
Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:
Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).
P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”
P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.
P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.
P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here.
P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.
Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:
P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”
P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.
P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.
P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.
P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.
P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.
P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.
P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.
P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”
P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.
P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.
P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.
P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.
That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.
And I...
Hi Nathan,
I enjoyed reading this book, and found it helpful. I’m looking forward to your review. May I interact with some of your points?
I found at least 5 times where Moo defined the Law of Christ…
1. “I will state at this point the position for which I will argue: The entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge of, the conduct of God’s people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by ‘the law of Christ.’ This ‘law’ does not consist of legal prerscriptions and ordinances, but of the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, and the central demand of love, and and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit” (p. 343).
2. “…Paul teaches that Christians should not look directly to the Mosaic law as their authoritative code of conduct but to ‘the law of Christ.’ This ‘law’ is not a set of rules but a set of principles drawn from the life and teaching of Jesus, with love for others as its heart and the indwelling Spirit as its directive force” (p. 357).
3. “Christians are not, according to Paul, bound to the law of Moses but, secondly, are bound to those principles established by Christ in his life and teaching – principles mediated and motivated by the Spirit and focused on love; this constitutes ‘the law of Christ’ (p. 361).
4. “I will argue that this ‘law of Christ,’ the new covenant form of God’s law, is not a code or series of commandments and prohibitions, but is composed of the teachings of Christ and the apostles and the directing influence of the Holy Spirit. Love is central to this law, and there is strong continuity with the law of Moses, for many specifically Mosaic commandments are taken up and included within this ‘law of Christ’” (p. 368).
5. “It is more difficult to determine whether the law of Christ includes specific teachings and principles. Many deny that this is the case, but their reasons for doing so often betray a bias against finding any specific demands as binding on Christians. The work of Schrage and others has shown that Paul and the other ‘apostles were quite willing to impose specific commandments on their charges; and these commandments were, in fact, often drawn from, or reflective of, Jesus’ own teachings. For these reasons, I think it highly probable that Paul thought of the law of Christ as including within it the teachings of Jesus and the apostolic witness, based on his life and teaching…” (p. 369).
NCT believes in at least 12 new realities…
1. New covenant
2. New Prophet
3. New Priest
4. New King
5. New sacrifice
6. New creation
7. New people
8. New heart
9. New kingdom
10. New land
11. New temple
12. New law
However, CT believes in only 10 of those new realities (2-11), and 2 old-new realities (covenant and law). That’s why I believe CT has an inconsistent, selective OT-NT herm., while NCT has a consistent NT herm.
I think he meant that Christ didn’t see the law divided into 3 parts: moral, civil, and ceremonial. As for the SoM, it includes only 2/10 the Decalogue, and at least 7 commands from outside the Decalogue. As for Mt. 19, it includes only 5/10 of the Decalogue, and 2 commands from outside the Decalogue. In fact, the whole NT uses the name “Ten Commandments” ZERO times, and mentions the whole Decalogue in only 3 passages, of which all 3 are NEGATIVE.
It sounds like he believes we obey those 9 commands from the NT, not the OT. He speaks elsewhere of some of Moses’ commands being “taken up” into the law of Christ. It sounds like he believes they are transferred. If so, this is a consistent position.
How could the Bible contain evidence that the Decalogue is God’s eternal, moral law when that view wasn’t even invented until the 13th-century by the Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas? http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2099.htm (Question 99, Article 4.) Even Barcellos concedes this point. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:4wo8RpYuHaIJ:www.mctsowensboro.org/blog/%3Fp%3D231+%22calvin+on+the+three-fold+division+of+the+law%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph&client=firefox-a
Are you basing that on Is. 56? If so, do you apply your herm. consistently by believing that “burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Is. 56:7) continue into eternity? Also, how can there be a weekly Sabbath observance in the New Jerusalem when there will be no sun or night there? (Rev. 21:23-25).
“Paul uses the phrase ‘under [the] law’ (hypo nomon) eleven times (Rom. 6:14, 15; 1 Cor. 9:20 [four occurances]; Gal. 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18)…As the CONTEXT in each case makes clear, the law to which Paul refers is the Mosaic law, the tora” (p. 361).
Nathan, what do you think?
Are you trying to draw me in?
Hey Greg,
How’d I know this would probably get your attention?
I’m going to respond to a few of your statements, but I want to ask for your patience until I get (eventually) to the essay by Doug Moo. I don’t wish to exhaust every issue here, for many things come out in his full essay that I did not spend time on here.
Very poor choice of words on my part. It would have been better to say that this ‘law of Christ’ is at times subjective and poorly outlined/defined by Moo. It would have also been better to save my statement on this issue until I completed the Moo essay, rather than just throwing this in without full explanation.
Furthermore, my perception of this probably begs the question, since most NCT guys by definition see the NT law as ‘the Spirit’ and ‘love’ rather than letter (perfectly seen in your P343 quote).
But beside the point, the ‘law of Christ’ is built off of two generic references to the ‘law of Christ’ made by the Apostle Paul, neither of which I see are really defined, and one of which (Galatians) where it clearly is just a reference to loving others as Christ loved us.
Again, I ask for patience until I get to Moo’s essay, but my point above about being ambiguous can been seen here, for Moo repeatedly uses phrases like ‘directly’, which allows him the freedom to pick and choose commandments and principles from the commandments as is convenient for his system. It is absolutely ridiculous for NCT to continually shout down the authority/continuity of the Decalogue and yet, quietly out of the other side of their mouth, say that 9 of the 10 are binding. Absurd!! So in relation to this statement, I would somewhat agree with this ‘do not look directly’ statement because we are not under the Old Covenant. We don’t honor our fathers and mothers so that we stay in the land, but according to Eph 6:3, we obey for NC reasons. But this misses the point. BOTH sides, in application, uphold the authority of the Decalogue, but each side does so for different reasons, and one side picks and chooses which and which aspects really do carry over. And BOTH sides also look to the NT for our understanding of the Decalogue. So Moo’s words are begging the question, and ultimately subjective when considering his overall argumentation.
The Reformed position argues that there is no law given to Christians in the NT, but that, rather obviously, the NT principles Moo speaks of can all be found in the OT, and/or are built clearly off of the OT law. Moo himself agrees with this in practice/application, as can be seen by reading his essay, though he denies it in word. Christ’s law is the OT law, expanded/illuminated to penetrate the heart, and specifically applied to believers of this covenant, just as the OT law was often specifically/explicitly applied to the nation of Israel during that time.
The subjectivity and vagueness of Moo is precisely what I was hitting on when I said he never really defines this ‘law’. But again, I do see how that begs the question, for his position is admittedly one that says the law is fairly subjective (guided by the Spirit and of love). Other than that, the quotes by Moo don’t present a major area of disagreement with the Reformed view. Some of them are very good, actually.
This sounds feasible on the surface, but I see it as nothing but inconsistent dispensationalism and/or a form of replacement theology that is ruled by theology and not by exegesis. Exegesis is the crux of the matter; from these 12 things, we determine what is ‘new’ and/or ‘replaced’ by what the text says, NOT by seeing a pattern one way or another and applying that pattern to all. For example, the new heart is not a new thing at all for the people of God; neither is the King, who MUST follow the physical bloodline of Abraham/David, etc. There is a foundation of all of these things that is not thrown out, and that provides the substance that is necessary to the full structure. But I’m not going to jump into all 12 of these things. That is beside the point.
Jeremiah 31 and other passages, including the author of Hebrews quoting this passage, has a clear, objective ‘law’ that is written on the heart. Exegesis demands one interpretation, but theology can call for a variety of interpretations. As for me and Reformed theologians, we want to stick with the text. And like I have said before, even the ‘new people’ spoken of in this passage do not replace the old people; rather, the new people cannot exist/function/make sense without the old. We argue the same for the law, based upon clear exegesis of the Jer 31 passage and others. The Law written on the hearts has the OT law as its substance; replacement theology this is not: Rom 3:31, 8:1-4, 13:8-10, James 2:8-11, etc. Exegesis of these passages in their context can lead to no other conclusion.
I myself said that scripture does not explicitly divide the law for us, but rather it is a creation of man to help us understand the proper use of the law –which is ultimately the work of the Spirit.
That is not to say that divisions cannot be found in scripture (‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice’), but that they are not explicitly defined by the authors of scripture.
I do not share your hermeneutic and your statement here. Funny you want to get all explicit with what the text says here (like, because the explicit phrase ‘look upon a women’ isn’t associated with adultery in the OT (which it is by the way), then it must be something ‘new’ you argue), but when you get to Romans, Hebrews, Jer 31, you shun explicit exegesis for your overarching theological system. And yet, you are completely blind to this inconsistency…baffling to me.
When Jesus referenced the Law or gave instruction to the people, the Decalogue is usually close by. Demanding that He use the magic words or quote explicitly is very convenient of you. You yourself said He quotes 5/10 of the Decalogue, thus to say that we are not to ‘directly’ look to the Decalogue contradicts the example/words of our Prophet and Lord. It is here that some within NCT borrow from Dispensationalism and say that Jesus’ words are somehow different because it was before the inauguration of the New Covenant. That’s nothing but more picking and choosing (again!), and rather absurd, IMO, since the gospels were penned well after the inaguration of the NC and had a specific aim of instructing the church to ‘obey all that He commanded’.
It is not a consistent position. Moo repeatedly makes statements like these which are built upon subjective/theological reasoning. From what exegesis does he say ‘9 of 10’? None is given. Rather, it is his theological system that deduces this statement. He picks and chooses as is convenient for his system, not entirely unlike the accusations leveled at Reformed theology that we ‘pick and choose’ using the 3-fold division. Clearly, Moo uses a division of the law not unlike the 3-fold; I am just arguing that he is more subjective/ambiguous/theological in his division, as opposed to the Reformed 3-fold view.
I’m not going to even address such a silly question. 95% of history and Christendom disagrees with you anyway on the issue of the Decalogue. Not to mention that this question is ultimately determined by exegesis…like from Romans chapter 2.
No, I base this off of Hebrews 4. The Sabbath rest is ultimately the heavenly rest we will experience for all of eternity. To say that the 4th commandment simply called for physical rest is pretty ignorant. And I quoted Is 58, not 56. Regardless, of course ‘burnt offerings and sacrifices’ continue; the substance/reality of those things are Christ’s offering and intercession (along with our prayers through Him). Likewise, with the Sabbath, the temporal has passed away, and the New Testament Sabbath, built off of the substance of the command in the OT, continues on through our ‘delighting’ in the Lord’s Day and in Him, our Sabbath rest, as Isaiah 58 rightly prophesies.
My point was that, even in the NT, we are not ‘under law’. Case in point: I can go out and commit any sin under heaven, even something as heinous as adultery or murder, and yet still find full forgiveness in Christ. We’re not under and law, OT or NT. But we are obligated, by the fact of Christ’s love/forgiveness towards us, to obey out of gratitude. Moo misses this by focussing solely on the OT Law issue, rather than the legalism issue that is at the heart of Paul’s argument. Classic NCT error.
Greg, thanks for your comments. Again, I don’t wish to get into a long, drawn out debate; let’s save that for when I get to Moo’s essay (and Stricklands, for your position is simply his Dispensationalism in new clothes.)
Hey Jeremy,
Oh, we’ve had this discussion before, though it has been a few years. So I’m not sure what new ground we could cover.
But I really enjoy your contribution to the social networking/blogging world, despite our disagreement here. I’m definitely not trying to pull you (or anyone else) in; I’m just confident that my position can withstand biblical scrutiny and I hope to share my thoughts and this book, with all.
Grace and peace my friend
Nathan,
Good Stuff, “P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here. ”
I can not agree more. I find these types of statements to exegetically wanting. The issue seems more about ones approach to the law then the law in and of itself.
Greg,
I have read through parts of your book. Very well done. I’m more sympathetic with the CT side of things, but your book was well organized and easy to follow.
Just to narrow down the subject a little bit you wrote. ““Paul uses the phrase ‘under [the] law’ (hypo nomon) eleven times (Rom. 6:14, 15; 1 Cor. 9:20 [four occurances]; Gal. 3:23; 4:4, 5, 21; 5:18)…As the CONTEXT in each case makes clear, the law to which Paul refers is the Mosaic law, the tora” (p. 361).”
Paul is definitely refering to the Mosaic Law in Gal. 3-5. My question for you is, do you believe the covenants Paul is contrasting here are historical or experiental. In other words were the Faithful listed in Heb. 11 saved “before this faith came” (Gal. 3:23), are they children of the slave woman, and “unable to share in the inheritance” (Gal. 4:30-31.)? Is Paul describing a response to God’s law or is he declaring that all who lived under the Mosaic Covenant had this “slave” like experience?
Blessings in Christ,
Eric said:
“The issue seems more about ones approach to the law then the law in and of itself”
Exactly the point I tried to make. Paul’s statements about the use/misuse of the law almost always deal with matters of justification, not sanctification. Thus, many of the errors of Dispensationalism stem from this misreading of these statements.
Funny, when Paul (and James) are clearly talking about sanctification, the Decalogue is certainly nearby (Rom 13, James 2, etc.)
Nathan, I think something you ought to study would be to see if any commands in the old testament are specifically contradicted in the new testament since you think that there are no new laws in the new testament, only applications.
Any obvious one is marriage. Have you actually studied Old Testament case law in marriage compared to what Jesus said in the New testament?
Have you actually studied old testament case law about loving enemies compared to what Jesus said in the New testament?
These are just 2 examples. I wonder if you have done the work in these areas to see if your theology truly measures up to the exegesis.
James,
I just wanted to clarify my question I asked you the last time we were on the blog. My question to you is pretty well summed up in my question to Greg above. I have been looking for clarification from NCTs on how they look at Paul’s statements in general on the old covenant. It appears to me that no one can be saved under the covenant experience Paul defines as “from Sinai” in Galatians or as being “before faith”. Under which of the two covenants as stated by Paul in Galatians were the saints of Heb. 11 saved? (Is Paul speaking of strickly historical eras or is he refering to one’s approach to God and His covenant?)
Blessings in Christ,
Erik, please email me at jkime@cfl.rr.com.
That way we can discuss this through email instead of Nathan’s blog.
Sorry for the additional post Nathan, I don’t know how else to contact Erik to discuss his question.
James-
I have been presented with this and have considered it before. I am a former Dispy (MacArthur, Reformed type), so I am familiar with these arguments.
Not to get on a rabbit trail here, but I do not believe that the marriage and/or enemies commands are new. However, I don’t think determining whether they are new or not is the crux of the issue. I freely admit that obedience in the NT is radically different than obedience in the OT. I said explicitly that the Law is expounded/expanded/enlightened in the NT.
But Jesus pointed us to creation (moral law), and the Decalogue (adultery) when teaching about marriage/divorce, and He expanded who our neighbor is (and thus the command to love our neighbor) because of the abolishing of Jew/Gentile distinction (which is why I’m not a theonomist).
Good questions. We’ll have to take them up in more detail in the future.
Eric, I’m not 100% sure I understand your question, but let me try to answer anyway. Sometimes Paul spoke negatively of the Law’s effect on the majority of Jews, not the minority (regenerate remnant). Another example of this may be 2 Cor. 3?
Also, these quotes from my book, may explain your question…
Eric, is that what you were looking for?
Greg,
Thanks for the reply. You appoached most of my question, however I was hoping for some exegesis on Galatians.
“One reason why Covenant Theologians can’t understand this is because they assume the Old Covenant must be a covenant of salvation from sin. However, Old Covenant saints were saved by grace, through faith, during the Old Covenant, but not by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was revealed by God’s grace, but based on works.”
So saints saved in the Old Covenant historical era had a New Covenant experience in that they had faith (Gal. 3:23), they were not prisoners to the law, they were children of promise (Gal. 4:28), and the law was in their hearts (Deut. 6:5-6, Ps. 40:8). Could this be what Paul is contrasting in Galatians. Is it more about the experience then the era in which you live? Now, granted in the New Covenant era some the applications of the law changed, but the basic requirement of God did not seem to change. He has always wanted a relationship. (Isa. 1) Could it be possible that all saved are saved under the ever-lasting covenant? (Heb. 13:20)
“Obviously, the Old Covenant didn’t save all who were in it, since most perished under God’s wrath. It didn’t effectually save anyone any more than did the covenant with Noah. But, the New Covenant saves all who are in it, thus making it a covenant of salvation. (p. 67)”
The Old Covenant as Paul describes it did and could not save anyone. I believe you stated as much in your first quote. Not all will be saved in the New Covenant era either, as is made obvious by Paul’s statements in Galatians. (Gal. 1:6-7, 3:10-11) However, all that have a New Covenant experience with Jesus as described by Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 will be saved. Paul seems to be contrasting an Old Covenant experience (legalistic obedience and self-righteousness) to a New Covenant experience (relationship based on love and respect) in Galatians, not the historical realities of God’s covenant revelation. (Gal. 2:15-21) This New Covenant relationship will not harm the law, to the contrary it elevates it. (Gal. 2:17-18)
Greg,
Thanks for the reply. You appoached most of my question, however I was hoping for some exegesis on Galatians.
“One reason why Covenant Theologians can’t understand this is because they assume the Old Covenant must be a covenant of salvation from sin. However, Old Covenant saints were saved by grace, through faith, during the Old Covenant, but not by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was revealed by God’s grace, but based on works.”
So saints saved in the Old Covenant historical era had a New Covenant experience in that they had faith (Gal. 3:23), they were not prisoners to the law, they were children of promise (Gal. 4:28), and the law was in their hearts (Deut. 6:5-6, Ps. 40:8). Could this be what Paul is contrasting in Galatians? Is it more about the experience then the era in which you live? Now, granted in the New Covenant era some the applications of the law changed, but the basic requirement of God did not seem to change. He has always wanted a relationship. (Isa. 1) Could it be possible that all saved are saved under the ever-lasting covenant? (Heb. 13:20)
“Obviously, the Old Covenant didn’t save all who were in it, since most perished under God’s wrath. It didn’t effectually save anyone any more than did the covenant with Noah. But, the New Covenant saves all who are in it, thus making it a covenant of salvation. (p. 67)”
The Old Covenant as Paul describes it did not and could not save anyone. I believe you stated as much in your first quote. Not all will be saved in the New Covenant era either, as is made obvious by Paul’s statements in Galatians. (Gal. 1:6-7, 3:10-11) However, all that have a New Covenant experience with Jesus as described by Jer. 31 and Heb. 8 will be saved. Paul seems to be contrasting an Old Covenant experience (legalistic obedience and self-righteousness) to a New Covenant experience (relationship based on love and respect) in Galatians, not the historical realities of God’s covenant revelation. (Gal. 2:15-21) This New Covenant relationship will not harm the law, to the contrary it elevates it. (Gal. 2:17-18)
“Once you understand that God gave His effectual saving grace during the Old Covenant, but not by the Old Covenant, all the above problems melt away. The Old Covenant symbolized the gospel found outside that covenant. In the Old Covenant, the gospel was merely typified and symbolized, but not promised.”
Agreed, God definitely provided for a New Covenant experience in the Old Covenant era. However, the Old Covenant experience Paul is describing provides no avenue for salvation. (Gal. 4:30)
“Just as Noah’s covenant didn’t save anyone, so the Old Covenant didn’t save anyone. Old Testament saints were saved through the gospel promises about Messiah. (pp. 70-71).”
These promises are provided in the New Covenant. (Luke 22:20)
Thanks Greg for you thoughts, they are well appreciated.
Blessings in Christ,
“Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal 6:2)
True, but all “IN” the NC will be saved.
That depends on when you believe the NC was applied to them? OC saints were saved by the gospel while they were IN the OC. And, after Pentecost, they were probably “promoted” into the NC and the fullness of its blessings including atonement, adoption, union with Christ, Spirit baptism and indwelling, etc.
OK, I think I’m starting to understand your question, which seems quite original. Let me answer partially with a quote from my book…
Now, let me try to answer from Gal., 2 Cor 3, and Jer. 31. I believe the contrast is between BOTH the covenants and their normal/usual experience for the majority who were unregenerate. So, what Paul is saying is that the OC which brought the experience of damnation to MOST members is cancelled, and the NC which brings the experience of salvation to ALL members is here.
The historic OC, which caused the damnation experience for most Jews, was cancelled with words like “until” (Gal. 3:19, 4:2), “no longer under the supervision (Gal. 3:25), and “get rid of the slave woman and her son (Gal. 4:30).
Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses by His Person, works, and words. He inaugurated a new covenant which includes a new law (commands) that His indwelling Spirit guarantees we will obey, unlike the OC.
Eric, does that make sense?
Greg,
Very interesting topic. Your Biblical knowledge is very helpful on this topic.
“By the way, Old Testament saints (the regenerate remnant) probably already had all 7 of those (NC) blessings (in Jer. 31:31-34), including the law of Moses written on their hearts and in the Old Testament…The main difference between the Old vs. the New in Jer. 31 is the salvation of a few vs. all: Few in Old Covenant Israel were saved, all in the New Covenant Church are saved (p. 58).”
Few in the O.C. era and few in the N.C. era are saved. (Matt. 7:14) All with a N.C. experience in both eras are saved. I believe this to be the everlasting covenant in a nutshell.
“So, what Paul is saying is that the OC which brought the experience of damnation to MOST members is cancelled, and the NC which brings the experience of salvation to ALL members is here. ”
The way Paul describes the O.C. in Galatians and 2 Cor. 3, ALL the individuals that have that experience are lost. The only option for salvation for Paul in Galatians is to be an “heir according to the promise” and to “be justified by faith”. (Gal. 3:24,29)
“The historic OC, which caused the damnation experience for most Jews, was cancelled with words like “until” (Gal. 3:19, 4:2), “no longer under the supervision (Gal. 3:25), and “get rid of the slave woman and her son (Gal. 4:30).”
The word “until” show us that we are under bondage of sin until Christ frees us. (Gal. 3:17,22,29) If the O.T. saint could not enter that faith then they are lost. Yes the reality of His coming occurred in the N.T. era, but the same faith was applied to them for righteousness, hence a N.C. experience according to Paul in Galatians. One must remember the promise of salvation was laid out before the Law. The Law or the historic O.C. did not change how one is saved. (Gal. 3:17)
As an aside, a good embodiment of Paul’s point in this text is a story from a VBS my wife was conducting. We had a case where some of the kids were writting on the pews in the sanctuary. Now, before a law to not write on the pews was laid out it was wrong to write on pews. However, because transgression resulted from lack of relationship a written law had to be put in place. However, once the kids developed a good and loving relationship with the staff there would no longer be a need for a written law. The law would be acted out naturally.
The Historic O.C. did not cause the “damnation” of man. (Ps. 89:28, Deut. 5:5-6) God delivered them from slavery to give them this covenant not to enslave them again. If one is to reference Paul’s statements in Galatians to the historical O.C. then God did just that, enslave them all over again. God wanted a N.C. experience from the O.T. saints just as He wants from us today. (Deut. 5:28-29) The historic O.C. was for there own good. (Deut. 6:18,24 compare Gal. 6:7-10) The O.C. experience is never for our own good.
“Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses by His Person, works, and words. He inaugurated a new covenant which includes a new law (commands) that His indwelling Spirit guarantees we will obey, unlike the OC.”
The “fulfilled” discussion is one in which CT and NCT go around and around on. I just don’t see it like D.A. Carson and others. It has more to do with the idea of “fulfilling” all righteousness as Jesus stated to John the Baptist. I don’t believe that can be equated with removing the very principles of the unwritten law on our hearts. (Jer. 31)
“New” laws in what sense? In that they are now written on our hearts. The O.T. saints had the same experience of having the law in their hearts. The natural response to God in a love type relationship is the “new” law, which would embody the whole mosaic law as stated by Jer. (Gal. 6:2)
The Spirit has always been apart of God’s faithful. (Gen. 6:3, Num. 11:17 , Ps. 51:10-13, John 16:13, Rom. 7:6, Rom. 8:2, Rom. 8:9-15 (Did the O.T. saints have the spirit of bondage or the spirit of adoption?), Gal. 3:2 (The O.T. saints did not obtain anything by the works of the law. According to Paul this could not be so.), Gal. 5:16 (The O.T. saints did not walk in the lust of the flesh.)
I guess to get to the crux of the issue, I just do see Paul in anyway contrasting two historical eras of salvation history in Galatians. Paul is contrasting a legalistic experience (Old Covenant) verses a love relationship (New Covenant). This understand may have huge ramifications as we apply it to God’s Law.
Yes, Greg your answer made sense, I only hope mine comes across with equal clarity. Thanks again.
Blessings in Christ,
Greg,
Sorry forgot to proof read: I guess to get to the crux of the issue, I just do NOT see Paul in anyway contrasting two historical eras of salvation history in Galatians. Paul is contrasting a legalistic experience (Old Covenant) verses a love relationship (New Covenant). This understand may have huge ramifications as we apply it to God’s Law.
Thanks,
Erik-
Based on your comments, I assume that you take the position that the CT of Grace and the New Covenant are the same thing? That is, there really isn’t anything ‘new’ about the New Covenant, other than its full revelation. And this is referred to as the ‘everlasting’ covenant in Hebrews?
Also, great point about ‘fulfilling’. DA Carson has been refuted by Greg Welty on this issue: http://www.proginosko.com/welty/carson.htm
On the issue of fulfillment, I don’t know how CTers can really get too excited. On the one hand, land promises to Israel are “fulfilled” in Christ, meaning they find their completion in Christ and specific to Israel they have ended.
Yet CTers also say that Christ has “fulfilled” the law and by that simply means that it continues unchanged under his administration. By unchanged I mean that CTers do not see new laws. I know most CTers recognize the end of sacrifices.
While I think Greg is on the right track, I do not believe his points are faithful to NCT. They seem to be closer to a more consistent CT to me, but that is just based on what I have seen here and his site. I could be wrong.
Nathan I would love to get into some of the specifics about OT case law and NT case law, but I will wait till you specifically get into Moo’s argument instead of continuing too long on here.
James said:
Well first, your line of logic, which is: because the land promises are ‘fulfilled’ then the law is fulfilled, does not follow. Why would we base our exegetical conclusions on what ‘fulfilled’ means in other contexts?
Secondly, CTers rightly see NCT as having Jesus contradict Himself in Matthew 5 if their view of ‘fulfilled’ is true.
Thirdly, the law IS fulfilled in Christ, as I have pointed out before. A Christian can sin, even sin in the most heinous manner, and yet never face punishment for that sin because Christ fulfilled the law in his place. So this issue of ‘fulfilled’ does not address *how should we then live?* The question of how we are to now live, as justified people, clearly includes OT commands/the Decalogue specifically, per the clear teaching of the NT.
Lastly, this term ‘fulfilled’ can mean such a wide variety of things, that this doesn’t begin to deal with the issue. I’m sure you’d agree.
James said:
The law is the same in substance, yes, but like I’ve said again and again, it is expanded/expounded and applied in a different way(s) in the NT. But there are aspects of *every* covenant that carry over to the NC. The law, being eternal, and God promising to write in on our hearts, is one thing in the OC that carries over.
James said:
Poor Greg. He does seem to get it from both sides.
James said:
Well, be reminded that I see the NT upholding the Decalogue above all things, and that it is to be used to determine the continuation of the other laws. But yes, we’ll get into that when I hit Strickland’s and Moo’s essay.
BTW, James, I appreciate your change in tone recently. You’ve been much more cordial, and I hope to be as well. We’re not enemies, and we should be able to discuss these things in charity.
Nathan,
“Based on your comments, I assume that you take the position that the CT of Grace and the New Covenant are the same thing? That is, there really isn’t anything ‘new’ about the New Covenant, other than its full revelation. And this is referred to as the ‘everlasting’ covenant in Hebrews?”
The way I see it the “New” Covenant experience has not changed and is thus the “everlasting” covenant. This is the embodiment of all God’s salvation revelations. It is and always has been about our response to God. I don’t know if I like the term CT of Grace only because it seems to get too technical. I like to simplify things and use terms non-CTs are more familiar with. However, I’m probably just getting in semantics here. The historical New Covenant did have “new things”. I believe Hebrews lays that out for us. However, I don’t believe the principles of God’s unwritten and later written Law ever change under any covenant. In that sense I do agree that the N.T. must delineate the changes in application if the law, but of course the “law” did not change as it is now in our hearts. So all that said, I suppose it is very fair to label the New Covenant is a greater revelation of God’s salvation revelation, but not a complete disconnection with God’s previous salvation revelations.
Thanks for the heads up on the article. I will have to get to it in the near future. I tend to read 4 to 5 books at a time, not a good habit. I need to finish my current reading.
Blessings,
Yeah Nathan I wasn’t trying to lay out too much argument one way or another. I was just pointing out that the use of “fulfilled” gets changed without good reason. I think there is a certain reason for that, but I don’t judge intent very accurately.
Try to deal with this some when you get to Moo. I don’t quite know what you mean by this.
James-
Well, NCT is arguing that ‘fulfilled’ abolishes the Law right after Jesus said that He wasn’t abolishing it.
Of course, I think its obvious anyway that in Matt 5 Jesus is dealing with popular interpretations of the law (you have heard it said), rather than actual OT law (it is written), something that I’m sure we disagree on. This question will also lead us in one way or another when interpreting ‘fulfilled’.
How can we harmonize the law as NOT abolished (kataluo in Mt. 5:17-18, and katargeo in Rom. 3:31) with the law IS abolished (katargeo in both Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3:7)? In Lk. 24:44, we see 3 parallels to Mt. 5:17-18…
1. The Law and Prophets
2. All/everything
3. Fulfill/accomplished
“So, just as Luke 24:44 refers to fulfilling prophecy instead of confirming the Decalogue for obedience, so does Matthew 5:17-18.”
“Matthew’s normal meaning for ‘pleroo’ is eschatolgical fulfillment (not obedience) as shown in 12 prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:54, 26:56, 27:9). Notice that all those uses of ‘pleroo’ refer to revelation (Old Testament), not regulation (Old Covenant). And, it’s the same in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and types as revelation, not to confirm the Old Covenant Decalogue alone for regulation…So, Christ did not come to destroy ‘Genesis – Deuteronomy or the Prophets.’ In other words, He did not come to destroy the law as Old Testament revelation. (The error that the Old Testament was abolished as Scripture was popularized later in church history by the heretic Marcion.)”
James, I understand your concern. Eric has taken my ideas too far. All I was trying to say was that there are 7 blessings in Jer. 31: Perseverance, obedience, God’s faithfulness, our faithfulness, no need of evangelism, salvation, and forgiveness. Regardless of whether anyone is CT or NCT, we should be able to agree that the OC saints probably already possessed all 7 of those blessings. The intent of Jer. 31 is to contrast 2 peoples, not new experiences.
But, that doesn’t mean that other passages don’t reveal the new experiences, as Eric is suggesting. What do we possess today that OC believers lacked? Here are 6 NC blessings that started in the 1st century…
1. OC saints went to the upper part of Sheol/Hades. But we go directly to God’s presence in heaven. (See “hades” in Vines, and Jn. 3:13). OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.
2. Only one OC leader had access to God’s shekinah glory presence once a year. But NC saints can enter His presence 24/7.
3. Spirit baptism into the Church.
4. The Holy Spirit indwelt only some OC leaders, but indwells all NC saints.
5. Union with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and reign.
6. OC members and saints were adopted as physical sons. But we are adopted as spiritual sons.
I’m familiar with CT arguments against these red.-hist. interpretations, but I disagree with their herm.
Greg,
I guess we are getting a little off topic, sorry Nathan. My major point is that Paul in Galatians was contrasting experiences not historical covenants as so many assert. Your six points stated above are well taken and I’m sure you are aware of the arguments. I will just make a few brief points and then I will be off for the 4th.
“1. OC saints went to the upper part of Sheol/Hades. But we go directly to God’s presence in heaven. (See “hades” in Vines, and Jn. 3:13). OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.”
I have never liked the idea of protestant pergatory. I believe Jesus is stating that no one has gone to Heaven and come back to witness about it except Him. No one knows the things of Heaven except Him. It seems clear to me that Enoch went to Heaven. (Heb. 11:5) God’s plan of salvation was in place before the foundation of the World. (Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet. 1:20)
“4. The Holy Spirit indwelt only some OC leaders, but indwells all NC saints.”
I’m not sure how Stephen could accuse the Jews of being stiff-necked and resisting the Holy Spirit just like their fathers if most did not have an opportunity to recieve Him. (Acts 7:51)
Anyhow, good discussion Greg and have a good 4th.
Blessings,
Hi Greg,
You said:
Well, one way we don’t do it is to automatically assume the exact same meaning of ‘abolish’ across different texts, in different contexts. One could point out the same error in the use of the word ‘fulfilled’.
Also, as is clear from both the OT and NT, there are laws that are particular to a specific covenant, and there are laws that transcend all covenants. It can be easily shown that the Decalogue, for example, is a set of laws that transcend all covenants.
Next, it would be contradictory for some laws to be fully abolished, and yet be quoted authoritatively by the apostles in other passages of scripture. Thus, since the Decalogue and other aspects of the OT Law are commanded/reiterated by the Apostles as pertaining to NC Christian obedience, we must examine closely what ‘abolish’ actually means, and consider that it might not mean what our English, 21st century reading of it might imply.
You said:
Again, it is a fallacy to automatically assume the same meaning of ‘fulfilled’ across two different contexts. Here, even a child can see that Jesus’ main point in Matthew is *completely* different than His point in Luke. In Matthew, He is instructing the crowds on the true depths of God’s righteousness, as well as pointing out the righteousness needed to enter heaven. In Luke, He is referencing His death/resurrection, and that all that was prophesied about Him came to pass. How one could join these two words together, in different contexts, and apply the same meaning, is a very fundamental exegetical blunder. I could say more, but I’ll leave it at this.
You said:
Nobody is arguing for the OC Decalogue ‘alone’. It is the foundation; not exhaustively the law.
You said:
This fails to deal adequately with the context of Matthew 5. See this post for a clear demonstration of your errors: http://shepherdtheflock.com/2008/10/15/must-christians-obey-the-old-testament-law/
Furthermore, the issue of eschatological fulfillment has nothing to do with obedience. Of course He fulfilled the law. Of course He didn’t do away with the OT Revelation. Of course He is our righteousness in this fulfillment, to the point where we are not damned for our breaking of the law. But, of COURSE we have been given instructions on how to live/obey, and per the apostles themselves, the Decalogue and other aspects of the OT law are included in this.
Greg,
Sorry, I just wanted to leave you with a few more thoughts. Regarding your comment; “The intent of Jer. 31 is to contrast 2 peoples, not new experiences.”. The idea of recieving God completely is the whole idea of this text. It is all about the experience and not about the historical era or people. Note this quote from Dr. Brueggemann.
“The best-known promise in Jeremiah – at least in Christian interpretation – is Jeremiah 31:31-34 concerning the “new covenant.” Christian interpretation, with particular appeal to Hebrew 8:8-13, has frequently read this text in the most vigorously supercessionist way possible, as though the “new covenant” pertains only to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with Israel rejected for its broken covenant. Of course, nothing could more distort the text than such a reading. The text is rather a divine declaration that YHWH will begin again with Israel and restore a covenantal relationship that has been lost in the debacle of disobedience and destruction. Two parts of the promise are of particular interest. First, the shape of the new covenant relationship is according to the Torah: Jer. 31:33…The purpose of the new covenant, like the purpose of the old covenant, is to shape a people in obedience to the commands of Sinai. Given the tone of the Book of Jeremiah, it is likely that the “Torah” here is purview is the tradition of Deuteronomy. Second, the grounds of the new covenant is divine forgiveness: Jer. 31:34b…Unlike elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah, here there is no call for repentance. The newness is all on the side of YHWH’s fresh inclination, the God who is incapable of not having a relationship with Israel. Thus the future for Israel depends on the sure resolve of YHWH to begin again, here even without preconditions.” (Walter Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology:The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, Cambridge University Press; 2007:126-127)
One can not get from the text of Jeremiah the idea that the whole basis of the first covenant was to be replace by a “new” basis. The “renewed” covenant was to be confirmed and completed by YHWH Himself, because as a whole the people were rejecting God and trying to keep the covenant on their own merits. As I have stated before, the only people in the O.T. that truely kept the covenant with YHWH allowed God to keep it for them. So, anyone that was saved prior to the N.T. had this N.C. experience as spoken of by Jeremiah.
I do believe the reason so many insert this “supercessionist” idea into Jeremiah is not because of the context of Jeremiah, because that it seemly impossible, but because they infer a misunderstanding of Paul’s writings back into Jeremiah (See Reisinger’s writings of Jer. 31). Now this interferes with the Compatibility Priniciple of Scripture, and is not sound exegesis. Paul’s writings can not completely contradict the O.T., and thankfully they do not. In many of Paul’s writings he is dealing with an improper response to God’s covenant proposal. (Gal. 3-4, Eph. 2, 2 Cor. 3) A close examination of these texts will show that one can not be saved by the descriptions of the Old Covenant that Paul is using. Paul is describing a legalistic, self-righteous, nationlistic attitude toward God and His Law, not the N.C. relationship so many in the O.T. had. Again, the changes in application of the law were addressed in the N.T., but the Law itself is still in the N.C., it is in our hearts.
Anyhow, sorry for rambling. If I am way off base I would appreciate your comments. I know for a fact I don’t have a perfect theology. I’m only walking with Christ and may He show me the way. God bless with your ministries.
Blessings,
Believe it or not, to me, your heart is more important than your agreement on doctrinal distinctives. A man who who is teachable and loves Christ enough to follow Him at any cost is more mature than a man with better theology who is unteachable.
Yes, and Enoch was also raptured. So, why do some theologians claim all OT saints went to heaven, but weren’t raptured? (Same argument with the Spirit indwelling OT saints.)
A helpful herm. here is narration vs. declaration. Should we interpret the examples of Enoch/Elijah going to heaven, and the Spirit indwelling some OC leaders as declarations of what happened to all or narrations of what happened to only some?
The context of that verse is the Jews resisting the Spirit’s prophecy, not His call to salvation. Because the Jews were hard-hearted and stiff-necked like their fathers, they always resist the Spirit’s prophecy by persecuting the Prophets.
Not if they were cancelled from the OC, then transferred to the NC, so that we obey them from the NC, not the OC. Even Barcellos says the whole OC was “cancelled” (but then reinstated).
Greg,
Hope you had a good holiday. I don’t want to get into too much theological jostling here as we are off track, but I love the discussion and I thank you for that.
“Yes, and Enoch was also raptured. So, why do some theologians claim all OT saints went to heaven, but weren’t raptured?”
This naration contradicts your statement; “OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.” and moves towards my statements that God’s grace and justification looking toward the cross were the same as His grace and justification looking back to the cross.
As to the declaration about where the rest of the saints are is a much longer discussion and one I do not wish to get into here. However, you are correct in your observation that the naration is different than the declaration in this case.
“The context of that verse is the Jews resisting the Spirit’s prophecy, not His call to salvation. Because the Jews were hard-hearted and stiff-necked like their fathers, they always resist the Spirit’s prophecy by persecuting the Prophets.”
The context is all about the Israelites refusal to allow God into their lives. That is a refusal to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. They “refused to obey” and their “hearts turned back to Egypt”. (Acts 7:39) They only way to obey is to have a change of heart and only God (Holy Spirit) can do that. (Deut. 30:6,8) Only the Holy Spirit can soften the Heart. (Ezek. 36:26)
The exegesis of this passage requires that one looks into the O.T. allusions and echoes of “uncircumcised hearts” and “stiff-necked”. (Example: Deut. 10:12-22 – N.C. experience and it requires the Holy Spirit – Deut. 30:6,8) Only God can cure the conditions of an uncircumcised heart and a “stiff-neck” and throughout the Bible we learn that the Holy Spirit does this for us. Yes, the N.T. makes it much clearer for us in the N.C., but the O.T. saints also had that opportunity or they could never find God or follow Him. There is more to this passage then just hearing the Spirit’s prophecy. One must be more than a listener. (James 1:22-25) and that is Stephen’s point.
Blessings,
What I meant was that only Enoch and Elijah were raptured into heaven. All other OT saints probably didn’t go to heaven. God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.
Your interpretation is popular in Arminian circles. I would distinguish between regeneration and indwelling. I believe that the Spirit regenerated all OT saints, but indwelt only some leaders.