“As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he has particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished.”

Instead of writing a polemic on my understanding of the Sabbath in redemptive history I’ll give links to articles that clearly summarize how I understand the issue. But I do want to make the following thesis points:

1. The Sabbath was not an ordinance from creation but from Sinai.
2. The Sabbath was a sign of the Old [Mosaic] Covenant that has since passed.
3. The Sabbath was a type of the eschatological rest to be found in the coming Messiah.
4. The practice of setting one day in seven aside has been replaced by consecrating every day to the Lord.
5. The modern position of Sabbatarianism is inconsistent at best and a gross misunderstanding at worst of God’s regulation of Sabbath activity (or lack thereof).
6. The “Lord’s Day” is not to be equated with the Jewish Sabbath.

Articles on the Sabbath

1. A Redemptive-Historical Understanding of the Sabbath
   
2. Sabbatarianism Re-examined
3. Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?

God’s Main Purpose in History

In the studying I’ve done, I have come to the largest area of difference concerns God’s main purpose in history. While I don’t want to incorrectly label either side I believe I can safely give the main difference. DP would say that God’s main purpose in history is ethnic Israel while CT would say that God’s main purpose in history is his son and by extension his elect. While neither side would minimize their respective focuses, each of those theological presuppositions guide their conclusions.

DP see redemptive history focusing on God’s work with ethnic Israel. The classical version would go so far to say that, as a result of Israel rejecting her messiah, God has inserted a “parenthetical” time of salvation to gentiles but will return to ethnic Israel in the millennium described in Rev 20.¹ A more progressive version of DP would soften this distinction but would still see God returning to ethnic Israel in the millennium. CT focus all revelation around the revelation of Jesus in history. By stating that God’s main focus is his son and by extension his elect means that God is most concerned with his son and all the redeemed he has chosen since the foundation of the world.

The Hermeneutic Issue

What guides both sides to their ultimate conclusion is the method that they interpret the scriptures. You will hear DP always talk of using a “literal hermeneutic” which means that they take all prophecies at “face value” to be fulfilled “literally” at some point in the future. They often criticize CT of liberalism and “spiritualizing” texts to make them fit into their theological system.

It’s not that CT don’t interpret scripture “literally,” but they see different application and fulfillment of prophecies. CT see the church prophesied in the Old Testament opposed to DP which do not see this in the Old Testament. CT utilize (more extensively) biblical typology to interpret events in scripture, and they use the analogy of faith which lets scripture interpret scripture.

In Regards To Soteriology

All CT are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are CT. One notable example is John MacArthur who is both a five-point Calvinist and a DP. He and his followers are, however, in a vast minority, and they actually are out casted by both sides for their convictions. DP usually have a system of salvation that varies on one end to those who teach that Old Testament saints were justified by their obedience to the Mosaic Law to others who are four-point Calvinists.

The Millennium

All DP are premillenialists but not all premillenialists are DP.² CT can be either amillenialists, postmillenialists, or premillenialists concerning the millennium in Rev 20. The millennium is a sticky issue in this debate. DP see this as the time that Israel will be restored per Old Testament prophecies, but CT see the restoration of Israel happing under the New Covenant, by Jesus the mediator, in the church.

The Definition of “Israel”

DP always see references to “Israel” as referring to Old Covenant ethnic Israel. In this system of theology no member of the “church dispensation” can say they are a part of “Israel” in any sense. Contrasted to that, CT do recognize an ethnic Israel, but they see a “spiritual Israel” that consists of all the redeemed throughout all the ages. This “spiritual Israel” is shorthand for the church.

Additional Resources

• Theological Systems Compared
• 3 Systems of Theology
• Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology

1. There are CT, such as myself, who think Paul describes a return to ethnic Israel described in Rom 11 but don’t push it into the millennium the way DP do.
2. There are covenant theologians who are premillennial such as George Ladd and James Boice, but they are described as “historical” premillenials.

In Ephesians 2 Paul also gives a similar lesson on the role of the Mosaic Law and its abolishment in the New Covenant and appearing of the Messiah.

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. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. (Eph 2:11–16)

This passage has huge implications for our understanding of the New Covenant believer’s relation to the Mosaic Law. His lesson is apparently targeted to a similar heresy in the Ephesian church. Some “circumcised” believers were telling the “uncircumcised” that they are not truly God’s covenant people without the sign of circumcision, but Paul once again has trouble with this teaching (and rightfully so!).

He acknowledges that the Gentile Christians used to be separate from Christ and the commonwealth of Israel without hope. The barrier that existed between ethnic Israel and gentiles was the Mosaic Law which, through Israel’s obedience, was supposed to make much of God’s name (Deu 4:4–5). But due to Israel’s failure (Jer 31:32; Eze 36: 23), and the success of Jesus this barrier has been removed because He “broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances.” With this redemptive-historical shift Jesus has made the two into one new man reconciling them both by the cross.¹

The Inheritance Received and an Allegory

Resuming our analysis of Galatians Paul, in chapter four, continues the lesson of the temporal purpose of the Mosaic Law by stating that: “Now I say, as long as the heir is a child, he does not differ at all from a slave although he is owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by the father” (Gal 4:1–2). Paul’s lesson is that even an heir, who is to receive an inheritance, is no better than a slave; because he does not yet own his inheritance.² But the one who leaves the inheritance has set a time when the heir will receive his inheritance and likewise have a different status than the slave. So also was the condition of Israel under the Mosaic economy. They were no better than a slave (spiritually speaking), because the Messiah had yet to be revealed in history. Then our Heavenly Father had set a time for Israel (and all the nations) to receive an inheritance: “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons” (Gal 4:4–5).

Paul gives an important lesson by way of allegory at the end of chapter four. Reiterating to the Galatian Christians not to go back in redemptive history, he gives them an allegory concerning Isaac’s sons and the mothers of those sons: “Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.” (4:25–26).

The present Jerusalem corresponds to Hagar which symbolized Mount Sinai (and the covenant in general) to slavery. Those who desired to life a life under the Mosaic Law have inherited nothing but slavery, but those who live in the Messiah live in the “Jerusalem above” and “we [in Christ] are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman” (4:31).

Life in the Spirit and the Law of Christ

Paul then goes on with his discourse on living life in the Spirit as superior to life in the Mosaic economy under law and bondage. He starts off the chapter with an admonition to stand firm against the Judaizers: “It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery” (5:1). The New Covenant believer is also living “through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness” (5:5).

Paul then gives a startling teaching that only life led by the Spirit does one fulfill the law (5:14), and he then gives his law/Spirit contrast: “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law” (4:18). The lesson is that the age of the Spirit has replaced the age of law now that the Messiah has appeared. The Mosaic Law led Old Covenant Israel to Christ, and the Holy Spirit leads New Covenant Israel to Christ. Paul then, in his traditional fashion, anticipates a rebuttal; he sees that the Judaizers will then label Paul “antinomian” to the Galatian Christians. Is the New Covenant believer completely free from all law? Paul then gives us an answer: “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2).

Paul also talks about the Law of Christ in 1 Corinthians 9:20–21 when he says that he is not “under the [Mosaic] Law […] though not being without the law of God but under the law of Christ.” Paul recognizes that he is not subject to Moses but Jesus in the administration of God’s law. Even though he is free from the Mosaic Law, he is subject to the commands of Christ. New Covenant law does serve a different function than Old Covenant law. Covenant faithfulness was tied to Israel following the Mosaic stipulations, but that covenant was broken and was replaced by the New Covenant. Only in the New Covenant, led by the Spirit, can the believer “fulfill” law.³

Reformed scholars have attempted to identify the Decalogue with the Law of Christ, but such efforts suffer from a serious misreading.⁴ The prophets of old spoke of the change the Messiah would bring to the law (Isa 2:3; 42:4; 51:4, 7; Mic.4:2), and when Jesus commissioned His disciples He said to go to the nations “teaching them to observe all that I commanded you” (Mat 28:20). The message is that the New Covenant believer is not directly under the Mosaic Law even though commandments are repeated in the New Testament. Paul also says that life in the Spirit producing the fruits thereof that “against such things there is no law” (5:23).

Concluding Thoughts

Even though Galatians introduces discontinuity concerning the Mosaic Law and the New Covenant believer there are great truths of continuity. By virtue of their union with Christ they are sons of Abraham heirs according to the promise (Gal 3:29). To properly understand Paul’s message in Galatians we must recognize the same balance of continuity and discontinuity that Paul discusses in this fantastic letter of Christian liberty.

We must not forget that through all of his theological analysis, Paul reminds the Galatian Christians that the only thing they should boast in is the cross of Christ.

“But may it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. And those who will walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” (6:14–16)

1. There are many other passages in the New Testament that speak to this issue, but I haven’t the space to tackle them all here. For the reader’s study cross-reference Acts 13:39; 15; Rom 2:12–15, 28–29; 3:19–21, 31; 5:13, 20; 6:14; 7; 8:2; 10:4; 13:8; 1 Cor 9:20–21; 2 Cor 3; Col 2:16–17; 1 Tim 1:8–11; Heb 4:1–11; 7:12; 8–10; Jam 1:25.
2. Phillip Graham Ryken. Galatians, pg. 157.
3. This covenant obedience established by God in the New Covenant is the teaching that “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer 31:33). This phrase (writing the law on the heart) is an idiom for covenant faithfulness. See Coxhead, Steven R. ‘Deuteronomy 30:11–14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in Christ.’ WTJ 68 (2006): 309.
4. Phillip Ryken strives to establish that, in the mind of Paul, that the law of Christ is the ‘moral law’ which Ryken says is the Decalogue (Galatians, pg. 249). I find it interesting that when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was in the law He says that it is to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Mat 22:37–40) neither of which are in the Decalogue. It would seem that Jesus would see these principles as the eternal moral law of God, because ‘On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets’ (Mat 22:40).

Another erroneous interpretation of this passage is the personal tutor view. This view views Gal 3:23–25 as referring about the individual experience of every believer.¹ That means that the [Mosaic] law leads every believer to Christ. While it is true that law can lead to an awareness of sin and need for the Messiah, but there is disconnect on how this passage is used by Paul.² Beyond the question of what covenant law leads the believer to Christ at their specific point in redemptive history, it is clear from the next few chapters of Galatians that the source of a “tutor” is now the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant. The source of sanctification changes from the Mosaic Law in the Old Covenant to the Spirit in the New.

The Redemptive-Historical View

The redemptive-historical view on this passage is, I believe, the true summation of Paul’s lesson on the role of the Mosaic Law against the Judaizers who sought to bind the Galatian Christians. Paul is not saying that only 2/3 of the law has passed, and he is also not saying that the Mosaic Law leads every person to Christ throughout God’s economies. In contrast to these two positions, this view sees Paul as explaining a redemptive-historical shift in terms of law.³ Let’s revisit the passage.

Paul starts by saying that righteousness was never meant to be conferred through the Mosaic Law (3:21), and that the Law (Scripture) shut up everyone under sin while looking forward to the promised Messiah (3:22). He then extrapolates on that last passage by stating that before this “faith” came that “we” or the Israelites were kept in custody until the faith was to be revealed which is the Messiah (3:23). The Mosaic Law then become a tutor to lead Old Covenant Israel to Christ, and this lesson was imparted so that they may be justified by faith (3:24). In other words, the Mosaic Law had an eschatological focus that has now been realized and fulfilled in Christ. This is the very teaching that Jesus espouses in Matthew 5 when He claims He came “not to abolish the Law but to fulfill” (Mat 5:17).⁴ The word translated ‘tutor’ Ï?αιδαγÏ?γόÏ? is a slave-attendant whose duties including seeing a child until their time of maturity. F.F. Bruce extrapolates:

“As the slave-attendant kept the boy under his control until he came of age, so the law kept the people of God in leading-strings until, with the coming of faith, they attained their spiritual majority in Christ.“⁵

The translation provided by the NASB: “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ” is misleading (the italicized text being inferred). The preferable rendering of the passage ημÏ?ν γεγονεν ειÏ? Ï?ριÏ?Ï?ον is more properly rendered by the ESV as: “until Christ came” with the “until” having the meaning of a temporal force.⁶ The focus of Paul’s analysis is that the time of the law was temporary to show old covenant Israel her need for justification.

The next verse is important to understand Paul’s redemptive-historical analysis of the Mosaic Law. After saying that the Mosaic Law led Israel to Christ, then what became of the Law you Galatian Christians? Paul’s lesson is that the Judaizers want them to subscribe to something that’s purpose has passed! Paul says, ‘But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (3:25). The appearing of the Messiah in the “fullness of time” (4:4) has rendered the Mosaic Law’s purpose in redemptive-historical culminated and released. That is why Paul can finish the chapter with a startling lesson in God’s soteriological plan for all nations.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. (3:28–29)

Paul’s argument throughout this chapter is that to be a child of Abraham all one has to do, is not be circumcised and subscribe to the Mosaic Law, but only believe in the Messiah. The Law served only a temporary, pedagogical role in God’s redemptive history. The Galatian Christians needed to understand that if they were to subject themselves to the yoke of the Mosaic Law that they would, in fact, be going backwards in redemptive history!⁷ The Mosaic Law is presented by Paul as a parenthetical time between the Abrahamic and New Covenants.

1. One of the most pronounced advocates of this view is the evangelist Ray Comfort.
2. I believe this issue (the role of law in evangelism) is treated fairly by Steve Lehrer in New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered (Independently Published), pg. 127ff.
3. By stating that I hold a “redemptive-historical view” does not exclude other opinions on the issue from maintaining such a contrast. Most notably is Geerhardus Vos in his monumental work Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (7th ed.; Carlisle: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975). Regarding the permanence of the Decalogue he says: “If we may apply the term â??Christian’ thus retrospectively to the Decalogue, we should say, what it contains is not general but Christian ethics” (pg. 132).
4. This text is a pivotal one in understanding the Christian’s relation to the Mosaic Law. After much exegesis it would seem to have the same manner of “fulfillment” as the first few chapters of Matthew strive to prove. The Mosaic Law pointed forward to Christ, and with His advent He has “fulfilled” (Ï?ληρόÏ?) the Mosaic Law. I like the interpretation that stresses the “until all is accomplished” meaning His life and death on the cross, but even that interpretation has its pitfalls. For an even-handed analysis of this text see Fred Zaspel’s exegesis in New Covenant Theology, pgs 77–123.
5. Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians, pg. 182. See similar analysis by Phillip Ryken in Galatians (New Jersey: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing, 2005), pg. 138–41. It should be noted that both Bruce and Ryken adopt both a “salvation-historical view” but also see the lesson as applicable on an individual level thereby combining the personal tutor and redemptive-historical view. As I argue in this paper, Paul is not talking about an individual experience but explaining solely the redemptive-historical shift with the appearance of the Messiah.
6. F.F. Bruce. Galatians. pg. 183.
7. ‘Paul is trying to convince the Gentile Christians in Galatia of the foolishness of adopting Jewish practices by showing that the time when those practices were necessary has now passed’ (Douglas Moo, “The Law of Christ”, pg. 361).

Paul’s discussion of the Law at the end of chapter 3 is redemptive-historical in nature. This means that Paul’s teaching is in the light of redemptive history. Paul can express that Yahweh can change the covenants and associated stipulations as He sees fit in the unfolding of His redemptive plan.¹ Meredith Kline helps us here:

“Each inscripturated covenant is closed to alteration, subtraction, or addition by the vassals (as the proscriptions of the treaty document clauses insist); yet each is open to revision by the Suzerain, revision that does not destroy but fulfills, as the history of God’s kingdom proceeds from one epochal stage to the next, particularly in the passage from the old covenant to the new.“²

This is the focus I want to pass along in the content of this essay in my exegesis of Gal 3:23–25. Paul’s focus is to give the reason as to why God even gave the law to the Israelites.

The Law came 430 years after the promise made to Abraham, and this covenant did not nullify the promise and covenant made with Abraham (3:17).³ It was important for Paul to show that salvation is always based on promise and not Law: “For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise” (3:18). The inheritance of salvation has always been granted by faith alone, in Christ alone, by promise alone.⁴

Paul then answers the rhetorical question: “Why the Law then?” If the inheritance is based on promise and never law then why would Yahweh even institute a law (legal) covenant? The Law was “was added because of transgressions” for Israel until Abraham’s True Seed would be made manifest in history (3:19). The Law is not, however, contrary to the promises of God, but it has a specific purpose in seeing the promise come to completion (3:20). This time had “shut up everyone under sin” (3:22) and kept “under custody” until the Messiah came (3:23). Paul’s shocking lesson is that instead of the law decreasing sin it actually stimulated the knowledge of sin and the need for justification for Israel (3:24).⁵

Contrasting Views on Galatians 3:23–25

Then, what I believe to be Paul’s most important statement on the Law is given:

“But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.” (3:23–25)

A few answers have been given as to what this passage has meant. I will go over the three major views, and I will conclude with the support of the position I feel is most true to Paul’s teaching in this passage. The first perspective we shall tackle is that of the traditional reformed, then the personal tutor view, and finally the redemptive-historical view.

Traditional Reformed Exegesis⁶

The reformed tradition has, for the most part, viewed the Mosaic Law as having a three fold distinction (moral, civil, ceremonial). There are two camps who espouse this position among reformed theologians. The first are theonomists who believe that the only law that has passed is the “ceremonial law” of sacrifices and Old Covenant worship.⁷ The second, more widely espoused position is that the “moral law” (which is the Decalogue according to this interpretation) has passed into the New Covenant. Even though theonomy is in much larger error than the former, I will focus on their interpretations together, because they both rest largely on the same theological presuppositions. The 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith espouses the traditional reformed position.⁸

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away. (19:3)

The “besides” is talking about what from the Mosaic Law has passed in the New Covenant and advent of the Messiah. The confession also says that this “moral law” was present before the Mosaic economy,⁹ and that the redemptive-historical shift included the abolition of the “ceremonial” and “civil” laws. The texts that speak to the passing of the law refer to the removal of the law as a condemning force (2nd LBC 19:6).

This argument for seeing only the “moral” law as succeeding into the New Covenant rises and falls upon one presupposition and that is the threefold division of the law. In contrast to these reformed scholars, I believe that no writer of Scripture sees or uses a threefold division of the law.¹⁰ The Mosaic Law was always talked about in sum total (cf. Jam 2:10). I believe this position is based more on presuppositional reading than true exegesis.¹¹

The eternal moral law of God is also a point of contention between traditional reformed scholarship and my position. I think that the eternal moral law of God is expressed in natural law (Rom 2:14–15), Mosaic Law, and the Law of Christ.¹² The eternal moral law of God is more fluid than simply the Decalogue. The Decalogue served a redemptive-historical purpose as a summary statement of the Old Covenant (and that is the reason for its position in the Ark of the Covenant, cf. Exo 25:16), but with the passing of a covenant so to does its stipulations. It should be noted that I am stating that the Decalogue is not supra-covenantal. It is true that nine of the ten commands in the Decalogue are repeated in the New Testament, but they serve a different function in the New Covenant.¹³

1. Douglas Moo, ‘The Law of Christ’ (pg. 321
2. Meredith Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Pub, 1997), pg. 97.
3. Mark Karlberg in Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000) says the following (pg. 275): “Reformed theology has rightly stressed the essential continuity between the OT and NT. The law that was added 430 years after the promise to Abraham was limited in duration, serving a pedagogical role in the life of the old covenant people of God.” I would suggest the reader to examine Mark Karlberg’s works when investigating this issue.
4. Because of texts like this I cannot accept Moo’s thesis the Mosaic Law included a hypothetical offer of salvation. For a persuasive critic of this belief see Walter Kaiser’s article: “Leviticus 18:5 And Paul: Do This & You Shall Live (Eternally?),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14:1 (Winter 1971) pg. 20–28. I also appreciate Mark Karlberg’s analysis of Samuel Bolton who would say that: “The law was not given as a means of justification, otherwise the law would make void the promise of God and prove God unfaithful to his word” (Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective, pg. 33).
5. Fred Zaspel, “The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law”. New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense (Frederick: New Covenant Media, 2002), pgs. 146–76.
6. When I say ‘traditional’ I am not excluding other interpretations within the reformed tradition. I myself am reformed soteriologically, but take issue with other stances within the tradition. What I mean by ‘traditional’ is most often associated with. This stance on law and gospel is not relegated to Dispensationalists (nor is my position exactly similar to a Dispensational reading); I find the precepts of covenant theology regarding the people of God intriguing and persuasive. For a good introduction to the precepts of covenant theology see Holwerda, David. Jesus & Israel: One Covenant or Two? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
7. Bahnsen, Greg. ‘The Theonomic Reformed Approach to Law and Gospel.’ Five Views. pg. 98–9.
8. The Westminster Standards which predates the London Baptist Confession uses similar language.
9. The confession states: ‘The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandmentsâ?¦’ (19:2).
10. This is not to say that the writers of Scripture don’t talk about the law in different senses (cf. Schreiner’s The Law, pg. 40).
11. Douglas Moo states: “I agree that we cannot reject the distinction between moral law and other kinds of simply because the Bible nowhere states it. But I would insist again, as I do repeatedly in this volume, that one must find clear implications of such a division in the Bible if we are to accept it…it must be pointed out that we have plenty of evidence from that time [first-century] and before that Jews viewed the tora as an essential unity” (‘The Law of Christ’, pg. 223–4). And Schreiner says: ‘[D]oes [Paul] distinguish between the so-called ceremonial and moral law? The use of does not indicate that he does. Indeed, texts like Galatians 5:3 show that Paul considered the law to be a unity [â?¦] that came into existence at a certain point in history’ (The Law, pg. 40).
12. A helpful diagram illustrating this point is provided by Moo in his rejoinder to William VanGerman’s essay: ‘The Law is the Perfection of Righteousness in Jesus Christ’, Five Views (pg. 89).
13. Unfortunately due to space constraints I will not be able to elaborate further on this point, but I hope to in the near future.

Paul, I believe, espoused this position in his monumental letter to the Christians at Galatia. In chapters 3–6, he gives us a redemptive-historical perspective on the purpose of the Mosaic Law and life led by the Spirit in the New Covenant. Correctly understanding this perspective can, I believe, move Christians who are divided on the issue to a more fruitful discussion.

The Background of Galatians

Paul wrote Galatians in response to a heresy brought in after he had taught the Gospel to the Galatians (1:8–9). Paul was also most likely attacked by the “Judaizers” (those seeking to syncretize Judaism with Christianity) to discredit his Gospel message.³ That is why the first two chapters are devoted to the authority of Paul as an Apostle and his Gospel which he received by revelation from Christ Himself (1:12).

It is also apparent that the Judaizers were telling the Galatians that Paul was not teaching the Gospel from the original twelve apostles (“those of high reputation”). Paul then teaches that the original Apostles confirmed Paul’s message with no addition or correction (2:6). He even gave the account of rebuking Peter for his hypocrisy associated with the circumcision party (2:11–14) to give further proof that Paul’s Gospel was authentic.

At the end of chapter 2 we see come to fruition Paul’s major thesis of Galatians, and that is that faith in Jesus Christ alone is necessary for our justification apart from works of the law.⁴

“[K]nowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” (2:16)

Abraham and the Gospel

Paul uses stern language to describe the Galatian Christians calling them “foolish” and “bewitched” (3:1).⁵ Paul’s main point starting chapter 3 is that if the Spirit of God started your salvation, then it will complete the race and is not dependent on their working of the law (3:3). In other words, Paul is telling the Galatian Christians to look to the Spirit as the source of their sanctification and not the law.

The Judaizers were also most likely boasting in having Abraham as their forefather, but Paul says that “it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham” (3:7). Abraham, before the Mosaic Law was instituted, believed the Gospel promise that all the nations would be blessed in him (3:8–9). It is important for Paul to establish that the law brings only a curse and not soteriological blessing. The incarnation of Jesus was manifest to remove His sheep from the curse of the Law and also so the Abrahamic blessing might come to the gentiles (3:13–14). Jesus is then painted as the True Seed of Abraham who was promised (3:16), and only those are “in Him” enjoy this blessing (3:29).

This is all preceded by the lesson that “the Law is not of faith” which is Paul setting up a dichotomy between “doing” and “believing” with the latter being the only means to justification (3:11–12). Paul wants the Galatian Christians to see that faith, and faith alone, has been and will always be the only source of justification. To look to your own working of the Law is futile, and Paul then leads into a discussion on why the law came into being.

1. For a survey see Douglas Moo, “Paul and the Law in the Last Ten Years.” Scottish Journal of Theology 40 (1987) 287–307.
2. This position has various titles, but Douglas Moo’s title of “Modified Lutheranism” is appropriate. Even though I disagree with Moo’s thesis that the Mosaic Law offered hypothetical salvation I would agree with the rest of his thesis. You can read his article: “The Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses: A Modified Lutheran View” in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian: Five Views (ed. Wayne G. Strickland; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), pg. 319ff. Another scholar close to my position is Thomas Schreiner’s: The Law and Its Fulfillment: A Pauline Theology of Law (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993). The list could go on with D.A. Carson, John Piper, Vern Poythress, Stephen Westerholm, Frank Thielman, and Tom Wells among others.
3. F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans & Paternoster: 2002), pg. 25–7.
4. The controversy of defining the “works of the law” brought on by the New Perspective on Paul is beyond the scope of this essay, but it is an important element to understand Paul’s argument in this letter. For an introduction, see Schreiner’s The Law and Its Fulfillment (pgs. 41–71). See also Stephen Westerholm’s Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
5. The first task of an exegete is to discern how the word “law” (νόμοÏ?) is used in the New Testament. For a good overview see Thomas Schreiner’s The Law and Its Fulfillment, pg. 33ff.

Since the article is 3,800 words without footnotes (5,350 with) I will break it into four parts to make it a little more approachable. I hope that it is approachable for the lay reader and intriguing for the scholar. I will start tomorrow with the first part and every-other-day post the next installment. If you just can’t wait for the next installment then you can download the entire essay in PDF. It should be noted that I have dedicated this writing to someone.

“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 heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will 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.” (Jer 31:31–34)

In the Law/Gospel circles it is debated what the content of the “law” is written on the New Covenant believer’s heart. Traditional reformed scholars say it is the Decalogue, and others say it is the whole Tora. Well, the truth is that it is neither! I was liberated when I read this in the newest edition of the Westminster Theological Journal (emphasis original).

“Also relevant at this point is the idea of the new covenant in Jer 31:33, where the new covenant is defined in terms of God writing his law on the hearts of the people of Israel, which would cause eschatological Israel not to break covenant with God again (Jer 31:32). Thus, God’s law in the heart is in effect an idiom for obedience (see Ps 40:8). The thinking underlying the idiom seems to be that God’s law, which comes from the outside through external revelation, needs to be internalized within the heart, and as it becomes internalized in the heart (Matt 15:19)–the person with God’s law in the heart acts in obedience to God.“¹

That makes so much sense! Especially against the backdrop that Israel had broken the Mosaic Covenant, and God would ensure that it would not happen again. Because finally “I will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jer 31:33; cf. 1 Pet 2:9). There are other cross references that support this interpretation.

“The law of his God is in his heart; His steps do not slip.” (Psa 37:31)

“I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.” (Psa 40:8)

“You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 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.” (2 Cor 3:2–3)

Praise our covenant God who has written the law on the hearts of disobedient sinners for His name and His glory!

1. Coxhead, Steven R. “Deuteronomy 30:11–14 as a Prophecy of the New Covenant in Christ.” WTJ 68 (2006): 309.

God’s Main Purpose in History

1. God’s main purpose in history is His Son Jesus Christ and by extension His elect.

Hermeneutics/Prophecy

1. The unfolding redemption of history is to be interpreted to the various covenants enacted by God.
2. God’s enacted covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and Jesus.
3. The Scriptures should be interpreted with a redemptive-historical hermeneutic, and we utilize the Analogy of Faith.
4. The Old Testament contains prophecies of the New Covenant age.
5. Prophecy from the Old Testament may have ‘double fulfillment’ as illustrated by the New Testament writer’s use of the Old Testament citations.
6. Some prophecies in the Old Testament were for ethnic Israel and others spiritual Israel.
7. Typology is a valid source of exegesis.

Abraham and His Seed

1. The true see of Abraham is Christ, and all the elect ‘in Christ’ are also the spiritual seed of Abraham and able to say that Abraham is their forefather.
2. Abraham had a natural seed that being his physical descendants, a spiritual seed which includes the elect of all ages, and the True Seed which is Jesus Christ.
3. God’s covenant faithfulness stems from the Abrahamic promises.

The Identity of Israel

1. Jesus Christ is the true Israel and all who are “in Him” are a part of spiritual Israel or the Church Universal.
2. The church does supplant ethnic Israel, because it is enacted on a better covenant.
3. Members of the Church Universal (spiritual Israel) did exist before the time of the New Testament (referred to as the remnant) although it isn’t to be understood as the church/ethnic Israel existed simultaneously.

The Covenants

1. The Scriptures are to be seen in three main stages: creation to Moses, Moses to Jesus, Jesus to consummation.
2. Conditional covenants were the Adamic and Mosaic with the Noahic, Abrahamic, and New Covenants all being unconditional.
3. All of the Pre-Mosaic covenants will find fulfillment in the eschaton.

Soteriology

1. There was a time, in the Garden of Eden, that man did not need regenerative grace, but after the fall redemption began and regeneration was needed.
2. Adam acted as the federal head for the human race, and Jesus served as the second, better federal head of the human race.
3. Every believer throughout history is saved by grace alone through faith alone.
4. Jesus Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Mosaic Law through His active obedience which is imputed to the elect when they are justified.
5. Man’s depravity from the fall is total, God’s election is unconditional, the substitutionary atonement is limited to the elect, God’s grace is irresistible in regeneration, and true believers will persevere until the end.

The Mosaic Economy

1. The Mosaic Economy was temporal serving a pedagogical role pointing forward to Christ.
2. Israel was meant to accept the Mosaic Covenant.
3. The Mosaic Covenant and Law were specific to physical Israel. By obedience to the Mosaic Covenant Israel would retain material blessings in the land of Canaan. It was a conditional covenant like the Adamic.
4. The Mosaic Law was not a hypothetical means to salvation.
5. The Mosaic Economy does not annul the time of promise from “Adam until Moses.”
6. The land of Canaan served a typological role in the history of redemption. It was meant to be a holy land where a holy people dwelt.
7. The land restoration promises will be fulfilled in the New Heavens/New Earth.

The Law of God

1. In the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, Christ has freed us from the obligation of the Mosaic Law en toto.
2. New Covenant believers are to follow the “Law of Christ” which consists of commands issued by Christ and the apostles in the New Testament.
3. The eternal moral law of God is expressed both in the Mosaic Law and Law of Christ.
4. The Sabbath was typological in regards to the eternal rest gained in Christ. It is no longer binding on New Covenant believers.

The Kingdom of God

1. Jesus offered the Kingdom of God to the ethnic Jews to confirm the promises and was rejected, but the Kingdom was and is gradually accepted by spiritual Israel.
2. The David Covenant was fulfilled as Christ is now the stump from the root of Jesse ruling on the eternal throne promised to David.
3. The Kingdom of God is now but not yet. It will find fulfillment in the eschaton.
4. The “Church,” “Kingdom of God” and “New Covenant” are rough synonyms.

Eschatology

1. The Christian faith is in essence eschatological. The New Testament remains this focus in the now/not yet eschatological tension.
2. Believers, before death, live in the resurrection; but they await the bodily resurrection at the end of this present evil age.
3. The millennium is to be interpreted with the lens of inaugurated eschatology. The millennium describes the now/not yet time that we currently live in.
4. Jesus Christ will return visibly to earth after the Gospel has reached all the nations for final judgement followed by the New Heavens/New Earth.
5. Jewish Israel will go through a time of mass conversion and be grafted into spiritual Israel before the return of our Lord.
6. The Church Universal will only come to completion in the New Heavens/New Earth as that will be the universal assembly of the elect.

The New Covenant

1. All members of the New Covenant are regenerate and therefore the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper should only be given only to the regenerate.
2. The work of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the time pre and post Pentecost. Pre-Pentecost the Spirit regenerated believers, but the indwelling of the Spirit wasn’t common to all elect until post-Pentecost.
3. The temple is a sign of the presence of God with His people. It starts in the tabernacle to the temple then moves to Jesus and finally the Holy Spirit makes New Covenant believers the temple of God.

The Parable of the Two Trains

For the past twenty years or so, the modern “Grace” movement has been plagued and torn asunder by a controversy over the relationship between “Law” and “Grace”. On the one hand are men who are champions of the notion that God’s moral character is immutable, and, therefore, His moral standard, the law, is unchangeable. I appreciate them very muchly. On the other hand are men who are champions of the notion that the appearance of Christ has ushered in a new age in which great changes have taken place. I also appreciate them very muchly. Both notions, it seems to me, are Biblical. But just how much of the old is to be carried over into the new? Just how much change is to be allowed? Disagreements over the particulars has, unfortunately, all too often degenerated into labeling and name-calling. Accusations of “legalism” or “antinomianism” have been hurled at each other by brethren whose actual day-in and day-out practice does not vary in the least. In fact, I have observed so-called “grace” men whose lives are lived far more strictly than those who are known as “law” men! This is not to belittle the importance of the question being debated. It is, however, to suggest that more thought and less rhetoric might well be in order.

The relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant forms one of the most difficult questions in all of theology. So said Jonathan Edwards, and, trust me, when Edwards says something is difficult, you can bet that it’s difficult. Many think they have it all figured out and are quick to tell us so. Yet easy, quick, and simplistic answers betray a shallowness of thinking. If you think the answer is easy, it’s most likely because you’ve not even understood the question!

Our thinking tends to be governed by extremes rather than by balance. That is, we like to think in terms of “this or that” rather than in terms of “this and that”. The controversy at hand shows that same tendency, with “law” and “grace” often viewed as opposite ends of the spectrum rather than as complimentary truths.

The Covenantal Question

The conflict of “law” and “grace” actually flows out of the more fundamental question of how the New Testament saint is related to the Old Testament. How are we in this new age to view the various laws and regulations given to God’s people in the previous age?

“Covenant Theology” is a theological position that seeks to answer this question. It does so by seeing one covenantal principle in force at all times, the so-called “Covenant of Grace”. This position sees little change between the two ages, emphasizing, instead, the continuity between them. For instance, most, if not all, Pedobaptists hold to Covenant Theology. Infant baptism is seen as arising by a necessary inference drawn from this view of the covenants — in spite of a paucity of direct evidence for it in the New Testament scriptures. Covenant Theology reasons that if children of the elect were included in the Old Covenant, now children of the elect should be considered as included in the New Covenant. If the attendant sign of the Old Covenant, circumcision, was applied to infants, then the sign of the New Covenant, baptism, should be applied to infants as well. Another answer to this question is given by “Dispensationalism”. This is the contrary theological position which emphasizes radical change from the old age to the new age, and insists upon discontinuity as its predominate principle. The idea behind Dispensationalism is that God places each age, or “dispensation”, under unique standards or “tests”. The “test” for this age may therefore bear no resemblance whatsoever to that placed upon a previous day.

Notice that, in principle, Covenant Theology emphasizes continuity between the covenants, whereas Dispensationalism stresses discontinuity. This has given rise to the oft-quoted, though not quite accurate, notion that Covenant Theology holds that anything in force in the Old Covenant is still in force today, unless expressly abrogated; Dispensationalism, on the other hand, is said to hold that anything in force in the Old Covenant is automatically repealed in the New unless expressly reinstated. It should be pointed out in fairness that the leading thinkers in both camps would not state their positions in this manner and are moving away from the extreme position. However, the perception stated above is still the one commonly embraced today by the man in the pew.

A Change of Covenant, or a Change of Administration?

One of the central questions we must face is this: Is the change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant an actual change of covenants (the position of Dispensationalism) or merely a change in the administration of one, umbrella-like, all-encompassing covenant of grace (the position of Covenant Theology). To understand the difference, consider the following scenario.

Suppose, early in 1992, you pulled a “Rip Van Winkle” on us and fell into a lengthy sleep. You have only now just awakened. When you fell asleep, George Bush was President of the United States and the Gulf War had just ended. Now you awaken to find that a man by the name of Bill Clinton is President. What would you conclude? Well, you’d probably make the correct assumption that Bush lost the election in November, 1992 to a Democrat named Clinton. You would assume that, essentially, the laws of the land were the same–e.g. you’d still send in your taxes (and don’t forget those back taxes for the years you were asleep) to the IRS–but that these laws were now being administered by a new administration. Relate this scenario to the covenantal question and you have the view of Covenant Theology regarding a man living first in the Old Covenant age and then in the New. Just like the case in our example, going from the Old Testament age into the New is a fairly homogenous process. A change has occurred at the top, but little has actually changed for the “man on the street”. Men are saved the same way, the “church” of the Old Testament now becomes the “church” of the New Testament, and the laws under which we are to live are basically the same. We have a new and better administrator of the covenant–Jesus–but it is fundamentally the same covenant.

Now, assume the same scenario as described above–except that, this time, when you awake, a 29 year old German citizen named Fritz Von Somethingoranother is President. What would you conclude? Well, it’s clear that what has transpired is far more than a mere change of administration! Our constitution requires the President to be at least 35 years of age and an American citizen. To discover that a 29 year old German is President means that a fundamental change in the government of the land has taken place.

No longer could you assume that it was “business as usual”. You’d know that you owed taxes to somebody (we always do!), but you could no longer assume that the IRS was even operable! The government in place when you fell asleep has been replaced by another, and you would naturally assume that everything has changed, including even your citizenship. Apply this situation to the covenantal question, and you have the position of Dispensationalism. Note the discontinuity. The basic assumption is that all previous laws have been swept away and replaced by new ones.

Why is this so important? What’s at stake here? A whole slew of issues arise from this! Is there only one way of salvation, so that an Old Testament saint was saved exactly as we (Covenant Theology); or, is there at least the possibility that we are saved in a different manner from those saints (Dispensationalism). Are we part and parcel of the same people of God, Israel, that existed in the Old Testament age (Covenant Theology); or, are we a people completely distinct and separate from Israel (Dispensationalism). Do the same laws–except those that are ceremonial, admittedly fulfilled in Christ–that governed Israel in the Old Testament age still rule us today (Covenant Theology); or, are we under an entirely new set of laws inaugurated by Christ (Dispensationalism). All these things and more are affected by our answer.

Let’s Make a Model

To help you envision the differences between these two systems, let me suggest two models. Let’s use trains and train tracks to illustrate. The train represents a covenant, and those on board the train represent those under that covenant. The track represents the way of God’s devising that takes men from here to Heaven. The train runs through human history, and men board it along the way by entering into the covenant it represents. The engineer, who runs the train, depicts the administrator of the covenant. Covenant Theology envisions but one train and one track carrying the one people of God in every age. At first, the train has an engineer named “Moses”. This train journeys through the Old Covenant age. It chugs along picking up the saints of that age, mainly Israelites, as it passes through the time in which they live. In due time, it comes to the juncture between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. At this point, the train pulls into a station where Moses gets off, and a new engineer, “Jesus”, gets on. The train now presses onward in time, now picking up the saints, like us, of the New Testament age, mainly Gentiles. Note the continuity. There’s only one train — i.e. there’s only one people of God, though some get on board in the Old age, whereas others board in the New. There’s only one track — i.e. there’s only one route to glory. But there’s two engineers — first Moses, then Jesus — who administer and supervise this process.

Dispensationalism envisions two trains running on two separate tracks. One train represents the Old Covenant. Its passengers are the saints of the old age, mainly Israelites. It has an engineer named “Moses” who conducts this train to glory. The track is of a very narrow gauge and the ride is very difficult and bumpy. In fact, some riders actually fall off or get bumped off along the way! The other train represents the New Covenant. Its passengers are the saints of the new age, mainly Gentiles. It runs on a completely separate set of tracks with a much wider gauge. It’s easier to board and its ride is much smoother. The engineer, named “Jesus”, does a much better job than Moses of keeping his passengers on board the train and arriving at their destination with all intact. There is, however, one very unusual feature of this model: Only one train is operable at a time! As long as the train of Moses was moving through the Old Covenant age, the train of Jesus was at a standstill. Now, as the train of Jesus begins to move, the train of Moses is at a standstill and will remain so until Jesus’ train arrives in glory. Only then will Moses’ train begin to move again and complete its journey. Note the discontinuity. There’s two trains on two tracks with two engineers. The riders on the one train are kept completely separate from those on the other.

Problems, Problems

In my mind, there are many advantages of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism. It sets forth the Biblical teaching that there is but one way of salvation for the saints in every age as opposed to the suggestion of Dispensationalism that there is one way for Israel and another for the church. It sees the people of God as a whole, rather than as the discombobulated, fractionalized groups that Dispensationalism envisions. In short, it does justice to the scriptural idea of the one purpose of God in Christ Jesus that He is performing in all ages.

However, Covenant Theology just doesn’t satisfy me in the long run. In my mind, it fails to do justice to passages–such as Jeremiah 31:31–34 — which depict the New Covenant in quite different terms than those existing under the Old. It certainly seems the Biblical writers are describing far more than a mere change of administration of the same system–it sure sounds like the replacing of the old system with a completely new system. Neither, in my opinion, does it do justice to the scriptural emphasis concerning the great change brought about with the appearance of Christ. Neither am I (as one who is admittedly a Baptist in his thinking) comfortable with the dependence of Covenant Theology on “logical inferences”–leading to practices like infant baptism, for which I can find no scriptural support at all!

Is there no alternative but Dispensationalism? Is there no other covenantal model to be found which retains the strong points of Covenant Theology but avoids the weaknesses of Dispensationalism? Well, you know good and well I wouldn’t be asking the question if I didn’t think there was an alternative.

But this will have to await our next issue. In the meanwhile, study the two models given and compare them to the testimony of scripture. Both, it seems to me, will be found wanting when judged by the standard of God’s Word.

<?php wp_link_pages(); ?>