Sound of Grace, Issue 204, February 2014

thew portrays Jesus as a new Moses. ‘Matthew portrays Jesus as the new Moses, who provides the new Israel with her new law (especially in Mt 5-7).’1 Without doubt, there are a number of striking parallels in Matthew between Mo-ses and Christ. Typical is the list adapted from Westerholm and summarized below:2

• Shortly after birth, both barely escape death at the hands of a wicked ruler.

• Early in life, both spend time in Egypt.

1 Bartholomew; O’Dowd, Old Testament Wisdom Literature: A Theological Introduction, 240.

2 Stephen Westerholm, Understanding Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006), 68-69.

This is the third study on “Christ Our New Covenant King.” Some of the material in this article should have been given in the first of these studies. Nearly everyone agrees with most of what we said about Christ as our Prophet and Priest, but there is great disagreement concerning Christ in the role of King. The primary reason for the disagreement centers on Dispensationalism’s position on the establishing of a future earthly kingdom with one of David’s sons sitting on the throne of that kingdom as king. This is referred to as “the Davidic kingdom.”

Scripture is quite clear in 2 Samuel 7:1-17 and 1 Chronicles 17:1-15 that God promised David that he, God, would establish a future kingdom and raise up one of David’s sons to sit as king on a throne in that kingdom. No one disputes the fact of that covenant; however, all do not agree on either the nature of the promised kingdom to David or the time of the promise being fulfilled. I would insist that the kingdom promised to David was a spiritual kingdom that was established by Christ at his first coming. I believe Christ is already sitting on the throne of that kingdom. The kingdom promised to David is the Church and Christ is David’s greater son. Classical Dispensationalism

Issue 2 0 4 Febr ua r y 2 014

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

Christ, Our New Covenant King #3John G. Reisinger

When we come to the NT, a dominant theme is that of a progression and fulfillment from OT revelation to the per-son and work of Christ. Jesus himself told the two disciples on the road to Emmaus that ‘all the Scriptures’ spoke of him (Luke 24:27, cf. Acts 3:24). Jesus was the prophet that was to come after Moses (Matt. 17:1-8; Acts 3:22-23; 7:37). The faithful were now to listen to him. The wisdom of the OT found its fullest expression in the life and words of Christ. All the promises of the OT era found their fulfill-ment in Christ (2 Cor. 1:20). Many OT types and shadows were found to have anticipated Christ. Likewise, many OT prophecies pointed to Christ in various ways. Here we are primarily interested in seeing how Christ has become a more perfect expression of the wisdom of God.

Many writers have emphasized that the gospel of Mat-

Law, Wisdom and Christ A Study in Biblical Theology–Part 3–Christ

Stan F. Vaninger

Reisinger—Continued on page 2

Vaninger—Continued on page 12

In This IssueChrist, Our New Covenant King #3

John G. Reisinger

1

Law, Wisdom and Christ, A Study in Biblical Theology, Part 3, Christ

Stan F. Vaninger

1

Shepherding the New Covenant Flock: Part 3 of 6 Shepherding Imagery in the OT: The Lord is my Shepherd

Steve West

3

New Covenant Theology— Questions Answered

A. Blake White

5

February 2014 Issue 204Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign

Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt 501(c)3 corporation. 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 God’s sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology. We invite all who love these same truths to pray for 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 VanWing-erden 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, Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or SOGNCM.org

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNA-TIONAL VERSION® Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by Permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NKJV” are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permission. 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. All rights reserved.

Contributions Orders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contri-bution to 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 expiration 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 pdf file 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.

Reisinger—Continued from page 1


disagrees and insists that the kingdom promised to David was an earthly kingdom, and it is not yet established. Jesus is said to have offered that kingdom to the Jews at his first coming, and they rejected it. It was postponed and will be fulfilled in a future earthly millennium. The following note in the first edition of the Scofield Bible sets forth classical Dispensationalism’s position on the Davidic kingdom and throne. The quotation is listed in the footnote titled “four forms of the Gospel.” The quotation is the first form mentioned.

II. Four forms of the Gospel are to be distinguished:

(1) The Gospel of the kingdom. This is the good news that God purposes to set up on the earth, in fulfilment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. vii. 8, and refs.), a kingdom, political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God’s Son, David’s heir, shall be King, and which shall be, for one thousand years, the manifestation of the righteousness of God in human affairs.1

Dispensationalism is clear that Christ is not yet reigning as king. These writers will often state that Christ is our Prophet, Priest and coming King. The following Scofield footnote defining the second “form of the Gospel” refers to Jesus as the “rejected king.” It is the second of four forms of the Gospel.

(2) The Gospel of the grace of God. This is the good news that Jesus Christ, the rejected King (emphasis mine), has died on the cross for the sins of the world, that He was raised from the dead for our justification, and that by Him all that believe are justified from all things.…2

I do not believe that it was a “rejected king” that died on the 1 C.I. Scofield, The First Scofield Refer-

ence Bible (Westwood, NJ, Barbour and Company, 1986) 1343.

2 Ibid.

cross for my sins. I totally reject the statement “Jesus Christ, the rejected King, has died on the cross.” It was not a rejected king that died for me. This idea is a necessary consequence of holding the postponement theory. I believe the death of Christ on the cross is the good news that Jesus Christ, not a rejected king, but God’s anointed Son and ordained Prophet, Priest and King, has, in perfect fulfillment of the eternal purpose and promise of the Father, died on the cross as promised and covenanted. It is no accident that another consequence of rejecting the present kingship of Christ is the carnal Christian doctrine. Many modern dispensationalists reject the carnal Christian doctrine, but others say such people are inconsistent in so doing. I am sure it is not intended, but Scofield in the above quotation makes the cross sound like a “plan B” or after-thought. God’s real purpose and goal, or plan A, was establishing the earthly kingdom, but the Jews refused to go along with that, so plan B, the cross and the Church, was put into effect. Plan A was “postponed” until the second coming of Christ. The nature of the kingdom and its supposed rejection and postponement is at the heart of the theology of Dispensationalism. It seems to me this down grades the cross even though that was certainly not its intention.

It might be good to mention several things that are often not discussed when Dispensationalism is taught. For instance, the footnote just quoted defines the kingdom promised to David as being “political, spiritual, Israelitish, universal, over which God’s Son, David’s heir, shall reign as King.” If Jesus would have offered the Jews a kingdom that was “political, spiritual, Israelitish and universal,” they would have accepted it without hesitation. They would never have crucified him. They would have shouted, “Amen!” Those words,

Issue 204 February 2014

West—Continued on page 18

sheep and find homes for them—but not cars. My five year old daughter chimed in that Daniel was a shepherd and drove away lions and bears by throwing rocks at them. She then cor-rected Daniel to David.

All in all I thought that wasn’t bad. A few things struck me about their re-sponses. First, they have been taught. They are intelligent (of course!) but they have also been taught some basic biblical content which gives them the necessary framework in which they can think through an easy biblical metaphor (without having the faint-est idea what the word “metaphor” means). Second, the imagery seems very natural and intuitive to them. Once they have identified God as the shepherd and people as his sheep, the imagery seems to run along very smoothly. It simply unfolds itself. Third, although we did not read Psalm 23 or any other biblical passage before I heard their answers, much of what they said can easily be found in Psalm 23. Compare the list:

1. God drives away Satan and our enemies. “I will fear no evil.” “You prepare a table before me in the pres-ence of my enemies.” “Your rod [a shepherd’s weapon] and your staff, they comfort me.”

2. God finds us food to eat and water to drink. “I lack nothing.” “He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me beside quiet waters.”

3. God provides us with a home. “…and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.”

4. God watches over us. Surely that is a fair summary of the ethos of the psalm.

I believe that God’s people love

This is the Word of the Lord:The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing. He makes me lie down in green pas-tures, he leads me beside quiet waters, he refreshes my soul. He guides me along the right paths for his name’s sake. Even though I walk through the dark-est valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies. You anoint my head with oil; my cup overflows. Surely your goodness and love will follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. (Psalm 23 NIV)

Although many people in our society have never seen a live flock of sheep being watched over by a shep-herd, the pastoral image still resonates in a profoundly deep way. This is true for both young and old. Just now I was sitting at the breakfast table with my two daughters who are seven and five. I asked them if they would like to help me work on an article. They said yes. I told them I wanted help thinking about what the Bible means when it calls God a shepherd. “How,” I asked, “is God like a shepherd?”

My seven-year-old immediately said that shepherds drive away bears and wolves from their sheep, and since we’re God’s sheep he will drive away Satan from us so we can be safe. I asked what else shepherds do. She thought for a moment and then said that shepherds care for their sheep and get them food and water. Then she added that shepherds watch over their

this imagery because—as art does—it allows us to think of God in a symbol-ic way that touches us deeply in our hearts without bypassing our intellect. The general impression the metaphor creates is one of a strong, competent, caring overseer watching over and tending a group that needs help and is dependent upon their leader. It can be frightening to consider how many dangers—physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual—there are in this world: if your lot in life is to be a sheep sur-rounded by wolves, it is quite com-forting (to say nothing of necessary) to have an omnicompetent shepherd around who loves you.

During times of sadness, despair, confusion, and loss, Psalm 23 can be a tremendous aid. But the Lord our shepherd is also a cause for exuberant rejoicing. Read and feel the celebra-tory exclamation of praise found in Psalm 100:

Shout for joy to the Lord, all the earth. Worship the Lord with gladness; come before him with joyful songs. Know that the Lord is God. It is he who made us, and we are his; we are his people, the sheep of his pasture. Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thanks to him and praise his name. For the Lord is good and his love endures forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations.

Notice that embedded in this psalm of praise is the imagery of our being related to God as his sheep. There is no need for the psalmist to elaborate on the imagery; there is no extended discourse or even any sketching out of other aspects of the metaphor. For the

Shepherding the New Covenant Flock: Part 3 of 6 Shepherding Imagery in the OT: The Lord is my Shepherd

Steve West

February 2014 Issue 204

especially the word Israeltitish, perfectly describe the very kind of kingdom the Jews wanted. Another point established in the quotation is that this covenant made with David has not yet been fulfilled. It will be fulfilled when the millennium is supposedly established. The New Testament makes it clear the Davidic kingdom is already established.

The whole subject of an earthly kingdom would be much easier to understand if we remembered one clear fact. The whole idea of an earthly kingdom and king to rule over Israel was born out of Israel’s rebellion to God. The first mention of an earthly kingdom is found in 1 Samuel 8. Israel insisted they wanted “to be like the other nations” and have a king. Their desire for a king was a deliberate rejection of God as their king.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.” But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king (1 Sam. 8:4-7).

God instructed Samuel to warn the Israelites of the demands that a king would make of them and told them that they would be sorry for rejecting him as their king.

As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.” Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over

you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:8-18).

The people refused to heed God’s warning but insisted that they wanted a king. They wanted to be “like all the other nations.” They chose Saul as their king and suffered the disastrous results. Regardless of what millennial view you hold it must take into account the fact that an earthly king over God’s people is an earthly kingdom “like the other nations” and is born out of Israel’s conscious and deliberate rejection of God as their king. There is no mention or intimation that God desired an earthly king to be established. The idea totally originated in Israel’s rejection of God as their king.

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king…” (1 Sam. 8:19-22).

In 1 Samuel 12, Samuel recounts some of Israel’s history and reminds

them of their rash decision to reject God as their king and choose an earthly king to rule over them, “… you said unto me, Nay; but a king shall rule over us: when the Lord your God was your king” (1 Sam. 12:12). It seems to me that any doctrine that has its origins in man’s rebellion should at least make us tread lightly. We surely should not use something born out of rebellion to God as the foundation points of an important doctrine.

I am sure that many of my readers would like to ask, “Why would God deliberately allow Israel to choose an earthly king and reject him as their king.” I cannot answer that question nor can anyone else. We may speculate and come up with some very plausible reasons, but they would all be mere speculation. We face two dangers in seeking to understand Scripture. One, we need the courage to follow Scripture as far as it goes on any subject. We must neither avoid nor minimize anything Scripture says. Many sincere people feel a subject should be avoided if it is controversial. That is saying that God put something in Scripture that should not be there. If God put something in Scripture, we must seek to understand it. Two, we need the humility to stop where God stops. Hyper-Calvinism uses human logic to deduce more than Scripture actually says. John Calvin emphasized this need for humility when discussing predestination. He said we must admit to having a “learned ignorance.” Logic is a wonderful handmaid but a hard master. Logic cannot deduce truth that is not stated in actual texts of Scripture. It is just as arrogant to add our human wisdom to Scripture as it is to detract from Scripture.

The kingship of David begins with his secret anointing by Samuel as recorded in 1 Samuel 16. That is an interesting passage. God instructs Samuel to anoint one of Jesse the




1. What is New Covenant Theol-ogy (NCT)?

New Covenant Theology (here-after NCT) is a biblical–theological system that strives to use biblical language when possible, takes the pro-gressive nature of revelation seriously, and sees the new covenant as the goal and climax of the previous biblical covenants. In What is New Covenant Theology, I have briefly mapped out seven essential points:

1. One plan of God centered in Jesus Christ

2. The Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New Testa-ment

3. The Old Covenant was tempo-rary by divine design

4. The Law is a unit

5. Christians are not under the Law of Moses but the ‘Law’ of Christ

6. All members of the New Cov-enant community have the Holy Spirit

7. The church Is the eschatological Israel

If the reader is aware of the other two major systems of theology, they will see that some of these points fit within Covenant Theology (hereafter CT), while others fit more within Dis-pensational Theology (hereafter DT), but taken together, these points make up a unique system of theology.

2. How does New Covenant The-ology differ from Covenant Theol-ogy (CT)?

With so many different theolo-gians, who bring their own nuances,

it is hard to paint with a broad brush without mischaracterizing at least some, but generally speaking the main differences between NCT and CT are four:

First, CT sees more continuity across the canon than NCT does. With their theological category of “cove-nant of grace,” CT tends to flatten out the biblical covenants. Specifically, it tends to reduce the new covenant merely to a renewed covenant. When Jeremiah prophesied of a new cov-enant, he was explicitly clear: “This one will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt” (Jer. 31:32 HCSB; cf. Ezek. 16:61). The new covenant will not be like the old one. It will be different, radically so. CT is correct in seeing redemptive history structured around two covenants but wrong in identifying them as the so–called “covenant of grace” and “covenant of works.” There is one plan of God centered in and on the Messiah, struc-tured around two covenants–the old and the new. One pointing to Him; the other ratified by Him.

Second and related, NCT dif-fers from CT’s view of the nature of the new covenant community. If the new covenant is different from the old covenant, so are the correspond-ing communities of those covenants. Again, Jeremiah 31 is clear; in the new covenant, no longer will a cov-enant member say to another covenant member “Know the Lord,” for every member of the covenant community will have circumcised hearts (Deut. 30:6, Ezek. 36:25-27). They will all

know the Lord. In short, the new covenant community is a regenerate community, unlike Israel, who was a mixed community of the faithful remnant and the stiff-necked idolaters. Both the faithful and the idolatrous received the covenant sign. Building on the first difference, this is where Pentecost brings discontinuity. The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit in every member of the new covenant community is new. So in John we read, “Those who believed in Jesus were going to receive the Spirit, for the Spirit had not yet been received because Jesus had not yet been glorified” (John 7:39, cf 14:16-17, 16:7). Clearly, the Spirit had not yet been given before Pentecost. Israel’s experience of the Spirit was not the same as the church’s (Num. 11:29, Joel 2:28-29, Isa. 32:15, 44:3).

Third and related still, NCT differs from CT on the relationship between the church and Israel. It is not quite right to say that the church is Israel and Israel is the church. Scripture doesn’t make that straightforward, unmediated type of connection. The pattern is not Israel = Church, but Israel = Messiah = Church. Galatians 3:29 reads, “If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to the promise.” There is an eschatological difference between Is-rael and the church. The new covenant is new. Again, this also has implica-tions for the nature of the new cov-enant community. To be a part of this new covenant community, one must be united to Christ, the instrument of which is faith. If being in Christ, the singular seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16),

White—Continued on page 7

New Covenant Theology—Questions AnsweredA. Blake White



in a palace of cedar, while the ark of God remains in a tent.” Nathan replied to the king, “Whatever you have in mind, go ahead and do it, for the Lord is with you.” That night the word of the Lord came to Nathan, saying: “Go and tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord says: Are you the one to build me a house to dwell in? I have not dwelt in a house from the day I brought the Israelites up out of Egypt to this day. I have been moving from place to place with a tent as my dwelling. Wherever I have moved with all the Israelites, did I ever say to any of their rulers whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, “Why have you not built me a house of cedar?” ‘“Now then, tell my servant David, ‘This is what the Lord Almighty says: I took you from the pasture and from following the flock to be ruler over my people Israel. I have been with you wherever you have gone, and I have cut off all your enemies from before you. Now I will make your name great, like the names of the greatest men of the earth. And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies. “‘The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’“ Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation (2 Sam 7:1-17 NIV).

The heart of God’s covenant with David is found in verse 13: “He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne

Bethelemite’s sons as king. Samuel assumes it would be Eliab, the oldest son. Samuel thought, “Surely, the Lord’s anointed is before him,” but God said no and then gave Samuel a lesson on choosing leadership.

“… Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam 16:7).

You would think that Israel would have learned the folly of judging by outward appearance. Saul won the beauty contest by unanimous vote, but he was a dud. He was not God’s man. Jesse brought in every son until only David was left, and each time God said no. Jesse did not even bring in David. Samuel had to ask, “Are there no more sons?” Then David was brought in, and God told Samuel, “That’s my man.” It will be a long and tumultuous time before David is anointed king by all of Israel. After Saul’s death he will be anointed by the tribe of Judah (2 Samuel 2) and later by all 12 tribes (2 Samuel 5).

The next important event in David’s kingship is God making a covenant with David. It is recorded in 2 Samuel 7 and I Chronicles 17. David has been anointed king over all Israel. He wants to build a house for God to dwell in. He shares his desire with Nathan the prophet, and Nathan says, “Go ahead, God is with you.” That night God told Nathan that he did not want David to build him a house. God then promises to build a house for David. That house is the Church and David’s greater son who will build the house is Christ. That is not speculation on my part; it is quoting the New Testament interpretation of the Davidic covenant.

After the king was settled in his palace and the Lord had given him rest from all his enemies around him, he said to Nathan the prophet, “Here I am, living

of his kingdom forever.” Hebrews 3:6 specifically calls the Church God’s house, “But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, …” Believers are the true and final temple of God in which God dwells. We are the true house of David. Christ is David’s greater son and is building the true house of God out of living stones. Again, this is not speculation; it is quoting the New Testament. In 2 Samuel 7:12 part of the promise to David was that God would “raise up thy seed after thee.” When Peter quotes that text in Acts 2:30, he changes the word “seed” to the word “Christ,” “… he would raise up Christ (David’s seed) to sit on his throne.”

Look at the two texts: When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring (“seed” – KJV) to succeed you, … (2 Samuel 7:12 NIV). Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; (Acts 2:30 KJV).

David understood that God was talking about Christ. David also understood that when God said he would “set up thy seed after thee” (2 Samuel 7:12), he was talking about the resurrection of Christ. Again, this is quoting the New Testament Scriptures. Peter is interpreting the Davidic covenant recorded in 2 Samuel 7.

Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses (Acts 2:30-32 KJV).

This covenant was the basis for David’s hope in both life and death.



is what constitutes membership in the end-time Israel, then faith is neces-sary–which infants cannot exercise. The church consists of believers only.

Fourth and finally, NCT differs from CT on the notion of law. “Re-formed Baptists” would mostly agree on the previous three disagreements, but it is this issue that separates Re-formed Baptists from New Covenant Theologians. The confessions where CT is found (viz. Westminster and the Second London of 1689), force CT to hold the Decalogue as God’s eternal moral law. NCT sees the Decalogue as part of the old covenant law, which Christians are no longer under. Since nine of the Ten Commandments are repeated in the New Testament, they pose no problem. The Sabbath, how-ever, does. It seems to us that the New Testament is clear that Christians are no longer under the Sabbath, and we see no exegetical warrant for changing the original commandment to make six days of work optional or chang-ing it to Sunday. Rather, Hebrews 3-4 shows that the Sabbath has been ful-filled by rest in Christ (cf. Matt 11:28-12:8). In one of the most shocking passages in the New Testament, Paul said that to return to the Sabbath was to return to enslavement to paganism (Gal. 4:8-10). He said the Sabbath was a shadow, but the body is Christ (Col. 2:16-17), and even went so far as to say one should do whatever their own mind was convinced of (Rom. 14:5), a far cry from Exodus 20:8 on any reading.

Those who seek to enforce the Sabbath on new covenant Christians would do well to heed Paul’s teach-ing and warnings on this very matter. His rebuke is sharp. In fairness, I do realize that most CT advocates are not seeking to enforce the Sabbath on Christians. In fact, most live life on the weekends just like I do. But it must be pointed out that this is incon-sistent with their theology. For CT,

the Sabbath, being one of the cher-ished Ten, is on the same moral level as adultery and murder, but when is the last time you heard of a church member being disciplined over break-ing the Sabbath? NCT’s theological formulations are more consistent with CT’s practice on this point.

3. How does New Covenant The-ology differ from Dispensational Theology (DT)?

NCT is further from DT than it is from CT. Though more could be said, the main differences are three-fold:

First, I think the fundamental difference between NCT and Dis-pensational Theology (DT) is herme-neutics. DT attempts to maintain a “literal” reading of the promises in the Old Testament. NCT seek more of a “literary” hermeneutic, allowing Jesus and His apostles to teach us how to approach and interpret the Old Testa-ment. NCT sees DT’s “literal” Old Testament hermeneutic as a failure to fully appreciate the progressive nature of Scripture. Sometimes DT accuses NCT of “spiritualizing” certain Old Testament promises, but NCT coun-ters that it takes the Apostles “liter-ally” when they literally “spiritualize” the Old Testament (e.g. Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:14-21 or Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:12-21 to name two of many). Liter-alism makes for a good slogan but is impossible to carry out consistently. NCT reads the old in light of the new. This, of course, is an anathema to DT and has some major theological implications.

Second, NCT denies DT’s sharp distinction between Israel and the church. This difference is particularly manifested in the church’s relationship to the new covenant. NCT sees the new covenant as for the church–those in Christ, the inaugurator of the new covenant. DT sees the new covenant for ethnic Israel in the future. NCT, like CT, rejects DT’s sharp distinction between Israel and the church. This is

related to their view of the kingdom as wholly future, even positing that Jesus is not currently sitting on the Davidic throne.

Thankfully, DT has made adjust-ments. Largely due to George Eldon Ladd’s popularizing of inaugurated eschatology, academic theologians have in large part abandoned tradi-tional DT. Now, many have adopted Progressive Dispensationalism. But according to Ryrie and many other traditional Dispensationalist theolo-gians, Progressive Dispensational-ism can no longer truly be called Dispensational (notice how Ryrie changed the title of his 1966 book Dispensationalism Today to Dispen-sationalism–implied now and forev-ermore–when it was revised in 2007). Progressive DT sees the church as sharing only in the spiritual aspects of Israel’s new covenant. So the church receives forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, but the gist of the new covenant will not find fulfill-ment until the millennium with ethnic Israel.

Third, NCT differs with DT with regard to typology. Most of the dif-ferences between NCT and DT stand on the land promise. In the opinion of NCT, DT fails to see the typologi-cal nature of the land promise, which finds fulfillment by being “in Christ” rather than “in the land” now and will find ultimate fulfillment on a reno-vated earth at the resurrection (Rom. 4:13, 8:18ff, Rev. 21-22). The same goes for the typology of the temple.

4. Is New Covenant Theology a brand new innovation, or can it be found throughout church history?

The label “NCT” is a relatively new innovation, but one can find as much exegetical evidence for this way of “putting the canon together” as one can find for CT or DT. I would actual-ly argue more evidence, though more work needs to be done. One neither


White—Continued from page 5


He spells this out in 2 Samuel 23:5, his last words. David rejoices that God made:

...an everlasting covenant, arranged and secured in every part? Will he not bring to fruition my salvation and grant me my every desire? (2 Samuel 23:5 NIV).

Matthew Henry has some excellent comments on this text.

God has made a covenant of grace with us in Jesus Christ, and we are here told, First, That it is an everlasting covenant, from everlasting in the contrivance and counsel of it, and to everlasting in the continuance and consequences of it. Secondly, That it is ordered, well ordered in all things, admirably well, to advance the glory of God and the honour of the Mediator, together with the holiness and comfort of believers. It is herein well ordered, that whatever is required in the covenant is promised, and that every transgression in the covenant does not throw us out of covenant, and that it puts our salvation, not in our own keeping, but in the keeping of a Mediator. Thirdly, That it is sure, and therefore sure because well ordered; the general offer of it is sure; the promised mercies are sure on the performance of the conditions. The particular application of it to true believers is sure; it is sure to all the seed. Fourthly, That it is all our salvation. Nothing but this will save us, and this is sufficient: it is this only upon which our salvation depends. Fifthly, That therefore it must be all our desire. Let me have an interest in this covenant and the promises of it, and I have enough, I desire no more. 3

The New Testament immediately announces that Jesus would inherit the Davidic throne and kingdom. When the angel spoke to the Virgin Mary she was confused. Part of the angel’s message concerned Jesus receiving the throne of the kingdom

3 Matthew Henry, www.biblegate-way.com/resources/matthew-henry/2Sam.23.1-2Sam.23.7 (Ac-cessed 12/19/2013).

promised to his father David.Mary was greatly troubled at his

words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:29-33 NIV).

Acts 2 is a crucial passage. Like most key passages, it is also very controversial. The first section records the coming of the Holy Spirit and the subsequent speaking in tongues. The unbelieving Jews said those speaking in tongues were drunk (Acts 2: 1-13). Peter shows that the event was the fulfillment of two Old Testament prophecies. First, the promise of the Gospel and establishing the kingdom promised in the prophet Joel (Act 2: 14-21). Second the promise to David (2 Samuel 7) to raise one of his sons from the dead and crown him as king over an eternal kingdom (2 Samuel 7: 22-36).

We will begin looking at Acts 2:14. This is Peter’s response to the unbelieving Jews’ accusation that those speaking in tongues were drunk with wine. In verses 14 and 15 Peter assures them that those speaking in tongues were not drunk.

Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It’s only nine in the morning! (Acts 2:14-15 NIV).

In verses 16-21, Peter says the phenomenon of tongues was an evidence of a prophecy that was made by the prophet Joel is being fulfilled. It is clear that Peter spiritualized Joel’s prophecy. Peter definitely understood

that the kingdom prophesied in Joel was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. The gift of the Holy Spirit was the proof that Christ was enthroned in heaven on David’s throne, and the promised kingdom had come. There is no way you can take Peter’s interpretation “literally” without seeing that he spiritualized Joel’s prophecy.

No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: [“this is that” cannot mean anything but “this is that.” JGR]

“‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.

I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Acts 2:16-21 NIV).

Dispensationalism cannot spiritualize kingdom promises and must therefore insist the events of Pentecost are only a type or prefiguring of the kingdom promised in Joel. In that system, the words “this is that” which was spoken by Peter must be understood to mean that Pentecost is not a fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy but only a prefiguring of what will happen when Christ, in the future, establishes the Davidic (millennial) kingdom. John MacArthur is typical of Dispensational writers. Here are two quotations from his study Bible. The




finds the language of CT or DT in the Patristics, but one finds many similar-ities to NCT in their writing. Consider the way Irenaeus of Lyons and Justin Martyr spoke of the newness of the new covenant. Justin speaks of a “new law,” “the true spiritual Israel,” and even calls Jesus a “new lawgiver” (see chapter 11 of Dialogue with Trypho). The exegesis of the golden-mouth preacher, John Chrysostom, also lines up nicely with the key tenets of NCT (see his Galatians commentary, for in-stance). Moving right past the Middle Ages (as we all do; again, more work to be done), one finds much to glean from Martin Luther. Luther would often de-historicize “law” to merely refer to God’s demand, missing the redemptive-historical nature of the New Testament teaching on law, but many NCT folks will shout a hearty amen as they read through his How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525), as well as his work on Romans and Galatians. Doug Moo, who now identifies himself as NCT, previously referred to his view as a “modified Lutheran” view. One also finds the roots of the hermeneutic of NCT in the Evangelical Anabaptists. Long before his time, Pilgram Marpeck grasped the progressive nature of God’s revelation and referred to the old covenant as “yesterday” and the new covenant as “today.”

5. What is the broad Scriptural case for New Covenant Theology?

I would argue that NCT is the system that has the least amount of “problem passages” that do not fit within the system. Dispensationalism has trouble with the warp and woof of the New Testament. What I mean by this is that it is at odds with one of the central messages of the New Testament, namely the unity of Jews and Gentiles in Christ. The book of Acts, Ephesians, Romans, and Ga-latians come readily to mind. When DT wants to sharply distinguish Jews

and Gentiles and the New Testament preaches another message, that’s prob-lematic. I think CT has trouble with Galatians in particular, where there is a clear difference between the old covenant and the Abrahamic covenant (again, I do realize that some strands of CT are better than others here, e.g. Westminster West vis-à-vis Westmin-ster East). They also struggle with the passages on the fulfillment of the Sab-bath mentioned in question 2.

Constructively, NCT sees the promise of the obsolescence of the old covenant within the Old Testament itself. This is the argument of He-brews. Notice how the author shows from the Old Testament itself that something new was needed (Ps. 8, 95, 110, Jer. 31). The argument of the ser-mon could be summarized as “Don’t go back. Jesus is better! Your own Scriptures pointed to Him!” A couple crucial passages are Hebrews 7:11-12 and chapter 8. The former explicitly says that the people received the law under the priesthood. Law and priest-hood go together since the law is a unit (another key NCT tenet). The tri-partite division of the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil is a product of Thomas Aquinas, not biblical exege-sis. Then the preacher to the Hebrews says “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there must be a change of law as well” (I should add that the ESV botches this one, inexcusably translating genitives as datives). NCT is not making this stuff up. There was a change of law (contra CT). In the next chapter, the author includes the longest Old Testament quotation in the New Testament to say that the new covenant promised long ago has now been instituted. He applies Jeremiah’s promise to the church (contra DT). Second Corinthians 3 says much the same.

Another favorite letter for NCT is Galatians, our Katie Von Bora (let the reader understand). Here the Apostle is crystal clear about such things as

the temporary nature of the law. It had a definite starting point (430 years after the promise to Abraham) and a definite ending point (when Messiah/faith came). The law functioned like a babysitter for Israel, but once adult-hood has come, it is no longer needed. Galatians is also clear on the oneness of Jews and Gentiles in Jesus. “Those who have faith”–that is, the church–“are Abraham’s Sons”–that is, Israel (Gal.3:7). At the end of the letter, Paul summarizes his message. He lays out the rule of the new creation: neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. Then he wishes a blessing of peace and mercy on all who follow that rule: the Israel of God (Gal. 6:15-16). Based on the context of the book, the Israel of God here is clearly all who find themselves in Christ by faith since “there is no Jew or Greek … for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Another key passage for NCT is 1 Corinthians 9:20-21: “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win Jews; to those under the law, like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law-- to win those under the law. To those who are without that law, like one without the law-- not being with-out God’s law but within Christ’s law–to win those without the law.” Here, Paul says that God’s law can no longer be equated with the Mosaic law. He is not under the old covenant law, but that does not mean he is autonomous. To be law-less is not to be lawless; to be without law is not to be an outlaw. No, he is under God’s law–in-lawed to Messiah.

So NCT strives to read Scripture on its own terms. Much more could be said, and since many passages have been pointed to, I hope one can get a feel for the exegetical foundation for NCT. For the curious-minded, books abound (for starters see Reisinger’s Abraham’s Four Seeds, Meyer’s End of the Law, Moo’s entry in Five



February 2014 Issue 204Reisinger—Continued from page 8

first quotation is from the introduction to the book of Joel and the second one is from Acts 2.

A second issue confronting the interpreter is Peter’s quotation from Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21. Some have viewed the phenomena of Acts 2 and the destruction of Jerusalem A.D. 70 as the fulfillment of the Joel passage, while others have reserved its fulfillment to the final Day of the Lord only−but clearly Joel is referring to the final terrible Day of the Lord. The pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is not a fulfillment, but a preview and sample of the Spirit’s power and work, to be released fully and finally in the Messiah’s kingdom after the Day of the Lord.4

Joel’s prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial kingdom and the final judgment. But Peter by using it, shows that Pentecost was a pre-fulfillment, a taste of what will happen in the millennial kingdom when the Spirit is poured out on all flesh …5

Peter next gives us the New Covenant fulfillment of the covenant made with David in 2 Samuel 7. He first shows that Christ had all the credentials to prove that he was David’s greater son to whom the kingdom promises had been made.

“Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know (Acts 2:22 NIV).

Despite the fact that Jesus gave ample proof that he was David’s son who was the heir to the Davidic throne and kingdom, the Jews still crucified him, but God raised him from the dead as prophesied in the Davidic covenant.

This man was handed over

4 John MacArthur, ed., The MacArthur Study Bible (Nashville: Word Publish-ing, 1997), 1268.

5 Ibid., 1635.

to you by God’s set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him (Acts 2:23-24 NIV).

Peter assures us that David died in the sure hope that not only would he be raised from the dead, but one of his sons would be the Messiah who establishes the eternal kingdom promised to David’s greater son.

David said about him: “‘I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,

because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence’ (Acts 2:25-28 NIV).

The next few verses give us the Holy Spirit’s interpretation of how David understood the covenant that God made with him.

“Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day (Acts 2:29 NIV).

Why would Peter emphasize that David was dead and buried? Because the covenant to raise up one of his sons and seat him on the throne of an eternal kingdom was to be fulfilled “while David slept with the fathers!” See 2 Samuel 7:12 and 1 Chronicles 17:11. The Davidic kingdom was to be established with a resurrected Christ but BEFORE David was resurrected. David’s son would be raised from the dead and the kingdom would be established “while David slept with the fathers.” He is still sleeping in the grave and will remain there until

the second coming. Again, this is not idle speculation. David understood this timing of the establishing of the kingdom. Read the following verses carefully. It is impossible to read a future earthly kingdom into Peter’s words. Peter specifically identifies the time of David assuming the kingship of the kingdom was at the resurrection of Christ while David was still in the grave. It is definitely past—not future. It happened when David’s greater son was raised from the dead and David was still dead and buried. The whole argument of verses 30-34 hinges on the fact that the resurrection of Christ, not the resurrection of David, established the kingdom to David concerning one of his sons. Follow Peter’s argument carefully in verses 30-35. Note how clearly Peter shows that the Davidic covenant has been fulfilled, and David’s greater son is presently seated in heaven on the Davidic throne. There is a not a hint of an earthly future kingdom.

But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, [The Davidic covenant promised that one of David’s sons, not David, would be raised from the dead and seated on a throne. The establishing of this throne and kingdom would take place at the resurrection of Christ and not at a supposed future millennium when David will be raised from the dead] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus [not David] to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. Exalted to the right hand of God [This cannot be referring to David since he is not exalted at the Father’s right hand. David has not ascended to heaven], he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,


Issue 204 February 2014 White—Continued from page 9

Views on Law and Gospel, Wells and Zaspel’s New Covenant Theology, and Wellum and Gentry’s Kingdom Through Covenant).

6. How does New Covenant The-ology view the Christian’s relation-ship to the Old Testament Law?

Paul is crystal clear that believ-ers are not under the law. By “law,” 98% of the time, Paul means Mosaic law-covenant. For him, and all first century Jews, the law was a package deal. A careful reading of Exodus 19-24 bears this out. The words of Exodus 20 and the ordinances of Exodus 21-23 constitute the book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:3-7). One cannot extrapolate the commands from the covenant in which they were given. The old covenant and its law have been replaced by the new covenant. Paul is fond of making contrasting al-ternatives. Geerhardus Vos was right to say that these contrasts are part of the substructure of Paul’s theology. The various contrasts (law/Spirit, sin/righteousness, flesh/Spirit, death/life, etc) can be summarized under Adam and the Last Adam. Adam is the head of the old age. The last Adam is the head of the new age. In the equation of redemptive history, Paul lumps the law on the Adam side. This is why he begins the letter to the Galatians the way he does. Recall that the funda-mental issue is false teachers trying to force Gentile Christians to obey the law. He begins by saying that Jesus has delivered us from the present evil age (Gal. 1:4) and ends the letter men-tioning the new creation (Gal. 6:15). The Judaizers were confused about what time it was in redemptive his-tory; their eschatological time-clocks were in need of fresh batteries.

This is also why Paul can say what he does in Romans 6:14. In context, Paul is teaching on our victory over sin through union with Christ. You would think he’d conclude the sec-tion with, “For sin will not rule over

you, because you are not under sin but under grace.” But he doesn’t; he writes, “For sin will not rule over you, because you are not under law but under grace.” Remember that Paul has just fleshed out the representative natures of Adam and Christ a chapter earlier (Rom. 5:12-21). For Paul, being under law is eschatologically old (see Jason Meyer’s book The End of the Law on this point).

In sum, one cannot improve on Paul’s words in Romans 7:4-6: “Therefore, my brothers, you also were put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of the Messiah, so that you may belong to another to Him who was raised from the dead—that we may bear fruit for God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions operated through the law in every part of us and bore fruit for death. But now we have been released from the law, since we have died to what held us, so that we may serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old letter of the law.”

I hasten to add that this does not entail that NCT is antinomian. There are some 2,000 imperatives in the New Testament, and if anything, its moral vision is amplified–targeting the heart (see the antitheses of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount). Christians are bound to the example of Christ, the teaching of Christ and His Apostles (supremely in the love command), and the Old Testament interpreted and ap-plied in light of the new covenant. But centrally, new covenant Christians are commanded to walk and be led by the Spirit (Gal.5, 2 Cor. 3).

7. What is New Covenant The-ology’s view of the relationship of Israel to the Church?

See Questions 2 and 3 above. In short, the church is the eschatological Israel by virtue of union with Israel’s Messiah. Jesus sums up Israel’s his-tory, is the singular seed of Abraham, and all the promises of God find their

yes in him (Gal.3:16, 2 Cor. 1:20). Those in faith-union with Christ are co-heirs. The message of the New Testament is univocal on this point: “Those who have faith are Abraham’s sons” (Gal. 3:7). There is no longer Jew or Gentile, but all are sons of God through faith since if you belong to Christ you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise (Gal. 3:26-29). Abraham is now the Father of all who believe (Rom. 4:12, 16, cf. 1 Cor. 10:1). Believers are those whose moth-er is the free woman, the Jerusalem above, and it is they who are children of promise, like Isaac (Gal. 4:21-31). The church is the community of the new creation, the new Israel, who fol-lows the rule that ethnicity no longer matters (Gal. 6:16). Gentiles were without the Messiah but are now in Him by faith, included in the citizen-ship of Israel (Eph. 2:11-12, 19). Jesus made Jews and Gentile one by tearing down the law in his flesh, creating in Himself one new humanity out of the two (Eph. 2:14-15). The “circumci-sion” are believers–those who serve by the Spirit, boast in Christ, and put no confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3). In the new covenant, a person is not a Jew by virtue of anything external but internally by having their heart circumcised by the Spirit (Rom. 2:28-29).

8. Dispensationalists are premi-llennial, Covenant Theologians are generally amillennial or postmillen-nial. Does New Covenant Theology have a particular eschatological commitment?

NCT does not entail or require a particular view of the millennium. It is unfortunate that people typically think immediately of the timing of the rapture and the millennium when one speaks of eschatology. There is so much more!! NCT focuses on the al-ready of the already/not yet nature of the kingdom, the inaugurated aspects of eschatology. G.K. Beale and others


February 2014 Issue 204is thus a typology of which Matthew is well aware, but which he uses with considerable restraint. It is absorbed into a much richer conception of Jesus as Messiah.’6 France points out that even W.D. Davies, who devoted much study to the issue, was cautious in drawing a conclusion about the mat-ter. 7

Schreiner is likewise hesitant to place too much emphasis on this, ‘the theme is present but not particu-larly prominent.’8 All three (Davies, France, and Schreiner) agree that, “Jesus is not just ‘another Moses’, but something far higher.”9 There are certainly similarities between Moses and Jesus, but also significant differ-ences. ‘For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ’ (John 1:17).

Rather than showing Christ to be a new Moses in the sense of a new lawgiver, the parallels between Moses and Jesus are better seen as show-ing Christ to be the greater prophet who was to come after Moses. The difference is subtle but an important one. We have more solid ground to stand on here. Deuteronomy 18:15-19 clearly states that the Lord will raise up a prophet like Moses and that Israel will be obligated to listen to that prophet. It does not speak of that prophet as a lawgiver. As John him-self brings out in John 6:14, the people who were fed from the seven barley loaves and two fish (and later that day heard the discourse on the bread of life), recognized Jesus not as another Moses or another lawgiver but as ‘the Prophet who is to come.’

What is meant when Deuteronomy Teacher, 188.

6 France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 187.

7 France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 186-188.

8 Schreiner, New Testament Theology, 173.

9 France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 187.

18 says that the Prophet to come would be ‘like Moses’? I take it to mean that he would be a great proph-et as was Moses. It should be obvious, that if the prophet to come was going to be ‘exactly like’ Moses, then there would be no point in the Lord sending him. This suggests that there would be some significant differences be-tween Moses and the prophet to come. Deuteronomy 18 makes it clear that the authority of the prophet to come would be greater than that of Moses. No Christian scholar who wants to maintain his credibility is going to contest that Christ was different from Moses in various ways and, in fact, greater than Moses in several ways.

One problem with placing too much emphasis on Jesus being a new Moses is that Moses will forever be associated with a written (and there-fore external) law code and the as-sociated old covenant that lacked the power that later came with Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Paul takes great pains to emphasize this point in Romans 7-8. The NT writings scream out on every page that Jesus changed everything. We can think of Jesus as a new Moses but it must include the thought that Christ brings a significant advance in God’s plan of redemption. Salvation history took a sharp turn with the coming of Moses; another sharp turn occurred with the coming of Christ.

We see in the NT an emphasis on the continuity between the Old Cove-nant era and the New Covenant era in order to show that Christ fulfills OT promises, prophecies and types. But there is also a greater emphasis on the discontinuity between the two eras. The writer to the Hebrews reminds us that everything was ‘better’ under the New Covenant. The coming of Christ was a space-time singularity. To use an expression of Beale, it was ‘an ir-reversible radical break with a former period.’10 Jesus changed everything.

10 G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical

• Both were kept out of reach of the wicked ruler seeking their death until the ruler himself was reported to be dead.

• Both were called by God out of Egypt.

• Both fasted for 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness.

• Both delivered moral and spiri-tual guidelines from a mountain.

Other parallels between Moses and Jesus have been noted. Jesus’ feeding of the 5,000 in John 6 is frequently cited as being a parallel to Moses pro-viding manna for Israel in Sinai.3

The quote above from Bar-tholomew and O’Dowd was chosen deliberately because it specifically speaks of Jesus as a new Moses and a new lawgiver. Frequently, when Jesus is spoken of both as a new Moses and a new lawgiver, a distinction is not made between the two. The discussion goes forward with the assumption that there is an equivalence between ‘new Moses’ and ‘new lawgiver.’ That needs some further consideration.

Some scholars are cautious about Jesus being a new Moses. When France reviews the evidence for Matthew presenting Jesus as the new Moses, he points out that the com-parisons between Moses and Jesus are implicit rather than explicit. Speak-ing of the comparisons in Matthew’s Gospel, he writes, ‘the more obvious typological motif is of Jesus as the new Israel who undergoes the Exo-dus experience, rather than the new Moses who leads it.’4 He speaks of Jesus as the new Moses as a ‘sort of sub-plot.’5 ‘Jesus as the new Moses

3 Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 119.

4 R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonder-van, 1989), 186-187.

5 France, Matthew: Evangelist and

Vaninger—Continued from page 1



Jesus was a new Moses in the sense that he was the prophet who was to come after Moses. But Jesus was not a new Moses in the sense of being a new lawgiver. The law era was over. It was an age of im-maturity. It was preliminary and preparatory. It pointed to an era of fulfillment. The OT is full of prom-ises, prophecies and types. All three require fulfillment. All three point to change. Jesus changed everything. In 1 Corinthians 1:20, while speaking of Christ, Paul dramatically asserts that, ‘all the promises of God find their Yes in him.’ Jesus told his disciples, ‘everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled’ (Luke 24:44). The total Christ-centeredness of the NT drives home the point: Jesus changed everything.

But what about Galatians 6:2 where Paul uses the expression, ‘the law of Christ’ or 1 Corinthians 9:21, ‘under the law of Christ’? In his discussion of Gal. 6:2, Longenecker suggests the possibility that Paul used the expression “polemically in an ad hominem fashion either to outclass his opponents in their use of νόμος or to mock his Galatian converts’ obsession with Mosaic legislation.”11 He goes on to express the view that Paul uses ‘the law of Christ’ to mean the principles behind the teachings and example of Christ rather than “ethical prescrip-tions to be carried out in rabbinic fashion.”12 This interpretation also

Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2011), 114.

11 Richard N. Longenecker, WBC, Galatians (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990), 275.

12 Longenecker, WBC, Galatians, 276. Immediately before this statement, Longenecker writes “Paul is not set-ting forth Jesus as a new Moses.” I take him to mean that Paul is not set-ting forth Jesus as a new lawgiver in the same sense that Moses was a law-giver. Making a distinction between Jesus being a new Moses and Jesus

works very well with the expression ‘under the law of Christ’ in 1 Corin-thians 9:21.

These two references certainly make it legitimate to speak of the ‘law of Christ’ but some clarification (such as that given by Longenecker) would certainly be appropriate if we feel that Scripture gives evidence that Paul used the expression to mean some-thing quite different than the Law of Moses. The internalization of the law spoken of in Jeremiah 31 certainly suggests a concept different than the written law given at Sinai. Reisinger in a recent series of articles speaks of Christ as a ‘new lawgiver’ but is care-ful to add that the teachings of Christ have given us ‘new and higher house rules’ and ‘higher and more spiritual laws’ than that of Mosaic law.13

Again, we must read Deuteronomy 18 carefully. It says that when the new prophet comes, ‘it is to him you shall listen.’ It doesn’t say he will be a lawgiver. If we speak of Jesus as a lawgiver without some clarification, we run the risk of dragging the old into the new. The new wine has burst the old wineskins which need to be discarded.

We can recognize Jesus as a ‘new Moses’ but must realize that his teach-ings were very different from the Law of Moses. Thus:

Matthew also portrays Jesus as a new Moses. But as Davi[e]s rightly notes, he is far more than that…it is intriguing to note that his new “law” differs significantly from Mosaic law in its form and focus. A new act in the drama of Scripture - indeed, the central act - has now dawned, and while Jesus affirms and fulfills the law of Moses, he teaches with the new situation in mind. Intriguingly his new style of “law” has many resemblances

being a lawgiver will help greatly to clarify the issues in question.

13 John G. Reisinger, ‘Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet: Part 2’, Sound of Grace 190, September 2012, 4.

to wisdom.14

While Jesus has not formulated a new law code, he has given us a rule of life. It is greatly superior to the Law of Moses. A. Blake White has shown that it involves the teaching and ex-ample of Christ and his apostles, the law (principle) of love, and the entire canon seen in the light of Christ.15 We should probably not call this rule of life a ‘law’ or ‘law code’ without fur-ther clarification lest we unnecessarily confuse the old with the new. The NT never speaks of Jesus as a lawgiver or as his teachings as a law code.

We should adhere to the more bib-lical concept that Christ is the prophet who follows Moses as the final and ultimate spokesman for God, being himself the living Word of God. His role as the ultimate prophet16 certainly includes giving mankind a new and better rule of life not based upon prohibitions and case laws but upon wisdom and empowered and guided by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

We should also remember that Moses was not just a lawgiver.

Although modern Christians tend to think of Moses primarily as a lawgiver, to the ancient Jews he was far more. Moses was primarily re-membered as a redeemer, a deliverer, and a savior. Presentation of Jesus as the new Moses thus emphasized His redemptive role.17

14 Bartholomew; O’Dowd, Old Testa-ment Wisdom Literature: A Theologi-cal Introduction, 241.

15 A. Blake White, The Law of Christ: A Theological Proposal (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2010).

16 Reisinger speaks of Christ as ‘the true and final prophet’ and ‘the new covenant prophet.’ John G. Reisinger, ‘Christ, Our New Covenant Prophet, Priest and King: Introduction’, Sound of Grace 189, July-August 2012, 16.

17 Charles Quarles, NACSBT, Sermon on the Mount (Nashville, TN: B & H, 2011), 23.

February 2014 Issue 204Vaninger—Continued from page 13 one of the primary activities of the

Holy Spirit is to impart godly wisdom to believers. In this very same pas-sage, Paul associates the teaching of the Spirit with having the mind of Christ (2:16). “‘God’s wisdom’ turns out to be ‘the mind of Christ,’ con-veyed and revealed through the Holy Spirit.”21

This link between godly wisdom and the Holy Spirit is confirmed and strengthened in Ephesians 5. There we read three exhortations: ‘Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise…do not be fool-ish, but understand what the will of the Lord is…do not get drunk with wine…but be filled with the Spirit’ (Eph. 5:15-18). Thus wisdom, under-standing the will of the Lord, and being filled with the Holy Spirit are synonymous or at least very closely related.

This link between wisdom and the Holy Spirit brings to mind Paul’s con-trast between the ‘letter’ (Mosaic law) and the ‘Spirit’ in 2 Corinthians 3:6-9. The Spirit of God imparts wisdom to the believer that is superior to the instruction of the law. The purpose of the law was to kill in the sense of condemning the sinner. In contrast, the purpose of the wisdom imparted by the Spirit of God is to redeem from sin in the sense of transforming the life of the believer to one of glory and

21 Anthony C. Thiselton, The Living Paul (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 56.

Quarles’ approach to Jesus as a new or better Moses is very refresh-ing and helpful, the emphasis being on Jesus’ role as savior rather than as lawgiver. Moses was perhaps the most profound type of Christ as a redeemer in the entire OT. Moses was the earthly savior of Israel. He provided redemption from slavery in the ‘iron furnace’ of Egypt. He put Israel on the path to the Promised Land.

When Matthew portrayed Jesus as the next Moses or the new Moses, he offered a graphic description of Jesus’ role as Redeemer, Deliverer, and Savior…Matthew appealed to OT texts about bondage and redemp-tion, slavery and deliverance to show that Jesus would be a deliverer who rescues God’s people from the worst plight of all, sin and its serious conse-quences…The theological point made by comparing Jesus to Moses was quite profound - Jesus is the Savior of God’s people.’18

Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is fre-quently compared to Moses receiving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. Some teach that Christ present-ed a new law to replace the Law of Moses while others teach that Christ was clarifying or correcting misun-derstandings of the Law of Moses.

What Jesus delivers is not a new law, but the true understanding of what had been revealed to Moses on Sinai and only partly understood: he does not destroy the old but fulfills it (5.17-20), as he alone is able to do.’19

Hooker is both right and wrong. She is correct to say that, ‘What Jesus delivers is not a new law’ but wrong when she says, ‘but the true understanding of what had been revealed to Moses on Sinai and only

18 Quarles, NACSBT, Sermon on the Mount, 24, 25-26, 37.

19 Morna D. Hooker, “Where is Wisdom to be Found (1),” in David F. Ford, Graham Stanton, eds., Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom (London: SCM Press, 2003), 122.

partly understood.’ We do not have to choose between a ‘new law’ and the Law of Moses clarified by Jesus. The teachings of Christ are in a different category.

Despite the Moses and Sinai typology in the introduction to the SM [Sermon on the Mount], one must not conclude that the SM constitutes a new law comparable to the Mosaic law...The SM is categorically differ-ent from the Mosaic law. Its precepts are the law written on the heart in fulfillment of the promise of the new covenant (Jer. 31:33).’20

The NT teaches that law gives way to a wisdom taught by Christ and the apostles and imparted by the Holy Spirit of God. This wisdom produces a higher ethic and standard of conduct than any law code could produce.

In an extended passage in 1 Corin-thians 2, Paul contrasts ‘the wisdom of men’ (2:5) with the ‘wisdom of God’ (2:7). This passage uses some very meaningful expressions that help us get a handle on an important relationship between the attainment of godly wisdom and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Table 1 shows some interesting and instruc-tive contrasts.

In this passage, the wisdom of men (conveyed using various expressions) is contrasted with the wisdom and power of God and the working of the Holy Spirit. This data suggests that

20 Quarles, NACSBT, Sermon on the Mount, 38.

Table 1

The wisdom of man The wisdom of God

‘plausible words of wisdom’ (2:4) ‘demonstration of the Spirit’ (2:4)

‘the wisdom of men’ (2:5) ‘the power of God’ (2:5)

‘a wisdom of this age’ (2:6) ‘a secret and hidden wisdom of God’ (2:7)

‘the spirit of the world’ (2:12) ‘the Spirit who is from God’ (2:12)

‘human wisdom’ (2:13) being taught ‘by the Spirit’ (2:13)

Issue 204 February 2014 righteousness. We find this very con-cept of sanctification conveyed just after Paul’s discussion of the ‘letter’ vs. the ‘Spirit’:

‘We all, with unveiled face, behold-ing the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:18).

Thus the progression from Law to Wisdom that we see in the OT is given greater definition in the NT. The law condemns the sinner exposing man as a fallen creature but the Spirit reverses the effects of the fall and im-parts to the believer the true wisdom of Christ producing a righteous and holy life. Thus we see that the wis-dom exhibited and communicated by Christ and imparted by the Holy Spirit surpasses the law in providing a rule of life for the believer that will serve us well in this life and for eternity.

Moral issues are frequently very complex and a solution requires more than a list of commands or case laws. Thus, ‘wisdom often does not set forth specific rules of behavior, but rather recognizes that there may be various responses occasioned by different circumstances.’22 ‘In some ways Paul’s ethic is rather general, for he does not give specific guidance for each situation. He realizes that in many situations wisdom is needed to determine the prudent and godly course of action.’23 In the eternal resurrected state, we will not live by a law code but by the wisdom of Christ and the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, it is important to recognize that living ‘by the Spirit’ does not eliminate the need in our still fallen state for specific guidance regarding ethical issues. Jesus and the

22 Perdue, Wisdom Literature: A Theo-logical History, 34.

23 Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 656.

NT writers did not hesitate to reaffirm the moral principles found in the OT and to express additional moral guide-lines. Paul, the very one who spoke of living by the Spirit, filled his letters with specific ethical exhortations and directives.24 Yet Paul would be the last one to think of himself as formulating a new ‘law code.’ Rather Paul saw his own ethical teachings as having the ‘mind of Christ’ and being conformed to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10).

The teachings of Jesus are ‘foun-dational’; they take us down to the bedrock of reality.25 They profoundly transcend the national law code of OT Israel and take us to the very heart of the Almighty Creator God. ‘Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock’

(Matt. 7:24).

The teachings of Jesus build on the principles of OT wisdom in that, ‘The primary demand of Jesus is for righ-teous character’ 26 rather than mere outward conformity to a law code. ‘The ethics of the Kingdom place a new emphasis upon the righteousness of the heart...The primary emphasis is upon the inner character which underlies outward conduct. The law condemned murder; Jesus condemned anger as sin...anger belongs not to the sphere of outward conduct but to that of inner attitude and character.’27

24 Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), 307-329. For a very brief summary, see Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Ques-tions About Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2010), 105-107.

25 H. N. Ridderbos, BSC, Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 155.

26 George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-mans, 1974), 293.

27 Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 292.

The teachings of Jesus not only provide ‘wisdom designed for life in the last days’28 in which we currently live but also anticipate the resurrec-tion ethics of the eternal state. ‘Jesus taught absolute ethics which were valid both for the age to come and for this age.’29 The Sermon on the Mount gives us guiding principles now and also a foretaste of what life in the New Jerusalem will be like when we will be fully conformed to the image of Christ.

Gordon Fee has written much on the subject of Christ and the wisdom of God especially regarding 1 Corin-thians 1:24, 30 and related passages.30 Most of this material focuses on two points. His arguments that Paul is not speaking of Christ as being Wisdom personified (as in Proverbs 8, Sirach, and Baruch) are very convincing. But he goes even further and asserts that Paul does not actually call Christ the wisdom of God.31 Rather, his position is that Paul is saying that the wisdom of God is the proclamation of Christ crucified.32 That is certainly a true statement but Ebert for one feels that Fee has overstated his case somewhat and that ‘one can still leave place for Paul to think of Christ explicitly in terms of divine wisdom.’33

28 John Goldingay, Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 228.

29 Ladd, The Presence of the Future, 295.

30 Gordon D. Fee, Pauline Christology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publish-ers, 2007), 102-107, 317-325, 595-630.

31 ‘Paul does not say in isolation that “Christ is the wisdom of God.”‘ Fee, Pauline Christology, 102. See a simi-lar statement on 104.

32 ‘God’s wisdom lies precisely in the folly of a crucified Messiah.’ Fee, Pauline Christology, 104.

33 Daniel J. Ebert IV, Wisdom Christol-ogy (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and



The controversy over this matter is largely irrelevant to the thesis of this article. All we are asserting here is that the teachings and example of Christ display true biblical wisdom more perfectly than any previous revelation. ‘The wisdom of God is embodied in Christ.’34 Fee does not appear to be opposed to that. But on the other hand, Christ cannot be sim-plistically equated with the wisdom of God. Wisdom is one of God’s attri-butes while Christ is a person of the Godhead and thus much more than the wisdom of God.35

New Covenant Theology

It is relevant to ask at the conclu-sion of our study: ‘How does all this relate to issues encountered in our study of New Covenant Theology?’

1. The understanding of the transi-tory nature of the Law of Moses is confirmed and strengthened. The progression from law to wisdom to the teachings of Christ is just that, a progression from good to better to best.

2. This progression of law ð wis-dom ð Christ helps to clarify how the law can be ‘holy and righteous and good’ and yet at the same time be terminated with the coming of Christ.

3. This progression of law ð wis-dom ð Christ also helps to clarify how the internalization of the law is accomplished in the new covenant era. In contrast to the external laws of the old covenant, which had no power over sin in one’s life, the internalized law corresponds to the spiritual trans-formation of the believer into the image of Christ through the power

Reformed Publishing Company, 2011), 63n2.

34 Leon Morris, TNTC, 1 Corinthians (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1958), 50.

35 Ebert, Wisdom Christology, 176.

of the Holy Spirit imparting godly wisdom. The ‘new law’ of the new covenant is of a totally differ-ent character than OT law being ‘written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts’ (2 Cor. 3:3).

4. More generally, the progression of law ð wisdom ð Christ reveals how OT wisdom can be integrated into biblical theology. ‘The New Testament not only fulfills Old Testament prophecy; it fulfills the whole Old Testament, includ-ing the law, history, psalms, and wisdom literature.’36 Our focus has been on how law and wisdom relate to Christ from the perspec-tive of biblical theology. Balchin’s statement regarding wisdom is certainly true of both law and wisdom, ‘Christ has both fulfilled it and gone beyond it.’37

5. The understanding of OT typolo-gy is confirmed and clarified. The nation of Israel in the OT era was a type of the entire world popula-tion just as the land of Israel was a type of the entire globe. As we see God’s plan of redemption unfold in time, we see a progression from a national covenant to a universal covenant applicable to all man-kind. The rule of life for God’s people accordingly progresses from national laws to universal moral and spiritual principles that transcend all national, ethnic, and cultural boundaries, and ultimate-ly to words from Immanuel, God with us. Closely related to this is a corresponding progression from a more external religion to a form

36 David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible Third Edition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2010), 200.

37 John F. Balchin, “Paul, Wisdom and Christ,” in Harold H. Rowdon, ed., Christ the Lord: Studies in Christology presented to Donald Guthrie, (Down-ers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1982), 212.

of ‘worship in spirit and truth’ (John 4:24). This comports well with the emphasis in the NT on the ‘newness’ and superiority of New Covenant faith in Christ.

6. The progression of law ð wisdom ð Christ adds another facet to the emphasis in the NT regarding the total exaltation of Christ over all else.

Vaninger—Continued from page 15

November 21, 2013

Dear Friends,

Please send me six copies of Sound of Grace for November 2013.

Thank you all for your very helpful ministry.

I am now a resident of a senior living apartment and I can share with different folks at each meal and at two Bible studies!

In Christ,

Jacqueline S.

December 30, 2013

Dear Friends,

This donation is in appre-ciation of Brother Reisinger’s ministry.

He is the reason my hus-band Stuart and I came to Oregon—we are very indebed to him. Of course, it was the Lord’s plan; He receives our praise.

Keeping you in our prayers.

Adeline K.


are helpfully reminding us that the whole New Testament is eschatologi-cal, but in large measure it is escha-tologically backward-looking more than forward-looking. That is to say, the eschatology of the New Testament is focused more on what the Messiah has already done than on what He was yet to do. NCT in no way downplays the yet-unfulfilled aspects of proph-ecy (e.g. resurrection, new earth), but wants to place the accent where the New Testament does. The first coming of Jesus is very significant for the ful-fillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Having prefaced my answer with that, three of the four millennial views are compatible with NCT. One can be NCT and be historic premillennial, amillennial, or postmillennial with theological consistency (though many will be quick to assert that their view is the only consistent one!). Obvi-ously Dispensational Premillennial-ism doesn’t have a seat at the NCT table since they have their own. One can have the exact same hermeneutic and biblical-theological outlook, but merely read Revelation 20 in different ways. In my experience, it seems that historic premillennialism and amillen-nialism are the most common millen-nial views of NCT.

9. Some people (such as Dr. R.C. Sproul) use the terms “Covenant Theology” and “Reformed The-ology” synonymously. Can New Covenant Theology maintain a Reformed identity?

Hmmm. I am not sure that NCT has ever been concerned with main-taining a “Reformed identity.” Perhaps an “always Reforming” identity since we think the Protestant Reformers did not apply sola Scriptura robustly enough. I am sure I do not speak for all NCT advocates, but I agree with Sproul and many others (Horton, Clark, Hart, etc) who say that Re-formed Theology is Covenant Theol-ogy (though many do not use the label

in this way; see DeYoung’s recent blog (11/7/13) on the matter). Many early American NCT guys were unwelcome in the “Reformed” Baptist world. Many of them used “Sovereign Grace Baptist” to distinguish themselves from Reformed Baptists. I think Reformed folks are those who adhere to the Reformed Confessions and Re-formed Baptists are those who adhere to the 1689 London Baptist Confes-sion, which is built from the West-minster Confession. Furthermore, since NCT does not bear directly on soteriology, I think an ardent Armin-ian could adhere to NCT, though I’ve never met one personally.

10. Speaking to someone who does not believe New Covenant The-ology, what would you give as the top three reasons to adopt it?

At the risk of appearing arrogant, first I would say it is the only theology that can be derived from a plain read-ing of Scripture. One would be hard pressed to find a CT guy who came to his theological conclusions apart from reading books on Reformed Theology or Reformed confessions. Similarly, you will not find a Dispensationalist who came to DT without reading Sco-field, Ryrie, MacArthur, or some other Bible “helps” from a DT perspective.

Second, one simply will not find theological categories such as “cov-enant of grace,” “covenant of works,” a Sabbath change from Saturday to Sunday, a pretribulation rapture, or many other DT and CT theological tenets from Scripture. In other words, NCT strives to use the language of Scripture in its theological formula-tion. We believe that theology ought to be grounded in the exegesis of the biblical text and in our opinion, NCT does this most consistently.

Third, I would say that NCT is the system of theology that is most consistently Christ-centered. All Evangelical theology strives to be Christ-centered, but in our opinion

not all are consistent. As John Reis-inger pointed out in Abraham’s Four Seeds (see pages 5, 36, 47, 53, 58, 94, 99, 100, 118), CT and DT ironically share the same hermeneutic on two different points: DT on the Abrahamic covenant and physical land; CT on the Abrahamic covenant and physical children. Neither consistently views these two issues with the Christotelic lenses Jesus Himself encouraged us to wear (Luke 24). DT fails to see that Christ wins the new creation–not merely a strip of land in the Middle East–for his people. The land is a type of the new earth. CT fails to see that the promise was to the mediatorial head and his seed, not the individual believer and their seed. Christ is the mediatorial head of the new covenant so the promise is for His seed, which is spiritual, not physical. Jesus has no grandchildren. The same could be said of the way Christ transforms the Sabbath and sums up Israel. NCT strives to practice a robustly Christ-centered hermeneutic in all biblical interpretation.


“‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand

until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.” ‘

“Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:30-36 NIV).

It is interesting that Peter said that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. We would expect him to say, “Lord and Savior.” We will take up with that in our next article.


Everyone wants the kingdom of God, but few want it first.

Charles L. Venable

February 2014 Issue 204West—Continued from page 3

psalmist it is sufficient to be exalting in who God is and what he has done for his people—and when the bless-ings of God to his people are con-sidered, it is natural for the pastoral imagery to come to mind.

As rich as the comforting entail-ments of the metaphor are, they are not the only emotions the image is designed to generate. Obviously the imagery in Psalm 100, though not antithetical to comfort by any means, is simply focused in a different direc-tion. The image is being employed to heighten and to further rejoicing. This is not a psalm one typically thinks of when there is a need for funereal comfort; here the metaphor drives us into higher spheres of celebration. This means that the shepherd image is so elastic it functions equally well in the valley of the shadow of death (the superlatively darkest valley or trial) and at a party: it is beneficially employed in times of tears and times of holy merriment. The flexibility and fittingness of the imagery to such a diverse range of situations and moods speaks volumes about its impact and resonance.

As we have seen, the shepherding imagery effectively produces a variety of emotional responses depending on the existential situation. The emo-tional responses, of course, cannot be detached from the propositional content the metaphor is designed to

communicate. It is one thing to say, “The Lord cares for you,” and another to say, “The Lord is your shepherd,” even if you are driving at the same point. The metaphorical image, while ultimately hinging on the proposition-al claim, carries more emotive punch. We inescapably think in pictures and they affect us very deeply. The picture of God as our shepherd and us as his sheep is capable of properly evoking an astonishingly wide range of fitting emotions.

The shepherd metaphor is, how-ever, much more than a means for producing human joy and/or comfort: not minimizing the emotional and existential impact, it is also used to teach us many different things about God. This can be seen by noting some of the different contexts in which the imagery is used. The Lord is referred to as a shepherd and we are referred to as his sheep in contexts where the point lies in a different neighborhood than us finding this comforting, reas-suring, or a source of rejoicing. Some contexts where the Lord is referred to as a shepherd are full of judgment; in these places the metaphor serves as a warning. Now of course there is an ultimate sense in which all of God’s attributes, acts, and roles are for the good of his children. But in the same way that the sovereignty of God over the whole world is ultimately a com-fort for his children, any fair reading of the Bible will show that the sover-

eignty of God in immediate contexts can be a great warning to his sinning children, to say nothing of being ultimately disastrous to his enemies. We must not gloss the discipline and correction motifs that are embedded in the metaphor: the Lord is our shep-herd, and this is a sobering reminder that he carries a rod of correction.

It should be clear upon reflec-tion that aspects of the metaphor from which we derive comfort, joy, warning, etc. are actually dependent on other facets of the image. For example, it is wonderful to consider the tender mercy, compassion, and concern the Lord has for his flock. But what does his sympathy amount to if he is incapable of defending us? Hav-ing a concerned but helpless shepherd is not very comforting at all. Like-wise, God could be a very powerful shepherd, but if he didn’t care what became of us then his power would not be a reason for us to find comfort. The distinct elements of compassion and power only function when they are combined.

These two elements come together beautifully in the Book of Isaiah. One of the things God wants his people to know when he begins to comfort them (cf. Isaiah 40:1) is that his care and power and joined together. Isaiah expresses it this way: “See, the Sover-eign Lord comes with power, and he rules with a mighty arm. See, his re-ward is with him, and his recompense

Annual John Bunyan Conference May 5 ̶ 7, 2014

Reformed Baptist Church, Lewisburg, PASpeakers:

Peter Gentry, Larry McCall, Stephen Wellum, Steve West, and A. Blake WhiteSchedule and registration to follow.

Mark your calendar—NOW

Issue 204 February 2014 accompanies him. He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young” (Isaiah 40:10-11). Notice the connection: the Sovereign Lord comes with power and rules with a mighty arm, yet he uses his strength to tend his flock, gather his lambs, carry them close to his heart, and he gently leads the vulnerable.

The only reason these verses are comforting and encouraging is that they are both true. God coming with power and ruling with a mighty arm is a sheer disaster for the wicked. God nurturing, loving, and tenderly caring for his flock cannot be comforting un-less he also rules in sovereign power and might. If he has power but no ten-der love, he rules as a tyrant; if he has compassion but not power, his shep-herding will be ineffective. And this is to say nothing of the richness of the picture that results when you recog-nize that God is carrying you close to his heart, and to do so he scoops you up in the same mighty arms by which he sovereignly rules the universe. A helpless sheep pulled to the heart of

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound 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 pdf file (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY—THANK YOUName: Street Address: City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal: Email address: @ Phone number:

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

infinite love by the omnipotent arms of the sovereign shepherd—here the point of our metaphor becomes un-fathomable and indescribable. Thanks be to God.

Not surprisingly, it is at the inter-section of God’s power and love that we find the related theme of wisdom. This element is not made as explicit when the imagery is used of God—it is assumed that this shepherd has more wisdom than his sheep! When God leads and guides us as a shep-herd leads and guides his flock, the grounding for the image is that God knows what’s best for us, he knows where we should be, he cares enough to take us there, and he is powerful enough to ensure that we arrive at his chosen destination. He also knows when we are straying from where we should be, and he gathers the scat-tered. (More will be said about this in the next article.)

One of the very interesting things about the shepherd imagery is that God ultimately fulfills the realities communicated in the metaphor to a perfect degree, but he also entrusts some people with a shepherding role.

Some are given military responsibility over their flock (e.g. the army), others are given political responsibility (e.g. their sheep are cities or nations), and still others are given responsibility in the religious sphere (e.g. they are to function as prophets, priests, or teachers). God as the true shepherd employs undershepherds, and they are fully accountable to him for how they discharge their duties to his flock. In fact, it is desperately important for them to remember that their flock is really never their flock at all: it is God’s flock over which they have been given certain stewardship responsi-bilities. In next month’s article we will examine some of the OT material that applies the shepherding imagery not to God but to human beings. We will see, even then, that whether the con-text involves human shepherds who are good or bad, the Chief Shepherd is not too distant in the background. And given his sovereign might and infinite love for his sheep, human be-ings who are entrusted with shepherd-ing responsibilities need to take them very, very seriously.

SOVEREIGN GRACE NEW COVENANT MINISTRIES 5317 WYE CREEK DRIVE FREDERICK, MARYLAND 21703-6938

FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED

Check your label for expiration. This is Issue 204 Please renew your

subscription promptly.

NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE PAID PER MIT NO. 45

FR EDER ICK, MD 21701

A New Year’s ResolutionMatthew Henry

“My times are in Your hand!” Psalm 31:15

Firmly believing that my times are in God’s hand, I here submit myself and all my affairs for the ensuing year, to the wise and gracious disposal of God’s divine providence. Whether God appoints for me health or sickness, peace or trouble, comforts or crosses, life or death—may His holy will be done!

All my time, strength, and service, I devote to the honor of the Lord Jesus—and even my common actions. It is my earnest expectation, hope, and desire, my constant aim and endeavor—that Jesus Christ may be magnified in me.

In everything I have to do—my entire dependence is upon Jesus Christ for strength. And whatever I do in word or deed, I desire to do all in His name, to make Him my Alpha and Omega. I have all from Him—and I would use all for Him.

If this should prove a year of affliction, a sorrowful year to me—I will fetch all my supports and comforts from the Lord Jesus and stay myself upon Him, His everlasting consolations, and the good hope I have in Him through grace.

And if it should be my dying year—then my times are in the hand of the Lord Jesus. And with a humble reliance upon His mediation, I would venture into the eternal world looking for the blessed hope. Dying as well as living—Jesus Christ will, I trust, be gain and advantage to me.

Oh, that the grace of God may be sufficient for me, to keep me always a humble sense of my own unworthiness, weakness, folly, and infirmity—together with a humble dependence upon the Lord Jesus Christ for both righteous-ness and strength.

Courtesy of Grace Gems: www.GraceGems.org

Sound of Grace, Issue 204, February 2014

Documents

Transcript of Sound of Grace, Issue 204, February 2014