The end of the law?
This week, Affinity will be hosting a conference under the title, The End of the Law? It is a clever title – clever in its calculated ambivalence.
I had hoped to attend, but am unable to do so because of other pressing commitments. As regular readers of this blog will know, I have profound concerns over what is called New Covenant Theology, and the antinomianism which I am persuaded is inherent in it. I am concerned that the calculated ambivalence of the Affinity conference points to a talking shop in which various perspectives on the law of God will be propounded. That is not to say that there is not some scope for discussion about the precise nature of the covenant of grace (for example, while it looks as if there will be a robustly Reformed Presbyterian perspective delivered, I am not sure that an equally robust Reformed Baptistic view will be presented), but the enduring validity of the moral law must not be put up for grabs. The abiding nature of God’s law is not an in-house discussion: it is a matter of truth and error (albeit not, in every manifestation, heresy). That said, I have a book by a ‘New Covenant’ theologian on my shelf in which his best arguments against bestiality are that you cannot have sex outside marriage, you cannot marry an unbeliever, it is almost universally illegal in the eyes of the civil magistrate to marry an animal (or vegetable), and therefore the latter two considerations make sex with an animal a breaking of God’s law (because those latter two principles of marriage to an unbeliever and obedience to the civil magistrate are mentioned in the New Testament). However, if you and your sister are both Christians and you live in a country which permits marriage between siblings, then there is apparently nothing in the ‘new covenant’ to keep you from marrying. I kid you not.
I am not suggesting that this is where all participants in the Affinity conference are heading, or even those who will be setting forth a less than Scriptural perspective. However, it indicates the trend and tendency of this teaching, and where the next generations will be taking it. We are already seeing a casual and widely assumed antinomianism characterising evangelicalism: the working assumption seems often to be that the ten commandments are passé.
Over the last few weeks, several blogs have been quoting from the great believers of the past. Again, there is not absolute uniformity, but – despite the various currents – there is a plain river of orthodoxy which we must not pollute.
Gary Brady on Calvin and the third use of the law.
Martin Downes on Thomas Boston; Calvin on being confronted by the law; Calvin on the first use of the law; on the righteousness of the law; Bolton on law and gospel and assurance; Bolton again on the substance of the moral law.
R Scott Clark on Calvin and the law and gospel; Ursinus on the same; a pan-Protestant scan on the same; and points us to some Marrow theology.
This is a point for holding fast in our day, with a love and affection for those with whom we differ, but with a love and reverence for the heavenly Father whose character is made known in the law; for the Son who obeyed and honoured and fulfilled the law in his life and death; and for the Spirit, whose office is to write that law upon the fleshy tablets of our renewed hearts. This is no time for ambivalence, clever or otherwise.
Oh dear, I feel the need to confess. I came up with the title. As you can gather, I’m not a NCT man.
I fear that there is a negativity about the very concept of law, irrespective of the human condition (regeneration surely makes a difference, Romans 8:1-8; John 14:21; 1 John 5:2-3), and that bothers me. I would love to hear a convinicing account from NCT boys as to what Paul is up to in Eph. 6:2-3, and Jer. 31, Ezek 11 and 36.
There is too much equating of law with legalism, and an underplaying of the place of union with Christ, the bestowal of the Spirit, and regeneration, in the NCT portrayal of the traditional Reformed view.
Martin Downes
Tuesday 10 February 2009 at 10:51
Greetings, Martin -
Is it any consolation that I said it was clever? Or that you are highlighted as getting nicely damp in the river of orthodoxy?
I appreciate that the very nature of the beast was to be open-ended (an open-ended beast, now there’s a worrying prospect), although I cannot applaud it. I also accept that you can read the title as a challenge to error rather than to truth, but it doesn’t entirely assuage my fears.
I agree with your concerns about a basic resistance to the concept of law (the spirit of the age, perhaps), and the blurring of the boundary between principled obedience and dry legalism. I also agree that the realities of union with Christ, the gift of the Spirit, and the corollaries of regeneration are not fully explored or grasped by proponents of NCT. I think you could go on adding to that list (conformity to Christ, the character of God, etc.).
I tried to capture some of these things in an earlier post on this topic on the rebel and the king.
Thanks for ‘fessing up, and thank you for taking a clear stand. I look forward to the fruits of your further prayerful thought and reading on this topic.
Jeremy Walker
Wednesday 11 February 2009 at 14:51
A little.
To hold to a positive role for the law in the Christian life, or to the three-fold view of the law, is really to be swimming against the tide of mainstream evangelicalism.
Martin Downes
Wednesday 11 February 2009 at 15:44
While all these watery metaphors could get a little confusing (if you are in the river of orthodoxy, should you be swimming with or against the tide?), I think you are sadly right.
Jeremy Walker
Wednesday 11 February 2009 at 16:22
Are you coming to the Banner this year? It would be great to have a proper chat about these matters.
Martin Downes
Wednesday 11 February 2009 at 16:45
Yes, God willing. As Bertie Wooster would say, I shall be there with my hair in a braid. Not literally, of course, that would be gruesome (although it would have the advantage of making me identifiable). I shall seek to look you up.
Jeremy Walker
Wednesday 11 February 2009 at 22:56
[...] Our friend Jeremy Walker chimes in on an important issue in our day. Check it out here. [...]
- » The End of the Law?
Thursday 19 February 2009 at 21:56
[quote]
A little.
To hold to a positive role for the law in the Christian life, or to the three-fold view of the law, is really to be swimming against the tide of mainstream evangelicalism.[/quote]
Good thing I’m a strong swimmer. ;)
Andrew
Friday 20 February 2009 at 20:14
Excellent. Thanks for this post and the links. Very helpful. I found you through Barcellos, and look forward to reading more. I am also one of the few, it seems, who has some major concerns with NCT.
Nathan White
Saturday 21 February 2009 at 01:51
Jeremy: I have profound concerns over what is called New Covenant Theology, and the antinomianism which I am persuaded is inherent in it.
Hi Jeremy. May I try to put some of your profound concerns to rest?
How are you defining antinomianism? Do you consider those who obey 9 of the 10 Commandments from the NT as antinomian? If so, are you aware that most of the apostolic fathers denied the Sabbath command? Would you consider them antinomian?
Jeremy: I have a book by a ‘New Covenant’ theologian on my shelf in which his best arguments against bestiality are…if you and your sister are both Christians and you live in a country which permits marriage between siblings, then there is apparently nothing in the ‘new covenant’ to keep you from marrying.
Most NCTs disagree with Lehrer on those topics. Were beastiality and incest sins before Moses wrote Lev. 18 in ~15th century B.C. Then, they’re still sins after God cancelled Lev. 18 in ~30 A.D.
P.S. I have books by CTs who advocate infant baptism and church-state theocracy :-)
Greg Gibson
Saturday 21 February 2009 at 09:44
Martin: and an underplaying of the place of union with Christ, the bestowal of the Spirit, and regeneration, in the NCT portrayal of the traditional Reformed view.
Those are probably the favorite topics on the Sound of Grace board.
Martin: To hold to a positive role for the law in the Christian life, or to the three-fold view of the law, is really to be swimming against the tide of mainstream evangelicalism.
Yes, and also swimming against the stream of the apostolic fathers who did not obey the Sabbath command or divide the law.
Martin: I would love to hear a convincing account from NCT boys as to what Paul is up to in Eph. 6:2-3, and Jer. 31, Ezek 11 and 36.
If you’re interested in reading an NCT interpretation of Eph. 6, please see my website for the 3, free chapters from my book (especially pp. 13).
I cover Jer. 31, Ezek. 11 and 36 later in Chapter 3 “But the Law Is Written on the Heart in the New Covenant” (not free). I put those verses into a 3-column, parallel chart titled “3 Parallel Passages on Regeneration and Obedience to God’s Commands.”
Then, I give 6 reasons why the word “law” there can’t mean the Decalogue (contra Barcellos and CT). Finally, I explain the difference between an OT herm. vs. a NT herm.
Greg Gibson
Saturday 21 February 2009 at 10:12
Greg said:
“Yes, and also swimming against the stream of the apostolic fathers who did not obey the Sabbath command or divide the law.”
1) I don’t believe this statement is completely accurate. The premillennialist argues the same way. But I believe we err in looking for these doctrines after their 16th century+ title, long before they were ever formulated into doctrines/phrases that we’re now familiar with. And regarding this subject, I think Joseph Pipa in his book ‘The Lord’s Day’ successfully shows the Fathers’ adherence to the 4th commandment, though they may have called it something different and held to some slightly different principles than the puritans.
2) The apostolic fathers were at times ambiguous on many things, including justification by faith alone and the deity of Jesus Christ. Affirming that they didn’t hold to the Sabbath is tantamount to what we hear from Rome regarding other important and disputed arguments, and we should see this as fallacious argumentation.
Nathan White
Saturday 21 February 2009 at 14:22
Nathan: the Fathers’ adherence to the 4th commandment, though they may have called it something different and held to some slightly different principles than the puritans.
If that’s true, then why haven’t the leading CTs quoted the fathers to prove their Sabbatarianism?
The essence of the Sabbath command is to refrain from work. Nathan, when is the first time in church history that you can quote that since the Sabbath command was changed from Sat. to Sun., therefore we must refrain from work?
To the best of my knowledge, we do not find any record of “refrain from work” Sabbatarianism until the 16th century Puritans…
“The first Reformed Englishman to espouse Sabbatarianism was John Hooper, called the author of English Sabbatarianism.5 His Declaration of the Ten Holy Commandments, published in 1548, was widely known and used. In this book, Hooper taught that God authored the Sabbath from creation and that God himself, by raising Christ from the dead on the first day of the week, changed the Sabbath to Sunday. “This Sunday that we observe is not the commandment of men,” he claimed.6 So popular were his views that Hooper’s book went through several printings over the next four decades.” http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/sun-sab1.htm
When were the first Baptist, Sabbath-keeping churches started? If this history is correct, it looks like 7th-day Sabbatarians arose first in ~1650 (Nathan, do you know of any Sunday Sabbatarians before that?)…
“Therefore, one cannot speak with absolute certainty as to the exact year the earliest seventh-day congregations originated. Based on their own writings and other evidence, it appears that most of them arose during the decade of the 1650s.” http://www.wcg.org/lit/law/sabbath/sun-sab1.htm
Also, CT teaches that God wrote the Sabbath on Gentiles’ hearts, and therefore they are responsible to keep the Sabbath. However, did you know that is not what the Jewish rabbis have passed down for centuries? According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the rabbis teach that God did NOT command Gentiles to obey the Sabbath…
“When a non-Jew was engaged by contract to do a piece of work for a Jew, the Jew did not need to inquire whether the non-Jew worked on the Sabbath or not, except when the work was to be performed openly and it was known that it was being done for the Jew. Thus, if a non-Jew entered into an agreement with a Jew to build him a house, the Jew had to stipulate in the contract that the non-Jew should do no work on that house on the Sabbath, unless it was to be erected in a place where no Jews passed (ib. vi. 12-15). When a Jew and a non-Jew entered into partnership, the Jew had to stipulate beforehand that the non-Jew was to receive all the profits made on the Sabbath and that the Jew should take all the profits made on some other day. If such a condition was not made, the Jew forfeited his share of the profits made on the Sabbath (‘Ab. Zarah 22a). According to a later opinion, when the partnership was of such a nature that both partners worked together every day, the non-Jew might attend to the work on the Sabbath and the Jew might take his share of the aggregate profits (“habla’ah”; R. Nissim on Alfasi, ‘Ab. Zarah i. end, s.v. “Umeha,” and Shab. xvi., end, s.v. “We-Yisrael”; Shulḥan ‘Aruk, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, 245, 1, Isserles’ gloss).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=13&letter=S#87
Greg Gibson
Sunday 22 February 2009 at 00:15
Hi Greg,
I do agree with you on the Sabbath stuff. Read up on many CT views of it and haven’t been convinced. I do believe the finally fruition of the Sabbath is the spiritual rest we find in Christ, as you noted from Hebrews 4 (I believe Calvin was of the same persuasion concerning the Sabbath). I believe the OT Sabbath practices were just a shadow of that which was to come and such similar practices were not to be viewed upon as pious practices (Col 2:16-17).
Jade
Sunday 1 March 2009 at 20:58
Jeremy and Martin,
I just remembered I’ve got 2 blogs that may answer some of your questions…
“Doe New Covenant Theology Allow Beastiality and Incest?”
http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2007/08/30/does-new-covenant-theology-allow-beastiality-and-incest/
“Old Testament Commands Quoted in the New Testament Have Been Transferred”
http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2006/12/04/what-about-old-testament-commandsquoted-in-the-new-testament/
Greg Gibson
Sunday 22 February 2009 at 01:07
Greg -
A few brief thoughts and observations, as I have not had time to consider all your material.
Firstly, with regard to definitions of antinomianism, I do not believe it is as simple as saying that those who reject the Sabbath principle are antinomians. I think one needs to take account of those who are doctrinal antinomians and those what are practical antinomians. There is, I think, an attitude at the root that needs to be defined, and a variety of expressions of that attitude. I do not think it is just about the Lord’s day principle, although – at the conference which this post concerns – one of the proponents of NCT apparently suggested that it often does come down to what you might call, “the Sunday question.” That was not an accusation flung, but a testimony made.
Secondly, with regard to the Sabbath, the essence of the command is not to refrain from work, but to remember the day, to keep it holy. I admit that it is possible to lose sight of that purpose if we allow the negatives to dominate (and yes, I do think it is possible to fall into the Pharisaic trap of allowing accretions to the law to obscure the heart of it, which is not the same thing as saying a “Lord’s day Sabbatarian” [for want of a better phrase] is a modern-day Pharisee).
Thirdly, while I very much respect the testimony of history, she is Scripture’s handmaid and not her mistress. Therefore, while it is right and proper and often enlightening to explore the attitudes and practices of the early church, that does not make anything normative: Scripture alone provides the norms for us. In the same way, an for even more reasons, I would hesitate simply to accept the opinion of a rabbi, especially one who may himself not be a part of the New Covenant, as determining a conclusion. As an aside, that may be why most men who hold to my position do not argue from history as much as they do from Scripture. As another aside, I use that roundabout way of describing those with whom I stand because I am a new covenant theologian – my covenant theology demands it! While I recognize the NCT label, I think the unspoken assumption (made by too many) that those who differ have no sense of new covenant blessing and privilege is a nonsense: what they have is a different sense (I believe a more accurate sense) of those blessings and privileges.
Fourthly, I think that there are good Scriptural grounds for asserting that the first Lord’s day Sabbatarians were the apostolic churches.
I know you have directed us to Scripture yourself, so I am not saying you are seeking to establish a position without any Scriptural justification, but I am saying that some of your arguments are not compelling to me. However, thank you for your gracious interaction. If I have the opportunity, I will try to spend some time looking at them. If I have further opportunity, I will try to consider them. If I have even more time, I might try to respond to them!
Jeremy Walker
Monday 23 February 2009 at 06:32
Jeremy, thanks for your thoughts.
In hindsight, I’d say we were both half-right on the essence of the Sabbath command: Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy BY not working.
I confess, the fathers can be hard to interpret. However, I will conclude that you can not find even one father teaching…
1. The 4th command was changed from Sat. to Sun.
2. It’s a sin to work on the Sabbath.
I can see how Sabbatarians could unintentionally read their theology into some of the fathers Sabbath statements like “keep the Lord’s Day.” But, what did they mean by that?…
“He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord’s Day, when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord’s resurrection in himself.” 2nd Century A.D. 194, Clement of Alexandria, Egypt, Book 7, Chapter XII.
(As an NCT, I’m “keeping Sabbath” by believing in Christ. Heb. 4:9)
“We solemnize the day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this day their Sabbath.” 2nd Century A.D. 200, Tertullian in Africa, Apology, Chapter XVI.
“The eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day.” 3rd Century A.D. 250, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Africa, Epistle 58, section 4. http://pastorsteveweaver.wordpress.com/2005/09/13/quotes-from-the-early-church-fathers-on-the-sabbathlords-day-issue/
“As Puritan scholar J. I. Packer has observed, ‘The Puritans created the English Christian Sunday – that is, the conception and observance of the first day of the week as one on which both business and organised recreations should be in abeyance, and the whole time left free for worship, fellowship and ‘good works.’”
“Bible teacher John F. MacArthur, Jr. has made the following observation from early church history: ‘The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century).’”
“R. J. Bauckham, at the conclusion of his extensive research on the Lord’s Day concluded: ‘Our study of the origins of the Lord’s Day has given no hint of properly sabbatical associations; for the earliest Christians it was not a substitute for the Sabbath nor a day of rest nor related in any way to the fourth commandment. It was simply, by the normative custom of the apostolic church, the day on which Christians met to worship.’” http://pastorsteveweaver.wordpress.com/2005/09/13/is-the-lords-day-the-christian-sabbath-part-2/
(I agree.)
‘They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, neither do we; neither do we abstain from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions, which Moses subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because such things as these do not belong to Christians.’” http://homepage.ntlworld.com/robin.brace/early.htm
Jeremy, if you have time, please share your analysis…
Greg Gibson
Monday 23 February 2009 at 09:11
Hopefully this comment will be clarifying for many people. One of the concerns about posts and comments such as the preceding is the broad generalizing about groups of people and theological streams. When it comes to NCT, to say, “NCT believes ‘X’…” is a dangerous endeavor. If you follow this link, you will get a more accurate picture of what NCT is and is not:
http://christourcovenant.blogspot.com/2009/02/all-proponents-of-nct-believe-christ.html
Please read this article closely as it can help answer many of the questions addressed in the last several comments.
http://www.christourcovenant.blogspot.com/
In Christ,
Josh Wood
Josh
Thursday 26 February 2009 at 16:22
Here’s a brief taste of what’s in the link:
“The Various Branches of New Covenant Theology
Like other systems of theology, there are various branches of New Covenant Theology (NCT). Although all proponents of each branch believe Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant (OC) Laws perfectly in his person, and insist on faith in his work and person for salvation, there are at least 4 branches of NCT that can be distinguished from one another.
This analysis is relatively brief in its attempt to give an overview of the current strains of NCT, some of which you may already be familiar with, and some you may not. In particular, its purpose is to identify this blog’s strain -Picture-Fulfillment NCT- within the overall NCT dialogue, along with some of the names associated with each branch. It is *not* an exhaustive description of NCT nor of the individual branches, but in ‘Cliff Notes’ fashion attempts to highlight meaningful distinctions between them as a service to those outside (and in) who may be confused when they hear about New Covenant Theology.
It should be noted that although it was unintended, the order they appear below happens to reflect a relative ordering (at least in the traditional sense) from least continuity to greatest.
In addition, the descriptors in bold italics are not officially embraced by the NCT community, but are used here for clarification…”
Josh
Friday 27 February 2009 at 21:22
I just noticed Greg’s response to me -sorry for the delay! I don’t want to belabor this point and hi-jack this blog, but I will post a brief response.
Greg, I have dealt extensively with the Sabbath on my blog, and explained my views very thoroughly there, so forgive me if I don’t deal with your arguments exhaustively here. But, frankly, you present no new or troublesome challenges/arguments. Scripture must be our final guide in this matter.
Greg said:
“The essence of the Sabbath command is to refrain from work.”
I would point you to Isaiah 56, my friend, among other places, to demonstrate the error of your thinking on this point. Jesus also made it clear that physical labor was ‘lawful’ on the Sabbath in some circumstances, which also demonstrates that the essence of our obedience isn’t just in refraining from labor.
Greg said:
“CT teaches that God wrote the Sabbath on Gentiles’ hearts, and therefore they are responsible to keep the Sabbath. However, did you know that is not what the Jewish rabbis have passed down for centuries?”
The Rabbis wouldn’t take Romans chapter 2 as authoritative, would they? What is “THE law” the Paul refers to in 2:14-15? If we value the meaning of words and exegesis (over against a prevailing theology that changes our interpretation of the text), we must conclude that that the Sabbath was written on ghe Gentile’s heart.
Greg said:
“As an NCT, I’m “keeping Sabbath” by believing in Christ. Heb. 4:9″
Yes, and I am perfectly keeping all the commandments, including adultery and murder, despite my struggles with lust and hatred, because I am clothed in the righteous merits of Jesus Christ by faith. Does this mean that I can freely and presumptiously commit these sins at will? Of course not.
But the bigger issue here is the continuation of Heb 4:9, which conludes in 4:10: “So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.”
1st: there REMAINS a rest for the people of God. ‘People of God’ is referring to those who are in Christ. What sense would it make to say ‘faith in Christ is obeying the Sabbath, but there still remains a Sabbath for those who have faith in Christ’?? –For the author here is not telling unbelievers that they have a future Sabbath rest if they have faith, but he is telling ‘the people of God’, those who’ve already professed faith in Christ, that their Sabbath is still future. To argue that the Sabbath is now done away with –the only age in eternity in which we will have no Sabbath, ironically– is to turn this verse on its head.
2nd: You are here comparing your ‘works’, which are sinful and filthy rags, with the ‘works’ of God in v10. We don’t rest from our works of wickedness and trying to earn our way to heaven and then turn around and compare them to God resting from His wonderous works in creation. This verse, 10, refers to Jesus Christ Himself, as John Owen has so beautifully demonstrated.
I could go on regarding this verse, but I’m not here to argue. I simply want to demonstrate that the issue is not as clear cut as you make it seem. The bigger issue, IMO, is the entire structure of NCT, and their interpretation of scripture as a whole (which has already been discussed above).
Nathan White
Friday 27 February 2009 at 21:54
Nathan, have you read my brief explanation of Heb. 4 here: http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/2008/10/03/7-clear-facts-on-the-sabbath/
P.S. RE: Josh’s post on the so-called 4 branches of NCT, I believe in parts of 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Greg Gibson
Saturday 28 February 2009 at 23:07
Greg said: “P.S. RE: Josh’s post on the so-called 4 branches of NCT, I believe in parts of 1, 2, 3, and 4.”
My reply: Greg, as we’ve discussed on many different discussion lists, and many different forums, etc…although you may say that there are “parts” of each stream that you believe, the fact is, you ARE stream 1. Feel free to read the entire blog post with comments and questions and bring any clarifying comments or questions to me. But as you can see from the SoG replies, this is a clarifying paper, not a divisive one. We’re trying to look through the window and get a better idea of what’s going on inside the NCT camp. It’s not just one “Marry-your-sister” train of thought, but a complex and growing movement of people, all of which are on different points along the famous “Josh Wood’s Spectrum of Theology”!! We’re just trying to help define them so that the thoughts about NCT aren’t so muddled.
In Christ alone,
Josh Wood
Josh
Sunday 1 March 2009 at 15:09
P.S. The difference between stream 4 and all others is summed up well by something Steve said,
“It’s not the ‘END’ of law so much as the arrival of the substantive Law Himself!”
This does well to sum up the ideas expressed within the fulfillment branch of NCT.
Isaiah 42:6 & 49:8
In Christ alone,
Josh Wood
Josh
Sunday 1 March 2009 at 15:11
Dear Jeremy,
Thank you for inciting such a useful discussion re. NCT.
I have never read or heard a remotely convincing treatment of Jer.31 (Heb.8) by NCT. The article published by Affinity a couple of years ago (Derek Biggs?) was remarkable for its almost total absence of any engagement with Jer.31, and that in a piece advocating the abolition of the moral law for NT believers. I am also intrigued that the foundation of the Sabbath in creation is rarely given the significance it deserves. John Calvin is ofetn much misunderstood in this regard. His comments in the Institutes are taken, often, out of context. Clearly, he is arguing for the abolition or abrogation of the JEWISHNESS of the sabbath and not the sabbath per se – this is seen in his Genesis commentary (1561) and in his later lectures in 1563 (I think Iain Murray has a note on this in the June issue of the Banner mag.
Anyway, keep blogging – but don’t be sucked into “needless controversies” (the present one is far from needless; indeed it is basic to biblical Christianity and its continuence.
As ever
Ian
Ian H
Wednesday 3 June 2009 at 17:27
Ian: I have never read or heard a remotely convincing treatment of Jer.31 (Heb.8) by NCT.
Greg: Hi Ian. May I attempt to explain a convincing treatment of law in Jer. 31? I’ve excerpted from my book below (minus some charts) 6 Reasons Why Law in Jer. 31:33 Can Not Mean the Decalogue Alone. Please feel free to tell me if you think it’s a convincing treatment.
“In Defense of the Decalogue, Richard Barcellos claims that…
“Exodus 24:12 identifies the ‘tablets of stone’ with ‘the law and commandments which I have written.’ This is a very important verse, for it uses the Hebrew word torah [law] as a synonym for what God wrote on stones.”
OK, all that proves is that there is only one verse in the whole Bible where the word “law” probably means “the Decalogue alone.” But, there are hundreds of verses where “law” means:
1. All Old Covenant commands.
2. The Pentateuch or the whole Old Testament.
One of Covenant Theology’s common errors is to assume that the phrase “the law” when used positively must mean “the Decalogue alone,” but when used negatively it must mean “the whole law except the Decalogue.” They fail to see that “law” used positively often means the “whole Pentateuch” or “whole Old Testament.”
Barcellos also argues that the law referred to in Jeremiah 31:33 must have already been in existence at the time of Jeremiah, and it must be the Decalogue. However, here are 6 problems with that interpretation…
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?)
In Ezekiel 40-48, will Covenant Theologians argue consistently that since the temple, priests, and sacrifices were already in existence then, they must be the same today?
In some Old Testament prophecies and Hebrews, why does Covenant Theology often use New Testament definitions of “priest, sacrifices, temple, and Israel,” but an Old Testament definition of “law?”
Covenant Theology applies their O.T. – N.T., prophetic hermeneutic inconsistently and selectively.
3. After being regenerated, no Gentile heathen convert has ever testified to knowing his duty to keep the Sabbath. The Sabbath has to be taught to converts, because the Holy Spirit doesn’t teach it at regeneration. So, God doesn’t write the whole Decalogue on regenerate hearts.
4. It’s an oxymoron to claim that a new covenant contains the same old law. Since every covenant (treaty) contains laws, then a new covenant must contain new laws. It is a new contract.
5. Are the Ten Commandments the only laws God “writes on our hearts” to obey? Seems reductionistic, doesn’t it? Or, does He write on our hearts all His laws? Doesn’t He also motivate us to obey these laws:
• Love the Lord with all your heart?
• Love your neighbor as yourself?
• Love one another as I have loved you?
• Husbands love your wife?
• Deny yourself and take up your cross?
And, what about the new commands which didn’t exist at the time of Jeremiah?
• Baptism?
• The Lord’s Supper?
• Choose elders and deacons?
• Marry believers only?
• Evangelize the Gentiles?
Does He write on our hearts only the Decalogue, but not also the command for husbands to love their wives? I believe He motivates us to obey all of His commands, not merely 10 of them.
6. When Jeremiah wrote, the word “law” meant the “whole law,” not “part of the law.” It meant “all Old Covenant commands,” not “the Decalogue alone.” In other words, it included the so-called “moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.” That’s exactly how the Jews in Jeremiah’s time would have understood it.
So, if you interpret Jeremiah 31:33 literally, then in the New Covenant, God must write all the so-called “moral, civil, and ceremonial” commands on our hearts. (As we’ll see later, the 3-part division of the law wasn’t even invented until the 13th century, 1800 years after Jeremiah!)
The real issue is, “What are the main hermeneutics for interpreting Old Testament prophecy fulfilled in the New Testament?” May I suggest that these hermeneutics are known by 4 related names…
• The progressive revelation hermeneutic
• The apostles’ hermeneutic
• The New Testament hermeneutic
• The New Covenant hermeneutic
All Christians use the New Covenant hermeneutic sometimes. Unfortunately, they rarely apply it consistently.
Sometimes, Covenant Theologians use a “regressive hermeneutic.” This results in regressive revelation, instead of progressive revelation (God revealing His redemptive plan gradually and progressively throughout redemptive history).
Regressive Revelation vs. Progressive Revelation
Progressive revelation allows the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, not vice-versa. The old saying is true: “The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed. And, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.”
When there is an apparent contradiction between the teaching of the Old Testament and New Testament, the New always takes priority. We need to learn to apply a consistent, New Testament hermeneutic to the Old Testament, including the issues of prophecy, law, church, and kingdom.
For example, when the Old Testament teaches multiple, human priests, but the New Testament later teaches one, Divine-human priest, the New takes priority over the Old. And, when the Old Testament teaches multiple sacrifices for sin, but the New Testament later teaches one sacrifice for sin, the New changes the Old.
Likewise, when the Old Testament teaches the law given by Moses, but the New Testament teaches the law given by Christ (and His apostles) the New changes the Old. The law of God was changed from the law of Moses to the law of Christ.
“for when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (Heb. 7:12).
Yes, in the New Covenant God “writes on our hearts” (regenerates us to obey) His law. But, that law is His New Covenant law given by Christ and His apostles, not the whole Decalogue alone given through Moses.
Remember when Peter saw Christ transfigured, next to Moses and Elijah (representing the Law and Prophets?) Peter offered to make 3 tents for them, as though they were equal. But, God spoke from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with Whom I am well pleased; listen to Him.” Listen to the final authority of the Son, Who is the new Prophet and the new Lawgiver.
Greg Gibson
Wednesday 3 June 2009 at 23:56
Greg-
With all due respect, your attempts to ‘deal’ with Jeremiah 31 are fairly shallow. You don’t even begin to tackle the real issues/exegesis of the text because you let your overriding theology dominate your thesis and interpret the text for you. Furthermore, I’m sure you’ve heard this before and would disagree, but you’re not arguing against CT from a position of really understanding what CT teaches. You chase rabbits and attack strawmen.
Also, the fact remains that this text is quoted without qualifications in the New Testament, thus ‘progressive interpreation’, as I’m calling your view, holds no weight. Your arguments against the text are clearly not shared by the writer of Hebrews.
But I’m not going to get caught up in all of your argumentation, for indeed, I have disagreements with almost every point.
I will, however, point out one glaring hole in your interpreation:
Greg said:
“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?)”
One prominent error of NCT is their ‘replacement theology’ when it comes to the Law. That is, when we read the NT and understand that Gentiles have been grafted into the Olive Branch, and are thus ‘heirs’ to the Covenants of Promise, and that prophecies in the OT that are directed at the ‘Jews’ and for ‘Israel’ are actually meant for the church, we aren’t saying that the Gentiles have REPLACED the Jews, thus turning these texts on their head, but that the reality/fulfillment is Jew plus Gentile. So when God says I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, He certainly isn’t excluding the Jewish race, we just know from the NT that Gentiles are now counted as part of the household of God.
Thus, when it comes to the Law, you go directly against this text when you say that ‘my law’ is not what the context and/or definition of that phrase indicates. No CT would argue that the Law isn’t modified and/or expanded by the enlightenment of Christ and the coming of the NC, but to say that some ‘new’ law has replaced the Law spoken of in this text is to oppose the Word of God and sound reason. We reject replacement theology on all fronts; that is not what the scripture teaches.
Greg said:
“In some Old Testament prophecies and Hebrews, why does Covenant Theology often use New Testament definitions of “priest, sacrifices, temple, and Israel,” but an Old Testament definition of “law?”"
This is one example of a strawman, because not CT denies the progressive nature of the Law and it finding it’s full manifestation/authority in the Person of Christ as the Lawgiver. What we are arguing for is the progressive, not the replacement of the Law. Christ clearly, unequivocly, upheld certain aspects of the OC Law, while abolishing others; we desire to “observe all that I commanded you”, not force His commandments into a replacement system.
Greg said:
“”When Jeremiah wrote, the word “law” meant the “whole law,” not “part of the law.” It meant “all Old Covenant commands,” not “the Decalogue alone.” In other words, it included the so-called “moral, ceremonial, and civil laws.” That’s exactly how the Jews in Jeremiah’s time would have understood it.”
Of course; and with the writer of Hebrews, in that context where he abolished the priestly system, the hearers at that time would have clearly understood God ‘writing’ and the progressive nature of the Law in that the moral law (contained in the 10 words) is perpetual, as the rest of scripture testifies to as well.
Greg said:
“So, if you interpret Jeremiah 31:33 literally, then in the New Covenant, God must write all the so-called “moral, civil, and ceremonial” commands on our hearts. (As we’ll see later, the 3-part division of the law wasn’t even invented until the 13th century, 1800 years after Jeremiah!)”
I have a hard time being patient with this one, because even the simplest of believers can see that the entirety of scripture distinguishes between the temporary laws of each particular covenant and the eternal laws of moral substance.
Jeremiah 31 and its use in the book of Hebrews, cannot be reconciled with NCT/replacement/dispensational theology. Not if we’re going to divide the scriptures honestly and consistently, from a exegetical rather than a predominantly theological standpoint.
Nathan White
Thursday 4 June 2009 at 16:20
Jeremy, I stumbled on your blog this evening and have found it really stimulating. So thanks for all your writing. I would like to urge you to consider a biblical study of your own on the subject of the covenants.
In your article you reference the ‘covenant of grace’, but it is worth noting that this is a none biblical term. I would actually argue that since God has utilised the term ‘covenant’ and it is such a high profile term in scripture, that we have practically no liberty to insert the term wherever we please.
I cursary glance at the covenants in scripture will reveal the first covenant is the Noahic Covenant.
Covenants really are the key to unlocking a thorough biblical systematic theology. The reason being that the priesthoods connected with the old and new covenants are distinct and we are told in Hebrews, that “when there is a change in the priesthood there must also be a change in the law”. Law stems from priesthood and priesthood is distinctive to the covenant in question. Therefore, the order of enquiry has to be Covenant, priesthood, law. Unfortunately, law is usually the starting point in most folks enquiry and thus it leads to a rather confused understanding of the realtionship of the beleiver to the Old Covenant Law.
So, I would just urge you to take a second a glance at the subject and allow scripture to speak for itself.
May the Lord be glorified.
Tim
Tim
Friday 26 February 2010 at 00:57
Hi Tim,
The phrase “covenant of grace” is theological shorthand for God’s dealings with sinners from the Fall, through Noah, to Abraham and in Christ.
Of course covenantal dealings may be present even when the word itself is not present in the text (as Psalm 89 makes clear referring to God’s covenant with David established in 2 Sam. 7, even though the word covenant does not appear in that chapter). The issue is whether the concept is present. Why would we have to insist on the word being present for the arrangement being described to qualify as covenantal?
I presume that you are not arguing for us to use only biblical words in our theological vocabulary, and I assume that you are comfortable with words and phrases that succinctly describe biblical concepts even if they are not present in the text. The word “trinity” is for us all the touchstone upon these matters.
Blessings
Martin
Martin Downes
Friday 26 February 2010 at 11:15
Martin,
Thanks for your thought provoking messsage.
Unfortunately comparing the term “the Trinity” with the term “covenant” is not a like for like comparison. There is no biblical term for the Trinity, but there is ample evidence for the concept. So, we conclude that God did not see fit to name the concept.
However, in the case of Covenants he has seen fit to name the concept. So we can clearly see in scripture all the times God means Covenant, because he uses the name which he has given the concept. Where scripture uses a term in such a high profile way, we would need to be very careful indeed about inserting it where it is not found. The danger being, that we will suggest that God is meaning something based on our own interpretation and not on what he has said. That is shaky ground.
Covenant theology’s system demands a covenant of grace, however I would say that if God had intended a covenant of grace, he would have said so, since he names all the covenants which he brokers with mankind. To base an entire theology on a term which is not even biblical seems to me to be woeful at best.
Why not work with the Covenants which are clearly stated in scripture and go from there? We all agree that God’s sovereign purposes are tied up in an eternal plan which is being worked out throughout time. We all beleive in the decrees of God. Why term it a Covenant, when the bible doesn’t?
May God bless such conversations!
Tim
Tim
Friday 26 February 2010 at 11:57
Hi Tim
Thanks for the response. Just so that I can avoid misunderstanding what you have written I need you to expand on this bit:
“Covenant theology’s system demands a covenant of grace…Why term it a Covenant, when the bible doesn’t?”
Classic Reformed theology sees in the various covenants in Scripture two types, those with works/obedience as a condition and those that are gracious (think Gen 15). The unfolding nature of these gracious covenants leads Reformed thinkers to see strong elements of continuity across these covenants (as per the NT use of the gracious Abrahamic covenant), and a tension with the works basis in the Garden where Adam acted as our covenant head and at Sinai (do this and live). Are you happy with this?
Martin Downes
Friday 26 February 2010 at 12:10
I’m not happy with it because classic Reformed theology places a works based covenant in the garden of Eden where the bible doesn’t. It does as if Adam had to earn his relationship with God, but that is simply not the case. God gave Adam one prohibition, the breaking of which would bring about an end of what was already an established relationship. Adam wasn’t on probation, awaiting some sort of confirmation when he had upheld the covenant of works and thus gained an eternal standing with God. He already possessed that standing. It was his to loose and he lost it by breaking the prohibition. As the representative head of mankind, he forever broke the perfect bond which God had already initiated when he established Adam in the garden. We read that God had walked with Adam. They had been in harmony.
Classic Reformed theology then introduces a covenant of grace directly after the fall of man. Again the bible says nothing of this covenant. Genesis 3:15 represents the promise of a redeemer, albeit in veiled language, but there is no mention of a covenant.
In my experience of talking to people who uphold the classic Reformed position and reading their thoughts on these subjects, it seems that what happens is that the Covenant of Grace gets equated with the New Covenant (on the basis that it is a gracious covenant) in covenant theology. This hauls the new covenant back to Genesis 3:15. However, the bible knows no such thing. Whatever is meant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 at the very least we glean that the new covenant is something which at that point in time is still a future event. Hebrews 8:13 confirms this by using replacement language when speaking of the old and new covenants.
What is particularly striking is that Hebrews delineates the most important covenants as the old and the new covenants. The rest of the new testament scriptures do the same and speak in particular of the Abrahamic Covenant also. The significant emphasis of the new testament is upon these three covenants and they play a pivotal role in the arguments made throughout the new testaments letters. One might say these are the organising themes of the bible so far as the New Testament is concerned. Yet when reading covenant theology you don’t get that notion at all. Rather you come away thinking that the covenant of works and covenant of grace are the central organising themes of the bible. Why is that? Why not let the bible speak for itself and read as clearly as it does?
By the way, just in case you’re wondering I have no soft spot for dispensationalism. The theological camp I have belonged to my whole Christian life is that of classic Reformed theology, but I really believe that it has been system driven into it’s understanding of the covenants and not bible driven.
Tim
Anonymous
Friday 26 February 2010 at 18:37
Tim,
Forgive me for just commenting for now on your first paragraph.
The CoW with Adam gave him a positive mandate (Gen. 1:26-28) and not just a negative prohibition (Gen. 2:15-17). The fact that he was to make the whole earth a temple Garden like Eden indicates that there was a difference between his current state in the Garden and the final state where the whole creation would be like the Garden.
I would not say that he had an eternal standing with God because he could lose what he had, whilst because of the last Adam we cannot lose what we have been given.
The very possibility of the Fall distinguishes Adam’s position, the race of which he was head, and the creation over which he ruled, from the final state.
Surely you agree that the obedience in life and death of the last Adam secures for his people the removal of the curse, the renewal of creation and the elimination in the new creation of even the possibility of sin? As Bavinck said, Christ leaves us at the end and not the beginning of the road that Adam walked.
None of this implies that Adam had to earn his relationship with God (I’m not aware that this has ever been advocated by those who hold to the CoW position). He was a perfect man, created upright, in a world without sin who walked with God. Again, in classical Reformed theology, this has never been an issue for those who hold a CoW position.
Martin Downes
Friday 26 February 2010 at 19:19
Martin, with all due respect, I could explain infant baptism from a conceptual point of view, I could explain double imputation, premillenialism, dispensationalism and arminianism all from a conceptual point of view with a few supporting texts thrown in for good measure, but the fact remains that they all need to be defended with clear texts exegetically dealt with in context for them to stand up under the weight of biblical interrogation. Classic Reformed Theology’s (CRT), covenants of works and grace are both fine whilst they are merely subjected to conceptual examination, but they must be subjected to textual examination.
The problem is there are no texts for the covenant of works. The best textual evidence I have come across is Hosea 6:7 and I don’t know many CRT folks who would even use it. The preferred method of deffence is conceptual.
I take your point regarding the positive mandate of Gen 1:26-28, but the only mandate with a consequence according to the text is the prohibition. When you use the term Covenant of works, are you suggesting that Adam needed to acquire a positive standing with God which he didn’t already have? You seem to suggest the opposite above when you say: “None of this implies that Adam had to earn his relationship with God”. I’m just wondering what “covenant of works” means if it doesn’t mean earning.
Surely the whole point of the mosaic covenant is to show that man can’t earn a relationship with God!
“What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it. Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the “stumbling stone.” As it is written:
“See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”" Romans 9:30-33
We agree that the Mosaic Covenant is a conditional covenant which says do or die. This implies work and a requirement to earn the relationship. I simply can’t understand therefore, how you can claim a works based covenant in the garden but then claim that Adam wasn’t earning anything. What was Adam doing under this covenant of works if not working? Surely the purpose of working is to earn?
Why not just let scripture say what it says. God gave Adam one mandate with a consequence. Up until he broke that mandate, he enjoyed his relationship with God based on the perfection which he had been created with. When the mandate was broken so was the relationship, but that doesn’t suggest that he had to earn something more than what he was created with.
You also said: “Surely you agree that the obedience in life and death of the last Adam secures for his people the removal of the curse, the renewal of creation and the elimination in the new creation of even the possibility of sin?”
I agree that the second Adam’s obdeience to death secures righteousness for all his elect people, removing the curse of sin. I also agree that the new creation will be free of the posibility of sin. However, the fact that Adam had the opportunity to sin, doesn’t prove the presence of a covenant of works. It simply provided the means by which God sovereign plan and purpose would be executed.
Thanks for your perseverence though. I really believe that this is a discussion which must be pursued. Afterall we are all looking for the same thing, that God might be glorified by a thorough and accurate understanding of his plans and purposes and therefore his character. That we might be deepened in our love for him, because we understand his ways better!
Blessings,
Tim
Tim
Saturday 27 February 2010 at 10:37