Mike begins by suggesting that this chapter will be the most helpful one in the book. He is right, or at least it has been for me. Why is it so important? He explains upfront:

"I'll cut to the chase: planting a church can be brutal on your marriage. It almost wrecked mine. No, scratch that. My sin almost wrecked our marriage. Church planting was simply the arena in which the whole thing played out" (85).

So, this chapter explains how his own serious marriage problems developed. Both he and Karen became extremely busy in keeping Guilford alive. Then the fights started—constantly, all the time for months.

Then it got worse. They had their third child, experiencing the additional stress of having three under the age of four. And as if this was not enough, his wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Their marriage troubles and fights continued to increase through these trials.

Mike doesn't let himself off the hook. In fact, he diagnoses his sin: fear of man. He cared too much about success, leading to too much work for him and his wife. He also didn't protect Karen from the expectations of the congregation (Preacher's Wife perfectionism).

Nevertheless, God does not give up on us! Things began to change as Mike was reading James 4—he realized that he needed more grace. They began to open up their struggles and problems to others. Then they met a couple involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries who helped them tackle their marriage problems in light of the gospel. Mike and Karen began to forgive each other and change, praise God!

As you can tell, I was deeply convicted and challenged by this chapter. While I have not been involved in church planting, I too can see my susceptibility to the fear of man. As I read these words, I asked myself if I am prepared to serve in ministry:

"Fear of man is one of the worst forms of pride. And pastoring a tiny, fledgling church will give you unending opportunities to fear men.... Even though I knew better, I cared too much about the appearance of success. I didn't just want the church to do well—I wanted it to do well in ways that were obvious to others.... As a result, I took too much onto my plate and put too much onto Karen's.... I didn't want the service to fail in the eyes of other people, but I didn't care about failing at home" (89-90).

Now here is a man with all of his theological "ducks in a row." He believes in the sovereignty of God and that only Christ can build his church. However, his practice did not line up with his beliefs. In the day-to-day life of the church, he depended on himself for the church's success. Would I be any different? I do not want to answer too quickly. I pray that God will richly bless my marriage with his grace, regardless of whatever ministry he calls me to.

What did you think of this week's reading? Have you been challenged?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

1. By connecting Him with past revelation from God.

2. By announcing Him as present revelation from God.

3. By connecting Him to future revelation from God.

 Denying moral law as a constant, non-dynamic principle ends up tinkering with the grounds of our justification. The ground of our justification is Christ’s obedience to the law all men have broken, which existed prior to the publication of the New Testament and prior to the promulgation of the Ten Commandments on Sinai.

Before Mike was called as Pastor of Guilford Fellowship, the church asked a consultant to assess their situation and give recommendations. Given the changing demographics of those living around the church, one option was to disband and allow a Spanish-speaking church plant to have the church building. While they didn't go in this direction, as Mike points out, God will always get his way. And his way at Guilford is to love and reach the Spanish-speaking community that surrounded them.

So how did it happen? Mike quickly saw the need for a Spanish ministry and began to pray. God answered by having a married couple who are native Spanish speakers join their church. This man became quite a gifted evangelist and teacher, and he began to lead more and more in an evangelistic Bible study. As the Lord continued to bless this group, Guilford recognized the need for them to have their own local congregation. God once again answered their prayers by providing an experienced pastor from El Salvador.

Not to say that this outreach has been easy for Mike and the church. Most of the Spanish community is nice and law-abiding. But there are also gangs, graffiti, and other challenges. Nevertheless, the church was willing to "step up to the plate" and begin preaching to gang members, illegal immigrants, prostitutes, and others. This has led to Mike's insistence of reaching out to the poor and the destitute, to the outcasts and the downtrodden.

Their Spanish ministry has also allowed them to show the love of Christ to the community, which has become heavily alienated between their neighborhood's English-speaking and Spanish-speaking populations. Guilford continues to support and maintain good relations with the Spanish church, striving to communicate and live out the power of the gospel.

As Mike concludes:

"We don't need to make a ton of plans and strategies for how we are going to reach the world. God is more passionate about spreading his gospel than we are. We only need to be passionate about following his lead and trusting him for his provision" (84).

This truth is so simple, but so often overlooked. I have seen churches that plan, program, and strategize to death. But what we need most is to live our lives more and more in light of the gospel.

I was most challenged when Mike wrote:

"The Bible teaches that the gospel will find its warmest welcome among the poor and destitute, the outcasts and the downtrodden. The riches of the world powerfully tempt us to trust in them for our well-being.... So if you are planning on planting a church, consider swinging at the low-hanging fruit, as one of my seminary professors put it. Think about ways that your church can reach out to those whose station in life might make them more aware of their need for Christ. Consider making your housing choices accordingly, even if it means living in conditions that might not excite your mother-in-law" (80-81).

Am I willing to do this? Even when I have a family with several young children? May the Lord grant me the strength to do his will!

But now it is your turn. Thoughts?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Brief explanation of the Exodus

How the rest of the Bible picks up on Exodus themes

Old Testament

1. The Exodus is seen as God’s greatest act of redemption for all the world to see.

Deuteronomy 4:32-35  32 “Indeed, ask now concerning the former days which were before you, since the day that God created man on the earth, and inquire from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything been done like this great thing, or has anything been heard like it?  33 “Has any people heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire, as you have heard it, and survived?  34 “Or has a god tried to go to take for himself a nation from within another nation by trials, by signs and wonders and by war and by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm and by great terrors, as the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?  35 “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him.

Joshua 4:23-24   23 “For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan before you until you had crossed, just as the LORD your God had done to the Red Sea, which He dried up before us until we had crossed;  24 that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty, so that you may fear the LORD your God forever.”

2. The Psalms pick up on the Exodus in many places.

Psalm 66:1-6  NAU Psalm 66:1 For the choir director. A Song. A Psalm. Shout joyfully to God, all the earth;  2 Sing the glory of His name; Make His praise glorious.  3 Say to God, “How awesome are Your works! Because of the greatness of Your power Your enemies will give feigned obedience to You.  4 “All the earth will worship You, And will sing praises to You; They will sing praises to Your name.” Selah.  5 Come and see the works of God, Who is awesome in His deeds toward the sons of men.  6 He turned the sea into dry land; They passed through the river on foot; There let us rejoice in Him!

3. The Prophets pick up on the Exodus and actually predict a future or new Exodus, a future or new Israel, a future or new covenant and all connected to a new mediator, a new Servant of the Lord – the Messiah, who ends up being Jesus (Is. 40:1-11)!

4. OT developing theology of the Exodus after the Exodus: “The entry into and conquest of the Promised Land in Joshua is the exodus experience of the next generation. The book of Judges is structured around cycles of oppression and deliverance for Israel by the hand of the Lord as they cried out for help. The books of Samuel-Kings can be seen as a movement from the impermanence of the exodus wanderings to a stable situation with king and temple and then the ultimate reversion back to an oppressive situation. The prophets transform the original exodus into a new exodus. In the same way that God delivered Israel from Egypt in the past, he will deliver Israel in the future from bondage in the exile.”[3] According to the OT, the Exodus sets the pattern of redemption and leaves its readers in anticipation of a greater Exodus to come.

New Testament

1. Lk. 1:67ff. John the Baptist’s father links the salvation Jesus brings with echoes from the Exodus – “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people, And has raised up a horn of salvation for us…Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us…we are rescued from our enemies to serve God…And you (John the Baptist) will be called the prophet of the Most High, for you will go on before the Lord to prepare His ways; to give His people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.”

2. The name Jesus is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew Joshua, “for He will save His people from their sins.”

3. Lk. 2:30-32 When Jesus is brought to the temple, Simeon connects Jesus to Isaiah 52:10, a second exodus passage. Simeon was one who was “looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” according to the promise of the OT (Lk. 2:38).

4. Mt. 2:13 Just as Pharaoh tried to kill Moses, so Herod tries to kill Jesus.

5. Mt. 2:14 Just as Israel went to Egypt to escape danger (famine), so Jesus went to Egypt to escape danger (Herod).

6. Mt. 2:15 Just as God called His first-born son (Israel) out of Egypt (Ex. 4:22 and Hos. 11:1) to serve Him, so God called Jesus out of Egypt to serve Him.

7. Mt. 2:16 Just as Pharaoh slaughtered male children (Ex. 1), so Herod slaughtered male children (Mt. 2:16).

8. Mt. 3:13-4:11 After Jesus passes through the waters of John’s baptism, He is “led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted...” for forty days. “There can be little doubt that the forty days in the wilderness are a miniature of the forty years Israel spent in the wilderness…”[4]

9. Lk. 11:32 Jesus casts out demons by the finger of God as a sign of the presence of the kingdom of God. The first time the phrase “finger of God occurs in the Bible is in Exodus 8:19, “Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, This is the finger of God” in response to Aaron stretching out his staff and striking the dust which became gnats that covered man and beast.”

10.  As Israel had twelve tribes, so Christ chose 12 apostles. As Moses chose 70 elders to help him, so Christ sent out 70 disciples.

11.  In John 6 Jesus links himself with the manna in the wilderness (Jn. 6:48-50, “I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I give for the life of the world is My flesh.” Jesus is heaven-sent manna for the soul!

12.  Just as Moses went up to a mountain with three companions (Ex. 24:1), so does Jesus (Mt. 17:1, “…Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain…”).

13.  Just as Moses’ face shone with the glory of God (Ex. 34:29), so Jesus became dazzling with celestial brightness (Mt. 17:2, “…His face shone like the sun, and His garments became white as light.”).

14.  Luke tells us what two glorified men talking with Jesus on the mountain were discussing. (Luke 9:30, 31, “And behold, two men were talking with Him; and they were Moses and Elijah, who appearing in glory, were speaking of His departure [lit. exodus] which He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem.”

15.  Just as God spoke on the mountain out of a cloud with Moses (Ex. 24ff.), so God speaks on the mountain out of a cloud at the transfiguration of Jesus (Mt. 17:5, “While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him.”). This is probably a reference to Deuteronomy 18:15, which says, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen, you shall listen to him.”

16.  John calls Jesus the lamb of God (Jn. 1:29).

17.  John makes sure we know an interesting detail connected to the death of Jesus. “…when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. …For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, ‘NOT A BONE OF HIM SHALL BE BROKEN.” According to Ex. 12:46, the unblemished Passover lamb was to have no broken bones. John says this fulfills the Scripture, probably referring to Ps. 34:20.

18.  Paul tells us that “Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed” (1 Cor. 5:7).

19.  Paul tells us that the “spiritual rock which followed [the fathers in the wilderness under Moses] was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4).

20.  Paul says that believers ought to thank “the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light, who rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:12b-14). There are several echoes of the Exodus here.

21.  In the book of Hebrews, Christ is depicted as being more glorious than Moses (Heb. 3:1-6).

22.  In Hebrews, believers are told that they have come to something way better than the OT Israelites (Heb. 12:18-24).

23.  Peter says that believers are “chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood” (1 Pt. 1:1b-2). The blood of an unblemished male lamb was to be sprinkled over the doorposts of Israelite homes during the Exodus event. When God saw the blood, He passed over that home, sparing it the judgment of the death of the first-born.

24.  Peter says that the believer’s “inheritance [is] imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pt. 1:4).

25.  Peter says believers have been redeemed “…with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pt. 1:19).

26.  In Rev. “15:2ff. we are given a vision of the sea of glass mingled with fire and we hear the song of Moses the servant of God and the song of the Lamb. “The first triumphant Exodus has prefigured the second and we are to look ahead to its fulfillment in God’s victory at the end of time.”[5]

[1] “EXODUS, SECOND EXODUS,” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 253.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 254.

[4] Nixon, “The Exodus in the New Testament,” 13.

[5] Nixon, “The Exodus in the New Testament,” 29.

2. We learn something of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. “The Old Testament predicts a pattern, the New Testament proclaims a fulfillment.”

3. We learn something of the function of the Exodus in the Bible. It sets the stage for the work of Christ.

4. We learn something of how God works in history. His past actions set the stage for future actions. This displays His sovereignty in history and that He is pointing history in a clear and definite direction. History has a goal – the glory of God displayed in what He does through His Son! History is Christo-telic!

5. We learn something about Jesus Christ.

He is greater than Moses, greater than Joshua, greater than the unblemished one-year old male lambs of the Passover, greater than the manna in the wilderness, greater than Israel (he past his test in the wilderness), and greater than all the events leading up to, in, and after the Exodus.

The Exodus under Moses saved people from earthly bondage, slavery, and the temporal wrath of God. The greater Exodus under Jesus saves people from spiritual bondage and slavery and the eternal wrath of God.

The Exodus under Moses saved people from sinful Egypt to sinful Canaan. The greater exodus under Jesus saves people from this sinful and sorrowful world to Immanuel’s land – the New Heaven and the New Earth, a world wherein dwells only righteousness.

6. We learn something about the differences between the Exodus under Moses and the Exodus under Christ.

One difference is that all were saved irrespective of faith in the Exodus under Moses; but in the Exodus under Christ, only those who apply the blood to their own souls through faith are saved.

But the greatest and most astonishingly ironic difference is this – in the first Exodus under Moses, God’s first-born son, Israel (Ex. 4:22), was spared judgment – instead, a lamb was slaughtered and the Egyptians’ first-born was killed; in the greater Exodus under Jesus, God’s first-born Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, becomes a curse and is judged and slaughtered instead of Israel or Egypt. Whereas God’s wrath terminated upon His people’s enemy – Egypt; at the cross, God’s wrath terminated upon His Son. Whereas the ancient people crushed an unblemished lamb to divert the wrath of God; God the Father crushed His Son to exhaust His wrath for those who believe.

The audio can be found here or here.

Looks great! You can get it here.

Mike is now pastor of Guilford Fellowship and faithfully preaching God's Word. He has begun to steadily work toward revitalizing this church. But he begins to recognize a new and pressing challenge--membership. He finds more and more people in the local community who consider themselves members of Guilford, but who have not been involved in any way for years. And then there are those who have left the church since he became pastor. None of them had resigned their membership, and most never even bothered to tell him that they were leaving. And if this was not enough, he couldn't even find a membership list to know who were actually members of the church.

What could he do? He led the church to require that all who wanted to remain members must sign the church covenant. After giving this opportunity to any who considered themselves members, Only those in regular attendance were willing to make this commitment. They took the covenants that they had received and created a church membership list.

Then Mike did something that is against everything you will ever read about in church planting and church growth materials. He ditched their mission and vision statements! Can you believe it? But I appreciate his reasoning:

"Look, if you don't know what you're supposed to be doing as a church planter, if you need to write out a statement in order to remember that your church is supposed to evangelize the lost and help Christians grow in Christ, friend, you shouldn't be a church planter. How about casting vision the way Protestants have cast vision for the past five hundred years! Teach God's Word! Explain it to God's people, and tell them God's mission and vision and values and purpose and strategy for their life. Don't refer them back to some mantra that you make sure everyone in the congregation has memorized. Teach them what the Bible says about what it means to be a faithful Christian and a faithful church" (62-63).

So, in many ways, he brings the church to the point where they have a clean slate. What is the next step? Addressing the church's statement of faith. Not that it was all that bad, but it was cobbled together from their denomination's statement and a local seminary's statement. Unfortunately, it majored on the minors in some doctrinal areas, and Mike wanted to root their church more firmly in its historical roots. So the church decided to adopt the New Hampshire Confession of Faith. I know, I know, it is not our beloved 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith or even its American counterpart, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. But at least the pastor led his church to an understanding of the need to have a clear confession, and he includes several reasons why church plants and existing churches should be confessional.

Then Mike tackles the church's constitution and by-laws. Sure this may sound boring and involve many things that many of us could care less about, but we all should care about the nature and structure of the church and its leadership. Using Capitol Hill Baptist Church as their starting point, the committee made a few changes to CHBC's constitution and presented it to the congregation. After a few months of conversation, they voted to adopt it.

One reason why Mike was so intent on revising Guilford's constitution was to move to a plural eldership in the church's leadership. He writes:

"I wanted elders who would function as elders by shepherding and teaching the congregation; and I wanted deacons who would function as deacons by serving the congregation and making sure needs are met.... Establishing a plural eldership doesn't mean neglecting other important parts of the Christian mission; it means raising up more men to lead in the very work of Christian mission" (68-69).

Amen! Like Mike, I see far too many church planters, pastors, and other church leaders today who do not understand the importance of having a plurality of elders. It is the biblical expectation and necessary for the health of the church. This is not a minor issue for those of us who like to debate ecclesiology. It is how God has revealed His churches to be led. And read how Mike explains the benefits he quickly experienced:

"Suddenly I had a recognized group of men (older men, wiser men) with whom I could deliberate about the affairs of the church. The burden of making decisions, planning strategies, and shepherding the flock was now spread across three sets of shoulders" (70).

I wouldn't want it to be any other way.

But now you are up. What are your thoughts?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

2.      Types of Jewish hermeneutical method (a. Literal, b. Midrash, c. Pesher, d. Allegorical, e. Typological)

 a.      Literal

b.      Midrash

c.       Pesher

1)      Defined: Pesher comes from an Aramaic word and means solution or interpretation. It is “…an exegetical method…that suggests that the prophetic writings contain a hidden eschatological significance or divine mystery that may be revealed only by a forced and even abnormal construction of the biblical text.”[18] Pesher interpretation was a style “in which a verse of Scripture is interpreted with reference to the interpreter’s own time and situation, which is usually seen as the last days.”[19]

2)      Explained: Pesher interpretation focused on understanding current events in light of ancient prophecy. It is quite common in the Dead Sea Scrolls.[20] Pesher attempted to apply prophecy to current events. Whereas midrash can be described as teaching “this has relevance to this,” pesher can be described as teaching “this is that.” In the former, the ancient text spoke to current ethical issues; in the latter, current events were seen as fulfillments of the ancient text. The Qumranic interpreters “considered themselves the divinely elected community of the final generation of the present age, living in the days of “messianic travail” before the eschatological consummation. Theirs was the task of preparing for the coming of the Messianic Age and/or the Age to Come.”[21] Everything the prophet wrote “has a veiled, eschatological meaning…”[22] But in order to understand the veiled meaning, divine revelation was necessary.[23] Longenecker says:

Biblical interpretation at Qumran, then, was considered to be first of all revelatory and/or charismatic in nature. Certain prophecies had been given in cryptic and enigmatic terms, and no one could understand their true meaning until the Teacher of Righteousness was given the interpretive key. In a real sense, they understood the passages in question as possessing a sensus plenior,[24] which could be ascertained only from a revelational standpoint, and they believed that the true message of Scripture was heard only when prophecy and interpretation were brought together. The understanding of the Teacher in regard to certain crucial passages and the guidelines he laid down for future study were to be the touchstones for all further exegesis…[25]

3)      Illustrated:

a)      In Jewish literature: Notice Qumran’s commentary on Habakkuk 2:1-3. Longenecker quotes it as follows:

God told Habakkuk to write the things that were to come upon the last generation, but he did not inform him when that period would come to consummation. And as for the phrase, “that he may run who reads,” the interpretation (pesher) concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysteries…of the words of his servants the prophets. The last period extends beyond anything that the prophets have foretold, for “the mysteries of God are destined to be performed wondrously.[26]

b)     In Christian literature (i.e., the NT): We will not discuss the uniqueness of New Testament interpretive models at this point. We will simply note that there are distinct differences between Jewish and New Testament interpretation – namely, divine inspiration, infallible interpretive results, and authoritative paradigms for all subsequent interpreters. 

• Gospels: Longenecker claims that Jesus’ “most characteristic use of Scripture is portrayed as being a pesher type of interpretation. The “this is that” fulfillment motif, which is distinctive to pesher exegesis, repeatedly comes to the fore in the words of Jesus.”[27] He goes on to list nine examples from the Gospels. We will look at one – Jesus’ use of Isaiah 61:1-2 in Luke 4:16-21. Here we see an ancient text utilized by Jesus in a way that fits the “this [Jesus] is that [what Isaiah prophesied]” motif of the pesher approach. Standing outside the standpoint of the Old Testament, which is where Jesus stood while on earth, he viewed his messianic mission as an eschatological fulfillment of Isaiah’s words.
• Acts: Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:14-21. Here we see an ancient text utilized by Peter in a way that the fits the “this [the pentecostal events described by Luke] is that [what Joel prophesied]” motif of the pesher approach. Standing outside the standpoint of the Old Testament, which is where Peter (and Luke) stood while on earth, he viewed the events of Pentecost as an eschatological fulfillment of Joel’s words.
• Epistles: Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31-32. The philosophy of pesher interpretation is also illustrated in 1 Peter 1:10-12. Both of these texts illustrate a “this is that” interpretive method. “This” is what Paul and Peter were writing about (“Christ and the church” and “this salvation”) is “that” which was spoken about beforehand. The church and the salvation ushered in by Jesus are viewed by Paul and Peter as eschatological fulfillments of that which was spoken beforehand in the Old Testament.

[18] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 30.

[19] Patzia & Petrotta, PDBS, 92.

[20] The Dead Sea Scrolls are a “collection of approximately 850 Jewish manuscripts (mostly fragmentary) discovered by shepherds in 1947 in caves near the shore of the Dead Sea. These scrolls represent all the biblical texts except Esther, as well as many nonbiblical texts, including commentaries and paraphrases of biblical books, and liturgical and eschatological works. The scrolls have assisted scholars in establishing the text of the Hebrew Bible as it was centuries before the Masoretic Text [7th century A.D.?], which was previously the earliest available manuscript… Equally important, the scrolls have shed light on early Judaism and early Christianity by unveiling the thought and practice of one group among the diversity of perspective that existed within Judaism at that time. The communities that preserved these texts were ascetic with respect to laws of purity and eschatological with respect to history and God’s rule.” Taken from Patzia & Petrotta, PDBS, 32-33. The scrolls were found in jars. It is believed that they were placed in caves at Qumran around A. D. 70. The dates for the content of the scrolls range from 250 B.C. to about A.D. 68. Cf. R. K. Harrison, “Dead Sea Scrolls” in Merrill C. Tenney, General Editor, The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, D-G (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975, 1976), 58.

[21] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 24.

[22] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 25.

[23] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 31.

[24] Latin for “fuller sense.” We will explore this concept later.

[25] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 29.

[26] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 26-27.

[27] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 54.

Daren, those are excellent questions, and a I certainly don’t want to discourage brothers and sisters sacrificing to meet the needs of those around the world. My sense is that we should speak less about what we must do and more in terms of what we can do. That is, I’d like to see the church inspire its members by saying “Here are opportunities to love” rather than putting a burden on folks that says, “This is a matter of justice. We are responsible to fix this.” I think it’s also important to see the difference between the church’s mission (to make disciples) and the calling God may have on our lives as individuals (politics, medicine, agriculture, etc.). A doctor doesn’t have to evangelize his patients to justify being a doctor. But on the other hand, the mission of the church is not to build hospitals. May God bless you as serve.

You can read it here.

My internet was down for one week recently and I purposefully did not check email or get on the net elsewhere. What a relief! I found more time for Bible reading and the reading of other things worth reading (i.e., Irenaeus' On the Apostolic Preaching). I read no blogs, no sports news, no book news, no email discussion lists, etc. I actually spent more time with my family as well. I even drove my boys to and from soccer practice more than once! My wife was astonished.

What did I miss? I suppose I am not an expert on whatever new issue is out there because I did not read four paragraphs and loads of discussion from people who did.

In all seriousness, I am leaning in the direction that the internet is worse for us than TV. At least TV has limits. Also, it's too easy for someone to go on the internet, read a blog or two or three, or even a thousand, and give the appearance of knowing something about a subject they were ignorant of three days prior. Both TV and the net depersonalize. Everything becomes virtual.

My conclusion? Read books, especially from dead guys whose books are still in print for a reason. :-)

In our latest reading, Mike moves to Washington DC in preparation for revitalizing a church in the area. On his first day at CHBC, someone tells him of a struggling church in Sterling, Virginia. Open to the possibility that this church is an answer to prayer, Mike contacts Guilford Fellowship for an opportunity to preach.

Let's just say that this visit did not go very well. Everything was wrong, from the location and grounds to the carpet and plumbing. The worship service was small, unorganized, and included people not actually there to worship God. Mike even mentions two teenagers publically displaying affection in the back pew throughout the service, including his sermon! Everyone from CHBC left thinking that this church was too far gone. Everyone except Mike's wife.

His wife's intuition ultimately proved correct. CHBC realized that the area's economic and real estate environment meant this church was their best option. And the church came to recognize Mike as their best pastoral candidate. He became their pastor on June 1, 2005.

Given all of the immediate problems, challenges, and issues of Guilford Fellowship, what did Mike believe their greatest need was?

"Let me suggest an answer that may not be immediately apparent: the one thing that Guilford Fellowship needed most from its new pastor was to have God's Word preached in a clear, systematic, and compelling way" (47).

Did he replace toilets, put down new floors, pull weeds, and spread gravel? Sure. But he would only complete this work after taking care of his primary responsibility to preach and teach God's Word. Thus, Mike concludes his chapter with three enemies which can keep church planters and pastors from keeping the Word of God central.

I am so thankful and encouraged to read about Mike's firm commitment to the centrality of Scripture. It is so easy to begin thinking about all that we need to do so that our church will be successful, slowly trusting in ourselves. But God's way is simple: preach the Word; let Christ build His kingdom. As Mike says:

"You preach and people get saved to God's glory, or their so-called 'wisdom' is confounded and you look like a moron, also to God's glory" (51).

Am I willing to look like a moron? Am I willing to appear foolish for my Savior? Am I prepared to faithfully preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles (1 Corinthians 1:23)? I appreciate Mike providing three enemies of Word centered ministry, recognizing that I must assess my heart in light of them.

What about you?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Now we come to Chapter 2.  After talking about his decision to plant a church with Mark Dever and Capitol Hill Baptist Church in the last chapter, he moves on to discuss how they went about determining their approach to this new work.  Mike would begin by spending a couple of years on staff at CHBC, working through the process of their church plant.  This included Mike meeting with members who may be interested in church planting, meeting with other church planters and pastors in the area where they were going to plant, and building credibility with the congregation by becoming more involved in the church’s public teaching and preaching.

They ultimately decided to start a gospel work about forty-five minutes outside Washington DC (where CHBC is located).  But this still left them with one major question.  Mike explains:

"The last thing to determine was whether we would plant an altogether new church or have the planting team join an existing church in order to revitalize it.  Church planting (starting a congregation from scratch) and church revitalizing (reviving the ministry of an almost dead church) share the same goal: raising up a faithful gospel witness where none exists.  Both have a unique opportunity to grow by attracting people not currently attending a church and to bring fresh energy to the proclamation of the gospel in a particular community" (30-31).

While understanding the validity and need of church planting, they eventually decided on church revitalization.  For the rest of the chapter, Mike explains the advantages and disadvantages of either choice.  Next up?  They had to find a church that was a good candidate for revitalization.

I admit that like Mike, I am personally attracted to church revitalization.  Maybe it is because I have noticed a strong interest in church planting among my fellow seminary graduates while the idea of church revitalization seems to be neglected.  Maybe it is because I have met a lot of dear saints in small churches who have been praying for a revival in their church and community.  Maybe it is because I would love to see God working through the challenge of revitalization for His glory.  Regardless, I appreciate it when Mike remarks:

"That’s why a number of my friends have joked from time to time that church planting is for wimps.  There are challenges to setting up a new general store in a dusty cowboy town when none exists, to be sure.  But the sheriff who has to ride in and clear out a town’s trash before building starts—he’s the real man" (34).

I don’t see myself as a sheriff (nor am I a fan of Westerns!).  And I have no idea what God has in store for my future ministry.  But I agree with Mike when he writes:

"Is church planting for wimps?  Well, planting and revitalizing take different kinds of courage, and God appoints a particular task for ever y man.  Go where God guides you. . . .  I believe revitalizing may be more difficult at the outset, but I also believe that it offers all the rewards of planting—a new gospel witness—and more: it removes a bad witness in the neighborhood, it encourages the saints in the dead church, and it puts their material resources to work for the kingdom" (36-37).

What do you think?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Below is a portion of chapter one of Gary Crampton's new book, From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism. You can purchase the book for $14.30 at RBAP.

A Problem with the Doctrine of Infant Baptism in the Westminster Standards

The present writer is in agreement with B. B. Warfield that the Westminster Standards, consisting of the Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, “are the richest and most precise and best guarded statement ever penned of all that enters into evangelical religion, and of all that must be safeguarded if evangelical religion is to persist in the world.”[1] Then too, Richard Baxter was correct, when he stated, “As far as I am able to judge, the Christian world, since the days of the apostles, had never a synod more excellent than this [the Westminster Assembly].”[2]

As a minister of the gospel, I believe that the Westminster Standards provide the finest summary of the system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture.[3] In this sense, the Standards are considered to be a subordinate standard to the inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God. The Bible alone has a systematic monopoly on truth.

The Standards, as with all confessions and creeds, must be evaluated in light of Scripture. One must adhere to the Berean principle of Acts 17:11, where we are enjoined to “search the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things be true.” As stated in the Westminster Confession (31:4) and as valuable as confessions and creeds are (and they are very valuable), the fact is that “all synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred.” Therefore, says the Confession (1:10), “The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” As taught in the Larger Catechism (Q. 3), “The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are the Word of God, the only rule of faith and obedience.”

It is while engaged in a thorough study of the two New Testament sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, that I encountered a problem with the doctrine of infant baptism. The problem is three-fold: first, there are no examples of infant baptism in the Bible; second, baptism and the Lord’s Supper go together; and third, there are multiple differences among paedobaptists as to why infants should be baptized.

[1] Benjamin B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, edited by John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1973), II:660.

[2] Cited on the back cover of Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994). All citations from the Westminster Standards, comprised of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, are from this publication. The English has been modernized. Note is made that when this author says that he is in agreement with what Warfield and Baxter have said about the Westminster Standards, the same could be said (with certain nuances here and there) about the Congregational Savoy Declaration (1658) and the London Baptist Confession of 1689, because some 90% of the doctrines taught by these three confessions are in agreement with one another. See Errol Hulse, The Testimony of Baptism (Sussex: Carey Publications, 1982), 57.

[3] Again, a similar statement could be made (with certain nuances) with regard to the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

Perhaps we should follow the interpretive lead of Theodoret and Eusebius and set Matt. 5:5 against the Moses traditions. Moses was, in meekness, the exemplar. He promised the Israelites inheritance of the land. And he himself did not enter the land. From this last fact, sufficiently unexpected to have engendered much rabbinic reflection, one might extract that the third beatitude pledges something Moses never gained. On such an interpretation, the members of the new covenant would be more blessed than the chief figure of the old; if, in the past, the meek one did not enter the land, now, that the kingdom of God has come, "the meek shall inherit the earth." One thinks of Matt. 11:11: the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than all of those who came before.

Hall notes that Allison remains undecided about an allusion to Moses in Matt. 5:5 and then adds:

He does beleive, though, that such an allusion should be seriously considered, that it has fruitful homiletical possibilities, and that it clearly tells us what the fathers themselves heard when they listened to the passage. Again, the hermeneutical proximity of the fathers to Scripture has picked up tonal qualities of the text that would remain mute for modern readers if the scholar, pastor or layperson relied solely on recent exegesis. The fathers hear and see where we tend to be deaf and blind. (Hall, 40-41)

Why do the fathers often hear and see where we tend to be deaf and blind?

But I do not want to limit this discussion to our students.  If you are interested in church planting or pastoring or if you feel like this book could help you in any way, please join us.  Simply pick up a copy of the book and start reading!

So, let’s get started….

This week I wanted to cover both the Introduction and Chapter 1.  Right up front I want to say that I love Mike’s personal and conversational writing style.  I almost feel as if I am in the same room having a conversation with the author.  I will try to be informal in this blog series as well.

In any case, I want to use Mike’s own words to explain the purpose of his book:

"You haven’t heard of me.  There’s no obvious reason you’d want to read anything I have to say.  I don’t pastor a large church....  I don’t have a particularly brilliant methodological insight that will transform your life or ministry....  Instead I want to share with you my story of planting a church....  The small victories and slow progress of the gospel in our lives and churches are actually spectacular evidence of God’s grace and exactly the things that make up part of his wonderful story of redemption" (11-12).

Amen!  Finally, a book on church planting that is not based on “success” or rooted in contemporary church growth models.  Instead, we have an honest and open look at a man who desired to build his church on the foundation of the Word of God and to be faithful in what it teaches.

Therefore we read a brief bio of the author and then enter into his story of deciding to work with CHBC on planting a church in the Washington DC suburbs.  Mike is a Christian punk rocker with tattoos who has refused to buy into church planting for hip youngsters or to focus on the trendy part of the city where the wealthy young professionals live and drink.  Instead, he is asked to go to suburbia (the last place on earth he wanted to go!) and plant a church in the county with the highest median household income in America.

I really appreciated Mike’s biblical refutation of the homogeneous unit principle and its contemporary cousin, contextualization.  While I do not have a problem with a proper understanding of contextualization (and I suspect Mike doesn’t either), many today do use this concept as a means of intentionally targeting and appealing to a certain social demographic.  But as he states:

"When we start churches intentionally designed to appeal to a certain kind of person, we fail to heed the biblical mandate to become all things to all people (1 Cor. 9:22).  It seems like many churches want to embrace the first phrase without the second.  We want to become all things to some people.  The problem is, becoming all things to some people—say, by rocking the tattoos and turning up the music—often keeps us from reaching all kinds of people.  After all, wooing one demographic (for example, urban young people) often means alienating others (such as older people or foreigners)....  It seems like we should intentionally plant churches that will, as much as possible, welcome and engage people who are different and diverse with respect to age, gender, personality, and nationality" (20).

Mike continues by providing some practical suggestions on how we should go about fostering diversity rather than homogeneity.  Again, I find these ideas very helpful and can easily see how they would make a difference in the life of a new church plant.

Now it is your turn.  What do you think?

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Mike, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today.  Can you tell us how were you saved?

God was very gracious to me.  Through a difficult family situation, my parents came to Christ when I was in elementary school.  We began to attend a faithful church where I heard the gospel and believed it immediately.

Why did you write Church Planting is for Wimps?

On a practical level, I kept getting the same questions from church planters and I kept giving them the same answers.  So I thought it might be a good idea to go ahead and write it down.  But also, someone once said that "Wisdom isn't learning from your mistakes, it's learning from the mistakes of others."  So in that sense, the book is a catalog of my mistakes.

What would you like seminary students, church planters, and pastors to take away from your book?

Basically, that an "ordinary" church where the gospel is proclaimed and believed and lived out is really an amazing thing.  Pastors and church planters shouldn't judge ourselves by the world's standards of success, but we should toil to be faithful teachers of God's word.  If we do that, God accomplish his will through us!

Since you have gone through the process of revitalizing Guilford Baptist Church, where is your church now and where do you see the church headed?  What are the challenges and/or opportunities that you see?

The church is doing well.  Right now, we're feeling a bit overwhelmed as opportunities for ministry and church planting seem to outstrip our resources and capacities.  But we have a great God who is more passionate about his church than I am, so I trust he has a plan!

Are there any other helpful resources you would recommend for those wanting to plant or revitalize biblically faithful and gospel centered churches?

The Deliberate Church by Mark Dever and Paul Alexander is really practical and helpful.  Darrin Patrick's book on church planting is called Church Planter: The Man, The Message, The Mission. It should be out in August and it's really helpful as well.

Thank you again for spending a few minutes with us.  Befure you go, will you let us know how we can pray for you?

Wow, thanks for asking.  Please pray that God would continue to grow me into the leader that I need to be for my family and church

a.      Literal

1)      Defined: “Rabbinic literature contains a number of examples where the Scriptures were understood in a straightforward fashion, resulting in the plain, simple, and natural meaning of the text…”[1] The technical term used for this since the 4th century is peshat. It came to mean ““to stretch out, extend, make plain” and as such was used more or less [to mean] “to interpret.””[2]

2)      Explained: Self-explanatory.

3)      Illustrated: This method was especially utilized in the interpretation of the deuteronomic law. Deuteronomy 6:7 says, “You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” One Jewish commentator, utilizing the literal approach, said, “in the evening all should recline when they recite the shema[3], but in the morning they should stand up, for it is written, ‘And when you lie down and when you rise up.’”[4] Instead of this meaning to teach as a way of life, the literal approach interprets lying down and rising up as bodily postures appropriate for evening and morning devotions.

b.      Midrash

1)      Defined: Midrash comes from a Hebrew verb, darash, and means to seek, to investigate[5], to study, or interpret.[6] Midrash is not technically a hermeneutic, it is the compilation of Jewish commentary on the Torah. Dockery gives this definition: “…commentary, particularly with the idea of making Scripture contemporary in order to apply it to or make it meaningful for the interpreter’s current situation.”[7] Richard N. Longenecker says that midrash “strictly denotes an interpretive exposition, however derived and irrespective of the type of material under consideration.”[8]

2)      Explained: Dockery says that Midrash designates “the normal way that the rabbis and Pharisees interpreted Scripture.”[9] Midrash always had a homiletical and immediate, practical goal. Midrash probably finds its origins in Rabbi Hillel a generation or two before the Christian era. Some think that Hillel was the father of Gamaliel, who was the teacher of Saul of Tarsus.[10] Hillel is the author of seven basic hermeneutical principles:

a)      What applies in a less important case applies in a more important case.

b)     Words often have technical meaning. They may mean the same thing in different texts.

c)      Phrases often have technical meaning. They may mean the same thing in different texts.

d)     Concepts, though worded differently, often have technical meaning.

e)      A general principle may be particularized and a particular principle may be generalized.

f)       Difficult texts may be explained by similar texts with points of general, though not necessarily verbal, similarity.

g)      Meaning is established by its context.[11]

By themselves, these seven principles are generally sound, though lacking any reference to the Messiah. Midrash, as opposed to the literal approach, displays a more nuanced and complex method of interpretation.

3)      Illustrated:

a)      The first principle above (i.e., What applies in a less important case applies in a more important case.) can be seen in Matthew 7:11, “If you then being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!” Cf. also Luke 12:28.

b)     Jesus brought ancient Scripture to bear on practical contemporary issues in line with midrash methodology (Mark 2:25-28).

[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 28.

[2] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 17.

[3] Shema literally means “Hear!” and comes from the opening word of Deuteronomy 6:4.

[4] As quoted by Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 28.

[5] Arthur G. Patzia & Anthony J. Petrotta, Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 80, referenced as PDBS here on out.

[6] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 18.

[7] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 29.

[8] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 18.

[9] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 29.

[10] Cf. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 30-31, n. 20.

[11] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 30, n. 20. My paraphrase. Cf. Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 63-64 for further discussion.

I will be preaching in Ohio (Toledo and North Canton) on July 4 and 11 and would appreciate your prayers. I hope to do some reading, running, and relaxing while gone. I am not sure how active I will be on the MCTS blog. So, until next time, ...

RBAP is offering Crampton's newest book at 35% off suggested retail. Here's what some have said about it:

Following the Westminster Confession’s definition of baptism, Gary Crampton presents a compelling argument for credobaptism versus paedobaptism. He examines each phrase of this definition as the outline of his work, finding that neither Scripture, the Apostolic Fathers, the Church Fathers, nor many modern paedobaptists support the definition in favor of infant baptism. His work is thorough in its research, broad in its survey, forceful in its irenic argument, and very readable for all. It betrays Dr. Crampton’s own wrestling with the Scriptures, historical theology, and his own personal convictions as a former paedobaptist to become a convinced and biblical Baptist. I highly commend this work for those studying paedobaptism versus credobaptism.

Fred A. Malone, Ph.D. 

**********

I warmly recommend this concise treatment of the biblical teaching on believers’ baptism. Dr. Crampton has arrived at his convictions after a thorough study of the scriptural teaching and the theological arguments presented on both sides of this debate. Convinced that the Westminster Confession’s basic definition of baptism is correct, he goes on to show that the inclusion of infants is not consistent with that definition. He shows that paedobaptist apologists display considerable variations among themselves, justifying the conclusion that “infant baptism has been a practice in search of a theology.” His treatment of the issues is thorough and lucidly presented. He is aware of the way in which the debate has been argued through the centuries. His arguments are taut, but always irenic. This book must have a wide circulation.

Robert W. Oliver, Ph.D.

**********

A man of conviction is a rare commodity. Too often, we are tempted by the comfort of our circumstances of life, and refuse to count the cost of pursuing and standing for the truth. In this book, Dr. Gary Crampton explains his pursuit and takes his stand for the scriptural doctrine of believer's baptism. At the end of a two-decade long process, after prayerful contemplation and examination of the Word of God, theological tomes, and all of the attendant material, he has published this defense of his convictions.

This is a compelling book. It gives evidence of a relentless search for the truth, driven by a haunting premise: Dr. Crampton could find no basis for infant baptism in Holy Scripture. To his credit, this reality drove him to examine all of the aspects of the doctrine, and to conclude that his former belief and practice did not match up with the standard of truth. It should serve as a helpful challenge to our beloved paedobaptist friends. I appeal to them to study it; contemplate it; examine it. Oh that more men would follow this lead!

James M. Renihan, Ph.D.

**********

It is a brave man who will argue that the Westminster Standards are contradictory in their teachings about baptism. Gary Crampton is such a brave man. He remarks in his second chapter, “The definition of baptism given by the Standards, which is thoroughly biblical, does not permit infant baptism. This is the argument of this monograph. A biblical analysis of the Westminster Assembly’s definition of baptism will confirm the argument.” In my view Crampton is not only brave, but right. There are visible in the historic Westminster Standards an evangelical understanding of Christianity and the remnants of a sacramentalist understanding. May many seriously consider whether Crampton is right to think that the paedobaptism of the Westminster Standards is one such remnant.

Samuel E. Waldron, Ph.D.

You can order the book here.

1.      Matthew 2:15, citing Hosea 11:1

a.      Robert L. Thomas on Matthew’s use of Hosea: Thomas claims that this is an example of the New Testament citing an Old Testament text disregarding the main thrust of the grammatical-historical meaning of the OT passage.[1] Here are his comments about Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. 

Sometimes the NT uses a non-prophetic OT passage such as Hos 11:1 and treats it as though it predicted a NT occurrence. Hosea wrote about the historical exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt, but Matthew applies the same words to Jesus’ departure from Egypt with His family after their flight there to escape the murderous intentions of Herod the Great. This furnishes another instance of ISPA.[2]

Thomas utilizes this text as an example of a New Testament text using an Old Testament text “…beyond what it originally meant in its OT context…”[3]

 b.      Dennis E. Johnson on Matthew’s use of Hosea: Johnson views Matthew’s use of Hosea differently.

Hosea plainly spoke not prospectively of the Messiah but retrospectively of the exodus, say Matthew’s critics. In one sense they are right: Hosea’s text does indeed look back to the exodus. But Matthew’s critics ignore (or simply reject) a more foundational conviction to which Matthew is leading his readers: Jesus is the true Israel, delivered from infant death, brought out of Egypt, tested in the wilderness, and finally exalted as Son of Man, invested with all authority as representative head of the eschatological “saints of the Most High” (Dan. 7:13-14 is echoed in the Great Commission, Matt. 28:18-20). By affirming that Hosea’s words are “fulfilled” in the young Jesus’ return from Egypt with his parents, Matthew is not claiming that Hosea’s words fit Jesus instead of Israel but that they fit Jesus because he is Israel’s fulfillment.[4]

 c.       Craig L. Blomberg on Matthew’s use of Hosea: Blomberg, a Progressive Dispensationalist, says:

It is better, though, to understand Matthew’s actual use of Hos. 11:1 as a classic example of pure typology: “the recognition of a correspondence between New and Old Testament events, based on a conviction of the unchanging character of the principles of God’s working”… the original event need not have been intentionally viewed as forward-looking by the OT author; for believing Jews, merely to discern striking parallels between God’s actions in history, especially in decisive moments of revelation and redemption, could convince them of divinely intended “coincidence.” …That Israel had been delivered from Egypt, that Israel would again be exiled there but again restored, and that the child believed to be the Messiah also had to return to Israel from Egypt formed too striking a set of parallels for Matthew to attribute them to chance. God clearly was at work orchestrating the entire series of events. …Clearly, though, a “new exodus” motif is present… Moreover, Jesus will prove faithful where the nation had been faithless; in numerous respects he recapitulates the history of Israel as a whole.[5]

 2.      Acts 2:16-21, citing Joel 2:28-32

 a.      Robert L. Thomas on Peter’s use of Joel 2: Commenting on Peter’s use of Joel 2 in Acts 2, Thomas says:

Frequently, expositors and commentators have used such expressions as “initial fulfillment,” “partial fulfillment,” “near fulfillment,” or something comparable to speak of Peter’s use of Joel 2:28-32 in his Acts 2 sermon. That language gives the wrong impression because the OT passage did not predict what was to happen on the day of Pentecost. What happened on that day was an ISPA of Joel 2, an application whose authority was the Acts passage, not the Joel passage. The phenomena on the day of Pentecost were in no sense a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, a prophecy that pertained to the people of Israel, not to the church. The relevance of the happenings on that day were an ISPA of the Joel passage to an entirely different situation by Peter who spoke and Luke who recorded the words. It is misleading to call them in any sense a fulfillment of Joel.[6]

 b.      I. Howard Marshall on Peter’s use of Joel 2: “Peter explains the events that have just been witnessed by the crowds by seeing in them the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel 2:28-32.”[7]

3.      Acts 13:47, citing Isaiah 49:6

a.      Robert L. Thomas on Paul’s use of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47: In a context where Thomas is providing New Testament examples of ISPA, he offers these comments on Acts 13:47: 

The Isaiah text contains God’s promise that His Servant, the Messiah, will be a light to the Gentiles in providing salvation to the ends of the earth. That, of course, will happen during the future kingdom after His return. But in Acts 13:47 Paul uses the words in an entirely different manner. He applies the words to his own ministry among the Gentiles during the present age, not to that of the Lord’s Servant during the future age of the kingdom. Here again is clearly a nonliteral application of the prophet’s words. 

Whereas Beale, for instance, would probably see the concept of solidarity at work here, Thomas relegates this text to a nonliteral use of an Old Testament text which is yet to see its fulfillment or even the inception of its fulfillment.

 b.      F. F. Bruce on Paul’s use of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47: Bruce says: 

 The words which follow (from Isa. xlix. 6) are addressed by God to His Servant, and alluded to in the words of Simeon (…Lk. ii. 32), who applied them to our Lord. Here Paul uses them of the servants of Christ. …This quotation is in the style of those in Rom. xv. 9 ff., where the evangelization of the Gentiles is foreshadowed.[8]

 c.       I. Howard Marshall on Paul’s use of Isaiah 49:6 in Acts 13:47: Marshall says:

 The refusal of the Jews to believe serves as permission for the apostles to go to the Gentiles, who are equally included in God’s purpose of salvation. The apostles have fulfilled the obligation to go first to the Jews, and now they can take up the other part of the commission that has been laid down in Scripture. The Lord has given them his command…, which they find in the words of Isa. 49:6. In its original form this is part of a statement from Yahweh to his servant Israel, or, more precisely, to whoever has the task of restoring Israel… The mission of the Servant is undertaken both by Jesus (cf. 26:23) and by his followers… Here is the scriptural basis for the assertion in Luke 24:47 that the mission is a fulfillment of Scripture…[9]

[1] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 83.

[2] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 86.

[3] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 86.

[4] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 208.

[5] Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 8.

[6] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 96.

[7] I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Beale and Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 533.

[8] F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Reprinted, October 1973; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951), 274-75.

[9] I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Beale and Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, 588.

Those who take delight in what they have hoarded up in their store-houses are foolish in their greed....It is farcical and downright ridiculous for men to bring out urinals of silver and chamber-posts of transparent alabaster as if they were introducing their advisors, and for rich women in their silliness to have gold receptacles for excrements made, as though being wealthy they were unable to relieve themselves except in a grandiose style.

Hall comments:

The temptation to live in two worlds-the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of God-tugged as consistently on the fathers and their congregations as it does on the contemporary Western Christian. Therefore perhaps we can use the image of two worlds to our advantage as we prepare to investigate the world of early Christian writers. (Hall, 34)

There's just not enough time to test the waters. The older I get, the more I read older writers, along with modern ones who others (of my choice :-)) say are worth reading.

1.      Introduction: There were several Jewish approaches to biblical interpretation at and around the time of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is important to note that “…in Judaism no single method of interpretation absolutely prevailed over all others…”[1] “[W]e cannot simply speak of ancient Jewish interpretation as a single thing.”[2] It is naïve, therefore, to claim that ancient Judaism was uniform in its approach to interpreting Scripture.

The methodological approaches to interpretation below have some correspondence to the types of interpretation utilized by Jesus and the Apostles (and even subsequent Christian interpreters throughout Church History). Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish and, as we should expect, utilized some of the contemporary methods available to them. Jesus and the Apostles, however, were unique in that Jesus was the Son of God and Messiah and the Apostles (and apostolic men) were his revelatory organs, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, their methods were infallible and, hence, authoritative and paradigmatic.[3] Studying ancient Jewish approaches can actually help us understand the history of Christian interpretation because, as Anthony Thiselton says, “…the Church inherited various perennial problems, and ways of interpreting Scripture, [from ancient Judaism] and most of these are still with us.”[4]

David S. Dockery identifies four points of agreement with each Jewish approach:

a.      They believed in the divine inspiration of Scripture. Thiselton says, “Virtually all Jews believed that every part of Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit.”[5]

 b.      They affirmed that the Torah (our Old Testament) contained the entire truth of God for the guidance of humanity.

 c.       Because of their view that the text of Scripture contained many meanings, they considered both the plain or literal meaning and the implied meanings.

 d.      They maintained that the purpose of all interpretation is to translate the words of God into life, thus making them relevant for people in their own particular situations.[6]

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 60.

[2] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[3] More on this later.

[4] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[5] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[6] David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 27. Cf. also Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 47-63 and Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Second Edition, 1999; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 6-35 for informed discussions.

a.      Dennis E. Johnson: see previous post

b.      G. K. Beale: see previous post

 c.     James M. Hamilton: Hamilton is another advocate of this view. In a blog post recently, commenting on 1 Peter 3:20-21, he said:

Have you ever wondered why Peter says (1 Pet 3:20-21) that the waters of the flood through which Noah and a few others were saved correspond to baptism?

In the sermon it was my privilege to preach yesterday, I tried to purse [sic] a biblical-theological explanation of how the flood was an expression of God’s wrath that was used by Israel’s prophets to symbolize the wrath of God that would fall at the exile. When Jesus died on the cross, the full expression of wrath anticipated by the flood and the exile was poured out on him. To capture this reality, Jesus spoke of his death as the moment when he would “drink the cup” of God’s wrath and be “baptized” (e.g., Mark 10:38-39). Jesus was baptized into the floodwaters of God’s judgment, and when believers are baptized into the body of Christ, they are united to Christ, and his baptism into the floodwaters of judgment counts for us. We are saved through the death dealing waters of judgment and raised to walk in newness of life.

I didn’t say this in the sermon, but if my exposition is correct, we see Moses doing biblical-theological interpretation of the creation and flood narratives and then connecting those events to his own experience as a baby in the Nile and Israel’s crossing of the Red Sea at the exodus. The prophets then follow the biblical-theological interpretation modeled by Moses, and Jesus interprets what will happen to him in line with these biblical-theological moves made by Moses and the prophets in the OT. That is, Jesus interpreted the OT and his own life the same way that Moses and the prophets interpreted the OT and their own lives. Then the Apostles, Peter in this case, interpret the OT, the Gospels, and their own experience the same way that Moses and the prophets did, and Peter learned this way of reading the Bible, as well as this way of reading life through the lens of the Bible, from Jesus.

I didn’t say this in the sermon either, but I think that the flood, the exile, the cross of Christ, and the baptism of new believers all show that the glory of God in salvation through judgment is indeed the center of biblical theology, which is the thesis of my forthcoming book. One of the reasons I wanted to preach this sermon was that I hadn’t dealt so much with these connections between the flood and baptism in the book.[1]

Notice how Hamilton sees the New Testament author, Peter, utilizing an interpretive method taught to the apostles by Jesus and finding its biblical roots in the Old Testament.

[1] James M. Hamilton, “Baptism Now Saves You?” Accessed 8 June 2010. Available from http://jimhamilton.wordpress.com/2010/06/07/baptism-now-saves-you/.

New Broadcast: The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology

Dr. Richard Barcellos was our guest for this two part broadcast about his book: The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology.  This book details Geerhardus Vos and John Owen and their contributions to the articulation of redemptive history.

You can listen here.

Publisher’s Description: The thesis of this study is that Geerhardus Vos’ biblical-theological method should be viewed as a post-Enlightenment continuation of the pre-critical federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. Vos wrote in the context of the liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His biblical-theological methodology was largely a resuscitation of the federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy adapted to the times in which it was written.

You can listen here.

a.      Dennis E. Johnson: see previous post

b.      G. K. Beale: Beale is another advocate of this view. As Johnson above, Beale not only states his position, he seeks to answer the all-important question of what exactly was behind the exegetical conclusions of the New Testament use of the Old.[1] In other words, he seeks to interpret their interpretive method. Thomas does the same by claiming that their method was forced upon them due to the rejection of the Messiah by the first century Jews. But Thomas fails to provide an exegetical basis for the claim that the rejection of the Messiah necessitates a new, unique hermeneutic by Jesus and the Apostles. Beale’s approach, like Johnson’s, seeks answers from wider biblical patterns and interpretive tendencies built into the fabric of Scripture – Old and New Testament. Beale lists five distinctive presuppositions of the apostles’ exegetical method:

Beale sees the New Testament using the Old through this grid. His approach is basically the same as Johnson’s. The New Testament does not ignore the context of Old Testament passages. It utilizes principles embedded in Scripture itself and views latter parts of revelation as fulfillments or anti-types of former parts.

In Beale’s conclusion, he says, “…in the case of the New Testament’s method of interpreting the Old Testament the burden of proof rests upon those attempting to deny its normativity.”[3]

[1] G. K. Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? An Examination of the Presuppositions of Jesus’ and the Apostles’  Exegetical Method” in G. K. Beale, editor, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?: Essays on the Use of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Co., 1994), 387-404.

[2] Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?,” 398.

[3] Beale, “Did Jesus and His Followers Preach the Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts?,” 404.

Their latest book in this series is written by Mike McKinley and provocatively titled Church Planting Is for Wimps. Using his own story of revitalizing Guilford Baptist Church in northern Virginia, he points pastors and church planters to the faithful ministry of God's Word.

Since MCTS has a number of students who may be called as pastors and church planters, I thought it would be helpful to lead a chapter-by-chapter blog discussion on McKinley's book. I also hope others will see the benefit of "iron sharpening iron" and join us.

So, please pick up a copy of the book.  Lord willing, we will begin our weekly study together next month!

This sounds similar to Alexander Campbell, who said, "I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me." It seems to me that both Chafer and Campbell assumed something that is simply not the case - an unprejudiced mind.

Craig Blaising, a progressive dispensationalist, says of Chafer:

"[He] possessed no methodological awareness of the historicity of interpretation.... Furthermore, this hermeneutical deficiency was structured into the very meaning of dispensational thought and practice in its advocacy of clear, plain, normal, or literal interpretation.... We have, then, a generation of theologians who find identity in a self-conscious hermeneutic that lacks methodological awareness of the historical nature of interpretation."

Blaising again:

"all theological thought, including one's own theological thought, is historically conditioned by the tradition to which that theologian belongs as well as personal and cultural factors such as education and experience." (Cited in Hall, 26-27)

I agree with Blaising. :-)

 1.      The Apostles’ hermeneutic was unique and not to be employed by subsequent interpreters. See my last two posts - here (Longenecker's view) and here (Thomas' view).

2.      The Apostles’ hermeneutic was not only divinely inspired, it should function as a hermeneutical paradigm to be employed by subsequent interpreters. The other school claims that the hermeneutical method of the apostles is both divinely inspired and authoritatively paradigmatic for all subsequent interpreters. This position argues that Jesus taught his disciples how to interpret and apply the Old Testament while he was on earth (Luke 24:25-27; 44-49). The apostles’ subsequent interpretations and applications, therefore, were simply extensions of the principles taught to them by our Lord. This view has Patristic, Medieval, Reformation, Post-Reformation, and current adherents.

Today we will look at the view of Dennis E. Johnson of Westminster Seminary, Escondido, CA.

 a.      Dennis E. Johnson: In Johnson’s book Him We Proclaim, he says, “…the major thrust of this book…makes a case for imitating the interpretive and communicative methods employed by the apostles to proclaim Christ to the first century Greco-Roman world as we minister in the twenty-first century.”[1] Johnson sees the hermeneutic of Jesus and the apostles resting on three pillars:

…the hermeneutic of Jesus and the apostles rests on the conviction that (1) the redemptive events in Israel’s history and Jesus’ ministry occurred in time and space, in flesh and blood; and that (2) the redemptive events narrated in the Old Testament had a symbolic depth; and finally that (3) with the coming of Christ physical Old Testament types (patterns) and prophecies are fulfilled in ways that transcend the physical. Because these convictions are united in the biblical motifs of creation and God’s sovereignty and providence at work in history, we can see how the apostles could affirm the historical veracity of biblical historical narrative and at the same time confess that those real historical events were invested by God with symbolic significance that pointed beyond their own time and place in the history of redemption, directing the gaze of God’s people forward in history to the coming King.[2] 

Johnson’s approach is further based on: 1) the way the New Testament interprets the Old (i.e., typologically) and 2) the way the Old Testament interprets the Old. He looks at the New Testament as follows: 1) typos texts (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 10:6, 11; 1 Peter 3:21; and typos terminology in Hebrews[3]; 2) Old Testament quotations applied to Christ (Matthew 2:6-7, citing Micah 5:2; Matthew 2:15, citing Hosea 11:1; Matthew 27:46, citing Psalm 22:1); 3) unmistakable allusions to Old Testament events applied to Christ (John 3:14-15, alluding to Numbers 21:4-9; Luke 7-9, alluding to 1 Kings 17:23, 2 Kings 1:9-12, and 1 Kings 19:19-21; and John 2, alluding to 2 Samuel 7:13)[4]; 3) subtle and debatable allusions to Old Testament events, persons, and institutions[5]; and 4) general Old Testament patterns fulfilled in Christ and his work.[6]

Johnson then looks at the Old Testament in terms of how it “interpreted its own redemptive events and sacramental institutions.”[7] He does so under the heading “Old Testament Foundations of New Testament Hermeneutics.”[8] Not only did the apostles follow the lead of Jesus in their typological interpretations of the Old Testament, but the Old Testament itself displays a similar hermeneutic. Johnson says:

Three features of apostolic hermeneutics in particular have precedents in the Old Testament’s self-hermeneutic. The Old Testament (1) invests physical events and institutions with symbolic spiritual significance, (2) portrays future redemptive events in imagery drawn from past deeds of God in creation and salvation, and (3) testifies to the incompleteness of the redemption accessible through its own institutions, directing the longings of the people of God forward to a future salvation and Savior.[9] 

Johnson argues that “…from the beginning of the Torah, Moses invites his readers to recognize a spiritual depth to events in the physical world.”[10] “As far back as the Garden of Eden, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolizes a spiritual issue.”[11] Other examples include (1) Israel’s tabernacle as a copy of a heavenly original (Ex. 25:9; see Heb. 8:5)[12]; (2) Solomon’s temple as a copy of the heavenly original (1 Kings 8:27-30; see also Isa. 66:1-2)[13]; (3) the sacrificial system pointing beyond itself[14]; (4) olive oil used to anoint kings and priests and prophets which “pointed to endowment with the Spirit of God”[15]; (5) circumcision “symbolized removal of rebellion and unresponsiveness from the hearts of the Israelites”[16]; and (6) ritual cleansings pointed to spiritual cleansing.[17]

Johnson sees the Old Testament prophets treating “earlier redemptive acts of God as typological, as providing a pattern or paradigm by which the believing remnant in Israel can grasp and cling to God’s promise that he will intervene in salvation in the future.”[18] Johnson illustrates this with the motifs of creation (Isaiah 65:17-18; 66:22 [2 Peter 3:13; Revelation 21:1]); the exodus (Hosea 2:14-15), the Old and New Covenants (Jeremiah 31:31-33 [Hebrews 7:22; 8:6-13]), David (Ezekiel 34:11-13, 23-24 [Matthew 1:1; etc.]), and the temple (Ezekiel 40-47; esp. 47:1-12; Zechariah 14:20-21 [Ephesians 2:19-22]). Johnson concludes:

The prophets thus show the close kinship between biblical typology and biblical prophecy. The awesome events that God enacted in the past (creation, exodus, covenant-making at Sinai), theocratic leaders (David) and institutions (temple) all are interpreted by the prophets as “types,” as templates or patterns pointing toward eschatological salvation and the eschatological Savior to come. These types, of course, are anchored in real history. It is for this very reason that looking back to them also encourages Israel to look forward to the antitype that fulfills and transcends them. Since the God who speaks the Old Testament Scriptures is the Lord of history, he can and does design historical persons, offices, institutions, and events to function as “incarnate prophecies” of the full redemption to come. What God said in the words of the prophets as they pointed Israel’s faith toward the future in the imagery of the past and present, God had also said through his design of the events of the history of Adam, Noah, Abraham and the patriarchs, Moses, Israel, and David.[19] 

Johnson also sees the Old Testament testifying “to the incompleteness of the redemption accessible through its own institutions, directing the longings of the people of God forward to a qualitatively superior future salvation and Savior.”[20] The promise of a New Covenant, the new rest of Hebrews 4, and the new priest in the order of Melchizedek are illustrations of this. Johnson says, “The prophetic pictures that portray the coming age of salvation via the typoi of early redemptive events characterize the future not merely as a replication of earlier patterns but as a “correspondence with heightening… The “heightening” that the prophets predict implies some inadequacy in the covenantal structures by which Israel related to her Lord.”[21] Then Johnson concludes: 

Thus within the Old Testament itself, we find the hope and promise of a coming redemption that not only fits the pattern of earlier divine deeds in history (creation, exodus, conquest) but also transcends the old patterns and institutions ordained by God for that promise period in which the prophets preached and wrote. To come in the future is a covenant that cannot be broken by Israel’s sin, a divine rest that transcends peace in Palestine, an eternal priest to replace Aaron’s stained and mortal sons, and an act of atoning obedience that will render sacrificial animals obsolete. The transitory nature of the Old Testament order and institutions is implied in the prophet’s promise of a greater salvation to come.[22] 

Johnson’s view of the New Testament’s use of the Old is based on the Old Testament’s use of itself. He says, “…we discover that the connecting threads that come to expression in apostolic hermeneutics have been woven into the fabric of Scripture form its very beginning.”[23]

[1] Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 3.

[2] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 137.

[3] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 200-07.

[4] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 207-12.

[5] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 212-14.

[6] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 214-17.

[7] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 217.

[8] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 217.

[9] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 219.

[10] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 220.

[11] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 219.

[12] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 220.

[13] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 220.

[14] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 220-21.

[15] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 221.

[16] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 221.

[17] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 221.

[18] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 223.

[19] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 225-26.

[20] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 226.

[21] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 227.

[22] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 227-28.

[23] Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 230.

[1] Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?”, 79, n. 9.

a.      Richard N. Longenecker: previous post

b.      Robert L. Thomas: Thomas also holds this position, though with his own nuances. Thomas sees two types of uses of the Old Testament in the New. He says:

…one finds two kinds of uses of the OT by the NT writers: one in which the NT writer abides by and applies the grammatical-historical sense of the OT passage and another use in which the NT writer goes beyond the grammatical-historical sense of the OT passage to assign the passage an additional meaning in connection with its NT context. In the former instance, a NT writer uses the OT in its literal sense. The latter instance is a nonliteral use of the OT. We may call this an “inspired sensus plenior application” (hereafter usually ISPA) of the OT passage to a new situation. It is “inspired,” because along with all Scripture, the NT passage is inspired by God. It is “sensus plenior” in that it gives an additional or fuller sense than the passage had in its OT setting. It is an “application” because it does not eradicate the literal meaning of the OT passage, but simply applies the OT wording to a new setting.[1]

Thomas mentions “a new situation” and “a new setting.” What does he mean by this? He asks this important question: “Why did the NT writers attach these sensus plenior meanings to OT passages?”[2] Here’s his answer:

In almost if not every instance, the new meaning given an OT passage related to Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent and the consequent opening of the door to a new people consisted of both Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of Christ. That such a new union would exist was unrevealed in the OT, as Paul points out in Eph. 3:1-7. New meanings through special divine revelation were necessary to give this new program a connection with what God had been doing throughout the OT period.[3]

A suggested reason for the inspired sensus plenior applications of OT passages in the NT is Israel’s rejection of her Messiah at His first advent. One of the ramifications of that rejection was new revelation regarding OT passages related to a body called the church, revelation that was not foreseen in or a part of the OT.[4]

In a more recent article, Thomas says:

That obvious change in Jesus’ ministry illustrates the way that His ministry in response to His negative reception by His own people changed in other respects. He never withdrew the promises of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants, but He did provide for an interim movement to come between His ascension and His second advent, a movement that was unforeseen in the OT. The interim period was of such a nature that OT prophecies had to take on additional meanings to supply biblical support for God’s dealings during this interim period.[5]

According to Thomas, many of the instances of the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament are not grammatical-historical interpretations but inspired sensus plenior applications (ISPA). These ISPAs are brought on by new circumstances not foreseen by the Old Testament. His whole theory is predicated upon the Jewish rejection of the Messiah resulting in a new, unforeseen situation which demands a new reading and application of the Old Testament to this new, unforeseen era.

Two things are interesting to note about Thomas’ theory. First, it asserts, without proof, that the reason for the New Testament’s grounds for breaking the rules of grammatical-historical hermeneutics is the first-century Jewish rejection of Christ. Maybe he supplies it elsewhere. But could it be that they did not break the rules of grammatical-historical hermeneutics or that Thomas’ understanding of grammatical-historical hermeneutics is too restricting?

Second, it assumes a very limiting view of hermeneutics. He says that grammatical-historical hermeneutics consists of “[i]nterpret[ing] each statement in light of the principles of grammar and the facts of history. Take each statement in its plain sense if it matches common sense, and do not look for another sense.”[6] One wonders who gets to determine what constitutes “common sense” and if Jesus and his apostles would agree. Thomas’ view of grammatical-historical hermeneutics comes, in part, as a result of his commitment to what he calls the principle of single meaning.[7] He sees the New Testament adhering to this principle sometimes, but abandoning it at others.

Sometimes the NT interprets OT prophecies in their literal sense, but other times it assigns an ISPA sense to them. That does not give license to the contemporary interpreter to imitate the hermeneutics of NT writers, because such a procedure would violate the grammatical-historical principle of single meaning. The NT writers could do it because of their status as writers of inspired Scripture.

According to Thomas, it is ok for writers of inspired Scripture (and by implication God) to violate the grammatical-historical principle of single meaning. They can use a hermeneutic that contradicts common sense. Jesus and the apostles do not always provide for us models of biblical exegesis worth emulating.

[1] Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” The Master’s Seminary Journal (TMSJ) Volume 13, No. 1 (Spring 2002): 80.

[2] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 87.

[3] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 87-88.

[4] Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” 96.

[5] Robert L. Thomas, “The Great Commission: What to Teach,” TMSJ Volume 21, No. 1 (Spring 2010): 7.

[6] Robert L. Thomas, “The Principle of Single Meaning,” TMSJ Volume 12, No. 1 (Spring 2001): 44.

[7] Thomas, “The Principle of Single Meaning,” 33.

The thesis of this study is that Geerhardus Vos’ biblical-theological method should be viewed as a post-Enlightenment continuation of the pre-critical federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. Vos wrote in the context of the liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His biblical-theological methodology was largely a resuscitation of the federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy adapted to the times in which it was written.

Here's the announcement. Details to follow.

a.      Richard N. Longenecker: Longenecker is a well-known advocate of this view. His Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period[1] has been somewhat influential and is discussed and debated in the literature on this issue. The bulk of the book discusses Jewish hermeneutics and Christian (NT) hermeneutics. He states his thesis in the last chapter of the book as follows:

It is the thesis of this book that at least three matters must be taken into account when asking about the relation of New Testament exegesis and a proper exegetical hermeneutic today. In the first place, it is essential that we have an adequate understanding of the New Testament exegetical procedures themselves-not only the literalist modes, but also the pesher, midrash, and allegorical treatments. This is principally a historical issue, which it has been our purpose throughout the preceding pages to clarify; and it is for this reason that these pages are offered to the reader. Secondly, it is necessary that we have an appreciation for the purpose of biblical revelation. This is almost entirely a theological question, which, though influenced by historical considerations, is finally determined on a theological basis. We have not spoken directly to such an issue in what had preceded, though we must inevitably consider it here when asking theological as well as historical questions. And thirdly, in light of historical and theological considerations, we must develop a sensitivity as to what is descriptive and what is normative in biblical revelation.[2]

Longenecker argues that the exegetical procedures of Christ and the Apostles were descriptive and not normative. He continues:

As students of history we can appreciate something of what was involved in their exegetical procedures, and as Christians we commit ourselves to their conclusions. But apart from a revelatory stance on our part, I suggest that we cannot reproduce their pesher exegesis. While we legitimately seek continuity with our Lord and his apostles in matters of faith and doctrine – and may inadvertently sound at times as if we are speaking directly form the courts of heaven – we must also recognize the uniqueness of Jesus as the true interpreter of the Old Testament and the distinctive place he gave to the apostles in the explication of the prophetic word.

Likewise, I suggest that we should not attempt to reproduce their midrashic handling of the text, their allegorical explications, or much of their Jewish manner of argumentation. All of this is strictly part of the cultural context through which the transcultural and eternal gospel was expressed.[3]

On the last page of Longenecker’s treatment, he says:

I propose that in the area of exegesis…we may appreciate the manner in which the interpretations of our Lord and the New Testament writers were derived and may reproduce their conclusions by means of historico-grammtical exegesis, but we cannot assume that the explication of their methods is necessary the norm for our exegesis today.[4]

Robert L. Thomas holds a very similar view. I will post his comments with my interaction in the next post.

[1] Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975, 1999 [second edition]).

[2] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 196. Emphases added.

[3] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 197.

[4] Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis, 198.

 1.      The Apostles’ hermeneutic was unique and not to be employed by subsequent interpreters. One school of thought claims that the apostolic hermeneutic was unique and should not be utilized as a model for subsequent interpreters. Adherents to this position claim that the New Testament authors did not always employ grammatical-historical hermeneutics when interpreting and applying the Old Testament. Since this is so, and since we are bound to apply grammatical-historical hermeneutics, then their method must be viewed as unique because inspired by the Holy Spirit. This position is relatively new in the history of Christian interpretation.

I will provide examples of adherents to this view in the next post.

What Jim said! :-)

Here's the post by Jim.

The fact that the Garden is viewed as the place of the first mountain is very interesting in light of the Bible’s emphasis on mountains and temples. Beale notes that early Jewish commentary also saw a unique relationship between Eden, a high mountain, and Israel’s temple. He references 1 Enoch 24-25 and comments:

The early Jewish book of 1 Enoch says the tree of life would be transplanted from Eden, which was on a ‘high mountain’, to the ‘Holy Place beside the temple of the Lord’ in Jerusalem…, implying that the tree’s former location in Eden was also a sanctuary.[2]

The entry for “Mountain” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery reads:

Almost from the beginning of the Bible, mountains are sites of transcendent spiritual experiences, encounters with God or appearances by God. Ezekiel 28:13-15 places the *Garden of Eden on a mountain. *Abraham shows his willingness to sacrifice Isaac and then encounters God on a mountain (Gen 22:1-14). God appears to Moses and speaks from the *burning bush on “Horeb the mountain of God” (Ex 3:1-2 NRSV), and he encounters Elijah on the same site (1 Kings 19:8-18). Most impressive of all is the experience of the Israelites at Mt. *Sinai (Ex 19), which *Moses ascends in a *cloud to meet God.

A similar picture emerges from the NT, where Jesus is associated with mountains. Jesus resorted to mountains to be alone (Jn 6:15), to *pray (Mt 14:23; Lk 6:12) and to teach his listeners (Mt 5:1; Mk 3:13). It was on a mountain that Jesus refuted Satan’s temptation (Mt 4:8; Lk 4:5). He was also transfigured on a mountain (Mt 17:1-8; Mk 9:2-8; Lk 9:28-36), and he ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:10-12).[3]

Jesus also designated a mountain in Galilee from which he gave the Great Commission to the eleven (Matthew 28:16). Jesus is both the tabernacle of God among men (John 1:14) and a temple (John 2:19-22) who builds the new temple (Ephesians 2:19-22 [his body, the church]). Hebrews 12:18-24 contrasts Mount Sinai and Mount Zion in the context of the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. God’s people have gone from one mountain to another. Surely these mountains are symbols of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and have their foundation in the first mountain-temple, the Garden of Eden.

[1] Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 73.

[2] Beale, Temple and the Church’s Mission, 79.

[3] “Mountain” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarstiy Press, 1998), 572-74.

MCTS invites you to take a peek into tonight’s class. We will meet from 7-9pm CT. Tonight’s lectures include:

Here’s the link.

Here is the final paragraph.

Historic Baptist theology brought together theology and practice. In the best Puritan fashion, it was recognized that what we believe must influence what we practice, and that what we practice must rest on the theological truths we confess. These men and their churches sought to be faithful to that principle. As we strive to preach the whole counsel of God and apply the principles of reformation in our churches, we must take hold of this perspective. Church planting ought to be at the very forefront of our agenda. In Particular Baptist Ecclesiology, the church was fundamentally the result of the personal and sovereign activity of Christ in calling sinners out of the world to salvation. From its roots in the New Testament, it was intended to be a holy community, separate from the world and focused on heaven. But, so important was the planting of churches that programs were established to promote their increase. Funds were raised, men were ordained and sent, and new congregations were organized. Does our theology of the church inform our evangelism? What more can we do?

I also enjoy his regular video podcasts, "Ask Pastor John." They are saturated with biblical wisdom and a pastoral heart. The latest question that Pastor John answers is "What Should We Teach About Creation?"

I recommend watching the video (or listening to the audio). Piper is right to point out several central scriptural truths which must be maintained by Christians: 1) We should teach without any qualification that God created the universe and everything in it. 2) We should teach that he made it good. There was no sin in it, when he first made it. 3) We should teach that he created Adam and Eve directly, that he made them of the dust of the ground, and he took out of man a woman. And 4) We should teach that man had his beginning not millions of years ago but within the scope of the biblical genealogies.

Piper also quickly surveys some of the different views of Genesis 1:1-2:3. It is here that he identifies himself as taking John Sailhamer's view, saying:

"His [Sailhamer's] view is that what's going on here is that all of creation happened to prepare the land for man. In verse 1, 'In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth,' he makes everything. And then you go day by day and he's preparing the land. He's not bringing new things into existence; he's preparing the land and causing things to grow and separating out water and earth. And then, when it's all set and prepared, he creates and puts man there. So that has the advantage of saying that the earth is billions of years old if it wants to be—whatever science says it is, it is—but man is young, and he was good and he sinned. He was a real historical person, because Romans 5 says so, and so does the rest of the Bible."

It is at this point where I must part company with my esteemed brother in Christ. While I commend Piper's desire to build his view on the Word of God and its historical account of creation, Sailhamer fails to properly interpret these opening verses of Scripture. To read a good review and critique of Sailhamer's view, check out Andrew Kulikovsky's response, "Unbinding the rules" (Kulikovsky is also the author of Creation, Fall, Restoration: A Biblical Theology of Creation).

Rather than seeking to interpret the Bible in light of contemporary scientific claims of the age of the earth, we should uphold what the Word of God teaches by challenging the faulty presuppositions of today's mainstream scientists. Then we will be faithful to what God has revealed and expose the "nakedness" of the emperor of contemporary science.

None of this changes my deep admiration for John Piper. Nevertheless, we do disagree on this question and I believe it is important to rightly understand and interpret the first chapters of God's Word.

John Divito

Member, Heritage Baptist Church

M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

First, I wish to make plain the inductive steps that led to this hypothesis. We inductively observe that there is much messianic speculation in second temple Judaism (both in the NT and the intertestamental literature). We add to this the observation that this speculation is anchored in the OT. We then set aside the possibility that ancient people were stupid, which seems to be an implicit assumption of a good deal of modern scholarship, and we seek a hypothesis that explains the data. Since the authors of these texts are presumably seeking to be persuasive to their contemporaries (see, e.g., John 20:31), it seems to me unlikely that their contemporaries would grant the imposition of new meanings onto these texts. One hypothesis that explains the fact that “Early Christians, rabbinic sources, and the sectarians at Qumran cite the same biblical texts in their portrayals of the royal messiah” (J. J. M. Roberts, “The Old Testament’s Contribution to Messianic Expectations,” in The Messiah [ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 41 n. 2) is that the OT is a messianic document, written from a messianic perspective, to sustain a messianic hope. This would mean that these disparate groups are not imposing a messianic interpretation on these texts but rightly interpreting them. This is not the only available hypothesis, but it seems to me to be the most convincing. I agree with John Sailhamer, who writes, “I believe the messianic thrust of the OT was the whole reason the books of the Hebrew Bible were written. In other words, the Hebrew Bible was not written as the national literature of Israel. It probably also was not written to the nation of Israel as such. It was rather written, in my opinion, as the expression of the deep-seated messianic hope of a small group of faithful prophets and their followers” (“The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44 [2001]: 23). The variations in messianic expectation show that the developing portrait of the coming Messiah was not crystal clear, but the pervasive expectation supports the hypothesis.

My second caveat is that though I am calling this “messianic,” I do recognize that this term seems not to receive a technical meaning until the second temple period. But as Rose has written, “It is a matter of confusing language and thought . . . to conclude on this basis that one can speak of messianic expectations properly only after a particular word was used to refer to the person at the center of these expectations” (W. H. Rose, “Messiah,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2003], 566). Cf. also John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 11–12.[2]

[1] James Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10.2 (2006), 30.

[2] Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman,” SBJT 10.2 (2006), 44, n.5.

7. Since the redemptive scope, target, or goal of Scripture is attained by what the Mediator does, then all biblical interpretations and proclamations must be sensitive to and reflective of this scope, target, or goal – i.e., the glory of God through the Mediator, Redeemer, and Reconciler of all things. Though this is not always easy, it is always essential, assuming we want to be distinctly Christian in our interpretations and proclamations.

8. Once we commit ourselves to Sola Scriptura, one of the necessary inferences following from this commitment is that, if the Bible reveals to us how it is to be interpreted, then we are bound to apply the hermeneutic of the Bible to the Bible itself. The Bible reveals to us how it is to be interpreted. Therefore, we are bound to apply the hermeneutic of the Bible to the Bible itself. It is our only source of infallible hermeneutical principles.

5. The Bible, therefore, must be interpreted in light of the Bible (i.e., the Divine hermeneutical spiral). The Bible’s interpretation of the Bible must be the pattern from which we establish sacred hermeneutical principles with which it is to be interpreted. Any other method ends up smuggling in principles from without which, at some point, trump God’s own interpretation of what he has said, done, is doing, and will do. This is especially true when we do not allow the interpretive methods of Jesus and the Apostles to function as infallible, authoritative, interpretive paradigms for all subsequent interpreters.

Take the New Testament, for instance. The Gospels narrate divine deed/act-revelation in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The book of Acts narrates for us what Christ did through the Apostles as a result of entering into his glory and in application of the Great Commission. The Epistles draw out theological and practical implications from God’s deed/act-revelation in his Son for the Church. God’s act in history in his Son is the temporal-historical basis upon which the New Testament exists. The New Testament is a divine commentary on sacred, historical, redemptive acts and contains sacred, written-revelational/redemptive history itself (i.e., Gospels and Acts). The New Testament is God’s complete and final word on his unfolding plan of redemption which reached its terminus in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection/glorification of Christ. It must be interpreted as such.

The Old Testament is similar, though incomplete. God’s acts of creation, announcing the promise of the skull-crushing seed of the woman, revelation connected to Noah, Abraham, the Exodus, the Mosaic covenant – all occurred prior to the presence of the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch (the five-scrolled book of Moses) is a divine commentary on God’s redemptive/revelational acts in history. And just as the Gospels (and the Old Testament) are the foundation upon which the rest of the New Testament is based, so it goes with the Pentateuch and the rest of the Old Testament. The Pentateuch is divine commentary on God’s redemptive/revelational acts in history and the foundation upon which the rest of the Old Testament is based. Therefore, we must view the Old Testament prophets, for instance, as God’s prosecuting attorneys, assuming the Pentateuch as their theological foundation. The Old Testament prophets scold the Old Covenant people based on the data of the Pentateuch and promise deliverance based on Messianic promises in the Pentateuch and further developments of those promises given to them. Thus, the prophets both look back to the Pentateuch and forward to a day of Messianic fulfillment.

The Old Testament is not an end itself; it is heading somewhere and demands answers to various issues left unfulfilled. It cannot stand on its own.[1] It sets the stage for God’s future acts of redemption and assumes that God will follow his redemptive acts with corresponding redemptive/revelational words. The Old Testament cannot stand on its own; it is an open-ended book and must be interpreted as such. The New Testament provides the rest of the story.

[1] Cf. Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 160, where he takes Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. to task for claiming that the Old Testament can stand on its own.

I worry that radical and crazy Christianity cannot be sustained. ...I don’t worry for David’s theology, but I worry that some young Christians reading his book might walk away wondering if a life spent working as a loan officer, tithing to their church, praying for their kids, learning to love Christ more, and serving in the Sunday school could possibly be pleasing to God. We need to find a way to attack the American dream while still allowing for differing vocations and that sort of ordinary Christian life that can plod along for fifty years. I imagine David wants this same thing. I’m just not sure this came through consistently in the book.

You can read the review and discussion here.

Page 25

We come now to v 14 which is introduced with our third "for." Like its predecessors, this "for" is designed to provide support for something stated earlier.  However, in this case, it links back, not to the immediately preceding verse (v 13) but to v 12a. This is evdent because now Paul is no longer talking about the Jews but the Gentiles. "Those who do not have the law" (v 14) are the same as "all who sinned apart from the law" (v 12a).  The best way to see the logical force of this third “for” is to observe that there is a chiasm in our paragraph:39

A. (v 12a) Gentiles (“all who sinned apart from the Law”)

B. (v 12b) Jews (“all who sinned under the Law”)

B.’ (v 13) Jews (“not the hearers of the Law, but the doers of the Law”)

A.’ (vv 14-15) Gentiles (“who do not have the Law”)

Here Irons is to be congratulated on giving what is no doubt the proper understanding of the structure of Romans 2:12-15.  I am a little confused as to how what he says here is consistent with his previous statements.  Earlier in his introductory abstract he has said, “Option 2 comes in two varieties: (2a) Gentile Christians are in view, or (2b) non-Christian Gentiles.”  Later he will say:  “This is the most common objection and it is consistent with either the view that the Gentiles of vv. 14-15 are Christians (Cranfield, Gathercole, Wright) or the view that they are non-Christians (Snodgrass).” (page 30)

The problem with this is that there is clearly a third point of view that opposes the hypothetical point of view.  Allow me be to designate this view 2c.  It is the view that “the doers of the law” in question were Jews genuinely converted by the types and shadow of the gospel found in the Old Testament.  It is unaccountable that Irons has omitted this view.  It is the most exegetically appealing and acceptable of the variations of the non-hypothetical view.  It is also the view of John Murray.

Pages 26-29

 Here I simply want to express my admiration for and agreement with Irons’ interpretation of the Gentiles who do by nature of the law as a reference to unconverted Gentiles who occasionally and outwardly conform to the demands of the law.  I also want to concur with his exegetical intuition with regard to the work of the law being, as he says, not what the law demands, but the “the business, effect, or function of the Law.”  (28) 

Page 29

I said at the beginning that in arguing for the hypothetical view, I do not want to be understood as saying that there will be no future judgment according to works. It is in fact a part of Paul’s gospel message, since it forms the necessary background against which the message of the atonement makes sense.  The good news of God’s grace in Christ makes no sense apart from the bad news that there will be a day of judgment.

This statement is typical of Irons’ desire to avoid the assumed implications of his hypothetical view.  I simply want to note here that an essential part of the judgment described in the previous is the repeated emphasis that in that day those who have done good wil be rewarded.

2:7  to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

2:10  but glory and honor and peace to every man who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

It seems impossible to me to claim that there will be a future judgment according to works, while denying that half of what such a judgment clearly involves will ever take place.  Half of the immediately preceding description of the judgment will never occur according to Irons.

[1] Vos, BT, 6.

[2] I suppose God could have decided to interpret His redemptive acts audibly and leave it at that. However, God’s purpose of cosmic redemption has within its scope some men from every tribe and nation and spans the entire history of man until Christ comes again.

DeYoung's article is a good defense of the ordinary and good dose of sober realism. Read it for yourself here. Thanks, Kevin!

Introduction: This is also known as hermeneutica Sacra – sacred hermeneutics. Since the Bible is not like any other book, it must be treated for what it is – a divinely inspired book with various human authors under the superintendence of one divine author with one ultimate purpose. Berkhof says, “Hermeneutica Sacra has a very special character, because it deals with the Bible as the inspired Word of God. It is only when we recognize the principle of the divine inspiration of the Bible that we can maintain the theological character of Hermeneutica Sacra.”[1] Because the Bible is not like any other book – it is inspired by God – we must allow the Bible due place to instruct us in the method of its interpretation.

Sacred hermeneutics are theological in the sense that they are divinely revealed principles of the Bible found in the Bible and put there as Special Revelation from God. Sacred hermeneutics, therefore, carry along with them all the divine authority that the rest of the Bible carries with it. If the entire Bible carries with it divine authority, then all its parts do as well, including the parts that interpret other parts.

In the next post, I will offer some principles which must guide us when thinking about the issue of hermeneutica Sacra.

[1] Berkhof, Principles, 11.

I explained what the term complementarianism means as it relates to marriage: God made men and women with distinct, gender-based tendencies and corresponding responsibilities, which are both necessary to carry-out the privileges of Christian marriage.

We looked at several texts form Genesis 1 and 2 which, along with other passages we will look at in subsequent sermons, display the fact that God created male and female equal, yet distinct and wonderfully different – different not only in terms of physical composition, but also in terms of psychological tendencies and functional responsibilities.

Practical questions:

1. How important is the biblical doctrine of creation as it relates to complementarianism? Some in our day think the story of Adam and Eve is a fictional account (an Ancient Near Eastern myth) put in the Bible for theological purposes but not as a description of what actually happened. What do you think about this? Is this the way the Bible looks back on the creation account?

2. What are some practical results of denying that God created male and female equal, yet distinct and wonderfully different? What has this produced in our culture?

3. Discuss this statement by Dave Harvey: “Marriage is set within the world – and within your home and mine – as a reminder, a living parable of Christ’s relationship to the church” (When Sinner Say I Do, 27).

Needless to say, the letter of recommendation is in the mail. Pray for Patrick. I know the details of his situation. From all appearances, it was self-defense. Patrick admits he was initially imprisoned for just reasons (he admits he was a wicked man) and is content with whatever God has for him. If there is a humanly legal way to get out that does not transgress the law of God, I think that would be a good thing. If not, so be it. Either way, I am very thankful I can count as my good friend J. Patrick Griffin, Jr.

THE FAMILY TREE OF REFORMED BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

Geerhardus Vos and John Owen –

Their Methods of and Contributions to the Articulation of

Redemptive History

324pp., RBAP

The thesis of this study is that Geerhardus Vos’ biblical-theological method should be viewed as a post-Enlightenment continuation of the pre-critical federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy. Vos wrote in the context of the liberalism of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His biblical-theological methodology was largely a resuscitation of the federal theology of seventeenth-century Reformed orthodoxy adapted to the times in which it was written. It will be argued, therefore, that Vos should not be viewed as a novelty and/or radical paradigm shift within the Reformed theological tradition. John Owen will be used as a case test in comparing Vos’ methodology with that of the seventeenth-century federal theology of Reformed orthodoxy. Two books will be the primary focus of the comparison and analysis of Vos and Owen – Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments by Geerhardus Vos[1] and Theologoumena pantodapa, sive, De natura, ortu, progressu et studio, verae theologiae (Theological Affirmations of All Sorts, Or, Of the Nature, Rise, Progress, and Study, of True Theology[2]) by John Owen. The recently published English translation of Owen’s work is entitled Biblical Theology or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth in Six Books.

The dissertation contains four major sections. The first section (PART I: PROLEGOMENA) provides an overall introduction to the dissertation and a brief and broad survey of the history of the discipline of biblical theology. The introduction poses several questions that will be answered in the course of the dissertation. In the survey of the history of biblical theology special focus will be placed upon Reformed theologians, especially when those of the pre-critical, post-Reformation seventeenth century (Owen’s era) and the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Vos’ era) are discussed. This survey will be conducted to put federal theology and biblical theology in their respective historical contexts.

The second section (PART II: BIOGRAPHICAL, HISTORICAL, AND THEOLOGICAL) will discuss Geerhardus Vos and John Owen separately. It is comprised of a brief biography of Vos, and then a discussion of the historical-theological context in which Vos thought, taught, and to which he contributed. The section on Owen does basically the same thing – a brief biography and then a historical-theological discussion placing Owen in his seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox context. This will set the context for PART III, where the analysis of the two books mentioned above will be conducted.

The third section (PART III: ANALYSIS) forms the heart of the dissertation. It follows a linear, redemptive-historical approach, which can be found in both Vos and Owen. Both books mentioned above were studied section by section simultaneously. The outline is, roughly speaking, that of Vos. Each section considers Vos’ then Owen’s thoughts on the issue(s) at hand. An attempt was made to avoid anachronisms while studying Owen. Since Vos is a well-known commodity as a Reformed biblical theologian, his work forms the basis upon which Owen is compared. Attempt was made to identify elements of biblical theology first in Vos and then seek for similar elements and patterns in Owen. What will be amply observed is that Vos resurrected federal theology and adapted it to his post-Enlightenment context under the rubric of biblical theology.

The fourth section (PART IV: CONCLUSION) will be a discussion in light of our findings. It will compare and contrast, if and when necessary, Vos and Owen. It will offer some suggestions in terms of where and how Vos fits within the history of biblical theology and, especially, how he relates to Owen and the federal theology of the seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox.

The dissertation also contains two appendices: (1) an analytical outline of the dissertation and (2) a discussion on the Decalogue in the thought of key Reformed theologians with special reference to John Owen.

The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology is 324pp. and available from the publisher at RBAP. It is recommended by Joel Beeke, Richard Daniels, Sinclair Ferguson, Richard Gaffin, James Renihan, and Michael Renihan.

[1] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1948, reprinted, June 1988), referenced as BTV here on out.

[2] This is J. I. Packer’s translation of the Latin title. Cf. John Owen, Biblical Theology or The Nature, Origin, Development, and Study of Theological Truth in Six Books (Pittsburgh, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994), xii, referenced as BTO here on out.

The partial nature of the corpus militates against a comprehensive understanding of Hippolytus’s biblical interpretation. We can, however, discern from the extant texts principles and methods he employed as an exegete.[3]

Hippolytus appears to have utilized both allegory and typology in his approach to the Old Testament. His general approach to the Old Testament was “christological.”[4] According to Cerrato, “Like Irenaeus, he begins with a salvation-history outline (the divine economy) of what the ancient Scriptures can be expected to say in light of the advent of Jesus the messiah.”[5] This, as we shall see below, is the approach the New Testament itself utilizes while interpreting the Old. He called it “the “mystical” approach to biblical interpretation”[6] which soon branched into two hermeneutical schools – Alexandria (allegory) and Antioch (typology). Describing Hippolytus’ method of interpretation, Cerrato says:

Thus, for Hippolytus the commentator, special scriptural words and phrases bear a trajectory of analogical meaning whose unfolding is discoverable in the much later experiences of the historic Christian community. Particular narrative events and images in the biblical records of dreams, visions and even erotic experience (Song) are to be interpreted as having become historically realized in the first advent of Christ, as well as in the church, or as projected to become historically realized in his second advent.[7]

His work on biblical prophecy, Daniel and Revelation, has some resemblance to nineteenth- and twentieth century Dispensationalism, according to Cerrato.[8]

Hippolytus is important for several reasons: 1) he continued the salvation-history approach of Irenaeus (This approach shows up again later in our survey.); 2) he viewed the Old Testament christologically, as did others in his day and after; 3) he filtered his interpretation of the Old Testament through the implications of the first advent of Christ, something the New Testament does often); and 4) his “mystical” approach set the stage for the further development of allegory (Alexandria) and typology, to which we will now give our attention.

[1] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 100. The regional context of Hippolytus is doubted by some. Cf. the discussion by J. A. Cerrato noted below.

[2] J. A. Cerrato, “Hippolytus” in Donald K. McKim, Editor, Dictionary of Major Biblical Interpreters (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 524.

[3] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 526.

[4] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 526.

[5] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 526.

[6] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 526.

[7] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 527.

[8] Cerrato, “Hippolytus,” 527.

Irenaeus also wrote The Proof of the Apostolic Preaching. In it he viewed “Christ and Christianity as the fulfillment of the Old Testament by means of a christological-typological reading of the text.”[3] He also saw biblical revelation as salvation history “structured according to the various covenants of God with man.”[4]

[1] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 81.

[2] Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 81.

[3] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 67. For an example of Irenaeus’ allegorizing tendency see Johnson, Him We Proclaim, 103.

[4] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 67. See p. 69 for a summary of Irenaeus’ hermeneutical practice.

From Eadie's commentary on Ephesians.

It seems to me that several contemporary, cultural factors argue for formal theological education in our day/land:

1. The state of public education in the US. Many students do not know English grammar well (I was one of them 24 years ago when I entered seminary!). They struggle with writing and reading comprehension (guilty). A formal theological education forces students to deal with these basic deficiencies.

2. The diversity of ideas propagated via the internet. So much information ends up causing some not to be able to discern what is of utmost importance and who is qualified to tell them what is.

3. The never-ending stream of books. Same as 2. above.

4. The increase of conferences and their followers. Same as 2. and 3. above.

5. The need for pastors to “stay in front” of their people on the major issues of the day, which in many cases are issues the church has dealt with in the past.

It is very rare for a man to be fit for the Christian ministry being tutored by one man. As well, few local churches can do the job of training properly.

I am concerned that some in our day seem to think that the old, tested and found true, way of intense study over a several-year period by live lecturers utilizing a historically aware and comprehensive theological curriculum can be replaced by a seminar approach which looks more like a continuing education program. I think thinking long and hard is better than cramming information into heads that do not have to think long about the issues at stake.

Also, institutions of formal education for ministers of the gospel are very often where the best published materials come from for the bene esse of the church, and some of the worst. :-)

Brandon responded  by indicating that there is a contradiction between what John Murray affirms in his Collected Writings 2:221 and what he affirms in his Romans commentary on Romans 2:6 at 1:62-63.  Having investigated the matter, I discover that Brandon seems to be correct.  That is, Murray's lecture on justification contained in the Collected Writings affirms that works only have to do with the degree of reward in glory, while in his Romans commentary he affirms that the judgment by works which has the twin consequences of eternal life and wrath is not hypothetical.  I see no way to evade the fact of some contradiction between the two statements. 

In re-reading Murray's lecture on justification I also noticed another possible contradiction between the Romans commentary and the lecture in the CW.  Cf. his statement with regard to justification not having reference to the once-for-all reconciliation of the elect at the cross in his lecture (CW 2:203) with his statement that it is possible in Romans 5:9-10 that it does refer to what happened at the cross in Romans 5:9-10 (RC 1:170).  Just to be clear, I happen to think that Murray is probably wrong about the use and application of justification in Romans 5:9-10, but again I do not see how to make these two statements consistent.

How does this affect my argument that Murray does not hold the hypothetical view of Romans 2:13?  It does not, I think, affect it at all.  The question has to do with the exegesis of Romans 2:13, and on this point his statements in the comentary are explicit.  Let me add that I think a good argument could be made that the Romans commentary contains Murray's more mature and definitive thoughts.  This is so for two reasons.  First, as Iain Murray notes in his introduction to CW 2 (vi-ix) Murray resisted appeals to publish the class lectures from which the article on justification in CW 2 is taken.  It seems clear, then, that his commentary which he wrote for publication should be given some precedence over the lecture in CW 2.  Also the commentary was published in 1959 only 7 years before his retirement from Westminster in 1966.  The lecture likely dates from much earlier in his tenure at Westminster where he taught systematic theology from 1930.

I appreciate Brandon bringing this to my attention.

Page 13 

Here is a summary of the various scholarly responses to the apparent contradiction: 

A. Paul isn’t coherent

B. Paul is coherent

(1) Rom 2:13 is hypothetical (an empty set)

(2) “Doers of the Law” (positive) ≠ “works of the Law” (negative)

(a) Gentile Christians

(b) Non-Christian Gentiles

This summary (as Irons himself admits on page 10) is far from comprehensive.  Hed leaves out an important view.  The one which I hold!  (Following John Murray)  Romans 2:13 is on my view clearly referring to godly Jews and is related to verse 12b in an explanatory fashion..

 Page 19

 We can summarize this paragraph in the following way:

v 6: “God will render to each person according to their deeds”

vv 7-10: Jews and Gentiles alike: Those who do good eternal life Those who commit evil wrath

v 11: “For there is no partiality ...

In view of the broader context that we have been examining in chapters 1-4, I would argue that Paul is not – at this stage in his argument – describing real people. He is not saying that there will be people who do good and who, on that basis, obtain eternal life.

Here we learn that in spite of Irons’ earlier attempts to mollify concern about the hypothetical view taking the entire passage as hypothetical, the entirety of verses 7-11 or at least anything that they say about people who do good are also hypothetical.

Page 19-20

For if we take the positive statements in v 7 (“to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, [he will give] eternal life”) and v 10 (“glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”) as denoting actual individuals, then any Jews and Gentiles who have not responded in faith to the message of the gospel but who have lived moral lives would be saved.

This is a remarkable argument.  It is striking because it forgets that for Paul a truly moral life (or perseverance in doing good) is solely a result of faith in Christ.  Later in chapter 3 Paul will specifically say that outside of faith in Christ there are none who do good or seek God.  Romans 3:10-12 affirms:  “as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one;  There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God;  All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one."  On the other hand, those with faith in Christ as a result actually persevered in doing good as a result of the grace of the gospel.  Thus, Paul says in Romans 6:14:  “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.”  Additionally, Paul asserts in Romans 8:13: “for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.”  Thus, in 2 Corinthians 5:10 he affirms:  “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”  Similarly, in Galatians 6:7-9 Paul makes clear that some will reap what they have sown to the Spirit, and this is described as doing good:  “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.  For the one who sows to his own flesh shall from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit shall from the Spirit reap eternal life.  And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.”  Such Scriptures must be wholly ignored and perhaps themselves consigned to a hypothetical status if Irons’ argument here is to be accepted.

This is a good place to note another problem with Irons’ hypothetical view.  As noted above, Irons’ view requires that a hypothetical interpretation be placed on the quotation from Psalm 62:12 which Romans 2:6 clearly echoes this.

The difficulty with Irons’ view is the citation of the same Old Testament text and sentiment in Matthew 16:27.  Both Romans 2:6 and Matthew 16:27 may also allude to Proverbs 24:12.  But this makes little difference for the present point.  For it would be difficult to establish any clear distinction between the language of Matthew 16:27 and that of Romans 2:6.  And this is the problem for Irons’ hypothetical interpretation of Romans 2:6.  Matthew 16:27 clearly speaks of the same judgment as that described in a somewhat parabolic way in Matthew 25:31.  Notice the parallel elements of the judgment described in Matthew 16:27 and 25:31.

Matthew 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds.

Matthew 25:31 "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.

There can, therefore, be no real doubt that Matthew 16:27 and 25:31 describe the same judgment.  But this causes a significant problem for Irons because it is clear from Matthew 25:31 that the good deeds upon which the judgment is based in the case of the righteous are not hypothetical.  Rather, it is clear that these good deeds have an explicit relation to the Christ and the gospel.  These good deeds are gospel good deeds, and these gospel good deeds are the mark of Christ’s people (Matt. 25:35-40).  Finally, those in this category are twice described as righteous (vv. 37, 46).  The righteous deeds, then, of Matthew 16:27 are not hypothetical, but very real deeds done out of love for Christ.  How strange, then, to affirm that the same principle and Old Testament passage which in Matthew 16:27 is very real is, however, in Romans 2:6 to be understood as hypothetical!

The methodological approaches to interpretation below have some correspondence to the types of interpretation utilized by Jesus and the Apostles. Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish and, as we should expect, utilized some of the contemporary methods available to them. Jesus and the Apostles, however, were unique in that Jesus was the Son of God and the Apostles (and apostolic men) were his revelatory organs, inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, their methods were infallible and, hence, authoritative and paradigmatic.[3] Studying ancient Jewish approaches can help us understand the history of Christian interpretation because, as Anthony Thiselton says, “…the Church inherited various perennial problems, and ways of interpreting Scripture, [from ancient Judaism] and most of these are still with us.”[4]

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009), 60.

[2] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[3] More on this later.

[4] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[5] Thiselton, Hermeneutics, 61.

[6] David S. Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 27. Cf. also Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 47-63 and Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Second Edition, 1999; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 6-35 for informed discussions.

RBAP is pleased to offer our latest publication: The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology.  This title is the second work in our dissertation series and is authored by Richard C. Barcellos.  The Family Tree has recommendations from Drs. Joel Beeke, Richard Daniels, Sinclair Ferguson, Richard Gaffin, Jr. and James and Mike Renihan.  The Family Tree lists for $32.00, but can be purchased for only $24.00 with coupon code: 25percentoff exclusively at RBAP.

PURITANISM IN CONTEXT (2 CREDIT HOURS) is an introduction to Puritanism in contexts of the ecclesiastical and civil struggles of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and the place of the movement in the church’s theological development. 

As students of the Puritans, this course should assist Reformed Baptists in placing and understanding our confessional theology in its broader historical-theological context. Jim has done much reading and writing based on his study of primary sources from this crucial era in church history. He is well-known as a leading light in understanding seventeenth-century Particular Baptist theology and ecclesiology in its various contexts. I highly commend this course. Pastors interested in continued education (which I hope means all pastors) should seriously consider taking this course.

Richard Barcellos

For more information, click here.

Peter Golding

(Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor imprint by Christian Focus Publications, 2004),

reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

The last twenty years have seen the publication of several books on Covenant Theology both biblical and historical. Peter Golding’s Covenant Theology (CT) is a helpful resource and should be added to anyone’s library interested in this subject. It is well-written and amply supported with endnotes.

Golding gives a brief history of Covenant (Federal) Theology from the Sixteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries then jumps to the Twentieth. He shows awareness of the Calvin versus the Calvinists theory of the relationship between the sixteenth-century Reformers and the seventeenth-century Protestant Scholastics. He sees the relationship as one of development and refinement, not departure (and rightly so). Golding acknowledges that though full-blown (confessional) federalism came about in the Seventeenth Century, all the essential ingredients of it were latent in the sixteenth-century writers (18). This is a major point to make and important in the contemporary discussions of the relationship between the first and second generation Reformers and their Protestant Scholastic heirs.

Golding provides an historical survey (chapters 1 and 2), brings the reader up to the late 1980s and early 1990s (chapter 3; this chapter is highly dependent on John Murray and O. Palmer Robertson), discusses three perspectives on ‘The Import of the Covenant’ (chapter 4), discusses the covenants of works and grace (chapters 5 and 6), conducts a survey of covenantal/redemptive history (chapter 7), then draws some contemporary conclusions (chapter 8).

Though Golding is highly dependent on Murray in many places, he does take him to task. After highlighting the strengths of Murray’s contributions to Covenant Theology, he identifies his weaknesses as follows: “(i) Murray defines covenant basically as an ‘administration’, …‘the term “administration” does not represent adequately the essence of the covenant-concept in Scripture [quoting Robertson].’ For instance, a marriage is in some senses an administration, yet to use such an impersonal term in defining the essence of marriage hardly captures the heart of the relationship: the covenant binds persons.”(179); “(ii) Furthermore, Murray defines covenant fundamentally from the perspective of one selected covenantal bond, appealing to the Noahic covenant as proto-typical. … Consequently, it is illegitimate to elevate any single covenantal bond to the level of providing the basis for a general definition of covenant. As Robertson points out, ‘When such a procedure is followed, the resulting definition inevitably will be unbalanced in its emphasis.’” (179); “(iii) Connected to the foregoing is the fact that Murray defines covenant in terms of that which the covenant administers, rather than focusing more broadly on the nature of the covenant itself. In Murray’s definition, a covenant is ‘an administration of grace and promise’, but while it may be readily acknowledged that grace and promise are administered in the covenant relationship, ‘yet without question covenant also administers law.’ [quoting Robertson] ” (179).

It is of interest to note that Golding utilizes Robertson’s definition of covenant on page 75, “a bond in blood sovereignly administered.” However, not all biblical covenants involve blood (i.e., Noahic, Davidic, and Marriage). If Golding applied the scrutiny he did to Murray to Robertson’s definition, it seems that he would not have utilized it. Though the word covenant has a basic lexical definition, it can and does take on various nuances as it is used in various texts/contexts. This ought to caution us from creating a definition of covenant that fits all textual usages. It is impossible.

I found his references quite dated for a book published in 2004. For instance, the most recent reference I could find in the bibliography and the endnotes is from 1992. The last fifteen years have seen many works published which deal with federalism in its sixteenth- and seventeenth-century context (for instance, the many titles in the Baker Academic series “Texts & Studies in Reformation & Post-Reformation Thought” and Richard Muller’s monumental four volume Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics). Several authors (Trueman [1998], Rehnman [2002], Daniels [2004], Kapic [2007]) have shown that when discussing the Federal Theology of the Seventeenth Century, John Owen deserves a prominent place. Golding did not give Owen such place. The critiques Golding offers of Dispensationalism and Theonomy are both very brief. The references to dispensational authors are very dated and the critique of Theonomy ends abruptly.

Godling’s book will introduce readers to the world of Covenant Theology (something much needed in our day) and will whet the appetite for further study.

“I love Thy kingdom, Lord,
The house of Thine abode,
The Church our blest Redeemer saved
With His own precious blood.”

The sanctuary of Grace Baptist Church, Taylors, SC, thundered with the singing of the 250+ attendees at the closing of the day one sessions this evening. Dr. Sam Waldron kicked off the first of three evening keynote sermons with the text of 1Timothy 3:15 under the title: “A Church with a Passion for God’s Son and God’s Glory.”  By the end of the sermon, it was only fitting that the assembly respond to God in song and praise!

Before he began his message, Dr. Waldron expressed what an honor it was for him to address the General Assembly. He considered it an honor because (1) he believes in the 1689 confession, (2) he believes in formal Baptist associationalism (both biblically & historically) and (3) he believes in ARBCA. After these opening remarks, he introduced the thesis of his exposition: “We must have a passion for the glory of God in every area of church life because of what the Bible teaches about the church.”

In the context of 1Timothy, Waldron asserted that with regard to the church identity determines duty. Since the Greek word translated “household” can have connotations of “family” and “temple” we find a three-fold “identity” described in 1Tim. 3:15 of the church as the household of God, the temple of God, and the church of the “living God.” Thus, the church has the glorious privilege and duty, first of all, to model a loving, well-ordered family to the world. “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). It has the privilege and duty, as well, to be a local expression of God’s temple. Herein the regulative principle was especially emphasized. It’s not our house. It’s God’s house and we have no right to go moving the furniture around! The Word of God must regulate the way we worship Him. Finally, the church has the privilege and duty of being a formal assembly with a definitive membership, qualifications for membership, and provisions for exclusion. And, as we worship a “living God” and not a dead idol (Psalm 115), we should ensure that He is the central attraction (His Word, etc.) in all our public services so that men will respond “surely God is in this place” (1Cor.14:25).

Waldron’s sermon was loaded with vivid illustrations to drive home his major points. By the grace of God, his clear exposition of the text, his warm, yet powerful delivery and obvious zeal for the house of God made this an excellent ending to an outstanding day.

“Beyond my highest joy
I prize her heavenly ways
Her sweet communion, solemn vows,
Her hymns of love and praise.”

At this point in Dockery’s discussion of second-century hermeneutics, he makes this monumental observation:

In a very basic way, the hermeneutical task facing the second-century church was to show the continuity of the Old Testament with the New Testament or, put another way, how the Old Testament could remain the church’s Bible. Galatians, Colossians, John, 1 John, and 1 Peter especially evidence the struggles of the early Christians. During the second century, and especially in the latter half of that century, the rise of heresies became so wide-spread that they provoked in the church at large a reaction that was to be of enormous significance for the history of Christian thought and Christian hermeneutics.[1]

Dockery claims that a hermeneutical shift took place in order to justify the Old Testament as Christian Scripture. Gerald Bray seems to agree with Dockery, when he says:

Patristic biblical exegesis grew up at a time when the church was faced with a number of crucial problems which it needed to solve, and interpretation of the Bible played a key role in this. The main issues confronting the fathers of the church can be set out as follows.

As will be seen below, a shift took place in the early church in terms of hermeneutical method and goal. The shift was from a moralistic method to an apologetic method centering on how the Old Testament can be viewed as a Christian document. What materialized was a sort of mini-pendulum action. On the one hand, there was a tendency toward allegory (the school of Alexandria and later the Middles ages [see below]) and, on the other, a tendency toward typology (the school of Antioch and later the Reformation and, especially, the post-Reformation Reformed orthodox [see below]). Both allegory and typology had as their primary purpose the Christianization of the Old Testament, though differing in their method in reaching that end.[3]

[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 55.

[2] Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 95.

[3] Cf. Dennis E. Johnson, Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 100ff. for a similar assessment.

[1] Dockery, Biblical Interpretation, 63. Cf. pp. 64-66 for Dockery’s discussion of Justin’s hermeneutical approach.

III.                   Hermeneutics and Semantics

The exegetical task, therefore, is not finished when we draw our micro-exegetical conclusions. We must still perform macro-exegesis. In other words, the typical understanding of grammatical-historical exegesis does not do full justice to the entirety of God’s Word and must be widened to include a place for redemptive-historical exegesis. Or, as G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson say in a recent interview published in Christianity Today:

Beale: Historical-grammatical exegesis traditionally has been used to exegete a Hebrew or Greek paragraph. You try to interpret it contextually in the book, using word studies, grammar, and syntax. You try to understand the logical development of thought within the paragraph, historical background, and theological or figurative problems. You check for parallel texts. It’s a whole array of things you bring to bear on a particular paragraph. Eclectic and literary [method] extends grammatical-historical exegesis from just looking atomistically at the paragraph in the context of its book. In my view, part of exegetical method has to do with how the passage fits into the corpus of the author, how it fits in the New Testament, and how we relate it to the Old Testament. One would especially want to pay attention to Old Testament allusions and quotations, going back to see what’s happening in the Old Testament. You might call that a biblical-theological perspective that really goes beyond the traditional understanding of grammatical-historical. I like to use the phrases “narrow-angle exegesis” and “wide-angle exegesis,” letting Scripture interpret Scripture, or “canonical-biblical exegesis.” This lets later texts in the Old Testament interpretatively develop the earlier texts, and traces how the trajectory finds further development with the New Testament writers. They tend to be sensitive, when quoting one text, to other developments of that text in the Old Testament. That’s a wider consideration than just looking at your paragraph in the New Testament book. You have to do both.[1]

CT: You and Dr. Beale write, “This tension between what [the New Testament writers] insist is actually there in the Scriptures and what they are forced to admit they did not see until fairly late in their experience forces them to think about the concept of ‘mystery’ — revelation that is in some sense ‘there’ in the Scriptures but hidden until the time of God-appointed disclosure.” How are Christian readers apt to misunderstand this notion of progressive revelation?

Carson: Sometimes Christians understand progressive revelation in a fairly mechanistic or linear fashion: More truth simply gets added to the pile, to make a bigger pile of truth. But this “mystery/revelation” tension shows that often something is actually there in the Old Testament text (according to Jesus and his apostles) that was not seen until the coming of Jesus made it clear. The most obvious example is the fact that interpreters of Scripture before the coming of Jesus did not happily put together the Old Testament promises of a Davidic king with Old Testament suffering-servant passages to anticipate a king who suffers, a king who would reign from a cross.[2]

The exegete must hand the fruit of his micro-labors to the department of biblical theology at this point to determine the text’s larger, redemptive-historical meaning. This will provide the exegete wider, biblical grounds for determining both what the text meant and what it means.

IV.                Conclusion

Who infuses biblical texts with meaning? God does, through various human authors. And it is the pain-staking job of the hermeneutical practitioner to insure that his interpretive lens take into account all that God has said while assigning meaning to any given individual text.

[1] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html?start=2. Referenced on February 8, 2008.

[2] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html?start=4. Referenced on February 8, 2008.

1 John 2:27

"Some Christians tend to absolutize this statement and to resist the notion that scholarly work is helpful and important. They forget, of course, that they cannot even read the Bible without depending on the scholarly work that has made Bible translations possible. Someone had to learn Greek and Hebrew; someone had to study ancient culture; someone had to develop expertise in transferring the message of the original to clear, forceful English-all of which had to happen before modern American believers could claim that they need no one to teach them about the Bible!"

Moises Silva, Has the Chruch Misread the Bible?, 69.

• The course begins Tuesday, April 20, and ends Thursday, June 10.
• Lectures will be conducted every Tuesday and Thursday evening from 7:00-9:00pm CT.
• This is MCTS’ attempt to serve men in the ministry who cannot take a full course but desire to sharpen their skills and stay in tune with contemporary trends.
• The price is $50 for internet access to the live lectures.
• Below is the title of the course and a course description.

Course Title: BI 14 (3 hrs.) – Biblical Hermeneutics, Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D.

Course Description: Covers principles of Reformed hermeneutics, history of hermeneutics, sources of hermeneutical principles, canonical structure and hermeneutics, biblical genres and hermeneutics, the Bible’s interpretation of the Bible, biblical theology and hermeneutics, typology, and contemporary issues.

Click here for purchase.

Notice the words “unto life.” This seems to indicate that Adam could have arrived at a state or quality of life he did not possess at creation. This (and other factors) has caused many Reformed theologians to argue that eschatology precedes soteriology in the biblical scheme. For instance, here are some well-known words of Geerhardus Vos. “The eschatological is an older strand in revelation than the soteric”[1] “[T]he eschatological structure of history…was true before, and apart from, redemption.”[2] He goes on to say “[t]hat the… ‘Covenant of Works’ was nothing but an embodiment of the Sabbatical principle.” If the probation of the Covenant of Works had “been successful, then the sacramental Sabbath would have passed over into the reality it typified…”[3] In other words, protology is eschatological and eschatology precedes soteriology.

Pre-redemptive Special Revelation for Vos involves the disclosure of the covenant of works. Concerning the content of pre-redemptive Special Revelation, Vos says:

We understand by this, as already explained, the disclosure of the principles of a process of probation by which man was to be raised to a state of religion and goodness, higher, by reason of its unchangeableness, than what he already possessed.[4]

Notice Vos says “a process of probation.” He links the covenant of works with probation. Is this unique to Vos? Not at all.

Cocceius’ view of the covenant of works infused eschatology into his theology from the Garden of Eden.[5] “The covenant of works opened up the possibility of a history with an eschatological prospect.” [6] Paradise “was a symbol and pledge of a ‘better habitation.’”[7]

Nehemiah Coxe believed that Adam had “the promise of an eternal reward on condition of his perfect obedience to these laws.”[8] The tree of life functioned sacramentally as “a sign and pledge of that eternal life which Adam would have obtained by his own personal and perfect obedience to the law of God if he had continued in it.”[9] Adam’s violation of the positive precept of Genesis 2:17 was also a violation of “that eternal law that is written in his heart.”[10]

Witsius held similar views. The covenant of works, or nature, or of the law[11] is “an agreement between God and Adam…by which God promised eternal life and happiness…, if he [i.e., Adam] yielded obedience…”[12] Witsius sees Adam in a probationary state and capable of arriving at a higher, more blessed state of existence. He says:

That man was not yet arrived at the utmost pitch of happiness, but [was] to expect a still greater good, after his course of obedience was over. This was hinted by the prohibition of the most delightful tree, whose fruit was, of any other, greatly to be desired; and this argued some degree of imperfection in that state, in which man was forbid the enjoyment of some good.[13]

The more blessed state of existence was “eternal life, that is the most perfect fruition of himself [i.e., God], and that forever, after finishing his course of obedience…”[14] This promise of life flowed out of God’s goodness and bounty and not out of any strict necessity.[15] The Garden of Eden, according to Witsius, was a pledge, a type, a symbol, both temporary and anticipatory of a better state yet to be enjoyed.[16] In other words, protology is, as we have seen in other Reformed orthodox theologians, eschatological.

Concerning the doctrine of Edenic probation, John Owen says:

Neither did God offer any other reward for obedience when the covenant was revealed to Adam. What would have occurred when the fixed period of time had elapsed, and it became Adam’s reward to enjoy God uninterruptedly for­ever, has been the subject of much deep and dangerous dispute. Remember that God Himself knew full well that this would never be. We can go no further than what has been established; which is that the fountainhead of our race, if he had remained in his first state of sinlessness, would have, at length, obtained a reward for his fidelity, and that reward would have been undisturbed enjoyment of God as was revealed in the terms of the covenant.

Here we must stop, for neither the sacred page nor the events themselves give any clue to the time-scale of the probation or the way in which Adam would have passed from the possibility of sin and entered into the joy of the Lord forever.[17]

Note that a reward was offered for obedience as revealed in the covenant of works. The covenant of works, then, is pre-redemptive, Special Revelation and not strictly co-equal with the act of creation. This reward would have been given to Adam after the fixed time [i.e., “the time-scale of the probation”] appointed by God had elapsed. The reward was something Adam did not enjoy by creation – namely, uninterrupted and undisturbed enjoyment of God forever. Adam’s obedience would have brought him to that state of being which will be the lot of all those in Christ in the final, eschatological state – i.e., without the possibility of sin. The reward offered to Adam in the covenant of works (i.e., the undisturbed enjoyment of God), is the very same reward obtained by Christ in the New Covenant.[18]

“…God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it…” (2nd LCF 6:1; emphasis added). What Adam failed to do, Christ has done! Christ passed probation by his life-long obedience and went where no man had gone before – he entered into glory via the resurrection. It is that glory that Adam failed to attain and that glory which will be enjoyed by all in Christ.

[1] Vos, BTV, 140. It is of interest to note that this statement comes in the context of Vos discussing the Sabbath. Cf. Dennison, Jr., “Vos on the Sabbath: A Close Reading,” 68-70.

[2] Vos, BTV, 140.

[3] Vos, BTV, 140.

[4] Vos, BTV, 27. Emphases added.

[5] van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 264.

[6] van Asselt, “Structural Elements in the Eschatology of Johannes Cocceius,” 82.

[7] van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius, 264.

[8] Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 44, 51. Coxe gives three proofs with discussion for the promise of an eternal reward on pages 45-46. “These laws” in the context of Coxe’s discussion refers to the moral law and “a positive precept in which he charged man not to eat of the fruit of one tree in the midst of the garden of Eden.”

[9] Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 45. Coxe justifies this function of the tree of life as follows: “The allusion that Christ makes to it in the New Testament (Revelation 2:7). …The method of God’s dealing with Adam in reference to this tree after he had sinned against him and the reason assigned for it by God himself [i.e., Genesis 3:22ff.]. …This also must not be forgotten: that as Moses’ law in some way included the covenant of creation and served for a memorial of it (on which account all mankind was involved in its curse), it had not only the sanction of a curse awfully denounced against the disobedient, but also a promise of the reward of life to the obedient. Now as the law of Moses was the same in moral precept with the law of creation, so the reward in this respect was not a new reward, but the same that by compact had been due to Adam, in the case of his perfect obedience.” Here Coxe is articulating Owen’s (and others’) view of the function of the covenant of works under the Mosaic covenant.

[10] Coxe and Owen, Covenant Theology, 43, 51.

[11] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:50.

[12] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:50. Cf. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Theology,” in CTJ 29 (1994): 75-101.

[13] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:69; cf. also I:123-24.

[14] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:73.

[15] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:76ff.

[16] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I:106ff., esp. I:109.

[17] Owen, BTO, 25.

[18] Owen, BTO, 26.

This might be one of those questions best left unanswered and just deal with the reality of it and not poke our noses where revelation does not take us. I think some singles may be unnecessarily wounded if we told them their single state is a result of the fall.

One last thought: if singleness is a result of the fall, why isn’t marriage an eternal ordinance?

I feel like a medieval scholastic. :-)

As he approached the last part of his radio message, the preacher finally came to his text. In the narrative of Acts he found a dramatic example of the misuse of power. Ananias and Sapphira, weak Christians who had just given in to their temptations, were in need of reassurance and upbuilding. The apostle Peter, in an ugly display of arrogance, abused his authority and denounced their conduct with awful threats. Terror consumed each of them in turn, and they died on the spot under Peter’s unbearable invective.[1]

[1] Moises Silva, “Has the Church Misread the Bible?” in Moises Silva, editor, Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 17.

What can we conclude in light of the evidence presented?

Primary source documentation of Owen has been presented on (1) the perpetuity of the entire Decalogue from Jer. 31:33 and 2 Co. 3:3, (2) Matt. 5:17 as it relates to the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, (3) the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue and (4) abrogation. Examining Owen on these subjects put us both into the primary documents themselves and within Owen’s systematic thought on relevant theological issues. This was necessary in order to understand him on the primary issue under investigation.

Owen’s view of abrogation must be carefully qualified, especially as it relates to the Decalogue and the New Covenant. On the one hand, he viewed the Decalogue as abrogated under the New Covenant. But he viewed it abrogated in terms of its function under the Old Covenant and along with the rest of the Old Covenant’s law. His view of the abrogation of the Decalogue was not absolute, but relative. It concerned a specific redemptive-historical function of the Decalogue and not all redemptive-historical functions.

On the other hand, Owen did not view the Decalogue as abrogated under the New Covenant. He viewed it as perpetual because it contains “the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image.”[1]

These distinctions in his views on abrogation and the various redemptive-historical functions of the Decalogue are in his early and later statements in the Hebrews commentary. It may be difficult for us to understand them, taking them at face value, but once his careful qualifications are taken into account, along with his clear assertions concerning the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant and the grounds for it, his meaning comes clearly into focus. But if we import into Owen our understanding of what certain statements mean or fail to understand his systematic thought, we are apt to misread him and either force on him something he never intended or force him to contradict himself.

Primary source documentation has been presented from Calvin, Ursinus, Witsius, Turretin, Protestant Scholastic thought, and Boston. In doing so, the attempt was made to put Owen in historical and theological context. We found that his views on the matters examined were not novel and fit within the theological nomenclature of his contemporaries. Though what he said may be hard to understand and even appear novel to us, it was not so in his day.

[1] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

Abstract:

There is an apparent contradiction between Rom 2:13 (“the doers of the Law will be justified”) and Paul’s teaching in the next chapter (3:20, 28). Some scholars just think Paul was incoherent. Others try to resolve the apparent contradiction in one of two ways:either (1) Rom 2:13 is hypothetical, setting forth the standard that no one actually meets (3:9-10, 23), or (2) “the doers of the Law” refers to the obedience of faith and does not equal “the works of the Law” which Paul rejects elsewhere. Option 2 comes in two varieties: (2a) Gentile Christians are in view, or (2b) non-Christian Gentiles.

This ignores the possibility that it is converted OT Jews that are in view.  This is John Murray’s view.

Page 2

Paul here states, in what seems to be a straightforward affirmation, that “the doers of the Law will be justified.” In other words, he predicates justification on the basis of doing that which the Law requires.

The phrase “the doers of the law will be justified” strictly speaking says nothing about the basis on justification, but only specifies who will be justified—rather than on what basis they will be justified.  Deriving the basis of justification from it is a step of logic or inference on Irons’ part that may or may not be justified, but which needs to be justified on other grounds than merely quoting Romans 2:13.  The passage which Irons cites to prove a contradiction all contain the language of means or instrumentality.  In other words, the key word is ”by.” This “by” is not present in Romans 2:13.

Footnote 7 Page 7

The first harmonizing approach is to take Romans 2:13 as hypothetical .... It is the majority view in traditional Reformed and evangelical interpretation.

In footnote 7 on page 7 Irons cites Murray as holding the hypothetical view.  He emphatically does not.  See His commentary on Romans on the passage and particularly his comments on Romans 2:6.  They are found on 1:62-63 of his commentary on Romans.

As to Irons' assertion that the majority of Reformed and evangelical interpreters hold the hypothetical view, I am not entirely competent to say.  I did do a quick survey from my own library and discovered that according to my books it is about 50/50. 

Holding the hypothetical view are Robert Haldane, Doug Moo, Stu Olyott, Charles Hodge, Henry Alford, and in his New Testament Theology George Eldon Ladd.

Holding a mediating position in which they seem to take Romans 2:13 as hypothetical, but verses 7-10 as real, are John Calvin, Matthew Poole, Alfred Barnes, and Geoffrey Wilson.

Holding the position that the judgment and justification of these verses are real are John Murray, R. C. H. Lenski, William Hendriksen, Tom Schreiner, James Denney, W. H. Griffith Thomas, G. Campbell Morgan (as cited by Thomas), Frederic Godet (as cited by Thomas), and C. E. B. Cranfield.  In Paul Herman Ridderbos also defends the view that this judgment is real.  In Paul: Missionary Theologian Robert Reymond also defends this view and, in fact, cites Murray.

CHAPTER ONE:

The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Dispensationalism

________________________________

It first must be established that the New Covenant is, indeed, the Constitution of the Church, especially since some have denied it such relevance. In this chapter, we will be laying much of the foundation upon which is built the rest of this study.

In Jeremiah 31:31-34, we read:

“Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them, and on their hearts I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

The question we must answer at this point is: Does, in fact, this passage have anything to do with the Church? Is the New Covenant really the Constitution of the Church? This question is particularly crucial because, as hinted above, it is denied by an important segment of Evangelical Christianity. The approach at this point will be to open up the validity of the premise (i.e., the New Covenant is the Constitution of the Church) under three headings: Its Denial; Its Defense; and Its Difficulty.

Its Denial: The promise of the New Covenant does not apply to the Church

The denial that the New Covenant is strictly relevant to the Church comes from a movement that dominates much of American Christianity. That movement or system of interpretation is commonly known as Dispensationalism. It is, perhaps, most well known as that system of interpretation popularized by The Scofield Reference Bible.

This system, in its classic statement, denies that the New Covenant is fulfilled in (or is the Constitution of) the Church. Before this assertion is proven, it needs to be briefly clarified. This must be done because there may be a few who complain that, by claiming Dispensationalism denies the New Covenant is fulfilled in the Church, it is being misrepresented.

In recent years, different versions of what is called Progressive Dispensationalism have been put forth. Not a few Evangelical scholars are keenly aware of the biblical inadequacies of Classic Dispensationalism. These scholars, rather than admit the inadequacy of Dispensationalism per se, have attempted to re-define it. Having re-defined it, they can continue to claim allegiance to their revered system.

There is, however, a problem with those who object that Dispensationalism is being misrepresented. If scholars are allowed to define Dispensationalism any way they please, then it can become anything they want it to be. Some modern dispensationalists re-define their system so that those who are not dispensational may be categorized as dispensational. There is something wrong with your definition when it can turn anti-Dispensationalism into Dispensationalism. When one’s definition of an apple is so broad that by that definition tomatoes are apples, there is something inadequate about that definition. One wonders if what constitutes Dispensationalism today will be what constitutes Dispensationalism tomorrow.

These scholars may be compared to an antique car buff that has the rusty old frame and body of a Model T sitting in his back lot. He drops a Mitsubishi four cylinder engine into it, a Mercedes transmission, Porsche wheels, and Michelin tires. In general, he so overhauls the thing that, when he is finished, the only item made before 1990 in that automobile is the frame and part of the body. Then he comes to you and claims to own a Model T Ford. What’s the problem? He owns a Model T Ford only in a highly qualified sense of the word. Much of contemporary Dispensationalism is so but only in a highly qualified sense of the word.

A second response to those worried that Dispensationalism is being misrepresented is that, however they may define it in the atmosphere of academia, it is not the kind of Dispensationalism believed in the pews of churches across America and the world. What is being spoken of primarily is the Classic Dispensationalism commonly believed in America.[1]

It can be proven that Classic Dispensationalism denies the New Covenant is fulfilled in the Church by quoting some of the most well known teachers of this system of thought. J. Dwight Pentecost, in his classic treatise on dispensational eschatology entitled Things to Come, says the following, “…the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 must and can be fulfilled only by the nation Israel and not by the Church ....the covenant stands as yet unfulfilled and awaits a future, literal fulfillment.”[2] Another former professor of Dallas Theological Seminary, Charles C. Ryrie, succinctly states his view this way: “The New Covenant is not only future, but millennial.”[3] A third major exponent and well-known teacher of Classic Dispensationalism reiterates this point. John Walvoord asserts, “...the premillennial position is that the new covenant is with Israel and the fulfillment in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ.”[4]

This denial is neither incidental, nor unimportant for Classic Dispensational Premillennialism. Ryrie asserts that Dispensationalism has three essentials. According to Ryrie, one of those essentials is, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct ... a man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions.”[5] Elsewhere he says, “If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then premillennialism is condemned.”[6] In a context assuming the Church fulfills the New Covenant, Pentecost acknowledges, “If the Church fulfills this covenant, she may also fulfill the other covenants made with Israel and there is no need for an earthly millennium.”[7]

Not only does Classic Dispensational Premillennialism deny that the Church fulfills the New Covenant, it must deny this or utterly collapse. This conclusion is obvious, even to adherents of that system. Classic Dispensationalism cannot admit that the church fulfills the New Covenant made with Israel. This would constitute a failure to keep Israel and the Church distinct and separate. It would be to admit that Israel and the Church are in some sense one and the same. According to Ryrie and Pentecost, this would destroy Premillennialism (and all forms of Dispensationalism). They are, of course, absolutely correct.

Its Defense: The promise of the New Covenant does apply to the Church

The defense of our premise that the New Covenant is fulfilled in and by the Church is neither hard nor complicated. We will simply look at the use that the New Testament makes of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and seek to answer this question: What does the New Testament teach about the fulfillment of the New Covenant? We will examine seven passages to obtain the answer.

Luke 22:20

In Luke 22:20, Jesus said, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.” This is the last supper eaten by Jesus and the Apostles in which the Lord’s Supper was instituted. The Apostles were, according to Ephesians 2:20, the foundation of the Church. Jesus speaks of the cup He shares with His Apostles as “the new covenant in My blood.” That is to say, the cup was the outward symbol of the New Covenant. Their drinking of the cup clearly symbolizes their having a part in Christ’s blood and the blessings it procures.

1 Corinthians 11:25

In 1 Corinthians 11:25, Paul says to the Corinthian church, “In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”” This is the definitive passage on the subject of the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament. It demonstrates that the events of Luke 22:20 were intended to institute a continuing ordinance for the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17-22 and 1:1, 2). That being the case, every time a Christian takes the cup which Christ Himself identified as “the new covenant in My blood,” he is saying, “I have a part in the New Covenant, in its blessings, in its rules, in it as the Constitution of Christ’s Church.”

2 Corinthians 3:6

Paul says:

Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor. 3:6)

The reference of this passage to Jeremiah 31:31-34 cannot be evaded. In Jeremiah 31:33 we read of God writing His law on the hearts of His people, just as we do in this context. In 2 Corinthians 3:3, we read, “being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts.” Gentile Corinthians, believers and church-members, had, therefore, the blessings promised in the New Covenant found in Jeremiah 31.

But verse 6 is even more significant. Paul identifies himself, the Apostle to the Gentiles, the Apostle of the Church, as a servant of “a new covenant.” Now the question must be pressed: How could the Apostle to the Gentiles be a servant or minister of the New Covenant if that covenant is not fulfilled in the Church, but is “future and millennial”?

Hebrews

The New Covenant and Jeremiah 31 have their most concentrated New Testament exposition in the Epistle to the Hebrews. It has been argued that this letter and its references to the New Covenant are irrelevant for the Church of the Gentiles. Wasn’t Hebrews written, it is asked, to Jews?

It may be that most of those to whom Hebrews was originally addressed were, as to their national origin, Jews. That does not, however, subtract from the significance of this letter for the Christian Church and the issues before us. This is true for at least three reasons. First, since Hebrews is part of the New Testament and was written after the close of the Old Testament dispensation, the privileges it bestows and the duties it lays upon Christian Jews cannot be limited to Jews. This would be to re-erect the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile that, by His cross, Christ has torn down. This point will become even more evident as we begin to look at the actual passages in Hebrews. Second, this is underscored by the fact that Hebrews was written mainly to Christian Jews. These Christian Jews were being exhorted not to apostatize back into Judaism. Third, those being addressed were members of Christian Churches. They are, for instance, warned not to forsake their assembling together (Heb. 10:25) and exhorted to “Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls” (Heb. 13:17). This is plainly a reference to the elders of those Christian Churches of which, it is assumed, they are members.

Hebrews 8:1, 6-13

Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb. 8:1)

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. For finding fault with them, He says,

“Behold, days are coming, says the Lord,

When I will effect a new covenant

With the house of Israel and with the house of

            Judah;

Not like the covenant which I made with their

            fathers

On the day when I took them by the hand

To lead them out of the land of Egypt;

For they did not continue in My covenant,

And I did not care for them, says the Lord.

“For this is the covenant that I will make with

            the house of Israel

After those days, says the Lord:

I will put My laws into their minds,

And I will write them upon their hearts.

And I will be their God,

And they shall be My people.

“And they shall not teach everyone his fellow

            citizen,

And everyone his brother, saying, ‘Know the

            Lord,’

For all shall know Me,

From the least to the greatest of them.

“For I will be merciful to their iniquities,

And I will remember their sins no more.”

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (Heb. 8:6-13)

The writer here quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 as speaking of that better covenant of which our high priest is the minister and mediator. This certainly implies that the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah was inaugurated by Christ and is currently being fulfilled.[8]

Hebrews 9:14, 15

…how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:14, 15)

Here Jesus is presented as the mediator of the New Covenant that conveys to its recipients cleansing and redemption from sin. These recipients are described as “those who have been called” (v. 15). The New Testament teaches that God is calling both Jews and Gentiles to the promise of the eternal inheritance (Rom. 9:24). If you have been called, then Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant for you, and you partake in the New Covenant and its blessings.

Hebrews 10:10-19

By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us; for after saying,

“This is the covenant that I will make with them

After those days, says the Lord:

I will put My laws upon their heart,

And upon their mind I will write them,” He then says,

“And their sins and their lawless deeds

I will remember no more.”

Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer any offering for sin.

Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, (Heb. 10:10-19)

The promise of the New Covenant that God will remember our sins and iniquities no more (Jer. 31:34) is here seen as fulfilled through the sacrifice of Christ. Because of that promise, we as Christians “have confidence to enter the holy place” (v. 19). Thus, every Christian, Jew or Gentile, who enters the holy place in private prayer or in public worship by the blood of Christ, does so because he has been made a partaker of the New Covenant and its blessings.

Hebrews 12:22-24

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. (Heb. 12:22-24)

In coming to Mount Zion, we have also come to the “Church of the first-born” (v. 23). These blessings are, however, conveyed to us in and through the things to which we have come named in verse 24. The things mentioned in verse 24 occupy a climactic place in the passage because it is by means of them that all the other blessings are conveyed. In other words, it is through Jesus, the mediator of the New Covenant and the sprinkled blood, that such as we are may come to Mount Zion and the Church of the firstborn. Thus, a place in the Church is possessed in virtue of a relationship with the mediator of the New Covenant.

Conclusion

Every New Testament use of Jeremiah 31:31-34 relates it to a present fulfillment in the Church. Conversely, there is no justification anywhere in the New Testament for seeing its fulfillment as future and millennial (either in whole or in part). There is, on the other hand, every reason to see it as the Constitution of the Church in the present age. Just remind yourself of what we have seen. The Savior of the Church is the mediator of the New Covenant. The Apostle of the Church is a servant of the New Covenant. The origin of the Church is owed to the blessings of the New Covenant. The very ordinances of the Church are signs of the New Covenant. Thus, we must conclude, the New Covenant is the Constitution of the Church.

Its Difficulty: The difficulty of applying the New Covenant to the Church

Despite the clarity of the witness of the New Testament on this subject, a problem may remain in the mind of the reader. Despite all this evidence, there may be for some a nagging doubt. You may be asking: Does not Jeremiah 31 say that the New Covenant was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah? How can it be, then, that the New Covenant is fulfilled in the mainly Gentile Church?

The simple answer to that question is that the Church is Israel. Or, to state it more precisely, if the New Covenant is currently being fulfilled, it must be made with and constitute a New Israel. Far from Classic Dispensationalism’s severing of the Church and Israel, the Bible teaches that the Church is the continuation of Israel in a new form in the new age. There is much evidence for this assertion, but we will examine only the three most important passages in the New Testament which prove that the Church is the New Israel. This is contrary to all forms of Dispensationalism, as we shall see.[9]

Galatians 3:29

Paul says, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Paul climaxes his argument in chapter three of Galatians with the assertion that the true seed of Abraham, the true Son of God, was Jesus the Christ (Gal. 3:16). But that is not all he says. Those who are in Christ, united to Him by faith, are also Abraham’s seed and, thus, spiritual Jews and true Israelites.

            All of this may seem like spiritualizing to some. It must be pointed out, therefore, that the Church is the seed of Abraham and the Israel of God only because it is, as Galatians 3:29 plainly says, in union with One who was truly the physical seed of Abraham.

Romans 11:16-24

And if the first piece of dough be holy, the lump is also; and if the root be holy, the branches are too. But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again. For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more shall these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree? (Rom. 11:16-24)

Here Paul likens the people of God to an olive tree. The root of the olive tree is the covenant promise made to the Jewish patriarchs. The natural branches are the Jews. Now what happens when Christ comes? Does God uproot the old olive tree? Does He plant a new fig tree beside the old olive tree? Does He perhaps plant a second olive tree? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. This passage plainly teaches that the same old olive tree continued, but its unbelieving Jewish branches were broken off and new branches, believing Gentiles, were grafted in. What’s the point? Classic Dispensationalism teaches that the Church and Israel are distinct, separate, two different peoples of God. The Bible’s viewpoint is in stark contrast. It teaches that the Church is not a new olive tree. It is the old olive tree, but with new, believing branches. It is Israel, New Israel. Paul appears completely insensitive to “dispensational distinctions” in this passage.

Ephesians 2:11-13

Therefore remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands—remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. (Eph. 2:11-13)

There is a crucial question raised by verse 13. Unto what have the Gentiles been brought near? The answer to this obvious question is also equally obvious. Two considerations put the answer beyond all doubt.

First, they are clearly brought near to those things from which verse 12 says they were previously excluded. What are those things? Among other things, it is, “the commonwealth of Israel.”

Second, the transition from being excluded to being included is repeated in Paul’s conclusion to this passage in verse 19. Note the “so then” with which verse 19 begins. “So then you are no longer strangers and aliens” (Eph. 2:19). The Gentile fellow-believers are now said to be “fellow-citizens with the saints” (Eph. 2:19). Clearly, the “saints” here mentioned are the Jewish saints. Even more significant is the fact that the word translated “fellow-citizens” is derived from the same root translated “commonwealth” in verse 12. Paul’s point is abundantly clear. Believing Gentiles are now, by the work of Christ, full citizens of the nation of Israel.

Conclusion

The New Covenant can be fulfilled in the Church because it is the New Israel of God. And, it must be emphasized, this is not spiritualizing. The head of the Church, the root of the Church, the apostolic foundation of the Church, even all the original members of the Church were Jews.

A radio preacher once asserted that a certain chapter of Acts was “Jewish” ground. There is, however, much more “Jewish” ground in the book of Acts than one chapter. Indeed, the whole New Testament is “Jewish” ground, because the Church itself is in its whole origin “Jewish.”

Practical Implications

We have established the validity of our premise that the New Covenant is fulfilled in the Church and is its Constitution. In the process, the Classic Dispensational system of Bible interpretation has been weighed in the balance of Scripture and found wanting. We quoted, you remember, a representative spokesman of this system who said, “He who does not keep the Church and Israel distinct will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions. ...If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in the Scriptures, then premillennialism is condemned.”

But the Bible itself refuses to keep Israel and the Church distinct as all forms of Dispensationalism do. We have already seen the position of Classic Dispensationalism on this issue. Now listen to what Robert L. Saucy presents as the view of Progressive Dispensationalism.

The biblical teaching about the roles of Israel and the Church in history reveals that although they have much in common, they remain distinctively different. Believing Israel and the members of the Church are one in their participation in the eschatological salvation of the new covenant. Because of the relationship to God that this entails, they are equally and together “the people of God.” …In both Testaments, the identity of “Israel” is always the historical people descended from Abraham through Jacob that became a nation. Israel was called to witness God’s salvation to the other nations as a nation among nations. The Church, by contrast, is identified in the New Testament as a people called out of all nations. In distinction to Israel in her being and witness as a “nation,” the Church is called to proclaim the kingdom salvation as individuals and as a community living in the midst of the nations, but not yet in the totality of a “nation.” [10]

Jesus, however, said to the Pharisees, “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it” (Matt. 21:43). Peter calls the Christians he addressed in 1 Peter “A HOLY NATION” (1 Pet. 2:9). From the Bible’s perspective, therefore, the Church is the eschatological nation of Israel, reconstituted according to the terms of the New Covenant. Thus, the Bible itself demands that we reject all forms of Dispensationalism at this point. This is, we realize, a blunt assertion. No offense is intended. We are not denying that many sincere and godly Christians have held and still hold to this system. We are not saying that such Christians have not taught many important biblical truths. We are simply asserting that the dispensational system with its peculiar views about the Church and Israel and prophecy is wrong.

There may be some who have never even heard of Dispensationalism, or for whom it is not an issue. What has all of this to say to you? You may be deeply influenced by an error without realizing it or even knowing its name. A warning against an error that our discussion has exposed and one not by any means restricted to dispensationalists is appropriate at this time. Beware of minimizing the importance of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Many things in Dispensationalism conspire to minimize or depreciate the importance of the Church in the plan of God. The simple fact that the Church becomes, in older Dispensationalism, one of two distinct peoples of God depreciates its importance. The fact that the really exciting prophetic events have to do with Israel deepens the problem. The great prophecies of the Old Testament are not for the Church, but for Israel, according to Dispensationalism.[11] We in the Church age live in a great parenthesis in history when the prophetic clock has stopped ticking. The dispensation of the Church is doomed like all the others to end in abject failure. The visible Church is corrupt, apostate, bound to get worse, and sure to fail. The conclusion of one Classic Dispensational teacher is surely correct if such teaching is true. He said, “Don’t polish the brass on a sinking ship!” No wonder many professing Christians regard the Church and local Church membership as an optional or secondary part of their Christian lives. After all, isn’t membership in the spiritual, invisible Church sufficient?

We must set over against all such attitudes the teaching of the Bible. The Church is the New Israel. She is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. God has no other age, no other plan, and no other organization through which His kingdom is to be peopled with the nations of the earth. The Church, says Paul, is that people “upon whom the ends of the ages has come” (1 Cor. 10:11). The Church is the fruition of God’s “eternal purpose which He carried out in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Eph. 3:11). Thus, Paul cries out, “to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus to all generations forever and ever. Amen” (Eph. 3:21).

Be solemnly admonished, therefore, not to minimize the importance of the Church. Here are some ways the Church is minimized:

By thinking of it as a mere human institution. The Church is both Divinely originated and Divinely regulated by the New Covenant. Christ established no other institution to carry on His work in the world. There are no other biblically warranted visible manifestations of that institution in the world than local churches.

By sinfully neglecting membership in it. Jesus founded the Church as His New Israel. He expects His people to seek formal citizenship in it. Could it be that the casual attitude of some about Church membership is rooted in a minimizing of the Church of Christ?

By resentment of its authority. Such resentment of biblical accountability to a local Church and its appointed representatives is a form of lawlessness, if the Church is, indeed, at the heart of God’s plan for the ages.

By vision-less stagnation in our hopes for it. It is the Church that must evangelize the lost. It is the Church that must plant other churches. It is the Church that must engage in foreign missions. It is the Church that ought to spread the Word through literature, publishing, and bookstores. It is the Church that must prepare men for the Gospel ministry. There are great things to be done, and it is the Church that must do them.

By pessimistic prayerlessness for its prosperity. The Church is the appointed manifestation of the people of God, the inheritance of God, the Israel of God. It is the apple of God’s eye. It is the focus of the labors of our ascended Lord. Remember Christ’s words, “…I will build My Church ...” (Matt. 16:18). Churches ought to pray, labor, and hope as the triumphant Israel of God.

[1] It will be pointed-out below that even Progressive Dispensationalism fails to adequately deal with the promise of the New Covenant and its fulfillment in and application to the Church.

[2] J. Dwight Pentecost, Things To Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1964, 1979), 124, 125.

[3] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1975), 112.

[4] John Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, OH:Dunham, 1958), 209.

[5] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), 44-48.

[6] Ryrie, Premillennial Faith, 105, 106, 111. There are other reasons for the “condemnation” of Premillennialism. See the author’s The End Times Made Simple (Amityville, NY: Calvary Press, 2003).

[7] Pentecost, Things to Come, 116.

[8] Classic Dispensationalism argued that the writer of Hebrews never intended to teach that Israel’s New Covenant was now operative. Pentecost says, “Thus, in Hebrews 8 the promise of Jeremiah is quoted only to prove that the old covenant, that is the Mosaic, was temporary from its inception, and Israel never could trust in that which was temporary, but had to look forward to that which was eternal. Here, as in Hebrews 10:16, the passage from Jeremiah is quoted, not to state that what is promised there is now operative or effectual, but rather that the old covenant was temporary and ineffectual and anticipatory of a new covenant that would be permanent and effectual in its working. It is a misrepresentation of the thinking of the writer to the Hebrews to affirm that he teaches that Israel’s new covenant is now operative with the Church” (Pentecost, Things to Come, 125, 126). Pentecost does say that the New Covenant was instituted by Christ’s blood, but that “these [ethnic Israelites] to whom it was primarily and originally made will not receive its fulfillment nor its blessings until it is confirmed and made actual to them at the second advent of Christ …There certainly is a difference between the institution of the covenant and the realization of the benefits of it” (Pentecost, Things to Come, 126, 127).

[9] Though Progressive Dispensationalism sees the New Covenant fulfilled in the Church, it still demands a future millennium for many prophesies of the Old Testament to find their fulfillment. This does not deal adequately with the fact that the Israel of Old Testament prophecy is the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. Since the promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah applies to the Church, then all other Old Testament prophecies apply to the Church (cf. 2 Cor. 6:16-7:1 where Old Testament promises of the New and Davidic Covenants [see also Lk. 1:69; Acts 2:22-36 and 15:12-18] and Gal. 3 [see also Lk. 1:54, 55 and 72, 73] where promises relating to the Abrahamic Covenant are applied to the Church). No future millennium is needed. All Old Testament prophecies concerning the future of Israel on this earth are being and will be fulfilled by the Church, whether in this age or in the age to come.

[10] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 218.

[11] Both Classic and Progressive Dispensationalism teach that the great prophecies of the Old Testament are for Israel in a future millennium (cf. Saucy, Progressive Dispensationalism, 221ff.). Once it is acknowledged that the Church is the Israel of Old Testament prophecy, however, there becomes no need for a future millennium for the fulfillment of these prophecies. This is further strengthened by the fact that the New Testament constantly focuses upon the second coming of Christ, the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the New Heavens and the New Earth as the next great prophetic and eschatological events, not the millennium. See the author’s The End Times Made Simple.

________________________________

      It is the conviction of this author that confessional Reformed Baptist churches[1] reflect the major distinctives of the New Covenant. In other words, what confessional Reformed Baptists endeavor to be is stated clearly in the terms of the New Covenant. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to set before you a Reformed Baptist Manifesto by means of an examination of the New Covenant as the Constitution of the Church. This assertion may seem arrogant. It is hoped, however, that the reader will simply permit the New Covenant to speak for itself and see the relevance and appropriateness of such a claim.

      Though differences with other Christians will be discussed, let it be clearly and emphatically stated at the outset that confessional Reformed Baptists stand with many Reformed and Dispensational brothers on the essential issues of the Christian faith. We gladly stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who hold to the plenary inspiration, inerrancy, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. We are very glad that many of our Reformed and Dispensational brothers are standing firm on justification by faith alone in Christ alone. We are glad to affirm our unity with all who are standing firm against the onslaughts of Open Theism. Though we differ on the details of the New Covenant, we are one on these issues and many others essential to the Christian faith.

      The phrase “New Covenant” is used explicitly five times in the New Testament. There are at least five more times in which clear allusions to it occur. This, however, does not adequately reveal the all-importance of the New Covenant in the Bible. The last 27 books of our Bibles are called the New Testament. This phrase is an alternate translation of the New Covenant. In one sense, the New Testament is the New Covenant. That is to say, the Scriptures of the New Testament are the Scriptures of the New Covenant, just as the Scriptures of the Old Testament are the Scriptures of the Old Covenant. This in no way takes the Old Testament out of the hands of Christians. Just as the Old Testament has to do with the establishment and implications of the Old Covenant, so the New Testament has to do with the establishment and implications of the New Covenant.

      This way of speaking about the two parts of our Bibles is not merely traditional. In 2 Corinthians 3:14, the Apostle Paul, having spoken in this very context of the New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6), speaks of “the reading of the old covenant.” By this phrase he intends the consecutive, public reading of the Old Testament Scriptures in the Jewish synagogues. Not only does the New Testament frequently and explicitly refer to the New Covenant, the Scriptures of the New Testament in a sense are the New Covenant. The subject of the New Covenant is, obviously, of vital importance for all Christians.

It is amazing to realize that despite all of the attention to the New Covenant in our New Testaments, there is only one passage in the entire Old Testament where this phrase occurs. That pivotal passage will be the focal point of this study. That passage is Jeremiah 31:31-34.

The premise of this study is intimated in its subtitle: the New Covenant Constitution of the Church. To state that premise plainly, the New Covenant is the Constitution of the Church of Christ. In other words, what the Constitution of the United States of America is to our country, what the Magna Carta is to the British Commonwealth, that the New Covenant is to the Church of Christ.

The term covenant is undoubtedly one of the most important words in the Bible, used over 280 times in the Old Testament and over 30 times in the New Testament. It has been deservedly the focus of much learned discussion. One issue important for this study that this discussion has established is this: A covenant in the Bible, among other things, is the formal or legal basis of some relationship. For instance, Malachi 2:14 (“she is your companion and your wife by covenant”) speaks of the marriage covenant as the formal, binding, legal basis of marriage. Similarly, the Old or Mosaic Covenant was the formal, legal, basis for the national existence of Israel. It stated the terms on which Jehovah had formally taken the nation of Israel for His bride. For instance, Ezekiel 16:8 says, ‘“Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine,’ declares the Lord GOD.” This Old Covenant is explicitly compared to and contrasted with the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31.

This is why the New Covenant is the Constitution of the Church. Though written church constitutions are permissible for the sake of administration, the premise for this study is that the New Covenant is itself the ultimate, formal basis and legal rule of the Church. This study, therefore, will be spent in establishing and opening up this premise from Jeremiah 31.

Due to the issues at stake and the attempt to present a Reformed Baptist Manifesto this study will be somewhat polemic. As the study progresses, we will be discussing the views of others with which we differ. As we unearth confessional Reformed Baptist distinctives grounded in the New Covenant, some differences with other Evangelical Christians will be exposed. We will conduct ourselves in the interest of truth, intending no malice.

Here is the outline that will be followed:

• The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

      and Dispensationalism

• The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

and Antinomianism

• The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

      and Arminianism

• The New Covenant Constitution of the Church

      and Paedobaptism

The approach to these issues will be as follows. During the course of our examination of the New Covenant, confessional Reformed Baptist doctrine will be established and then compared and contrasted with Dispensationalism, Antinomianism, Arminianism, and Paedobaptism. The result will be a Reformed Baptist Manifesto based on the New Covenant as the Constitution of the Church.

[1] For our purposes, a confessional Reformed Baptist church refers to any local church subscribing to the Second London Confession of Faith of 1677/1689 (2nd LCF).

*You can purchase the book here.

1. John Owen. Owen teaches that the whole law of Moses (even the moral element) has been abrogated. Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19, Owen says:

I have proved before that “the commandment” in this verse [Heb. 7:18] is of equal extent and signification with “the law” in the next. And “the law” there doth evidently intend the whole law, in both the parts of it, moral and ceremonial, as it was given by Moses unto the church of Israel [emphasis added].[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 7:12, Owen says:

It was the whole “law of commandments contained in ordinances,” or the whole law of Moses, so far as it was the rule of worship and obedience unto the church; for that law it is that followeth the fates of the priesthood [emphasis added].[2]

Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent [emphasis added].[3]

Owen, of course, carefully qualifies what he means by the whole law and its abrogation. Commenting again on Hebrews 7:18, 19, he says:

Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[4]

Again, Owen says:

By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church [emphasis added].[5]

This comes in a section in which Owen is showing how “the whole law may be considered …absolutely in itself” or “with respect …unto the end for which it was given” or “unto the persons unto whom it was given.”[6] He calls the law “the whole system of Mosaical ordinances, as it was the covenant which God made with the people of Horeb. For the apostle takes ‘the commandment,’ and ‘the law’ for the same in this chapter; and ‘the covenant,’ in the next, for the same in them both.”[7] Owen is concentrating on the whole Mosaic law, i.e., it is the law in its totality as it related to God’s Old Covenant people that has been abrogated. Thus the abrogation of the law in Owen refers to the whole law as it functioned in Old Covenant Israel.[8]

2. John Calvin. This understanding of abrogation is found in Calvin also. Calvin taught that the abrogation of the law under the New Covenant in no way abrogates the Decalogue in every sense of the word. Commenting on Rom. 7:2, Calvin says:

…but we must remember, that Paul refers here only to that office of the law which was peculiar to Moses; for as far as God has in the ten commandments taught what is just and right, and given directions for guiding our life, no abrogation of the law is to be dreamt of; for the will of God must stand the same forever. We ought carefully to remember that this is not a release from the righteousness which is taught in the law, but from its rigid requirements, and from the curse which thence follows. The law, then, as a rule of life, is not abrogated; but what belongs to it as opposed to the liberty obtained through Christ, that is, as it requires absolute perfection [emphasis added].[9]

It is important to note that “the term ‘law’ for Calvin may mean (1) the whole religion of Moses…; (2) the special revelation of the moral law to the chosen people, i.e., chiefly the Decalogue and Jesus’ summary…; or (3) various bodies of civil, judicial, and ceremonial statutes.”[10] Calvin says, “I understand by the word ‘law’ not only the Ten Commandments, which set forth a godly and righteous rule of living, but the form of religion handed down by God through Moses.”[11] Calvin views the law in various ways. So when he speaks of abrogation, he does not intend absolute abrogation, but relative abrogation in terms of the law considered not in itself, but in its redemptive-historically conditioned use. Commenting on the concept of abrogation in Calvin, one Calvin scholar said, “the Law was not in itself abrogated by the Christ, but only the slavery and malediction attaching to it under the ancient Covenant.”[12] According to Calvin, therefore, the Moral Law has not been abrogated, as such. What has been abrogated or fulfilled in Christ for believers is its function as a curse. “The law itself is not abolished for the believer, but only the maledictio legis… [F]or Calvin the law is related above all to believers for whom, however, the maledictio is removed.”[13]

3. Zacharias Ursinus. In his commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the extent that Christ abrogated the law and the extent that it is still in force, Zacharias Ursinus says:

The ordinary and correct answer to this question is, that the ceremonial and judicial law, as given by Moses, has been abrogated in as far as it relates to obedience; and that the moral law has also been abrogated as it respects the curse, but not as it respects obedience [emphasis added].[14]

The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not [emphasis added].[15]

But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned. God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law [emphasis added].[16]

4. Francis Turretin. A similar understanding of abrogation is found in Francis Turretin. In volume 2 of his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Turretin entitles chapter XXIII as follows:

THE ABROGATION OF THE MORAL LAW

XXIII.    Whether the moral law is abrogated entirely under the New Testament. Or whether in a certain respect it still pertains to Christians. The former we deny; the latter we affirm against the Antinomians.[17]

Notice Turretin’s careful qualifications (i.e., “entirely” and “in a certain respect”). While discussing the abrogation of the moral law, he says, “In order to apprehend properly the state of the question, we must ascertain in what sense the law may be said to have been abrogated and in what sense not.”[18] Then, after listing three senses in which the law has been abrogated, he says, “But the question only concerns its directive use–whether we are now freed from the direction and observance of the law. This the adversaries maintain; we deny.”[19]

Turretin does what we have seen in others. He has a view of abrogation which both includes the Decalogue and does not include the Decalogue. This is because the law can be viewed from different theological and redemptive-historical vantage points.

5. Protestant Scholasticism. Finally, concerning the lex Mosaica [law of Moses], which, representing the view of Protestant Scholasticism, he defines as the moral law as given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai, Richard Muller says, “As a norm of obedience belonging to the [covenant of grace], the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament.”[20] Muller recognizes the fact that Protestant Scholastics considered the law in different ways. Therefore, when we examine their statements about abrogation, we must take this into consideration. If we do not, we may take their statements on the abrogation of the law in an absolute manner and make them mean something they did not.

We have seen that Owen’s view of abrogation was similar to Calvin’s, Ursinus’, Turretin’s, and Protestant Scholasticism’s. With them, he carefully and repeatedly qualifies what he means by abrogation. He stands clearly within Reformed orthodoxy at this point. His view of abrogation neither necessarily demands the elimination of the Decalogue as a unit in all senses under the New Covenant, nor is it contradicted by the inclusion of the Decalogue as a unit under the New Covenant. Though with his own nuances and emphases, Owen’s view is substantially that of others in his day. It was Calvin’s, Ursinus’s, Turretin’s, Protestant Scholasticism’s, as well as that of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Savoy Declaration, and the 2nd LCF.[21]

From the evidence presented, Owen must be understood to view abrogation as both including and not including the Decalogue, depending on how it is viewed. If this is the case, his understanding of abrogation, though with its own nuances and emphases, has clear and ample precedent in Calvin, Ursinus, Turretin, and Protestant Scholasticism.

[1] Owen, Works, XXI:464.

[2] Owen, Works, XXI:428.

[3] Owen, Works, XXI:429.

[4] Owen, Works, XXI:458.

[5] Owen, Works, XXI:469.

[6] Owen, Works, XXI:466.

[7] Owen, Works, XXI:471.

[8] I defended this view of abrogation in my IDOTD. “Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 61.

[9] John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1984), IXX:246.

[10] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii, n. 1.

[11] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.1.

[12] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 203.

[13] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 256.

[14] Ursinus, Commentary, 492.

[15] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.

[16] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[17] Turretin, Institutes, II:ix.

[18] Turretin, Institutes, II:141.

[19] Turretin, Institutes, II:141, 42.

[20] Muller, Dictionary, 174.

[21] See chapters 4 and 19 of these Confessions.

Today I continue my series working through the classic work by Edmund Clowney, Called to the Ministry. For those of you who missed last week’s post, you can read it here: “Called By Name.” After a brief summary of chapter two, I'll add my thoughts and then you are invited to respond with your insights as well. May we spur one another on through our study together!

Summary

Like last week, Clowney continues to unfold God’s call of every Christian before focusing on the specific call to the ministry. We are all called by God’s name, and His name calls us to service. This means that we are called to the cross, with Jesus Christ as our example. It was the Father’s will for Christ to suffer and die on the cross. We are also called to suffering and death. But our calling is not one of destruction, abandonment, and frustration. It includes a purpose and sets a task to be fulfilled. We are to be in the service of Christ’s kingdom. This kingdom calling both separates from the world and sends us to the world, proclaiming the King’s terms of peace.

But we are not left alone in this calling. Our Lord sends the Holy Spirit as a royal gift. The Spirit unites the church of Christ together while also bestowing many gifts in varying amounts to His people for His kingdom work. While there is great diversity in God’s gifts of grace, all Christians are called to a ministry and all Christians are needed to fulfill the church’s service to our Savior. Thus, we grow by ministering to others and receiving the ministry of others. Our freedom and growth are found in fellowship with one another. We need to fulfill our callings by looking for opportunities of service as well as seizing God-given opportunities of service.

Clowney concludes by presenting a challenging question:

What opportunities do you perceive? The first doors are in the room where you are. The Lord has given you a certain set of present circumstances. . . .  Here you must begin; indeed, here you must be willing to remain until other doors of opportunity are perceived and opened. The surest way to miss future opportunities is to ignore present ones. Perhaps this lesson is hardest to learn for those who are preparing for future service. Since education has gained such importance in our culture, young people often spend years being educated before any purpose in their education becomes apparent. (37-38)

My Thoughts

Again, this was a powerful chapter, providing me with much food for thought. I especially appreciated his discussion of our calling in light of two commands. “The ‘Come!’ of Christ separates us from the world to his name; the ‘Go!’ of Christ sends us into the world in his name” (18). Holding both of these commands together proves quite difficult, as church history often demonstrates. We either seek to separate ourselves from the world or identify with the world. But both errors betray our kingdom calling. “The calling of the kingdom, then, is the power of God that brings us from darkness into light and sets us as lights in the darkness” (20). May we seek to live out both truths!

Another enlightening section of the chapter was Clowney’s explanation of spiritual gifts. From appreciating the unity and diversity of God’s gifts to recognizing their corporate purpose, I loved reading about our gracious Lord’s equipping of His people for His glory. I was also greatly encouraged with these words: “God’s giving and calling are dynamically related. When he gives, he calls; when he calls, he gives. . . . Your desire to serve God more fully may be the foretaste of richer gifts equipping you for that service. It is quite possible to overestimate the gifts you have; it is quite impossible to over-supplicate the gifts you need” (30). What a wonderful incentive to pray!

Your Turn

What do you think? Feel free to comment or even pick up a copy of the book yourself and join me by reading through the chapter. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

John Divito
Member, Heritage Baptist Church
M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Barcellos lectures here.

II.                Divine authorial intent as a hermeneutical principle must be viewed as the goal of interpretation.

The theory above does not allow proper place for the ultimate author of Scripture, who is God. The Lord God chose to reveal Himself as redeemer slowly and diversely in the Old Testament and then quickly and climactically in the Son – cf. Hebrews 1:1-2. The Bible has one target – the glory of God revealed in the redeemer. All the individual arrows of revelation are aimed at the bull’s eye of revelation – the God-glorifying mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ. Because of this doxological/Christocentric/Christotelic pursuit, the Bible must be interpreted in light of this in all of its parts, though it must be acknowledged that the parts do not all serve the whole with the same degree of clarity or importance.

Just how those parts fit within the whole is sometimes left up to subsequent revelation to interpret for us. Certain and vital aspects of divine revelation can be (and are!) latent in antecedent revelation and then made patent by subsequent revelation (cf. Romans 5:14, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”). This is the way God has designed His Word.

It must be remembered that single texts of Scripture occur in various levels of context, the widest being a whole-Bible or canonical context. Each text is narrating or revealing one piece of the pie of Special Revelation for us. There is an overall canonical trajectory of thought that each individual text is serving at some level. In other words, the narrative (text) is serving a meta-narrative – the glory of God revealed in Christ, the scope of Scripture.

It must never be forgotten that behind the human author is the Divine author who has purposes of revelation that may transcend the human author’s intent and the original human audience’s understanding. This philosophy of interpretation (i.e., hermeneutic) does not deny that “the true and full sense of any Scripture [text or passage] …[is]… one”[4]; it advocates that “the true and full sense of any Scripture” is God’s, which may have more than one trajectoral sense (i.e., near-historical, far-doxological/Christological or typological (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:4, “and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.”).

This is what some call sensus plenior – i.e. a fuller sense. Some take sensus plenior to refer to meanings not intended at all by the human authors, meanings that would surprise the human authors. However, if the human authors of Scripture possessed a Messianic consciousness and thought within a typological grid, sensus plenior need not imply meanings that would surprise them. The New Testament often brings out of the Old Testament a fuller sense of meaning than the original author and audience might have known at first glance. This does not deny, however, the fact that God always had that meaning in mind, nor does it necessarily imply that the human authors would have been surprised by the New Testament’s use of their text. Divine authorial intent never changes. The divine author’s intent is the literal sense of the text, which never changes. Richard A. Muller quotes Aquinas at this point favorably, where he says, “the literal sense is that which the author intends, and the author of Scripture is God.”[5] What God revealed, for instance, in Hosea 11:1, always had a near-historical and a far-eschatological/Christotelic meaning (Matthew 2:15), though not necessarily fully understood as such by Hosea or his audience. Listen to G. K. Beale on Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1:

Beale: For example, in Matthew 2:15 it says, “And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Out of Egypt I called my son.’” That’s from Hosea 11:1. The problem is, when you go back to Hosea 11:1, it’s not a prophecy. It’s just a description of Israel coming out of Egypt hundreds of years earlier. If a student were asked on test, “Is Hosea 11:1 a prophetic statement?” many teachers would give them an F if they said yes. You can read Craig Blomberg’s chapter on Matthew to learn more. Basically this falls into a category called typology, where the events of the Old Testament are seen as prefiguring events on a grander scale in the New Testament. For example, John 19 says Jesus is the greater Passover Lamb. Part of the presupposition of the Old Testament and New Testament writers is that there are two modes of prophecy, not just direct verbal prophecy but also what one might call “patterns of history” that point forward. All of a sudden it makes sense that the past exodus referenced in Hosea 11:1 is seen as an event prefiguring a greater exodus, Jesus coming out of Egypt.[6]

[1] John Owen, Works, IV:208.

[2] Philip Barton Payne, “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author’s Intention” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 81.

[3] Payne, “Fallacy”, 70-71.

[4] 2nd LCF 1:9.

[5] Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), II:476; Muller is quoting Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Ia, q. 1, a. 10.

[6] http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-52.0.html. Referenced on February 8, 2008.

4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

This passage speaks of a "hope of righteousness."  However this interesting phrase is to be more particularly understood, it seems clearly to refer to a righteousness we "hope" to receive in the day of judgment.  Since the imputed righteousness of Christ is not a hope, but a present possession, this righteousness cannot be identical with the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith alone in the past at our conversion.  It is, of course, closely related to such an imputed righteousness as verse 4's reference to being justified by grace and not by law makes clear.  Our past justification by grace is the whole ground or basis of this future righteousness.  Yet this is a righteousness received by hope (not by faith) and by faith working through love (and not by faith alone).  I think that it refers to being accounted and publicly declared righteous (a genuine believer in Christ as vindicated by the works of faith) to a watching universe.

2 Timothy 4:7-8

7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; 8 in the future there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day; and not only to me, but also to all who have loved His appearing.

The crown of righteousness is, I take it, the crown which consists in righteousness.  This crown imagery is not naturally taken to be a reference to our actual characters being made perfect in holiness at the last day.  Trying to make it refer to that actually raises some difficult problems.  Rather, it seems to me that the crown of righteousness imagery refers to the vindication or accounting and declaring righteous before a watching world of Paul and with him all who like him loved the Lord's appearing and persevered in the faith.  This crown of righteousness (as the passage declares quite plainly)  is not received by faith alone.  Rather, it is received by Paul in consequence of his having "fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith."  Further, it is for "all who have loved His appearing."

Hebrews 11:7

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.

This passage also speaks of the future righteousness or vindication of the day of judgment.  Noah became an "heir" of this righteousness by building the ark.  Again, I think it is a mistake to make this refer mainly or specifically to the imputed righteousness of Christ.  Again, let me repeat that the imputed righteousness of Christ received by faith alone is the whole basis and ground of it, but that is just my point.  We do not receive that imputed righteousness by building arks.  This righteousness is the crown and hope of righteousness of which Paul spoke in the other passages.  It is the accounting and declaring righteous (or genuine believers in Christ) to a gathered world.

In these passages, then, we have clear and repeated teaching that to be declared a genuine believer in Christ at the day of judgment, your faith alone in Christ must be vindicated as genuine by perseverance in faith and repentance or, in other words, evangelical obedience.

Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel

(Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2002, 324pp., ISBN 1-928965-11-3),

reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel are to be commended for their work entitled New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (NCT). It is a very irenic presentation of New Covenant Theology and well documented. I am thankful to the authors for providing us with a book that advances the important discussion among Calvinistic Baptists regarding the law and the covenants.

While reading NCT, I learned some new things and was reminded of other noteworthy facts about New Covenant Theology. All New Covenant Theology adherents do not equate the Decalogue with the Old Covenant. John Reisinger held this view for many years. It formed the main thesis of his influential Tablets of Stone. Reisinger has made it known recently on his website that he no longer holds this view. As well, I learned that I misrepresented Fred Zaspel in my book In Defense of the Decalogue (NCT, 188, n. 263). I stand corrected and regret this careless, though not intentional misrepresentation. I was reminded that New Covenant Theology relies heavily on a certain understanding of Matt. 5:17-48, especially v. 17. Finally, I learned some new things about New Covenant Theology and its perspective on the nature of moral law. I will limit my critique to the following issues: NCT and Matt. 5:17-48; NCT and moral law; and NCT and In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD).

Fred Zaspel discusses what appears to be the exegetical lynchpin of NCT in chapters five through eight. His discussion surrounds what Douglas J. Moo (on the back cover) calls “the pivotal Matthew 5:17-20.” Zaspel himself acknowledges this:

Indeed, the whole NT theology of law grows out of this pivotal statement of Jesus. It is of “primary importance in trying to understand Jesus’ attitude to the law” [quoting D. A. Carson] and, consequently, in developing a consistent theology of law and its relation to the Christian. (NCT, 78)

NCT bases its subsequent exegetical and theological discussion on Zaspel’s interpretation of Matt. 5:17-20, which is dependent upon D. A. Carson. Greg Welty has written a critical analysis of their view entitled:  Eschatological Fulfillment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law (A Response to D. A. Carson and Fred Zaspel on Matthew 5:17-48). It is available on the Internet. Welty demonstrates that their interpretation of pleroo (“fulfill,” cf. Matt. 5:17) is implausible and that the subsequent application of this concept to the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48 is contradictory. Welty argues, and I think persuasively, that Carson’s interpretation of pleroo is a novelty in Matthean usage. Carson claims that Jesus’ ethical teaching fulfills what is foreshadowed in Moses’ law. Welty acknowledges that several times “fulfill” refers to Christ’s person or actions fulfilling OT prophecy. But he also demonstrates that it never refers to OT laws being fulfilled by Jesus’ teaching or, as Welty states it, “laws fulfilling laws.”

Zaspel’s thesis revolves around the meaning of one word, pleroo. He claims that it is “the key word to the entire discussion” (NCT, 111). The ‘entire discussion,’ in the context of Zaspel’s statement, refers to Matt. 5:21-48 as well. Putting such stock in the meaning of one word is hermeneutically dangerous and may be theologically disastrous. If Zaspel’s interpretation of this word is found wanting, then suspicion must be cast upon the validity of NCT’s main arguments, since so much of its subsequent discussion relies on the meaning of this one word.

Zaspel says, “With all the press Matthew gives to this word (pleroo), the question of definition becomes greatly simplified” (NCT, 111). What follows in the book are eight pages dedicated to defining this one word. He concludes that pleroo means that “Jesus came to bring about what Moses’ law anticipated” (NCT, 118). “Just as Moses’ law advanced the law which God had ‘written on the heart’ of man at creation, so also in Jesus’ teaching that advance is brought to full completion” (NCT, 118). It is of interest to note that no exegesis is provided for this claim. Zaspel does footnote one of his pamphlets at this point. This understanding of the advancement of law throughout redemptive history, however, is such a crucial and pivotal element of NCT’s view of the law that making a passing reference to this leaves the critical reader wondering. Where does the Bible teach that Moses’ law advanced the law that God had written on the heart of man at creation, in the sense intended by Zaspel? Could this have come from the authors’ view of pleroo infused back into the OT? For the record, Reformed theology teaches that the law written on the heart at creation was ‘advanced’ by the law written on stones at Sinai in clarity and perspicuity, though not in essence and spirituality. It is the same law revealed in a different manner. The advance is not one of quality but of clarity due to the presence of sin in man’s heart. Is this not what Jesus is doing in Matt. 5:17-48? He is making clear what had become obscure through the sinful teachings of the Pharisees.

NCT’s understanding of pleroo may be labeled the eschatological advance view. “It is not that Moses is set aside so much as he is ‘fulfilled’ by the advance Jesus gave him” (NCT, 87). This concept of eschatological advance is then applied to the antitheses of Matt. 5:21-48. As Zaspel examines the antitheses, he finds several nuances of eschatological advance: Matt. 5:21-22, “some sort of advance …extension or addition” (NCT, 105); Matt. 5:27-28, “advance of some sort” (NCT, 105); Matt. 5:31-32, “another advance …a tightening …an abrogation” (NCT, 106); Matt. 5:33-34, “obsolete” (NCT, 106); Matt. 5:38-39, while Jesus may not formally repeal the lex [law], he very severely restricts its use” (NCT, 107); Matt. 5:43-44, “Jesus extends the law’s requirement. Simply put, Jesus demands more than Moses” (NCT, 107). Zaspel claims that the view, which understands Jesus as correcting Pharisaic casuistry, does not fit the evidence (NCT, 108). According to Zaspel, the antitheses are not contrasting Pharisaic teaching with the Law of Moses but the Law of Moses, on the main, with the Law of Christ, thus illustrating his understanding of pleroo. Zaspel closes his discussion of the antitheses with these words:

…it seems that Jesus, 1) claims an authority that is superior to that of Moses; and 2) exercises that authority by taking the law of Moses in whatever direction he sees fit. In some cases, he leaves the particular command intact (#l and 2). In other cases he extends the teaching of the command as originally given or advances it in some other way (#l, 2, 3?, 6). In still other cases he seems to rescind the original legislation (#3, 4) or at least restrict it (#5). (NCT, 108)

In ethical contexts, pleroo refers to obeying and upholding the law as stated (cf. Rom. 8:3; 13:8-10). Nowhere in the rest of the NT do we see the phenomenon of eschatological advance as necessitated by Zaspel’s interpretation. If the law of Christ is all the commands of the NT plus those things in the OT “that are moral laws in light of the NT” (NCT, 75), as Wells claims, and if the law of Christ was anticipated by and advanced beyond the law of Moses, then why don’t we see this phenomenon in the rest of the NT? Indeed, what we see is direct quotations of the very law that is supposedly advanced, and that without qualification (cf. Eph. 6:2-3; Jam. 2:8-11). It appears that NCT confuses moral law with positive law (see below).

Zaspel’s understanding of pleroo in Matt. 5:17 is a novelty in Matthean usage, complicates the antitheses unnecessarily, and does not find support in other NT ethical contexts where the word is used to refer to the law and its New Covenant fulfillment.

While discussing moral law, Wells says, “Whatever is moral binds all men at all times” (NCT, 176, n. 253). With this I agree. On the next page, however, he says, “We must not, then, make Christ look and sound very much like Moses in his approach to moral law” (NCT, 177). I find this difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with his previous assertion about the universality of moral law. Wells defines moral law as follows:

Moral law is the law that has its source in the unchanging moral character of God with the result that it is intrinsically right and therefore binds all men of every era and land to whom it comes. (NCT, 162)

Wells adds, “moral law is found wherever there is a revelation of the moral character of God” (NCT, 162). But then he asks, “is the revelation of God’s character progressive?” (NCT, 162). He proceeds to base moral law on the progressive nature of special revelation. Since God reveals His character progressively in the Bible, moral law is revealed progressively. In other words, he argues for a dynamic concept of moral law. Indeed, he even claims that we will not know the moral law until the eternal state (NCT, 164, 166). Is this not a bit speculative? Reformed theology, however, bases its understanding of moral law on creation imago Dei. When God made Adam, he made him to be like Himself, to reflect His communicable attributes. Creation imago Dei involves having the law of God written on the heart (Rom. 1, 2). It is that law which is based on God’s character. In another place, Wells says that “all law from God came with moral force” (NCT, 164). He appears to base moral law upon God’s will and His unchanging character. He makes no distinction between positive law and moral law. Positive law includes any laws added to the natural law (i.e., law of creation or moral law) due to the entrance of sin and is based on God’s will and is man’s possession via special revelation (i.e., Scripture). Moral law is based on creation imago Dei and on God’s unchanging nature and is man’s possession via general revelation and, due to the entrance of sin, Scripture. Positive law is dynamic throughout redemptive history; moral law static. Wells appears to infuse Zaspel’s understanding of pleroo into his discussion of moral law. This has detrimental implications for the identity of the law written on the heart (i.e., natural law), the basis of the Covenant of Works, the perpetuity of moral law, the Sabbath, the active obedience of Christ, and the imputation of righteousness.

In the preface, the authors state that “the occasion that prompted this volume was the publication of a book containing a friendly but serious attack on NCT” (NCT, 1). They are referring of course to my book. Though they chose not to interact with it on all fronts, something for which I do not fault them, I was happy to see that they devoted specific interaction in chapters 11 and 12. I was rather perplexed, however, that they did not deal with Jer. 31:31-34 and my exposition of it in any depth. Wells makes a somewhat cavalier dismissal of my interpretation and then makes a very confusing statement. He says, “Barcellos argues at length that the law in Jeremiah 31:33 is the Decalogue (pp. 16-24). I suspect that this is too constricting and that the law there is the full Mosaic law” (NCT, 170, n. 246). I would expect him to say that my view is too constricting. But I would not expect him to imply that Jeremiah meant that God would write the full Mosaic law on the hearts of New Covenant saints. This appears to contradict the main thesis of Zaspel’s argument from Matt. 5:17, unless of course one reads Zaspel’s argument back into Jeremiah. This seems a bit hermeneutically strained.

Jer. 31:31-34 and its corroborating New Testament witnesses are foundational to the issues at stake. The text in Jeremiah discusses both the New Covenant and the law. For this reason we should expect this text to get more exegetical attention in a book entitled New Covenant Theology. In fact, the pivotal biblical passage of the entire book, Matt. 5:17-48, though it discusses law, does not discuss the New Covenant, at least explicitly. In hermeneutics, it is always safest to start with the explicit words of Scripture pertaining to the issues at stake. NCT’s theological methodology leaves room for improvement at this point since it is established upon shaky hermeneutical and exegetical grounds.

While discussing my exposition of Matt. 5:17-20, Wells says:

I suspect our author shows here that he has confused the NCT position with some views of classical Dispensationalism. …Barcellos, however, must not attribute these things to NCT as he seems to do by repeating the words “this view” throughout pages 62-63. (NCT, 200)

For the record, I was intending older Dispensationalism by the phrase ‘this view.’

While discussing my exposition of 1 Tim. 1:8-11, Wells points out several observations and disagreements (NCT, 190-199). The reader is encouraged to read my article in RBTR I:1. It has been considerably edited and expanded since the publication of the book.

In an appendix, “John Bunyan on the Creation Sabbath,” Zaspel provides an extended quote from Bunyan (NCT, 293-294). No explanation is provided concerning what is being argued by this quotation. He prefaces Bunyan’s words with these: “Bunyan responded more thoroughly.” What we are not informed of is the context and reason for which Bunyan says what he does. The quote in question comes under this heading: “Whether the seventh day Sabbath, as to man’s keeping of it holy, was ever made known to, or imposed by, a positive precept upon him until the time of Moses? which from Adam was about two thousand years” (John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan [Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991], 2:363). The full title of Bunyan’s treatise is “Questions about the Nature and Perpetuity of the Seventh-Day Sabbath and Proof that the First Day of the Week is the True Christian Sabbath” (Ibid., 2:359). In IDOTD I attempted to show that Bunyan was arguing against the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath from creation to consummation (IDOTD, 100-107). Ample references from Bunyan were provided to prove that he did not believe the seventh-day Sabbath was moral but that “a Sabbath for holy worship is moral” (Bunyan, Works, 2:361). Elsewhere, Bunyan says, “it is evident that the substance of the ten commandments was given to Adam and his posterity” (Bunyan, Works, 1:499). It is very evident that Bunyan held that the Sabbath as moral law predated the tablets of stone but that the seventh-day Sabbath began with the positive laws attending the Old Covenant. It is unclear to me what Zaspel was seeking to prove by this appendix. If he was attempting to prove that Bunyan did not believe that the seventh-day Sabbath predated Moses, then I agree with him. If he was attempting to prove that Bunyan did not believe the Sabbath is moral law and rooted in creation, then I disagree with him.

While reading NCT, I was reminded that the issue of the Sabbath is not the only thing upon which we differ. New Covenant Theology adherents often tout this as the only difference between us. Reading NCT convinced me that, though we differ on the Sabbath, our differences cut much deeper than this subject alone. Those differences are exegetical, theological, and historical. It is improper, therefore, for those on either side of this issue to claim that the Sabbath is the only issue dividing us.

I would like to close on a positive note. Through various circumstances, I have come to know Tom Wells on a personal level and consider him to be a dear, highly esteemed brother in the Lord. We have had several friendly, challenging, and edifying email exchanges and phone conversations. I am sure that this would be true of many other New Covenant Theology adherents and trust that this review will be taken as constructive criticism from a differing friend and brother.

(Christian Focus, 2003, 185pp., ISBN: 1-85792-867-9),

reviewed by Richard C. Barcellos

Simon Austen’s A Better Way is a display of Biblical Theology clearly articulated. It is written in the same vein as Graeme Goldsworthy and, to a lesser degree, William J. Dumbrell, though on an easier level of assimilation. Its fourteen chapters are brief and simple but packed with thought-provoking analysis of some of the most important promise-fulfillment/type-anti-type motifs of Scripture. The book is aimed at “everyday Christians” but it may also be an aid to pastors, ministerial aspirants, Sunday School teachers, parents, and others. For the more theologically inquisitive, it may serve as a primer to other, more technical works on Biblical Theology (i.e., Vos, Dumbrell, Beale) or as a brief, simple review. It might be claimed as an introductory level Vosian approach to “an applied tour of the Bible” (11).

The author states his goal very clearly and succinctly, when he says, “This book is a gentle attempt to give the Old Testament back to everyday Christians …” (11). The methodology with which Austen seeks to meet this goal can be amply displayed in its chapter titles: A Better Adam, A Better Son, A Better Passover, A Better Covenant, A Better Law, A Better Provision, A Better Sacrifice, A Better Priest, A Better Temple, A Better King (I), A Better King (II), A Better Answer, A Better Servant, and A Better Way. He attempts to show how each of the topics above are fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Austen applies his hermeneutic (see below) to salvation history as chronologically unfolded in Scripture. Accordingly, he starts in the Garden of Eden with Adam. He then shows how Jesus is the last Adam, who like Adam is God’s Son (17), who “unlike the first Adam…did not submit to the serpent’s lies (17; cf. Matt. 4:3), who performs a better service (18-19), who procures a better gift (19-20; cf. Rom. 5:16), and who brings about a better destiny (20-21). He then notes the failures of Cain, Noah, and Babel. With this backdrop, he then focuses on the promises given to Abraham – a promised people, land, seed, son, and nation. He shows how these promises function, in God’s grand redemptive scheme, to restore Eden – “God’s people once again enjoying God’s blessing” (32). He shows how Christ fulfills and brings these promises to their redemptive-historical goal – the church and, ultimately, the eternal state.

The Garden of Eden, when looked at in its canonical context, contains the rudiments of a biblical eschatology (and soteriology). Protology is inherently eschatological. The rest of Scripture unfolds God’s plan of restoring His people back to His place, where He is ruling with no rivals. Israel is viewed as God’s people, in God’s land, under God’s rule as a result of the Abrahamic promises; but like Adam, Israel fails. The Abrahamic promises await the coming of Christ to find their redemptive-historical fulfillment. Israel’s sacrificial system points ultimately to Christ as well. The tabernacle and the temple represent God’s special presence on the earth. But these both point to God’s special presence in Christ with His church. God promises to David an eternal dynasty with his son sitting on his throne forever. Jesus, once again, is the fulfillment of the Davidic promises. This is the gist of Austen’s book.

The author assumes, and rightly so, that biblical revelation is redemptive in its focus in both the Old and New Testaments. This necessarily leads him to apply a Christocentric, type-antitype, redemptive-historical hermeneutic to the topics of discussion. Austen sets out to show “how its [i.e., the Bible’s] message is all about Jesus” (11). A promise-fulfillment/type-anti-type motif is fleshed out in each chapter accordingly.

Austen allows the NT to interpret the OT. This brings to our attention the importance of a biblical (i.e., one derived from the Bible itself) and canonical (i.e., one that takes into consideration all that God says) hermeneutic. He assumes that it is legitimate in the interpretive process to analyze a former passage in light of a latter one – and I think rightly so. The meaning of passages in Genesis, for instance, are often more fully explicated in subsequent revelation. What may be latent in Genesis becomes patent in Paul (i.e., Adam as a type of Christ; cf. Rom. 5:14). Or put another way, the redemptive bud is in Genesis 3:15; its fully formed flower is in the NT. Subsequent revelation often makes explicit what was only implicit in antecedent revelation. Augustine was right! Once the cannon became complete, or once the OT was fulfilled by the NT, the NT became the basis upon which we interpret the OT. What the OT promised, the NT fulfills. We cannot know what the OT fully means without the NT. The OT by itself is an unfinished story, demanding a conclusion/redemptive-historical fulfillment.

Austen’s book assumes that human authorial will is not the end of exegesis. Indeed, how can we fully know what the human author intended (cf. Hos. 11:1 and Mt. 2:13)? All we have is what he wrote; we cannot read his mind. How do we seek to understand what he wrote? Having done contextual, historical-grammatical exegesis of the passage, we then consult what the rest of the Bible says on the subject at hand – and rightly so! Why? Because the divine author takes precedent over human authorial will. And how do we conclude what the divine author intended in a given human author’s text? We consult the divine author’s thoughts elsewhere – former or latter revelation. We must understand the parts in light of the whole. But, to make antecedent revelation, understood according to human authorial intent, to be the informing theological trump card in our exegesis is short-sighted, quasi-dispensational, and not Reformed.

As noted, Austen develops his book around the major redemptive-historical acts of God in Scripture, displaying how God has chosen to bring redemption through the last Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. What a subject to consider! This popularly written book provides much food for thought and will help the thoughtful reader weave together various elements of the history of redemption in a Christ-centered manner.

I must mention that there are some issues covered by Austen I would have dealt with in a slightly different fashion, but these don’t make the book useless. For instance, one thing some readers will struggle with is the lack of imperative for Christian sanctification. This seems to be a common struggle for those not familiar with Biblical Theology in its present form. It would have helped if Austen would have qualified a few of his statements about the purpose of the OT, stating that it also has a function in establishing moral imperatives and setting examples – good and bad – for Christian sanctification (cf. Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tm. 3:16). Notwithstanding, Austen has provided us with a basic, introductory level work that is helpful to understand the redemptive story line of the Bible and its consummation in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).

In light of the importance of assessing a call to the ministry, I thought it would be good to gain insight from the classic work by Edmund Clowney, Called to the Ministry. So over the next four weeks I plan to blog through this book one chapter at a time. After a brief summary I'll add my thoughts and then you are invited to respond with your insights as well. May we spur one another on through our study together!

Summary

Before Clowney delves into the specific call to the ministry, he begins by considering God's call of every Christian. And foundationally, we care called by name. What does Clowney mean? Taking Isaiah 43:1-7 as his primary text, he shows that you are called by God's name and you are called by your name.

You are called by God's name because every believer in Christ has had God's triune name given to him. You are baptized into His name and His name is written on your head, your hand, and your heart. But God's grace goes even further, because He also takes our names as His own. God identifies Himself to the world through His called people. This is ultimately realized when we are united to Christ, whom God has finally and fully put His name on through the calling of sonship.

At the same time, you are also called by your name. Your name is given to you in Christ. We are called individually, having each one of our names recorded in the Lamb's book of life. It is by your name that God calls you, from whom your true identity and calling comes.

Carefully read these penetrating words by Clowney:

“Has that call reached you? There is no call to the ministry that is not first a call to Christ. You dare not lift your hands to place God's name in blessing on his people until you have first clasped them in penitent petition for his saving grace. Until you have done that the issue you have is not really your call to the ministry. It is your call to Christ” (5).

My Thoughts

Wow! What a way to start a book on a call to the ministry. This chapter was certainly not what I expected when I first opened the book. But how it fed my soul!

I loved reading through God's calling by name as it was traced through the pages of Scripture. I have been given God's name. He has taken my name. And now I have my own name and identity in Him. What wonderful truths to remember as I seek to serve my Lord.

Additionally, since I bear God's name, I am called to be like Him and hallow His name through a life that fulfills His calling. This is both a sobering and exciting call, one which I will spend the rest of my life pursuing in His strength and for His glory.

Your Turn

What do you think? Feel free to comment or even pick up a copy of the book yourself and join me by reading through the chapter. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

John Divito

Member, Heritage Baptist Church

M.Div. The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

First, we need to be clear that Jesus is not speaking our initial justification by faith.  Entrance into the kingdom is eschatological here--as it often is in the synoptic gospels.  Cf.  Matt. 6:10; 8:11-12; 13:43; 25:34.  This observation is confirmed by the consistently eschatological perspective of the blessings promised in each of the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:3-10.  It is also confirmed by the frequent references to the day of judgment in the comments of Jesus which follow (Matthew 5:22, 26, 29, and 30).  It is further confirmed by the parallel passage in Matthew 7:21-23 where the scene of entrance into the kingdom of heaven is the day of judgment.

21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.  22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?'  23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

The eschatological character of this statement is confirmed finally by the fact that righteousness in question is the imparted righteousness which consists in our good heart and good deeds.  Failure to understand the eschatological perspective of Jesus leads to the conclusion that he is saying that in order to be converted we must literally be more practically righteous than the Pharisees.  Of course, this is nonsense and would directly contradict justification by grace and faith alone and directly affirm salvation by works.  But all this brings me to my second point about Matthew 5:20.

Second, Jesus' point is that no one will enter the eschatological kingdom unless their practical righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees.  The context is not talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ, but the practical righteousness of the disciples.  Notice Matthew 5:19: "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Are we to gloss or intepret this verse by adding to it, "but no one actually does this."  I think not.  Further, the Beattitudes of verses 3-10 are not subtle calls for imputed righteousness.  Nor are they only the law slaying men so that they will seek out an imputed righteousness.  They are the actual marks of genuine godliness in the lives of Christ's disciples.  Finally, in verses 21-48 Jesus is calling for a heart-righteousness in his disciples practically different from the externalism of the Pharisees.  This call is summed up in unavoidably clear terms in Matthew 5:43-45:

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Such a genuine heart righteousness qualitatively different than that of the Pharisees is necessary to find eschatological entrance into the kingdom of God.  Of course, this is so not because it is the basis or ground of our acceptance with God.  Rather it is so because it is the necessary vindication of the fact we have saving faith and are really Christ's disciples.

Here I am happy to point you to the comments of John Murray in his great book entitled, Principles of Conduct.  In his brief comments on the Sermon on the Mount on pages 149-180 of this book Murray routs and refutes a good deal of current nonsense with regard to the interpretation of this vital passage in Jesus’ teaching.  I urge my readers to read the entire treatment specifically of Matthew 5:20.  In particular he rejects an imputed righteousness view of this passage.

"It might be supposed that the righteousness in view here is the righteousness of imputation.  What else, we might say, will fit into the evangelicalism of the gospel of pure grace?  The context offers no warrant for this interpretation." (p. 155)

He also emphasizes that what the passage really positively requires for entrance into the kingdom is as follows:

"Hence, if we are to find in this verse the positive complementary truth to that of the negative, all we need to do is to recognize that, if we are to be members of the kingdom of heaven , our attitude, character, and behaviour, will have to be of an entirely different sort; different not in respect to concern for details, but different in respect to the details for which we entertain concern, and in respect of the intensity with which the law is applied to heart, thought, and word as well as to overt action.  Jesus, however, does not inform us here of the way by which we come to possess that righteousness." (p. 157)

In this blog I want to discuss the use of the noun, righteousness, with regard to the day of judgment.  I want simply to point at a number of passages which clearly teach that in the day of judgment we need not only the imputed righteousness of Christ, but also an imparted righteousness from Christ.  Of course, we need these two rigtheousnesses in quite different respects.  We need the imputed righteousness as the basis or ground of our acceptance before God.  We need the imparted righteousness from Christ as the divinely appointed vindication that our faith in Christ is genuine.

There are a number of passages which require the possession of such righteousness in connection with the day of judgment as the vindication of a genuine and saving faith.  Here I leave aside all the passages which plainly teach that such a righteousness is one of the vindications of a genuine faith even in this life.  I have in mind when I say this passages like the following.

1 John 2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone also who practices righteousness is born of Him.

1 John 3:7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;

1 John 3:10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

I also leave aside several passages which use the noun to refer to the imputed rigtheousness of Christ.  Romans 4:3 uses the noun to refer to this righteousness as possessed now by faith. Romans 4:3:  For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS."

 Philippians 3:9 is an important use of the noun because it is one of the few passages which speak of the importance of imputed righteousness in the context of the day of judgment. 

Philippians 3:9: and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.

There are, however, several passages which use the noun in connection with a status conferred in connection with imparted righteousness eschatologically or in the day of judgment.  They are the following:  Matthew 5:20, Galatians 5:5-6, 2 Timothy 4:7-8, and Hebrews 11:7.  I want to discuss these passages one at a time.  In the blogs that follow.

I.                   Human authorial intent as a hermeneutical principle must not be viewed as the goal of interpretation.

Though authorial intent is a good and necessary starting point to understand the meaning of a biblical text, exegesis in its most inclusive sense does not stop with what the human authors intended their original readers to understand. This is so because there is more than one author and more than one audience.

Though we must strongly assert that interpretation does not start with the contemporary reader imposing his own meaning on the ancient text (this is the post-modern approach to interpretive theory) or even the original audience imposing its own meaning (a sort of proto-post-modern approach), we must disagree when exegetes and theologians argue that the meaning of a biblical text is one and the same with (and limited to) the meaning intended by the human author for his immediate, historical audience. In other words, what it meant is not always what it means. This sounds so radical that it needs further explanation.

Authorial intent, as understood by many in our day, limits itself to the human author’s intent alone. You will hear advocates of this view say things like, “The Bible should be read just like any other book.” We must whole-heartedly agree with the first part of this mantra, “The Bible should be read”, but whole-heartedly disagree with the second, “just like any other book.” The Bible is not “just like any other book.” All other books have a human author, or authors, alone. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is unique in that, along with its various human authors, it also has a divine author superintending the human authors and ensuring that all they say serves His purpose for revelation – i.e., His glory as redeemer in His Son.

Should we read/interpret the Bible like any other book? The author below, writing before the Enlightenment, would say no to this question.

…for although the Scripture hath many things in common with other writings wherein secular arts and sciences are declared, yet to suppose that we may attain the sense and mind of God in them by the mere use of such ways and means as we apply in the investigation of truths of other natures is to exclude all consideration of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Spirit, of the end of the Scriptures themselves, of the nature and use of the things delivered in them; and, by consequent, to overthrow all religion.[1]

The 20th century author, Philip Barton Payne, agrees with Owen:

If we were to limit meaning to the human author’s intention we would have no basis for using the analogy of Scripture to check present-day interpretations that conflict with other teaching of Scripture. This principle of analogia Scripturae assumes correctly that our primary task is to understand God’s intention, not fundamentally the human author’s. After all, the Bible is God’s Word.[2]

Elsewhere, Payne says:

…in spite of the crucial role the human author’s intention has for the meaning of a text his conscious intention does not necessarily exhaust the meaning of his statements, especially in more poetic and predictive writings. Ultimately God is the author of Scripture, and it is his intention alone that exhaustively determines its meaning. Therefore the exegete should not necessarily restrict the meaning of the text to what he feels can be demonstrated to be the intention of the human author.

Nonetheless, interpretation of any text should not obviate the intention of the human author. He does have the right to say that certain interpretations of his words are wrong. It should be remembered, though, that God can reveal more through the words of a writer of Scripture that he fully understood. An exegete can know that God has done this only when further revelation shows that he did.[3]

Any school of hermeneutical thought that limits the meaning of any biblical text to the meaning it assigns to it from the vantage point of the human author circumvents God from having the final say on what He intended.

[1] John Owen, Works, IV:208.

[2] Philip Barton Payne, “The Fallacy of Equating Meaning with the Human Author’s Intention” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts, ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 81.

[3] Payne, “Fallacy”, 70-71.

• The Multi-functional Utility of the Decalogue in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. Owen viewed the Decalogue as having more than one function. He did not view it as Old Covenant law alone. His understanding of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue can be seen clearly in several places of his Hebrews commentary. For instance, commenting on Heb. 9:5 (referenced above), he says, “The law [the Decalogue], as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.”[1] Later he claims that “what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.”[2] Notice that he views the Decalogue as functioning several ways; first, “as unto the substance of it, …the only law of creation”; second, “the rule of the first covenant of works”; third, that which “was in the tables of stone”; fourth, “a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally”; and fifth, that “which is returned [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”

Commenting on Hebrews 7:18, 19 (also referenced previously), he says:

Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also [emphasis his], so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end [emphasis added]; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.[3]

Here he views the Decalogue as a unit “so far as it was compacted with the other [ceremonial law] into one body of precepts for the same end.” In other words, he is considering the Decalogue not absolutely or in itself (see below), but relatively or as it was ‘compacted’ with the ceremonial law under the Old Covenant.

While discussing the causes of the Sabbath and arguing for the morality and immutability of the essence of the fourth commandment, he makes this statement concerning the nature and function of the Decalogue under the Old Covenant:

The nature of the decalogue, and the distinction of its precepts from all commands, ceremonial or political, comes now under consideration. The whole decalogue, I acknowledge, as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation, as peculiarly under the rule of God. It had a place also in that economy or dispensation of the covenant which that church was then brought under; wherein, by God’s dealing with them and instructing of them, they were taught to look out after a further and greater good in the promise than they were yet come to the enjoyment of. Hence the Decalogue itself, in that dispensation of it, was a schoolmaster unto Christ.[4]

First, Owen views the Decalogue as the core of the law of the Old Covenant. He says, “The whole decalogue, …as given on mount Sinai to the Israelites, had a political use, as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their nation.” Second, he makes the point that the Decalogue was “made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government” of Israel under the Old Covenant. This is something that it was not until that time. He viewed it as already in existence, though in a different form and revealed in a different manner, but now being “made” something it was not. It was now “made” to fit the redemptive-historical conditions of the Old Covenant. This seems even more likely, since he goes on to say, “Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan.”[5] Third, he also viewed it as “a schoolmaster unto Christ.”

Next, speaking of the Decalogue “in itself, and materially,” he says:

But in itself, and materially considered, it was wholly, and in all the preceptive parts of it, absolutely moral. Some, indeed, of the precepts of it, as the first, fourth, and fifth, have either prefaces, enlargements, or additions, which belonged peculiarly to the then present and future state of that church in the land of Canaan; but these especial applications of it unto them change not the nature of its commands or precepts, which are all moral, and, as far as they are esteemed to belong to the Decalogue, are unquestionably acknowledged so to be.[6] 

Notice that he has transitioned from viewing the Decalogue in its Old Covenant functions to viewing the Decalogue in itself. We might say that he was considering it relatively speaking, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, but now he is considering it absolutely (or “in itself”), as it functions transcovenantally. First, he distinguishes between the Decalogue “as being made the principal instrument or rule of the polity and government of their [Old Covenant Israel’s] nation” and “in itself.” Hence, “in itself” and “in all the preceptive parts of it,” the Decalogue is “absolutely moral.” Second, he says that the Decalogue under the Old Covenant had redemptive-historical “prefaces, enlargements, or additions” peculiar to the conditions in which they [the church in the land of Canaan] lived. These are positive, covenantal appendages added to the Decalogue and applicable to Old Covenant Israel in the land of Canaan.

From these statements, the following observations are relevant to our purpose. First, Owen viewed the Decalogue both relatively and absolutely, depending on its function in redemptive history. Second, he viewed the Decalogue (i.e., that which “was in tables of stone… as unto the substance of it”) functioning various ways and in all of the epochs of redemptive history. He saw it functioning in the Garden of Eden. He regarded it as the law of creation, the rule of the Adamic covenant of works, and the law that was written on Adam’s heart. He then saw it functioning in a special manner under the Old Covenant. He also saw it functioning under the New Covenant. He taught that it was this same law, as unto its substance, “which is returned thither [to the heart of man] again by the grace of the new covenant.”[7] He viewed it as the rule of life for all men,[8] because “in all the preceptive parts of it” it is “absolutely moral.” And as stated earlier, he viewed it as related to the active and passive obedience of Christ and hence, connected and essential to the doctrine of justification.[9]

2. John Calvin. In many places Calvin clearly identified the Decalogue as a special form of the Natural Law.[10] For instance, Calvin said, “Now that inward law, which we have above described as written, even engraved, upon the hearts of all, in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables.”[11] Calvin “saw the revealed law as given in the ten commandments as a specially accommodated restatement of the law of nature for the Jews.”[12] He clearly held that by nature Gentiles without special revelation possessed the general knowledge of the Decalogue, though that knowledge is obscured by sin.[13] Hesselink says, “There is no denying that for Calvin the content of the moral law is essentially the same as that inscribed on the hearts of humans ‘by nature’.”[14] Wendel says, “One can even say that, for Calvin, the Decalogue is only a special application of the natural law which God came to attest and confirm.”[15]

Calvin’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue is no secret. It is also evidenced by the fact that he clearly upheld the perpetuity of both tables of the law for New Covenant believers.[16] For instance, he says:

The whole law is contained under two heads. Yet our God, to remove all possibility of excuse, willed to set forth more fully and clearly by the Ten Commandments everything connected with the honor, fear, and love of him, and everything pertaining to the love toward men, which he for his own sake enjoins upon us.[17]

Calvin clearly held that the Decalogue, all Ten Commandments, functioned as the basic, fundamental law of the Bible and as a universal ethical canon for all men based on creation. He also believed in the basic centrality of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant. Similar to Owen, Calvin holds to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

3. Zacharias Ursinus. As stated above, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, while discussing the question “To What Extent Has Christ Abrogated The Law, And To What Extent Is It Still In Force,” Ursinus says, “The moral law has, as it respects one part, been abrogated by Christ; and as it respects another, it has not.”[18] He continues, “But the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[19] Ursinus, like Owen and Calvin, holds to a multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

4. Francis Turretin. While discussing the use of the Moral Law, Turretin says:

A twofold use of the law may be laid down—absolute and relative. The former regards the law in itself; the latter regards the law in relation to the various states of man. The absolute (which obtains in every state of man) is that it may be a unique, full and certain rule of things to be done and avoided by each of us as well towards God as his neighbor. Thus there is no work truly and properly good and acceptable to God which does not agree with the law and is not prescribed by it; and whatsoever is not commanded nor forbidden by it is to be considered in its own nature indifferent and left to the freedom of man, unless this freedom has been restricted by some positive law.[20]

In Turretin, the Moral Law or Decalogue is the inscripturated form of the Natural Law.[21] Notice that Turretin views the Moral Law absolutely and relatively. Viewing it absolutely, it is applicable “in every state of man.” How does he view the Moral Law relatively? He continues:

The relative use is manifold according to the different states of man. (1) In the instituted state of innocence, it was a contract of a covenant of works entered into with man and the means of obtaining life and happiness according to the promise added to the law…

  (2) In the destitute state of sin, the use of the law cannot be “justification” because it was weak in the flesh. …Still there is a threefold use of the law [in man’s destitute state of sin]. (a) For conviction… (b) For restraint… (c) For condemnation…

  (3) In the restored state of grace, it has a varied use with respect to the elect, both before and after their conversions. Antecedently, it serves (a) to convince and humble man… (b) To lead men to Christ…

  It not only antecedently prepares the elect man for Christ, but consequently also directs him already renewed through Christ in the ways of the Lord; serving him as a standard and rule of the most perfect life…[22]

Relatively, or considering the law in its relation ‘to the different states of man,’ the law has various functions as it pertains to the lost and the saved throughout all ages. In other words, there is a multi-functional utility to the law. Its utility transcends covenantal bounds. Due to the nature of the Decalogue, it cannot be eliminated from any era of redemptive history, which includes the New Covenant era. Turretin’s view is that of Owen, Calvin, and Ursinus.

5. Protestant Scholasticism. Richard Muller defines Moral Law in Protestant scholastic thought as follows:

[S]pecifically and predominantly, the Decalogus, or Ten Commandments; also called the lex Mosaica …, as distinct from the lex ceremonialis …and the lex civilis, or civil law. The lex moralis, which is primarily intended to regulate morals, is known to the synderesis [the innate habit of understanding basic principles of moral law] and is the basis of the acts of conscientia [conscience–the application of the innate habit above]. In substance, the lex moralis is identical with the lex naturalis …but, unlike the natural law, it is given by revelation in a form which is clearer and fuller than that otherwise known to the reason.[23]

While defining the Mosaic Law, he says:

…the moral law or lex moralis (q.v.) given to Israel by God in a special revelation to Moses on Mount Sinai. In contrast to the moral law known in an obscure way to all rational creatures, the lex Mosaica is the clear, complete, and perfect rule of human conduct. The Protestant scholastics argue its completeness and perfection from its fulfillment, without addition, by Christ. Since the law does promise life in return for obedience, the Reformed argue that in one sense it holds forth the abrogated foedus operum (q.v.), or covenant of works, if only as the unattainable promise of the righteous God and the now humanly unattainable requirement for salvation apart from grace. In addition, the Reformed can argue that Christ’s perfect obedience did fulfill the covenant of works and render Christ capable of replacing Adam as federal head of humanity. Primarily, however, the Reformed view the law as belonging to the Old Testament dispensatio (q.v.) of the foedus gratiae (q.v.), or covenant of grace. It is the norm of obedience given to God’s faithful people to be followed by them with the help of grace. As a norm of obedience belonging to the foedus gratiae, the law remains in force under the economy of the New Testament. Lutheran orthodoxy, which does not follow the covenant schema typical of the Reformed, also views the law as the perfect standard of righteousness and the absolute norm of morals, which requires conformity both in outward conduct and inward obedience of mind, will, and affections.[24]

These definitions of key theological terms and concepts used by Protestant Scholasticism amply display that it held to the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue.

Owen’s view of the multi-functional utility of the Decalogue comports with his view of abrogation (see below), Jeremiah 31:33, 2 Co. 3:3, and Matthew 5:17, and also with many of his theological contemporaries. There is a way to understand Owen on abrogation which both eliminates the Decalogue from the New Covenant and preserves it (see below). Relatively speaking, as the Decalogue functioned under the Old Covenant, it has been abrogated. Absolutely speaking, as the Decalogue represents and summarily comprehends the Moral Law as to its substance, it has not and cannot be abrogated. It has more than one function.

[1] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[3] Owen, Works,XXI:458.

[4] Owen, Works, XVIII:365, 66.

[5] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.

[6] Owen, Works, XVIII:366.

[7] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[8] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[9] Owen, Works, XXII:89, 90. “But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is proposed, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as to its commands and sanction, in the obedience and suffering of the mediator.”

[10] Some of the following material comes from Barcellos, IDOTD, 92, 93, and is used with permission from Founders Press.

[11] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), II.viii.1.

[12] I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept of the Law (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1992), 51.

[13] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.1.

[14] Hesselink, Calvin’s Concept, 10.

[15] Francois Wendel, Calvin, Origins and Developments of His Religious Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, re. 1997), 206.

[16] Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.13.

[17] Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.12.

[18] Ursinus, Commentary, 495.

[19] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[20] Turretin, Institutes, II:137.

[21] Turretin, Institutes, II:6, 7.

[22] Turretin, Institutes, II:138-140.

[23] Muller, Dictionary, 173-74.

[24] Muller, Dictionary, 174.

 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?  22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;  23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.  24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.  25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?  26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

While the passage is clearly not speaking of the believer’s initial justification by faith alone, the context makes clear that the time period of the justification in view is not specifically the day of judgment.  This difference between Matthew 12:37 and the present passage must be freely admitted at the outset.  There is, however, a clear similarity between James and Matthew.  In both the verb, to justify, seems to have meaning of show or demonstrate to be righteous.  Abraham did not become righteous when he offered up Isaac. That had already happened by Genesis 15:6.  Yet this act demonstrated that he was truly righteous.  In other words it showed that he had a genuine faith and was a genuine believer.

The key assertion of which James is clearly thinking is Genesis 22:12:  “He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."”  Even granting anthropopathism in these words, the idea cannot be evaded that Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac at God’s command vindicated Abraham’s faith as genuine not only in the court of his own conscience and in the court of human opinion, but in some sense in the court of God.  This vindication of Abraham’s faith is said to justify.  Thus, Abraham is said to be justified by his works. 

Similarly Rahab’s works demonstrated or showed that she was righteous.  They were not, of course, the basis on which she passed from a state of wrath to a state of grace.  They were, however, the way in which her faith was shown to be a genuine faith—the kind of faith that saves.  In the previous context the emphasis is on showing that one is righteous not becoming righteous, verse 18.  Only the kind of faith that shows itself as righteous by good works can save a person, verse 14.

James 2:14-18   14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?  …. 18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

Thus, the meaning of “to justify” here is quite similar and even identical to that found in Matthew 12:37.  Even the point at which there is a difference is not such a contrast as might at first be thought.  Though the venue of the justification in view is not the day of judgment, yet the reference to Genesis 22:12 does suggest the court of divine judgment and anticipate the justification of faith by works which will take place at that time.

Several objections might be and have been made to this understanding of the justification in view in James 2. 

(1)       Someone could argue as follows:  God does not rely on our works to determine if we have saving faith.  If He did how could we ever be justified apart from and before doing any good works?  This objection is, of course, true, but, as I said above, while God is not dependent on our works to know if we have true faith, He does know that our works do evidence the genuineness of our faith.  Thus, God can say to Abraham Now I know that you fear me on the basis of His works.  If God can say this on the basis of Abraham’s works, then God also say to the world that our works vindicate that we are true believers.

(2)       Someone could also argue as follows:  If we grant that James 2 refers to being justified (in the way proposed) in God's court room, and we grant that the "future" justification is not in view, and we grant that "initial" justification is not in view, then we must grant that there are more than just 2 justifications. There are at least three, and in reality, an indefinite number of justifications.  My response to this is simply:  So be it.  The believer’s works do time after time “justify” his faith as genuine in this life and in the next.  Nevertheless, there are only two kinds of justification in the sense in which I intend.  There is, first, the justification of the sinner by faith alone at the outset of the Christian life.  There is, second, the justification of the believer by his works both during this life and in the life to come. 

And here something bears repeating that I said in a previous blog.  While the connotation of justify in Matthew 12:37 and James 2 is different than its connotation in Romans 3 and 4 , the denotation is the same.  It means to declare or account righteous.  Even in James 2 justify does not mean in the Roman Catholic sense to infuse the moral quality of righteousness into the sinner.  In Romans 3 and 4 the sinner is accounted righteous on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone.  James 2 and Matthew 12 the believer is accounted a genuine believer (and righteous in that sense) on the basis of his works.

(3)       Someone might also argue as follows:  James is not saying Abraham was justified (however we want to understand that word) at the point in time he offered up Isaac.  Here I must simply affirm that this is simply wrong and an evasion of what James 2:21 says:  Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?  What is the implied answer?  Yes, that was when he was justified in the sense of which James 2:21 is speaking.  It cannot be the same justification because the justification of Genesis 15:6 was by faith, and this justification was by works.  Of course, this justification did fulfill in some sense the justification of Genesis 15:6, but it is not the same justification or the same kind of justification.

Here in verse 37 “to justify” clearly means something like to show yourself to be a good tree.  Note the context in vv. 33-35.  Just as evil words proceeding out of the mouth show that the heart is bad.  Even so good words proceeding out of the mouth show that the heart is good.  It is in this way that good fruits and good words justify us.  They show that our hearts are truly good.  This is an entirely different connotation than the verb has, for instance, in Romans 3:21-5:21.

It is also clear that the justification to which Jesus refers will take place in the day of judgment.  Verse 36 plainly says that this justification has for its venue (or is to take place in) the day of judgment.  This is the time period in which our words will justify or condemn us.

Thus, contrary to Irons, we have here a justification by works which takes place in the day of judgment.  Granted, it is a justification of an entirely different kind than that which takes place by Christ, grace, and faith alone and which is already possessed by the believer. Yet it is a “justification” according to the ipsissima verba of Scripture.

The above states what I think is the straightforward (and in some sense indisuptable) meaning of the passage.  But several further words of clarification and vindication with regard to it are important. 

First, when I say that the connotation of the verb, justify, here in Matthew 12:37 is an entirely different connotation than it has in Romans 3 and 4, I have in my mind the important distinction between "connotation" and "denotation."  What a word connotes and what it denotes or two different things.  Webster's New Word Dictionary says the following under its entry for connote: "to suggest or convey (associations, overtones etc.) in addition to its explicit, or denoted, meaning: as, the word mother means "femaile parent," but it generally connotes love, care, tenderness, etc."

It is important to make this distinction between the connotation and denotation of the verb, to justify.  Here is why.  Though its connotation is quite different in Matthew 12:37 than, for instance, in Romans 3:24, its denotation is the same.  What I mean is that in both passages its meaning is to "account righteous" or "acquit" and not as the Roman Catholic doctrine holds "to make righteous" or "to infuse righteous moral qualities into someone."  This denotation of justify is made clear by means of the contrasting (and, thus, clarifying) verb used in Matthew 12:37, condemn.  To condemn is not to make something bad, but to declare it bad.  Just so, to justify is not to make something good, but to declare it good.  Thus, Matthew 12:37 actually upholds the Protestant and forensic understanding of the verb, to justify.

Second, it should be clear from a fair reading of the passage that taking this passage as hypothetical is simply impossible.  Jesus is not talking about what would happen in a hypothetical judgment by works.  Jesus is talking about what really will happen both now and in the day of judgment.  Right now in this life and also in the day of judgment the true character of someone is manifested by the general tenor of his words:  the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart.  This is not hypothetical.  This is not just the use of the law to slay self-righteousness and bring us to Christ.  These words may do that in some cases, but they refer to what actually happens in this life and in the day of judgment. 

Some argue that it would require perfectly pure language to pass judgment before God.  It would if Jesus were discussing the ground of our righteousness before God.  But that is not what Jesus is discussing.  He is discussing what manifests or declares someone to be either a good tree or a bad tree.  Perfection is not necessary to manifest that someone is a genuine believer.  Perfection would only be necessary to do this if genuine believers were perfect.  They are not.  Thus, only the kind of speech that manifests a genuine change of heart toward God and sin is necessary.  That is, only works in keeping with repentance are necessary to vindicate that someone has repented.  Notice the parallel uses of this imagery in Matthew:

Matthew 7:13-24 13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. 15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.

These other uses of the good tree/bad tree language in Matthew are patently not hypothetical.  Neither are they just examples of the law slaying.  They speak of real, historical events and some who actually do follow the narrow way, actually do the will of the Father, and actually are received as genuine believers at the day of judgment.

The third thing I want to say by way of the clarification and vindication of the interpretation of Matthew 12:37 that I have offered is that it is virtually identical to the interpretation of Calvin himself.  Here are his comments in his New Testament commentary and its harmony of the gospels:

"But Christ turns it to a meaning somewhat different, that a wicked speech, being the indication of concealed malice, is enough to condemn a man.  The attempt which the Papists make to torture this passage, so as to set aside the righteousness of faith, is childish.  A man is justified by his words, not because his speech is the ground of his justification, (for we obtain by faith the favour of God, so that he reckons us to be righteous persons;) but because pure speech absolves us in such a manner, that we are not condemned as wicked persons by our tongue.  Is it not absurd to infer from this, that men deserve a single drop of righteousness in the sight of God?  On the contrary, this passage upholds our doctrine; for, although Christ does not here treat of the ground of our justification, yet the contrast between the two words points out the meaning of the word justify.  The Papists reckon it absurd in us to say, that a man is justified by faith, because they explain the word  justified to mean, that he becomes, and is, actually righteous, while we understand it to mean, that he is accounted righteous, and is acquitted before the tribunal of God, as is evident from numerous passages of Scripture.  And is not the same thing confirmed by Christ, when he draws a contrast between justified and condemned?"

Dikaiooo

It is not the purpose of this essay to argue that the verb meaning to justify is used frequently of a free justification which is already possessed by believers in which the ungodly are justified based on the righteousness of Christ alone through grace alone and faith alone (Rom. 3:21-5:21).  This is joyfully granted.

It is the purpose of this essay to show that this verb is also used of a future (and in some sense a present) justification in which evangelical obedience justifies or vindicates the genuineness of the believer’s faith and, thus, the believer himself.

At least two key passages in the New Testament manifest this usage of the verb: Matthew 12:37 and James 2:21-26.  Next time we will look at Matthew 12:37.

• Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others 

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says:

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8] 

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.

[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

In this series, we will explore the thought of John Owen, as well as several other Reformed theologians from the 16th-18th centuries, on the functions of the Decalogue. We will note the various nuances of terminology and theological formulation among Reformed theologians of the past. But we will also see basic methodological and theological continuity from John Calvin to Thomas Boston. This, once again, displays Owen’s continuity with the Reformed tradition and the continuity among the Reformed orthodox on this subject. As will be seen, the Reformed orthodox approached this subject utilizing a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, something that is common-place among older Reformed theologians.

Our focus will be upon John Owen. He is not always easy to understand and has been misused on the issue of the functions of the Decalogue. We will seek to allow him to speak for himself, offer some observations, and compare Owen’s statements with those of others before and after him. This will display, among other things, the fact that Owen fits within the broader theological tradition of Reformed thought on the functions of the Decalogue in redemptive history.

John Owen and other Key Reformed Theologians from the 16th-18th Centuries on

the Functions of the Decalogue

• The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen teaches that Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 refer to the Decalogue being written on the heart of New Covenant saints. Commenting on Hebrews 9:5, he says:

This law, as unto the substance of it, was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works; for it contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image, and nothing else. It was the whole of what God designed in our creation unto his own glory and our everlasting blessedness. What was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally; and which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant, Jeremiah 31:33; 2 Corinthians 3:3.[1]

Consider these observations relevant to our subject. First, the law, in the context of Owen’s discussion, refers to the law contained on the tables of stone (i.e., the Decalogue). Second, Owen is considering the Decalogue “as unto the substance of it” and not necessarily as to the form and/or function of it under the Old Covenant.[2] Third, he claims that the Decalogue “was the only law of creation, the rule of the first covenant of works.” Fourth, he claims that the Decalogue, as to the substance of it, “contained the sum and substance of that obedience which is due unto God from all rational creatures made in his image.” Fifth, he claims that “what was in the tables of stone was nothing but a transcript of what was written in the heart of man originally.” Sixth, he claims that “what was in the tables of stone” (and written on the heart of man at creation) is that “which is returned thither again by the grace of the new covenant.” And finally, he references Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3. Owen, on this exegetical basis, clearly believed in the perpetuity (as to its substance) of the entire Decalogue under the New Covenant.

Owen continues:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[3]

From this statement, the following observations also are relevant. First, Owen distinguishes between how the Decalogue functioned in the covenant of works and how it functions “as a law and rule of obedience.” Second, he connects this law with God’s holiness and righteousness. In other words, Owen views the Decalogue as a perpetual “law and rule of obedience” because it is related to God’s holiness and righteousness (i.e., his unchangeable nature).

Continuing, and concentrating on how Christ is the true ark (the antitype of the Old Covenant’s Ark of the Covenant), he says:

In his obedience unto God according unto the law he is the true ark, wherein the law was kept inviolate; that is, was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished, Matt. v. 17; Rom. viii. 3, x. 4. Hence by God’s gracious dealing with sinners, pardoning and justifying them freely, the law [i.e., Decalogue] is not disannulled, but established, Rom. iii. 31. That this was to be done, that without it no covenant between God and man could be firm and stable, was the principal design of God to declare in all this service; without the consideration thereof it was wholly insignificant. This was the original mystery of all these institutions, that in and by the obedience of the promised seed, the everlasting, unalterable law should be fulfilled.[4]

Several observations are worthy of note. First, in the context of Owen’s discussion, the law is that which was placed in the ark (i.e., the Decalogue as written by God on stone tablets). Second, he says that this law was fulfilled, answered, and accomplished by Christ. Third, he says that the obedience of Christ to this law effects our justification. Fourth, he says that the law is not disannulled but established. Fifth, he teaches that all of this was typified in the Ark of the Covenant. And finally, he says that the law is everlasting and unalterable, probably due to its reflection of God’s holiness and righteousness.[5]

Owen’s use of Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 was not novel. Others who held to his basic understanding argued for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant on the same exegetical grounds.[6]

2. Herman Witsius. In his The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, while discussing the reason that God “engraved them [Ten Commandments] with his own finger,”[7] Herman Witsius says:

Both because they contained the declaration or testimony of the divine will, and because the preservation of them by the Israelites, was a testimony of the law given to, and received by them at Sinai. This writing also signified the purpose of God, to write the law on the hearts of his elect, according to the promise of the covenant of grace, Jer. xxxi. 33.

Nor is it for nothing that God himself would be the author of this writing, without making use of any man or angel. For this is the meaning of the Holy Spirit, when he says, that the tablets were written with the finger of God, Exod. xxxi. 18. and that the writing was the writing of God, Exod. xxxii. 16. The reasons were, 1st. To set forth the pre-eminence of this law, which he permitted to be written by Moses. 2dly. To intimate, that it is the work of God alone, to write the law on the heart, which is what neither man himself, nor the ministers of God can do, but the Spirit of God alone. And thus believers are “the epistle of Christ, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God,” 2 Cor. iii. 3.[8]

Witsius goes on to discuss the effects of God’s grace, saying, “But the grace of God will cancel that writing of sin, and in the room of it, will the graver of his most Holy Spirit, engrave on the same table of our heart the characters of his law.”[9]

The context is clear. Witsius sees Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as testimonies to the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. As shown above, Owen used these texts in a very similar context and with the same practical result.

3. Francis Turretin. Turretin also references both Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3. His use of these texts corresponds with Owen’s and Witsius’ use, at least to a degree. While discussing how the abrogation of the Moral Law (the Decalogue) is not to be considered absolutely, but relatively, he says,

It is one thing to be under the law as a covenant to acquire life by it (as Adam was) or as a schoolmaster and a prison to guard men until the advent of Christ; another to be under the law as a rule of life to regulate our morals piously and holily. [10]

The law is compared by Paul to “a dead husband” (Rom. 7:2, 3), not simply, but relatively with regard to the sway and rigorous dominion it obtained over us and the curse to which it subjected sinners; but not with regard to liberation from the duty to be performed to it. Thus the law threatening, compelling, condemning, is not “made for a righteous man” (1 Tim. 1:9) because he is impelled of his own accord to duty and is no longer influenced by the spirit of bondage and the fear of punishment (Rom. 8:15; Ps. 110:3), but the law directive and regulative of morals is always laid down for him and he ought to be under it. [11]

What was given to the Jews as Jews can be for the use of the Jews alone; but what is given to the Jews as covenanted (or as the people of God simply) does not refer to them alone, but to all those who hold the same relation of people of God.[12]

Turretin says many more similar things. Suffice to say that he makes distinctions in the way the law is viewed. This is done to protect the Moral Law from an absolutist view of abrogation (see below) and to promote its perpetual utility. It is in this context that Turretin says, ‘“If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law’ (Gal. 5:18, viz., compelling and cursing), but under it directing, inasmuch as the Spirit works that law upon our hearts (2 Cor. 3:2; Jer. 31:33).”[13] In this context, the law which directs is the Moral Law (Decalogue). Hence, it is the Decalogue which “the Spirit works upon our hearts.”

4. Thomas Boston. Thomas Boston’s notes to The Marrow of Modern Divinity reveal that at least one 18th century Reformed theologian held that Jeremiah 31:33 referred to the writing of the Decalogue on the heart under the New Covenant. Boston says:

One will not think it strange to hear, that the ten commandments were, as it were, razed out of man’s heart by the fall, if one considers the spirituality and vast extent of them, and that they were, in their perfection engraven on the heart of man, in his creation, and doth withal take notice of the ruin brought on man by the fall. Hereby he indeed lost the very knowledge of the law of nature, if the ten commandments are to be reckoned, as certainly they are, the substance and matter of that law; although he lost it not totally, but some remains thereof were left with him. Concerning these the apostle speaks, Rom. i. 19, 20; and ii. 14, 15. And our author teaches expressly, that the law is partly known by nature, that is, in its corrupt state, See page 181. And here he says, not simply, that the ten commandments were razed, though in another case (page 44), he speaks after that manner, where yet it is evident he means not a razing quite; but he says, “They were, as it were, razed.” But what are these remains of them in comparison with that body of natural laws, fairly written, and deeply engraven, on the heart of innocent Adam? If they were not, as it were, razed, what need is there of writing a new copy of them in the hearts of the elect, according to the promise of the new covenant? “I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” Heb. x. 16, and viii. 10; Jer. xxxi. 33.[14]

Like Witsius and Turretin before him, Boston proves that there were some in the 17th and 18th centuries who argued for the perpetuity of the Decalogue from Jeremiah 31:33 (and 2 Cor. 3:3), i.e., on the same exegetical ground as Owen. 

Though Owen’s statements concerning Jeremiah 31:33 are not all equally clear, those provided above are clear enough to conclude that he used it and 2 Corinthians 3:3 in a context which argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. He does this in similar fashion as Witsius, Turretin, and Boston.

[1] Owen, Works of John Owen, XXII:215.

[2] Protestant Scholasticism taught that the Decalogue summarily contains the moral law and is the inscripturated form of the natural law, as to its substance. A distinction was made between substance and form. Substance is one; form may vary. Hence, when the Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 98 says, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments,” it refers to the fact that the substance (i.e., the underlying essence) of the Moral Law is assumed and articulated in the propositions of the Decalogue as contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The form fits the redemptive-historical circumstances in which it was given. The substance or underlying principles are always relevant and applicable to man. The application may shift based on redemptive-historical changes, such as the inauguration of the New Covenant, but its substance and utility never changes.

[3] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 16.

[4] Owen, Works, XXII:217, 18.

[5] Owen, Works, XXII:215.

[6] In my book In Defense of the Decalogue (IDOTD), I provided exegetical evidence that Jer. 31:33 and 2 Cor. 3:3 speak directly to the issue of the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. I provided references to Old Testament and New Testament scholars to this end. The scholars I referenced are not all Reformed confessionalists. I did this on purpose to show that one’s confessional commitments do not necessarily cloud one’s exegetical lenses. See Richard C. Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue: A Critique of New Covenant Theology (Enumclaw, WA: WinePress Publishing, 2001), 16-24 and 34-38.

[7] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:170.

[8] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:170, 171.

[9] Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II:171.

[10] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), II:143.

[11] Turretin, Institutes, II:143.

[12] Turretin, Institutes, II:145.

[13] Turretin, Institutes, II:143, 144.

[14] Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. 1991), 177.

A8: It is true that some paedobaptists claim that the Reformed Baptist position on infant baptism disavows covenant theology. But this is a misunderstanding of the teaching of the Reformed Baptist Church. Chapter seven of the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which is entitled “Of God’s Covenant,” refutes this false claim. As James Renihan has explained, Reformed Baptists believe that “the structure of Scripture is properly defined by…covenant theology,” and “to grasp this fact is to grasp the central architecture of the entire Bible.” For this reason, “confessional Reformed Baptists are…full-blown adherents of covenant theology.” Moreover, Reformed Baptists believe that a proper understanding of covenant theology demands disciple or confessor baptism, because it does justice to both the continuity and discontinuity of the covenant.

Q9: How would you respond to this? Infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of the Covenant of Grace. (I am thinking specifically of the fact that the Westminster Standards teach that the CofG was first revealed in Gen. 3.)

A9: To state that infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace is of the essence of the Covenant of Grace is an erroneous claim. The reason being that, as claimed by the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Covenant of Grace is with the elect. Therefore, to adhere to infants being included in the Covenant of Grace would necessitate the belief in the doctrine of “presumptive election,” a presumption which is without biblical warrant. I deal with this subject in my book.

A1: The Bible teaches the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ in all of Scripture in several places.

Q2: What are some of the several places where the Bible teaches the centrality of the Lord Jesus Christ in all of Scripture?

A2: Luke 24:25-27, 44-47; John 5:39-40; Romans 1:1-6; 16:25-27; 1 Peter 1:10-12.

QUOTE: Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 53, “The overwhelming testimony of the New Testament is that Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, which is another way of saying that the Old Testament is about Jesus.”

Q3: What does the fact that these places are all found in the New Testament teach us about interpreting the Bible (i.e., biblical hermeneutics)?

A3: The fact that these places are all found in the New Testament teaches us:

(1)   that the New Testament is the authoritative interpreter of the Old Testament;

(2)   that the Lord Jesus Christ is the key that opens up the door of the Old Testament’s meaning for us;

(3)   that the relationship between the testaments is one of promise and fulfillment.

QUOTE: Goldsworthy, According to Plan, 52, “According to Jesus, the Old Testament is the Word of God, the Scripture which cannot be broken. Jesus also claims that he himself is the subject of the Old Testament. His teachings constantly point to the Old Testament as that which he fulfills. Thus the Old Testament does not stand on its own, because it is incomplete without its conclusion and fulfillment in the person and work of Christ. No part of it can be rightly understood without him. In this sense it is about Christ. God’s revelation in Scripture is progressive, moving by stages from the original promises given to Israel, until the fullest meaning of these promises is revealed in Christ. While we come to understand the New Testament in the light of what goes before it in the Old Testament, it is God’s fullest revelation and final word in Christ that gives meaning to all things. Thus Christ, and therefore the New Testament, interprets the Old Testament.”

A6: Paedobaptists usually view the relationship between circumcision and water baptism on a “one to one” basis. That is, they see these two “sacraments” (circumcision in the OT and water baptism in the NT) as with little or no difference except for the administration of rite itself. As expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance [essence], the same with those of the New.” There is a sense in which this is true, in that in both the Old and the New Testaments, all things point to Christ and His salvific cross work. But whereas circumcision in the Old Testament was for Abraham and his physical (male) seed, having to do with the relationship between the people of Israel and the promised land of Canaan, as explained by Paul, in the New Testament, water baptism represents the circumcision of the heart that has already been regenerated (Colossians 2:11-12; Philippians 3:3). The sacraments in the New Testament are for those who have already been converted; those who have already had their hearts transformed by the salvific cross work of Jesus Christ. So, there is a significant difference between the circumcision of the Old Covenant community (which dealt with Abraham’s physical seed), and the New Covenant community (which has to do with the spiritual seed of Abraham).

Q7: How is the New Covenant “not like” the covenant God made with the Fathers?

A7: I have already partially dealt with this issue above, but I would add that, according to Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, the difference in the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is that the Old was breakable whereas the New is not. The Old was more involved with the physical seed; whereas the New is more concerned with the spiritual seed. According to the two passages cited above, the New Covenant community consists of those who “know the Lord.” It is for believers, not believers and their infant seed.

[1] Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, 41-42. Oehler’s methodological philosophy of biblical theology is similar to both Owen and Vos. Peter J. Wallace acknowledges that Oehler’s work “bears some resemblance to Vos’s later Biblical Theology…” Cf. Peter J. Wallace, “The Foundations of Reformed Biblical Theology: The Development of Old Testament Theology at Old Princeton, 1812-1932,” WTJ 59:1 (1997): 52, n. 56.

One concern that guided me in my studies was not to so react to modern deviations from justification by faith alone as to call into question the biblical doctrine of perseverance and trend back toward the Easy-believism which dominated Evangelicalism for most of the 20th century and still infects many parts of it.

I say all of this because I am concerned that an over-reaction may be setting in which actually does forget and call into question the biblical doctrine of the necessity of perseverance and actually does trend back toward viewpoints representative of Easy-believism.  I am also concerned when some take positions in an attempt to defend justification by faith alone which, when examined by an unbiased mind in light of Scripture, simply cannot be defended.  Taking such positions in my view does a great deal of harm to sola fide because it tends to create the impression that only by special pleading and ignoring a part of the witness of Scripture can the doctrine of justification by faith alone be defended. 

The articles in this series of blogs will interact with the writings of Lee Irons.  Let me make clear that I respect Lee a great deal.  I have particularly appreciated his articles and statements in defense of the doctrine of eternal generation.  I have chosen to interact with Lee, because I believe he tends to represent a fairly common and less extreme form of reaction against modern departures from the traditional doctrine of justification.  I do not believe he desires to call into question the biblical doctrine of perseverance or in the least trend back toward Easy-believism.  I write with no personal animus against him, but in the spirit of iron sharpening iron.  But I also write with a concern that some of the positions he and others he represents defend cannot be defended exegetically and raise unnecessary questions about justification sola fide.

A1: I was born in 1943 in Washington, D.C. I graduated from high school in 1961 and college in 1965. I earned an MBS from the Atlanta School of Biblical Studies, the Th.M. and Th.D. from Whitefield Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from the Central School of Religion in Surrey, England. I live in Virginia, am married, and have two married daughters and five grand children. General interests primarily include reading (I am an inveterate reader, primarily on the subjects of theology and philosophy) and writing, but I also enjoy having a physical “work out” each day. As to my church affiliation, I am a Reformed Baptist, and an advocate of the teachings found in the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Reformed Baptist Shorter Catechism. Over the last twenty-five years I have pastored three churches and have had the opportunity to preach and teach at a number of other churches. My wife and I are currently members of the Reformed Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia.

Books I have written include: What Calvin Says, Study Guide to the Westminster Confession, The Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark, and By Scripture Alone, which were published by The Trinity Foundation. Soli Deo Gloria has published my What the Puritans Taught and Meet Jonathan Edwards. My He Shall Glorify Me was published by Whitefield Press, and Blue Banner Ministries published my Christ the Mediator, as well as Built Upon the Rock, Toward a Christian Worldview, and So Great a Salvation (these last three books were co-authored with Dr. Richard E. Bacon). Apologetics Press published Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism, and Arminianism, which I coauthored with Dr. Kenneth Talbot, and Reformation Heritage Books published my A Conversation with Jonathan Edwards. I have also had a number of articles published by different Christian magazines, newspapers, etc. (e.g., The Blue Banner, The Confessional Presbyterian, The Trinity Review, New Southern Presbyterian Review, Chalcedon Report, The Christian Statesman, and Journey).

Q. 2: How long have you wrestled with the issue of the subjects of baptism?

A2: I have been struggling with the matter of paedobaptism versus credobaptism for almost twenty years.

Q3: What are some of the main problems you encountered with paedobaptism that caused you to keep studying?

A3: There were several issues that bothered me about the doctrine of paedobaptism. I will mention only one, and that is there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the baptism of infants. This is admitted by some of the finest paedobaptist theologians that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and tau