“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.

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.

The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:

• Wayne G. Strickland: Dispensational
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: ‘Evangelical’
• Douglas J. Moo: ‘Modified Lutheran’
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: Reformed
• Greg Bahnsen: Theonomic

Because of the book’s length (416 pages of heavy material), I have decided to break up my review into 6 sections: this introduction post and 5 posts examining each position and their counter-points. This way there will be room for me (and you) to examine the claims and counter-claims.

Introduction

I have found the book fairly easy to read, but somewhat redundant. 400 pages is just too short of a space to present 5 different views. So because of the short space, there is not as much interaction as one would hope for. Basically, the author’s present their position based upon a number of proof texts, and the other authors don’t have the space to do much more than state broad counter-arguments and deal with one or two texts in depth. But as an broad overview of the respective positions, this book is a good introduction.

In reviewing this book, please note that I come at this discussion from a particular position, a Reformed Baptist position, you might say. You can cross-reference my confession for its statement on this issue if you like. Thus, my objective is not to present each position equally per se, but to simply cherry-pick a few statements where I agree or disagree, sharing a few thoughts of my own along the way. No matter where you come down on this issue, there are going to be stronger and weaker points of your position –and I hope to highlight some of these for each position, including my own.

Other important thing to remember about this book is that there are obviously strengths and weaknesses of each author and their ability to communicate and debate. This is unfortunate, in a way, because it can sway the reader in the direction of a particular position simply because the argument is better (rather than the truthfulness of scripture).

For example, I found the Reformed view, written by Willem A. Van Gemeren, to be the weakest in the book. Now on paper I agree with his view on just about every point, but he clearly did not write his essay from an apologetic or debate-like standpoint, and he is much less convincing than any of the other authors.

Another example with be Greg Bahnsen’s essay. I’m probably futher away from Bahnsen theologically, but he is a brilliant debator and I found his paper much more convincing than I anticipated.

So keep these things in mind, including the fact that we all approach this subject with presuppositions, when trying to be fair and objective in examining this book.

General Observations

When we get to where the rubber meets the road, I found that the authors had much more agreement than disagreement. Basically, from my perspective, they all agree with some continuity of Law between Old Testament and New Testament, thus they end up spending their time arguing over how much, and what theological perspective we use in determining this.

Bahnsen, Van Gemeren, and Kaiser are in almost 100% agreement, with Bahnsen’s theonomy being the only significant point of disagreement.

On the other side of the ring, Moo and Strickland are in almost 100% agreement, though they differ on how they each get there.

Thus, the book really ends up being 3 against 2, with Bahnsen kind of being the odd man in the middle (all disagree with him on theonomy).

Furthermore, I found Kaiser to be the most exegetical (which isn’t surprising), with Bahnsen and Moo close behind. Van Gemeren was clearly the most dogmatic and theological.

Note the length of each essay:

• Wayne G. Strickland: 50 pages
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: 22 pages
• Douglas J. Moo: 57 pages
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: 45 pages
• Greg Bahnsen: 50 pages

From a personal standpoint, I found myself aligning most with Kaiser’s view (his essay was the strongest, IMO, even though it was by far the shortest), followed by Van Germeren, then Bahnsen, Moo, and least of all, with Strickand. I certainly wish that some of the key texts were isolated and all 5 guys presented their own exegesis for us to review, but there is enough here to form some very clear opinions.

Conclusion

A good introduction to the Law/Gospel issue, though there are some pretty big theological words used throughout. I would recommend it to the semi-advanced student of theology and layman.

Next post: I will examine the introductory essay, the Reformed view, by Willem A. Van Gemeren, and the counter-arguments from the other men.

So the questions I ultimately come back to are: how do my studies ground in the Person and accomplished work of Jesus Christ? How does this doctrine find its ultimate fulfillment and truth in Christ? How does HE hold it together? Does this doctrine increase my awe and reverence for Him? Does it motivate me to humble myself and worship? Can I cry with Paul, ‘Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!’?

A book that I continually come back to when I’m simply thirsting for Christ is the little puritan work, The True Christian’s Love to the Unseen Christ. A phenomenal devotional read; in fact, it is the very best devotional book I have ever read, and one loaded with great puritan imagery on the beauty and awesomeness of our Savior.

“…you may know your love for Christ by your love of Christ’s image…

“Do you love the image of Christ on His word? As Caesar’s coin bore Caesar’s image and superscription, so the Word of the Scriptures, which is the Word of Christ, bears Christ’s image and superscription. Do you love the scriptures because of Christ’s image which is upon them? Do you love the Word of doctrine in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s truth and wisdom upon it? Do you love the Word of precepts in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s holiness upon it? Do you love the Word of threatenings in the Scriptures because of the image of Christ’s righteousness upon it? Do you love the Word of promises in the Scriptures because of Christ’s goodness, grace, and love upon it?

“You have Christ’s word in your Bibles, and sometimes sounding in your ears, but does the Word of Christ dwell in your hearts? You receive Christ’s word in the light of it; do you receive His word in the love of it?”

We see Christ’s image and word very clearly in the New Testament, but do we not also see Him clearly in the Old Testament?

“Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

“For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.”

“O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.“

My friends, one reason why I hold to a Covenant Theology on the Law of God is because I see it as the only ’system’ that is truly Christocentric.

Do we believe that the OT Law speaks and details the righteousness of Christ, whom it was written about? Do we believe that God, albeit, giving baby steps, was teaching Israel how to truly worship God through Christ with all of the ceremonies, rituals, and explicit details? Do we not believe that the OT Law was completely sufficient and perfect for a regenerated Israelite to worship Christ, understanding that all of the typology was ultimately about Him? Do we believe that Jesus Christ is ‘the same yesterday, today, and forever’, and that His righteous, moral, image is revealed in the OT just as they are revealed in the NT?

Whatever view of the Law we take, let us deeply consider it in relation to Person and work of Jesus Christ, and that our view is grounded in the truth that it always has been and always will be all about Him.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

I think the paragraphs below, particularly the last one, aptly demonstrates how biblical history is bound up and structured as a whole through God’s covenants with man. The structure and unity of the Bible from beginning to end, I believe, can only be properly understood by examining the covenants and their role in the final consummation of the Kingdom of God ruled by our Lord Jesus Christ.

“…I AM’s refreshing initiatives and these faithful leaders are usually associated with I AM’s epoch-shaping covenants, wherein He obligates Himself, sometimes unconditionally and at other times conditionally, to His people’s keeping the ethical obligations He imposes upon them. Moshe Weinfeld affirms that “the idea of a covenant between a deity and a people is unknown to us from other religions and cultures” and “the covenantal idea was a special feature of the religion of Israel.

“To Eve He unconditionally obligated Himself to give her an offspring who would crush humankind’s Adversary. To Noah, because he proved himself faithful, He promised unconditionally never again to destroy the earth. To Abraham, because he too obeyed God, He promised unconditionally to give him an eternal seed and land. Through the mediation of Moses, God obligated Himself conditionally to bless Israel. To David, also because of his prior demonstration of faith, He unconditionally covenanted to give an eternal house, kingdom, and throne.

“…As for the prophets, Israel’s memories of these epochs, personalities, and covenants lay the foundation for the prophetic expectation that Israel’s history will culminate in a greater epoch, which they often referred to as “in that day.” In that day, I AM, Israel’s covenant keeping King, promises to restore His universal rule through His covenant people. Through Jeremiah and other prophets, God indebted Himself unconditionally to make a new covenant whereby Israel would obey God from their hearts and so meet the obligations of the Mosaic covenant and be blessed…In that day, the prophets announced, all people will worship God on Mount Zion, learn His law, and beat their swords into plow tips.

“…The covenants attached to these epochal events are described in ways that bring out their continuity with the concerns, themes, and trajectories of the founding moment. As noted, the seed promised to Eve is foundational to all the covenants in making God’s kingdom [my note here: the author is referring to the Covenant of Grace]. The Noahic covenant guarantees a firm stage on which God can build His kingdom. The Abrahamic covenant identifies the covenant people and the land that will sustain them. The Mosaic covenant articulates the teachings or law that will bind the nation together under God’s rule. The Davidic covenant provides the nation with the unchanging political leadership necessary for God’s theocracy to be firmly established.” – Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology, P148-149