Post on 12-Jul-2020
Some Continuities and
Discontinuities between the
Older Testament and the
Newer Testament
Robert E. Fugate
Lord of the Nations, LLC
Omaha, NE
LordoftheNations.com
Copyright © 2001 Thy Word Is Truth, LLC
P.O. Box 641592, Omaha, NE 68164
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.
Published by Lord of the Nations, LLC, Omaha, NE
Orders: LordoftheNations.com
Printed in the United States of America
All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from
the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas
Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked “NASB” are taken from the New
American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968,
1971, 1972, 1973,1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.
Used by permission (www.Lockman.org).
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible,
English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway
Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by
permission. All rights reserved.
Table of Contents
CONTINUITIES ....................................................................... 1 The same triune God ............................................................. 1 The same Old Testament Scripture ....................................... 3
The same central message of Scripture—Jesus Christ ......... 5 The same plan and promise of salvation ............................... 6
The same people of God, i.e., the church .............................. 7 The same basic content in the covenants .............................. 9
The same ethical requirements............................................ 14
The same eschatological purposes and promises ................ 16 The importance of continuity .............................................. 17
DISCONTINUITIES .............................................................. 21 Appendices .............................................................................. 27
Appendix A: The Law in the New Covenant in Jer 31:33 & Heb
8:10 ..................................................................................... 27 Appendix B: Continuity in Hebrews 1:1 ............................ 30
Appendix C: The NT teaches the abiding validity of the OT case
laws ..................................................................................... 31
Recommended Reading .......................................................... 34
1
Some Continuities and Discontinuities between the Older Testament and the
Newer Testament
One of the ongoing debates among the proponents of various
theological systems of interpreting Scripture is the debate over
continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament and the
New Testament.1 The disputants attempt to determine which
theological norms and ethical practices carry over from the Old
Testament and which have been abrogated by the New Testament.
The question must inevitably deal with the uniqueness of national
Israel. The hermeneutical question of continuity/discontinuity
affects Christian practice in many areas, e.g., church/state
relations, civil laws (e.g., capital punishment, abortion is murder),
dietary laws, regulations for worship, church polity, keeping the
Sabbath, etc. Two theological systems often conflicting in these
debates are covenant theology and dispensationalism. Further
complicating the scene, various cults have supported some of their
deviant practices by appealing to Old Testament practices—
particularly a caste of mediator-priests, ritualistic worship, holy
days, a church-state, and polygamy (e.g., Roman Catholicism,
Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, Armstrongism, etc.). In this
booklet we will sketch some of the most significant theological and
ethical continuities and discontinuities between the Testaments,
without attempting to sort out all the minute details and
applications.
CONTINUITIES
The same triune God
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that there is
only one God (Dt 6:4f; 32:39; 2 Sm 7:22; 1 Ki 8:60; Ps 86:10; Is
45:5f; Jn 5:44; Mk 12:29; 1 Tim 1:17; Ja 2:19). This one God
1 For an evangelical perspective see John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and
Discontinuity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988).
2
(Yahweh) is the creator and providential ruler of the world. He is
the Triune God. The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity teaches that
(1) God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, and (2) each person is fully God, and (3) there is one God.
While it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity (like all doctrines) is
progressively revealed in Scripture, we must insist that the God in
the Old Testament is the same God as is revealed in the New
Testament, the Triune God.2 Furthermore, the Old Testament itself
clearly implies that God exists as more than one person, as is
demonstrated by the following Old Testament passages:
Passages in which God speaks to himself using plural verbs
and plural pronouns (Gn 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is 6:8);
Passages in which one person is called “God” or “the Lord”
and is distinguished from another person who is also said to
be God (Ps 45:6f [Heb 1:8]; 110:1 [Mt 22:41–46]; Ho 1:7;
Mal 3:1f);
Passages in which the angel (i.e., messenger) of Yahweh is
represented as a divine person (Gn 16:7–13; 18:1–21; 19:1–
24; 22:1f, 11–18; 24:7, 40; 28:10–17; 31:11–13; 32:9–12,
24–30; 48:15f; Ex 3:2–6; 13:21; 14:19; 23:20–23 and
33:14; 32:34; Nu 22:35, 38; Jdg 2:1f; 6:11–24; 13:2–23; 2
Sm 24:16; Ho 12:4; Zc 12:8 and Mal 3:1; cf. Josh 5:13–
6:2).
2 John B. Metzger, The Tri-Unity of God Is Jewish (St. Louis, MO: Cenveo-Plus
Communications, 2005). Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues
(Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1996), pp. 188–195. David L. Cooper,
The God of Israel (Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1945), pp. 24–
97.
While it may be impossible for us today to know how fully individual Old
Testament saints, who lived three or four thousand years ago, understood the
Trinitarian nature of Yahweh, we do insist that the two non-Christian
monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, do not worship the same God as
Christians. Christians worship the Triune God of the Bible; non-Christian Jews
(living after God revealed himself in Jesus Christ) and Muslims do not. They
worship a false unitarian god who is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1
Jn 2:22f; 2 Jn 9).
3
Passages in which the Spirit is spoken of as a distinct
person, co-causing God’s work (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; Is 48:16;
61:1; 63:10);
Passages that personalize God’s Word (Ps 107:20; 33:6;
147:15–18; Is 55:11; Gn 1:3);
Passages that personalize God’s Spirit (Is 63:10; 48:16; Ezk
2:2; 8:3; Zc 7:12);
Passages in which the divine Messiah is distinguished from
the Lord or the Spirit (Is 48:16; 61:1; Zc 2:10f);
Passages in which three divine persons are implied (Is
48:16; 61:1; 63:9f).
The same Old Testament Scripture
The Old Testament Scripture was the Bible for Jesus and the
Apostles. They repeatedly quoted it to prove the validity of their
teaching, and cited it as the supreme authority to settle every
doctrinal dispute.3 Jesus and the Apostles frequently introduced
their citations from the Old Testament with the phrase, “It is
[stands] written,” by which they meant, “God says.” Christ taught
that ignorance of Scripture causes error (Jn 3:10; Mt 12:3, 5, 7//Mk
2:25//Lk 6:3; Mt 19:4; 21:16; Mt 21:42//Mk 12:10; Mt 22:29,
31//Mk 12:24, 26; cf. Ho 4:6). Thus by their practice Christ and the
Apostles taught the ongoing, binding authority of the Old
Testament Scripture.
3 “The NT contains over 1,600 citations of the OT, and many more allusions to
it” (David M. Hay, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible [IDB] suppl. [Nashville,
TN: Abingdon, 1976], p. 443. See also Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of
the Old Testament,” Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F.H. Henry [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958], pp. 137–138ff, and “The Old Testament in the New
Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1:617. Eighty percent (209/260) of
the chapters in the New Testament contain quotations from the Old Testament
(W. Gary Crampton, The Bible: God’s Word [Lynchburg, VA: Journey
Publications, 1989], p. 42).
4
The New Testament contains specific statements that teach the
ongoing validity of the Old Testament Scripture.
“Do not think that I [Jesus] came to destroy the Law or the
Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.4 For
assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one
jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is
fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these
commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in
the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:17–
19).5
“From childhood you [Timothy] have known the Holy [Old
Testament] Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for
salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the
man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every
good work” (2 Tim 3:15–17). [No books of the NT were yet
written when Timothy was a child.]
The Apostle Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, “For whatever
was written in earlier times [i.e., the Old Testament Scripture] was
4 The best definition of the term plhro,w (“fulfill”) in this context is “to confirm
and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law”
(Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 2nd ed. [Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian & Reformed, 1984], pp. 64ff; Bahnsen, “The Exegesis of Matthew,
5:17–19,” pp. 7f, 19. Cp. “to bring to full expression, i.e., show it forth in its true
meaning,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature (BDAG), rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed.
[Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000] [BDAG], p. 829, def. 4b; 2nd ed.
BAGD, p. 671, def. 4b). 5 “Matthew 5:17–19 makes it clear that unless the heavens and the earth have
disappeared, we should definitely count on all the minutia (in Jesus’ hyperbole:
‘the jot and tittle’) and all the commands remaining in force for all believers in
all times until all have been accomplished! Our Lord does not give even the
slightest degree of comfort to the position that the NT is the hermeneutical
divide in determining for contemporary readers the proper quotient and its
remainder from the OT revelation” (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the
Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), p. 96).
5
written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Ro 15:4
NASB; cf. Ro 4:23f).
Even the Old Testament law was written for New Testament
Christians: “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not
the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses,
‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for
oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our
sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should
plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the
crop” (1 Cor 9:8–10 ESV).
The Old Testament narratives are “examples” “written for our
admonition” (1 Cor 10:1–11; cf. Heb 3–4). Paul writes, “Now
these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not
crave evil things as they also craved. … Now these things
happened to them as an example, and they were written for our
instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor
10:6, 11 NASB).
When the Apostle Paul was defending his preaching the gospel, he
argued that he was “believing all things which are written in the
Law and in the Prophets” (Ac 24:14), and “stating nothing but
what the Prophets and Moses said” (Ac 26:22 NASB; cf. 1 Pt 1:10–
12).
The Bereans were considered “more noble” than others because
they were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to test the
validity of the gospel message (Ac 17:11). Their action would not
be noble if the Old Testament was not still binding.
[Application of Old Testament case laws in the New Testament
also demonstrates the unity of Scripture; see p. 20 n 38 and
Appendix C.]
The same central message of Scripture—Jesus Christ
That Jesus Christ is the central theme of the Old Testament is
clearly taught in many New Testament passages: Lk 24:25–27, 44–
6
47; Jn 5:39, 46; Ac 3:18, 24; 10:43; 17:2f; 18:28; 26:22f; 28:23;
Ro 1:1–3; 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3f; 1 Pt 1:10–12; etc. The Old
Testament is filled with prophetic promises regarding the coming,
ministry, death, resurrection, and reign of the Messiah.6
The same plan and promise of salvation
God has only one plan of salvation for his people—a plan that
involves:
The same gospel that promises forgiveness of sins and
eternal life
Gospel (Gal 3:8; Ro 1:1–3; 3:21; 10:15f; Ac 13:32; 26:6–8;
Heb 4:2, 6; 9:15);
Forgiveness of sins (Ex 34:6f; Nu 14:18; Dt 5:9; Ps 32:1;
51:3f; 65:3; 85:2f; 86:15; 103:3, 8–14; 130:4; Is 1:18;
44:22; Jer 34:18; Ne 9:17; Jl 2:13; Jon 4:1; Mc 7:18f;
Ro 4:6–8);
Eternal life (Heb 11:10, 16, 35; Mt 22:32; 8:11);
The same ground or basis of salvation—the personal
Messianic Priestly-Mediator
(Jn 1:29; Rv 13:8; cp. substitutionary blood atonement and
ransom taught in the Old Testament by means of the goat
slain on the Day of Atonement for the sins of the people
[Lv 16] and by the Passover lamb; Ac 26:6; 28:20; 2 Cor
5:7; etc.);
6 E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament; Franz Delitzsch,
Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession; Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah
in the Old Testament; Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old
Testament; Charles A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy; Alec Motyer, Look to the
Rock; Edmund P. Clowney, The Unforlding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the
Old Testmant; Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The Old Testament
Witness; Patton J. Gloag, The Messianic Prophecies; James Smith, What the
Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah.
7
The same condition or means through which salvation is
received—solely by grace through faith in the (anticipated
or accomplished) work of Christ 7
(Ex 34:6f; Gn 15:6; Hab 2:4; Heb 11, esp. vv. 2, 9f, 13–16,
26f; 2 Tim 3:15; Ro 4:3–5, 9ff; Gal 3:6–9, 17; Ac 15:11).
The same Holy Spirit regenerates (gives new birth).
Old Testament believers were regenerated; this is depicted
as: circumcision of the heart (Dt 30:6; 10:16; Jer 4:4; 6:10;
9:25f; cf. Ro 2:28f); having a new heart (Ezk 18:31; 36:26;
cf. Jer 32:39f; 24:7); a heart of flesh (instead of a heart of
stone) (Ezk 11:19f; 36:26); a new spirit within (Ezk 11:19f;
36:26; 18:31); God writing his law on the heart (Jer
31:33f); and being changed into another man (1 Sa 10:6, 9).
Jesus expected Jewish rabbis to understand the Old
Testament teaching regarding the prerequisite of the new
birth to enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3–10).
Called to a life of holiness (Lv 19:2; 1 Pt 1:15f).
The same people of God, i.e., the church
Throughout human history God has always had one people, his
elect who were justified by grace alone through faith alone. Both
Old Testament8 and New Testament call this people the “church”
(evkklhsi,a, assembly). The Apostle Paul, consistent with the
7 Walter C. Kaiser, Recovering the Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2009), pp. 169–181. 8 evkklhsi,a is used about 100 times in the Greek Old Testament, mostly for the
Hebrew qahal. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the
Septuagint, 3 vols. in 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 1:433. Gerhard Kittle and
Gerhard Friedrich Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), eds., 9
vols + Index [ET, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976], 3:527–529.
Moises Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
and Exegesis, 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 2:135–137.
The New Testament also refers to the Old Testament church (Ac 7:38 Greek
text).
8
teaching of the Old Testament,9 sharply distinguishes between
Jews who are only Jews racially and spiritual Jews (inward Jews
with circumcised hearts; the remnant; children of the Abrahamic
promise; etc.) (Ro 2:25–29; 9:6–8, 24–29; 11:5; Gal 3:7, 29; 4:25–
30; 6:15f; Phil 3:2f). Jews after the Spirit are the “Israel of God”
(Gal 6:15f). Unregenerate Jews “are not really sons of Isaac and
hence not ‘Israel’ at all (Ro 9:6–9). Rather, in their unbelief and
rejection of Christ ‘the present city of Jerusalem’ is as much the
‘son of Hagar’ as Ishmael himself was (Gal 4:25)!”10 Jews who
oppose Jesus the Messiah and persecute His church: are
blasphemers (Rv 2:9); are Satan’s spiritual and ethical children (Jn
8:44); and are the synagogue of Satan (Rv 2:9; 3:9). Consistent
with this is the fact that Abraham is the father of all believers—
whether Jew or Gentile (Ro 4:11f, 16ff; Gal 3:7–9, 13f, 29). In
fact, Old Testament saints are examples of the same faith the New
Testament speaks of (Ro 4; Heb 11). Thus salvation was never
based on being a biological member of the Jewish race (Mt 3:7–
10ff // Lk 3:7–8ff John’s baptism; Jn 8:39, 44; Ro 2:19f; Jn 1:12f;
3:3–7; Ro 9:13 Esau). Furthermore, God has now obliterated the
distinction between Jew and Gentile, having one body comprised
of both races (Gal 3:28f; 5:6; Eph 2:11–19; 3:6; Col 3:11; 1 Cor
12:13; 7:19; Ac 10:15, 34f; 15:9; Ro 10:12). Believing Gentiles are
grafted into the Jewish olive tree i.e., the Old Testament church
(Ro 11:16–24, 26, 28). This comports with Jesus metaphor that
there would be “one flock and one shepherd” (Jn 10:16; cf. 17:20–
21). Moses was a servant in God’s family/household; Christ is Son
over the same family/household (Heb 3:5f). Even Old Testament
prophecies about Israel were fulfilled in the church (cp. Jl 2:28–32
with Ac 2:17–21; cp. Am 9:11f with Ac 15:16f; cp. Jer 31:31–34
with Heb 8:8–10). Indeed, “God’s promises always applied only to
the true spiritual Israel (that is, elect Israel) within ethnic Israel (Ro
9 Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25f; etc. God’s people of faith, e.g., Abel, Isaac,
Jacob, Elijah and the 7,000, etc., stand in stark contrast to unbelieving Cain,
Ishmael, Esau, the Jewish false prophets of Baal, etc. 10 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 1025. Cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed
Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 4:666f.
9
9:6–13).”11 All God’s covenant promises are ultimately for Christ
(Gal 3:16; Ps 2:8) and for those “in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:14,
17, 29).
The unity of the people of God may also be demonstrated by the
fact that the same terminology used to describe God’s people in the
Old Testament is used to describe God’s people in the New
Testament: the people of God (Ac 15:14; Ro 9:25f; 1 Pt 2:9; Tit
2:14; 2 Cor 6:16; Heb 4:9); a chosen race (1 Pt 2:5); priesthood (1
Pt 2:9; Rv 1:6; 5:10); sacrifice (1 Pt 2:5; Heb 13:15); temple (1 Cor
3:16f; Eph 2:20f); tabernacle (Ac 15:14–17ff); holy nation (1 Pt
2:5, 9); twelve tribes (Ja 1:1); heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26); etc.12
The New Testament church, including its government by elders
and its worship service, is patterned after the Jewish synagogue.13
The same basic content in the covenants
God has inaugurated seven epoch-making covenants14 with man:
the Covenant of Creation (Gn 1:26–28; 2:15–17; Ho 6:7) and the
Post-lapsarian Covenant made with Adam (Gn 3:14–19); the
Noahic Covenant of preservation (Gn 6:17–22; 8:20–22; 9:1–17);
the Abrahamic Covenant (Gn 12:1–3; 13:14–16; 15:18–21; 17:1–
16, 19; 22:16–18);15 the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 24:3, 7f; Dt 5:2;
29:12); the Davidic Covenant (2 Ch 21:7; Ps 89:3–4; 2 Sm 7:11–
16; 23:5; Jer 33:21–22; Ezk 34:23f; 37:25); and the New
11 Robert L. Reymond, “Who Really Owns the ‘Holy Land’?”
http://againstdispensationalism.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-really-owns-holy-
land.html. 12 See Charles D. Provan, The Church Is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House
Books, 1987) for abundant examples. 13 D. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1976). 14 “A covenant is a bond in blood (or a bond of life and death), sovereignly
administered” (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants [Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980], p. 4). 15 God’s covenants with Isaac and Jacob may be viewed as renewals of the
Abrahamic Covenant (Gn 17:19, 21; 26:3f; 28:13–15; 35:12; Ex 2:24; Ps 105:8–
10, 42f; etc.) (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 27).
10
Covenant16 (i.e., the covenant of consummation) (Jer 31:31, 33;
Ezk 37:26; Lk 22:20).
Obedience was required in each of these covenants (e.g., in the
Abrahamic covenant, Gn 12:1, 4; 13:9, 14–18; 15:9–10; 17:1–2, 9–
14; 18:18–19; 22:15–18; 26:3–5; Heb 11:8, 17; Ja 2:21–24).17
“The demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principially
identical with the same demand under the gospel.”18
All of these covenants (except the Covenant of Creation) are
various administrations of the one covenant of redemption/grace—
called “the eternal covenant” (Heb 13:20), which is unchangeable
(Heb 6:13–18).
That is why God’s covenant with Noah (Gn 9:12, 16), Abraham
and his descendants (Gn 13:15; 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Ch 16:17; Ps
105:9–11), Moses (Lv 24:8), and David (2 Sm 23:5) could all be
described as an “everlasting covenant” with “everlasting” covenant
promises that will continue “forever” (Gn 17:8; 2 Sm 7:13, 16; 2
Ch 21:7; Pss 18:50; 89:3f, 34–37; cp. Ps 132:11f).19 The essence of
each of these covenants was carried forward into the successive
16 Several expressions can be equated with the new covenant: the “everlasting
covenant” (Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezk 16:60; 37:26; Is 24:5; 55:3; 61:8); a “new heart”
or a “new spirit” (Ezk 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Jer 32:39 LXX); the “covenant of
peace (Is 54:10; Ezk 34:25; 37:26); and “a covenant” or “my covenant” which is
placed “in that day” (Is 42:6; 49:8; Ho 2:18–20; Is 59:21). Walter C. Kaiser,
“The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1
(Winter 1972) 14. 17 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 1947), pp. 31–36, 56–58. Ronald Youngblood, “The Abrahamic
Covenant: Conditional or Unconditional?” The Living and Active Word of God:
Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz, ed. by Morris Inch and Ronald
Youngblood (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 31–46. Oswald T.
Allis, God Spake by Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,
1951), p. 72. John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 197. Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel
and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), p. 133.
William E. Cox, The New-Covenant Israel (n.p.: 1957), pp. 30–34. J. Barton
Payne, “Covenant (in the Old Testament),” ZPEB, 1:1008. 18 John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 200. 19 O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, pp. 277f. Robertson adds,
“God’s previous covenants may be regarded as “everlasting” only insofar as
they find their realization in the new covenant.”
11
covenants. Each successive covenant expanded the previous
covenants so as to include additional elements.
The New Covenant is the culmination and the realization of the
prophetic promises God made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,
and David.
Scripture clearly teaches that the promises of the
Abrahamic Covenant are incorporated into the New
Covenant (Jer 32:39–41;20 Lk 1:54f, 68–73; Ac 3:25f; Gal
3:29; cf. Ro 15:8f)—including: repentance from sins (Ac
3:26 citing Gn 22:18; 26:4; cf. 12:2–3; 18:18; 28:14);
justification by grace alone through faith alone (Gal 3:6–9;
Ro 4:3, 9–12, 16–18, 22; citing Gn 15:5c–6 and 17:5); and
the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14). Abraham is the father of all who
believe—Jew and Gentile (Ro 4:11, 16f).
The New Covenant is also integrally related to the Mosaic
Covenant, since it stipulates that God will write his law as
revealed to Moses on the minds and hearts of his people
(Jer 31:31, 33; Heb 8:8–12; 10:16f; cf. Ezk 36:26–28;
37:24–26) (see Appendix A).21
At the heart of the New Covenant is the messianic rule of
the Son of David (Lk 1:32f, 67–71; Ac 2:30–36; Ezk
34:23f; 37:24–27; cf. Ac 15:16f), as had been prophetically
promised in the Davidic Covenant.
20 Under the New Covenant God’s promise to Abraham of land is no longer
limited to Canaan, but includes the entire cosmos (Ro 4:13; Eph 6:3 with Ex
20:12; Ps 2:7; Mt 5:5; 28:18–20; 1 Cor 4:21–23; cf. Heb 11:10, 16), culminating
in a renewed heaven and earth (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1). See O.
Palmer Robertson, Understanding the Land of the Bible (Phillipsburg: P&R,
1996), esp. pp. 143f; cited by Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology
of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 513–515 n 19. 21 The Mosaic Covenant is one of the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). God’s
law is not against God’s promise (Gal 3:21). Notice the interconnectedness of
the Abrahamic (land, multiply), Mosaic (statutes, judgments, sanctuary,
tabernacle) and Davidic (Davidic ruler) Covenants in Ezk 36:26–28; 37:24–26;
Lk 1:32f, 55, 67–74; cf. Ezk 34:23f. (See “Abraham” in Exodus and
Deuteronomy.)
12
The Post-lapsarian Covenant, in which God decreed
perpetual warfare between the elect seed of the woman and
the seed of Satan (Gn 3:15), resulting in Satan being
crushed, carries over into the New Covenant (Ro 16:20).
Yet, God’s covenanting word to Noah prevents the
immediate destruction of all the wicked (Gn 8:20–22; 2 Pt
3:5–7). The Noahic Covenant reaffirms the Creation
Mandate (cp. Gn 1:26–28 with 9:1f, 7). Furthermore, the
Noahic prohibition against eating blood continues in the
new covenant (Ac 15:20f; Gn 9:4).
Even the Covenant of Creation (Gn 1:26–28) is being
restored in Christ, as believers are God’s stewards over the
earth and are discipling the nations (Mt 28:18–20; Ps 8:4–
8).
Thus, “Every covenant God makes—with Noah, Abraham, Moses,
David, and Jesus—there are these three elements [that were found
in the Creation Mandate, Gn 1:26–28]: a divine blessing, a seed,
and a land. God blesses his people by giving them descendants to
live in a land, subduing that land to bring glory to God.”22
Furthermore, Christ is the object of all God’s promises in the Old
Testament; it is only through Him that their provisions are granted
(2 Cor 1:20). For example, Christ is “the seed” (singular) of
Abraham, who received the covenantal promises made to Abraham
(Gal 3:16; cf. Mt 1:1). It is through union with Christ that the
church receives these promised blessings (Gal 3:14; Ro 8:15–17;
Rv 2:26–28; Eph 2:6). Christ is the Son of David, who rules on
David’s throne (Ac 2:30–36; Mt 1:1, 6).
Another way of demonstrating the unity of God’s covenants is by
considering that the heart of each of these covenants is the same,
i.e., the Immanuel principle—“God is with us.” The Abrahamic
Covenant (Gn 17:7), the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 6:6f; 19:4f; 29:45;
Lv 11:45; 26:12 44f; Dt 4:20; 29:13), the Davidic Covenant (2 Ki
11:17 // 2 Ch 23:16; cp. Ezk 34:24), and the New Covenant (Jer
22 John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006),
p. 250. Cf. Frame, Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2013), 1034.
13
24:7; 31:33; 32:37f; Zc 2:11; 8:8, 16; Mt 1:23; Heb 8:10; 2 Cor
6:16) all contain the same central promise as to how God will
relate to his people—“I shall be your God and you shall be my
people.” This theme is developed to show that, as a result of God
making covenant with his people, God actually dwells in the midst
of his people, particularly in the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex
25:8; 29:42–45; Lv 26:9–13; cp. Ezk 37:26–28), the temple in
Jerusalem (anticipated in Dt 12:5, 11, 14; 14:22; 16:2, 6f, 11; etc.;
cf. the heavenly temple, Rv 7:15; 15:5), in his incarnate Son (Jn
1:14; Col 2:9), in his church (Eph 2:21f; 1 Cor 3:16f), and,
ultimately, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rv 21:3). The Immanuel
principle, i.e., the presence of God,23 binds the whole Scripture
together.
Since the essence of each of these four covenants is the same, all of
them may be viewed as different administrations of the same basic
covenant of grace or redemption (“the eternal covenant,” Heb
13:20). Thus, as Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser explains, the
“New” covenant is
the “renewed” or “restored” covenant. … The “new”
began with the “old” promise made to Abraham, Moses,
and David; and its renewal perpetuated all those promises
and more. … Nothing was deleted, abrogated, jettisoned, or
replaced except that which was clearly so delimited from
its first appearance. Thus Jesus by His death renewed the
covenant, but He did not institute an entirely “new”
covenant.24
23 J. Ryan Lister, The Presence of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015). 24 Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), pp. 233f, 268. Elsewhere Kaiser adds, “Both Hebrew hadas
and Greek kainos frequently mean ‘to renew’ or ‘to restore,’ as in the ‘new
commandment,’ (which is actually an old one) the ‘new moon,’ the ‘new
creature in Christ,’ the ‘new heart,’ and the ‘new heavens and new earth’” (“The
Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 [Winter
1972] 17). It is true that there is an eschatological newness to the New
Covenant, with the epochal incarnation of the eternal Son of God breaking into
human history, inaugurating the Messianic kingdom in fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecy.
14
The same ethical requirements
God’s law has commonly been divided into three categories:
moral, ceremonial, and civil.25 The moral law primarily reveals
God’s absolute righteousness and judgment, and it defines sin
(which is equated with “lawlessness,” 1 Jn 3:4 NASB, NIV).
The moral law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments)
did not originate with the giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai.
Rather, the moral law of God was written on Adam’s heart at his
creation. This moral law continued to operate, even after the Fall
(Ro 5:13f; Gal 3:19; Ro 2:14f; 1:19f, 32). It was reinforced in
God’s subsequent covenants with Noah, Abraham (Gn 12:1; 17:1;
18:19; 26:5), and Moses (and renewed 40 years after the exodus in
the plains of Moab, Dt 5).26
25 This differentiation of three aspects of the one Law was made by Thomas
Aquinas (the Roman Catholic doctor), the Reformers (e.g., Luther,
Melanchthon, Calvin, etc.), and it appears in both Lutheran (Formula of
Concord) and Reformed Confessions (e.g., Westminster 19, Second Helvetic 12,
Belgic 25). Moreover, even the early church distinguished between the moral
law and the ceremonial law. See Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the
Apostles), translated by R. Hugh Connolly (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), pp. lix–
lxiii. This work was composed in the early 3rd century (Johannes Quasten,
Patrology, vol. 2 [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1953], pp. 147–152). The text is
reproduced in the 4th century Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 6:4 (Ante-
Nicene Fathers [ANF], eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. by A.
Cleveland Coxe, 10 vols. [repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980–1983],
7:458–461). In his introduction Connolly also notes, “Irenaeus too makes a clear
distinction between the Decalogue and the ceremonial Law” (p. lxiii). See
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:13–16 (ANF, 1:477–482) (written late 2nd
century).
Another classification of God’s law is a two-fold classification: (1) Moral
(declarative) law and (2) Restorative/Ceremonial/Typological law. In this two-
fold classification the moral law would include personal, familial, civil, and
ecclesiastical elements. See William O. Einwechter, “The Authority of God’s
Law,” Chalcedon Report 434 (October 2001) 13. 26 Francis Nigel Lee, “Christocracy and the Divine Savior’s Law for All
Mankind,” pp. 1–3 (available at: http://dr-
fnlee.org/docs6/christocracy/christocracy.pdf). Walter C. Kaiser adds, “All Ten
Commandments…appear, in one way or another, in Genesis” (Toward Old
15
The moral law is based on God’s immutable nature27 (Lv 19:2; 1
Jn 4:16); consequently, it is unchangeable. It is the same in the Old
Testament as in the New. Thus “obedience to the moral law is
God’s requirement of all people of all nations of all religions for all
times.”28 The moral law is the standard that God uses when he
brings judgment on man—Christian and non-Christian—
individuals, cities, nations, empires, or the whole world.29 It will
also be the standard on the final Day of Judgment.
Since God’s ethical standards cannot change, it comes as no
surprise to observe that God writes the same law that he gave to
Moses onto the minds and hearts of his people under the new
covenant (Jer 31:31–33; Heb 8:8–10; 10:16; Ezk 36:26f). (See
Appendix A for documentation.) Obedience to God’s moral law
(as summarized in the Ten Commandments) still results in
blessings (Eph 6:1–3).
Law and covenant are inseparable concepts. All of God’s
covenants contain law.30 Where there is no law there is no
covenant, for law is simply the written stipulations of a covenant.
To break God’s law is to break God’s covenant (Ho 8:1; Ps 78:10;
2 Ki 23:3, 24; Is 24:5).
According to our Lord and his Apostles, the heart of the ethical
teaching of the Old Testament Law was love (Dt 6:5; Lv 19:18; Mt
22:37–40; Ro 13:8–10; Gal 5:14; 1 Jn 2:7ff; etc.). God’s law
defines, and inculcates, love. Furthermore, obedience to God’s
Testament Ethics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983], p. 82); see Lee, p. 3 note 5
and p. 4 note 14. For a more thorough demonstration of this see: Robert E.
Fugate, “Appendix C: The Ten Commandments Did Not Begin on Mount
Sinai,” in God’s Law: Foundation for Moral Order; Francis Nigel Lee, God’s
Ten Commandments: Yesterday, Today, Forever (Ventura, CA: Nordskog
Publishing, 2007). 27 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, 2
vols. (1882; repr.: Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990), 1:65–68. 28 Francis Nigel Lee, “Christocracy and the Divine Savior’s Law for All
Mankind,” p. 4. 29 Numerous Old and New Testament examples are cited by Greg L. Bahnsen,
Theonomy in Christian Ethics, chaps. 18–19. 30 O Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, pp. 176–177ff.
16
commands is proof of one’s love for God (Jn 14:15, 21–24; 1 Jn
5:2f). Lawlessness, on the other hand, produces “lovelessness” (Mt
24:12). Christ hates lawlessness (Heb 1:9), so he will eternally
reject the lawless (Mt 7:23; 13:41).
People commonly misunderstand Christ’s words in the Sermon on
the Mount, “You have heard…but I say to you” (Mt 5:21, 27, 33,
38, 43), as teaching a new ethic. In these verses, Christ is not
quoting the Mosaic Law, but the oral traditions of rabbinic Judaism
(i.e., the halacha).31 Christ told the Jews of his day that, by means
of these and other binding religious traditions, they “invalidated
the word of God [i.e., the Old Testament Scripture] for the sake of
your tradition” (Mt 15:6). In other words, in the Sermon on the
Mount Christ was teaching what had always been the true meaning
of God’s law. He was not acting as the new lawgiver promulgating
a higher ethical code than that of the Old Testament. This means
that lust and unrighteous anger were sins long before Christ
preached the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 15:19 // Mk 7:21f).
Several of the great eschatological promises in the Bible include
the prophecy that God’s covenant people will bless the world with
his just Law (Dt 4:5–8; Ps 119:46; Is 2:3; 42:1–4; 51:4; Mi 4:1–3).
The same eschatological purposes and promises
Believers during both Old and New Testament eras share the same
eschatological purposes and promises:
The victorious mediatorial kingdom of Christ (Lk 1:31–33,
69; Mt 6:10; 13:31–33; 28:18–20; Ac 2:32–36; 1 Cor
15:20–28; Eph 1:19–23; Rv 1:5f; 11:15, 17; Pss 2:6–12;
110:1–4; 22:27f; 72:8–11, 19; Is 2:2–4; 9:6f; 42:1–4; Jer
23:5f; 33:15; Ezk 34:23f; 36:26–28; 37:24–26; Dn 2:31–35,
44f; 7:13f);
31 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy of Christian Ethics, pp. 92–95. Of course, in the
Sermon on the Mount Christ is dealing with sins rather than civil crimes—both
of which are addressed in the Mosaic Law.
17
Bodily resurrection from the dead (Ex 3:6 [cf. Mt 22:29–32
// Mk 12:24–27 // Lk 20:34–38]; Job 19:25–27; Ps 16:8–11
[cf. Ac 2:25–28, 31; 13:35]; Is 25:8; 26:19; Ezk 37:1–14;
Dn 12:2; cf. Gn 5:24; 22:5; Dt 32:39; 1 Sa 2:6; Job 14:13–
15; Pss 17:15; 49:14f; 68:20; 73:24f; 88:10; Ec 3:21; Ho
6:1f; Heb 11:10, 13–16, 19, 35; Lk 24:25–27, 44; Ac
26:22f);
New heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:10–
13; Rv 21f); and
Eternal blessedness with the triune God (Heb 11:10, 16, 35;
Mt 22:32; 8:11).
The importance of continuity
Church history teaches us that rejecting the ongoing validity of the
Old Testament Scripture fosters countless heresies. The following
notorious examples illustrate this principle.
Marcion (died approximately A.D. 154) brought the first major
heretical challenge to the post-apostolic church. Marcion was an
ascetic with some Gnostic tenets. He sincerely believed he was a
true follower of Jesus Christ. However, he taught a complete
discontinuity between the Old Testament (the Law prescribing
justice) and the New Testament32 (the Gospel teaching love and
mercy). The Old Testament was viewed as finished and no longer a
valid standard for doctrine and ethics. In the words of Tertullian,
“Marcion’s special and principal work is the separation of the law
and the gospel” (“Against Marcion,” 1:19:4, in ANF, 3:285).
Marcion’s revulsion toward the Old Testament led him to the
logical position of having to postulate two gods: the Old Testament
god of law, justice, and wrath, and, the New Testament God of
32 The terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” were first used by Origen
in the third century (Walter C. Kaiser, “The Old Promise and the New
Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 [Winter 1972] 14; Toward
Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 35).
18
grace, love, and mercy.33 (Contemporary Marcionites usually
obscure the fact that their views logically necessitate different gods
in the Old and New Testaments.)
Neo-Marcionic hatred toward the Old Testament was revived by:
the unitarian Socianians, Friedrich Schleiermacher (the father of
liberal theology), Johann Semler (the father of higher criticism),
Adolf von Harnack, the German Nazis, Rudolf Bultmann, etc.34
Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser gives a scathing critique of
holding to complete discontinuity between the Testaments when he
critiques a paper written by his colleague, Douglas Moo (who is a
Lutheran):
Ultimately, Moo is bound only by what is clearly repeated
within the New Testament teaching. What advice will he
give on marriage to close relatives (Lv 18), involvement
with forms of witchcraft and various forms of the occult
(Lv 19), against abortion (Ex 21)? Did Americans not learn
in 1973 [Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that
legalized abortion] that the largest legalized murdering
ventures in recent times—now exceeding Hitler’s six
million Jews sent up the chimney [in Lutheran Germany!]
by four times over with some twenty-four million babies
going in a bucket? What will it take to wake us up to the
narrowness of our views? If this is not a Marcionite view, it
is at least semi-Marcionite—and the disciples of our
teaching will soon prove what direction it was that we were
33 Beresford J. Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461 (Oxford: Clarendon,
1922), 213–221; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 5 vols. (Chicago, IL:
U of Chicago, 1971), 1:71–81; William Smith and Henry Wace, eds., A
Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, 4 vols.
(London: John Murray, 1877), 3:816–824; John Bright, The Authority of the Old
Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1967], pp. 60–62). 34 D.L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible, rev. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,
1991). John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 62–76. William
Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2 vols. [1882; reprint Edmonton, AB,
Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991], 2:106.
19
heading in if we refuse to fully follow the implication of
our own thought.35
The outstanding Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen also notes the
impotence of dispensational discontinuity in dealing with moral
issues of our day, e.g., capital punishment for murder, marriages
involving consanguinity (such as a woman marrying her father),
incest, rape as a civil crime, and bestiality.36 Without the ongoing
relevance of the Old Testament Scriptures, the church has no way
of addressing many of the contemporary social and political issues
of our day. Even basic economic issues such as private ownership
of property, maintaining just weights and measures, return of
borrowed and owed goods, making restitution, etc. can only be
addressed by the Church if she holds to the unity and binding
authority of God’s revelation in both Testaments.
Theologian R.J. Rushdoony makes even farther-reaching
conclusions:
Over the centuries, virtually all heresies have been hostile
to the Old Testament, or have decreed that it is now an
ended dispensation, or in one way or another have down-
graded it in part or in whole. … Down-grading the Old
Testament is a way of re-writing the New, because the
meaning of the New is destroyed if the Old Testament is
set aside in any fashion. As a result, the “New Testament
Christianity” of such heretics winds up being no
Christianity at all.37
His examples include philosophers Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,
and Tillich. Elsewhere Rushdoony quips,
35 Walter C. Kaiser, in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, ed.
Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), p. 400. The same
criticism could be given to Robert A. Morey (How the Old & New Testaments
Relate to Each Other [Las Vegas: Christian Scholars Press, 2002], pp. 27f; etc.). 36 Greg L. Bahnsen, By this Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1985), pp. 349f. Bahnsen describes those Christians who arbitrarily
do away with whatever Old Testament laws they dislike as “latent antinomians”
(p. 301). 37 Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Gnosticism,” Chalcedon Position Paper # 74, in The
Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1991), p. 325.
20
Marcion’s perversion has become “dispensational truth.” In
creating a division in the Bible, Marcion was the father of
both modernist critics and of dispensationalism. … Until
Marcion, Christians saw the Bible as one book. … For us to
read the Bible as two books rather than as one unified word
of God is to fall under Marcion’s influence. … Marcion
destroyed the unity of God’s revelation.38
Similarly, John Bright concludes, “Wherever it [Marcionism] has
been accepted, the result has been irreparable damage to the
Christian faith. … To loosen the bond between the Testaments
seems always to go hand in hand…with damage to the gospel.”39
Professor Peter Jones, in his thorough and insightful study of the
parallels between ancient Gnosticism and the contemporary new
age movement, concludes:
Stripping the Old Testament God from New Testament
Christianity did not fill the church with the Spirit of Christ, but
opened her doors to the religious pagan agenda of sexual
ecstasy, idols and spirit-inspired magic—about which the
silenced Old Testament had a lot to say.40
In sum, rejecting the ongoing validity of the Old Testament
Scripture produces a theologically-impotent form of Christianity
that cannot function as the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13). That is why
it is non-negotiable to maintain the above continuities between the
Older Testament and the Newer Testament.
On the basis of the doctrines of the unity of Scripture and of God’s
unchanging nature, we propose the following hermeneutical
principle of continuity: We must obey the Old Testament
teaching except where the New Testament has specifically
abrogated or modified its application.41 Only God has the
38 Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Marcionism,” Chalcedon Position Paper # 57, in The
Roots of Reconstruction, pp. 259, 261. 39 John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 76, 79. 40 Peter Jones, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America (Mukilteo, WA:
WinePress, 1997), pp. 249f. 41 This is diametrically opposed to the Dispensational hermeneutic that
postulates that no Old Testament commands are binding on the Church unless
21
authority to modify his Word, and we can discover where he has
done so in the text itself, as Walter Kaiser explains:
Only where the text itself (in either Testament) signals the
reader that the author clearly intended the material to have
a limited application or a built-in obsolescence can we dare
to conclude that the material in that section is discontinuous
and of no permanent or literal authority. This is not to say
that the same material may not, however, have behind it an
abiding principle that is clearly taught in the abiding and
continuous revelation of God.42
DISCONTINUITIES In our emphasis on continuities between the Old Testament and the
New Testament, we do not mean that there are no discontinuities.43
The New Testament clearly teaches that there are several
discontinuities from the Old Testament. Most of these
discontinuities concern atonement for sin, ritual worship, or the
nation Israel being the only people of God that had to be kept a
separate racial entity until the birth of the Messianic Son of David.
they are reaffirmed in the New Testament. This Dispensational hermeneutic
lacks exegetical basis and contradicts the teaching and practice of Christ and the
Apostles. For example, the writers of the New Testament clearly considered the
principles of the Old Testament case laws to be binding on the Church, citing
over twenty of them with the express purpose of using them to prove New
Testament doctrine and ethics. See: 1 Tim 5:17 (Dt 25:4); 2 Cor 6:14 (Dt 22:10);
Ro 10:6–8 (Dt 30:11–13); Ac 23:1–5 (Ex 22:28; Lv 19:15; Dt 25:2); 1 Cor
14:34; Mt 19:19//Mk 10:19 (Lv 19:13, 18); Mt 15:1–6 (Ex 21:17); Lv 20:9); Mt
4:4 (Dt 8:3); 1 Cor 9:9–14 (Dt 25:4); Ro 1:32 (Lv 20:13). See pp. 3–5 and
Appendix C. 42 Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 100. 43 “Indeed, there are areas of discontinuity between the testaments, but they are
not on the levels of error versus truth, law versus grace, external versus internal,
and material and national versus spiritual and universal; rather, they are those of
anticipation versus realization, historical-empirical versus eschatological-
eternal, and the provisional versus the everlasting” (Walter C. Kaiser, “The
Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JETS 18:2 [Spring 1975] 75).
22
We can lump these discontinuities together under the rubric of the
ceremonial law.44
Between Mount Sinai and Moab God gave the ceremonial law to
Israel. In general, the ceremonial laws regulated worship
(including atonement for sin), whereas the judicial laws regulated
society. Ceremonial and judicial laws are grouped together in
Deuteronomy chapters 6–25—in the very order of the Ten
Commandments (Dt 5:6–21). The purposes of the ceremonial law
were to:
foreshadow the redemptive work of Christ (e.g.,
substitutionary blood atonement for sin, priestly mediator);
and
symbolically set apart the Jews from the Gentiles.
The ceremonial law principally included: the priesthood,
ceremonial atonements, sacrifice, circumcision, ritual feasts and
holy days, and ritual places.
The Bible teaches that the ceremonial law was deliberately built
with a planned obsolescence. Its ceremonies were mere
parables/symbols (Heb 9:9), shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1),
and copies (Heb 8:5; 9:23f; Ex 25:9) of the heavenly reality. The
ceremonial law was a temporary teaching device (“tutor,” Gal
3:23–25) until the “surety” of the “better covenant” arrived (Heb
7:22; Gal 3:25). The Old Testament prophesied: the cessation of
the sacrificial system (Dn 9:27); a new prophetic mediator (Dt
18:18f); the inauguration of a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34); and a
king-priest after the order of Melchizedek rather than after the
Aaronic order (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:11–13ff).
The meaning and intention of the ceremonial laws remains the
same under the Older and New Covenants, but the manner in
44 The term “ceremonial law” is used to denote “those Old Covenant
commandments which regulated rituals and symbolic actions pertaining to the
redemption of God’s people and their separation from the unbelieving world,
rather than prescriptions about matters which were intrinsically moral” (Greg L.
Bahnsen, By This Standard, p. 352). Thus, a better term might be “restorative
law.”
23
which believers observe them has changed. Christ kept all of the
ceremonial laws so that we might observe them in Him. Christ, as
both the Lamb of God and the great high priest, fulfilled the
ceremonial law, and at Calvary it was abrogated forever (Col 2:14,
16f)—although the moral duties contained in the ceremonial law
are of permanent pedagogical value.45
Another reason for the covenantal shift in the New Testament that
abrogates the ceremonial law is the change from the nation Israel
being the only covenant people of God to the church being
comprised of people of all nations. This multi-racial church is to
disciple all nations, bringing every aspect of their culture under the
Lordship of Jesus Christ (Mt 28:18–20; Ps 2:6–12). In Christ’s
church the racial separation between Jew and Gentile has been
forever abolished (Eph 2:11 – 3:6; Ac 10:28; 15:9; Ro 10:12; Gal
3:28; 5:6; 1 Cor 7:19; 12:13; Col 3:11). The ceremonial laws were
designed to perpetuate a racial separation between Jews and
Gentiles. Thus James Dunn is on the mark in saying, “The law is
abolished insofar as it creates a breach between Jews and
Gentiles.”46
Because of this covenantal shift, the New Testament teaches that
the ceremonial laws are no longer to be kept by Christians (Heb 7–
10; Col 2:16f; Ac 10; 15 [Jerusalem Council]; Eph 2:15; Gal 3–
5)—including the Jewish food laws (Mk 7:19; 1 Tim 4:3–5; Col
2:16; Ro 14:2, 14, 17, 20ff; 1 Cor 8:8; 10:25–31; Heb 9:10; Ac
10:12–15; 15:19f, 28f). The ceremonial laws have “been ‘put out
of gear’ by the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ and redefinition
of the New Covenant people of God.”47 Because of this “change in
law” (Heb 7:12), the writer of Hebrews describes the ceremonial
law as: “set aside” (Heb 7:18); “obsolete” (Heb 8:13); “imposed
until the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10); and “abolished” (Heb
45 For example, Christians still honor the symbolized principle of separation
from ungodliness (2 Cor 6:14–18; Jude 23). 46 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 208,
paraphrasing James D.G. Dunn’s argument in Romans, 2 vols. (WBC) (Dallas,
TX: Word, 1988), p. 191. 47 Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian
Economics, 1991), p. 97.
24
10:9). (Acts 15:20f probably re-institutes the Noahic ceremonial
law of Gn 9:4.48)
Theologian Francis Nigel Lee exhorts us, “We must reject
neonomianism (or the heresy which would literalistically and
legalistically practise the Old Testament ceremonial laws in New
Testament times) because neonomianism promotes Judaistic or
Romanistic rituals which obscure the finality of Calvary.”49
(Two Judaistic heretical groups opposed by the early church were
the Ebionites and the Encratites.)
Here is a summary of ceremonial laws that have been fulfilled in
Christ:
Priesthood and sacrificial system, including Levirate
marriages (Dt 25:5f; Mt 22:24) and cities of refuge (Nu
25:15, 26f).
Jewish national separation and privilege: male
circumcision as the sign of the covenant; food laws (Lv
20:22–26);50 no mixtures (e.g., seed, fabric, yoked
animals);
48 Cf. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy of Christian Ethics, pp. 130f. 49 Ibid., p. 18. Sadly, this Biblical principle is rejected by some contemporary
messianic Jews. 5050 “The unclean animals symbolized the unclean nations, the Gentiles, with
whom Israel was forbidden to mix, whereas the clean species represented the
chosen people of Israel. Thus every time an Israelite ate meat he was reminded
of God’s grace in choosing Israel to be his people, and that as one of God’s elect
he had a duty to pursue holiness” (Gordon J. Wenham, “Law and the Legal
System in the Old Testament,” in Law, Morality, and the Bible, eds. Bruce Kaye
and Gordon Wenham [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978], p. 30). “God had
introduced the concept of clean and unclean foods in order to separate the
Israelites from other nations; now in the New Testament period the distinction
between clean and unclean foods is abandoned in order to show that God no
longer distinguishes between ‘clean’ Jews and ‘unclean’ Gentiles” (Ac 10:15,
28) (T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land [Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012], 265).
25
Jewish calendar of festivals (Dt 16:16f) and sabbaths,
e.g., seventh-day sabbath,51 seventh-year land sabbath (Ex
23:10); Year of Jubilee (Lv 25:11–13, 25–27); cp. Col
2:16f.
Physical land of Israel: Legally, Israelite families could
not permanently lose or dispose of their real estate
inheritance.
This eschatological, covenantal shift is summarized in the
following table:
Old Testament
Ceremonial Types
New Testament Realities
Aaronic priesthood Mediatory priesthood of Christ (order of
Melchizedek)—provides atonement and
intercession (Ps 110:4; Heb 5 & 7);
(On the basis of Christ’s priesthood and in
union with him) Priesthood of all believers—
regarding worship, prayer, fellowship with
God (1 Pt 2:9; Rv 1:6; 5:10)
51 This does not mean that there is no Sabbath day for Christians under the New
Covenant. The Sabbath was a creation ordinance (Gn 2:2f; Ex 20:8–11). It did
not begin with the Law of Moses (Ex 16:23–30), but is part of the unchanging
moral law of God. Beginning with the resurrection of Christ, the Sabbath day
was transferred from the 7th day of the week (Saturday) to the 1st day of the
week (Sunday), which is called “the Lord’s day” (Rv 1:10), or “the first day
Sabbath” (the literal translation of the Greek in Mt 28:1 // Mk 16:1f // Lk 24:1 //
Jn 20:1; Ac 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; cf. Ac 13:42). See: Francis Nigel Lee’s doctoral
dissertation, The Covenantal Sabbath (London: Lord’s Day Observance Society,
1966); John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Carlisle, PA:
Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:205–228; Johns D. Parker, The Sabbath Transferred
(East Orange, NJ: Johns D. Parker & Co., 1902); James Gilfillan, The Sabbath
Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History with Sketches of Its
Literature (1882; repr., Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books); Philip G.
Kayser, “The First Day Sabbath” (Omaha, NE: Dominion Covenant Church,
2001). The Puritans also wrote many good works on the Sabbath.
26
Sacrificial system Christ, the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7),
made atoning sacrifice once-for-all (Heb 9–
10)
Temple in
Jerusalem
Jesus Christ (Jn 2:19–22; Rv 21:22; cf. Col
2:9; Jn 1:14) and the church (1 Cor 3:16f;
6:19; Eph 2:20–22; 1 Pt 2:5)
One racially &
geographically
separate elect
nation (Israel)
One multi-racial, worldwide church (Mk
11:17; Gal 3:8, 28f; Eph 2:13–19; Col 3:11;
Rv 5:9f; cf. Mt 8:11f; Lk 10:33; Ac 10);
nations are Christ’s inheritance (Ps 2:6–12)
to be discipled (Mt 28:18–20) to obey
Christ’s just law (Is 2:2–4; 42:1–4) & to
worship God (Rv 21:24–26; Ps 22:27f)
Jewish calendar of
festivals &
sabbaths
First-day Sabbath commemorating
resurrection of Christ & new creation
OT sacraments:
circumcision,
washings, covenant
meals
Two NT sacraments: Baptism and Lord’s
Supper
Land of Israel Whole earth (Ro 4:13; Eph 6:3 with Ex
20:12; Ps 2:7; Mt 5:5; 28:18–20; 1 Cor 3:21–
23)
27
Appendices
Appendix A: The Law in the New Covenant in Jer 31:33 & Heb 8:10
The newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the
substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I
will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the
same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers.
He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of
the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.
John Calvin, Jeremiah, 4:131f [Cf. Calvin’s comment on Ezk
16:60f, “That which is promulgated for us in the Gospel is called
the New Covenant, not because it had no beginning previously, but
because it was renewed. … The new covenant so flowed from the
old that it was almost the same in substance, while distinguished
in form,” Ezekiel, 2:173, 178.]
“The law of God as revealed to Moses shall be written on the
heart. While the substance of the law will be the same, the mode
of its administration will be different. The form may change, but
the essence of the new covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy relates
directly to the law-covenant made at Sinai.” O Palmer
Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 41; cf. pp. 281f
“When the items of continuity found in the New covenant are
tabulated in this passage, they are…the same law, My torah (note,
not a different one than Sinai). … Thus the word ‘new’ in this
context would mean the ‘renewed’ or ‘restored’ covenant. … The
‘new’ began with the ‘old’ promise made to Abraham, Moses, and
David; and its renewal perpetuated all those promises and more. …
Nothing was deleted, abrogated, jettisoned, or replaced except that
which was clearly so delimited from its first appearance. Thus
Jesus by His death renewed the covenant, but He did not
institute an entirely ‘new’ covenant.” (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward
an Old Testament Theology, pp. 233f, 268
28
“The ‘law’ in view here is unquestionably the Mosaic
treaty.…The new covenant assumes the content of the old
Mosaic treaty. But its [new] form is like that of YHWH’s grants
to Abraham and David. Unlike the Mosaic treaty that rested on
Israel’s willingness to keep it, YHWH will unilaterally put his law
in Israel’s heart.” Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of
Conditionality Within the Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s
Apostacy and Restoration, pp. 136f (cited approvingly by Walter
C. Kaiser, “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law,” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society [JETS] 33/3 (Sept.,
1990):298)
“Jeremiah attributed no fault to the old covenant. … Jeremiah was
so far from attributing an inherent inadequacy to the regulations of
the law that he affirmed the perpetuity of the law. … He spoke
not of a change in the nature of the torah, but of its localization. …
Jeremiah used the term torah to refer to the statutes of the
Mosiac covenant in every one of its occurrences in his
prophecy.” Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise,
pp. 84f
“There is no suggestion in Jer 31:31ff of a new law to replace that
given through Moses: the suggestion is rather that the same law of
God—‘my law’ (Jer 31:33)—will be given in a new way. What is
looked forward to is not the abolition of the law, but its true and
effective establishment.” C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans, ICC, p. 854
“The New Covenant which is to take the place of the Old, when
looking to the form…is, in substance, the realization of the Old. …
The difference between the Old and New Covenant is…a relative
one only, not an absolute one. The law of God [is] the eternal
expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to both the Old
and New Covenants…not a new constitution for the latter. … The
law is the same; the relation only is different in which God places
it to man.” E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament,
1:704, 707
He is not of course proclaiming a new Torah. … By the old
covenant he means specifically the covenant made with Israel
through Moses after the Exodus, involving the promulgation of
29
Torah as the terms of the covenant. In what way will the old
covenant be superseded? Not in terms of the content of the Torah,
but in the way Israel receives it. … The substance of the Torah (the
divine instruction) is received and honoured [i.e., in the new
covenant]. Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah, NCB, pp. 400f
The law of the Lord thus forms, in the old as well as in the new
covenant, the kernel and essence of the relation instituted between
the Lord and His people. … What was commanded and applied to
the heart in the old is given in the new, and the new is but the
completion of the old covenant. C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, 2:38f
The content of the covenant agreement will be ‘my Torah.’ …
There is no indication, however, that the content of the law,
God’s will revealed in commandment, statute, and ordinance, will
be altered in the new covenant. Keown/Scalise/Smothers,
Jeremiah 26–52, WBC, 27:134
It is the same law associated with both old and new covenants. ...
The law of God is the standard of holiness required of him [the
Christian]. … There is no suggestion of antinomianism here or
anywhere else in the New Testament, which is the book of the new
covenant, nor is there any antithesis between law and love.
Philip E. Hughes, Hebrews, p. 301
The quality of the newness intrinsic to the new covenant consists
in the new manner of presenting God’s law and not in newness of
content. The people of God will be inwardly established in the law
and knowledge of the Lord. William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC,
47A:209
The last two lines of v. 10 present the new covenant as identical in
form with the old. Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews, NIGTC, p. 417
[In Jer 31:33 the Hebrew torah is singular; the LXX translates it as
a plural (as it is in Heb 8:10). “On no other occasion does the LXX
render the Hebrew singular in this way. It may be that the
translator wished to emphasize the separate parts of God’s law to
distinguish these parts from the law of Moses as a complete unity.”
Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p. 176]
30
Appendix B: Continuity in Hebrews 1:1
“Both parts of God’s revelation form one unit because there is but
one Author. There is but one God who reveals, and there is but
one revelation. The Word spoken by God to the forefathers in the
past does not differ basically from the Word spoken to us by his
Son.” Simon J. Kistemaker, Hebrews, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1984), pp. 27f.
“There is an historical continuity of both periods, that the
revelation in both is substantially one and the same” (Franz
Delitzsch, Hebrews, 1:41);
“In each case it is the same God who speaks and the same
message of salvation that he offers” (Heb 4:2; 11:40). Harold W.
Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia, Philadedphia: Fortress, 1989), p.
38.
“Previous revelations [the OT] proceeded from the same source
and are one in design and in general character with that which is
final [the NT].” Marcus Dods, The Epistle to the Hebrews,
Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols.
(repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 4:247
The book of Hebrews teaches that God still speaks in the Old
Testament (11:4; cf. 12:24f), and that his past words were intended
to have future effect (3:5). See Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews, NIGTC
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 92; cf. William L. Lane,
Hebrews 1–8, WBC, 47A:11; F.F. Bruce, Hebrews, NICNT, rev.,
p. 27.
31
Appendix C: The NT teaches the abiding validity of the OT case laws
(Ex 21–23; Dt 6–26)
Case laws relating to the state
OT capital crimes are capital crimes in the NT52—Ro 1:32,
e.g., vv 26–31 mention: idolatry; murder; homosexual acts (Lv
20:13); incorrigible rebellion against parents by juvenile
delinquents (Dt 21:18–21).
Lawful to use civil Law to punish lawless rebels—1 Tim 1:9f,
e.g., those who kill fathers or mothers (Ex 21:15); homosexuals
(Lv 20:13); kidnappers (Ex 21:16; Dt 24:7).
Corporeal punishment directly proportional to knowledge and
willfulness of the offense—Lk 12:47f (Dt 25:2f); Severe
punishment for deliberate sins—Heb 10:26–29 (Nu 15:30).
Laws of restitution—Lk 19:8 (Ex 22:1; Lv 6:2–5; Nu 5:7);
Cursing father or mother is a capital offense—Mt 15:1–6 (Ex
21:17; Lv 20:9);53
52 The New Testament reaffirms the death penalty (Mt 15:4; Ac 25:11; Ro 1:32;
13:4; Rv 13:10; cf. Ac 26:31). Note: The phrase “worthy of death” (a;xion
qana,tou) was a common legal term that denoted having committed a crime that
warranted capital punishment in Roman jurisprudence (Lk 23:15; Ac 23:29;
25:11, 25; 26:31). Paul himself clearly uses the phrase with this meaning (Ac
25:11). Therefore, the phrase should be understood to denote capital punishment
when Paul writes to the Romans (1:32). In fact, the Greek words a;xioj (worthy)
and qa,natoj (death) occur together in only six New Testament verses (Lk 23:15;
Ac 23:29; 25:11, 25; 26:31; Ro 1:32)—always with the juridical meaning of
capital punishment. (Note: Paul wrote the Epistle of Romans during the same
time period as that narrated in Ac 23–26, i.e., A.D. 57–59.) 53 Christ taught this about nine months prior to the cross and the inauguration of
the New Covenant (summer, A.D. 29 to spring, A.D. 30; see Robert L. Thomas
and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels with Explanations and
Essays, NASB [Chicago, IL: Moody, 1978], p. 348). He certainly gave no
indication that this instruction would be irrelevant after nine months! (Contrast
Jn 4:21.) Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Matthew wrote (late
50’s – early 60’s) these instructions from Christ under the assumption that they
were no longer valid!
32
Judges must judge justly, i.e., according to the standards of
God’s law—Ac 23:1–5 (Dt 25:1f; Lv 19:15, 35);
Don’t curse rulers—Ac 23:4f (Ex 22:28);
Establishing truth by two or three witnesses—2 Cor 13:1 and 1
Tim 5:19 (Dt 19:15);
Criminal guilty of capital crime is cursed—Gal 3:13 (Dt
21:22f);
Prompt payment of employees—Ja 5:4 (Lv 19:13; Dt 24:15;
Mal 3:5).
Case laws relating to the church
Don’t muzzle a threshing ox—1 Cor 9:9–14; 1 Tim 5:17f (Dt
25:4; cf. Lv 6:16);
Women keep silent be submissive in church as the Law
requires—1 Cor 14:34;
Incest requires cutting off from the covenant community—1
Cor 5 (Lv 20:11f, 14; 18:6–19).
Case laws relating to the family
Don’t be unequally yoked—2 Cor 6:14 (Dt 22:10; 7:2f).
Case laws relating to the individual
The Mosaic Law proclaims Christ;54 embracing him in faith
will produce a life that enjoys God’s blessing (rather than
adversity and death)—Ro 10:6–8 (Dt 30:12–14ff);
Man doesn’t live by bread alone but by every word that comes
from God’s mouth—Mt 4:4//Lk 4:4 (Dt 8:3);
Christians must live holy lives because God dwells in them—2
Cor 6:16 (Ex 29:45; Lv 26:12); cf. 1 Pt 1:16 (Lv 11:44);
Love your neighbor as yourself—Mt 19:19//Mk 12:31, 33//Lk
10:27; Mt 22:39f; Gal 5:14; Ja 2:8; cf. Ro 13:8 (Lv 19:18; cf.
13);
Love your enemies—Mt 5:44 and Ro 12:20 (Ex 23:4f);
54 Cranfield, Romans, ICC.
33
Don’t take personal vengeance; God is the Avenger—Ro 12:19
and Heb 10:30 (Lv 19:18; Dt 32:35) (cf. Ro 15:10 & Dt 32:43);
Curse for basing justification on person’s works (or race)
instead of on faith—Gal 3:13 (Dt 27:26).55
Christians are solemnly exhorted to learn from Israel’s acts of
disobedience and the resultant punishments (1 Cor 10:4–11 and
Heb 3–4).
Note: The New Testament’s expanded application of the Old
Testament case laws does not undermine their original jurisdiction.
55 This is not law-keeping, but lawlessness (Mt 23:28).
34
Recommended Reading
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980).
Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace (1953; repr., Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988).
____. Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957),
pp. 194–201.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:9:4 – 2:10:23.
Clowney, Edmund P. “The New Israel,” in A Guide to Biblical
Prophecy, eds. Carl E. Armerding and W. Ward Gasque
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), pp. 207–220.
Niell, Jeffrey D. “The Newness of the New Covenant,” in The
Case for Covenantal Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003).
North, Gary. Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic
Commentary on Leviticus. Dallas, GA: Point Five Press, 2012.
Pp. 938–943. Complete electronic edition; available at
http://garynorth.com/boundariesanddominion3.pdf.
____. Leviticus: An Economic Commentary. Tyler, TX: Institute
for Christian Economics, 1994. Pp. 637–643. Condensed print
edition.
Kaiser, Walter C. “The Old Promise and the New Covenant:
Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 (Winter 1972).
____. Recovering the Unity of the Bible: One Continuous Story,
Plan, and Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).
____. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), pp. 231–235, 268f.
____. Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1987).
____. Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1983).
Bahnsen, Greg L. By this Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1985).
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian
Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 503–535ff.
35
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986), 2:366–373; 3:551f.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1941), pp. 279f.
Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus on the
Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), pp.
99f.
36
Additional Biblical Worldview Resources by Dr. Robert Fugate
Hard cover books
The Bible: God’s Words to You is an 863-page, Reformed,
presuppositional treatment of the doctrine of Scripture, including:
inspiration, inerrancy, Reformation properties of Scripture,
illumination by the Holy Spirit, Old and New Testament canon,
apocrypha, and textual criticism. One of the unique features of this
book is its presentation of the subject of bibliology from the
perspective of the Biblical world- and life- view, along with a
presuppositional approach to apologetics. The book teaches from
Scripture itself, while still providing abundant, choice citations
from the best Reformed and evangelical literature. The Bible:
God’s Words to You includes a glossary, five appendices, and
memory verses. One particularly useful appendix surveys the
doctrine of Biblical inerrancy throughout church history, offering a
litany of carefully-selected, well-referenced citations.
Endorsed by: Kenneth Gary Talbot, Ph.D., Th.D., Ed.D., J.D.; W.
Gary Crampton, Ph.D, Th.D.; Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.
Paperback books
Psycho-Heresy: Christianizing Pagan Psychologies. This 6x9-
inch, 336-page paperback examines the question, Can
psychological counseling be Christian counseling? The first
section presents the Biblical worldview—including a Biblical
theory of knowledge (i.e., epistemology) and the impossibility of
science arriving at truth (since it is based upon an epistemology of
empiricism and probabilistic inductive reasoning). The second
section presents key areas of systematic theology that are appealed
to by Christian integrationist counselors (such as the nature of
man, and general and special revelation). Since one of the main
gurus of the Christian counseling movement adamantly rejects the
gospel of “Lordship salvation” (which requires repentance from
sin), a Biblical examination of this topic is also included. On this
37
basis of the Biblical worldview and sound systematic theology, the
third section examines the roots, teachings, claims, and practices of
evangelical integrationist counseling (which attempts to synthesize
psychology and the Bible). This examination includes pervasive
psychological themes, such as: self-esteem; the meeting of
psychological “needs”; the gospel as unconditional and
undemanding love; inner healing and self-love as the keys to
personal transformation; the healing of memories; and freeing from
addictions and codependencies.
Endorsed by: Franklin Ed. Payne, M.D.; Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,
Ph.D.
Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government: Proclaiming the
Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Nations. A 134-page
introduction to the subject of civil government, from the
perspective of the Biblical worldview. Topics include: What are
the jurisdictions of family, church, and state? Can there be a
religiously neutral civil government? What is the source of just
laws? What are the Biblical qualifications for civil officials? What
constitutes a just war? How should Christians resist a tyrannical
state? Additional topics include: the idolatry of statism; the
relationship between church and state; civil disobedience; eminent
domain, etc.
Endorsed by: Hon. Howard Phillips; Lt. Colonel John Eidsmoe,
J.D.; Dr. Ted Baehr, J.D.; Jay Grimstead, D.Min.; Rev. Phillip G.
Kayser, Ph.D.; Tom Rose; Dan Smithwick; Rev. William O.
Einwechter, Th.M.; Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony.
Available in both English and Spanish editions.
God’s Mandate for Biblical Education. Education can only be
understood from the perspective of worldviews. God’s Mandate
for Biblical Education briefly examines the components of
worldviews (particularly epistemology), and then presents the
Biblical worldview of education. Nine arguments (including the
absolute lordship of Jesus Christ and covenant faithfulness) are
powerfully presented, demonstrating that Biblically-consistent,
comprehensive, Christian education is Biblically-mandated for all
subjects of study, for all Christian children. This is followed by the
38
six necessary components of Christian education, i.e., Biblically
directed: teachers, content, goals, standard, method, and
motivations. Foundational presuppositions for a Biblical
philosophy of history, language, and science are taught. (Most
people are surprised to learn that it is philosophically and logically
impossible for science to ever arrive at absolute truth!) Many other
questions are answered head-on, such as: Can education ever be
religiously neutral? What is the Biblical role of the church and the
state in the education of children? Is “classical” Christian
education Biblical? (The answers may surprise you!) The
differences between the Hebrew and Greek models of education
are powerfully presented. In summary, this 148-page book does
not deal with the well-documented evils in the public schools;
neither is it based on the unbiblical philosophy of pragmatism;
instead, it provides a hard-hitting ideology of truly Biblical
education that is applicable in all cultures, forcing Christians to re-
think most contemporary practices. Powerful quotes from Luther,
A.A. Hodge, Machen, and many others are included. God’s
Mandate for Biblical Education makes an excellent gift for pastors
and church libraries.
Endorsed by: E. Ray Moore, Th.M.; Bruce N. Shortt, Ph.D., J.D.;
Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; Tom Rose.
God’s Royal Law: Foundation of Moral Order. This 79-page
paperback answers the following questions. What are the 8
different lexical definitions of the word “law” in the New
Testament? Is God’s law inherently opposed to grace, faith, love,
and the Spirit? What different purposes does God’s law serve?
What 3 things was God’s law never designed to do? Are the
traditional divisions of God’s law (moral, civil, and ceremonial)
Biblically justified? How does Christ relate to lawless people?
What does the New Testament teach about Old Testament case
laws? What is the significance of God writing His law on the
hearts of His people in the new covenant?
Toward a Theology of Taxation. Toward a Theology of Taxation.
This 115-page paperback pioneers the application of God’s
infallible and sufficient Word to the area of taxation. Many areas
39
are explored: What types of taxes are mentioned in Scripture?
Does God disapprove of some types of tax? What tax did God
institute in Old Testament Israel? What does the prophet Samuel’s
warning against a centralized civil government teach about
increased taxation? Is the modern concept of taxation as the
vehicle for socialistic revolution really Biblical? In what ways does
“Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” limit the civil
government? Is a tax revolt Biblical?
Endorsed by: Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; appendix printed in
Faith for All of Life.
Booklets
Antinomianism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: An
Illustration of the Consequences of Rejecting God’s Law. This
33-page booklet describes three types of antinomians (i.e., those
rejecting God’s moral law). In these groups we see several
similarities with contemporary evangelical Christian thought: a
strong rejection of the Old Testament, producing a “New
Testament only Christianity”; elements of Greek dualism;
charismatics who “follow the Spirit” while rejecting the letter of
Scripture; contemplative worship that replaces Bible teaching;
pitting God’s law against grace (“all things are lawful”); using the
doctrine of grace to foster sexual immorality; no law but love;
church tradition trumps God’s law; socialistic communities; sinless
perfection; and universal salvation. Ideas have consequences.
Antinomianism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
poignantly illustrates the consequences of rejecting God’s moral
law. Contains a bibliography.
Biblical Imprecations: Christians’ Secret Weapon. One of the
perplexing ethical and hermeneutical problems facing Biblical
scholars, pastors and intercessors, is the imprecatory Psalms, i.e.,
those Psalms that call or wish for God’s judgment, calamity or
curse upon the enemies of God and God’s covenant people. Is it
ever appropriate for Christians to pray Biblical imprecatory
prayers? Why or why not? If these prayers are ever appropriate, in
40
what circumstances are they to be used and by whom? The text of
the imprecatory Psalms is given in an appendix—for convenient
use in prayer. This 56-page booklet contains a bibliography.
Endorsed by: Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; John Eidsmoe, J.D.,
M.Div.; Jay Grimstead, D,Min.
A Brief History and Critique of Natural Law Theory — Is Natural
Law Sufficient to Govern Society? What is “natural law” and why
is it so ambiguous? Is nature normative? Where does the Bible
command people to govern their societies by natural law? Why is
it always necessary to interpret general revelation by the Bible?
Should politically active Protestants adopt Roman Catholic natural
theology? Is natural law theory logical? Is natural law practical?
What are six consequences of basing civil laws on natural law?
This 43-page booklet contains a bibliography.
Jealousy, Hatred, and Wrath: The Disregarded Attributes of
God. This 43-page study makes a formidable, well-documented
case that the attributes or perfections of the triune God—as He has
revealed Himself in the Bible—include jealousy (especially toward
idolatry), hatred of evil, and just wrath that punishes sinners. This
provides a needed correction to the proclivity of fashioning a god
after one’s own imagination—a god whose only attribute is love. A
bibliography is included.
Justice and Sovereignty: Perfections of God Imaged by His
People. This 39-page booklet examines the Biblical teaching
regarding God’s attributes of justice and sovereignty and then
delves into how God’s people image them individually and how
they should be reflected in society. A bibliography is included.
Modernism and Postmodernism: Their History, Beliefs, Cultural
Influence—and How to Refute Them. This 54-page booklet
presents a Biblical analysis and critique of two crucial intellectual
movements that have successively dominated much thinking in the
Western world, from the 17th century to the present. The booklet
begins by defining modernism and postmodernism and briefly
tracing their historical and philosophical roots to the Renaissance
41
and especially to the Enlightenment. The key beliefs of modernism
and postmodernism are clearly and succinctly summarized.
Adopting these key beliefs has had a massive, devastating impact
on orthodox Christian theology, on Biblical hermeneutics, and on
the entire Western culture. The fundamental points of
disagreement between Biblical theism, modernism, and
postmodernism are explained. The correlation between
postmodernism and Emergent churches is also noted. A powerful,
presuppositional rebuttal of modernism and postmodernism
demonstrates that neither of them has a coherent worldview that
can provide a foundation for knowledge and ethics. After ravaging
postmodernism, the Biblical theology of language is taught.
Some Continuities and Discontinuities between the Older
Testament and the Newer Testament. This 35-page booklet
stresses the unity of Scripture and the importance of using the
entire Bible. It answers the following questions. How were people
saved in the Old Testament? What is the relationship between the
Old Testament covenants and the new covenant? Were Old
Testament ethics inferior to the ethics of the New Testament?
What continues from the Old Testament and what does not
continue and why? The hermeneutical question of continuity/
discontinuity affects Christian practice in many areas, e.g., church-
state relations, civil laws (e.g., capital punishment, abortion),
dietary laws, regulations for worship, church polity, keeping the
Sabbath, etc. A bibliography is included.
What Is the Relationship between Christianity and Culture? —
Five Historical Views and Their Consequences. This 36-page
study briefly summarizes the five predominant views regarding the
relationship between Christianity and culture, which have been
held over the last two thousand years, by different branches of the
Christian church. It then presents a compelling Biblical case for the
Christ-the-transformer-of-culture view that was taught and
practiced by Augustine, John Calvin, most Puritans, Jonathan
Edwards, Abraham Kuyper, A.A. Hodge, and others.
42
Booklet authored by Vonne L. Fugate
Ten Commandments: From Tablets of Stone into the Hearts of
God’s People. This 49-page introduction to the Ten
Commandments contains many practical applications, making it an
excellent tool for Bible study groups. Ten Commandments has
received an enthusiastic endorsement from constitutional attorney,
John Eidsmoe.