Restoration Ministries | home
"This Is My Beloved Son; Hear Him"
Introduction: Letters and Opening Remarks
___________________________________________
In “Crucial Thoughts Concerning ‘Law’ in the New Covenant” (Spring, 1978, Vol. 7, Number 3, pp.7-17), I sought to expand an earlier article, “Is There A Covenant of Grace?” (Autumn, 1977, Vol. 6, Number 3, pp.43-531, and delineate some important and basic principles to be kept in mind when considering the relationship of law to the Christian. The reactions to these articles have been varied. I would like to quote from some positive and negative responses to those articles, and then develop at length the principles set forth in them.
“The articles have been stimulating. Our church had wrestled with this ‘covenant of grace’ concept last summer. Although definite conclusions were not arrived at yet, we did find the ‘covenant of grace’ concept to be as man-made and in many ways as stifling as Dispensationalism. In my estimation this is to be one of the key issues of the next few years.” — M.G.
“Your article on the Covenant of grace was the most significant thing we’ve read since Westminster (Seminary). I remember talking about the covenants with you a couple of times (1974), but the article put everything together for me.” — D.D.
“The Autumn 1977 and Spring 1978 issues have been particularly excellent. An articulate statement on the covenants and baptism from a Biblical perspective has been long overdue. Baptists, especially Reformed Baptists, need to study the Scriptures more diligently and begin to move away from what I call ‘Baptisteriansm’.” — B.M.
“I really liked your article on the Law and the one on the Covenant. You have said what I have been thinking all along.” — R.M.
“I have just finished reading your article on “Crucial Thoughts Concerning ‘Law’ in the New Covenant.” An excellent article that extends my thinking into areas yet unplumbed. By this article do you mean the following: (1) that we as New Testament Christians are only under what is revealed as the ‘law of Christ’ in the New Testament? (2) that the Old Testament law should not be used to alert sinners — rather, we should use the ‘law of Christ’ and Romans 1 to point out their falling short and condemnation? Could you please develop these things in future articles?” — G.A.
“I appreciated your article on ‘Law in the New Covenant.’ The emphasis of the law in the New Covenant was put into perspective properly, avoiding the antinomianism of the Dispensationalists, yet demonstrating the progressive character of revelation found in fulfillment by Christ. You pointed out that the church must be willing to constantly reform in its life and doctrine. The Reformed Faith has a great historical tradition. But it was only great and can only be so today if its leaders are aware that their theology must be exegetically and Biblically centered. Thank you for laboring in the Word, for that labor resulted in my reconsideration and thinking through the issue of Law.” — J.U.
“I enjoyed immensely your Spring 1978 issue, particularly your two articles, viz., ‘Law in the New Covenant* and ‘Accurately Handling the Word of Truth.’ All in all, I am certain that those truths touched upon in your two articles call the ecclesia reformata to be semper reformanda. As you say, ‘we who confess that reformation is an on-going process are often the slowest to implement Biblical truth’ (p. 1).” — D.V.P.
“Several months ago I sat down and wrote you a fairly lengthy letter thanking you for your article ‘Is There A Covenant of Grace.’ Somehow I neglected to mail that letter, and now I know why. It was more fitting that I wait for the Spring 1978 issue so that I could give you my thanks for two more fine articles! Thank you indeed for theological investigation based squarely upon exegesis . . . May I also commend you on the fact that you take exegesis as the starting point for your theological investigations. I have been sorely dismayed in the past to see many brethren who love the doctrines of grace overlook the utter necessity of testing all things by the text Your remarks in ‘Accurately Handling’ hit the nail on the head! It has seemed to me as I have associated with reformed baptists that all too often the label ‘reformed* is equated with ‘orthodox’ and ‘Scriptural.’ And while I am sure none would admit to it, it seems that at times if ‘Banner of Truth’ published it, or if it be found in Owen or Manton, then it is taken as gospel truth. This ought not to be in groups which call themselves reformed! It was just such thinking that took the ‘church’ far away from the truth.” — T.K.
“I feel inadequate to express my appreciation to you for the well-written, perceptive articles that appeared in the Autumn 1977 and Spring 1978 issues. These able studies, I am convinced, go a long way in clearing up the confusion (deliberate or otherwise) that prevails regarding the relation (continuity and disparity) of the Old and New Covenants. Besides removing the unnecessary burden of a supra-historical “covenant of grace” from our theological nomenclature, your work illumines many passages of Scripture that, up to now, I have never been fully able to appreciate. Such is the hold of an idea upon our minds (cf. Mark 16:11; Luke 24:13-27).
“A careful reading of your articles will, in my opinion, go far in helping to implement that oft-repeated, yet little realized axiom: ecclesia reformata reformands est. I therefore challenge our Baptist brethren to be diligent, and give these studies their thoughtful consideration. It may be that were they to do so, they might realize that the idea of ‘Sola Scriptura’ still takes precedence over any tradition — yes, even that of the Puritans! It would appear that many of our brethren regard their writings as virtually canonical. Although I would not wish to lightly esteem these honored men, it is not imperative that I suspend my judgment. Everyone, it would appear, has some theological axe to grind. To accept some theological system totally just because we happen to believe some, if not most, of that system is not necessarily commendable.
“Your articles, if true, raise legitimate questions about the Sabbath, the Tithe, etc. Also, your work vitiates the pedobaptist argument for infant baptism from a theological construct. If, then, pedobaptism cannot be defended either exegetically or theologically, what grounds are there for its maintenance — sentiment?
“Despite his apparent inconsistency elsewhere, I believe the remarks of Roderick Campbell (Israel and the New Covenant, pp. 24-25) to be particularly relevant:
“‘There are still earlier covenants spoken of in the Old Testament, but the New Testament singles out the Old (Sinai) Covenant and speaks of it as “old” and as the “first” (Hebrews 8:13, 9:1) by way of comparing it with the New Covenant which came by Christ. This manner of speaking would seem to indicate that a clear understanding of the relationship which exists between these two covenants is necessary in order to an adequate understanding of the Christian faith . . . The idea of a transcendent purpose and provision which is spoken of in Christian literature as the “Covenant of Grace” or “Redemption,” underlies the whole of written revelation’ (Emphasis mine).
“This, of course, is true. However, to resort to a ‘Covenant of Grace,’ allegedly transcending time and space, is not only unnecessary, but results in a distortion of the Biblical data.
“More recently, Reformed writers have called attention, and rightly so, to the fact that we must recognize the influential part that presuppositions play in our understanding and explication of Scripture. The recognition of this should, I believe, apply to all our inherited and/or adopted concepts — including, of course, the so-called ‘covenant of works/grace’ idea. A consistent application of this principle would enable us to avoid foisting upon Scripture something that in reality is not a clearly taught Biblical truth, but rather a theological formulation which does not do justice to the progressively unfolding historical purpose in Christ.
“There is an interesting passage in the preface to Luther*s work on Galatians that illustrates the truth of our contention that there are crucial differences between the Old (Sinai) and New (Calvary) covenants:
“‘But Satan, the god of all dissension, stirs up daily new sects, and last of all (which of all other I should not have foreseen or once suspected) he has raised up a sect of such as teach that the Ten Commandments ought to be taken out of the Church, and that men should not be terrified by the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ.’
This obvious slur of the Anabaptists only serves to demonstrate that Luther misunderstood their position, namely, that the New Covenant has its own ethical demands, that Christ, not Moses, is its Mediator, and that the church of the New Covenant is more than a mere recapitulation of the Old Testament theocracy.
“The Anabaptists’ (by no means a monolithic movement) quarrel with Luther and others stemmed not from the idea as to whether or not ethics were optional, neither did they seek to destroy ‘law’ per se, rather, they had a differing conception of the church which grew out of the conviction that a new age had come in Christ They recognized that Christ, not Moses, was the Mediator of the New and ‘better’ covenant.
“In concluding, I would like to say that it is high time for Reformed Baptists to stop being awed by their Reformed pedobaptist brethren, and instead of adopting their inadequate views as a whole, to set forth their own Scriptural insights. The articles which prompted this response, I believe, offer the direction with which such a development might begin. Thanks again for these rewarding studies.” — Stan Huntley Memphis, TN.
Dear Jon:
“The purpose of this letter is not to engage you in a detailed debate concerning your article on the law (Baptist Reformation Review, Vol. 7, No. 1). I suppose many things could be said by way of reply to what you have enunciated in that article. However, at present I am concerned to specify two areas of dissatisfaction with your treatment of this theme. In the first place, on page 12 of your article you cite Romans 2:12, 14 as a Pauline articulation of one category of individuals not under the law of God. Now it is precisely this text which is, in my opinion, one of the most eloquent apostolic pronouncements in support of the traditional Reformed understanding of the centrality of the decalogue in the new covenant. As you know, this section of Romans is Paul*s reproach of the Jewish legalistic mentality, in particular a mentality which took refuge in the great privileges bestowed upon the nation. The paragraph of Romans 2:12-16 is Paul*s explanation of the principles, or better, the standard of God*s judgment. The standard is, of course, God*s law. But then the question arises, ‘How can Gentiles be judged according to the law of God when in fact they were never the recipients of special revelation?’ It is in verses 13-15 that Paul addresses himself to this problem. His answer is that the Gentiles possessed a law which corresponded to those precepts which were entrusted to Israel. That is to say, by virtue of an internally written inscription the heathen had received the functional equivalent of the Mosaic law. Therefore the Gentile conscience is regarded as ‘an interior law of the same origin as the Mosaic law, its judgment is an anticipation of final judgment, when all men must appear before Christ’ (A. Feuillet, “Le plan salvifique de dieu d*apres L*Epitre aux Romains,’ Revue Biblique, 57, 1950, p. 348). G. B. Stevens likewise observes that ‘the Mosaic law is for Paul the embodiment of the divine law in general, that by nomos he should denote anything different from that law would be quite contrary to his view of its nature and purpose’ (The Pauline Theology, New York, 1892), p. 161). Unless it is understood that the law is the factor which placed Israel and the Gentiles in a judicially identical position, then Paul*s entire polemic is short-circuited. He presupposes that an equation can be drawn between what Israel possessed in written form and that which the heathen possessed as a law internally written upon their hearts.
“When these data are compared with 2 Corinthians 3, a remarkable pattern begins to emerge. At the beginning of the human race the law of God was inscribed on the hearts of our first parents. Upon the advent of sin this law of the heart (or conscience) was defaced and marred, therefore becoming unreliable (in itself) as a guide for belief and conduct. Accordingly, in the giving of the Mosaic ordinances the Lord once again writes this elemental law this time on tables of stone. In fact, this very mode of revelation highlights the abiding significance of the decalogue, pointing as it does to the permanence of the ten words. In addition, its placement in the ark of the covenant is an indication that the people were not to regard this portion of the legislation in the same light as the other ordinances. In the mind of God there was something special about the ten commandments. However, as Paul affirms, this form of writing in itself proved only to be a killing letter. Therefore, under the new covenant the Lord (or ‘the Spirit of the Lord’) again proposes to write his law on tables of human hearts. Notice that in 2 Corinthians 3, there is no qualitative or substantive difference between the laws in question: only the medium of writing has changed. Calvin in commenting on Jeremiah 31:33 (which forms the direct background of 2 Corinthians 3) remarks ‘He afterward says, “I will put my law in their inward parts.” By these words he confirms what we have said, that the newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the substance, but as to the form only.” In effect, then, the law written on the heart of the believer in the new covenant constitutes a rewriting of the aboriginal legislation, which under Moses could only command obedience without imparting life, but which under Christ procures for the Christian a reinstatement into the favor of God, a new creation. It is indeed gratifying to find that (John) Owen has taken this very position.
“‘The law of God was at first inbred and natural unto man; it was concreated with his faculties, and was their chief rectitude, both in being and operation, in reference to his end of living unto God and glorifying of him . And though this law, as to the rule and dominion of it, be now by nature cast out of the soul, yet the remaining sparks of it, because they are inbred, are very powerful and effectual, as the Apostle declares, Romans 2:14-15. Afterward God renews this law, and writes it on tables of stone. But what is the efficacy of this law? Will it now, as it is external and proposed unto men, enable the things that it exacts and requires? Not at all. God knew it would not, unless it were turned into an inward law again; that is, until, of a moral outward rule, it be turned into an inward real principle. Wherefore God makes his law internal again, and implants it on the heart as it was at first, when he intends to give it power to produce obedience in his people Jeremiah 31:31-33, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it on their hearts”’ (Works, Vol. 6, pp. 165-66)
“The ‘crunch’ of all this, Jon, is that your position represents a disruption of that pattern which is established by the ‘panorama’ of biblical theology. Such patterns are not accidental, nor are they contrived by those who are looking for some artificial or plausible sounding justification for a retention of the ten commandments. I submit that this clearly delineated movement of redemptive history is the Holy Spirit’s own pronouncement of a hermeneutical principle which must govern our discussion of any given text of Scripture. Not to discipline one*s exegesis by this pattern is to set, as it were, the individual bricks at variance with the designer*s plan for the whole building.
“The second area of dissatisfaction with your article has to do with the quotation from Prof. Ridderbos, Paul — An Outline, p. 284. As the quotation stands, it appears that Ridderbos is an advocate of your position (at least in part). But in fact, you have quoted only a portion of the sentence, leaving off the most important element of his thought! The entire sentence is as follows* ‘To be sure, in the epistles that have been preserved to us nowhere is a distinction made explicitly between the moral and ceremonial, particularistic parts of the law, but materially Paul, certainly continuing to build on the antecedent missionary preaching (Colossians 2:6 ff.), nevertheless starts from such a distinction’ (emphasis mine). So when Prof Ridderbos is allowed to speak for himself it turns out that he does indeed interpret Paul as embracing a position which forms the basis for the classic Reformed distinction between the moral, ceremonial and civil laws. In all fairness, it should be noted that Ridderbos in his Aan De Romeinen (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament), p. 59, does not advocate the same position which I have taken on Romans 2:14. He approvingly cites the opinion of Gutbrod: ‘If nomos, here without the article, includes within itself a generalization (verallggemeinerung) of the concept of law, then the train of thought would fall apart.’ Nevertheless, in the place cited, Ridderbos does not provide ammunition for an assault against the Reformed understanding of the threefold division of the law.
“In conclusion, let me say that the central issue of this controversy, as I see it, finds expression in that saying of Christ, ‘Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5:19a). If our Lord was constrained to warn His followers against loosing even the least conspicuous of the divine commands, how much more do His words apply to any abrogation of that portion of the law which (from the human side) forms the very heart and basis of covenant relationships? To be sure, it is a grave error to impose burdens on men which the Lord Himself has not seen fit to impose. However, it is equally iniquitous to subtract from the preceptive will of God and to engender in the people of God an attitude of laxness with regard to any of the commandments. Since these things are so, I would caution against precipitous thinking on anyone*s part concerning these vital matters.” — Don Garlington, Instructor, Trinity Ministerial Academy, Essex Fells, New Jersey
In responding to the above remarks, and in enlarging upon areas where I believe we need to Biblically sharpen our thinking, I offer the following five areas of consideration. By further expanding this discussion of law, I realize that this is one of “the greatest knots in the practical part of divinity, and men*s judgments are various” (Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, 1645, reprinted by Banner of Truth, 1964, p.59).
I am also conscious of the fact that Paul in particular wrote “some things hard to be understood” (2 Peter 3:16), and therefore I do not profess to have all the answers by any means. But I do believe that the light of Biblical revelation is sufficient to point us in the directions which will be unfolded.
In orienting our minds and hearts to this subject, may we remember the truth contained in the following statement by J.C. Ryle: “It matters nothing who says a thing in religion, whether an ancient father, or a modern Bishop. or a learned divine. Is it in the Bible? Can it be proved by the Bible? If not, it is not to be believed” (Ryle’s Expository Notes on the Gospels, 1858, reprinted by Baker Books, 1977, Vol. 2, pp. 371-372).
Since I will be dealing with several controversial areas, we will do well to consider Jeremiah Burroughs* keen observation:
“Although differences be very sad, yet the truth that comes to light by them, may recompense the sadness. You cannot beat out a place for a window to let in light, but you must endure some trouble. Children will think the house is being pulled down when the window is being knocked out; but the father knows that benefit will come by it. He complains not that the dust and rubbish lies up and down in the house for a while; the light let in by it will recompense all. The trouble in the discussions of things by brethren of different judgments may seem to be great, but either you or your posterity hereafter may see cause to bless God for that light hath been or may be let into the Churches by this means; men of moderate spirits do bless God already” (1599-1646).
_______________________________________________________
The Rightful Focus of the Old Testament:
The Person and Work of Christ
The Rightful Relationship of Christ to the Law:
Fulfillment and Setting Aside
The Rightful Focus of the Believer's Obedience:
The Teaching of Christ
The Rightful Identification of the Law
In the History of Mankind
The Rightful View of Law in Paul:
Fulfill the Law of Christ
Conclusion and Bibliography