(By Nathan Busenitz)

It was June 15, 2000—just over eight years ago—when James Montgomery Boice entered his heavenly rest. That same day marked the beginning of that year’s Ligonier National Conference in Orlando, Florida. The theme was “Upsetting the World” and the speakers included an all-star line up as men like R.C. Sproul, John Piper, Sinclair Ferguson, Douglas Wilson and Al Mohler addressed those in attendance. By all accounts, it was a uniquely emotion-filled conference, and understandably so. One of evangelicalism’s foremost pastors, scholars, and statesmen had just gone home to heaven.

During the conference, in the first Q&A session, a memorable interchange took place between two of the keynote speakers. The first, Doug Wilson (whose magazine Credenda Agenda is known for its sharp wit and biting commentary), was asked to defend the sarcastic rhetoric that characterized his ministry. Wilson responded by pointing to how Christ used language to confront the Pharisees, contending that because Christ used “sarcasm” and “biting cultural criticism” we should too, since “we are called to imitate Christ in all that He does.” (Wilson also noted the polemic of the Old Testament prophets, suggesting that a similar polemic should be used by pastors today.)

The second, John Piper, disagreed; and he did not hesitate to offer a rebuttal. Graciously but firmly he warned Wilson of the dangers that come with an over-fondness for sarcasm:

John Piper: I want to go back to Doug’s defense of sarcasm and irony and balance it. One of the reasons I have a problem with simply “Do what Jesus did” is there is one huge difference between me and Jesus and that is sin in me. There are others. And that one is picked up by the Apostle Paul because when he argues for tenderheartedness and gentleness and forbearance he grounds it in the fact that you were forgiven, therefore forgive. In other words, Paul draws attention to the very thing that distinguishes me from Jesus when he’s arguing for my tenderheartedness towards people.  . . .

Now Doug Wilson is absolute genius at sarcasm and irony. And I would just wave a little yellow flag . . . [because] you can’t exalt Christ and commend yourself as clever. . . . So that’s an exhortation, a warning, really to everybody who clapped for Doug when he said what he had to say, and for you [Doug], and for me, because frankly I think I need to say that because I am wired to be a person who puts down stupidity [in a way that is sarcastic or harsh], and I have to work really hard to manifest tenderness.

Doug Wilson: I appreciate that very much. I do want to encourage you, it may not encourage you, but every time you read something in Credenda Agenda, just tell yourself, “They’re holding back.”  [Laughter from audience]

John Piper: And that worries me. That worries me. [1]

Fast forward eight years to the upcoming Desiring God National Conference (September 26–28), where the ever controversial Mark Driscoll will advocate the use of sarcastic and biting speech in pastoral ministry (in a session entitled, “How Sharp the Edge? Christ, Controversy, and Cutting Words”). Like Wilson, it seems that Driscoll will appeal to the polemic of Christ, Paul, and the Old Testament prophets to make his case. But unlike Wilson, Driscoll will be defending much more than just prophetic sarcasm. Based on his reputation for locker room humor, crass allusions, and sexual innuendo, Driscoll’s definition of “harsh language” pushes the envelope farther than Credenda Agenda ever did . . .

. . . which brings up an interesting question as to how Driscoll’s presentation will be received when it is delivered in Minneapolis next week. (For those wondering why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to speak on this topic, you can see his answer here.)

Mark Driscoll’s edgy approach to ministry is widely known for its use of provocative, sarcastic, and earthy speech from the pulpit. Few would deny that his colorful style sometimes falls outside the boundaries of pastoral propriety—at least as normally defined in evangelical circles. Though he denounces “shock-jock language” as inappropriate [2], this “smart-aleck former frat boy” [3] has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t shy away from saying things that many would consider overly crude and irreverent. [4]  (Driscoll himself recognizes the fact that much of his content, such as the MH-17 adult-only sermon videos on his website, fits “into two categories: offensive and really offensive.” [5]  Or as Christianity Today notes about him, “If he hasn’t offended you, you’ve never read his books or listened to his sermons.” [6])

But what does Mark Driscoll think about those who are critical of the “harsh language” he uses?

“I would push back and say that some of them are cowards,” he says in a recent interview, highlighting his upcoming message at Desiring God. “They don’t go far enough. Some of them are people pleasers and they’re worried about their ratings and approval as opposed to the truth.” [7]

Though he admits (in the same video) that “some guys like [him] go too far,” Driscoll ultimately justifies the use of harsh language in pastoral ministry by appealing to several Old Testament prophets (specifically, Elijah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel) and two brief comments in the letters of Paul. At the beginning of the video, he states:

The Bible has some very strong language. The opening of Galatians where he [Paul] tells a bunch of guys who are into circumcision to go all the way and emasculate themselves, probably not something that you’re going to have on the flannel-graph for the children in the Sunday school. Ezekiel telling the Israelites that they are whoring after certain people and gods because of the size of their genitalia and the experiences they enjoy is very strong language. When Isaiah says that a righteousness is like bloody tampons and Paul says it’s like a steaming pile that a dog leaves in the yard, the Bible is using some very strong language.

The question is, is that okay? Well, all Scripture is God-breathed, and if that’s how God speaks that’s how we should speak.

Later Driscoll notes that, though God’s Word uses this type of language infrequently, “that doesn’t mean we never use perhaps even strong language, harsh tones, cutting remarks, biting sarcasm, devastating uses of humor and irony, ‘cause God does.”

And so, contends Driscoll, pastors today not only can, but should, use provocative and offensive speech because that is how God’s spokesmen have communicated at times in the past.

But does this line of argumentation really justify the kind of harsh language that has earned Driscoll a reputation for being “bold, brash, sarcastic, opinionated, and blunt,” “intentionally irreverent,” and comfortable using “language that will offend those whose scruples are sensitive”? [8]

Personally, I am not convinced. Here are three reasons why:

1. First, Driscoll’s argument ultimately comes up short unless he can demonstrate that the way in which the OT prophets, Christ, and the NT apostles used “harsh language” (especially as it related to the cultures of their day) is directly parallel to his own penchant for lowbrow humor, coarse rhetoric, and sarcastic wit. But Driscoll’s track record hardly seems to fit the patterns established by these biblical examples. For starters, their speech was neither lewd nor flippant, and it was certainly not motivated by an effort to be culturally relevant. Moreover, when Christ (being God) and the biblical prophets (writing words inspired by the Holy Spirit) said things that offended others, they did so in ways wholly absent from fleshly motives and sinful pride. We must take great caution in thinking we can do the same (per John Piper’s warning to Doug Wilson).

2. Second, Driscoll’s argument assumes that because some of the biblical prophets used harsh language (on limited occasions), then today’s pastors can and should use harsh language as well. But this type of reasoning presents a problem if taken to its logical conclusion. After all, wouldn’t this make every kind of prophetic behavior (no matter how infrequent) a paradigm pastors should follow today? Isaiah, for example, prophesied naked (perhaps in a loin cloth) for several years, in keeping with God’s command in Isaiah 20. And Elijah killed the prophets of Baal after he mocked their false god, according to 1 Kings 18. Are such actions to be imitated in contemporary ministry? And if not, why not?

3. Finally, and most importantly, Driscoll’s argument places the implicit examples of Old Testament prophets above the explicit commands of the New Testament Scriptures. If the New Testament were silent about the speech of believers, especially pastors, Driscoll’s line of reasoning might be sustainable. But in this case, the New Testament (in particular, the Apostle Paul), could not be clearer:

Ephesians 4:29: Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear.

Ephesians 5:3–4: But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

Paul’s instruction to Titus, as a pastor, is perhaps even more to the point:

Titus 2:6: Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.

(We might also mention the warnings to teachers about the tongue in James 3.)

It is hard to see how being characterized by dignity and sound speech fits into Driscoll’s provocative paradigm. Even if reasons 1 and 2 (above) could be sufficiently answered or dismissed, number three shuts the door and closes it tight. Principles implicitly drawn from descriptive examples cannot trump the explicit commands given to us in prescriptive New Testament texts.

Consider, as an aside, John Piper’s insightful comments on a couple of the passages cited above:

Regarding Ephesians 4:29: [Another] kind of language I think Paul would include in his command not to let any rotten talk come out of your mouth is vulgar references to sex and the human body. . . . I recall a couple of men in graduate school in Germany who seemed to carry the aroma of vulgarity about them. All they ever seemed to laugh at was sexual innuendo. The pitiful thing about it was that the nearer they got to the gutter, the more they laughed. With their mouths they created an atmosphere like a stinking locker room. It was unpleasant for everybody but themselves. And it made noble and high and worthy thoughts all but impossible. It’s hard to savor beauty from a garbage dump. [9]

Regarding Ephesians 5:3–4: Paul seems to be concerned mainly about two related errors: treating things as gross or treating things as trivial; filthiness and flippancy. There are people who are so dirty inside that they can hardly refer to a tree or a cloud or a fish hook or a brake pedal without treating it as filthy: they may do it with some gross language or simply with a despising attitude and demeanor. And there are people whose vision of the world is so superficial that they trivialize everything. Paul condemns both of these and says, “Get rid of all filthiness and coarseness on the one hand, and all foolishness and levity on the other.” [10]

And in another place (regarding Colossians 2:1–8): How can we guard ourselves against a foul or frivolous mouth? How can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is foul with criticism and bitterness … and sarcasm and disrespect and ridicule and cynicism? And how can we guard ourselves against a mouth that is just flippant and trivial and silly and petty? The answer to both questions is, Fill your mouth with thanksgiving. [11]

To be fair, Mark Driscoll has not yet given his message at Desiring God. Perhaps it is too early to critique his defense, since he has only given a brief overview of what will surely be a much more comprehensive and nuanced discussion.

Maybe he will address some of the concerns we’ve outlined above. Or maybe he’ll differentiate between what might be rightly called “prophetic,” and what some have described as nothing more than “the gutter language of anti-social people.” [12] In any case, we’ll know for sure in about ten days.

In closing, I’d like to cite a few more paragraphs from John Piper. I include them, not because I disagree with Dr. Piper (a great man of God whose ministry I highly respect), but because I think he is absolutely right; and because I think they make his invitation to Driscoll all the more curious:

I remember one time as a child that my mother actually washed my mouth out with soap. She took me to the bathroom sink, rubbed the bar of soap around in my mouth, and then rinsed it out and made me go to my room. Do you know what I had said? I think I had said, “Shut up!” to my sister.

Now why should my mother wash my mouth out with soap for saying, “Shut up!” to my sister? She did it because she believed Jesus when he said, “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man” (Matthew 15:11).

I had made myself dirty by saying, “Shut up,” to my sister, and my mother had a white-hot zeal for my purity. So she used an unforgettable object lesson. I think she did right and I have risen up to call her blessed even this past week on her birthday.

“But really!” someone will say, “What’s the big deal with saying, ‘Shut up,’ to your sister? It’s not swearing. It’s not taking the name of the Lord in vain. It’s not a dirty word. Why get so worked up? What’s really so bad about it?”

The answer is that when I said, “Shut up!” to my sister, it was mean. There was no affection and no good will and no kindness in it. It was ugly. There was no moral beauty, no holiness, no love. To use Paul’s phrase in Ephesians 4:29, it was a “rotten word.” It came from a garbage pile of pride and one-upmanship and anger and resentment—all very normal between siblings, and all very sinful. Beware lest you grow accustomed to sin because it is so normal! [13]

(UPDATE: A clarification article has been posted here.)

* * * * * 

ENDNOTES:

[1] Transcription from the video of the 2000 Ligonier National Conference (ordered from Ligonier).

[2] Interview with Ed Stetzer, online source.

[3] Janet I. Tu, “Pastor Mark Packs ‘Em In,” Pacific Northwest: The Seattle Times Magazine (November 30, 2003), online source.

[4] Tim Challies highlights the nature of Driscoll’s reputation when he writes, “I hope that sooner or later he [Driscoll] becomes known for what he does that pleases God rather than what he does that shocks the masses.” (Review of Vintage Jesus, February 19, 2008), online source. 

[5] Mark Driscoll in his introduction to a Q&A on birth control from January 2008, online source.

[6] Collin Hansen, “Pastor Provocateur,” Christianity Today (September 21, 2007), online source.

[7] Transcript from video clip entitled “Mark Driscoll on Harsh Language,” online source.

[8] Mike McKinley, 9 Marks Book Review of Radical Reformission and Confessions of a Reformission Rev., online source. 

[9] John Piper, “Make Your Mouth a Means of Grace,” sermon transcript, online source.

[10] John Piper, “The Enthronement of Desire,” sermon transcript, online source.

[11] John Piper, “Guard Yourself with Gratitude,” sermon transcript, online source.

[12] Comment left in response to “What Would You Ask Mark Driscoll?” posted at The Expositor, online source.

[13] John Piper, “Make Your Mouth a Means of Grace,” sermon transcript, online source.

(By Matt Waymeyer)

I want to recommend to you a fantastic book that I just read on the subject of dispensationalism. But first a little personal history: Back in 1994 I was attending a Presbyterian church in Orlando, taking a Greek class at Reformed Theological Seminary, and beginning to appreciate all things reformed. At the time, I was also thinking seriously about going to seminary full time. I had narrowed it down to either Westminster Theological Seminary or The Master’s Seminary, and I was having a difficult time deciding between the two.

The main problem is that I had never studied the issue of covenant theology vs. dispensationalism. To get me started, one of my covenantal friends suggested two books, one to help me understand covenant theology and the other to help me understand dispensationalism. The first book was O. Palmer Robertson’s The Christ of the Covenants, which is widely regarded as a classic presentation of covenant theology. A very good recommendation. The other book, unfortunately, was John Gerstner’s Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth, a diatribe against dispensationalism by a covenant theologian. Not such a good recommendation. [For an excellent review of Gerstner’s book, see Dr. Richard Mayhue’s article in The Master’s Seminary Journal.]

As I began reading Gerstner, I realized pretty quickly that the dispensationalism he was critiquing was certainly not the kind of dispensationalism that TMS president John MacArthur advocated. Gerstner seemed to equate dispensationalism with Arminianism and easy-believism, and since MacArthur was the one who had grounded me in a biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God and the Lordship of Christ, I was pretty sure this book wasn’t going to help me decide where to go to seminary. In fact, Gerstner’s book did more to confuse my understanding of dispensationalism than to clarify it. Eventually I found books and articles that were more helpful, but the process was a long and difficult one, and Gerstner was definitely an ill-advised place for me to start my theological journey.

Why am I telling you this? Because I just finished a book I wish I could have read 14 years ago when I was first studying this issue. That book is Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths by Dr. Michael J. Vlach (Theological Studies Press, 2008), and it is unsurpassed in terms of clearly setting forth the core elements of dispensational theology. In this book, Vlach, an Assistant Professor of Theology at The Master’s Seminary, brings a rare level of simplicity and clarity to a very difficult and complex subject. If you are seeking to understand dispensationalism, this is absolutely the place to begin.

The format of the book is simple enough. In the introduction, Vlach describes how common misrepresentations of dispensationalism have created the need to define clearly the essential beliefs of this theological system. As Vlach explains, his goal in writing was to meet this need:

This book is not an attempt to delve deeply into every issue related to dispensationalism. Nor is it written to iron out in detail all the points of difference between variations within dispensationalism . . . . Instead, I am looking to give the reader a basic introduction to the foundational beliefs of dispensational theology so a better understanding of this theology can occur (p. 4).

In the first chapter, Vlach provides a brief history of the theology of dispensationalism, focusing on three key periods: (1) Classical Dispensationalism (1800s to 1940s), (2) Revised or Modified Dispensationalism (1950-1985), and Progressive Dispensationalism (1986 to the present). This is a helpful overview of the development of dispensationalism over the past 150 years, and unfortunately one that is often missing from these kinds of discussions. As Vlach observes later in the book, “when reading some critiques of dispensationalism, one gets the impression that dspensational thought was frozen by 1950” (p. 53).

The nucleus of the book is found in chapter 3, where Vlach sets forth six essential beliefs that are at the heart of dispensationalism. As Vlach explains:

By “essential” I mean foundational beliefs of dispensationalism that are central and unique to the system, beliefs upon which the system stands or falls. These are also beliefs that if denied, would probably make one a nondispensationalist (p. 18).

The primary strength of this chapter is how Vlach is able to distinguish clearly between core essentials of dispensationalism and possible applications of the system. In contrast, most critiques of dispensational theology focus on the latter to the virtual exclusion of the former. To whet your appetite, the first essential belief concerns the nature and implications of progressive revelation: “Progressive revelation from the New Testament does not interpret or reinterpret Old Testament passages in a way that changes or cancels the original meaning of the Old Testament writers as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics” (p. 18).

In chapter 3 Vlach exposes five common myths about dispensational theology which are often promoted by non-dispensationalists, a breath of fresh air for those of us who have grown weary from all the caricatures and straw men. As Vlach explains, many of these myths flow out of the erroneous assumption that dispensationalism is inherently linked to soteriology. Put simply, being dispensational doesn’t mean you believe in multiple ways of salvation; it doesn’t mean that you are Arminian, antinomian, or non-lordship in your theology; and it doesn’t require that you affirm the seven dispensations often associated with classical dispensationalism. According to Vlach, “Those studying dispensationalism should focus on the real issues and avoid such myths” (p. 49).

The final chapter contains a series of questions that Vlach is often asked about the issue and the debate surrounding it. My favorite part of this chapter was his response to the charge that dispensationalism should be rejected since it is a relatively new theological system which was not formalized until the 18th century. According to Vlach, several key elements of dispensational thought were held by the early church, and therefore the early church was closer to dispensationalism than it was to covenant theology. Furthermore, says Vlach, if someone rejects dispensationalism simply because it is new, then he should also reject covenant theology which did not start to take recognizable form until the 17th century (and therefore is not that much older than dispensationalism). As Vlach notes, the better approach is to “focus on whether any system of theology is biblical or not and no so much on when it started” (p. 55).

In the end, regardless of where you land on the spectrum of continuity vs. discontinuity—and regardless of whether you consider yourself a dispensationalist, a covenant theologian, or something in between—if you have a desire to understand the core essentials of what dispensationalism is all about, this book is a must-read. If only Dr. Vlach had written it 14 years ago!

(By John MacArthur)

That’s a fashionable concern, judging from the trends in devotional booklets, home Bible study discussions, Sunday-school literature, and most popular preaching.

The question of what Scripture means has taken a back seat to the issue of what it means “to me.”

The difference may seem insignificant at first. Nevertheless, our obsession with the Scripture’s applicability reflects a fundamental weakness. We have adopted practicality as the ultimate judge of the worth of God’s Word. We bury ourselves in passages that overtly relate to daily living, and ignore those that don’t.

Early in my ministry, I made a conscious commitment to biblical preaching. My first priority has always been to answer the question, “What does this passage mean?” After I’ve explained as clearly and accurately as possible the meaning of God’s Word, then I exhort people to obey and apply it to their own lives.

The Bible speaks for itself to the human heart; it is not my role as a preacher to try to tailor the message. That’s why I preach my way through entire books of the Bible, dealing carefully with each verse and phrase–even though that occasionally means spending time in passages that don’t readily lend themselves to anecdotal or motivational messages.

I am grateful to the Lord for the way He has used this expository approach in our church and in the lives of our radio listeners.

But now and then someone tells me frankly that my preaching needs to be less doctrinal and more practical.

Practical application is vital. I don’t want to minimize its importance. But the distinction between doctrinal and practical truth is artificial; doctrine is practical! In fact, nothing is more practical than sound doctrine.

Too many Christians view doctrine as heady and theoretical. They have dismissed doctrinal passages as unimportant, divisive, threatening, or simply impractical. A best-selling Christian book I just read warns readers to be on guard against preachers whose emphasis is on interpreting Scripture rather than applying it.

Wait a minute. Is that wise counsel? No it is not.

There is no danger of irrelevant doctrine; the real threat is an undoctrinal attempt at relevance. Application not based on solid interpretation has led Christians into all kinds of confusion.

No discipline is more sorely needed in the contemporary church than expositional biblical teaching. Too many have bought the lie that doctrine is something abstract and threatening, unrelated to daily life.

It is in vogue to substitute psychology and spoon-fed application for doctrinal substance, while demeaning theological and expositional ministry.

But the pastor who turns away from preaching sound doctrine abdicates the primary responsibility of an elder: “holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9).

Practical insights, gimmicks, and illustrations mean little if they’re not attached to divine principles. There’s no basis for godly behavior apart from the truth of God’s Word.

There are only three options: We teach truth, error, or nothing at all.

Before the preacher asks anyone to perform a certain duty, he must first deal with doctrine. He must develop his message around theological themes and draw out the principles of the texts. Then the truth can be applied.

Romans provides the clearest biblical example. Paul didn’t give any exhortation until he had given eleven chapters of theology.

He scaled incredible heights of truth, culminating in 11:33-36: “Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.”

Then in chapter 12, he turned immediately to the practical consequences of the doctrine of the first 11 chapters. No passage in Scripture captures the Christian’s responsibility to the truth more clearly than Romans 12:1-2. There, building on eleven chapters of profound doctrine, Paul calls each believer to a supreme act of spiritual worship–giving oneself as a living sacrifice. Doctrine gives rise to dedication to Christ, the greatest practical act. And the remainder of the book of Romans goes on to explain the many practical outworkings of one’s dedication to Christ.

Paul followed the same pattern in Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Thessalonians. The doctrinal message came first. Upon that foundation he built the practical application, making the logical connection with the word therefore (Rom. 12:1; Gal. 5:1; Eph. 4:1; Phil. 2:1) or then (Col. 3:1; 1 Thess. 4:1).

True doctrine transforms behavior as it is woven into the fabric of everyday life. But it must be understood if it is to have its impact. The real challenge of the ministry is to dispense the truth clearly and accurately. Practical application comes easily by comparison.

No believer can apply truth he doesn’t know. Those who don’t understand what the Bible really says about marriage, divorce, family, child-rearing, discipline, money, debt, work, service to Christ, eternal rewards, helping the poor, caring for widows, respecting government, and other teachings won’t be able to apply it.

Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about salvation cannot be saved. Those who don’t know what the Bible teaches about holiness are incapable of dealing with sin. Thus they are unable to live fully to their own blessedness and God’s glory.

The nucleus of all that is truly practical is sown up in the teaching of Scripture. We don’t make the Bible relevant; it is inherently so, simply because it is God’s Word. And after all, how can anything God says be irrelevant?

When Martin Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms in 1521 and asked to recant his teaching, he replied, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.”

Luther’s well-known formulation, “Scripture and plain reason,” is the only basis on which we can properly ground true spiritual discernment.

Scripture isn’t antithetical to sound, rational wisdom, though many today imagine otherwise. Reason is no substitute for Scripture, of course, but when good reason and sound logic are kept subject to the authority of Scripture, they are in no way a threat to the truth. On the contrary, the application of sound, logical thinking to the truth of Scripture is a key aspect of the formula for discernment.

Contrary to what a lot of people these days assume, discernment is not a mystical or intuitive ability to know the truth as if by magic. It is the skill of understanding, interpreting, and applying truth accurately. Discernment is a cognitive act. Therefore no one who spurns right doctrine or sound reason can be truly discerning.

Authentic spiritual discernment must begin with Scripture-revealed truth. Without a firm grounding in divine revelation, human reason always degenerates into skepticism (a denial that anything can be known for certain), rationalism (the theory that reason is a source of truth), secularism (an approach to life that purposely excludes God), or any number of other anti-Christian philosophies.

When Scripture condemns human wisdom (1 Cor. 3:19), it is not denouncing logic and reason per se, but humanistic ideology divorced from the divinely-revealed truth of God’s Word. In other words, reason apart from the Word of God leads inevitably to unsound ideas, but reason subjected to the Word of God is at the heart of wise spiritual discernment.

I’m convinced the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything we believe as Christians.

Sadly, it is a foundation that is being systematically undermined by the very institutions that should be most vigorously defending it. More and more Christian educational institutions, apologists, and theologians are abandoning faith in the literal truth of Genesis 1-3.

I recall reading a survey a few years ago which revealed that in one of America’s leading evangelical accrediting associations, whose membership boasted scores of evangelical Bible colleges and universities, only five or six college-level schools remain solidly opposed to the old-earth view of creation. The rest are open to a reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 that accommodates evolutionary theories.

Scores of well-known Bible teachers and apologists see the whole question as moot, and some even aggressively argue that a literal approach to Genesis is detrimental to the credibility of Christianity. They have given up the battle—or worse, joined the attack against biblical creationism.

I’m thankful for those who are still faithfully resisting the trend—organizations like Answers in Genesis, the Creation Research Society, and the Institute for Creation Research. These organizations and others like them involve many expert scientists who challenge the presuppositions of evolutionists on technical and scientific grounds. They clearly demonstrate that scientific proficiency is not incompatible with faith in the literal truth of Scripture—and that the battle for the beginning is ultimately a battle between two mutually exclusive faiths—faith in Scripture versus faith in anti-theistic hypotheses. It is not really a battle between science and the Bible.

As Christians, we believe the Bible is truth revealed to us by God, who is the true Creator of the universe. That belief is the basic foundation of all genuine Christianity. It is utterly incompatible with the speculative presuppositions of the naturalists.

In Scripture the Creator Himself has revealed to us everything essential for life and godliness. And it starts with an account of creation. If the biblical creation account is in any degree unreliable, the rest of Scripture stands on a shaky foundation.

But the foundation is not shaky. The more I understand what God has revealed to us about our origin, the more I see clearly that the foundation stands firm. I agree with those who say it is time for the people of God to take a fresh look at the biblical account of creation. But I disagree with those who think that calls for any degree of capitulation to the transient theories of naturalism. Only an honest look at Scripture, with sound principles of hermeneutics, will yield the right understanding of the creation and fall of our race.

The Bible gives a clear and cogent account of the beginnings of the cosmos and humanity. There is absolutely no reason for an intelligent mind to balk at accepting it as a literal account of the origin of our universe. Although the biblical account clashes at many points with naturalistic and evolutionary hypotheses, it is not in conflict with a single scientific fact. Indeed, all the geological, astronomical, and scientific data can be easily reconciled with the biblical account. The conflict is not between science and Scripture, but between the biblicist’s confident faith and the naturalist’s willful skepticism.

To many, having been indoctrinated in schools where the line between hypothesis and fact is systematically and deliberately being blurred, that may sound naive or unsophisticated, but it is nonetheless a fact. Again, science has never disproved one word of Scripture, and it never will. On the other hand, evolutionary theory has always been in conflict with Scripture and always will be. But the notion that the universe evolved through a series of natural processes remains an unproven and untestable hypothesis, and therefore it is not “science.” There is no proof whatsoever that the universe evolved naturally. Evolution is a mere theory—and a questionable, constantly-changing one at that. Ultimately, if accepted at all, it must be taken by sheer faith.

How much better to base our faith on the sure foundation of God’s Word! There is no ground of knowledge equal to or superior to Scripture. Unlike scientific theory, it is eternally unchanging. Unlike the opinions of man, its truth is revealed by the Creator Himself! It is not, as many suppose, at odds with science. True science has always affirmed the teaching of Scripture. Archaeology, for instance, has demonstrated the truthfulness of the biblical record time and time again. Wherever Scripture’s record of history may be examined and either proved or disproved by archaeological evidence or reliable independent documentary evidence, the biblical record has always been verified. There is no valid reason whatsoever to doubt or distrust the biblical record of creation, and there is certainly no need to adjust the biblical account to try to make it fit the latest fads in evolutionary theory.

Again, a biblical understanding of the creation and fall of humanity establishes the necessary foundation for the Christian world-view. Everything Scripture teaches about sin and redemption assumes the literal truth of the first three chapters of Genesis. If we wobble to any degree on the truth of this passage, we undermine the very foundations of our faith.

If Genesis 1-3 doesn’t tell us the truth, why should we believe anything else in the Bible? Without a right understanding of our origin, we have no way to understand anything about our spiritual existence. We cannot know our purpose, and we cannot be certain of our destiny. After all, if God is not the Creator, then maybe He’s not the Redeemer either. If we cannot believe the opening chapters of Scripture, how can we be certain of anything the Bible says?

To those who will inevitably complain that such a view is credulous and unsophisticated, my reply is that it is certainly superior to the irrational notion that an ordered and incomprehensibly complex universe sprung by accident from nothingness and emerged by chance into the marvel that it is.

Scripture offers the only accurate explanations that can be found anywhere about how our race began, where our moral sense originated, why we cannot seem to do what our own consciences tells us is right, and how we can be redeemed from this hopeless situation.

Scripture is not merely the best of several possible explanations. It is the Word of God.

One popular view held by many old-earth advocates is known as the “framework hypothesis.” This is the belief that the “days” of creation are not even distinct eras, but overlapping stages of a long evolutionary process. According to this view, the six days described in Genesis 1 do not set forth a chronology of any kind, but rather a metaphorical “framework” by which the creative process is described for our finite human minds.

This view was apparently first set forth by liberal German theologians in the nineteenth century, but it has been adopted and propagated in recent years by some leading evangelicals, most notably Dr. Meredith G. Kline of Westminster theological seminary.

The framework hypothesis starts with the view that the “days” of creation in Genesis 1 are symbolic expressions that have nothing to do with time. Framework advocates note the obvious parallelism between days one and four (the creation of light and the placing of lights in the firmament), days two and five (the separation of air and water and the creation of fish and birds to inhabit air and water), and days three and six (the emergence of the dry land and the creation of land animals)—and they suggest that such parallelism is a clue that the structure of the chapter is merely poetic.

Thus, according to this theory, the sequence of creation may essentially be disregarded, as if some literary form in the passage nullified its literal meaning.

Naturally, advocates of this view accept the modern scientific theory that the formation of the earth required several billion years. They claim the biblical account is nothing more than a metaphorical framework that should overlay our scientific understanding of creation. The language and details of Genesis 1 are unimportant, they say; the only truth this passage aims to teach us is that the hand of divine Providence guided the evolutionary process. The Genesis creation account is thus reduced to a literary device—an extended metaphor that is not to be accepted at face value.

But if the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length of the days is defined by periods of day and night that are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The week itself defines the pattern of human labor and rest. The days are marked by the passage of morning and evening. How could these not signify the chronological progression of God’s creative work?

The problem with the framework hypothesis is that it employs a destructive method of interpretation. If the plain meaning of Genesis 1 may be written off and the language treated as nothing more than a literary device, why not do the same with Genesis 3? Indeed, most theological liberals do insist that the talking serpent in chapter 3 signals a fable or a metaphor, and therefore they reject that passage as a literal and historical record of how humanity fell into sin.

Where does metaphor ultimately end and history begin? After the flood? After the tower of Babel? And why there? Why not regard all the biblical miracles as literary devices? Why could not the resurrection itself be dismissed as a mere allegory? In the words of E. J. Young, “If the ‘framework’ hypothesis were applied to the narratives of the virgin birth or the resurrection or Romans 5:12 ff., it could as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content of those passages as it now does the content of the first chapter of Genesis.” [Studies in Genesis One (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, n.d.), 99.]

Young points out the fallacy of the “framework” hypothesis:

The question must be raised, “If a nonchronological view of the days be admitted, what is the purpose of mentioning six days?” For, once we reject the chronological sequence which Genesis gives, we are brought to the point where we can really say very little about the content of Genesis one. It is impossible to hold that there are two trios of days, each paralleling the other. Day four . . . speaks of God’s placing the light-bearers in the firmament. The firmament, however, had been made on the second day. If the fourth and the first days are two aspects of the same thing, then the second day also (which speaks of the firmament) must precede days one and four. If this procedure be allowed, with its wholesale disregard of grammar, why may we not be consistent and equate all four of these days with the first verse of Genesis? There is no defense against such a procedure, once we abandon the clear language of the text. In all seriousness it must be asked, Can we believe that the first chapter of Genesis intends to teach that day two preceded days one and four? To ask that question is to answer it. [Ibid.]

The simple, rather obvious, fact is that no one would ever think the time-frame for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God’s creative work parallel a normal human work week.

The framework hypothesis is the direct result of making modern scientific theory a hermeneutical guideline by which to interpret Scripture. The basic presupposition behind the framework hypothesis is the notion that science speaks with more authority about origins and the age of the earth than Scripture does. Those who embrace such a view have in effect made science an authority over Scripture. They are permitting scientific hypotheses—mere human opinions that have no divine authority whatsoever—to be the hermeneutical rule by which Scripture is interpreted.

There is no warrant for that. Modern scientific opinion is not a valid hermeneutic for interpreting Genesis (or any other portion of Scripture, for that matter). Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 2:16)—inspired truth from God. “[Scripture] never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Jesus summed the point up perfectly when He said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17, KJV). The Bible is supreme truth, and therefore it is the standard by which scientific theory should be evaluated, not vice versa.

(By John MacArthur)

I realize, of course, that some old-earth creationists do hold to the literal creation of Adam and affirm that Adam was a historical figure. But their decision to accept the creation of Adam as literal involves an arbitrary hermeneutical shift at Genesis 1:26-27 and then again at Genesis 2:7.

If everything around those verses is handled allegorically or symbolically, it is unjustifiable to take the description of Adam’s creation and fall in a literal and historical sense. Therefore, the old-earth creationists’ method of interpreting the Genesis text actually undermines the historicity of Adam. Having already decided to treat the creation account itself as myth or allegory, they have no grounds to insist (suddenly and arbitrarily, it seems) that the creation of Adam is literal history. Their belief in a historical Adam is simply inconsistent with their own exegesis of the rest of the text.

But it is a necessary inconsistency if one is to affirm an old earth and remain evangelical. Because if Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world is impossible to make sense of.

Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 1 Timothy 2:13-14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1-3 teaches about Adam’s creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

What “old-earth creationists” (including, to a large degree, even the evangelical ones) are doing with Genesis 1-3 is precisely what religious liberals have always done with all of Scripture—spiritualizing and reinterpreting the text allegorically to make it mean what they want it to mean. It is a dangerous way to handle Scripture. And it involves a perilous and unnecessary capitulation to the religious presuppositions of naturalism—not to mention a serious dishonor to God.

Evangelicals who accept an old-earth interpretation of Genesis have embraced a hermeneutic that is hostile to a high view of Scripture. They are bringing to the opening chapters of Scripture a method of biblical interpretation that has built-in anti-evangelical presuppositions. Those who adopt this approach have already embarked on a process that invariably overthrows faith. Churches and colleges that embrace this view will not remain evangelical long.

(By John MacArthur)

At this moment in history, even though most of modern society is already fully committed to an evolutionary and naturalistic world view, our society still benefits from the collective memory of a biblical world-view. People in general still believe human life is special. They still hold remnants of biblical morality, such as the notion that love is the greatest virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13); service to one another is better than fighting for personal dominion (Matthew 20:25-27); and humility and submission are superior to arrogance and rebellion (1 Peter 5:5).

But to whatever degree secular society still holds those virtues in esteem, it does so entirely without any philosophical foundation. Having already rejected the God revealed in Scripture and embraced instead pure naturalistic materialism, the modern mind has no grounds whatsoever for holding to any ethical standard; no reason whatsoever for esteeming “virtue” over “vice”; and no justification whatsoever for regarding human life as more valuable than any other form of life. Modern society has already abandoned its moral foundation.

As humanity enters the twenty-first century, an even more frightening prospect looms. Now even the church seems to be losing the will to defend what Scripture teaches about human origins. Many in the church are too intimidated or too embarrassed to affirm the literal truth of the biblical account of creation. They are confused by a chorus of authoritative-sounding voices who insist that it is possible—and even pragmatically necessary—to reconcile Scripture with the latest theories of the naturalists.

Of course, theological liberals have long espoused theistic evolution. They have never been reluctant to deny the literal truth of Scripture on any issue. But the new trend is different, comprising evangelicals who contend that it is possible to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with the theories of modern naturalism without doing violence to any essential doctrine of Christianity. They affirm evangelical statements of faith. They teach in evangelical institutions. They insist they believe the Bible is inerrant and authoritative. But they are willing to reinterpret Genesis to accommodate evolutionary theory. They express shock and surprise that anyone would question their approach to Scripture. And they sometimes employ the same sort of ridicule and intimidation religious liberals and atheistic skeptics have always leveled against believers: “You don’t seriously think the universe is less than a billion years old, do you?”

The result is that over the past couple of decades, large numbers of evangelicals have shown a surprising willingness to take a completely non-evangelical approach to interpreting the early chapters of Genesis. More and more are embracing the view known as “old-earth creationism,” which blends some of the principles of biblical creationism with naturalistic and evolutionary theories, seeking to reconcile two opposing world-views. And in order to accomplish this, old-earth creationists end up explaining away rather than honestly exegeting the biblical creation account.

A handful of scientists who profess Christianity are among those who have led the way in this revisionism—most of them lacking any skill whatsoever in biblical interpretation. But they are setting forth a major reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 designed specifically to accommodate the current trends of naturalist theory. In their view, the six days of creation in Genesis 1 are long ages, the chronological order of creation is flexible, and most of the details about creation given in Scripture can be written off as poetic or symbolic figures of speech.

Many who should know better—pastors and Christian leaders who defend the faith against false teachings all the time—have been tempted to give up the battle for the opening chapters of Genesis.

An evangelical pastor recently approached me after I preached. He was confused and intimidated by several books he had read—all written by ostensibly evangelical authors—yet all arguing that the earth is billions of years old. These authors treat most of the evolutionists’ theories as indisputable scientific fact. And in some cases they wield scientific or academic credentials that intimidate readers into thinking their views are the result of superior expertise, rather than naturalistic presuppositions they have brought to the biblical text. This pastor asked if I believed it possible that the first three chapters of Genesis might really be just a series of literary devices—a poetic saga giving the “spiritual” meaning of what actually occurred through billions of years of evolution.

I answered unapologetically: No, I do not. I am convinced that Genesis 1-3 ought to be taken at face value—as the divinely revealed history of creation. Nothing about the Genesis text itself suggests that the biblical creation account is merely symbolic, poetic, allegorical, or mythical. The main thrust of the passage simply cannot be reconciled with the notion that “creation” occurred via natural evolutionary processes over long periods of time. And I don’t believe a faithful handling of the biblical text, by any acceptable principles of hermeneutics, can possibly reconcile those chapters with the theory of evolution or any of the other allegedly scientific theories about the origin of the universe.

Furthermore, much like the philosophical and moral chaos that results from naturalism, all sorts of theological mischief ensues when we reject or compromise the literal truth of the biblical account of creation and the fall of Adam.

(By John MacArthur)

The following article comes from John’s commentary (Moody, 1996) on 1 Corinthians 15, specifically verse 29, in which the apostle Paul writes:

“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

This verse is one of the most difficult in all of Scripture, and has many legitimate possible interpretations; it has also, however, been used to support many strange and heretical ideas. The careful and honest interpreter may survey the several dozen interpretations offered and still not be dogmatic about what it means. But we can be dogmatic, from the clear teaching of other parts of Scripture, about some of the things it does not mean. As to what this verse does mean, we can only guess, since history has locked it into obscurity.

We can be sure, for example, that it does not teach vicarious, or proxy, baptism for the dead, as claimed by ancient gnostic heretics such as Marcion and by the Mormon church today. Paul did not teach that a person who has died can be saved, or helped in any way, by another person’s being baptized in his behalf.

Baptismal regeneration, the idea that one is saved by being baptized, or that baptism is in some way necessary for salvation, is unscriptural. The idea of vicarious baptismal regeneration is still further removed from biblical truth. If a person cannot save himself by being baptized, he certainly cannot save anyone else through that act. Salvation is by personal faith in Jesus Christ alone. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8; cf. Rom. 3:28; etc.). That is the repeated and consistent teaching of both the Old and New Testaments. Quoting from Genesis 15:6, Paul says, “For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’ ” (Rom. 4:3). The only way any person has ever come to God is by personal faith.

If one person’s faith cannot save another, then certainly one person’s baptism cannot save another. Baptism is simply an act of obedient faith that proclaims identity with Christ (Rom. 6:3–4). No one is saved by baptism—not even living persons, much less dead ones. “It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Death ends all opportunity for salvation and for spiritual help of any sort.

In the New Testament baptism is closely associated with salvation, of which it is an outward testimony. Although a person does not have to be baptized to be a Christian, he has to be baptized to be an obedient Christian—with the obvious exception of a believer who has no opportunity to be baptized before death. Baptism is an integral part of Christ’s Great Commission (Matt. 28:19). In the early church a person who was saved was assumed to have been baptized; and a person was not baptized unless the church was satisfied he was saved. To ask, then, if a person was baptized, was equivalent to asking if he was saved.

If we assume that Paul was using the term baptized in that sense [of water baptism], then those … who are baptized could refer to those who were giving testimony that they were Christians. In other words, he was simply referring to believers under the title of those who are baptized, not to some special act of baptism. The dead could also refer to Christians, to deceased believers whose lives were a persuasive testimony leading to the salvation of the baptized. This seems to be a reasonable view that does no injustice to the text or context.

The Greek huper, translated for in verse 29, has a dozen or more meanings, and shades of meaning—including “for,” “above,” “about,” “across,” “beyond,” “on behalf of,” “instead of,” “because of,” and “in reference to”—depending on grammatical structure and context. Although for is a perfectly legitimate translation here, in light of the context and of Paul’s clear teaching elsewhere, “because of” could also be a proper rendering.

In light of that reasoning and interpretation, we could guess that Paul may have simply been saying that people were being saved (baptism being the sign) because of the exemplary lives and witness of faithful believers who had died. Whether this is the right interpretation of this verse we cannot be certain, but we can be certain that people often come to salvation because of the testimony of those whom they desire to emulate.

Some years ago a young man in our church was told by his doctors that he had only a short time to live. His response was not one of regret or bitterness but of joy at the prospect of soon being with his Savior. Because of his confident faith and contentment in face of death, one person I know of, and perhaps more, came to a saving knowledge of Christ.

It may be that the first seeds of faith were planted in Paul’s own heart by the testimony of Stephen, whose death the young Paul (then Saul) witnessed and whose confident and loving dying testimony he heard (Acts 7:59—8:1).

In 1 Corinthians 15:29 Paul may be affirming the truth that Christians who face death with joy and hope are a powerful testimony to the unbelieving world.

This will be our final post on the NT believer’s relationship to the Mosaic Law. This is our ninth post on this topic. Previous posts can be found at the following links: Post 1; Post 2; Post 3; Post 4; Post 5; Post 6; Post 7; Post 8.

In this post, we will seek to work through the implications of our proposed solution. In other words, based on our interpretation of the biblical data, how are Christians practically to approach the Old Testament Law?

Clearly, they are not to follow all of its restrictions, for the Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses.  Yet, at the same time, they are not to completely ignore the Law.  After all, the apostles often invoked the Law, appealing to it as a source of authority for many of their teachings.

In the opinion of this writer, David Dorsey’s four-fold approach best explains the biblical data, avoiding the pitfalls of some of the other interpretations (Dorsey, “The Law of Moses and the Christian: A Compromise,” JETS 34/3 [Sept. 1991]: 332-34. For a similar approach see J. D. Hays, “Applying the Old Testament Today,” BSac 158/629 [January 2001]: 21-35 [online here].)

Following these four steps allows the New Testament believer to find applicable instruction in any of the Old Testament laws—including those clearly abolished by the apostolic writers.

1) First, believers must recognize that the Mosaic Law is not binding for Christians. This includes all of the individual precepts that make up that Law. These commands, whether deemed moral, ceremonial, or civil, were part of God’s covenant with Israel. They are not part of His covenant with the Church. Thus, the Mosaic Law must be interpreted in the same grammatical-historical method as the rest of the Old Testament. Those who seek to understand it must begin by putting themselves in the shoes of an ancient Hebrew.  After all, this is the audience to whom the Mosaic Law was originally intended.

2) Second, the interpreter must determine the original meaning, purpose, and significance of the individual command.  Within the original historical context, why did God give the commands that He did?  What were the apparent reasons or motives behind His various expectations?

3) Third, Christians must determine the theological significance of the individual command.  In other words, what does this specific law reveal about the moral character, essence, and being of God (the Lawgiver).  Dorsey explains:

What does this law reflect about God’s mind, his personality, his qualities, attitudes, priorities, values, concerns, likes and dislikes, his teaching methodologies, the kinds of attitudes and moral and ethical standards he wants to see in those who love him? In spite of the fact that these 613 laws were issued to another people who lived at another time under very different circumstances than ours (again, like the prophetic oracles of Jeremiah), they come from the God whom we too serve, and they represent a vast reservoir of knowledge about him and his ways. (p. 333)

4) Finally, New Testament believers must determine the practical implications (application) of the theological insights found in the individual Old Testament command. Granted, the New Testament application is often quite different than the Old Testament application. Nevertheless, the theological truth behind the command is applicable in any age because it reflects the moral essence of the immutable God.

In explaining this process, Dorsey gives an example from Exodus 22:25 (a civil law).  The verse states: “If you lend money to one of My people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”  Does this mean that Christians should never charge fellow-Christians interest? Examining this law in lieu of Dorsey’s four-step process reveals the answer. First, Christians must remember that this law is not specifically for them, but rather for Old Testament Israel. Thus, just because it is mentioned in the Mosaic Law, it is not necessarily binding.

Second, the original purpose of the law is fairly straightforward: the Israelites were not to charge interest when assisting the poor by lending them money. Moreover, the law encourages those who are financially stable to be sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, willing to help them even when there is no personal financial gain.

Third, as far as theological insights are concerned, the divine Lawgiver is clearly concerned about the needs of the poor—both physical (financial) and emotional.  Moreover, He desires that His people share this same concern, being willing to help those in need even when personal sacrifice is involved.

Finally, after moving through the previous three steps, the New Testament saint is ready for his own personal application. Rather than rejecting or ignoring the needs of others, the New Testament saint is reminded to reach out to others—financially, if necessary. Because the God of the Christian is the same as the God of the Hebrew, the Christian can be confident that he is being an “imitator of God” (Eph. 5:1) when he applies the theological truth of the Old Testament text. Although this principle (to be sensitive to the needs of others) is repeated in the New Testament (James 1:27-2:17), the Christian can confidently assert it based on the teaching of the Old Testament. Of course, the theological principles of the Old Testament must be applied in line with the New Testament.  Nonetheless, the verification for the Old Testament principle (and subsequent application) is not merely that it is repeated in the New Testament but rather that it reflects the very heart of God.

Conclusion

This study began by asserting two propositions. They are: (1) the New Testament writers assert that the Mosaic Law is no longer binding for the Christian; and (2) the New Testament writers appealed to that same Law and embraced it as the basis for much of their apostolic instruction. While these statements initially sound contradictory, they are reconciled in that the God who gave the Law of Moses is the same God who gave the Law of Christ—thus there is great overlap between the two codes even though the Law of Moses is no longer in effect. The apostles understood that the Law of Moses was no longer binding, yet they appealed to the theological principles found in that Law because they also understood that the moral essence of the immutable Lawgiver was reflected therein. After identifying certain theological principles, the apostolic writers were able to apply them in accordance with the Law of Christ.

Christians today should do the same. In approaching the Mosaic Law as a reflection of the divine Lawgiver (revealing theological principles based on God’s moral essence), NT believers can then appropriately study the Law of Moses—being thereby trained and equipped for righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17).