Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013

7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013

1/20

so many of us are discontent with life. We are living for

self rather than for God and for others which is not why

we were created. Christ died for us so that we would no

longer live for ourselves (2 Cor 5:15). As Pastor Paul Tripp

writes, To live for yourself is to rob yourself of your own

humanity.4 Read afresh Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but havenot love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I

have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all

knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains

but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have,

and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love,

I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy

or boast; itis not arrogant or rude.Itdoes not insist on its

own way; itis not irritable or resentful; itdoes not rejoice

4 Paul David Tripp,A Quest for More (Greensboro, NC: New

Growth Press, 2007), 100.

Hebrews 8:6 is one of the most important verses in the Book of Hebrews, ac-

tually in the whole New Testament, for giving us a summary of New Covenant

theology. Hebrews 8:1 informs us that this section is a statement of summary

and review.

The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat

down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Heb. 8:1 NIV)

New Covenant believers have, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the very Priest we

need. He has accomplished and foreverfinished the work that Aaron could

never have accomplished. Our High Priest has entered the Most Holy Place and

has taken up permanent residence there. He has also made it possible that we

poor sinners can also enter that same Most Holy Place at any time of any day or

night. We have been given a perfect clearance

I s s u e 1 9 4 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3

It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9

Christ, Our New Covenant High

PriestPart 1

John G. Reisinger

In his Galatians commentary, Martin Luther writes,

The law of Christ is the law of love.1 Love is absolutely

central to the law of Christ. It seems to me that our circles

do not emphasize the centrality of love like the Bible em-

phasizes the centrality of love. Love is not simply a fuzzy

feeling of affection towards another but self-sacrificially

giving of self for the good of others and the glory of God.

2

Love is a verb.

God is love (1 John 4:8). He is the self-giving God

who calls his people to be self-giving lovers.3 This is why

1 Martin Luther, Galatians (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,

1998), 290.

2 Gordon Fee, Gods Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA:

Hendrickson, 1994),446-47; Michael Hill, The How and Why

of Love (Matthias Media, 2002), 78, 80, 84, 97.

3 Timothy Keller,Reason for God(New York: Dutton 2008),

215-16.

The Centrality of Love

A. Blake White

ReisingerContinued on page 2

WhiteContinued on page 12

In This Issue

Christ, Our New Covenant HighPriest Part 1

J ohn G. Reisinger

1

The Centrality of Love

A. Blake White1

Free Will & UltimateResponsibility

Steve West

3

The Cross and the Lord's Day -Part 2

Steve Carpenter

5

Indicative/Imperative

A. Blake White7


2/20

Page 2 February 2013 Issue 194

Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt

501(c)3 corporat ion. Contributions to Sound of

Grace are deductible under section 170 of the

Code.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The

subscription price is shown below. This is a paper

unashamedly committed to the truth of Gods

sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology.

We invite all who love these same truths to prayfor us and help us financially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person is not

an endorsement of all that person believes, but it

merely means that we thought that a particular

article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, David

Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and

Jacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385;

e-mail: [email protected].

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:

[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound

of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick,

MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the

bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questions to:

John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canan-

daigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or

SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken

from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATION-

AL VERSION Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984

by International Bible Society. Used by Permis-

sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken

from the New King James Version. Copyright

1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-

sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The

Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright

2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good

News Publishers. Used by permission. Al l rights

reserved.

Contributions

Orders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contributionto Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound

of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD

21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to find the expira-

tion of your subscription. Please send payment if

you want your subscription to continue$20.00

for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a

pdffile emailed, that is available for $10.00 for

ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this

time, please call or drop a note in the mail and

we will be glad to continue Sound of Grace free

of charge.

ReisingerContinued from page 1


and total acceptance pass into his Fa-

thers presence (Romans 5:1-3). The

Lord Jesus Christ, acting as our older

brother and representative, has forever

accomplished what Aaron and the

blood of millions of bulls and goats

could never accomplish.

Hebrews 8:6 is a summary state-

ment of three comparisons. The verse

compares two priestly ministries, two

different covenants and two sets of

promises upon which the two cov-

enants are based. These three com-

parisons demonstrate why Aarons

priestly ministry failed and Christs

priestly ministry succeeds. I have

added numbers to the following quota-

tion in order to emphasize the threecomparisons.

But the (1)ministry Jesus has re-

ceived is as superior to theirs as the

(2)covenant of which he is mediator

is superior to the old one, and it is

founded on (3)better promises.(Heb.

8:6 NIV)

This verse is vital to any discus-

sion of Christ as our High Priest. The

writer of Hebrews sets forth three

distinct comparisons of better thingsto show why the New Covenant, set

forth in verses 7-11 as the fulfillment

of the prophecy of the New Cov-

enant t in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was so

essential and is so superior. These

three contrasts provide the sum and

substance not only of the Book of He-

brews but also of (1) the heart of the

religion of the New Covenant com-

pared to the religion of the Old Cov-

enant, or the basic difference between

Judaism and Christianity; and (2) thevital difference between the Old and

New Covenants as covenants. Each

comparison grows out of the previous

comparison, and all three are straight-

forward and uncomplicated.

First, our Lord performs a

better ministry than Aaron. The

obvious question raised by such a

statement is this: Why is Christs

ministry as High Priest so much better

than Aarons? The answer: Christs

ministry is better than Aarons min-

istry because it is based on a better

covenant. The next obvious question

then is this: Why is the New Cov-

enant that Christ established so much

better than the Old Covenant that itreplaced? The answer: Because it is

based upon better promises. That

leads to the third question: What

are those better promises and why

are they so much better? The an-

swer: The Old Covenant under which

Aaron ministered promised life on the

grounds of obedience to the law and

the New Covenant under which Christ

ministers says only believe. The Old

Covenant is based on works and the

New Covenant is based on grace. The

Old Covenant was deliberately de-

signed to be a killing covenant. The

stated purpose of that covenant was to

convict sinners of their guilt and drive

them to the Abrahamic covenant to be

justified by faith.

All of the three statements are

quite clear. We who live under the

New Covenant have the benefits of a

better ministry that was accomplished

under a better covenant based on bet-

ter promises. To identify the nature,

purpose, and function of the two con-

trasted covenants is to understand the

biblical relationship of law and grace.

Immediately upon making these three

comparisons and drawing out the

logical meaning and implications of

them, the writer of Hebrews reminds

us of why the Old Covenant had to be

discarded (Heb.8:7-8.). The Old Cove-

nant could not meet the sinners need.It could not effect justification. None

of Aarons work could bring the sinner

into Gods presence. The writer of He-

brews then quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34

to prove that the change of covenants

that was necessary in order for God

to accomplish his redemptive purpose

was clearly prophesied in the Old

Testament Scriptures. This New Cov-


3/20

Issue 194 February 2013 Page 3

WestContinued on page 8

meaning can be captured initially by

an image: when we trace the causal or

explanatory chains of action back totheir sources in the purposes of free

agents, these causal chains must come

to an end or terminate in the willings

(choices, decisions, or efforts) of the

agents, which cause or bring about

their purposes. If these willings were

in turn caused by something else,

so that the explanatory chains could

be traced back further to heredity or

environment, to God, to fate, then the

ultimacy would not lie with the agents

but with something else.1

In this paragraph Kane has ex-

plained what he means for an agent to

be the termination point for the causal

explanatory chain of a particular ac-

tion. It must come directly from the

agent, almost in an act of self-willed

creation. Later, Kane connects this

ultimacy (U) with responsibility (R):

(UR) An agent is ultimately

responsible for some (event or state)

Es occurring only if (R) the agent is

personally responsible for Es oc-

curring in a sense which entails that

something the agent voluntarily (or

willingly) did or omitted, and for

which the agent could have voluntari-

ly done otherwise, either was, or caus-

ally contributed to, Es occurrence and

made a difference to whether or not E

occurred; and (U) for every X and Y

(where X and Y represent occurrences

of events and/or states) if the agent ispersonally responsible for X, and if

Y is an arche (or sufficient ground or

cause or explanation) for X, then the

agent must also be personally respon-

sible for Y.2

Notice the important phrase the

1 Robert Kane The Significance of Free

Will(New York: Oxford University

Press, 1996), 4.

2 Kane, The Significance, 35.

It is hard to imagine a debate exist-

ing about free will, predestination, and

determinism if the concept of free willwas completely detached from issues

of morality and responsibility. A main

motivation for defending free will, in

either its secular or theological formu-

lations, is to preserve a rough notion

of freedom which entails personal

responsibility for our behavior. Not

only do we intuitively believe we are

free, we want to be free. Furthermore,

most of us want to be responsible for

what we do, and we want to be able to

hold others responsible for what theydo. But if everything is predestined,

or if determinism obtains, how can

humans be responsible for anything?

And, as we have already seen, appeal-

ing to indeterminism doesnt necessar-

ily help eitherhow am I responsible

for random movements of particles, or

random neural impulses in my brain?

The importance of ultimate

responsibility is described by liber-

tarian Robert Kane in the following(lengthy, but important) quote:

Free Will, in the traditional sense

I want to retrieve (and the sense in

which the term will be used through-

out this book), is the power of agents

to be the ultimate creators (or

originators) and sustainers of their

own ends or purposes. This notion

should be distinguished from free

action, and not simply because free

will is a power. To act freely is to

be unhindered in the pursuit of your

purposes (which are usually expressed

by intentions); to will freely, in the

traditional sense, is to be the ultimate

creator (prime mover, so to speak)

of your own purposes. Such a no-

tion ofultimate creation of purposes

is obscure, to be suremany would

say it is unintelligiblebut there is

little doubt that it has fueled intuitions

about free will from the beginning. Its

agent could have voluntarily done

otherwise. This requires alternative

possibilities (which we looked at inthe last article). Besides that, the idea

for UR (Ultimate Responsibility) is

that if the agent had alternative possi-

bilities, and if the agent causally con-

tributed to the event taking place in a

way which was sufficient to cause or

explain it, then the agent is personally

responsible. Now, Kane goes on to

present a long and extremely intricate

(not to mention highly original) model

for how this might actually take place

in the world as we know it, but thedetails of his account will have to be

neglected. The main point in focus is

the contention that if there is anything

that causes an event to take place

besides the agent, then the agent is not

ultimately responsible, and therefore

cannot be praised or blamed for what

happened.

These sorts of considerations are

rampant in theological discussions

about freedom and predestination.Does the Calvinistic God make us

puppets, dancing on our strings,

confusedly thinking were responsible

for what we do, when really its just

the divine being jerking us around? If

God foreordains everything I will ever

do, doesnt the causal chain of re-

sponsibility stop with him, not me? If

Im not ultimately responsible for my

sin, why am I still blamed for it (and

worse, punished)? On the positive

side, if I only do the good works that I

do because God decreed them for me,

how can I take any credit for it? If my

wife loves me, should I refuse to ap-

preciate her, since she only loves me

because God ordained it, and so he is

responsible for her love, not my wife?

If praise can only be traced to God,

why cant blame?

Free Will & Ultimate Responsibility

Steve West


4/20

Page 4 February 2013 Issue 194fice and intercession is co-extensive.

Aaron prays only for those for whom

he shed blood and made intercession.

Aaron did not offer any lambs for

the Egyptians nor did he pray for the

Philistines. The same is true under the

New Covenant. Christ died for and

prayed for his own elect people. Hedied for his sheep and prays for those

same sheep. How could he state this

more clearly?

I am the good shepherd. The good

shepherd lays down his life for the

sheep. (John 10:11)

I pray for them. I am not praying

for the world, but for those you have

given me, for they are yours. (John

17:9)

Was Aarons ministry success-ful? Did his efforts of sacrifice and

intercession pay the sinners debt and

cleanse his conscience from sin? Was

Aaron able to bring the sinner into the

presence of God without fear? The

answer to all of these questions is no.

However, we must quickly add that

the failure to accomplish these things

was not because of any sin or lack of

either effort or faith on Aarons part.

He used, correctly and in good faith,

every means that was available to

him to do his job. So why does Jesus

prevail in his priestly work and suc-

ceed in performing the same functions

in which Aaron failed? Our Lord,

like Aaron, also offers a sacrifice and

makes intercession. However, unlike

Aaron, Christ can and does bring the

sinner, without fear and with a clear

conscience, into the presence of the

thrice-holy God. Why does Christs

one offering of blood and his interces-sion on the ground of that blood ac-

complish what all of Aarons offerings

of shed blood and his prayers could

never effect in a single instance. Both

Aaron and Christ pleaded with God

on the ground of the blood they shed.

Why did one succeed and the other

fail?

Part of the answer is given in He-


enant that was prophesied was Gods

intended purpose ever since eternity

began and was made known at the

dawn of sin in Genesis 3:15. Israel

and the Mosaic covenant were never

intended to be permanent. They were

announced as ending when Christcame. As we noted in our last article,

the nation of Israel and the religion of

Judaism upon which it was based, was

a parenthesis in Gods one unchain-

ing redemptive purpose of sovereign

grace for his one elect people.

For if there had been nothing

wrong with thatfirst covenant, no

place would have been sought for

another. But God found fault with

the people and said: The days are

coming, declares the Lord, when I

will make a new covenant with thepeople of Israel and with the peopleof Judah. It will not be like the cov-

enant I made with their ancestors

when I took them by the hand to lead

them out of Egypt, because they did

not remain faithful to my covenant,

and I turned away from them, declares

the Lord. This is the covenant I will

establish with the people of Israel

after that time, declares the Lord. I

will put my laws in their minds andwrite them on their hearts.I will betheir God, and they will be my people.

No longer will they teach their neigh-

bor, or say to one another, Know the

Lord,because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest.

For I will forgive their wickedness and

will remember their sins no more. By

calling this covenant new, he has

made thefirst one obsolete; and what

is obsolete and outdated will soon dis-

appear. (Heb. 8:7-13)

Any attempt to exegete Jeremiah

31:31-34 without looking at how a

New Covenant apostle understood that

specific prophecy is simply not good

hermeneutics, yet this is just what

most Covenant theologians do. We

must not start with Jeremiah, but with

how the writer of Hebrews under-

stood Jeremiah. This means that we

do not first establish a rigid meaning

of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then make

the Book of Hebrews fit into that in-

terpretation. We first understand the

theological point that the writer to the

Hebrews is making and then ask why

he chose to use Jeremiah 31:31-34 to

prove that point. This is another clear

example of the basic difference in our

hermeneutics from that of both Cov-enant Theology and dispensational-

ism. This example demonstrates what

we mean when we insist that the New

Covenant Scriptures must interpret the

Old Covenant Scriptures and not the

other way around.

It is impossible to understand a

comparison if we do not understand

both of the things being compared.

For instance, if I were to say to you,

Oranges are much sweeter thanlemons and you had never tasted a

lemon, my statement would be mean-

ingless. For my statement to make

sense you must know what both a

lemon and orange taste like. If the

writer of Hebrews exalts the ministry

of Christ as betterthan the ministry

of Aaron, and we do not have a clear

picture of, (1) exactly what Aarons

ministry was; (2) why that ministry

failed; and, (3) why the Old Covenant,

upon which Aarons entire ministrywas based, had to be replaced with

a new and better covenant instead of

just patched up, then we cannot under-

stand passages like Jeremiah 31 and

Hebrews 8. There is no clear under-

standing of the greatness of the New

Covenant until there is a clear under-

standing of the inherent weakness of

the Old Covenant.

First, we must ask, Exactly what

was Aarons ministry as high priest?His greatest single duty was to make

sacrifice for the people and then make

intercession for them as he sprinkled

the mercy seat with animal blood on

the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 5:1

states that Aaron offered gifts and

sacrifice for sins. He represented Is-

rael before God with a blood sacrifice

and then represented them in interces-

sion. This two-fold ministry of sacri-ReisingerContinued on page 6


5/20


There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3that comes close to the stated com-

mand of Genesis 1:28 where it says,

God blessed them and God said to

them, be fruitful and multiply and fill

the earth and subdue it and rule over

the fish of the sea and over the birds

of the sky and over every living thing

that moves on the earth. Nothing

close to a command such as you read

in Genesis 1:28.

There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3that comes close to the binding pur-

poses that are stated in Genesis 2:15:

The Lord God took the man and put

him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate

it and keep it. Nothing like that in

Genesis 2:1-3.

There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3

like the permission and the prohibition

of Genesis 2:16 -17: The Lord God

commanded the man saying from the

tree of the garden, from any tree of the

garden you may eat freely, but from

the tree of the knowledge of good and

evil you shall not eat for in the day

you eat from it you shall surely die.

Nothing comes close to that!

There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3

that comes close to the timeless,

regulative principle that is established

for marriage in Genesis 2:24: For

this cause a man shall leave his father

and his mother and shall cleave to his

wife and they shall become one flesh,

yet this is what must be derived from

Genesis 2:1-3 if it is going to be a

creation ordinance.

How have interpreters made it

to be a creation ordinance if there is

nothing in the text to directly lead

to that conclusion? The answer is

by keying on the words in verse 3,

blessed and sanctified. The interpret-CarpenterContinued on page 10

he Cross and the Lords Day

Part 2

teve Carpenter

In coming to the subject of the

Sabbath in the Old Testament we

should ask a question that is offirst

importance: By whom and when was

the Sabbath first observed? That is a

very important question to ask in rela-

tion to the matter of Sabbatarianism.

By whom and when was the Sabbath

first observed? The Puritans taught

that the Sabbath was a creation ordi-

nance, and it was written on the heart

of Adam to keep the Sabbath. It was

perpetually binding on all of Adamsposterity for all of time because it

was written on the heart and sin

was the only thing that defaced that

desire to keep the Sabbath; therefore,

Sabbath observance is a part of the

moral constitution of man, and it is

not recognized as such by man now

only because he has fallen and has

a sin-darkened conscience. That is a

powerful argument for the perpetuity

of the fourth commandmentif it is

truebecause it says that the Sabbath

was instituted with the created order,

and that dictates that our starting point

is in the text of Genesis.

Lets examine the first three verses

of Genesis chapter 2: Thus the heav-

ens and the earth were completed and

all their hosts. By the seventh day God

completed His work which he had

done, and he rested on the seventh day

from all his work which he had done.

Then God blessed the seventh day andsanctified it because in it he rested

from all his work which God had cre-

ated and made. The first thing that

is worthy of observing from Genesis

2:1-3 is that there is nothing in the text

which states that the seventh day was

instituted as a Sabbath that is binding

on man. There is nothing there at all.

It does not state that the Sabbath is

binding on man.

ers pack all sorts of things into these

words making them receptacles and

just keep pouring it in until finally

when you are all done, its a creation

ordinance. The text does not sayits

very interesting to observethat the

seventh day was holy in and of itself.

It was made holy. It was appointed tobe holy. Gods resting on the seventh

day did not confer any holiness on

that day. God blessed and sanctified it

after he had rested. You can see that

in the text; its clear. Verse 3 begins

in the Hebrew with a construction

called the vowel consecutive which

indicates temporal sequence, so he,

in verse 3 says then God blessed the

seventh day and sanctified it because

in it he rested. The rest didnt make

the day holy, God made the day holy

because in it he rested, and theres a

difference between the two. Theres

a temporal sequence that is indicated

with no note of how long the tem-

poral sequence actually was. It is

probably that the sanctifying of the

seventh day followed very closely the

creation week itself, but the reason it

was blessed and sanctified probably

did not emerge with clarity until the

institution of the seventh day as a Sab-bath with the covenant nation of Israel

in Exodus 16. Genesis was written by

Moses, and it was written for Israel.

The statement in chapter 2 will have

included a view of the later institution

of the Sabbath, and the enactment of

the seventh day as holy awaited that

institution with the Nation of Israel.

We have such examples of prolep-

tic or anticipatory uses of language

throughout the Scriptures. This is theuse of language which anticipates a

future event for the language to take

on its full meaning. As an illustration

in the context of the Garden of Eden,

Genesis 3:20 says that Adam called

his wifes name Eve in anticipation

that she would be the mother of the

whole human race, yet at that point,

she had no children. It was in anticipa-


6/20



We insist that there was nothing at

all bad or wrong with either the Old

Covenant or Aaron as a priest. The

Old Covenant terms were not unfair

or too rigid, but, on the contrary, they

were holy, just and good. The Old

Covenant failed simply because it

could not produce the very neces-sary things that are guaranteed in the

New Covenant. That is what Jeremiah

31:31-34 is all about. The main point

of the promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is

not that God is going to tattoo the Ten

Commandments on a New Covenant

believers heart nor is it that God is

going to write a new and different set

of rules on the heart. It is neither of

those things. The glory and expecta-

tion of the promises in the New Cov-

enant, as promised in Jeremiah 31,is that our blessed Savior is going to

accomplish what Aaron and the law

covenant given through Moses never

could accomplish. Christ is going to

affect inwardly what Aaron and the

law covenant never could accomplish.

Jeremiah 31:31-34, as can be seen

from Hebrews 8 and 10, is not a law-

centered passage, but it is a Christ-

centered passage. John MacArthur

is correct when he comments on He-brews 8:10:

The New Covenant will have a

different sort of law an internal not

an external law. Everything under the

old economy was external. Under the

Old Covenant obedience was out of

fear of punishment. Under the New

it is out of adoring love and worship-

ing thanksgiving. Formerly Gods law

was given on stone tablets and was

to be written on wrists and foreheads

and doorposts as reminders (Deut.

6:8, 9). Even when the old law was

given, of course, it was intended to be

in peoples hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the

people could not write on their hearts

like they could write on their door-

posts. And at this time the Holy Spirit,

the only changer of hearts, was not yet

given to believers. Now, however, the

Spirit writes Gods law in the minds

and hearts of those who belong to

him. In the New Covenant true wor-

ship is internal, not external, real, not

brews 10 when the writer reminds us

of the great difference between an ani-

mals blood and the blood of Christ.

However, in Hebrews 8 he uses a dif-

ferent angle to make the same point:

that which makes the intercession of

Christ effective is not just the betterblood that was shed; it also involves

the better covenant that his once-

for-all sacrifice established. Christs

ministry is successful because of the

better covenant from which he min-

isters. The covenant terms, not just the

kind ofblood, make all the difference.

We must see that the blood established

the New Covenant and the New Cov-

enant terms were based on grace while

the Old Covenant terms were based on

works.

This leads to the second of the

three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6,

which begs us to ask, Why is this

New Covenant that Christ adminis-

ters so much better than the covenant

under which Aaron ministered? What

is the weakness of the Old Covenant

upon which Aarons ministry was

based, and what are the strengths of

the New Covenant from which Christ

ministers? The writer immediatelyanswers; The New Covenant is based

on better promises than the Old

Covenant. If the two covenants were

based on the same promises, then He-

brews 8:6 would not make sense. If,

as Covenant theology insists, the New

Covenant and the Old Covenant are

the same in nature and substance,

then they are not substantially dif-

ferent at all, and again, Hebrews 8:6

becomes words without meaning. If

there is not a radically new, totally dif-

ferent and very distinctly better cov-

enant based on new, different, and bet-

ter promises or better terms than the

Old Covenant was based upon, then,

I repeat, the words have lost their

meaning. A failure to interpret Jeremi-

ahs prophecy in the light of the Book

of Hebrews highlights the different

views of the message in Hebrews.

ritual (cf. Ezek. 11:19-20, 36:26, 27;

John 14:17).1

I ask again, why did Aarons min-

istry fail? What was it that he could

not effectually accomplish? In a nut-

shell, Aaron and the priests from his

line could not meet the just and holy

demands of the covenant terms, theTen Commandments written on the ta-

bles of the covenant housed in the ark

of the covenant. The blessings prom-

ised in that covenant (Ex. 19:5- 6) de-

pended on compliance with the cove-

nant terms written on the tables of the

covenant. Neither Aaron nor the sin-

ner could meet those terms. 1) They

could not obey the covenant terms and

earn the life that was promised, and 2)

once the covenant terms were broken,they could not bring a sacrifice that

could pay for the sin and satisfy both

Gods holy character and the sinners

conscience. Aarons inability to ef-

fect entrance into Gods presence had

nothing to do with his godliness or his

consistency and perseverance. He did

all he could do and all that was ex-

pected of him. His ministry still failed

and had to be replaced. Hebrews

8:7 does not say, or imply, because

Aaron failed to faithfully perform hiswork. The real problem is the Old

Covenant terms and the sinners in-

ability to meet them. Jesus succeeds in

the same ministry where Aaron failed.

The New Covenant constantly empha-

sizes that Christ finished the work

of redemption. He offered a once for

eversacifice that satisfied Gods cov-

enant terms.

How much more, then, will the

blood of Christ, who through the eter-nal Spirit offered himself unblemished

to God, cleanse our consciences from

acts that lead to death, so that we

may serve the living God! For this

reason Christ is the mediator of a new

covenant, that those who are called

may receive the promised eternal in-

1 John MacArthur, Jr., MacArthur New

Testament Commentary (Chicago:

Moody Bible Institute,1983), 215.



7/20


In grammar, we speak of differenttypes of moods. The indicative mood

represents the act or state as an objec-

tive fact. For example, the cat is on

the mat is an indicative statement. It

is a fact. The cat is on the mat. It is a

statement about what is.

The imperative mood expresses

an intention to influence the listeners

behavior. It is used with commands,

requests, etc. Put the cat on the mat

is an imperative statement. You arebeing told to do somethingwith the

cat.

This grammar language has often

been applied to New Testament eth-

ics, especially with regard to Pauls

letters. The indicative is what God

has done for us in Christ. It is who we

are in Christ. We are forgiven, recon-

ciled, and adopted. We are in Christ.

It is a fact. We have a new status. The

imperative is what we are called to doand be as those in Christ. It is what

God demands of us.

The distinction between indica-

tive and imperative is an important

one, for Christianity is not simply a

moralistic religion.1 The message of

Christianity is not merely Be good

people, or Do the right things. The

fundamental message of Christian-

ity is that Jesus Christ has died for

sinners, has been raised from the dead

and exalted to the Fathers right hand

and now exercises complete authority.

We are called to be good people and

do certain things in lightof that re-

1 Victor P. Furnish writes, No interpreta-

tion of the Pauline ethic can be judged

successful which does not grapple

with the problem of indicative and

imperative in Pauls thought, Theol-

ogy and Ethics in Paul(Nashville:

Abingdon, 1968), 279.

ality.2

This relationship is really whatsets Christianity over against all other

religions. Pastor Tim Keller aptly

writes, Religion operates on the prin-

ciple I obeytherefore I am accepted

by God. But the operating principle

of the gospel is I am accepted by God

through what Christ has donethere-

fore I obey.3 The order makes all the

difference in the world.

This is another way of saying

that the imperativefl

ows from the in-dicative. The indicative is the founda-

tion of the imperative. The indicative

and the imperative are closely and

necessarily associated.4 They cannot

be separated without distorting the

theology of the New Testament. We

will be asking What Would Jesus

Do? in this Christian Ethics series,

but we only ask this after we have

asked and answered the question

What Did Jesus Do? As Wolfgang

Schrage says, Gods eschatologicalact of salvation in Jesus Christ is the

absolute basis, foundation, and pre-

requisite for all Christian conduct.5

Protestants have historically guard-

ed this biblical truth by distinguishing

the doctrine of justification from the

doctrine of sanctification (or transfor-

mation). Justification is forensic; it is

a declaration. We are declared to be

in the right on the basis of faith. Faith

unites us to the Messiah so that whatis true of him is true of us. Histori-

2 As Richard Hays writes, Moral ac-

tion is a logical entailment of Gods

redemptive action,Moral Vision, 39.

3 Tim Keller, The Reason for God(NY:

Dutton, 2008), 179-80.

4 Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 223-24.

5 Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the

New Testament(Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1982), 167.

cally, the doctrine of sanctification

has referred to theprocess of becom-

ing more and more like Jesus. In this

sense, transformation is a process

while justification is a one-time event.

Our sanctification, or moral transfor-

mation, flows from our right standing,

our justification.Martin Luther guarded this distinc-

tion by speaking of the two kinds of

righteousness. He distinguished pas-

sive righteousness from active righ-

teousness. Passive righteousness is

the righteous status that we are given

by God through faith (Phil 3:8-9). We

are passive in receiving this righteous-

ness. Active righteousness is the good

works we are called to do in light of

our righteous standard. Our behaviormust match our status; our righteous

status must manifest itself in righteous

behavior.6

Lets look at Pauls letters to

show how he commands Christians

to live. First lets consider the over-

all structure of Pauls letters.7 It is

Pauls practice to lay out the doctrinal

foundations before turning to eth-

ics. Consider Galatians. Paul deals

with the seriousness of the Judaizerserror, the nature of Pauls calling, his

apostolic authority, the implications of

the gospel, his confrontation of Peter,

their reception of the Holy Spirit, the

role of the law in redemptive history,

the natures of the Abrahamic and

Old covenants, and adoption before

coming to the first major imperative

in 4:12: Become like me. Chapters

5 and 6 follow with pointed ethical

exhortation.

Ephesians is similar. It can be

nicely divided into two sections: Ch.

1-3, and Ch. 4-6. Chapters 1-3 lay

out the spiritual blessings in Christ

6 R.E.O. White,Biblical Ethics (Atlanta:

John Knox Press, 1979), 148.

7 See Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of

the New Testament(Philadelphia:

Fortress Press, 1982), 167.

Indicative/ImperativeContinued on

page 11


A. Blake White


8/20

Page 8 February 2013 Issue 194WestContinued f rom page 3

This nest of questions is com-

mon Sunday School fare when these

issues arise, but there are also secular

equivalents, many of which phi-

losophers are beginning to take very

seriously. Our Western justice system

is predicated on the idea that criminalsare responsible for what they do. But

if the behavior of a criminal is really

ultimately traceable to their genetics,

their Darwinian instincts, and their

social conditioning, in what sense is

it fair to hold thempersonally respon-

sible for what they do? They are really

victims: victims of chance, natural

scientific laws, and their environ-

ment. Their genetic code placed in

their particular environment resulted

in behavior that our society judgescriminal, but that does not mean they

are personally at fault. There are sev-

eral prominent philosophical voices in

the free will vs. determinism debate

that are calling for an overhaul of our

judicial system, on the basis that free

will (which is necessary for respon-

sibility) does not exist, and so it is

actually immoral to treat people as if

they are responsible for their actions.

The model shifts from punishmentto societal safety: criminals should

not be loathed and punished, they

should be pitied and quarantined. We

quarantine innocent people carrying

infectious diseases, but we treat them

kindly and with pity, making their

lives as comfortable as possible. Since

criminals are no less responsible for

their behavior than a sick person is

responsible for the virus theyre car-

rying, we should treat criminals as sad

victims, and not as responsible, mor-ally wicked individuals.

I will not bother to cite biblical

texts which indicate that the wicked

are morally responsible for what they

do, and they areblameworthy and

deserving of punishment for their

wicked behavior. It is impossible (in

my judgment) to read the Bible and

not see that that is what the Bible

teaches! Certainly God punishes the

wicked and holds them responsible for

what they do, and therefore they must

actually be responsible and deserv-

ing of punishment. God is a God of

justice, which means that when he

punishes someone the punishment fits

the crime. Hell is nothing more and

nothing less than what individual, un-regenerate rebellious sinners deserve.

If you reject the Bible, however, it

does become very difficult to actu-

ally hold people accountable for their

lives.

The chain of ultimacy for the lib-

ertarian runs beyond action to desire

and willing. To answer the question:

why did you do that? usually appeal

is made to a desire. Why did you eat

that piece of cake? I was hungry andI love chocolate. Complicated chains

of reasoning must reach a termination

point.

- Why did you work overtime last

night?

- I wanted to earn extra money

and maybe get a promotion.

- Why do you want extra mon-

ey?

- I want to go on vacation.

- Why do you want to go on vac-

tion?

- I need to relax and get away

from some stress.

- Why do you want to relax?

- I feel good when I do.

- Why do you want to feel good?

- Um, because I just do.

For ultimate responsibility, the

chain of justification must terminate

in the agent, and not beyond, in the

libertarian contention. Behavior is

motivated by desires, but what if we

are not responsible for the desires we

have? In other words, to hold people

accountable, we cannot just look at

their behavior, we must look at what

motivated their behavior. And if they

are not responsible for their desires,

they are not responsible for the actions

which are caused by their desires.

Thus libertarians argue that we cannot

simply hold people accountable for

the character that they havepeople

must be responsible for forming their

own character if they are to be ulti-

mately responsible. In other words,the agent must be the self-originator

of both their desires and consequently

their actions if they are responsible

for the behavior that flows out of their

character.

At a purely philosophical level

it is important to note that many

philosophers simply find this crite-

rion for responsibility impossible to

meet. One difficulty is how do you

begin the process of forming yourown character? The first significant

moral decision you make is based on

a neutral characterif so, why does

the neutral character incline one way

or the other? Isnt that just sheer luck

and randomness again? If the charac-

ter is not neutral, then it will incline

to either the good or bad choicebut

if the character isnt neutral (even if

the inclination one way or the other is

very tiny), we arent responsible for

it, and therefore not responsible forwhat we do! If we cant be ultimately

responsible for the first moment of

character formation, we are not ulti-

mately responsible for the subsequent

behavior which emerges from our

character, since the causal chain does

not properly terminate in the agent.

This whole position seems philosophi-

cally untenable because you either end

up with an infinite causal regress (im-

possible for a temporal, finite agent),

or you simply cant meet your own

standard. In other words, if this posi-

tion is necessary for true responsibil-

ity, nobody is or can be responsible.

From a theological perspective,

this position is unacceptable for at

least two main reasons. First, the

Bible teaches the depravity of human

beings. We are born sinners, and we

act out of our sin nature. There is a


9/20

Issue 194 February 2013 Page 9very real sense in which none of us

choose to be born as sinners, nor to

have a bent against God and righ-

teousness. Nevertheless, we are born

totally depraved, and act out of this

character. We are responsible because

we do what we want to do when we

rebel and sin. (Doing what you wantto do is the compatibilist take on what

is necessary for freedom and respon-

sibility, and once again we find the

Bible teaching what compatibilists are

arguing.) God holds us responsible

and punishes us for the actions which

flow out of our character and desires,

even though we are born with those

sinful tendencies already at work in

us.

Second, on this libertarian schemeit is hard to see how God could be

responsible for anything he is or does.

If God exists eternally and neces-

sarily, always in the full splendor of

his glory, then he did not form his

own character. His essential nature is

a given fact. All of his actions flow

out of his perfect character, and they

always have. There was never a time

when God existed and he wasntperfect; there was never a time when

God in self-formation had the alterna-

tive possibility of choosing evil, and

luckily decided to choose the good.

God is essentially holy, just, righ-

teous, and good! Furthermore, the

Bible is absolutely clear that God is

the being of maximal splendor, and

God is deserving of praise, honor,

glory, and worship. He deserves to

be praised and glorified, even though

he is not ultimately responsible forhis character on Kanes model. But

this is not a knock against God: it is a

knock against Kane! This theological

reflection, combined with the insur-

mountable philosophical problem with

such self-formation, in addition to the

Bibles teaching about sinful behav-

ior, desires, and responsibility, all

come together to overturn the ultimate

responsibility criterion. This does notmean that we are not responsible for

what we do: it means that UR is an in-

correct formulation of what is required

for an agent to be responsible. In my

next article I plan on commenting on

several famous biblical texts which

teach that humans are responsible for

what they do even though they are do-

ing what God has ordained. We must

never let humans off the hook in terms

of responsibility, but we must define

responsibility in terms that are true toScripture.

I would like to help support the ministry ofSound of Grace:

A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:

A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdffile (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU

Name:

Street Address:

City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal:

Email address: @ Phone number:

Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938

Christ does not give freedom to believers so they can do what they want but so they can, for the first me, do

what God wants, because of love for Him. Within the bounds of their parcular situaons and abilies, even the

most ungodly unbelievers are already free to do what they themselves want to do. They have more than ample op-

portunity to indulge the desires of the flesh, and it was hardly necessary for Christ to provide that sort of liberty.

John MacArthur

Galaans, Moody, 1987, p. 146.

Morality will keep you out of jail--but only the blood of Jesus will keep you out of Hell!

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of

God abides on him!" John 3:36

Charles Spurgeon


10/20


tion of her role of being the mother

of the human race that she was called

Eve. In 1 Samuel 4:1 it indicates that

Israelis camped beside a place called

Ebenezer even though it was not until

1 Samuel 7:12 that Ebenezer even

received its name. It was inserted inanticipation. In Luke 6:16 we have the

record of Jesus calling his disciples,

and it states that Judas Iscariot was

a traitor, though he wasnt known to

be a traitor at that point by all of the

other disciples. It was in anticipation.

It was a proleptic use of language.

Likewise, when the seventh day

is first mentioned, its sanctification is

referenced, though the fuller meaning

of that sanctification does not becomeapparent until God had called a cov-

enant people out of Egypt. This makes

the Sabbath a local, Jewish institution.

This is the best interpretation for sev-

eral reasons. The Sabbath as a day en-

joined upon men is not found until the

time of Moses. The first occurrence of

the word Sabbath is in Exodus 16:23.

Secondly, there is no record that the

Sabbath was ever kept until the Jews

kept it. You just have to do all sortsof things to the text of Scripture and

force it to get any Sabbath observance

between the time of Adam and Exodus

16. It just is not there.

Thirdly, the word Sabbath is never

used elsewhere in the Old Testament

except in connection with other Jew-

ish holy days and sacrifices. Its a

Jewish institution. I think one of the

most straightforward reasons that we

could suggest as to why it is a Jewish

institution comes from the reasons that

are given to the Nation of Israel as

to why they are to keep the Sabbath.

Exodus 20:8 says, Remember the

Sabbath day to keep it holy. You have

the reason for the command in Exodus

20:11 which says, For in six days the

Lord made the heavens and the earth,

the sea and all that is in them and

rested on the seventh day, therefore

the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and

made it holy. What he does is to list

as the reason for Sabbath observance

the fact that God rested on the sev-

enth day in creation. Deuteronomy

5:12 states the command: Observe

the Sabbath Day to keep it holy as

the Lord your God commanded you.

Deuteronomy 5:15 says, And youshall remember that you were a slave

in the land of Egypt, and the Lord,

your God, brought you out of there by

a mighty hand and by an outstretched

arm; therefore,, the Lord, your God,

commanded you to observe the Sab-

bath day. The two reasons that are

given in the testimony of Moses in the

whole Mosaic Law where the obser-

vance of Sabbath was the seventh

day rest of God in Exodus 20 and the

deliverance out of Egypt in Deuter-onomy 5. How could they possibly

observe the Sabbath for those reasons

before the event of deliverance out of

Egypt occurred? It is very significant

that these two reasons are put together

because it is the thrust of the Old

Testament to show thatElohim the

creator is Yahweh the moral sovereign,

the two are identified and God is Lord.

They are brought together in Israelite

theology by the revelation of the OldTestament. The God who is creator

is also the God who is redeemer. The

God who is creator is also the God

who imposes his moral will upon his

creatures and makes them morally

accountable. He addresses them from

within the framework of morality, and

it is within the framework of morality

that salvation and redemption exists.

Those two are joined together in the

Old Testament. That is why words

like those at the opening of Isaiah 43where the prophet writes, But now

thus says the Lord your creator Oh Ja-

cob and he who formed you oh Israel,

do not fear for I have redeemed you.

Creator and Redeemer are placed

together which becomes the aggregate

reason for the keeping of the Sabbath.

Elohim, Creator, and Yahweh, Re-

deemer, are put together.

This theme is also continued in the

New Testament with the revelation of

the fullness in Jesus Christ. The hymn

in Colossians 1:15-20 has two stanzas.

In these two stanzas of the hymn it

exalts Christ as the first born over all

creation in verses 15-17, and then it

looks at his role as the redeemer of the

church. It says he is the first born fromamong the dead in verses 18-20. He is

Creator and Redeemer in one. This re-

flects the aggregate reason for keeping

of the Sabbath in the nation of Israel.

Some have imagined a difficulty

with the Jewishness of the Sabbath

institution because it is first mentioned

in Exodus 16 before they ever get to

Sinai in Exodus 20; therefore, they

reason that it was already an existent

institution before the giving of the TenCommandments. The answer to this

is really quite simple. In the statement

of the New Covenant that Jeremiah

records beginning in Jeremiah 31:31-

32 says, 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 covenantnote carefully the

next few words which I made with

their fathers in the day I took them by

the hand to bring them out of the landof Egypt. The wording here is very

significant and E.W. Hengstenberg

in an essay that he wrote on the New

Covenant rightly observed that the

Sinaitic Covenant or the Mosaic Cov-

enant actually went through a process

of ratification that was only climaxed

at Sinai. It actually began with the

Passover. Is it not interesting even to

this day the legislation governing the

Passover, which is understood to be a

part of the law, is found in chapter 12

of Exodus. Please understand that the

process of God forming this cov-

enant with his people began when he

brought them by the hand to lead them

out of Egypt; therefore, they were in

the process of having that covenant

established in that wilderness period

before they got to Sinai when the Sab-

bath was given in Exodus 16.

CarpenterContinued from page 5


11/20

Issue 194 February 2013 Page 11Now there is something else that

may be worthy of observation. The

institution of the Sabbath in Exodus

16 may have a special significance in

that the Sabbath is declared through-

out the Old Testament in both the law

and the prophets to be the sign of the

Mosaic Covenant. It is interesting thatthe sign of the Mosaic Covenant was

given before the covenant itself was

finally ratified at Sinai. This reminds

us of the New Testament and the night

in which Christ was betrayed before

the New Covenant was finally ratified

in his death and resurrection when

he says to his disciples This cup

represents the New Covenant, heres

the sign of the New Covenant, Im

giving it to you. He gave them the

sign before the covenant was finallyratified. The same is true in the Old

Testament with the Mosaic Covenant.

The sign was given, and then the

covenant was ratified at Sinai. In the

New Testament the sign was given

and then the covenant was ratified in

the death and burial and triumphant

resurrection of our Lord. Furthermore,

it cannot be argued that the Jews lost

the Sabbath during their long period

in Egypt in slavery, and then it wasrestored only when they were deliv-

ered from Egypt because in Nehemiah

9:13-14 the statement is made that at


Continued on page 15

the time of Moses: Thou didst make

known to them thy holy Sabbath.

It was a matter of fresh revelation.

Ezekiel 20:12 reads this way: I gave

them my Sabbath. The words that

are used in Nehemiah and in Exodus

do not reflect in either case the idea of

restore. He made known and he gave;it was a new institution that belonged

to his covenant people. When was the

Sabbath given? It was given when

the Lord brought them out of Egypt.

Where did He give it? It was given in

the wilderness. Why did He give it?

It was given as a sign of that Mosaic

Covenant. It can be concluded at this

juncture in our reasoning process of

going through the Old Testament that

the Sabbath was first observed by

Israel in Exodus 16 and is observed

only by Israel throughout the whole

Old Testament.

Outside of the Pentateuch not a

word is said indicating that the Sab-

bath was for anyone but Israel from

Joshua to Job. The Sabbath is not

mentioned, in fact, in the books of

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics,

Daniel and in ten of the twelve Minor

Prophets. Nothing is said in any of the

prophets who do mention it (Isaiah,Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and Amos)

which can be made to apply to anyone

other than the nation of Israel.

for the individual and the community.

After laying out a lot of doctrine, Paul

urges them to live a life worthy of

the calling they have received (4:1).

Romans is similar. There is a lot of

gospel theology in chapters 1-11. It is

only after these glorious chapters that

Paul writes, Therefore, I urge you,

brothers and sisters, in view of Gods

mercy, to offer your bodies as a living

sacrifice. Chapters 12-15 are heavy

on gospel application.

This sort of gospel logic is found

throughout Pauls writings. Richard

Hays writes, Consequently, much

of Pauls moral exhortation takes

the form of reminding his readers to

view their obligations and actions in

the cosmic context of what God has

done in Christ.8 He takes both the

indicative and the imperative with

utmost seriousness and interweaves

them beautifully. Consider Romans

6: In verse 2 Paul writes that we are

those have died to sin, but in verse

11 he turns around and commands us

to Count yourselves dead to sin but

alive to God in Christ Jesus. He is

saying in essence, Act like what youare.9

Romans 6:6 says that our old self

was crucified with Christ and Colos-

sians 3:9-10 says we have taken off

our old self, but Ephesians 4:22-24

commands us to put off our old self

and to put on the new self. Again, we

should act like who we are.

Colossians 3:1-5 says, Since,

then, you have been raised with

Christ, set your hearts on thingsabove, where Christ is, seated at the

right hand of God. Set your minds on

8 Hays,Moral Vision, 39.

9 Act like what you are becomingis prob-

ably more accurate since we are not

yet glorified. This does justice to the

progressive moral transformation that

must accompany our new status.


Continued from page 7

!2/21/12

Dear Friends & Brethren,

Thank you for the valuable magazine "Sound of Grace."

We appreciate your labors and ministry.

A special thanks to John Reisinger.Adeline K.

It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense ofdoctrine.

Walter Shurden


12/20

Page 12 February 2013 Issue 194WhiteContinued from page 1

at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the

truth. Love bears all things, believes

all things, hopes all things, endures

all things. Love never ends. As for

prophecies, they will pass away; as

for tongues, they will cease; as for

knowledge, it will pass away. For we

know in part and we prophesy in part,but when the perfect comes, the partial

will pass away. When I was a child,

I spoke like a child, I thought like a

child, I reasoned like a child. When

I became a man, I gave up childish

ways. For now we see in a mirror

dimly, but then face to face. Now I

know in part; then I shall know fully,

even as I have been fully known. So

now faith, hope, and love abide, these

three; but the greatest of these is love.

(my italics)

In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus is

asked which is the great command-

ment in the Law. He replies, You

shall love the Lord your God with

all your heart and with all your soul

and with all your mind. This is the

great and first commandment. And a

second is like it: You shall love your

neighbor as yourself. On these two

commandments depend all the Law

and the Prophets. Jesus, in Matthew

22:39, quotes Leviticus 19:18b (youshall love your neighbor as yourself).

We know here the neighbor was the

fellow Israelite, but we know that in

the New Covenant our neighbor is

anyone in need of help (Luke 10:25-

37). We are called to do good to all

but especially to those who are of the

household of faith (Gal 6:10).

Vertical love and horizontal love

are inextricably bound together. Away

with the talk of a personal relation-ship with Jesus that is disconnected

to other believers. Divine love issues

in interpersonal love.5 Everythingis

done allln.6 One cannot claim to

5 Craig L. Blomberg,Matthew. The New

American Commentary, (Nashville:

Broadman Press, 1992), 335.

6 Gordon Fee,Paul, the Spirit, and the

People of God(Peabody, MA: Hen-

drickson, 1996), 66.

love Christ without love for the body

of Christ. There is an intense unity

between Christ and his people. So

when Saul was persecuting Christians,

Jesus says, Saul, Saul, why are you

persecuting me? (Acts 9:4; cf. Matt

25:40).7 John says that if a person

claims to love God, yet hates hisbrother or sister, he is a liar (1 John

4:20). And this commandment we

have from him: whoever loves God

must also love his brother (1 John

4:21).

The phrase law of Christ only

occurs once in the Bible in Galatians

6:2. Preceding this verse, Paul wrote,

For you were called to freedom,

brothers. Only do not use your free-

dom as an opportunity for thefl

esh,but through love serve one another.

For the whole law is fulfilled in one

word: You shall love your neighbor as

yourself (Gal 5:13-14). Amazingly,

Paul says that true freedom comes by

becoming slaves (douleuete) of one

another through love!8 The gospel

frees us to lovingly serve our broth-

ers and sisters. Then Paul says that

the whole law is fulfilled in one word,

citing Leviticus 19:18: You shall love

your neighbor as yourself. The onewho loves his neighbor has fulfilled

what the law demands, and has thus

fulfilled the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).

Pauls teaching in Romans 13:8-10 is

very similar:

Owe no one anything, except to

love each other, for the one who loves

another has fulfilled the law. For the

commandments, You shall not com-

mit adultery, You shall not murder, You

shall not steal, You shall not covet,

and any other commandment, are

summed up in this word: You shall

7 Richard N. Longenecker,Paul: Apostle

of Liberty (New York: Harper and

Row, 1964), 204.

8 Gordon Fee writes, Freedom from

the enslavement of Torah paradoxi-

cally means to take on a new form of

slavery that of loving servant hood

to one another, Gods Empowering

Presence, 426.

love your neighbor as yourself. Love

does no wrong to a neighbor; there-

fore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Love is not at odds with command-

ments. The commandments not to

commit adultery, murder, steal, and

covet are simply other ways of saying

love your neighbor. James 2:8 says,If you really fulfill the royal law

according to the Scripture, You shall

love your neighbor as yourself, you

are doing well.

Love is central to the law of

Christ.9 Christians are called to seek

the good of our neighbor, not our self

(1 Cor 10:24). Above all, we are to

put on love, which binds everything

together in perfect harmony (Col

3:14). Paul tells Timothy, The aim ofour charge is love that issues from a

pure heart and a good conscience and

a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). We are to

love one another with brotherly af-

fection (Rom 12:10). Paul prays that

the Lord would make us increase and

abound in love for one another and

for all (1 Thess 3:12). Everything we

do is to be done in love (1 Cor 16:24).

Peter writes, Having purified your

souls by your obedience to the truth

for a sincere brotherly love, love one

another earnestly from a pure heart

(1 Pet 1:22). All we do is for the glory

of God (1 Cor 10:31), but the immedi-

ate context of this verse is all about

the other: giving no offense to Jews or

Greeks or the church, trying to please

everyone in everything we do, not

seeking my own advantage but that of

many (1 Cor 10:32-33).

John also emphasizes the central-

ity of love. Whoever loves his brotherabides in the light (1 John 2:10). The

one who does not love his brother is

not a child of God but of the devil (1

John 3:10). For this is the message

that you have heard from the begin-

ning, that we should love one another

9 Moo, The Law of Christ as the Fulfill-

ment of the Law of Moses, inFive

Views on Law and Gospel(Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 368.


13/20


WhiteContinued on page 19

(1 John 3:11, cf. 2 John 5-6). We

know that we have passed out of death

into life, because we love the broth-

ers. Whoever does not love abides

in death (1 John 3:14). By this we

know love, that he laid down his life

for us, and we ought to lay down our

lives for the brothers (1 John 3:16).And this is his commandment, that

we believe in the name of his Son

Jesus Christ and love one another,

just as he has commanded us (1 John

3:23).

First Thessalonians 4:7-9 is a very

informative passage for the centrality

of love in the New Covenant law of

Christ: For God has not called us for

impurity, but in holiness. Therefore

whoever disregards this, disregardsnot man but God, who gives his Holy

Spirit to you. Now concerning broth-

erly love, you have no need for any-

one to write to you, for you yourselves

have been taught by God to love one

another. Three key Old Testament

New Covenant passages are Jeremiah

31, Isaiah 54, and Ezekiel 36, and

Paul alludes to all three in this impor-

tant passage. The Lord had prophesied

through the prophet Ezekiel that he

would sprinkle clean water on you,and you shall be clean from all your

uncleannesses, and from all your idols

I will cleanse you. And I will give you

a new heart, and a new spirit I will

put within you. And I will remove the

heart of stone from yourflesh and give

you a heart offlesh. And I will put

my Spirit within you, and cause you

to walk in my statutes and be careful

to obey my rules (Ezek 36:25-27, cf.

11:19).

In the new age the Lord would

pour out his Spirit empowering the

new Israel to walk in obedience. In the

chapter thirty-seven, Ezekiel recalled

the valley of the dry bones upon

whom YHWHwould pour out his

Spirit and bring life to the dead (Ezek

37:6, 14). Paul is clearly alluding to

this passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:8:10

10 T.J. Deidun,New Covenant Moral-

1 Thess 4:8: kaididonta to pneuma-

autou to hagioneishymas

Ezek 36:27 LXX: kai to

pneumamouds en hymin

Ezek 37:14 LXX: kaids to pneu-

mamoueishymas

1 Thess 4:8: who gives his HolySpirit to you

Ezek 36:27:And I will put my

Spirit within you

Ezek 37:14:And I will put my

Spirit within you

We have seen above that the New

Testament writers viewed the New

Covenant as having been inaugurated

by the death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ. The Spirit was poured out atPentecost (Acts 2). We have Gods

Spirit and a new heart.11 Jesus appeals

to Ezekiel 36 in his conversation with

Nicodemus: unless one is born of

water and the Spirit, he cannot enter

the kingdom of God. That which is

born of the flesh is flesh, and that

which is born of the Spirit is spirit

(John 3:5-6).12 Jesus rebuked him

for not being familiar with this truth

though he was a teacher of Israel. The

New Covenant is here, bringing with

it the new birth where we are given

the Spirit and a new heart. Being born

from above enables and empowers

believers to love one another. Be-loved, let us love one another, for love is

from God, and whoever loves has been

ity in Paul(Rome: Biblical Institute

Press, 1981), 18-22, 55-57; Jeffrey

A.D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians, in

Commentary on the New Testament

Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K.

Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids:

Baker Academic, 2007), 878-880.

11 Commenting on 1 Thess 4:8, Gordon

Fee writes, This usage reflects a Pau-

line understanding of the gift of the

Spirit as the fulfillment of OT prom-

ises that Gods own Spirit will come to

indwell his people, Gods Empower-

ing Presence, 52.

12 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According

to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1991), 194-95.

born of Godand knows God (1 John 4:7

my italics).

In the next verse, Paul says, Now

concerning brotherly love, you have

no need for anyone to write to you,

for you yourselves have been taught

by God to love one another (1 Thess

4:9). Because the Thessalonians havebeen given the New Covenant prom-

ise of the Spirit, they have no need

for instruction (though Paul is writ-

ing them in this verse). They have

been taught by God (theodidaktoi) to

love one another. Paul makes up this

word theodidaktoi, but he is surely

alluding to at least two passages:

Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31, where we

find promises that in the New Cov-

enant age God himself will teach hispeople.13 In Jeremiahs great New

Covenant passage we read, I will put

my law within them, and I will write

it on their hearts. And I will be their

God, and they shall be my people.

And no longer shall each one teach his

neighbor and each his brother, say-

ing, Know the Lord, for they shall

all know me, from the least of them

to the greatest, declares the Lord (Jer

31:33-34; cf. 2 Cor 3:3). In the New

Covenant, we are taught by God. Allwill know the Lord. Putting together

several texts (Jer 31, Ezek 11, 36,

Joel 2) we see that all will know the

Lord because all will have the Spirit.

John writes, But the anointing that

you received from him abides in you,

and you have no need that anyone

should teach you (1 John 2:27). John

was clearly aware of the promises of

Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36.14

Paul also clearly alludes to orquotes Isaiah 54:13: All your chil-

dren shall be taught by the Lord

(didaktoustheou).15 Isaiah is referring

to the children of the New Covenant

13 Deidun,New Covenant Morality in

Paul, 20. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians,

879.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.


14/20


The 2013 John Bunyan Conference is scheduled for April 22-24

at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA

Speakers and Topics:

Gary George New Covenant Theology and Pastoral Ministry - 2 Messages

James M. Hamilton, Jr. Biblical Theology - 3 Messages

David Robinson Preaching Sovereignty in the Old Testament - 2 Messages

Kirk WellumJesus Christ: the Architect and Apex of the ChurchThe Wisdom of God

A. Blake WhiteTowards a Missional Ecclesiology - 2 MessagesThe Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians

Lodging for the conference is available at a reduced rate at the Country Inn and Suites by Carlson in Lewisburg, PA.Just mention that you would like accommodations for the John Bunyan Conference to receive a double occupancy

room for only $90.00 per night which includes a nice continental breakfast.

Reservations must be made by no later than April 6, 2013 to receive this reduced rate.

Reservations at the Country Inn and Suites may be made by calling 800-456-4000 or 570-524-6600. Their website is

www.countryinns.com/lewisburgpa and the address is 134 Walter Drive, Route 15, PO Box 46, Lewisburg, PA 17837.

Meals for lunch and dinner will be available at the church.

The registration is $75.00 per individual and includes five meals.

Space for meals is limited and registration will be restricted to the first 80 individuals who register. Please register by

no later than April 6, 2013. Sign-in for the conference will be from 9:30 to 10:45 am Monday, April 22, 2013

at Reformed Baptist Church.

Please call 301-473-8781 or [email protected] register; Discover, Visa or MasterCard accepted.Please register by no later than April 6, 2013.

REGISTRATION FOR THE 2013 JOHN BUNYAN CONFERENCE, LEWISBURG, PA

APRIL 22-24, 2013

Register me for the 2013 John Bunyan Conference. Enclosed is a check for $75.00.

Register me for the 2013 John Bunyan Conference. Enclosed is a check for $30.00; I will pay the remaining $45.00

upon sign-in.

Make the check payable to Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries with a note For 2013 John Bunyan

Conference and mail to 5317 Wye Creek Dr, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Name: _________________________________________________________________

Address: _______________________________________________________________City: ___________________________________________________________________

State/Province Zip/Postal Code: ________________________________________________

VISA MasterCard Discover ______ ______ ______ ______ Exp Date ____/____ CCV No. _____

Phone: _______________________ Email: ____________________________________

If you would like to make arrangements with another individual to share a room and its costs, please so indicate and

we will maintain a list of any who may be interested in such an arrangement.

Name: _____________________________________ Gender: __________________________

Phone: __________________________________ Email: ___________________________

The John Bunyan Conference


15/20



Continued from page 11

things above, not on earthly things.

For you died, and your life is now hid-

den with Christ in God. When Christ,

who is your life, appears, then you

also will appear with him in glory. Put

to death, therefore, whatever belongs

to your earthly nature: sexual immo-

rality, impurity, lust, evil desires andgreed, which is idolatry. We have

been raised with Christ and therefore

should set our hearts on things above.

We died with Christ and therefore

should put to death whatever belongs

to our earthly nature. Become what

you are.

Galatians 5:1, 5:25, and Ephesians

5:8 contain both the indicative and the

imperative in a single verse! Verse 1

of Galatians 5 reads, It is for freedom

that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,

then, and do not let yourselves be

burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Lets paraphrase what Paul is say-

ing here: Christ has set us free. Be

free. Behave in line with what God

has done for you in Christ. Verse 25

of Galatians 5 reads, Since we liveby the Spirit, let us keep in step with

the Spirit. In other words, Since we

live by the Spirit, let us live by the

Spirit. Ephesians 5:8 reads, For you

were once darkness, but now you are

light in the Lord. Live as children of

light. To paraphrase again: You are

children of light. Live as children of

light.

Philippians 2:12-13 is a classic

verse for this relationship: Therefore,

my dear friends, as you have always

obeyed not only in my presence,

but now much more in my absence

continue to work out your salvation

with fear and trembling, for it is God

who works in you to will and to act in

order to fulfill his good purpose. We

are called to work because it is God at

work.Galatians 3:27 says that we who

were baptized into Christ have clothed

ourselves with Christ, but Romans

13:14 commands us to clothe our-

selves with Christ. So clothe yourself

with Christ because you are clothed

with Christ!

Become what you are.

Speakers2013 John Bunyan Conference

Gary George is a life-long resident of Worcester County, Massachusetts in the heart of New England. He has been

the pastor of Sovereign Grace Chapel in Southbridge, MA since 1992. Gary and his wife Michelle have five grown

children.

Jim Hamilton is Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at Southern Seminary and Preaching Pastor at Kenwood

Baptist Church in Louisville, KY. He previously taught at the Houston Campus of Southwestern Seminary and is the

author ofGods Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments (B&H 2006), Gods Glory in

Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Crossway 2010), andRevelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches

(Crossway 2012).

David Robinson is pastor of Grace Bible Church in Cambridge Ontario. He has been pastor for the last eighteen

years and recently planted a church (Redeemer Bible Church) in nearby Kitchener. David is married to Eva and they

have three children.

Kirk Wellum is the Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College where he also teaches Systematic and

Pastoral Theology. Before coming to TBS Kirk served as a pastor for a total of 24 years in three churches in SouthernOntario. He has written numerous articles for a variety of Christian magazines and has spoken at conferences in Canada,

the United States, the UK, and Africa. Kirk is married and has four children.

A. Blake White is currently working on a PhD in Systematic and Biblical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theo-

logical Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He has authored seven books and is married to Alicia. They have two boys,

Josiah and Asher.

Kirk Wellum will present two pre-conference messages Sunday, April 21 at 9:30 and 10:45 am atReformed Baptist Church.

For further information, please contact the church directly:

Reformed Baptist Church, 830 Buffalo Road, Lewisburg, PA 17837.Phone (570) 524-7488; Website: www.rbclewisburg.org; Email: [email protected]


16/20


heritancenow that he has died as a

ransom to set them free from the sins

committed under thefirst covenant.

(Heb. 9:14-15 NIV)

For Christ did not enter a man-

made sanctuary that was only a copy

of the true one; he entered heavenitself, now to appear for us in Gods

presence. Nor did he enter heaven to

offer himself again and again, the way

the high priest enters the Most Holy

Place every year with blood that is not

his own. Then Christ would have had

to suffer many times since the creation

of the world. But now he has appeared

once for all at the end of the ages to

do away with sin by the sacrifice of

himself. Just as man is destined to die

once, and after that to face judgment,

so Christ was sacrificed once to takeaway the sins of many people; and he

will appear a second time, not to bear

sin, but to bring salvation to those who

are waiting for him. (Heb. 9:24-28

NIV)

It has been noted that there were

no chairs in the tabernacle because

the priestly work of sacrifice was

neverfinished. After our Lord made

his once-for-all-time sacrifice, he sat

down because his sacrificial work

was done.

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to

them, he was taken up into heaven andhe sat at the right hand of God. (Mark

16:19; cf. Heb. 8:1)

We have looked at the first of the

three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6. We

have seen how the first comparison

insists that Christs ministry of High

Priest is better than Aarons ministry.

We will now look at the second com-

parison.

The second comparison in

Hebrews 8:6 is between the twocovenants. The writer states that the

primary reason Christs ministry suc-

ceeded where Aarons ministry failed

is because Christs ministry as High

Priest is based on a better covenant.

Everything depends on the nature of


ReisingerContinued on p age 18

the covenant under which a priest

ministers. Christ succeeds where Aar-

on failed simply because of Aarons

inability to meet the terms of the cov-

enant under which he ministered. Our

Lord perfectly fulfills the demands of

the Old Covenant and then establishes

a new and better covenant based onbetter terms. The New Covenant un-

der which Christ ministered is based

on grace, but the Old Covenant under

which Aaron ministered was based on

works. The efficacy of the sacrifice

and the intercession can only be as

effective as the covenant under which

that work is done. What was needed

was a new covenant not merely a new

administration of the same covenant.

What was the major weakness in the

Old Covenant that necessitated it be-ing totally replaced with a new and

better covenant? The answer is quite

simple. Aaron could not meet the

terms of the Old Covenant for either

himself or for those he represented.

Postage & Handling Rates

United States

Up to $20.00 $3.95

$20.01$50.00 $6.00

$50.01 and Up 12%


OverseasDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Please call or e-mail for rates


CanadaDiscover, VISA or

MasterCard

Up to $30.00 $7.50

$30.01 and Up 25%

Ship to: _________ ______ ______ ______ _____

Street address: __________________________

City: _______________ State: ___ ___Zip: ___ _

Country: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _

My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed

Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard

Expires _______/_______

Account Number: ______/______/______/______

Signature: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ __

S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

** The following boo

Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013

Documents

Transcript of Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013