What is the New Covenant made of?
Oct 30th, 2009 by Nathan White
Prophesying of the New Covenant, the prophet Ezekiel says in 37:24-26,
“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”
If you are familiar with the various covenants in scripture, they should jump out at you from this passage. Consider:
- “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd” – this is an allusion to the Davidic Covenant, which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant.
- “They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes” – this is an allusion to the Mosaic Covenant, which is fulfilled in the writing of the Mosaic Law upon the hearts of believers in the New Covenant, as well as in the imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers by faith.
- “They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived” – this is an allusion to the Abrahamic Covenant, which will ultimately be fulfilled in the new heavens and the new earth.
- “I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them” – this is an allusion to the New Covenant.
Commenting on this passage, O Palmer Roberson says:
“The new covenant, promised by Israel’s prophets, does not appear as a distinctive covenantal unit unrelated to God’s previous administrations. Instead, the new covenant as promised to Israel represents the consummate fulfillment of the earlier covenants. Now all three ancient covenants combine into a single divine ordering. By the new covenant, all the promises of God find their consummation.”
I love that last sentence, ‘all the promises of God find their consummation’. That is, all the promises and blessings of God to Adam, Abraham, and in the Mosaic and Davidic covenants, will all find their fulfillment and consummation to ALL believers through Christ, in the New Covenant. The covenants of God throughout the ages are indeed one.
Hi Nathan,
Amen! Back in the early 90’s, my RB pastor gave me a copy of Robertson’s book. And, I followed it well, until he made this claim:
I thought, “One WHAT?” One covenant, or one plan/purpose?
Greg-
Obviously we’re not saying that all the covenants are exactly the same. Palmer’s words above say that all the various covenants are combined to form the new. By necessity, if they’re combined to form a whole, then each one is not the whole on its own.
And yet, each one is indispensable to the whole. Throwing one out throws a wrench into redemptive history.
Even more so, when one examines how men have been saved during these various covenants, the covenant of Grace comes to light, as well as the role of each particular covenant in playing a vital role in this redemptive aspect.
Nathan,
I love that summary of the covenants and how they are fulfilled in the new.
2 Cor 1:20 20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.
Hannah
One could use that conclusion to bolster the “dominionist” theory. The problem is most dominionists are Gentile by birth! Hmmmmm.
I will not.
I will note of Peter, though, in my speculation, he as well might have been thinking of each of those covenants, Abrahamic, Mosiac and Davidic now aspects of the “New Covenant” when we read his response here:::>
Act 10:44 While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
Act 10:45 And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles.
Act 10:46 For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
Act 10:47 “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Nathan, we both know that nonCTers would reject such reasoning. Only those committed to CT would then interpret the passage that way.
Do you really see all commands in scripture as something from the Mosaic Covenant?
Allusion to the Mosaic covenant? Not a chance. Such an interpretation is untenable. Considering the fact that Jeremiah 31 makes it explicit that the New Covenant is not like the Mosaic, it is the law of the New Covenant that Ezekiel has in view. Also considering that Moses himself said a new prophet with a new message and a new way of being judged was coming. He even said all that within the law (Deut 18).
I would recommend the outstanding book: FUTURE ISRAEL by Barry Horner. When I read the OT, I don’t see anywhere in it that Jacob was promised the whole world. Can you give me that reference?
James,
Would this do?
Romans 4:13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Hannah
Nathan, it is truly neat to see how the NC is the ultimate consummating covenant of all the rest. However, I find it interesting how that a unique spiritual/figurative NC application is given to each covenant.
1. “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd” – this is an allusion to the Davidic Covenant, which is fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant.” I agree–although the OT allusion was to Kind David, it obviously intended to be fulfilled in Christ.
2. “They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived” – this is an allusion to the Abrahamic Covenant, which will ultimately be fulfilled in the new heavens and the new earth.to believers by faith.” Again, I agree, the OT allusion was to the land of Palestine, but the true NC application was not Palestine, but heaven.
3. “I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them” – this is an allusion to the New Covenant. Although you did not state this, the “them” is an allusion to the nation of Israel, although it is actually fulfilled in the Church.
4. ”They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes” – this is an allusion to the Mosaic Covenant, which is fulfilled in the writing of the Mosaic Law…” Okay, if we were to give “my rules and statutes” a literal NT application, then that would have to include all 613 commandments of the OC, because that was God’s “rules and statutes’ at the time of Ezekiel. Therefore, “My rules and statues” in this passage must obviously be given a loose figurative NT application. But who’s to say that the spiritual NT application of “my statutes and rules” is the Decalogue? Although that could very well be a possible interpretation, it could just mean the “two greatest commandments.” If ‘David’ refers to Christ, ‘Israel’ refers to the Church, ‘land’ refers to heaven, then couldn’t the “my statutes and rules” just refer to the two greatest commandments as much as it could refer to the Decalogue?
The fact is, we both interpret “my statutes and laws” according to our presuppositions and understanding of the NT. Neither Ezekiel 37 nor Jeremiah 31 ALONE prove the perpetuity of the “Moral Law” or the Decalogue in the NC.
Hannah, in short, no.
1. That isn’t found in the OT.
2. That isn’t about Jacob. See the interesting thing here is that Ezekiel doesn’t refer back to Abraham but to the LAND promised to Jacob. I can give you the passages that specifically describe that land if you aren’t familiar with them.
3. Jacob/Israel never fulfilled those land promises.
By the way, passages such as Ps 37:11
But the meek shall inherit the earth, And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
don’t really have anything to do with this. You see, of course the righteous would be the only ones left upon the earth. That concept is all through the Old and New Testaments. Since that is true, one wonders why God chose to be even more specific and give specific landmarks to identify the land he was talking about.
The crowd that does not see any value in the land promises to Israel fails to explain why God makes both general and specific promises. Those are promises which define his character and he tells us he is faithful to his covenant.
Davide-
We’ve discussed this before. My reply to you would be that I do not hold to replacement theology. Some people believe that the church replaces Israel. Some people believe a new law replaces the old law. I find both positions to be deduced from theological reasoning rather than exegesis of the text.
For example, take the position that we both hold to, that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant are fulfilled not to Jewish people only, but to us Gentiles as well through Christ. Replacement theology says that since the promises were never *really* meant for the Jew, and since we see in the New Testament rather clear evidence that God/Jesus rejected and yes cursed the Jewish people for their unbelief, they would argue that the Jews have been abolished/divorced from the covenant, and that the church has replaced them as those who will inherit all the promises. However, careful exegesis reveals that the New Covenant promises, *though much expanded*, are still promises being fulfilled in the Jewish people today, as Jewish people are still be welcomed into the covenant through faith in Christ. The promises are still for Israel, but praise be to God that through Christ there is a ‘grafting in’ of Gentiles by faith.
Likewise, there is no replacement of law. Exegesis of the OT passages that prophecy of the New Covenant, along with their quotations in Hebrews, reveal no change in the substance/content of the law that is written on the heart. Rather, all the emphasis is on the law remaining exactly the same, but that the manner of how it is given to us is changed. And of course, just like with Israel being the olive tree and God ‘expanding’ and grafting in Gentiles, the law too remains the same but has been expanded and applied in a much broader manner than just the ‘literal’ OT interpretation.
I believe the facts are clear that the Decalogue is the foundation of the law of God because it reveals His moral character, that it is perpetual throughout all covenants, and that the imagery of ‘writing’ is precisely what Jeremiah and Ezekiel have in mind when they prophesy of God ‘writing’ this law on the hearts of the recipients of the New Covenant. I can see no other way to read these texts if we don’t start with very basic exegesis such as ‘what law does Jeremiah and Ezekiel have in mind here?’
Yes, I see no other exegetical conclusion other than that ‘my statutes and laws’ refers to the Decalogue alone, and cannot refer to all 613 commandments of the OT. I would say so based upon the OT passages alone, but this position is only confirmed when we come to the NT and we see the Apostles employing the same imagery (2 Cor 3) widely understood as the manner in which God wrote the Decalogue, as well as their confirming the passing away of the ceremonial commands while simultaneously holding up the authority of the Decalogue.
So when Ezekiel prophesied of the New Covenant, he knew that it really only meant the 10 commandments or was everyone kept in the dark until the 16th century when Covenantalism would be around to explain this to them?
Your appeal to 2 Cor 3 is curious because Paul specifically states that it is the 10 commandments that are part of the nonglorious ministry associated with Moses as opposed to the ministry of the Spirit which does not use the 10 commandments.
Please do not take any of this as insulting, I honestly cannot follow what you are talking about.
James-
First, because of your recommendation of Barry Horner’s book above, I would assume that you are a Dispensationalist? I am familiar with the book, with John MacArthur’s campaign to promote it, and everything I’ve heard/read about it is that it’s argues a Dispensational position.
Secondly, yes, you cannot follow what I’m talking about because I’m not fully presenting my position. Davide and I have had these conversations before.
Third, your question invoking the ‘16th century’ is quite funny. Everybody everywhere, until recently, has understood that when God writes something on stone, the imagery and other things are a reference to its permanence. The Decalogue has always been understood as the moral law; it didn’t just start in the 16th century.
I’m arguing that exegesis of the Jeremiah and Ezekiel passages point to no other conclusion except that the Decalogue is in mind here. Richard Barcellos and others have done extensive work on this to demonstrate this.
And lastly, of course 2 Cor 3 talks about the non-glorious ministry of the Mosaic Covenant. Any law of God (including love), that is external to us is a ministry of death if not written on the heart. Thankfully, however, Paul in verse 3 mentions the reality that the law is now written on the heart.
For the most part, I actually agree with what you are saying. No disagreement, except for your specific interpretation/application of “laws and statutes.” Of course, neither do I believe the substance of God’s law ever changes. The Mosaic Law’s substance continues in the NT. Consequently, the “law” written in our hearts today is the very substance of the Old Testament law.
Davide-
Again, in determining the content of this law, I account the themes and figures of the prophet’s use of the language ‘I will write’. It isn’t by accident that this language is chosen. We only have one record in all of scripture of God writing anything. Only one set of ‘laws and statues’ were given directly by God and written on stone.
So even though this law may be summarized in love, as it is expounded in the NT to reveal it’s positive aspect (the Decalogue is largely negative), the foundational substance/content remains the same. The Decalogue is the covenant law of God’s people, both old and new.
I wonder, throwing this out here, what these verses mean in regard to this discussion?
Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb
Rev 22:2 through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
What is described here?
Where is this place in “Eternity”?
Is this a “brand new place [in] Eternity”? Or, is this Eternity? And if being Eternity, is this the place Satan and his angels were cast from to this present heavens and earth as Moses describes at Genesis 1:1 and 2?
First, let me say that that I believe is being said here. The Apostle John has just been given a revelation by the “Angel” of the Lord. We can go back, I suppose from memory, seeing there are only a very few places in the whole 66 books where the “Angel of the Lord” came to mankind this way. This puts this sort of revelation into a realm of significance in communications between God and man, giving us an understanding of the importance that this sort of “God Talk” is for mankind to fulfill His “Eternal” purpose?
Also, I would be clear that the thing that should help bring this all into focus is that phrase in those words, “….the healing of the nations…”.
What? Is there going to be “sickness” in the New Heavens and New Earth wherein dwells Righteousness? No.
So what is the purpose of that phrase but to help us understand “our part” in Eternity “will always be the part” that is one hundred percent in need of God’s “Life giving Spirit and Eternal Nature”.
What was the sin of Satan but “I will be like God”. Never!
There are only three Eternals. We “know” Them by describing Them as the Triune God in this created temporal world.
We are discussing the eternal “nature” and “effect” that eternally “affects” us as those in need of God’s sustaining Spirit. God is known as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. God has clearly established for us those three covenants, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic and the Davidic.
I would again assert that these three covenants made to Abraham, Moses and David are three aspects of the One True Covenant, that Eternal Covenant between God and His creations prophesied about by Ezekiel, noted above, “….I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them….”.
I would end this part of what I see by pointing to a Greek Word used twice by Paul in the New Testament and then another Greek Word used many more times.
First to that one Greek word used many more times. Here’s one verse that should illucidate it’s importance in this discussion:
1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
The Greek Word I would underscore from this verse is:
?????????
zo?opoieo?
dzo-op-oy-eh’-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): – make alive, give life, quicken.
This Word, zoopoieo, it seems to me points to the very heart of the phrase I point too above, “….the healing of the Nations”.
The “free” gift is “Eternal” and it is this:
Joh 17:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,
Joh 17:2 since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.
Joh 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
“that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”.
The “river” of the “water” of “Life” flows from the two Thrones and is “Life giving” in Eternal Nature and is the “Life” line for New Creations, a new heavens, a new earth and a new creature.
Now, to what I am going towards that I assert is being overlooked in this discussion, or, at least, hasn’t been put over yet by anyone else, that is of “extreme” significance in coming to understand these things, is this.
There is a Greek Word used twice by the Apostle Paul, once at Eph. 2:5 and once at Col. 2:13.
That Greek Word is close to the Word zoopoieo, which reflects the Eternal Nature of God as a “Life Giving Spirit”. When you realize the extremity of this Greek Word you might equally understand the significance of the words John used to describe what was revealed to him written at Revelation 22?
That Greek Word is:
???????????
suzo?opoieo?
sood-zo-op-oy-eh’-o
From G4862 and G2227; to reanimate conjointly with (figuratively): – quicken together with.
Now, what is the significance? Well it goes to the heart of what Ezekiel was touching on that has already been discussed and the point being made about the “land” of promise and Jacob and the three covenants being discussed by Nathan that got this thread going.
Paul says an interesting thing later on in that chapter and it is this:
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Paul also says something equally interesting when it comes to “God, Our Heavenly Father’s access to us”. There at Eph. 2:18, “we” the “New Creature” have access to the Father through Christ by “one” Spirit.
When God goes about “reconciling” the Elect Children, that “New Creature”, Paul writes about it this way, here:
Col 1:19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,
Col 1:20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.
So, in effect, Our Heavenly Father has established the “VERY” same “Way” to have access to and fellowship with us. It is the same as we have with Him.
That “Way” of course is Jesus Christ by “One Spirit” who is described as the “water” of the river of Life that flows from the two Thrones.
So, my summation is that I would point to that one Greek Word, suzoopoieo, “being conjoined too, reanimated and quickened together with” Christ, as the hinge pin to this whole discussion.
I wonder what any of you make of this discussion now?
Nathan:
1. From what I can deduce, Barry Horner is NOT a dispensationalist. I think he is a historic premill guy although I admit I am not entirely sure. What he is advocating in his book happens to be something that dispensationalists agree with, namely that God actually is faithful to his promises.
2.
This is merely something you claim and something that is quite easily disproven.
Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching No. 96
Please note that he begins by saying we do NOT need the law as tutor and then proceeds to quote the 10 commandments.
Nathan, there is nothing in those passages that suggest limiting it to the 10 commandments. That is why I was halfjoking about people being in the dark until the advent of covenantalism in the 16th century. Given that Moses himself prophesied of a greater prophet, message, and basis of judgment, Ezekiel and the other prophets would have naturally had in mind that law, not the one they already had.
By the way, I have tried to engage Rich on these issues but he won’t. He also won’t engage John Reisinger, who did a magnificent job pointing out the errors, inconsistencies, gross misrepresentations, and lack of scholarship in Rich’s book. You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.newcovenantmedia.com/product.php?productid=111&cat=0&page=1&featured
3. The ministry of the Mosaic covenant was the 10 commandments. Paul tells us that.
2 Cor 3:7
The ministry of death is the 10 commandments.
No doubt that the “writing my Law” is an allusion to the Decalogue. I agree.
“The Decalogue is the covenant law of God’s people, both Old and New.” –Of course, I believe the ‘covenant’ law (if you want to call it that) in the New Testament is not the Decalogue but the Law of Liberty (Jms. 1), the Perfect Law (Jms. 2), the Royal Law (Jms. 2), the Greatest Law that summarizes the every OT Law and the Decalogue (Mt. 19), the Law that is mentioned or emphasized far more times than any other law, the Law that knows no boundaries, the Law that has infinite applications (I Cor. 13), the Law that Christ gave us (Jn. 15), the Law OF the Gospel, the law that far surpasses the 10 commandments, the Law that John repeatedly refers to as the “commandments,” the law that Paul says if fulfilled, fulfills all the other commandments (Gal. 5; Rom. 13.), the Law that does not bring condemnation or bondage but freedom.
Davide-
You force a false dichotomy where there is none. I shake my head at all the fallacies in your paragraph above, but honestly, that’s what happens when we are given the Spirit to gaze upon the law of God –it almost seems like its a new, more expansive law altogether. And there certainly could be worse things to lament.
Davide-
By the way, you quoted a whole lot of scripture there, and that is easy to do as a kind of mass way to support one’s position. But actually exegeting those texts with precision is another matter. For example, the gymnastics needed to get around such passages as Matt 5:17, James 2:11, Rom 3:31 and 8:4, etc., when looked at in detail and in context, reveal breaches in your position that cannot be bridged by quoting other verses that seem to teach the opposite. That’s why I’m a calvinist and not an arminian. That’s why I hold to Covenant theology and not replacement theology.
John MacArthur was mentioned above, and I have a lot of respect for him. A self-labeled Dispensationalist, he holds to a position on the Law of God very similar to Covenant theology. Here is a man who lives of verse-by-verse exegesis, though certainly he is wrong at times. But even though his theological system is more consistent with Dispensational view of the law, his exegesis leads him to embrace a more Covenantal view of the law. Though he is wrong in his Dispensationalism, I am very thankful that his theological system doesn’t ‘rule the roost’.
One thing is for sure, we are not as different as it may seem. I think we still have much in common when it comes to the covenants. We both believe that Christ is the focal point of each covenant. We both believe Christ is the fulfillment of the covenants. We both believe the Abrahamic covenant is fulfilled in Christ and church. We believe the Davidic Covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the church. We both believe the New Covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the church. And though we may disagree with our definition of “law” for the NT believer, we both come to almost the same basic conclusion. The only difference would be the Sabbath and perhaps some philisophical and Ecclessiastical differences.
What you mentioned about John Macarthur is interesting. I know he doesn’t hold to the regulative principle, and surely he can’t hold the view that the Decalogue is the “Moral Law.” He clearly doesn’t hold to any kind of Sabbath keeping or keeping of the 4th commandment in the NT. In fact, he uses D.A. Carson’s writings to support his view on the abolishing of the Sabbath (D.A. Carson of course, holds to a NC perspective of the Law). http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Questions
Anyway, it doesn’t really matter, whether he does or not, I was just curious as to what he does believe that leads you to think he has a covenant view of the law.
Nathan, I’m quite surprised that you would claim that. Even Barcellos concedes that the 3-part division of the law into moral, civil, and ceremonial was probably invented by the Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Therefore,
the Decalogue was never understood as the moral law by the Jewish rabbis, Apostles, Apostolic Fathers, or midieval Christians until the 13th century.
The Holy Spirit says that the stone’s purpose is to picture Israel’s unregenerate, hard hearts (not the decalogue’s permanence).
In my book, I critiqued Barcellos’ interpretation by showing 6 problems with it including,
“1. Jeremiah uses the word “law” 12 times, but never once does it mean “the Decalogue alone.”
2. Since the house of Israel and the house of Judah were already in existence then, must they also be the same today? In other words, is this prophecy fulfilled only by Jews, not the Church (with Jews and Gentiles?) ” (AOTLC, p. 60.)
Davide-
I agree that on paper our differences are small, but I believe they have much bigger implications in real life. And considering some of the conclusions you made in your paragraph above, our hermeneutics and the basic approach we take to determining how to interpret a text are going to be very different as well.
Regarding John MacArthur, I’d point you to his commentaries and study Bible on such passages as Matt 5:17, Rom 3:31, etc. He adopts Calvins 3-fold division and the Decalogue as the sum/substance of God’s eternal, moral law. He is not a Sabbatarian, but he advocates the Lord’s Day view almost identical to what is in the Baptist Faith and Message, for example. His view on the Sabbath is more in line with Calvin. And actually, he seems to have come closer and closer to a Sabbatarian view as of late, for about a month ago he preached a sermon of his on the subject that I largely agreed with, and which he didn’t ‘abolish’ the Sabbath as he has in older sermons/Gty articles.
Nathan, if it is so important to you that God wrote the decalogue in stone, why do covenantalists insist on changing it? You lob that criticism toward other theological systems only to violate it yourself. I still don’t know how you rationalize that.
“My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd”
This is the Davidic covenant here. Jesus spoke of one flock in John 10.
”They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes”
This is an obvious reference to the New Covenant, in which God’s law will be inward because of the Spirit. The Old Covenant and specifically Moses spoke of a new law that would take the place of what God limited to Israel.
“They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived”
Zech 12-14 also say the same thing. God will bring the jews back into their land because he keeps his promises.
“I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them”
Again, the New covenant is in mind here.
James-
The reason people will not engage you is because you misrepresent Covenantalism and you rehash the same, tired lines again and again. In addition, your quote of Ireneus sounds like you approve of abolishing adultery altogether. That is, per his quote, and since the Ten Commandments themselves are a ‘ministry of death’, why should I care about being faithful to my wife? It is laughable to us that you guys claim the Ten are a ‘ministry of death’ and yet you uphold 7,8, and sometimes 9 of them because they are repeated in the NT. Either make the fruitful or cut it down altogether!
Greg-
Forgive me if I misspoke. I certainly didn’t mean to say that the Decalogue has always been understood as the moral law and/or the 3 fold division has been around forever. My point was that the Decalogue has always been understood as binding on Christians, with the obvious exception that many have interpreted the 4th commandment in a variety of ways.
Your problems with Barcellos:
1. That’s irrelevant to the point and to the exegesis. Without a doubt Jeremiah means the entire law. But with the language of ‘I will write’ alluding to God writing the Decalogue, the understanding that the Decalogue IS the law (is the foundation of which all of it builds off of), and with the light of what the New Testament reveals about the New Covenant and this prophecy, the Decalogue is the *substance* of what is written on the heart.
2. Great point that again demonstrates your replacement theology. The Covenant is made with the house of Israel/Judah; they are the foundation, they are the substance. The Gentiles, however, are grafted into this covenant, and build upon it to complete the spiritual household of God. The same with the law. The foundation of all the law of God is the Decalogue, with the revelation of the NT/the Spirit building on top of it that reveals it for what it truly is (just like the inclusion of the nations is really what the Covenant of Grace has always truly been).
Friends- I am frankly tired of discussing this subject with you. Every time I post something even hinting on this subject you guys jump on me like a pack of dogs on a three-legged cat. I see now why NCT is an Internet movement that is little respected by both Dispensationals and CT theologians alike. You guys just need to chill out. You’re fighting the very essence of historic, Protestant Christianity here. Let’s end the discussion here unless a comment is needed for clarification.
I brought up how you criticize others for changing what you believe was set permanently in stone because you change it also. How is that misrepresenting covenantalism?
I do approve of what Irenaeus said. You would too if you just took the time to understand him. You still fail to grasp what NCT is about.
You talk about historic protestand christianity. You covenantalists all treat the scriptures though as if everything was figured out when the WCF was written, or the baptist version, the LBCF. All tests of doctrine for you covenantalists is the confessions, not the Scripture. How does that capture the spirit of “reformed, always reforming”? What a joke that is. It would be more accurate to say: Reformed, never to be reformed again.
And finally, the mere notion that you think of NCT as an internet movement betrays your ignorance or smugness. D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, John Piper, John Reisinger, Tom Wells, etc. Those guys seems to be in pretty prominent churches and seminaries. Also, I can give you quote after quote (like from Irenaeus) from the fathers where there is no chance they would have been Old Covenantalists. However, I doubt you would be interested since the bible wasn’t figured out for anyone till the 16th century.
James-
It seems to me that you, Davide, and Greg all differ at various points under the NCT label. Clearly, I make a mistake in assuming that you are all on the same page in regards to the Decalogue/Covenants issue.
Nevertheless, my comment above about CT being the essence of Orthodox Protestantism, at least with the perpetuity of the Decalogue, shouldn’t really come at a shock. Here Ligon Duncan says something similar:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm
James-
It seems to me that you, Davide, and Greg all differ at various points under the NCT label. Clearly, I make a mistake in assuming that you are all on the same page in regards to the Decalogue/Covenants issue.
Nevertheless, my comment above about CT being the essence of Orthodox Protestantism, at least with the perpetuity of the Decalogue, shouldn’t really come at a shock. Here Ligon Duncan says something similar:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant Theology & Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm
Nathan,
Wonderful exegesis of Ezekiel. I do think your statements bring out the mindset of the author. I wish more Bible students would read the NT with this frame of reference. (ie It is within this covenantal context and assumption that Paul makes most of His statements about Law, Love, Covenant, etc…) I would suspect that much of this confusion over the covenants would melt away if this were done.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Here’s a correction of the link I posted above:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant%20Theology%20&%20Justification/ligon_ctheology.htm
Friends-
I need to apologize to you all for being condescending in my comments above. My comments, specifically to James, but encompassing NCT as a whole (example: ‘it is an Internet movement’), were unnecessary, and at times supercilious. I am certainly no example of Christ-like love in this, and I hope you will forgive me.
Honestly, I didn’t engage James and others on specific points because, A) it’s not the topic of this post, and B) I’m just a little tired of the CT vs NCT discussion. I’m convinced that a form of CT with law perpetuity is consistent with the scriptures and edifying to the gospel and the Christian life. Thus, I’m also convinced that most forms of NCT that stress discontinuity, a new or higher law, or entailing the ambiguity of ‘it’s all about love’, are inconsistent with scripture and ultimately harmful to the gospel and the Christian life. It should be no secret that my posts are going to reflect my convictions, and I’d appreciate it if you folks would engage me on specific points in my post rather than letting it rabbit-trail into a broader discussion on the law. I hope that’ll help keep things civil, and help me from venting things in frustration that shouldn’t be said in such an arena.
But thank you all for reading and commenting.
Grace and peace my friends,
Nathan
Interestingly, Ligon jumps from the WCF back to Reformed history, as though the 2 are one and the same. Not exactly…
John Murray observed,
http://www.berith.org/essays/litmus/
The CoW was not a standard in Reformed history.