Home   Bible Studies   Blog   About   Helpful Links   Contact

Archive for the ‘new covenant theology’ Category

New Covenant Theology Interview:
Hermeneutic, System, and Questions

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

By Greg Gibson

Here is a brief 7 minute and 20 second audio/podcast interview I did on New Covenant Theology. (Thanks to Uri Brito for providing the audio. Below are my edited notes from the interview…

———-

New Covenant Theology is a hermeneutic that results in a system. First we will define the hermeneutic, then the system, and finally answer some questions…

New Covenant Theology Hermeneutic

Hermeneutic: The New Testament consistently interprets the Old Testament. We can see this New Testament hermeneutic in church history…

    A. Justyn Martyr: Called the Church the new Israel (despite being historic pre-millennial).

    B. Many apostolic fathers: Non-Sabbatarians (did not believe God changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and did not apply the 4th command to Sunday).

    C. “Pre-Anabaptists” like the Donatists and Waldensians (mostly Baptists), and Reformation Anabaptists rejected paedobaptism for credobaptism, and rejected church-state theocracy. (Agreement with their New Testament hermeneutic applied to ecclesiology is not necessarily an endorsement of all their other beliefs.)

This New Testament hermeneutic resulted in parts which were combined into a whole system by Jon Zens, John Reisinger, etc. starting in the late 20th century.

New Covenant Theology System

1. New Testament eschatology (contra Dispensationalism)
2. New Testament ecclesiology (contra paedobaptist, Covenant Theology)
3. New Testament nomology (contra paedobaptist and Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology)

IOW, Christ brought a new covenant with a new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new land, new people of God, and new law.

New Covenant Theology Distinctives

1. Hermeneutic: New Testament consistently interprets the Old Testament (not author’s original intent/literal/grammatical-historical).

2. Scripture: Christ-centered Bible (not Israel-centered or covenant-centered).

3. God’s Purpose and Covenants: One pre-historical purpose revealed in historical, distinct covenants (not two purposes, or one Covenant of Grace).

4. Old Testament Prophecy: Promises to Israel fulfilled by Christ and believers (Jews and Gentiles) in the Church.

5. Church: Regenerate members (not believers and their children).

6. Law: Obey all that Christ commanded (not Antinomianism, or Moses’ commands).

7. Sanctification: Christ-centered growth (not law-centered).

New Covenant Theology Questions

1) In what sense is the Decalogue abolished?

My view is that Christ abolished the Decalogue for direct obedience, but not revelation and doctrine. Jesus and His apostles transferred 9 of the 10 Commandments into the New Covenant canon (New Testament), so that we obey them from the authority of the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

2) What about Matthew 5:17 in this debate?

It’s probably the most important passage on how the Old Testament relates to the New Testament. I’m not sure if New Covenant Theology has a consensus view, so I’ll explain my view.

    A. Law or Prophets means Pentateuch or Prophets (both parts of the whole Old Testament), not the Decalogue or moral law alone.

    B. Fulfill means for eschatological/typological/prophetic fulfillment, not confirm for obedience.

    C. “These commandments” are Christ’s commands, not Moses’ commands.

3) How does New Covenant Theology view the 4th commandment?

New Covenant Theology views the Sabbath command as fulfilled and cancelled by Christ. Many New Covenant Theologians distinguish between 2 Sabbaths: God’s eternal rest (salvation: Gen. 2, Mt. 11:28-29:, and Heb. 4) vs. Israel’s 24-hour, weekly rest (Ex. 16, Ex. 20, Deut. 5, etc.) We see Israel’s weekly Sabbath as a gospel picture of Christ’s eternal rest which we enter by faith. IOW, the type was Israel’s weekly Sabbath, and the antitype is Christ’s eternal rest (Col. 2:16-17) in the new creation.

4) How does New Covenant Theology view the Lutheran law/gospel distinction?

As a hermeneutic where the whole Bible can be divided into law or gospel, I’m not aware of a New Covenant Theology consensus. But for sanctification, NCTs clearly distinguish between indicatives and imperatives, especially since we see a contrast between the Old Covenant’s “if you obey, then you will be” in Ex. 19:5-6 vs. the New Covenant’s “you are” in 1 Pet. 2:9. Also in redemptive history, we distinguish between law-grace, not law-gospel (Jn. 1:17; Rom. 6:14).

5) Should we use the law in evangelism?

RE: Decalogue-evangelism, I agree with Doug Moo, “the popular notion that the Mosaic law should be preached as a preparation for the gospel, revealing sin and one’s need of salvation, has slim Biblical support. None of the examples of evangelistic preaching in the New Testament uses the law in this way” (Stanley N. Gundry, Ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 339).

Proof: Look at a Bible that shows Old Testament quotes in the New Testament. In Acts, you’ll see direct, explicit quotes from Joel 2, Ps. 110, etc., but not Ex. 20 or Dt. 5 (although they were implied).

When evangelizing, we can convict sinners by appealing to 3 different sources of law:

    1. The Old Covenant Law of Moses: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image” (Ex. 20:4).

    2. The New Covenant Law of Christ: “idolaters…their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire” (Rev. 21:8).

    3. Conscience: “Idolatry is a sin” (no Scripture).

Summary of Christ and the Apostles’ Evangelistic Preaching on Sin:

    1. Jesus evangelized one Jew by quoting from the Decalogue, but not for conviction of sin (Mt. 19:16ff).

    2. The apostles evangelized Jews by implying, but not explicitly quoting the Decalogue.

    3. The apostles evangelized Gentiles by convicting of sin from the conscience, not the Decalogue.

Conviction of sin of unbelief in Jesus the risen Lord:
“he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment. In regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned” (Jn. 16:8).

6) What is New Covenant Theology’s eschatology?

Most NCTs are amillennial., some are historic premillennial.

Edited 4/15/10

Tags: , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | 6 Comments »

Search Inside the Book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”

Monday, October 20th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

150x199.jpgIf you’ve wondered what’s in the book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”, wonder no more. Now, with the help of Google Book Search, you can search up to 20% of the book’s pages.

Two good places to start are the Subject Index (p. 153) and Author Index (p. 155, which includes several interesting quotes). Start searching here: New Covenant Theology

Tags: , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »

“ALL Old Covenant or Old Testament Laws Cancelled?”

Monday, October 6th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

Most Christians believe that the Sabbath command is cancelled. And, some believe that all Old Covenant laws are cancelled, including the whole Decalogue. So, why do I believe that all Old Testament laws are cancelled?

In my book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled” I devoted 3 chapters to explaining why the laws from Genesis - Sinai are cancelled. Here are the 3 chapter titles…

13. Since Genesis Is Part of the Law, the Commands From Genesis – Sinai Are Cancelled (Genesis is part of the law as revelation, not as covenant which started later at Sinai.)

16. The Church Is Built on the Foundation of New Testament Apostles and Prophets’ Teaching (Eph. 2:19-20ff., cf. 3:5, 4:11)

17. Archaeology Testifies That the Bible Contains 2 Separate Canons (Rules) (The Old Covenant’s structure has several parallels to ancient, near-Eastern treaties, which included historical introductions. Genesis appears to be the historical introduction to the Old Covenant law of Moses.)

Here is Chapter 13 in its entirety…

“Did you know that Genesis is part of the law as revelation (Old Testament?) Here are 4 reasons showing why Genesis is part of the law…

1. Genesis 21 is called “the law” in Galatians 4:21-22.

    “Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons: one by a slave woman and one by a free woman” (Gal. 4:21-22 referring to Gen. 21; cf. Rom. 3:31ff.)

2. The phrase “law and prophets” means “Genesis – Malachi” (the whole Old Testament).

3. Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

4. Archaeology testifies that Genesis is the historical introduction to the Old Covenant canon. God patterned the Old Covenant’s literary structure with some similarities to ancient, near-Eastern treaties, which included an historical introduction before the actual covenant document.

Ancient covenants were put into effect with a surrounding body of literature, a.k.a. canon. Covenant produces canon. Our Bible is made of 2 major covenants, the Old and New covenants, each surrounded by its own canon, the Old and New Testaments.

(To understand this more, see The Structure of Biblical Authority in #17 below…)

So, when the New Testament says the law is cancelled, that includes Genesis, not just post-Sinai commands.” (Excerpted from the book: “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”, 24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled, And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience, by Greg Gibson, p. 86)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | 2 Comments »

“Did the Holy Spirit Replace the Law?”

Monday, October 6th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

Did the Holy Spirit replace the law of Moses? Some Christians have concluded that based on Gal. 5:18 and Rom. 7:6. (Yet, perhaps a better term to describe the relationship between the law of Moses and the Spirit is “contrast” instead of “replace.”)

So, does the Spirit contrast the law of Moses? Yes, but we need to be careful not to read the word “only” into Gal. 5:18 and Rom. 7:6, since the law of Moses is contrasted with at least 7 other truths…

8 Contrasts to the Law of Moses

1. The Law of Moses vs. the Spirit

    “But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Gal. 5:18).

    “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6).

2. The Law of Moses vs. Grace and Truth

    “For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Jn. 1:17).

3. The Law of Moses vs. Faith

    “Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed…But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian…” (Gal. 3:23-25; cf. justification 3:11-12, 24-25, and righteousness 3:21).

4. The Law of Moses vs. Adoption

    “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who are under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons” (Gal. 4:4-5).

5. The Law of Moses vs. Christ’s Priesthood

    “Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (Heb. 7:11-12).

    “For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever” (Heb. 7:28).

6. The Law of Moses vs. a Better Hope of Approaching God

    “On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God” (Heb. 7:18-19).

7. The Law of Moses vs. Christ’s Sacrifice

    “…’You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings’ (these are offered according to the law), then he added, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will. He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:8-10, cf. 1ff.).

8. The Law of Moses vs. the Law of Christ

    “To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law” (1 Cor. 9:20-21).

(This is not to imply that there were no Spirit, faith, grace and truth during the law of Moses. Few Israelites possessed saving faith or the indwelling Spirit. But, all New Covenant saints have faith in Christ and the indwelling Spirit.)

It’s important to understand that all 8 points above contrast the Old Covenant law of Moses (not all law including the New Covenant law of Christ) to New Covenant truths. The law of Christ is even distinguished and affirmed in one of those contrasts (1 Cor. 9:20-21). And, the context of Galatians “criticizes” the law of Moses in redemptive history. Plus, Galatians gives several commands, and also affirms the law of Christ…

    “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” (Gal. 6:2)

Jesus Christ the New Lawgiver has a law inspired and written by the Spirit in the New Testament and on our hearts, for His people who have faith in Christ, who are adopted by the Father, and led by the Spirit.

So no, the Spirit (alone) didn’t replace the law. The Spirit is only one of 8 contrasts vs. the law of Moses.

Perhaps these 8 contrasts also help us understand how Christ fulfills the Law and Prophets. He fulfills them by everything He is, does, and teaches; by His Person, His works (including His Sprit), and His words (including His commands).

Here’s how I explained it in my book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”…

“Moses’ Law Prepared Unjustified, Spirit-Less Slaves for Christ’s 1st Coming

One reason why God gave the law of Moses to Israel was to tutor/prepare them for Messiah’s 1st coming, so they might be justified by faith, adopted, and Spirit indwelled. But now, we don’t need the Mosaic law to tutor/prepare us because Messiah has already come, we are justified by faith (Gal. 3:23-25), adopted (Gal. 3:26 - 4:7), and Spirit-indwelled (Gal. 5:18).

Christ’s Law Helps Prepare Justified, Spirit-Indwelled Heirs for His 2nd Coming

Moses’ law prepared unjustified, Spirit-less slaves for Christ’s 1st coming. But, Christ’s law helps prepare justified, Spirit-indwelled heirs for His 2nd coming.”

(“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”, 24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled, And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience, by Greg Gibson, pp. 118.)

Edited April 1, 2009

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | 3 Comments »

New Covenant Theology Book Ready

Monday, September 29th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

Did you enjoy reading the 3, free chapters last week from my new book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”? If so, that was only the tip of the iceberg. The book includes 25 more chapters to help you make sense of God’s law in redemptive history.

And, if you’ve been waiting to read the rest of the story, the printer says we are finally ready to ship. So, you can place your order now, here: New Covenant Theology Book

Greg Gibson
JesusSaidFollowMe.org

Tags: , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »

New Covenant Theology Book Excerpts

Friday, September 19th, 2008

By Greg Gibson

How would you like to read 3, free chapters from my new book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience

(BTW, I’ve edited and expanded this book from the previous e-book by adding 7 new charts and 8349 more words. Now, it’s far clearer than before.)

Here is the book’s Table of Contents:

And, here are the 3, free chapters…

Preface and Introduction (with 1 chart and 3 diagrams)

But the Ten Commandments Are the Moral Law of God

But Christ Did Not Come to Abolish the Law

Please don’t order the book yet, since we are waiting for the printer’s approval. When the book is ready for shipping next week, I’ll announce it here…

P.S. Notice to Email Subscribers:

In order to continue receiving future updates about new Bible studies, blogs, and book excerpts, you must resubscribe to our new email service Feedburner (owned by Google).

To resubscribe, please…
1. Click on JesusSaidFollowMe.org
2. Look in the upper left corner of the page for JesusSaidFollowMe News.
3. Type your email address.
4. Click “Send Me News.”

If you don’t resubscribe, then you will not receive any more emails when I post new, book excerpts here.

See you next week…

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »

“Does New Covenant Theology Allow Beastiality and Incest?”

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

By Greg Gibson

One of the hottest arguments against New Covenant Theology (NCT) in blogs/forums goes something like this:

    “Since the New Testament doesn’t explicitly state that beastiality and incest are sins, therefore New Covenant Theology can’t be true.” (Just try to follow the “logic” behind that one!)

(Covenant Theologians might hurl that kind of argument against the New Covenant Theology in “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Cancelled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.”)

However, the same type of argument could easily be made against the Old Testament. Where does the Old Testament explicitly state that the following are sins:

    1. Abortion?
    2. Po-rn?
    3. Pedophilia?
    4. Being a pimp?
    5. Oral s-e-x before marriage?
    6. Buying an idol?
    7. Trying to buy the power of the Holy Spirit? (Acts 8:20)
    8. Lovers of themselves? (2 Tim. 3:2)
    9. Lovers of money? (2 Tim. 3:2)
    10. Etc.

(If you want to reply with the above words, please use the hyphens to avoid the spam filter.)

And, if you put your mind to it, I’m sure you could think of many more examples of so-called “moral sins” that aren’t stated explicitly in the Old Testament.

Two Assumptions: Explicit and Exhaustive

The problem with the above objection is that it’s dependent on 2 unexamined assumptions:

    1. The Old Covenant contains an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” (I prefer the phrase “law of conscience.”)

    2. The New Testament must contain an explicit and exhaustive revelation of “moral law” for New Covenant Theology to be true.

However, I don’t believe that either the Old Testament or New Testament explicitly reveal ALL the laws of conscience. (If they did, the Bible would have to be a lot longer!) We know some things are wrong because “we know that we know” (conscience.)

Although the objections about beastiality and incest are irrelevant to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above, let’s discuss them anyway…

All Christians agree that humans have consciences convicting them of certain “sins.” But, God never defines those sins for us in Scripture. However, He does tell us in certain sin lists the standards by which He will judge men for heaven or hell.

I believe that the sin lists for all humans (including Gentiles) are the most likely definition of the “law of conscience” (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Rev. 21:8, 22:15.) Notice that Lev. 18:23 (beastiality) and Lev. 18:9 (incest) are part of a list of the sins of the Gentiles (18:3, 24-30.)

Even though the whole law of Moses (including Lev. 18) was cancelled as Old Covenant (but not Old Testament,) the same sins in Lev. 18 may also be recorded in Gentiles’ consciences. So, if a heathen living in a rainforest commits incest, he violates the law of conscience, not Lev. 18:9.

Majoring on the Minors

Again, questions about beastiality, incest, etc. are peripheral to NCT because of the 2 assumptions above. Such questions major on the minors. They’re really rabbit trails diverting from the main issues:

1. Are Jer. 31:31-33; Matt. 5:17-18; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:16-17 really proof texts for Covenant Theology against New Covenant Theology? (Or, are some of them actually proof texts for New Covenant Theology against Covenant Theology?)

2. Does the Bible teach one Covenant of Grace, or 2 major covenants (structured by one purpose of grace?)

3. How can the law of Moses be divided into 3 parts when it’s one indivisible whole (Gal. 3:10, 5:3; Jas.2:10?)

4. How can the whole Decalogue still be binding when God calls it “the covenant” (which was cancelled?)

5. How can the Sabbath be changed to the first day of the week when the first day is called “one/first from the Sabbath?” (Gk.)

“The 30-Second, Law-Hermeneutic Test”

Here’s a simple test to identify anyone’s law hermeneutic in less than 30 seconds. If a Christian child dishonors his parents, which command did he violate?

    1. Both Ex. 20:12 and Eph. 6:1 (Covenant Theology)
    2. Neither Ex. 20:12 or Eph. 6:1 (Antinomianism)
    3. Only Eph. 6:1, not Ex. 20:12 (New Covenant Theology)

That test will clearly and instantly define anyone’s nomology.

Many Covenant Theologians, Seventh Day Adventists, and others are reading the Bible study “22 Reasons Why All Old Testament Commands Are Canceled and We Must Obey All New Testament Commands.” If you have a question about it, please post it publicly here on this blog (rather than privately by email.)

P.S. Here are the next 6 blog posts coming soon…

1. “12 Questions to Ask When Searching for a Church”

2. “How Much of the Bible Should We Preach, Part or All of it?”

3. Book Review of “God’s Big Picture” by Vaughn Roberts

4. “3 Advantages to Preaching From Long Passages Instead of Short Passages”

5. Book Review of “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren” by Leonard Verduin

P.S. See more Bible studies, blogs, and books at JesusSaidFollowMe.org

Tags: , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | 2 Comments »

Old Testament Commands Quoted in the New Testament Have Been Transferred

Monday, December 4th, 2006

By Greg Gibson

Perhaps someone will raise the objection to New Covenant Theology, “How can all Old Testament commands be cancelled, when some of them are quoted in the New Testament?” But, their assumption is that quotation = continuation. There’s another possibility…

Old Testament commands quoted in the New Testament have been transferred, reinstated, and canonized into the New Covenant canon. (To simplify it, let’s just say they’ve been “transferred.” Maybe an analogy from contract law will help to illustrate this…

Suppose your home has a mortgage containing the clause “Borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.” Then, suppose you refinance the mortgage for a lower interest rate with the same lender. And, the lender transfers the above clause to your new mortgage like this, “As the old mortgage stated, borrower may not paint the house with polka dots or stripes.”

Now, suppose you’re feeling rebellious, and you decide to paint the house with pink polka dots. Which mortgage did you violate, the old mortgage or the new mortgage? Obviously, you violated the new mortgage, since the old mortgage was cancelled, and the painting clause was transferred to the new mortgage.

And, it’s the same way with the old and new covenants. If a new covenant saint commits adultery, he has violated Romans 13:9, not Exodus 20:14.

To sum it up, the new covenant is not a postscript (P.S.), addendum, or codicil to the old covenant. The new covenant is a new and separate contract.

If this leaves some questions in your mind, I’ll explain in more detail in the book:

“ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled”
24 Reasons Why All Old Testament Laws Are Cancelled
And All New Testament Laws Are for Our Obedience
New Covenant Theology

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in new covenant theology | No Comments »