Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non-Nicene, non-Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
News Feeder

The Old Covenant Is Over. The Old Testament Is Authoritative.

Recommended Posts

ot-kindle-tgc-300x128.jpg

Andy Stanley’s claim that we need to unhitch from the Old Testament has created quite a splash, and he defends his view in a new book, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World. The old covenant has passed away in its entirety, Stanley argues. In a blog post (“Jesus Ended the Old Covenant Once and for All”) he quotes me in support of his view: “Paul argues that the entirety of the law has been set aside now that Christ has come. To say that the ‘moral’ elements of the law continue to be authoritative blunts the truth that the entire Mosaic covenant is no longer in force for believers.” He ends the post by saying that we don’t treat others based on the Ten Commandments but on the law of love, the love Jesus expressed for his disciples (John 13:34–35; 15:12).

Michael Kruger has written an excellent response to Stanley from the standpoint of covenant theology. I’m in fundamental agreement with Kruger, and we nearly end up in the same place, but I get there a different way and would frame the issue a bit differently as one who subscribes to progressive covenantalism instead of classic covenant theology.

Distinguishing Old Covenant and Old Testament

The quote Stanley attributes to me is correct, but it needs to be set in proper context. Yes, the old covenant has passed away in its entirety, and believers aren’t under the old covenant but the new covenant, which was inaugurated with Jesus’s death and resurrection (cf. Jer. 31:31–34; Gal. 3:15–4:7; Rom. 6:14–15; 7:4–6; Heb. 8:1–10:18). But moral norms still exist for believers. Love isn’t just a sentimental feeling.

Saying that the old covenant has passed away doesn’t mean the Old Testament is no longer (or somehow less) the Word of God. All of the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, are the final authority as God’s infallible and inerrant word. All of the Old Testament has a revelatory and pedagogical authority for believers in Jesus Christ. We must interpret the Old Testament in terms of God’s progressive revelation in his covenants in order to discern how to apply it today.

New Testament writers don’t decide how to apply the Old Testament based on the moral, ceremonial, and civil divisions, where the moral law continues to function as a moral norm. Such categories are actually quite useful, and there is significant truth in such divisions, but the New Testament itself doesn’t apply the Old Testament law to believers based on these categories. Doing so can introduce distortions when applying the Old Testament to our lives.

Since believers are no longer under the Mosaic covenant, we’re not under the stipulations of the old covenant as a covenant. The Mosaic or Sinai covenant was enacted with Israel, not with us. Yahweh inaugurated the covenant with Israel when he freed them from Egypt. Israel’s covenant with the Lord contained both religious and political elements, and thus Israel as a nation, as a distinct people, received specific commandments for both its religious and political life. The laws given to Israel were its charter as a nation, as God’s special people in the ancient world. But the laws and stipulations aren’t the requirements for the church of Jesus Christ, which is under a new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:26–27; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8–13).

Such statements make some people nervous, and they might say progressive covenantalists are antinomians! They might say we don’t even believe we should keep the Ten Commandments! But we need to be careful here, because progressive covenantalists don’t end up at the same place as Stanley, and we do believe in universal moral norms.

Distinguishing the Law of Christ and the Law of Moses

When we consider the Ten Commandments, we have to situate them in their covenantal context. After all, they’re part of the Mosaic covenant, and Christians aren’t under that covenant. For instance, the sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic covenant, of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (Ex. 31:13, 17), but believers in Christ are no longer under the sabbath command, since it’s a shadow that points to Christ (Col. 2:16; cf. Rom. 14:5). The sabbath points to our rest in Christ (Heb. 4:1–11), and I make this case in a book on progressive covenantalism. Since the sabbath is no longer required for believers today, it’s too simplistic to say that believers must obey the Ten Commandments.

Since the sabbath is no longer required for believers today, it’s too simplistic to say that believers must obey the Ten Commandments.

We need to remember in interpreting the Old Testament that there is both continuity and discontinuity, both abolition (Heb. 8:13) and fulfillment (Matt. 5:17–20). The law points to the fulfillment in Jesus. It doesn’t follow, however, that there are no moral norms for believers. The law of Christ functions as a norm for believers (Rom. 13:8–10; Gal. 5:14; 6:2; 1 Cor. 9:20–21), the heart and soul of which is love for neighbor. And this love was exemplified supremely in Christ’s self-giving on the cross.

Someone might say at this point, “You do hold the same view as Andy Stanley!” Not so fast. Romans 13:8–10 helps us unpack the nature of love, and Paul tells us that love keeps particular commands, which include commands that prohibit adultery, murder, stealing, and coveting. Paul tells us that other commands fall under this umbrella as well. In fact, when we read the New Testament, we discover that nine of the ten commandments are repeated in the New Testament (again, the exception is the sabbath). Such moral norms prevent us from sentimentality in defining what love is.

So we know from the New Testament itself—from the new covenant, from the fulfillment in Jesus—the moral norms that guide our lives. No one can claim to be living a life of love while transgressing such moral norms.

Moral Norms and the Character of God

The commands that are normative for believers today aren’t normative merely because they’re in the Ten Commandments or because they’re part of the old covenant. We know from the New Testament, from the new covenant, which moral norms apply today, and they remain moral norms because they express the character of God. There are indications even in the covenant with Adam and the covenant with Noah—which is in many respects a recapitulation of the covenant with Adam—that such moral norms were present at the beginning, prior to the Mosaic law. For instance, the permanence of marriage (Gen. 1:26; 2:18–25), the prohibition of murder (Gen. 9:6), and complete devotion to the Lord are present from the beginning, showing that the commands of love for God and neighbor (Matt. 22:34–40) are anchored in creation.

Progressive covenantalism and covenant theology come close to saying the same thing about moral norms. We just get there a different way, and we don’t disagree that idolatry, dishonoring parents, adultery, murder, stealing, lying, coveting, or same-sex marriage are morally wrong and transgress the love command.

The Old Testament is God’s authoritative Word to us, but we have to read the whole Bible covenantally, and in light of the fulfillment of Christ, to apply it well to our lives.

ca9akj2mV44

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Best arguments for Covenant/Household Baptism

      Really short version by JTB.SDG:   1) The covenant promises to Abraham were about salvation in the fullest sense (Gen.17:7-8; NT scripture). "...to be God to you and to your descendants after you." This is the essence of God's covenant with Abraham; and if you get this, everything else falls into place (below).   2) The covenant promises were made not only to Abraham but also to his offspring (Gen.17:7-8). "I will be God" --not just to Abraham--But: "to you and to your descendants after you. . .I will be their God." The exact same promise that is made to Abraham is equally made to his descendants.   3) The covenant sign of circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign of THAT salvation. The sign of the covenant represents what the covenant is. If the covenant is about salvation, the sign is about salvation. This means that circumcision wasn't actually an ethnic or national sign--it was a spiritual sign. a) Abraham was marked with circumcision to signify his faith only after he believed (Rom.4:11). True. So why infant baptism? Abraham believed FIRST, and then and only then did he receive the sign.   b) Because he was then to apply that same sign to his infant sons before belief was possible (Gen.17:7-8). The exact same sign that he only received AFTER believing, he was to mark his infant sons with at 8 days old. It's what God commanded. Adult-circumcision for Abraham; but infant circumcision for his sons.       4) New Testament believers have entered into the SAME covenant promises made to Abraham (Rom.11:17 makes it clear there was not an OT tree and separate NT tree, but we are grafted into the same tree begun with Abraham). Galatians 3 and other Scripture make it really clear that the promises made to Abraham are GOSPEL promises that extend also to us as NT believers. Our only hope as NT believers are the covenant promises made to Abraham.   5) The NT Scriptures confirm that those covenant promises still extend to our children (Acts 2:39; household baptisms in the NT; and think about 1Cor.7:14--children of believers are "holy"--in what sense? Are they automatically saved? No. In the sense that they are "set apart" from unbelieving children. How set apart? They are part of the covenant--the same pattern as OT children).   6) THUS, our infant children should continue to be marked with the covenant sign.   IMPORTANT CLARIFICATIONS:   7) This doesn't mean that all Abraham's children (or ours) will be saved: this is by faith alone (cf. Ishmael, Esau; Rom.9:6-8, etc).   8) But it does mean that our children are included in the covenant and should receive the sign.   So--a question for you--I would love to hear. What about this would you object to?

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • Need help with an apologetics question re: Old Covenant

      I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Carson: We Need Jesus, So We Need the Old Testament

      If there’s a linchpin connecting the old and new covenant stories, it’s Christmas. Gospel writer Luke begins his birth narrative in the temple with the priest Zechariah, a descendant of Aaron, brother of Moses. At the time of Jesus’s birth, the Jews are living under the old covenant. And then, a baby. The Messiah’s birth fulfills the prophecies of the Old Testament. Jesus’s life fulfills the law. And his death and resurrection save believers from God’s wrath. So what happens to Christmas if we unhitch Christianity from the Old Testament? And what happens to the gospel? TGC president and New Testament scholar Don Carson joins me on this episode of The Gospel Coalition Podcast to answer a few questions about law and gospel, and about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments, particularly in the person and work of Jesus Christ. You can listen to our conversation here. Related: Why We Can’t Unhitch the Old Testament (Michael Kruger) 10 Reasons the Old Testament Is Important for Christians (Jason DeRouchie) 3 Books for Staying ‘Hitched’ to the Old Testament (Jason DeRouchie) View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

    • Ken Ham Opens Ark Of The Covenant Encounter, Thousands Dead

      WILLIAMSTOWN, KY—Answers in Genesis' famed Ark Encounter has taken the evangelical world by storm, allowing believers from all over the world to tour what Noah's Ark might have looked like. The post Ken Ham Opens Ark Of The Covenant Encounter, Thousands Dead appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • Explorer: Ark of the Covenant May Have Been Found

      The head of an exploration institute that searches the world for biblical relics says the Ark of the Covenant and the Ten Commandment tablets may be resting in a church in Ethiopia. View the full article

      in Christian Current Events

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.