No Longer Under the Law (Part 4)
February 22nd, 2008
(By Nathan Busenitz)
This will conclude our discusion of our first proposition: That New Testament Believers Are Not Under the Mosaic Law.
This proposition is based on four premises: (1) the Mosaic Law is viewed by the New Testament authors as a solitary unit; (2) Jesus Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law such that those who are in Christ are no longer under the Law; and (3) Christians are under the Law of Christ which is distinct from the Law of Moses.
A fourth premise is (4) that the Mosaic Law was specifically given to Old Testament Israel and therefore does not directly apply to the New Testament Church.
Due to the numerous arguments involved, a detailed discussion concerning the distinction between Israel and the Church is outside of the limits of this study. In our view, the mystery nature of the church (Eph 3:4-6), the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5; 1 Cor 12:13), Christ’s promise to build (future tense) His church (Matt 18:17), Paul’s teaching concerning the beginning of the church (Eph 1:20; 4:7-12), and the New Testament’s references to Israel as a separate entity during the church age (1 Cor 10:32; Rom 9:3-4; 11:26) distinguish it from Old Testament Israel.
Because the Mosaic Law was Israel’s constitution—it was intended for them, not the Church.
Summary:
Before moving on to our second proposition, we believe it would be beneficial to summarize our first: That New Testament believers are not under the Mosaic Law. We have several reasons for holding this view. First, the Bible does not present the Mosaic Law in parts or categories—but rather as a unified whole. Thus, it follows that if part of the Law has passed away, the whole Law has passed away. Second, the Bible indicates that Jesus Christ fulfilled the entire Mosaic Law perfectly. What He has fulfilled, believers no longer need to fulfill.
Third, the New Testament teaches that, for the Christian, the Law of Moses has been replaced with the Law of Christ (and the Law of the Spirit). The apostles indicate that the Law of Moses was only temporary and that it has passed away. Finally, because the Law of Moses was for Israel (and not the Church) it is no longer binding during the Church age.
In light of these contentions, we have concluded that believers during the church age are no longer under the Mosaic Law.
Coming Up Next:
At the beginning of this series, I noted that my view is based on two propositions, of which we have only considered the first. Beginning Monday, we will consider the second, which might be stated as follows:
Proposition 2: The New Testament writers repeatedly appealed to the Mosaic Law, basing much of their own teaching on the Law and expressing their personal appreciation for it.
Though this proposition initially sounds contradictory to our first proposition, my goal in this series is to show how the two can be harmonized.
A Few Clarifications:
Before going on, I’d like to note a few clarifications based on some of the feedback I’ve gotten this week:
1. I am not advocating New Covenant Theology. It is true that I do see a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. But even Calvin, commenting on Galatians 6:2 noted a “contrast between the law of Christ and the law of Moses.” I believe we are no longer under the Mosaic Law, but that we are now under the Law of Christ. However, I am quite sure that does not make me a New Covenant Theologian.
2. I am not advocating antinomianism. I do believe that Christians are under God’s Law – even if the expression of that law for the church is the Law of Christ, and not the Law of Moses (which was given to Old Testament Israel). A thorough explanation of this will be given next week.
(By the way, for those who want to know where this series is ultimately going, please see my comment to David McCrory following yesterday’s article.)
3. I am not saying that there is no place for a three-fold division of the Mosaic Law. In fact, it can be helpful for our understanding of the Law’s contents to explain it in those terms (which is something I said on both Monday and Tuesday). My point is that such divisions are external additions which have been placed on the Mosaic Law, and which are not explicitly found in the Old Testament, the New Testament, or Old Testament Judaism.
I also believe that, when the apostles speak about the Law in the New Testament, they are usually referring to it as a solitary whole. Thus, when they teach that we are no longer under the Law, they mean the Law in its entirety.
4. Along those lines, I should note that my series is not the final or official word on this issue from Grace Community Church. Phil Johnson did an excellent series on the Law several years back (found here) which approaches the issue differently (though we ultimately end up in a similar place).
As I continue to study this issue myself, I recognize the need to grow in my own understanding of God’s Word. Posting articles like this helps sharpen my own thinking as I interact with our readers in the comments section. Even if someone does not fully agree with my position, I hope the process is helpful in causing us to think deeply about the things of God. I know its been good for me.
5. Finally, I would again ask for patience as the series unfolds. I made the mistake of drawing this series out over two weeks of time. In retrospect, I probably should have summarized my conclusions and done it all in one post. Alas, hindsight is 20/20.
As I’ve stated several times throughout this series, next week will bring the much-needed balance.
51 Responses to “No Longer Under the Law (Part 4)”
This “new law of Christ” is fine with me:
http://adventistsnotcult.blogspot.com/2008/08/coming-into-kingdom.html
You can call the rules of the Kingdom whatever you want. They will still help you.
Great series, Nate. There is massive confusion on this subject, and I think you are doing just the right thing in dragging it out, although it perhaps creates more work for you that way.
An analogy that has helped me on this subject is to consider the laws of China versus the laws of America. If I (an American) commit murder, I am guilty of breaking the law in America. The Chinese may have a similar, or even identical law, but the rulers in China have absolutely no authority over me.
We can learn from the law of Moses, and find principles in it (as Paul himself does in, for example, in 1 Corinthians 10), but it has no binding authority over New Covenant believers.
Gary
Enjoying the postings, and appreciate the extra work it has taken, Nathan! Gary, your analogy is one I can hang on to and use. Thank you!
Great series Nathan. I would disagree on one point so far. I think it has been very helpful to drag the series out as you have. For those of us who are as we say in Texas, a little slow on the uptake, it has been good. No offense to my Texas brethren.
It has been very helpful to me the way you have logically broken down the reasons we are not under the Mosaic law. Especially the idea of the three parts of the law.
You are doing a great job.
If you ever get a chance I think a post on defining and explaining the ‘law of Christ’ in more detail would be great. Look forward to next week.
Loving this series. for the thought-provoking nature of it! Nathan, in your introduction you mentioned that this series originated in your recent post on home-schooling. Noting that many home-schoolers use the OT (both law and wisdom) to support their decision to home-school (and I would say, many other parenting decisions such as discipline, etc), are you going to address the *practical* applications of your premise, or is this just academic? Would love to see your thoughts, as you’ve just plowed through the scriptures, though it might be a can of worms!
Here is a random question that I think stays in line with the thought process. I love the discussion so far and I am trying to move from the knowledge stage to the applied knowledge stage.
Are unbelievers condemned because their lack of faith in Jesus?
Or are they condemned because their sin breaks God’s laws?
If it is because they break the laws and aren’t saved from them through Jesus, which laws are they accountable to?
I am not trying to split hairs, I am just trying to fully understand the implications of all of this.
I really like the way this is being discussed, and openly to understand. I am still gathering it all, and I look forward to next week so I can grasp it as a whole.
Would someone on here have some reasoning for why other Theologians (Calvin, Edwards) would want to insist on the obervance of the Sabbath as far as thoughts and actions (Spending the day in constant prayer, study)?
“Are unbelievers condemned because their lack of faith in Jesus? Or are they condemned because their sin breaks God’s laws?”
Great questions! I will anxiously await responses to them.
The first thing that came to my mind was the evangelistic methods of folks like Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort who look to “the big 10″ in order to show people their sin and point to Christ as the answer.
While
” … for the Christian, the Law of Moses has been replaced with the Law of Christ.”
and
“… the Mosaic Law was specifically given to Old Testament Israel …”
What does this mean to modern-day unbelievers?
As a mere layperson, I’m doing my best to keep up here, so if the answer to my question is obvious or has already been addressed, please be gentle.
what place if any does the “LAW” play in presenting the Gospel especially in evangelism and preaching? I preached a Gospel message last Sunday and used the “LAW” to convict of sin and used Mark 10 and Luke 20 the rich young ruler and the lawyer asking of eternal life and the commandments. After presenting the Law and its requirements I closed with the Gospel and Christ as fulfillment of it on our part.
If the Law or 10 commandments are not for the Christian how do we convict of sin in preaching?
Is the Law for unbelievers and at CONVERSION no longer under the Law?
Is not the current state of Christianity in North America, its shallowness and demise, due at least partly to the rise in the past century to Dispensational teaching leading to “Grace” at the expense of leaving off the “Law” and its requirements – leading to repentance and embracing Christ FOR REAL. I dont believe we as Christians need to “keep” the Law or even unbelievers for that matter but agree it LEADS us to the end of the road and embracing the Gospel. ALL the greats of the past believed in preaching 90%law 10%gospel so to speak.
I do see the danger of the flipside of the Christian Right trying to “moralize” society by the Law or 10 commandments that leads to legalism but think we need a better balance, one that is clearly lacking and the previous generations upheld proven by its morality,believe and power in preaching.
Great topic and so on time in my personal study its almost unbelievable! God’s providence! Thank-you so much Pulpit, and Nathan. I recently purchased “How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments” by Edmund Clowney, briefly skimmed through it anyone have a view of this book?
Enjoying the insightful posts!
“Are unbelievers condemned because their lack of faith in Jesus? Or are they condemned because their sin breaks God’s laws?”
It reminded me of “Noah…condemned the world”. I would appreciate anyone’s insight, and look forward to the rest of the series!
Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
I appreciate very much that you in fact have taken your time to thoroughly develop your first point, and that we are only half way through. I am looking forward to next week’s blogs as you finish what has been very encouraging and clarifying. Thank You!
I have to agree with Jason, some of us need it broken down into “bite size” pieces because it is a complex topic. It may be a bit slow for those more theologically inclined, but patience is a virtue they say. Thanks Nate for the pace you have set, I think you have done well.
“Are unbelievers condemned because their lack of faith in Jesus? Or are they condemned because their sin breaks God’s laws?”
If a person rejects Jesus in unbelief they are guilty of breaking the fist part of the commandments:
“I am the lord your God… You shall have no other gods before me”
Jesus is God the Son. Dependence on anyone or anything for salvation besides Jesus Christ is violating the recognition of God and his work. If you put your faith in the Law to save you, you are putting faith in yourself to keep the law. Not faith in Jesus. That does not mean we should abandon the Law and sin freely (Romans 6). I view the two “lack of faith” and “sin, breaking God’s Law” as different way to express the same fallen condition. My answer would be both cause condemnation, so that both the Law and Christ saving work are preserved and necessary.
Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV)
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
The Law and Gospel are both essential to evangelize. This article series has done a great job on showing how Christ has fulfilled the requirements of the Law in detail. We need to take what we have a learned from this series and but it into practice. We need to work in the Spirit to bring more lost people to the understanding they need the Law and saving faith in Jesus Christ.
Looking forward to next weeks articles, this is a great series and the comments and responses have been enlightening. Thanks to all.
Peace,
- Jeff
J.Budhill, what exactly do you mean “lost people NEED the Law AND saving faith.” does not the Law LEAD to the Christ of faith thereby the Law is a means to an end, namely Christ. what do you intend in coupling the LAW AND CHRIST together?
Nathan:
I am enjoying this very much.
I still hope you address my earlier question at some point, if possible.
Namely, why did God put the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone and ask that they be kept in the ark if they were simply part of the other 603 laws? In other words, it seems God is showing that these commandments are to be viewed as somehow distinct.
Brian
I believe the key to settling the issue is understanding what the Lord and Paul mean when they say, “I have come to fulfill the law” and “we fulfill the law” respectively.
does it mean Jesus is the embodiment of the law and fulfills or does away with it similar to all the prophecies, by completing all the types in sacrifices,feasts,requirements etc. and faith in Him applies all the fulfillment of the Law, or does it mean Jesus fulfills by giving the true MEANING of the Law and faith in Him empowers us to keep the Law and its true definition. Likewise does Paul mean we fullfill by belief in the Law-fulfiller Christ and just like righteousness, the fulfillment of the Law – is IMPUTED to us , or rather by faith again we are EMPOWERED to fulfill by faith and the indwelling Spirit ALL the Moral Law… big difference
I suppose unbelief condemns because it is a GIVEN that all have sinned. It is pointless to hypothesize ‘what if someone never sinned and still didn’t believe in Christ?” Such an impossible person wouldn’t need a saviour. So it IS the violation of God’s law that condenmns ALL. Belief is the only thing that redeems any.
I have greatly appreciated this series of articles currently running on Pulpit Magazine as this topic has raised lots of questions in my mind over the years. I have read pieces and parts of the Counterpoints book Five Views On Law And Gospel, but have found it hard to read straight through. For years I have had the same understanding that you have put forth in these articles, but have wondered because I had not seen this view clearly articulated by very many and the accusations of antinomianism in relation to this view begin to make a person wonder. It is refreshing to see another brother advocating that:
“Christians are under God’s Law – even if the expression of that law for the church is the Law of Christ, and not the Law of Moses (which was given to Old Testament Israel).”
The illustration I have heard likens the law to the speed limit which is set up for our safety. In Virginia the speed limit is 55 mph and you obey it because you are under the law of Virginia. If you leave Virginia and go into another state that has the same speed limit, you no longer drive 55mph because you are bound by Virginia law. You drive 55mph because that is the law of North Carolina. Even though both speed limits are the same and are created out of one standard of safety, the specific application of that law in each state is applied only to those driving in that specific state. Neither driver is living without law, just under a different application of the same safety standard.
This is an imperfect illustration, but it has been helpful to me.
Thank you!
As for unbelievers, their own consciences will condemn them (Rom 2:12-16). They must also be told of the righteousness of God that has been manifested in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:21), not Moses’ law. When they realize that they can’t meet His standard, they must be told to embrace Him alone as the means of justification. For those who appeal to the 10 commandments, which is only a part of Moses’ law, they have to include the Sabbath, since it is Moses’ law to which they appeal. After all, it is one of the ten.
Based on God’s grace in the Old Testament, in one sense, people were able to keep the Law (not for justification, but in the sense that even when they broke it, God made provision for them to offer sacrifices). That helps us to understand how the rich young ruler could say, regarding the things which Christ spoke to him, “All these things I have kept from my youth” (Luke 18:21) and how Paul could claim that he was found blameless as to the righteousness which is in the law (Philippians 3:6). However, in no sense can someone keep the law of Christ. The Sermon on the Mount makes that perfectly clear. The law of Christ is so much greater. Someone like the rich young ruler or the Pharisees could be in obedience to a particular law of Moses and yet be in absolute disobedience to the law of Christ. Yet, the reverse is impossible.
As for our use of Moses’ law, there are many reasons for its use today. One thing we see is how God dealt with His people when they disobeyed. For example, in 2 Sam 6:7, God killed Uzzah for touching the ark, though he had good intentions for doing so. While Uzzah’s intentions may have been good, the very fact that the ark was being carried in such a way that violated God’s law eventually led to his destruction. So while there is much to be gleaned from it, we are not bound by it. However, we are bound by a law that is so much greater that it should be scary when you really think about it. I hope this helps.
Since the gentile has been grafted into the Jewish olive tree should we expect the gentile to look and act somewhat like the rest of the tree?
Paul seems to teach to be all men to all men in his taken a Nazerite vow in Acts 18:18 and was even petitioned by the elders to do it in Acts 21:24 and he does it. What of this?
Perhaps we should conclude that for the GENTILES they should observe no such thing (Acts 21:25) for it has already been established in the Counsel of Jerusalem that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled…..
I believe I’ve answered my own question.
Ive heard a well-known and respected teacher say that in the Old Covenant the Ten commandments were Commands as “thou shalt NOT…” whereas in the New Covenant they become promises as “THOU shalt not…”
any opinions?
William, I would like to expound on your good example (It’s not plagiarism, since I gave you credit – LOL). Anyway, to show how Christ’s law is so much greater than Moses’ law, it’s as if Christ came along and said although Virginia’s law said the speed limit is 55 MPH, I say even if you don’t go over 55, but because you’re running late, you considered going more, you have still violated My law.
Hi Nathan,
Thank you for these posts, it’s helping to clear up a lot of things for me. In light of the fact that there’s only so much you could cover in these posts I was wondering if you could recommend any books that deal with the issue more thoroughly/comprehensively. Thanks a lot!
Nathan,
I’ve come late to the party but have enjoyed catching up on the series and see your thoughts develop.
One question, or perhaps a clarification – you say that you’re not an advocate of New Covenant Theology but I’m not sure I see the difference in their position and yours. At least in regards to the role of the Old Covenant law in the life of a New Covenant believer. Perhaps there are other differences that are not highlighted here. If it’s not too hard in this short space, would you mind briefly stating where you part ways with NCT?
William – Another analogy I’ve heard is in regards to laws which are the same in the US and in Britain. Just because a law may have been imported from Britain to the US, and just because we follow that law does not make us under the authority of Britain. We follow the law because we are are citizens of the US and under it’s authority.
Brian-ASF,
Thanks for your question. In the Fall 2007 edition of The Master’s Seminary Journal our seminary faculty did a series on New Covenant Theology (NCT), and its distinctions from Dispensational Theology (DT). Our seminary would see itself in the Dispensational category (distinct from NCT), and I would place myself there as well.
If you have opportunity, please pick up a copy of that journal.
Below is an extended quote from Dr. William Barrick, from his article in the journal. I think it will be helpful to this discussion:
* * *
Due to a weakness in both hermeneutics and exegesis, NCT struggles with inconsistencies and ends up doing exactly what its adherents condemn in Covenantalism and Dispensationalism; they make their theology their hermeneutic. By placing total priority on the NT, NCT tends not to treat the OT text in its own context. It is correct that the NT plays a vital role in one’s interpretation of the OT, but too often NCT presupposes a discontinuity far more radical than what either testament actually demands. Though accurate in saying that peole in both OT and NT times are saved from sin by the same gospel message concerning the atoning work of Christ, NCT theologs too often obscure their stance on the immediate salvation for the OT saint. By focusing almost entirely on the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants, NCT devalues the covenant that has some of the strongest ties to God’s future program for national Israel: the Davidic Covenant. That is no small oversight.
* * *
Dr. Larry Pettegrew, in his article, further notes that NCT does not see a future for the literal nation of Israel, while DT does. He also contends that NCT produces a faulty hermeneutic, because it does not maintain a consistent historical-grammatical interpretation of the OT — but rather reads the OT through the lens of the NT.
Anyway, much more could be said. Time does not allow us to develop a series on NCT at the moment. However, there are very real differences between NCT and DT (even if there is some overlap) … just as there are very real differences between NCT and Covenant Theology (though there are also places of overlap).
Hope that helps,
NB
What is the best book for getting the overall grasp differences between dispensation, NCT, Covenant, etc.?
Thank you, Pastor Busenitz, for teaching Truth as to Old Covenant Law (“the Law”) and our law (“the Law of Christ” — each and every imperative uttered by Jesus and the writers of the New Covenant Scriptures).
While you disavow NCT, your (“spot on”) understanding as to “the Law” and “the Law of Christ” is undoubtedly resultant from the (disavowed-by-you-and-your-colleagues) NCT hermeneutic. With all due respect to Phil, he wasn’t even close (as his espousal of CT’s [actually, Aquinas' (!)] as of the writing you’ve linked. That (electronic) document is quintessential for a “leaky dispenstationalist” — one who recogninzes Truth as to God’s sovereign grace in salvation and the Lordship of Christ (each being antithetical to what I’ll call consistent dispensationalism) yet insists that the Church is but a “parenthesis” while Israel the object of God’s plan (and — absurdly — that “the Church is the RESULT of Israel’s rejection of her Messiah”).
“Straw-man” — in it’s purest form — applies to Dr. Barrick’s ridiculous misrepresentation of the NCT hermeneutic. The Israel-centered hermeneutic is the source of dispensational (including the “leaky” sort) error. Gospel (Christ) centered hermeneutics allows theology to be determined via understanding the parts, rather than vice-versa. System-driven theologies such as dispensationalism (consistent or “leaky” or whatever) and “covenantalism” require twisting of Scripture in order to conform it to the non-negotiable presupposition as to ethnic/national Israel [it’s future (dispensationalism) or it’s contrived identity with the Church (“covenantalism”).
The Spirit-quenching hermeneutics which dominate Christendom and wreak/have wrought Spirit-grieving, woeful beliefs and practices must be recognized as enemies of Truth — regardless of the “who’s who” of brilliant, pious, even Godly men … whether they be Puritans, contemporaries, or in-between.
Literalizing what God has expressly and explicitly spiritualized is not “literal” — it’s audacious error. Woe to those who attempt to dismiss the hermeneutic of the writers of the New Covenant Scriptures as, eg., “inspired sensus plenior”.
The Truth is hard; I seek not to be “mean spirited” but to obviate the Truth being missed due to being “sugar-coated”. I truly look forward to your next posts!
what about classical dispensationalism and “progressive” dispensationalism – this is starting to get hairy.
Dear brethren Nathan and Dan,
Your “sharpening Iron” is greatly appreciated. I believe I know where you are going with this series and I am sure that we will end up at the same point in the end, but alas, we are all merely human at best.
Oh I thought that the series of discussions at the Masters Seminary might be helpful for others who are not familiar with Grace Community Church; it is proving more helpful for my understanding of New Covenant Theology and it’s dangers:
http://www.tms.edu/audio.asp?ministry_id=3&dlyear=-1&dlcat=Chapel+Audio
There are 5 podcasts relating to New Covenant Theology:
2/20/2007 NCT and Futuristic Premillennialism
Dr. Richard Mayhue
2/15/2007 The New Covenant and NCT
Dr. Larry Pettegrew
2/13/2007 How Does NCT Relate to Covenantalism?
Dr. Michael Vlach
2/8/2007 NCT and the Old Testament Covenants
Dr. William Barrick
2/6/2007 Introduction to New Covenant Theology
Dennis Swanson
By grace alone through faith alone in Messiah Jesus alone, by a right conviction of the Scriptures alone through the Spirit, all to the glory of our LORD God alone.
Your humble brother in Christ.
Nathan,
Thank you for your kind and measured response. If I’m able, I’ll try to pick up the issue of the journal that you reference.
For those interested, I’d also suggest ids.org as a source outside of TMS for information on NCT.
A hearty Amen to Jim Mcdermott’s comments. The post writer has found truth in the explanation that we are indeed under “New” law and a “New” preisthood (Heb 7:12)…because we are part of the New Covenant! How long before this post writer realizes his conflict by insisting that this “New Covenant” will be fulfilled with an ethnic nation, Israel? If the New Covenant law is ours to keep and the Mediator of this New Covenant is our mediator with God; how are we Not the fulfillment of the “nation” this New Covenant promised to create? Holding out a still future fulfillment for “ethnic” Israel is inheritantly conflicted! Jesus was true Israel (Mt 2:15-Hos 11:1; John 15:1-Psalm 80:8, Hos 14:5-7;Gal 3:16; Isaiah 42:1, 49:3-52:13, 53:11..look these up!!!) If Christ “fulfilled” the Mosaic Law and all that the prophets foretold (Mt 5:17)and having fulfilled it (Mosaic Covenant)He then inherits the promised blessings and becomes, Himself, the New Covenant (Isaiah 42:6, 49:8)…how then are we then who are “in Christ” NOT the fulfillment of the unbelieving, ethnic people the Lord wrote this very Covenant to? Classic Dispensationalist deny we are in the kingdom or in the New Covenant because God made those promises to (ethnic) Israel. Progressive dispensationalists rightly see in the NT scriptures that the kingdom has certainly started and we are in it; and the New Covenant was innaugurated at the Last Supper (Lk 22:20) and we are servants of it (2 cor 3:6), but wrongly assert that we are not the fulfillment of the people it was made with. Classics are at least consistent…consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless! Progressives are hoplessly and irrationally in conflict with their own hernenuetic.
Jesus is true Israel…Jesus is the New Covenant…Jesus is the kingdom of heaven…if you are “in Christ” you are indeed “in” true Israel and “in” the kingdom and “in” the New Covenant. Praise be to God!
David B. said:
“Are unbelievers condemned because their lack of faith in Jesus?
Or are they condemned because their sin breaks God’s laws?
If it is because they break the laws and aren’t saved from them through Jesus, which laws are they accountable to?
I am not trying to split hairs, I am just trying to fully understand the implications of all of this.”
I’m late to the thread.
The answers to questions one and two are “yes”. Salvation has always been by supernatural faith (as opposed to natural faith), for both OT & NT souls. Ep.2: 8-9
As for as the Law is concerned, it was a tutor to GUIDE us to the “end” of the law. Rom.10: 4. “End” does mean the end of something or the law ended but that Christ is the culmination of the law, fulfillment of the law, the period at the end.
When Jesus said I did not come to do away with the law put to fulfill it He was talking about living and keeping all the law that sinners can not do. This is the bases of imputation. 2 Cor. 5: 21 We CANNOT keep the law, it is impossible for sinners to do so. That’s the whole point in Luke 10: 25-28 when the Lawyer asked “…what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus replied, “…What is written in the law?” Of course the lawyer quoted Lv 19:18 and Deu. 6: 5. Jesus said in verse 28 of Luke 2, “You have answered correctly; “Do this and you will live.”
Here is the dirty little secret, no one can obey the law perfectly, an impossible demand. Jesus was trying to get the lawyer (as we must proclaim to a lost world), to realize that he could not fulfill the demands of the law and that he needed a mediator or substitutionary unblemished, perfect Lamb whom the Father in Heaven would accept.
Everyone knows about the blessing of the law- keep them and live, (Lev. 18: 4-5; Deu. 4: 1; Ezek. 20:11), but few mention or realize the curse of the law. (Deu. 27:26; Gal. Gal. 3: 10) break one and you won’t live. James 2: 10
Jesus was CURSED for our sins Gal. 3:13.
Enjoying the series Nathan.
Lets see if I get this right Patrick Rauh. As a believer in Covenant Theology you must believe in predestination and the security of the elect…right? Answer me this,
If Christ is My elect;
If Holy Angels are His elect;
True believers are His elect;
And if Israel is His elect;
And all collectively are secure in eternity because we are His elect chosen before the foundation of the world. Why would ANY elected be secure IF one of the elect is no longer the elect (Israel)?
“Thus, when they teach that we are no longer under the Law, they mean the Law in its entirety.”
I have gone back and forth with this over the years. And perhaps always will.
Understanding the Law & Grace is essential. Very good teaching here. Thanks.
“For I through the Law died to the Law that I might live to God.”
I am a corpse to the Law. I was killed with Christ on the Cross, and I rose with Christ from the dead, and now sit with Christ next to our heavenly Father.
What a magnificent salvation God has given His elect children!
Have a blessed Lord’s Day!
Nathan,
I truly appreciate your series on the Law of Christ as it has been a real blessing to read. I must however charitably disagree with your statement that your own position articulated in this series as it regards your theology of law is substantially different than that of NCT. I hold to NCT, have read every book and article pro and con regarding NCT that I could get my hands on, and think I can confidently say that there is no appreciable difference whatsoever in your *theology of law* than that of NCT. Your quoting of Dr. Bill Barrack’s comments below also misrepresent NCTs view of the relationship between the OT/NT:
“Due to a weakness in both hermeneutics and exegesis, NCT struggles with inconsistencies and ends up doing exactly what its adherents condemn in Covenantalism and Dispensationalism; they make their theology their hermeneutic. By placing total priority on the NT, NCT tends not to treat the OT text in its own context.”
NCT teaches that the OT text is indeed to be taken in context but its NT fulfillment can be very different than anticipated by the original context of the OT. Where the apostles/writers of Scripture spiritualized what appeared to be a prophecy of say, a literal re-establishment of the Davidic throne in it’s original OT context (i.e., Amos 9:11 cf. Acts 15:14-18), we ought to let the spirit-led apostolic interpretation have the final say and not look unnecessarily for a future, *physical* re-establishment of that which was, according to the apostles, fulfilled *spiritually* in Christ and the church.
“It is correct that the NT plays a vital role in one’s interpretation of the OT, but too often NCT presupposes a discontinuity far more radical than what either testament actually demands.”
NCT seek to pose no greater discontinuity than that which the apostles themselves taught (2 Cor. 3:3ff; Gal. 4:9-11; Heb. 8:6-13, etc.). This means that we read the entirety of the OT in light of the more complete special revelation contained in the NT Scriptures. As a matter of fact Nathan, you have given us an excellent example of this very thing in your Law of Christ series!
“Though accurate in saying that people in both OT and NT times are saved from sin by the same gospel message concerning the atoning work of Christ, NCT theologs too often obscure their stance on the immediate salvation for the OT saint.”
NCT “theologs” (I love that word!) clearly teach that OT saints were saved/justified by faith alone just like a believer living under the New Covenant is saved (cf. Rom. 4:4-5). However, NCT adherents having affirmed that the instrument of justification is the same throughout all of redemptive history, consider what my good NCT friend Steve Lehrer has to say regarding this subject in light of Galatians 3:8,
NIV Galatians 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”
Is Paul saying that Abraham had the same gospel preached to him that you and I have? Was he told that he was a totally depraved sinner who had nothing to offer to a holy God? Was he told that god sent His one and only Son to take on human flesh and to die on a cross as an atoning sacrifice for all those who would believe? No. The context of the gospel preached to Abraham, as far as we know, was simply: “All people of the earth will be blessed through you” (Genesis 12:3). He was promised many descendants and a physical land in which they could all live. God also promised Abraham that the nations would be blessed in some way through him. Finally, God promised Abraham that he would have a son through whom God’s promises would be fulfilled. Abraham was given a supernatural ability to believe these promises; he was given the gift of faith. Abraham did not gain his salvation by works but only God’s grace acquired through faith (Romans 4:1-25). But Scripture does not reveal that Abraham had an understanding of the fundamentals of the gospel as we understand them today.
Someone might object, ‘Abraham had to have knowledge of the gospel as we did because otherwise he could not have been saved.’ But if we confine our search to Scripture, then we will find that what is revealed to Abraham simply did not include anything about sin, the need for repentance, or the atoning work of Jesus Christ. Yet, Abraham was saved. Whatever he knew was veiled in types and shadows. The most we can say with certainty is that he trusted in whatever God revealed to him and the work of Christ was applied to him retroactively, as the New Testament tells us: ‘God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished – he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus (Romans 3:24-26). Since Abraham believed God’s promises, God put his sin debt on the ‘Divine credit card’ and God finally paid Abraham’s bill at the time of the cross.
Now a logical question that typically arises after hearing the above explanation is, ‘Are you saying that you didn’t have to believe the gospel to be saved in Abraham’s day?’ This is the crux of the issue. It is a scary proposition to which I answer, ‘Yes and no.”
God never changes. He has always saved people the same way. God applies the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross to all of His children and gives them the supernatural ability to trust in His promises and love Him more than anything else this world has to offer. I am simply saying that the Bible nowhere even hints at the idea that Abraham had the knowledge that we do now. He lacked knowledge that we consider essential to the gospel, and yet God saved him. The content of the ‘gospel’ that was preached to Abraham is stated by Paul as ‘All nations will be blessed through you’. It is true that this foreshadowed or pointed toward what we understand today as the gospel, but ‘All nations will be blessed through you’ is not the gospel itself. One might say that it is the gospel in picture form, just as the sacrificial system in the Old Testament was the gospel in picture form.
Many people have a problem with this point of view because seems to lead to the conclusion that you do not really need to know the gospel to be saved. After all, Abraham did not have to know it, so why does anyone else have to know it? However, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that at different points in the history of God’s saving work with men, He had revealed different parts of His plan and His promises. Revelation is progressive. At each point in salvation history it was essential for any person who would become a believer to understand and believe what God had revealed up to that point in history. For Abraham, he had to believe the promise God made to him about a child, a land, and a nation. It took a supernatural gift of faith for Him to believe. This faith was given to Him and He consequently became a believer and ‘the father of the faithful.’
In summary, trusting in the promises God reveals in the era in which you live results in you being credited righteousness. If you lived before the cross God applied the saving work of Christ to you retroactively, thereby paying your debt to God. in every age believer need to be forgiven by the application of the atoning work of Christ to be given new God-loving hearts by the work of the Spirit.” Steve Lehrer, New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered, 207-209.
Dr. Barrack goes on to state,
“By focusing almost entirely on the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants, NCT devalues the covenant that has some of the strongest ties to God’s future program for national Israel: the Davidic Covenant. That is no small oversight.”
Please see my response regarding the connection between Amos 9:11 and Acts 15:14ff. Nathan, I appreciate your work here despite the fact that we disagree. I look forward to perusing these blog articles in the future and being edified. God bless!
hi randy;
truly, Israel is still “elect.” They are still the “tribe of His inheritance” (Jer 10:16/Eph 1:18.) They all (past, present and future) were “perfected” at the cross (Jn 17:20; heb 11:39-40.) They all dwell in unity “in Christ”; in the kingdom (Davidic-Acts 2:31); in the New Covenant (heb 12:24); in Zion (heb 12:22); in the heavenly Jerusalem as part of “true” Israel or, the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16.) Indeed, the OT saints and all those who have gone before us are the “cloud of witnesses that surround us” (Heb 12:1.) Remember, “not all Israel is of Israel” (rom 9:6.)Randy, what you are not clear on is exactly what “all Israel” or the ethnic nation of Israel was “chosen” for. The Mosaic Covenant was made to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant (Ex 6:3-8.) The ethnic Israelite nation was promised to be God’s “treasured posession…a kingdom of priests…a holy nation” IF (and only IF) they obeyed the covenant (Ex 19:3-6.)We know from Roman 5:20 and 7:9-11 that this Mosaic Covenant made sin “increase” and “grow.” Peter calls THAT covenant a “yoke and a burden none of us could bear” in Acts 15:10. Paul identifies THAT covenant as a “ministration of DEATH” (2 Cor 3:7.) Paul identifies the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in Romans 3:19-”to make the world accountable to God.” So, what were the “ethnic” Israelites of the Mosaic Covenant “chosen” for if they were promised to be cursed if they did not adhere to a covenant that required obedience and yet made sin “grow”?; that promised cursing for lack of obedience, yet was itself a “yoke” and a “burden” and a “ministration of death”? Paul tells us in romans 9:22…they were “vessels prepared for destruction.” They were examples for our learning (1 cor 10:11.) The Mosaic covenant was made to make them concious of their sin, to realize their need of a savior…their need of a “New Covenant.” God endured their disobedience patiently and in the “fullness of time” He brought that promised Messiah to those “vessels prepared for destruction.” But, their hearts were hardened by God (Isaiah 6:9-10; Mt 13:13) so that they could not “hear” the good news of the “kingdom” preached by this Messiah. They crucified Him in accordance with God’s will. Afterwards, with the advent of the New Covenant their hearts remained hardened by God as a ethnic entity (Rom 11:25.)In the era of the (now obsolete) Mosaic Covenant there was always a remnant of Jews, of true Israel, that was “chosen” by God to inherit eternal life…to be His inheritance. So it is today, ethnic Jews as well as people of “every tribe and toungue” are being “chosen” as descendents of Abraham, to be the true “Israel of God” the “bride of Christ.” “All Israel will be saved” in this manner (rom 11:26.) There has only ever been one true Israel, one bride. Jesus destroyed the very idea of ethnic heritage being a factor in being “chosen” for eternal life in John 8:31-47, as did John the Baptist in Mat 3:9. God is in complete control; He is sovereign in election and always has been. There is ONE plan and it is unfolding exactly the way He has intended from day one. The great majority of ethnic Israelites have been unbelievers and are sitting in hell, “chosen” by God to be there. Praise Him for His mercy on us!
Pat, I tend to agree with you. It always seems funny to me when new theologians contradict the church of the past. No disrespect intend at all Nathan, but where in church history has your position been taken as you are presenting it? Not that I have all this figured out and you may yet answer the question others have asked (and maybe you have), what is the Law of Christ? I grasp the concept of Christ fulfilling the law of Moses in all its divisions, but in what way does that free us from the practical implications of the moral law? Why do we need to repent after we are saved? Couldn’t we just say a quick, woops and move on? What would we be repenting of if not a violation of God’s law? Hopefully next week will clear up some of my misgivings. Thanks Nathan.
I presume that Pat will indulge my answering some of Fred’s questions. Scriptural references to “the Law” are to Old Covenant Law; such is indeed obsolete, as expressly taught via Hebrews chs. 7 and 8 (although at the time of the writing of Hebrews, the Temple hadn’t been destroyed). “The Law of Christ” is each and every command and imperative attributed to Jesus and/or any writer of the New Covenant Scriptures. Although, as we’re instructed via the final verses of Romans 9 and first few verses of Romans 10, ethnic/national Israelites needed to be disabused of their notion that they could be saved via keeping “the Law”, “the Law” was a “ministry of death”, not salvation.
“The Law of Christ”, likewise, saves no one. “The Law of Christ” is the KANON (rule) for the saved. The final several verses of Romans 12, for example, are, inter alia, the standard to which we’re to “measure up”. Were such Truth to be taught and understood, the travesty known as the church would desist and the Church would become manifest. The true ekklesia, though, is comprised of those who have insatiable appetite for what our Lord calls “solid food” (Hebrews 5); those self-satisfied with “milk” are, I advocate (see http://www.idsblog.com) those upon whom the warning we read via Hebrews 6 is operative.
Thanks Patrick for the LONG list I once again will review and try to get back with you on. Basically, we all bring certain biases to the table or paradigms, or preconceived ideas of what the Scriptures say. The ones we know about we try to correct or even repent from and then seek guidance from studying Scripture through the balance of the Spirit.
But one quick answer to why one repents when one sins, even being a true believer. One, because we are commanded too. 1John 1: 8-10. Remember, John is speaking to believers.
Second, I am a new creation but still carry this old flesh around that has to be crucified daily or my case often. I have been positionally glorified but not bodily glorified. (The assumption aside from this thread is that I’m justified and sanctified.) And if you think we have been bodily glorified, answer me this…was Jesus’ bodily resurrection carnal or spiritual?
Thanks for the reply, I’m a little slower on the rest of your points..
Jim isnt the Law of Christ simply the law of love, (not what some would fear as-if I just “love people” I’m ok but the “love one another” and our “enemies” and God “as I have loved you”) if its ALL the NT directives surely we should inscribe these on stones as the Jews did theirs!
I’m always a little leary of to many distinctions within theology such as in Dispensationalism was it not Scofield who made the distinction between YHWH/Israel as husband/wife AND Jesus/Church as Christ/bride? CERTAINLY this should NOT be a distinction for Jesus is ONE with YHWH HE IS THE IAM.
I’ve read a very wise and POSSIBLE explanation of “all Israel shall be saved” by Lloyd Jones. simply stated Paul says “AND SO, again AND SO… all israel shall be saved” meaning when the gentiles come in to God’s salvation as the wild branches the natural (Jews) being broken FOR THIS PURPOSE – THEN AND THEREBY ALL ISRAEL (OR GODS PEOPLE SPIRITUAL PEOPLE, CHOSEN PEOPLE) SHALL BE SAVED. looking at all of Romans 10 and 11 it is really quite possible.
Am a little stricken however over verses that seem to point to a literal Messianic earthly Kingdom. The Lord said He wouldnt drink wine again until He came into the Kingdom??? Dont know how you can spiritualize that.
One things for sure this is all very humbling and I hope and pray we all seek HIS face as much as we quibble about theology and we EVANGELIZE as much as we try to convince one another.
I find what you are saying about the Christian and the law intriguing and it sounds Biblical. But it also sounds the same as what I’ve read of NCT. What is the distinction between your view and NCT?
I would just like to mention something that has stood out to me from the Old Testament scriptures regarding covenants, brides, elect and the like. I think that many would probably agree that the OT is full of typology regarding Christ. Jesus is prefigured in many stories. Well, I always thought that the way Jacob obtained his two wives Leah and Rachel could be a prefiguring of Christ and his relationship to his bride(s); Israel and the Church. Jacob had eyes for Rachel (a prefigure of Israel), and worked for her for seven years, but got a “surprise bride” in Leah first (a prefigure of the Church). Jacob ended up loving both of them, though his first thought was for Rachel, but Leah gave him many children and he loved her too though she was not as “lovely” or the desired one at first. I see this as possibly a type for the relationship Jesus has with Israel and the Church.
Sharon
Here is something that stood out to me in the NT.
Romans 11
17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, 18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
24 For if you were cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, who are natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?
God has never been “suprised”
randy;
BTW: i am not covenant. i do not subscribe to invented covenants (works, grace.) nor do i hold that the Church is the replacement for Israel. Christ is true Israel and all those “in Christ” are the fulfillment of the OT ethnic Israel. They were the picture of the NC nation the “Israel of God”…the way Moses and David prefigured Christ; the way the law and the temple were pictures of Christ; the way the manna and the water from the rock were pictures of Christ; the way physical circumcision pictured circumcision of the heart by the Spirit; the way Jerusalem and Palestine prefigured heaven and the New Jerusalem etc. Christ fulfills all including Israel. have a great week!
Thanks Patrick. You have made some good points for me to review. I will agree with most but will differ on the “fulfillment of the OT ethnic Israel.” May your week be blessed!
Dustin, David, and others:
Thanks for all the comments and questions.
The view of the Mosaic Law that I am presenting here is in line with a standard dispensational understanding (you’ll notice how many Dallas dispensationalists I cited in the previous articles). It is a view that is taught at The Master’s Seminary (though it is not the only view represented on the seminary faculty). That the dispensational view overlaps with the new covenant view in some points is not surprising (since NCT tends to be a mediating view between dispensationalism and covenantalism).
However, my reasons for rejecting NCT are broader (other) than the Mosaic Law. The faculty lecture series that The Master’s Seminary did last year (and to which William has provided audio links) provides a good summary in that regard. As I do not have time at the moment to do a full series on NCT, those audio files will have to suffice.
Again, thanks for the interaction. We’ve still got one more week to go on this topic.
- NB
I think that you have grossly misrepresented Calvin in your quotation of his comments of Galatians 6:2. While you have quoted him exactly correct, you have lifted his statements out of context – much like cults do with scripture. See Calvin’s comments on Galatians 5:14 for an entirely different view of the believer and the law of Moses.
If I understand the point you are trying to make, you could do so a whole lot easier by putting all this into the biblical motif of covenants.
God’s moral code is based upon his own righteousness and moral perfections. Because His moral law is tied to His unchanging person, His moral will for His people is always the same. This moral code is part of His covenants that He makes with His people – the covenant of creation, Sinai covenant, and the new covenant. But the fact that these are different kinds of covenants (Suzerain vassal covenants vs. Royal grant covenants) the specific role the law plays is very different in each.
God’s moral will is always the same – but the 10 commandments in the Mosaic covenant were the stipulations that Israel must fulfill to retain the temporal-national blessings. In the New covenant these same 10 laws our God’s will for our behavior but have been fulfilled for the sake of righteousness by Christ -Romans 10:4.
The net effect is that we are not under the Mosaic law in that it was part of a covenant that the Christian is not under. That said, we are under the Mosaic law to the degree that it is a faithful summary of God’s moral will of His people in all places in all times and is part of the different covenants that He makes with His people i.e. covenant of creation, Sinai covenant, New covenant.
As Nate wrote, Hebrews 7:12 ["For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must be a change of the law as well" (HCSB)] unequivocally instructs that Old Covenant (Mosaic) Law is no longer our law. Any and all teaching to the contrary is false teaching.
Nate, “thou doth protesteth too much” seems apt. Again, the linked article by Phil Johnson [yes, I realize that he doesn't "speak" for TMS/GCC/J. Mac (at least as "final word") either] reveals that the CT [Aquinas' (!)]trichotomy (“Moral/Civil/Ceremonial”) was his understanding as to law. Neither the MacArthur Study Bible (regardless of release date) nor other publication related to Dr. MacArthur teaches otherwise. J. Mac/TMS/GCC/GTY has, obviously, recognized the Truth as to the rule of life for the believer.
Sadly, y’all insist that NCT “tends to be a mediating view between [DT] and [CT]” rather than recognizing its inherent Truth. NCT is the result of inductive study of Scripture IN CONTEXT! The “pieces” of Scripture determine the theology, rather than vice-versa (that is, understanding of the “pieces” is not determined by system-driven presuppositions, as is true of DT and CT).
TMSJ’s critique of NCT rightly recognizes In Depth Studies (IDS) and Steve Lehrer for their contributions to pursuit of Truth. Steve has just moved to Green Bay, WI from Mesa, AZ; his extraordinarily irenic “interaction” with TMS’ Chapel Lectures (the forerunners of the TMSJ articles) and some of the faculty members involved no longer may be accessed via http://www.ids.org — they’re now “at” http://www.gigmin.org. IDS’ Mike Adams, via http://www.idsblog.com and Pastor Dustin Seegers, via http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com, have undertaken to reckon TMSJ’s critique of NCT with what NCT actually teaches.
Pat (not Rauh) ~
Amen to your concluding admonition; the ONLY reason our Lord saves us and leaves us here is to be His conduits in His Plan of Redemption [and, since He's chosen to leave us here for such purpose, ministry to one-another (including "service") is necessitated]! Yes, the Law of Christ is indeed the essence of “The Law” (Old Covenant Law) — the Greatest Commandment(s). What that “looks like” is each and every imperative ascribed to Jesus and/or writers of the New Covenant Scriptures.
It’s not me — or anyone else who’s hermeneutic is Gospel-centered — who has “spiritualized”; again, to literalize what our Lord has spiritualized is audaciously erroneous.
The “and then” from Romans 11:26 (ACHRIS HOU) is far better translated as “in this manner” (ESV and HCSB: “And in this way”). The words are bereft of temporal connotation (indeed, the CONTEXT of Romans 11 as a whole is present with absolutely no future application). Eisegesis is required to find any millennial connection whatsoever in Romans 11.
Not having much to go by, I nonetheless presume that you’re “on the path of Truth”; the fact that you write YHWH is quite revealing [“Yaweh/Jehovah” were resultant from a Reformation-era German inserting the vowels of ADONAI into YHWH (Yahowah); problem: Hebrew “reads” right-to-left (I hope that our Lord merely chuckles at our ascription of non-existent names to Him!).
http://www.graceinthetriad.blogspot.com [no comma! ('Doh!)](the links to In-Depth Studies and its blog and to Steve Leherer’s new site “work”)
http://www.triablogue.blogspot.com ,perhaps, also (may as well have 50!)
Jim,
You wrote: “J. Mac/TMS/GCC/GTY has, obviously, recognized the Truth as to the rule of life for the believer.”
I’m not totally sure what you mean by this. In any case, let me clarify that our doctrinal statement here at the church allows for a diversity of viewpoints on the relationship of the NT believer to the OT Mosaic Law.
My articles here are not the “official” view of Grace Church. Please don’t infer or assume anything beyond the fact that this is my own personal understanding of the issue. It is an understanding I came too years ago using standard dispensational sources.
Also, John MacArthur’s position on this issue is perhaps most fully articulated in his Matthew commentary.
Thanks,
NB