Loading summary
Transcript7 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hello, I'm Kevin DeYoung, pastor at Christ Covenant Church in Matthews, North Carolina, and you are listening to Doctrine Matters. We want this podcast to equip Christians with a better understanding of the rich theology that undergirds our faith. And hopefully along the way, we'll be looking at some that have even been misunderstood or maybe threatened in the church's history. We'll point out the biblical evidence, the arguments, and work together to reshape our thinking, be transformed by the renewal of our minds with scripture and reason as we think theologically together. Because, as the title of the podcast tells you, Doctrine Matters.
- [00:45]
B
For the past few weeks, we've been looking at Covenant theology, and there are lots of other things we could talk about. We've just been moving through very quickly to look at the various expressions or administrations of the one covenant of grace. And in this last week, we could talk about dispensation, sensationalism. That would be interesting. Talk about Israel. That's a big question. We just can't do everything. So I want to talk about the law. And this is one of the key points in traditional Reformed theology. Remember that when God saved Israel, he saved them and then he gave them the law. Yes, the law is there to convict us of unrighteousness. And we see the law function that way in Paul's letters, for example. But Paul also says that the law is good and holy and there's a right way to use the law. And in traditional Reformed theology, the so called third use of the law emphasized by Calvin is as the perfect rule of righteousness. And so in a Reformed worship service, you might have the Ten Commandments read. And they can be read leading into a prayer of confession. They're convicting us of sin, but they can also be our response after the word or after forgiveness. Because in Israel's history, of course, they weren't given the Ten Commandments before they were delivered from Israel or from Egypt. Wasn't as if God told the Israelites, I got some commandments, see how you can do. And if you nail them or get them 50% right, then I will save you. No, he saved them and then gave them the law. It was then how they were to live as free people, what they did as God's people, to obey him and to worship Him. It was the perfect rule of righteousness. Now, how do we understand in particular, not just the commands of God? Because we know Jesus said the Great Commission, teach them to obey everything I've commanded you. He told his disciples, if you love me, you will obey my Commandments. So we know that we must be obedient Christians. We can't be perfectly. But we can't be truly, genuinely obedient Christians. We must obey the commands of Jesus. But what about the Old Testament law in particular? Remember, Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. You say, now wait a minute. But we already see in Mark's Gospel, for example, that it's made very clear that these food laws, the cleanliness, purity laws, those are going to pass away. So how Jesus himself says, he's going to tear down the temple. So the temple religion is going away. He's going to be the last high priest. He's going to be the last sacrifice talking Jesus say, I didn't come to abolish it. Well, he uses the word play, Ro. I've come to fulfill it. And that doesn't simply refer to accomplishing specific prophecies. Does mean that, but it means more. It means Jesus brings the Scripture to completion. He brings the law to its climax, to its intended goal. So nothing of the law has passed away, but all of the law. Here's the key. All of the law must be understood now in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He's the new Moses. He's the new Messianic lawgiver. So in a way, yes, the whole law still has to do with us. It points us to Christ, but it also gives transcendent moral principles. And by the general equity of all those commands, we still know what God wants for his people. This is why Paul can cite Deuteronomy 25:4. You shall not muzzle an ox when it is treading out the grain. Paul didn't think of that as, oh, that's the Mosaic Law. That's gone. Doesn't have anything to do with us. No, he uses it as a justification for paying Gospel preachers. He can allude to Deuteronomy 19:15 in insisting we should not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. So the law of Moses is not to be thrown out, but it's been transformed, repurposed by the coming of Christ. Traditional Reformed theology, and we find this expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, teaches that the law of Moses can be divided into three the moral law given in the Ten Commandments, the ceremonial laws which were abrogated with the coming of Christ, and the judicial laws that expired with the nation of Israel. This is laid out in Westminster Confession, Chapter 19. That's very common. And if people ask, well, how come we're not obeying all of these commands. We're not doing the food laws, we're not doing the sacrifices, we're not doing all the laws. We don't have slaves anymore, thankfully. What does this law have to do with us? Well, traditional answer in Reformed theology is to talk about the tripartite division of the law, moral, ceremonial and judicial. And that's helpful. Some people, however, and it's an understandable point, would say now, really, Yes, I can see how that's a helpful distinction. And that sort of gets us to having the Ten Commandments still be important for us because that's the expression of the moral law. But really, does this anywhere in the law itself, does the Old Testament ever present itself in this neat and tidy three part division? And many people have objected to it. Many good scholars, and particularly those who maybe have a sympathy for some aspects of Covenant theology. They may be Reformed soteriologically, but they're not in the classic Reformed tradition when it comes to covenant theology and the law. They may say things like, well, this is too neat and tidy and we don't find this explicitly laid out. And it's true, it's not explicit. And if we're looking for neat and tidy, it is not there. And yet the division does have biblical warrant. It's at least as old as Aquinas, who argued from the different terms used in Deuteronomy 4, 13, 14 and Deuteronomy 6:1 that there were three kinds of laws under Moses. Centuries earlier, early Church Clement of Alexandria divided the law into four parts. He called it historic, legislative, sacrificial and theological church. Father Tertullian made a distinction between moral and ceremonial laws. Augustine distinguished between the moral precepts that are binding and the symbols that are not. Just those quick examples show us that for a long time, since the beginning of the Church practically the theologians have instinctively understood that the law of Moses has different shape and contour to it. And besides this historical precedent, there are good biblical reasons for accepting the traditional threefold division of the law. For starters, the Ten Commandments are unique. Unlike most of the other statutes, these commandments were already known in the world prior to Sinai. We could trace this out if we had time. The the people in Genesis and Exodus we see, they already know murder is wrong. They know adultery is wrong, they know lying is wrong. And what's more, at Sinai God spoke the words of the decalogue directly. They they heard the voice was not mediated through Moses. And the Ten Commandments were given in absolute form and addressed to the individual rather than to the nation. The words were written down by the finger of God preserved in stone. All of these elements of the familiar story of Mount Sinai in Exodus 19 and 20 teach us that the Ten Commandments have a unique place. They already had that place, were viewed in a unique way in the life of Israel itself. Second reason. The Ten Commandments are distinguished from other commands within the law of Moses. Not just their unique, unique way of being given directly and by the finger of God, but even as the law unfolds. So, for example, if the decalogue, you might think that's the Ten Commandments. The ten words. If the decalogue is the constitution, then the other commandments function as case law. You see this following Exodus 2010 commandments to Exodus 21, the language changes. It's not thou shalt, but it's if this, and when this. So we have the constitution, as it were, and then the case law. Here's a set of paradigmatic examples. When this happens, here's what you do. Even the very language in the rest of the law tells us that these functioned in a different way than the Ten Commandments. Even under Moses, God's people did not take all 613 commandments. That's a traditional number that assigned to the law of Moses. 613. They didn't take them as being essentially equal. There were lighter matters, weightier matters. There were different penalties for different infractions. The prophets often announced that the Lord desired mercy, not sacrifice. And that teaches that sacrifice is of a lesser weight than the heart of mercy. In fact, God hates the feasts and assemblies in Amos because God's people are doing them in a perfunctory way because they're disobeying the Ten Commandments. You never have it the other way around that God's people are keeping the Ten Commandments, but they're not getting their sacrifices right. And then God says, well, I hate your obedience to the Ten Commandments. Now, there's always undergirding. Yeah, but what sort of people are you're getting these rituals right? You're tithing your mint and your dill and your cumin, but what are you doing to love the Lord your God with all your heart? Third, the language used by Moses suggests something like the ceremonial and judicial laws. You say really? Well, think about it. The word pattern is so often used in Exodus and Leviticus, and then again it's picked up in Hebrews. The pattern do everything after the pattern that you see. Well, if these laws relative to the worship of Israel, the ritual, the ceremonial are given according to a pattern, then there is a built in obsolescence to the commands. The earthly form, the pattern will eventually give way to the heavenly reality. And that's what we have when Christ arrives. The earthly form, the pattern, has passed away. Likewise, we see in Deuteronomy the language of the commands given in the land, or here's what you do when you are in the land, suggesting that some of the commands were specific to the nation of Israel in Canaan. In short, the Mosaic law was never seen as an indivisible whole, not even in Moses day. True, Moses didn't come down from the mountain and say, I have a threefold division. You are to think of these commandments in three different categories and we can very neatly set them into three different buckets. Of course he didn't do that. But I do not believe people would be surprised to go back to the time of Moses. And I think it would have been understood instinctively that the Ten Commandments were unique and they were binding in a different way from the other commandments related to worship and the regulation of life in Israel. These things now apply to us in a different way. There are still principles there. They point to Christ, but the Ten Commandments, the moral law, binds in a unique way. This is one of the key differences between traditional Reformed theology and how many of my Baptist brothers might understand things and have learned all sorts of things from good Baptist theologians or those who have a different understanding of the covenants. In recent years there has been a something of a resurgence of Baptist covenant theology and in some new and different shades. So it's probably worth, just as we round out this Covenant Theology section, just say a few words. I'm of course a Presbyterian pastor and I'm giving this from the perspective of traditional Reformed theology. But there's a Baptist version of Covenant theology which goes back a very, very long ways. In October 1658, a group of Independents and Congregationalists met at the Savoy Hospital in London to draw up a revision of the Westminster Confession. So that's from the 1640s. This is the end of the 1650s. And they wanted the confession to reflect their commitment to Congregational Church government. And they came up with a now little known Savoy Declaration. And this would be revised two decades later and become a classic Baptist summary of faith known as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, also called the London Baptist Confession, sometimes confusingly called the Second London Baptist Confession because there was another small Baptist confession written in 1644. But 1689, and you see that sometimes on people's monikers or their handles online. 1689 written in 1677 as a revision of the Westminster Confession, the London Baptist Confession is a Reformed document in many ways. It is certainly Calvinist in soteriology, and it includes some additions that Reformed Christians would welcome. There's an augmented section on the Trinity, for example, which is very good, as one would expect. The most significant difference between the 1689 London Baptist Confession and the Westminster Confession, 1646, and that's the origin of it. The most significant differences have to do with the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments, and these are related to Covenant 3 theology. We'll come to sacraments later in church government later in the year. Just to cite one crucial example, the London Baptist Confession says that the one covenant of grace, so they're still using that language, one covenant of grace, but it says, is revealed. The Westminster Confession says it is administered, but London Baptist Confession says it is revealed by various arguments throughout redemptive history. In other words, in Baptist theology, the various covenants of the Old Testament, they bear witness to the covenant of grace. But the covenant of grace is only finally and truly administered. In the New Covenant, you see that difference. Reformed theology, these are expressions from Abraham to Moses to David, these are expressions of the one covenant of grace. In Baptist covenant theology, they reveal, they are pointing to, they teach us something. But the actual covenant of grace is given only in the New Covenant. So the various covenants of the Old Testament communicate the benefits of Christ, not in terms of communion with Christ, but in that they impart information. In traditional Reformed covenant theology, by contrast, Christ is in, with and under the types in the Old Testament. More recently, some Baptists have sought to find something of a middle ground between dispensationalism and traditional Reformed covenant theology. And again, this is even a little different from London Baptist Confession, which I would say is the closest to traditional Reformed theology. But this middle ground, sometimes called New Covenant theology, or in a slightly different form, progressive covenantalism. Unlike traditional dispensationalism, progressive covenantalism stresses that God has one unified plan in Scripture, and that this plan is revealed through a series of covenants that form the backbone of the Bible's redemptive storyline. And yet, unlike Westminster Covenant theology, progressive covenantalism does not employ a bilateral covenant scheme. By that I mean a covenant of works and a covenant of grace. And this progressive covenant theology does not consider the Ten Commandments an expression of the binding moral law of God, and it does not consider earlier covenants to be an administration of God's redemptive plan. So these are all key differences. As a Presbyterian Reformed pastor, I can appreciate many of the emphases in progressive Covenantalism and have many friends who would espouse these views and very good scholars articulating these views. And yet I would disagree at the foundational level as to how new is the New Covenant. That's one way to put the chief disagreement to use an analogy I might have used before, we can ask whether the establishment of the New Covenant moves us in God's redemptive economy from a mouse to a cat or from a puppy to a dog. So a mouse to a cat, still an animal. It's a different animal. A very, it's a different. Nobody gets confused. That's a mouse, that's a cat. Cats eat mice, in fact. But a puppy to a dog, same organism, same. But one is grown up. So is the New Covenant like a, a cat to a mouse, or is it like a dog to a puppy? Or if we use a different analogy, is it like a car to a bicycle? They're both means of transportation, but completely different. Or is it like, I don't know, take what, you know, a brand new Chevy Camaro to a, you know, beat up whatever GMC Acadia, which is what I drive also in the GM family. Is that what the New Covenant is?
- [18:56]
A
It's, it's a, it's a car.
- [18:58]
B
Just like Moses Mosaic Covenant was a car, but it's a, it's a new car and it functions better. That's the key difference. How new is the New Covenant? The nature of the covenant community, the recipients of baptism, and the way in which church becomes visible are all related to the question of whether the New Covenant is fundamentally something different or the same essential thing brought to fullness and completion. So is it a different animal altogether, or is it like a puppy now grown up into a dog? Covenant Theology Answers the question Traditional Reformed Covenant Theology answers the question by seeing the New Covenant as a grown up dog, not a different animal altogether.
- [19:49]
A
Thanks again for joining us on Doctrine Matters. I'm your host, Kevin DeYoung. Our hope and prayer is that this has been helpful to you as you look at Scripture and try to understand the best of our theological tradition as Christians. Please consider subscribing to Doctrine Matters. And if this has been encouraging, consider passing it on to others. If you'd like to learn more about this week's doctrine, you can ask your pastor for good resources or check out my year long mini systematic theology book called Daily Doctrine.
- [20:23]
B
It's available in print or audio from
- [20:25]
A
Crossway.org the Doctrine Matters podcast is produced by Crossway. To learn more, visit Crossway.org.