Will the Creation Museum Add a Wing Dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.”
As my grandmother used to say: “nothing is sacred anymore.” Likewise, proponents of the “new Calvinism,” or “neo reformed movement,” or “the gospel driven life,” or “gospel sanctification,” or whatever other nomenclature you would like to attach, are busily writing articles that supposedly puts the beloved Creation Museum (just outside of Cincinnati, Ohio) into “proper perspective.” In their endeavor to save the church from the false gospel of exegetical interpretation of the Scriptures, they boldly proclaim that the age (how long ago they existed) of dinosaurs and how they became extinct is not the point; those dinosaurs were preaching the gospel, that’s the point. Therefore, attempts to arm our youth with creation science (what I thought the museum was doing, until being recently “corrected“) instead of redemptive historical hermeneutics is supposedly misguided, and many of these pundits have said as much. Granted, our children’s contentions in a public school setting that evolution is not the point, but the fact that all of creation is the gospel, may initially get the attention of opponents; that is, until they start asking how the creation of birds is a gospel presentation.
One article even insinuated that the founders of the museum installed the “Last Adam” film presentation at the end of the scientific gallery to emphasize that the Genesis, chapters 1 and 2 account is really a gospel presentation, and specifically speaks of Christ and Him only. However, though I doubt the Creation Museum folks reprinted the article because they really understood where the author was coming from; never the less, does this mean they will soon be installing a new wing dedicated to Geerhardus Vos?
“Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.”
Some of you may be asking: “Who is Geerhardus Vos?” Well, he is known as the father of Reformed Biblical Theology. You say: “Oh, that’s the biblical theology of the second phase of the Protestant Reformation (begun by Luther) by the likes of Calvin and Zwingli.” No. Biblical Theology originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writing of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Also known as redemptive historical hermeneutics, the debate that came out of the Reformed churches in the Netherlands (in 1940) is helpful in defining the difference between biblical theology and more orthodox forms of interpretation. The following quote is a helpful description:
“Redemptive-historical preaching is a method of preaching that was forged in the fires of debate in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands in the early 1940s. The debate concerned itself with the question: “How are we to preach the historical narratives of the Bible?” On one side of the question were the proponents of “exemplaristic” preaching. This method of preaching taught that the biblical narratives in general, and the Old Testament stories in particular, were to be preached as examples of how Christians today should (or should not) live their lives. Old Testament believers were held up as examples (or anti-examples, as the case may be) of how we should conduct ourselves.
On the other side of the debate were the advocates of preaching that was “redemptive-historical” (the term used to translate the Dutch heilshistorisch). They argued that Old Testament narratives are not given to us by God primarily to be moral examples, but as revelations of the coming Messiah. The narratives of the Old Testament served as types and shadows pointing forward in history to the time when Israel’s Messiah [however, more contemporary versions include superessionism] would be revealed in the person and work of Jesus Christ. In support of this view, the advocates of redemptive-historical preaching drew heavily upon the text of Luke 24:27, where Jesus is teaching the disciples on the road to Emmaus: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (English Standard Version). Further support was taken from verse 44 of the same chapter, where Jesus says, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
I might mention three things before continuing:
1. This hermeneutic is, by all accounts, very new in church history. Catch my drift?
2. It’s contention against orthodox hermeneutics is strange when one considers 1Corinthians 10:6; “Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did.” And 1 Corinthians 10:11; “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come.”
3. Furthermore, Luke 24:27,44 doesn’t say that every narrative and verse in the OT is about Christ, but rather that He fulfilled prophesies about Himself contained in the OT. There are no adjectives in these verses that suggest a plenary, OT soteriolgy.
Today, the RHH is primarily carried forward and propagated by Northwest Theological Seminary, Westminster Theological Seminary, and Westminster Seminary California. The theological differences between Reformed theology born of traditional hermeneutics, verses Reformed theology born of redemptive historical hermeneutics, are significant, and those who claim to be Reformed should know the difference.
However, “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction,” by Tim Black, is probably the most extensive and technical work ever done on Vos hermeneutics. It is a massive work that cannot even be summarized here, but I would like to glean some relevant observations by Black that cast additional information on RHH that falls under the category of ominous. But before I do, let me interject that Black’s evaluation gives testimony to how extremely complex the Vos hermeneutic is, relegating the followers of those who pontificate its supposed revelatory results to a Pope-like reliance.
“But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:”
Vos believed that the Bible is a historical revelation of one person and one thing only; Christ and his redemption (Don’t worry, I am not going to park here long. You will soon see the relevance of this promise in the following). He also believed that the Bible’s revelation is organic, like in the following example: It is a living organism like a large plant. All that the plant will be is contained in the seed, but as the plant grows, it gives continuing revelation (in regard to Christ and redemption only) as to what was originally contained in the seed. Therefore, the continued growth of the plant reveals the former. The Bible is a progressive revelation in regard to redemption, so everything from the beginning to the end is a evolving revelation in regard to Christ and his redemption. So, the New Testament interprets the Old; the new is a more exact representation of the full revelation to come. So then, the Old Testament is a limited revealing of redemptions fullness. This is also accomplished on two different plains, the earthly and the heavenly. Black explains it this way on page 38:
“Everything which falls between these two ends of both history and Vos’s system is a gradual process of synthesis whereby the definitive antithesis between the age to come and this present evil age is “organically” synthesized through the progressive motion from “earth” to “heaven.” The earlier and lower moves to the later and higher.”
In other words, earth’s history is redemptive, and is growing toward its heavenly fullness in an organic synthesis. I would then add that creation must also be in the act of progressive sanctification as we also are, though Black never makes this point in his thesis. Hopefully then, you can at least see why proponents of RHH would say the creation account in Genesis is, in fact, a gospel narrative. But we now move on to the point that is easier to grasp: Biblical revelation (according to Voss) is by historical narrative rather than “textually presented ideas.” Black presents this Vos concept in the following ways:
1. “Rather, Vos emphasizes that the historical events (redemptive deeds/acts of God) which are described in Scripture are revelatory in themselves, and even form the central and foundational core to all other revelation”(page 23).
2. “As a result, despite his recognition [Vos] of the existence of a distinction between word and deed, he [Vos] focused on the deeds of God [historical deeds] as if they were more central than God’s words to Biblical revelation” (page 25).
3. “For the present let it suffice to say that the intuition arises again that for Voss, it is more important for the interpreter of Scripture to follow the organization of the historical events than to follow the organization of the text of Scripture” (page 26).
4. “Thus Vos finds it better to focus in Scripture first and foremost on the events rather than on the textually-presented ideas” (page 28).
Black also eludes to one of my own primary concerns with RHH, an overemphasis on any one member of the Trinity always leads to trouble:
“Further, it appears that Scripture is not only primarily centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ” (page 57).
Furthermore, Black also contends that interpreting Scripture through covenants would find much more biblical cause than redemptive history:
“As argued above, the particular purpose of Genesis 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal–its purpose is the presentation of the covenant” (page59).
“I propose, therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as “Redemptive Historical” but rather “Covenantal Historical” or even “Covenantal” under the assumption that the covenant has an historically-progressive aspect built into its structure. This is more true to the actual history to which Scripture refers, and concomitantly is more true to Scripture itself” (page61).
For sure. From a “plain sense of Scripture” viewpoint, as well as a pure biblical data perspective, a much stronger argument could be made for a “Covenantal Historical” hermeneutic if one was inclined to do so.
But in my estimation, Black’s contribution concerning the likelihood of Historicism and Nature Freedom philosophies (Aristotle, Hagel, Compte, Marx) being a significant influence in regard to Vos’s biblical theology, is more worthy of mention:
“It is the critical thesis of this SIP that Vos’s two main emphases were shaped in part by
the philosophical context within which he worked. It appears that his emphasis on the historical progress of redemption and revelation is influenced by Historicism, and that his view of the 2 ages is influenced by the modern Nature-Freedom scheme. Both Historicism and the Nature-Freedom scheme must be explained at this point. I do not know how to keep Vos’s two emphases separate in this critique, and so I will allow them to run together to some extent. Just as the 2-age construction seems to be found as the flower of the historical progression, the Nature-Freedom scheme appears to be built out of Historicism. I will begin with a discussion of Historicism, move to an analysis of the Nature-Freedom scheme, and then attempt to demonstrate the presence of both in Vos’s thought.
i) Historicistic
In order to understand Vos’s hermeneutics in context, it is necessary to understand the
nature of Historicism. It should become apparent in the following that Vos’s view of history and of the study of history follows the central structures of the basic ideas of Historicism.
The best understanding of the nature of Historicism to which I have been able to come is
summarized by Maurice Mandelbaum in his book History, Man, & Reason. Mandelbaum gives a helpful general definition of Historicism. His definition is that “Historicism is the belief that an adequate understanding of the nature of any phenomenon and an adequate assessment of its value are to be gained through considering it in terms of the place which it occupied and the role which it played within a process of development.” Mandelbaum fleshes this definition out throughout his book but the best summary of what he means is given in four points concerning the historicistic construction which is characteristic of Hegel’s thought as well as Compte’s and Marxism.
First, there is a unified historical process which involves all historical entities in its movement and which must be studied by the historian.
Second, beneath all historicistic thought “was presupposed an underlying substance or subject which changes. Thus, a pattern of change conceived in the terms made familiar by Aristotle and by Hegel is not to be construed simply as a sequence of related forms; these successive forms are regarded as having an inherent connection with one another because each of them is viewed as a phase in a single, unified process, and because each expresses some necessary feature of that process.”
Third, Mandelbaum notes that the the substance which changes has an organic nature. He states that ‘both Compte and the Marxists shared Hegel’s view that, during any phase of this developmental process, the various attributes of society were organically related to one another, forming a coherent whole.’
Fourth,
‘The second basic presupposition connected with treating history in terms consonant with the Aristotelian and the Hegelian views of developmental processes is the fact that the later stages of these processes were
considered as being higher realizations, or fulfillments, of what was only implicit in the earlier stages. To be sure, significant differences existed between the Aristotelian doctrine of the relation of act to potency and Hegel’s dialectical emphasis on the role of negation in change. Nevertheless in both cases the end was
conceived as representing a higher and more perfect level than had been attained in any of the developmental stages preceding it. This did not entail that, according to Hegel (or even according to Aristotelianism), the value of each of the earlier stages was wholly relative to the value of the end. Since the end could not be attained in one leap, but only through transformations from one stage to the next, each stage had its own value. That value, however, could only be adequately appreciated through understanding how each stage in the development was related to the goal-directed process of which it was a part….it is only in terms of the later stages of development, when latent powers have become fully explicit, that we are in a position fully to understand the nature of a developmental process and adequately interpret the earlier stages of that process. This familiar teleological theme is, of course, most manifest in Hegel’:
‘The living substance…is that which is truly subject, or what is the same thing, is truly
realized and actual (wirklich) solely in the process of positing itself, or in mediating with its own self its transitions from one state or position to the opposite….It is the process of its own becoming, the circle which presupposes its end as its purpose, and has its end for its beginning; it becomes concrete and actual only by being carried out, and by the end it involves.’’
Note here that although Mandelbaum calls this his second point elsewhere he considers it his fourth point. Mandelbaum’s summary of the essential features of Historicism, then, are 1) that it posits a unified historical process, 2) it posits a substance which changes according to the laws of that process, 3) it posits the organic nature of the substance, and 4) it posits that the not only the process as a whole but also each stage of the process and the organic substance which changes within that process all aim toward a goal and are all properly understood only in terms of the way in which they are progressing toward the attainment of that goal. Further, this goal-orientation assumes that the fulfillment of the goal is the best situation possible, and each stage along the way, although of some value in itself is yet not to be considered perfect. I must mention that every description of Historicism I have found has described it in similar terms to the terms used by Vos, but more importantly those descriptions have followed the general outlines which Mandelbaum has laid out.
While I do not think I understand Historicism as well as some other people, nevertheless it is undeniable that Mandelbaum’s general definition of Historicism fits Vos’s system to a ‘T,’ especially in regard to his focus on the progress of redemptive history toward the goal of heaven, and the fuller-meaning method of interpreting that progress which he roots in Paul’s eschatological interpretation of the Old Testament.’’”
Black continues on, in several pages filled with mind-numbing data and references to show the irrefutable correlations between Vos’s hermeneutic and pagan philosophies.
The bottom line is this: the gospel driven life, New Covenant Theology, gospel sanctification, and most other things that come out of Westminster Seminary, stand or fall on Vos’s hermeneutic, and it ain’t lookin’ good for the standin’ part. Vos’s hermeneutic is new, disregards the plain sense of textual content, contains pagan philosophy, and in reality, is just plain goofy. Furthermore, Reformed folks need to determine what type of Reformed they are: Calvin, or Vos? Secondly, editors should get some discernment before they print silly articles that make “cool, green grass” that squishes “between our toes,” synonymous with the gospel. And these guys built the Creation Museum?!
Lastly, in Proverbs 8, wisdom is personified as a women. She’s not a story, neither is she a narrative; she is, understanding (v.1), truth (v.7), justice (v.8), knowledge (v.9), instruction (v.10), wisdom (v.12) fear of the Lord (v.13), counsel (v.13), righteousness (v.20), the first fruits of God’s works (v.22). And guess what?: before creation, she was with God:
“23 I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began.
24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth, when there were no springs abounding with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place, before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the earth or its fields or any of the dust of the world.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place, when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary so the waters would not overstep his command, and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind.”
I conclude with a pleading for Christians not to be led away from Lady Wisdom, but I think I will let her do the talking:
32 “Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.
33 Listen to my instruction and be wise; do not ignore it.
34 Blessed is the man who listens to me, watching daily at my doors, waiting at my doorway.
35 For whoever finds me finds life and receives favor from the LORD.
36 But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.”
“Gospel Driven Divorce”: Is Your Marriage in Imminent Danger?
Rush Limbaugh often says he knows liberals like every inch of his glorious naked body. I must confess, even with all of the study I have done on the *gospel driven life*, or *gospel driven sanctification*, I think I still know my body much better. New revelations concerning GDS are often so bizarre that it takes time to finally come to grips with the fact that its proponents actually advocate various elements. First, for those who are not familiar with GDS, here is a thumbnail of what it teaches:
The same gospel that saved us must be meditated upon every day in order to grow spiritually. The whole Bible is about the gospel and nothing else. According to John Piper: “That’s why the Bible is so big; there’s a gospel application to every event in life” (slight paraphrase-see video entitled “The Gospel in 6 Minutes” Sept. 12, 2007- Desiring God Ministries). Therefore, we meditate on the gospel through looking for it in the Scriptures, and as we meditate on the gospel as seen in the Scriptures, “we are changed from glory to glory,” or in other words: “Beholding as a way of becoming” (John Piper, “The Pleasures of God” pg 15 ). Also, according to John Piper, we should “never, never, never, never, never, never, never, think that the gospel saves us and then we move on to something else”(“The Gospel in 6 Minutes”). In fact, most proponents of GDS think that any “moving on to something else,” even if it falls under the category of discipleship, is a false gospel and you therefore forfeit both justification and sanctification. In other words, if you believe in synergistic sanctification- your lost.
So then, everything in the Bible must be seen in light of the gospel, and interpreted accordingly; marriage and divorce would not be an exception to this rule in any regard. In short, if you are a believing spouse, and your marriage doesn’t “look like the gospel” ( the relationship between Christ and his bride, the church) you are free to divorce your spouse. Buckle-up, here is an article that advocates this GDS view:
Gospel Love, Marriage & Divorce
“Recently, I have been studying the Scriptures and paying closer attention to how it is most of us as Christians have understood love, marriage and divorce. Surprisingly, although we say we believe that the most intimate of marriage relationships is to be modeled by Christ and his relationship to the Church, we do not, in our theology, really seem to believe or practice that.
We seem to have allowed our understanding and definition of marriage be something that is not a reflection of Christ and the Church. Marriage, we are told, is between a man and a woman. Agreed. That is a principle definition of marriage that definitely stems from God’s design of marriage back in the garden of Eden. However, that is only part of the formula for what constitutes a marriage. The most important ingredient that we as the Church have allowed our secular influences to omit is none other than God himself. Biblically, God is necessarily 1/3 of the relational equation in order for a marriage (or a church!) to be “joined together by God.” Likewise, apostate churches that do not properly include God, are not recognized by God. By definition, a true marriage or Church must include the one true God as a common denominator.
As the Church, we have then failed to see the legacies of Divine love, marriage and divorce throughout the Scriptures. And because we have embraced a marital world-view that can be devoid of God, we have found ourselves struggling with the whole subsequent understanding of how to understand divorce.
In Scripture, where divorce is sanctioned by God, the aim is always redemptive in some sense. It is always gospel driven.
Abraham divorced his 2nd wife, Hagar, because of gospel unbelief (Genesis 21:10-12; Galatians 4:29, 30).
Ezra, the prophet, counseled the entire nation of Israel to divorce their foreign/unbelieving wives…”according to the Law” (Ezra 9, 10).
God gave Israel a certificate of divorce for her antinomian apostasy: gospel rejection (Jeremiah 3; John 15; Romans 11).
The men who divorced their wives in Malachi were rebuked for doing so due to the fact that their wives remained faithful to God. These men divorced their “believing” wives only to marry non-believers. This, God hated.
Paul exhorts the believers in Corinth who are still in a mixed marriage to “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers…come out from among them and be separate” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).
Again, Christ divorced the church of Laodicea for its gospel rejection, for embracing an antinomian apostasy as well (Revelation 3).
The common denominator that is found amongst every single divorce that was sanctioned by God was a HEART denominator, a GOD denominator that was identified as not being existent in the marriage.
So when we read the words of Jesus, “Except for fornication, a man must not divorce his wife,” we do not take his meaning of fornication (GK: pornea) as being literal. From the consistent revelation given elsewhere in Scripture, he was understandably speaking of a spiritual fornication: love for the world.
Once this God centered understanding of marriage and divorce is understood, we no longer have to struggle with the idea of “what kind of sins can qualify as “pornea”? We no longer have to tell married wives, “I know your husband beats you, occasionally, and perhaps he only beats your children. However, God never said it would be easy to be a follower of Jesus, so you need to understand that it is His will for you to remain married to your miserable and unbelieving husband (or apostate spouse).”
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:29, 30.”
Get the picture? The crux of the article is this excerpt: “In Scripture, where divorce is sanctioned by God, the aim is always redemptive in some sense. It is always gospel driven.” Basically, what it boils down to is this: in reformed circles where GDS is propagated, all bets are off; any marriage that doesn’t “look like the gospel” is possible fodder for divorce court. But who in the world would be the judge of that? No marriage is perfect; at what point would one decide that it is or isn‘t? Well, welcome to the nebulous world that is GDS.
However, in this environment, any mixed marriage (believer and unbeliever) would certainly be doomed to failure, for no unbelieving spouse could live up to a picture of God’s marriage with the church. The believing spouse, once in such a church, will have a green light to divorce the second the ink is dry on the membership application. But here is a problem as well: now you have a situation where the marriage is only valid if a certain standard is met. Isn’t that the antithesis of the gospel? Well, welcome to the contradictory world that is also GDS. But you say, “hey Paul, at least the other spouse has to be an unbeliever. If your both saved; and in such a church, your safe, right?” Yes you are, if you both are proponents of GDS. Remember, more traditional views of the relationship between justification and sanctification are deemed to be a false gospel in GDS circles.
The proof is in the pudding. I predict that divorce will soon become rampant in reformed churches, if it isn’t already. I know of a few that actually pride themselves in “building marriages that look like the gospel.” Unfortunately, this is often done through divorce and remarriage, with God’s supposed stamp of approval. Some of these churches, even small ones of 200 or 300 members, average a divorce and remarriage to the tune of one per year. I also predict that as the word gets out, spouses will begin to go to these churches with the ill intent of getting a church-sanctioned divorce. Stay tuned.
paul
The Newest Fad Among Contemporary Antinomians: Skeletons
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist in essence, or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. This is nothing new for this doctrine. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
paul
The New Covenant is For the Jews and the Old Covenant, and Has Always Been on Hearts
It’s truly amazing to look at all of the theological assumptions drawn from the fact that there is a New Covenant and an Old one as well, especially in regard to the law. Just because we don’t understand every law issued by Moses in the Old Testament and its purpose, complex systems supposedly need to be developed in an attempt to make it all fit together in logical fashion; then the theological conclusions become doctrine. Buyer beware. All of the latest rage is “New Covenant Theology,” which would have been rejected out-of-hand two decades ago by evangelicals at large for one reason and one reason only: it’s new. But in our brave new church era, new is good, and new doctrines are rivaled only by the latest diet fads. I think, maybe somebody should do a survey on that.
So, I have an idea; let’s go to the Scriptures and read where the New Covenant was first introduced. That would be the book of Jeremiah, chapter 31:
31 “The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, declares the LORD.
We note three things here about the new covenant. First, it is to all of Israel; both northern and southern kingdoms. Secondly, at least at the time Jeremiah is writing, it’s a future covenant. Thirdly, the major difference between the two covenants is that the first one was broken, and the second one won’t be. At this point, God is merely predicting that the covenant will not be broken, he doesn’t say why. God further clarifies in verse 33:
“This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD [What’s you first clue that this defines the new covenant?]. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
First, theologians go wild and have written gazillions of books in regard to “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” This does seem to be a marked difference between the covenants. However, keep in mind that Old Testament believers could have the law of God written on their hearts:
“My son, do not forget my teaching, but keep my commands in your heart, for they will prolong your life many years and bring you prosperity. Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 3:1-3). Theologians can make all the hay they want to in regard to the law of God being written on tablets of stone rather than hearts etc. It is obvious that stone, parchment, and hearts could all contain the law of God in the Old Testament:
These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts.
Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.
Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads.
The only difference seems to be who is doing the writing. It is not a *different law* that has *never before been written on the heart.*
Jeremiah now goes on to explain when this New Covenant will be executed in verse 34:
“No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
It is obvious that this time has not yet arrived. It is a time when all of mankind, from the least to the greatest, will know the Lord. Therefore, the full consummation of the New Covenant that God made with Israel is yet future. Get over it. Yes, yes, yes, I can hear the cat-cries right now: there are some Scriptures that speak of a “new” and “better” covenant. So what? Christ came offering a better kingdom, but it’s obvious that the kingdom is not in it’s final form. Jeremiah makes it clear when the New Covenant will take full effect, and it obviously is not today. God has taken a time-out to let a bunch of Gentiles in who are experiencing the blessings of this covenant (Romans 11:11,12); and are supposed to be aiding in the furtherance of the kingdom, rather than spending valuable time boasting against Israel (Romans 11:17-21).
But didn’t Israel forfeit the New Covenant by sinning? No, Jeremiah continues in verses 35-37:
“This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar— the LORD Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees vanish from my sight,” declares the LORD, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.”This is what the LORD says: “Only if the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel
because of all they have done,” declares the LORD.
The solar system is still working fine and I have not heard of anybody who can measure the heavens yet. Therefore, Israel is still under the New Covenant. Not only that, there is a strong sense in which the New Covenant solidifies the old:
“ 30 When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him [The New Covenant]. 31 For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath” (Deuteronomy 4:30-31).
This is an extraordinary verse of Scripture. God will not only remember Israel, He will not forget the covenant he made with Israels forefathers. What covenant was that? The answer is in 4:13,14:
“He declared to you his covenant, the Ten Commandments, which he commanded you to follow and then wrote them on two stone tablets. And the LORD directed me at that time to teach you the decrees and laws you are to follow in the land that you are crossing the Jordan to possess.”
Ouch! He’s talking about the so-called Mosaic Covenant. When the New Covenant is fully consummated, He will not “forget” the old one either. That messes up a bunch of systematic theology. One might also note that Paul said the following in Romans 9:3-5;
3For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race, 4the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.
Note that Paul presents all of the above blessings in the present tense, including the covenants, and this also in plural form. The covenants belong to Israel, all of them, and God will not forget them. Israel or His covenants.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment