The need for balance?

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

The need for balance? Sept 30, 2023 11:15:25 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2023 11:15:25 GMT -5

Here is an alternative view, seeking to look away from the 3 fold division of the law.

By
JOSHUA GREEVER

The Need for Proper Balance
Discerning how to apply the law of Moses to the Christian life proves challenging because the law of Moses appears to be both rejected and received in the New Testament. At times the biblical authors will critique the law as impotent and obsolete (e.g., Heb. 7:19; 8:13), whereas at other times the biblical authors will praise the use of the law for Christian instruction (e.g., 2 Tim. 3:15–16). More than that, seeking application for the law is fraught with danger. On the one hand, if we overemphasize redemptive-historical continuity, we run the risk of, like the “foolish Galatians” (Gal. 3:1), losing the gospel. On the other hand, if we overemphasize redemptive-historical discontinuity, we run the risk of ignoring divine covenantal instruction and thus finding ourselves awash in a sea of antinomianism.

To achieve the biblically faithful balance, we must recognize that there are elements of continuity and discontinuity between the law of Moses and the Christian life. Whole books have been written on this subject, but in what follows I will offer two ways to apply the law of Moses to Christian life.[1]

1. Editor’s note: See this month’s two-part article from Ardel Caneday, “The Law of Moses—The Mosaic Covenant Viewed Through Progressive Covenantalism“, for further engagement with the Law of Moses.
The Law as Pointer to Christ’s Finished Work
First, Christians rightly apply the law of Moses to their lives when they trust in Christ’s finished work of fulfillment and covenant ratification on their behalf. Christ fulfilled the law through his perfect obedience and through his death that ratified the new covenant. His finished work should lead Christians to trust afresh in Christ as our only hope for righteousness before God.

Throughout Jesus’s life he kept the commandments and thus fulfilled the law. At his birth he was circumcised on the eighth day, and his mother and adoptive father kept the law of purification associated with birth (Luke 2:21–24). As a boy, he exemplified a life of wisdom and attentiveness to God’s will, while maintaining submission to his parents (Luke 2:40–52). As a man, unlike Adam and Israel, Jesus as God’s son exhibited covenant loyalty to God in his time of testing (Matt. 4:1–11; cf. Deut. 6:13, 16; 8:3). Throughout his ministry he embodied the twin summary commands of love of God and love of neighbor, thus fulfilling the true intent of the law. On account of his life of righteousness, Jesus is “the Righteous One” on our behalf (Acts 22:14; 1 John 2:1; cf. Matt. 3:15).

Not only did Jesus fulfill the law in his perfect life, but he also brought it to its intended conclusion, ratifying the new covenant through his death. Many New Testament texts speak of the planned obsolescence of the Sinai covenant and its accompanying legislation. In Jesus’s teaching, he did away with the food laws, as well as the temple tax the law required (Matt. 17:24–27; Mark 7:19; cf. Exod. 30:11–16; Lev. 11:1–47). At the Last Supper, Jesus interpreted his death as inaugurating the new covenant, replacing the old (Luke 22:20). Paul and Hebrews call the Sinai covenant “old” in contrast with the “new” covenant Jesus ratified (2 Cor. 3:14; Heb. 8:6). For Paul, the Sinai covenant was in force only until the arrival of the Messiah, and at his coming he abolished the law in its entirety, such that it is no longer binding for Christians as covenant legislation (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:15–4:7; Eph. 2:15).

Similarly, Hebrews tells us that since a change in the priesthood signifies a change in covenantal legislation, Christ’s accession to the Melchizedekian priesthood signifies the end of the Sinai covenant (Heb. 7:11–19). More than that, any attempt to return to a life under the Sinai legislation is akin to rejecting the gospel and falling away from Christ (Gal. 5:3–4). Now that Christ has come, a return to the strictures of the Sinai legislation would be tantamount to a denial of the effectiveness of Christ’s work on behalf of his people and the inaugurated reality of the life-giving new covenant.

Hence, Christians rightly apply the law of Moses fruitfully when they regard it in its entirety as both fulfilled by Christ’s life and replaced by his covenant-inaugurating death. In light of Christ’s finished work, Christians read the law rightly when it points them to fresh faith in God’s goodness towards us in Christ. In this sense, the law can make us “wise for salvation” (2 Tim 3:15), witness to God’s righteousness in Christ (Rom. 3:21), and point to our need for a Savior (Gal. 3:24).

Abiding Instruction from the Law
Second, when we apply the law of Moses to the Christian life, not only do we trust afresh in the finished work of Christ, but we also glean from it divine wisdom and an example of God’s righteousness in a previous covenant era. We see the law as fulfilled in Christ, but this does not mean that it no longer provides instruction for Christian righteousness. Just the opposite, it maintains the righteous commands of God, which were then embodied in Christ. In this way, stating previously that the law of Christ “replaces” the law of Moses in no way suggests that law is replaced by lawlessness (i.e., antinomianism).

Following the logic of Paul, we learn that the law was from God, and therefore it is “holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:12). It bears divine authority and teaches us of the unchanging character of God (Heb. 12:29; cf. Deut. 4:24). Jesus recognized the abiding value for his disciples of the commands to love God and love neighbor (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5). Paul likewise asserts that Christians fulfill the ten commandments when we love one another (Rom. 13:8–10; cf. Jas. 2:8–12). The command to honor one’s parents appears in support of Paul’s instruction to children to obey their parents (Eph. 6:1–3).[2]

2. On the way in which progressive covenantalism might read Ephesians 6:1–3 and Paul’s use of the fifth commandment, see David Schrock, “Living Long in the Land: Reading Ephesians 6:1–3 through the Lens of the New Covenant.”
Moreover, Israel’s case laws provide wisdom and instruction for the church community, such as the need to establish an accusation on the basis of two or three witnesses, or the necessity to excommunicate an idolater from the community for the sake of a pure church (1 Cor. 5:13; 1 Tim. 5:19; cf. Deut. 17:6–7; 19:15). Paul twice draws upon the law about not muzzling the ox in order to elucidate and support the Christian requirement to support the work of the ministry (1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Deut. 25:4). Peter likewise draws from Israel’s holiness code to establish the requirement for Christian holiness (1 Pet. 1:16; cf. Lev. 11:44). Finally, even the law’s sacrifices positively instruct Christians: when we offer ourselves to God, we are a fragrant and pleasing aroma to God through Christ (Rom. 12:1; Phil. 4:18; Heb. 13:15–16; cf. Eph. 5:2). Thus, as Jason DeRouchie has pointed out, the entire law of Moses instructs us, when seen through the lens of Christ—whether Christ transforms, maintains, extends, or annuls the individual commands.[3]

3. See Jason S. DeRouchie, “Practical Theology,” in How to Understand and Apply the Old Testament: Twelve Steps from Exegesis to Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2017), 427–59.
The Law Entirely Fulfilled and Reappropriated Through Christ
It is striking to see how the biblical authors reject the law-covenant of Moses in its entirety, only to then reappropriate the entire law as wisdom and instruction for the Christian life. This suggests that the biblical authors view the law as a unified whole, that the Sinai legislation is inextricably bound up with the Sinai covenant, and that it comes to the Christian therefore not directly but mediated through the accomplished work of Christ.

The so-called tripartite view of the law, in which the law is seen to be comprised of ceremonial, civil, and moral aspects, thus is inadequate for expressing the covenantal unity of the Sinai legislation, its entire fulfillment and replacement through the work of Christ, and its entire reappropriation in the apostolic writings.[4] A better approach is to ground the law in its covenantal and redemptive-historical context and to view it through the lens of Christ’s fulfillment of it. Such an approach, far from demeaning the law or disregarding its authority, allows the entire law to point to Christ as our righteousness, while at the same time properly upholding the entire law as instructive for Christian righteousness.

4. See Jason C. Meyer, “The Mosaic Law, Theological Systems, and the Glory of Christ,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Mediating Position Between Dispensational and Covenant Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2016), 69–100.
†
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Joshua Greever is the Director of Seminary Programs & Associate Professor of New Testament at Bethlehem College & Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. He earned his M.Div and PhD at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained minister who formerly pastored Pleasant Home Baptist Church in Prague, Oklahoma. His work has appeared in Tyndale Bulletin, The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies, Credo Magazine, Fides et Humilitas, and other publications. Dr. Greever and his wife, Amelia, are members of the North Church (Mounds View, MN) and are the parents of four children.

Admin
Administrator

Welcome new Members, we are not fully set up, but starting up now

Posts: 4,139

The need for balance? Sept 30, 2023 12:14:00 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2023 12:14:00 GMT -5

By
ARDEL CANEDAY
I grew up in a pastor’s home where we frequently had guests, especially ministers, teachers, and missionaries. I regularly listened to adult conversations about the Bible and Christian concerns, such as the Mosaic Law. Though I also thought like a child, I was eager to know the truths of Scripture. I was confused about the Law of Moses because I was exposed to puzzling and contrary claims from pastors and teachers. Those heavily influenced by the notes in their Scofield Bibles or by Lewis Sperry Chafer’s writings affirmed that Israelites under the Mosaic Law received God’s salvation by the merits of their own works, whereas we today receive salvation by grace alone. Others argued that the Law of Moses presents no such notion and that there has always been only one way of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

Courses during college and later in seminary reinforced my childhood belief in the great solas of the Reformation and God’s singular way of salvation by grace throughout the ages. Some of those courses exposed me to the Lutheran “Law-Gospel” interpretive framework for reading Scripture, with which some Dispensationalists and Covenant theologians agreed. As I listened, this approach’s distinction between “law” and “gospel” struck me as correct theologically, but not always easy to track one-for-one with the biblical covenants.

In fact, even within Reformed theology there have been disagreements on this point. For example, John Frame contends that this “sharp separation between law and gospel, derived from Martin Luther,” as an effort to “protect the doctrine of justification by faith alone.” So, its advocates contend, “God’s law tells us what we must do to be right with God, the gospel tells us how we can be saved from God’s wrath against those who have not kept his law.”[1] In a sermon, Michael Horton, who supports the law/gospel distinction not only as theologically true but also as a way of distinguishing the biblical covenants, explains,

1. John Frame, The Escondido Theology: A Reformed Response to Two Kingdom Theology (Lakeland, FL: Whitefield Media Productions, 2011), 2.
Thus, the Law condemns and drives us to Christ, so that the Gospel can comfort without any threats or exhortations that might lead to doubt. . . . The Gospel acts without threats, it does not drive one on by precepts, but rather teaches us about the supreme goodwill of God towards us. . . . While the Gospel contains no commands or threats, the Law indeed does and the Christian is still obligated to both “words” he hears from the mouth of God.[2]

2. Michael Horton, “The Law and the Gospel.” Cf. Charles P. Arand and Michael Horton, “Does the Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace Schema Confuse the Law/Gospel Distinction?: A Lutheran/Reformed Conversation-The Reformed View,” Modern Reformation 9, no. 4 (July/August 2000): 24–27.
Horton is distressed that many Reformed pastors and scholars who uphold Covenant Theology do not agree with him. One is Louis Berkhof, who points out that some early “Reformed theologians represented the law and the gospel as absolute opposites,” conceiving of the “law as embodying all the demands and commandments of Scripture, and of the gospel, as containing no demands whatsoever, but only unconditional promises; and thus excluded from it all requirements.”[3] Others, Berkhof states,

3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1939), 612.
correctly maintained that even the law of Moses is not devoid of promises, and that the gospel also contains certain demands. They clearly saw that man is not merely passive, when he is introduced into the covenant of grace, but is called upon to accept the covenant actively with all its privileges, though it is God who works in him the ability to meet the requirements.[4]

4. Ibid., 613.
The Mosaic Covenant required perfect obedience to God, governed by tangible earthly shadows of God’s heavenly rule. The New Covenant features Christ Jesus as the fulfillment of all the worship shadows of the Mosaic Covenant because the Messiah cast all those shadows of the former covenant, which, in all its aspects, pointed the Israelites to the Coming One who perfectly obeyed all of God’s demands and fulfilled all of God’s promises.

God Designed the Covenants to Progress, Climaxing in Christ’s New Covenant
Advocates of what has come to be called “Progressive Covenantalism” agree that the “Law-Gospel” distinction is true theologically, but question whether it can be mapped one-for-one with the biblical covenants. It is not enough merely to say that the covenant of works is “law” (and for some, the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works), and the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenant are “gospel,” without any nuance. For this reason, the Mosaic Law cannot simply be reduced to “commands and threats,” although there is a strong bilateral and conditional element to it. Nor is it right to narrow the gospel, evacuate it of “commands or threats,” and portray it as comfort and promise, even though our Lord Jesus Christ is the one who perfectly keeps the new covenant, and his work alone is the ground of our justification and all the salvific benefits are ours in covenantal union with him.

For example, is not the command, “Believe in the Lord Jesus,” integral to the gospel message the apostles preached (Acts 16:31)? Again, in the second part of the verse, how does the promise “and you will be saved” not inherently entail the threat of eternal loss if we do not repent and believe and stand outside of Christ? The Canons of Dort agree that the gospel properly proclaimed includes exhortations and threats, not just promises.

And, just as it has pleased God to begin this work of grace in us by the proclamation of the gospel, so he preserves, continues, and completes his work by the hearing and reading of the gospel, by meditation on it, by its exhortations, threats, and promises, and also by the use of the sacraments (5.14: God’s Use of Means in Perseverance).

Thus, it is not enough simply to say that the sole difference between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant is that the former commanded and the latter does not issue imperatives. Theologically, God demands perfect obedience from us, which we do not deliver, and it is only Christ who perfectly obeys God’s covenant demands for us in his new covenant work. But more needs to be said about the biblical covenants, including the Mosaic covenant, and its relationship to all the covenants, especially the new covenant.

Furthermore, progressive covenantalists also have a quibble with Reformed theology’s bi-covenantal structure as the way to divide up the biblical covenants. We believe that the Scriptures compel us not to speak of a supra-historical “covenant of grace” but of a sequence of historical covenants that climax in the One whom all of them foreshadow in numerous ways. The Bible’s storyline tracks God’s progressive revelation through a sequence of integrated revealing and concealing covenants requiring trust that God will fulfill his promise.

Each covenant adds to the crescendo of God’s unfolding mystery, progressively anticipating fulfillment and completion in Christ Jesus, who inaugurates the last-days-climactic covenant. So, God designed each of the prior covenants—Creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic—to terminate not in themselves but in the Messiah who would establish the eternal New Covenant, bringing to completion all the prior covenants. Thus, God built obsolescence into the Mosaic Law to foreshadow the Coming One who would effectually accomplish all that the law-covenant could not do (Heb. 8:13; 10:1–4) with its daily rituals, recurring sacrifices, Sabbaths and holy days, foreshadowing types, stipulations, and promises—“If you obey me, I will bless you” or “Do this and you will live” (Lev. 18:4–5). The Mosaic Covenant was designed by God to be ineffectual: (1) its repeating sacrifices could not cleanse the conscience of guilt (Heb. 10:1–2), (2) it promised eternal life it could never deliver (Lev. 18:5), (3) it required righteousness it could not establish (Deut. 9:5–6; Gal. 3:21); (4) it commanded obedience it could not secure (Deut. 30:11–18), and (5) its circumcision ritual signified the heart’s needed circumcision which it could not perform (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4).

God’s purpose for the Mosaic Law was neither to mock the Israelites who were powerless to obey nor to drive them to despair. That being said, it was intended to reveal and increase their sin so that they would look to God’s ultimate provision in his Son in the new covenant (Gal. 3:19–25). Instead, like young children under the guardianship of the law, Israel was to await with expectant belief the time of fulfillment when God would send “his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” to grant them “adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:1–7). Instead, as the prophets foretold, Israel would play a significant role in the divine mystery (Isa. 6:8–13). In fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, Israel’s leaders were exposed to Jesus’s parables and glorious signs, but they were only further blinded, deafened, and hardened. They put to death the Lord’s Servant, their own Promised Messiah. They “crucified the Lord of glory” (1 Cor. 2:8).

Scripture’s Numerous and Diverse Uses of “Law”
Moving from the theological relationship between covenants to the diverse uses of “law” in the New Testament, we must keep a few things in mind. To begin with, we must avoid simplistic formulations because any discussion concerning “the law of Moses” inescapably prompts a range of crucial questions needing careful responses to avoid confusion. Scripture uses the word “law” in a variety of ways. Here are several uses of “law” in the Bible.

5. In Matthew 5:18–19, “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished,” speaks of Scripture, referring to the Pentateuch.

In 5:19, Jesus switches to “commandments” when he speaks of demands and prohibitions of the law-covenant. This distinction between the Law as the Pentateuch and the law as commandment is crucial for correctly understanding the two points Jesus makes:
(1) he has come to fulfill the prophecies of the Law and the Prophets; and (2) the law-covenant with its commandments must be obeyed by all under its jurisdiction. God’s Character. The “law of God” broadly speaks of what God’s character requires of us, versus what sin demands (Rom. 7:25—“the law of God” v. “the law of sin”). God’s nature grounds what is morally right. Thus, whatever is contrary to God’s character is sin.

Shorthand for all of Scripture. “Law” is used as a kind of shorthand reference to the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures (e.g., 1 Cor. 14:31 referring to Isa. 33:19).

Shorthand for the Pentateuch. Again, “Law” is used as a reference to a portion of the Old Testament Scriptures—namely, the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses.
For example, Jesus speaks of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms” in Luke 24:44. In Matthew 5:17–18, Jesus uses “the Law and the Prophets” to mean he fulfills Scripture, a point he reaffirms in Matthew 11:13: “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John.”[5]

Shorthand for the Mosaic Covenant. Paul frequently uses “law” as a shorthand reference to the Mosaic Covenant. He reasons, “The law that came four hundred and thirty years later does not nullify the covenant previously ratified by God that it might nullify the promise” (Gal. 4:17).
Throughout Galatians Paul’s use of “the law” (ho nomos) should be understood as shorthand for the law-covenant, the Mosaic Covenant (e.g., Gal. 3:15–29).

The Decalogue. Paul’s use of “law” as the law-covenant reflects what we have come to call “The Decalogue.” This designation derives from the Greek translation of Exodus 34:28—“And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Words” (cf. Deut. 10:4).
The Ten Words (hoi deka logoi), or the Decalogue (usually translated “the Ten Commandments”) constitute the covenant (diathēke). Given this use, the Ten Words on the tablets feature a summary of the Mosaic Covenant.

Law = Commandment. In Romans 7:7–11, Paul uses “the law” interchangeably with “commandment.” He cites the Tenth Commandment, “You shall not covet,” by way of synecdoche, representing the whole by one part.

A Governing Power. Again, in Romans 7, Paul uses “law” with another meaning, as a governing principle. “But I see another law in my members waging war with the law of my mind and taking me captive by the law of sin that is in my members” (Rom. 7:23; cf. vs. 21).
Earlier in Romans, Paul uses “law” the same way—“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Is it excluded through the law of deeds? No! It is excluded through the law of faith” (Rom. 3:27).

Conclusion
Throughout my ministry career, both in the pulpit and the university classroom, I taught the unfolding plan of the Scriptures, but I didn’t have a label for my beliefs. I stood somewhere between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Then, about a decade ago, my longtime friend, Stephen Wellum, assigned the name “progressive covenantalism” to our shared understanding. I began to concede that the title is apropos, providing we insist that the designation describes not a reading strategy laid over the Scriptures but a representation concerning how Scripture itself presents the storyline of God’s reign progressively unfolding through historical covenants. Among those covenants, the most disputed is the Mosaic Law. Christians hold vastly different understandings of it.

This article contends that the Lutheran approach to the law and the gospel, which many Reformed thinkers have embraced, reads the whole Bible through two contrary lenses: through commands and threats as the Law and through promises and comforts as the gospel. Although theologically, there is truth in this, we cannot simply divide the biblical covenants according to this distinction. Such a view fails to account for the multiple ways Scripture speaks of the Mosaic Law-covenant. As I have outlined above, the Bible speaks of divine grace in the law’s types and shadows, even as the law fulfilled in the gospel issues commands, exhortations, and threats—each of which are applied successfully by the Spirit to God’s elect. Furthermore, one must account for Scripture’s numerous and diverse uses of “Law,” and therefore, cannot assume that the law-gospel distinction, a theological reality, maps exactly onto the biblical revelation, an exegetical consideration.

My study of the Mosaic Law led me to think of it and the biblical covenants from a slightly different perspective, seeking to account for the legitimate dogmatic distinction between “law” and “gospel” while also accounting for how the Mosaic covenant functions in God’s unfolding redemptive plan that leads us to Christ. The second part of this article will feature how Christ Jesus brings the Mosaic Law’s jurisdiction as a covenant to its God-appointed end, which in the end highlights how all of God’s promises are “yes” and “amen” in our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).

†
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ardel Caneday continues as an adjunct faculty member at University of Northwestern after recently retiring from his role as Professor of New Testament & Greek. Ardel completed the MDiv and ThM at Grace Theological Seminary and the PhD in New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He is a founding teaching elder of Christ Bible Church (Roseville, MN). He co-edited with Matthew Barrett Four Views on the Historical Adam, co-authored with Thomas R. Schreiner The Race Set Before Us, and has published many articles in Christian magazines, journals, books, and online.

Last Edit: Sept 30, 2023 12:33:00 GMT -5 by Admin

The need for balance?

Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2023 11:15:25 GMT -5

Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2023 12:14:00 GMT -5

Quick Reply