Home   Bible Studies   Blog   About   Helpful Links   Contact

Posts Tagged ‘decalogue’

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

Reformed Covenant Theology’s Inconsistent Hermeneutic

Monday, March 1st, 2010

(Due to computer problems, I will not publish the Best Blogs Digest for Feb. Please check back in March.)

By Greg Gibson

Here’s some good news in Reformed Covenant Theology circles. Dr. Gary Crampton, seminary professor and author, has changed his view from paedobaptism to credobaptism. Praise God for Gary’s willingness to follow Christ wherever He leads, whatever the cost.

However, Crampton’s motive for changing is an inconsistently applied New Testament hermeneutic. Paedobaptist Covenant theology applies a New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology, but an Old Testament hermeneutic to ecclesiology and nomology. Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology applies a New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology and ecclessiology, but an Old Testament hermeneutic to nomology. New Covenant Theology is the only system that applies a consistent, New Testament hermeneutic to eschatology, ecclesiology, and nomology.

Here are some excerpts from Rich Barcellos’ interview with Crampton: Part I: Interview with Dr. Crampton (from paedobaptism to credobaptism)

    Crampton: I am a Reformed Baptist, and an advocate of the teachings found in the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Reformed Baptist Shorter Catechism…I have been struggling with the matter of paedobaptism versus credobaptism for almost twenty years.

    Barcellos: What are some of the main problems you encountered with paedobaptism that caused you to keep studying?

    Crampton: There were several issues that bothered me about the doctrine of paedobaptism. I will mention only one, and that is…

GG: Crampton’s answers are continued on the left below, and my edited comments are in [brackets] on the right…

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology:

…there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the baptism of infants. This is admitted by some of the finest paedobaptist theologians that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and taught by these same paedobaptist theologians, that we must go back to the Old Testament (OT) to establish the doctrine. When it comes to the other NT sacrament of the Lord’s supper, however, the paedobaptist theologians do not apply the same hermeneutic principle. That is, the recipients of the Lord’s supper are determined by the NT teaching rather than the OT teaching. The inconsistency here is glaring.

New Covenant Theology:


…there is simply no text in the New Testament (NT) wherein there is any mention of the [Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday, and the whole Decalogue binding on New Covenant Jewish and Gentile believers.] This is admitted by some of the finest [apostolic fathers] that have written on the subject. This means, as admitted and taught by these same [Covenant] theologians, that we must go back to the Old Testament (OT) to establish the doctrine. When it comes to the other NT [doctrine of eschatology], however, the [Covenant] theologians do not apply the same hermeneutic principle. That is, the recipients of the [promised blessing to Abraham] are determined by the NT teaching rather than the OT teaching. The inconsistency here is glaring.

Another problem here is that the OT does not mention baptism of infants at all. What this hermeneutic assumes is that the Abrahamic covenant, wherein the male infants were circumcised, is still binding on the NT church on virtually a one-to-one basis, and therefore the infants of believers should be baptized. Another problem here is that the OT does not mention [Adam - the patriarchs obeying the Sabbath, and the Sabbath given to Gentiles] at all. What this hermeneutic assumes is that the [whole Decalogue including the Sabbath] is still binding on the NT church on virtually a one-to-one basis, and therefore [Gentile believers should keep the Sabbath.]

Again, I’m thankful that Dr. Crampton has taken a small step in the right direction. Now I’d like to challenge him and Reformed Covenant Theologians to come all the way out of the Old Covenant and fully into the New Covenant. It’s a better covenant.

Paedobaptist Reformed Covenant Theology applies an inconsistent, Old Testament - New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, but a partially old and new people of God, and partially old and new law.

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology applies an inconsistent, Old Testament - New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, new people of God, but a partially old and new law.

New Covenant Theology applies a consistent, New Testament hermeneutic resulting in a new covenant, new priest, new sacrifice, new temple, new king, new kingdom, new land, new people of God, and new law: “…teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). New Covenant Theology is the only system where the New Testament consistently inteprets the Old Testament.

“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)

“Everything the New Testament Says About the Whole Decalogue”

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

(The following is a free excerpt from the book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled” by Greg Gibson)

Only 3 Passages, All Negative

As we saw above, the Holy Spirit never uses the names “Ten Commandments” or “moral law” in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, there are only 3 New Testament passages that definitely refer to the whole Decalogue, and they’re all negative…

1. “The letter,” “letters on stone,” and “tablets of stone” (2 Cor. 3:6-9) are:

• Not where the Spirit writes (2 Cor. 3:3)
• (What) kills (2 Cor. 3:6)
• A ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7)
• A ministry of condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9)

2. “The handwriting of ordinances” (Col. 2:14) was:

• Blotted out (Col. 2:14)
• Taken away (Col. 2:14)
• Nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14)

3. “The tablets of the covenant” (Heb. 9:4) are:

• Obsolete (Heb. 8:13)
• Growing old (Heb. 8:13)
• Ready to vanish.” (Heb. 8:13)

(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. 25.)

“The 12 Names for the Decalogue”

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

(The following is a free excerpt from the book “ALL Old Testament Laws Cancelled” by Greg Gibson)

The 12 Names for the Decalogue in All 56 Verses:
“Ten Commandments” Only 3 Times (Zero in the N.T.)

When you hear the words, “Ten Commandments,” what’s the first thought that comes to your mind? If you automatically think, “The moral law of God,” then your view is very different from God’s view.

Depending on how you classify them, the whole Decalogue and its synonyms appear ~56 times in Scripture. (We’ll exclude the names “ark of the covenant,” “ark of the testimony,” and “tabernacle of the testimony,” even though they would be accurate.) And, in those 56 occurrences, God calls the Decalogue by 12 different names. Listed below, are the number of times He uses each name.

Old Testament:

14 = The tablets (Ex. 32:15, 32:16a,b, 32:19, 34:1b,c, 34:28; Deut. 9:17, 10:2a,b, 10:3, 10:4, 10:5; 2 Chr. 5:10)

13 = The tablets of stone (Ex. 24:12, 31:18, 34:1, 34:4a,b; Deut. 4:13, 5:22, 9:9, 9:10, 9:11, 10:1, 10:3; 1 Kg. 8:9)

10 = The testimony (Ex. 16:34, 25:16, 25:21, 27:21, 30:6, 30:36, 40:20; Lev. 16:13; Num 17:4, 17:10)

3 = The tablets of the testimony (Ex. 31:18, 32:15, 34:29)

3 = The tablets of the covenant (Deut. 9:9, 9:11, 9:15)

3 = The Ten Commandments (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13; 10:4)

2 = The covenant (1 Kg. 8:21; 2 Chr. 6:11)

1 = The words of the covenant (Ex 34:28)

1 = His covenant (Deut. 4:13)

0 = The moral law

New Testament:

2 = The letter (2 Cor. 3:6a,b)

1 = Letters on stone (2 Cor. 3:7)

1 = Tablets of stone (2 Cor. 3:3)

1 = The handwriting of ordinances (Col. 2:14)

1 = The tablets of the covenant (Heb. 9:4)

0 = The Ten Commandments

0 = The moral law

So, when you hear the phrase “the Ten Commandments,” the first thought that should come to your mind is, “tablets (of stone”), not “moral law.” Remember, another thought that should come to your mind is “the covenant.”

Do you think of the Ten Commandments as “the tablets of stone,” and “the covenant” (Old Covenant made with Israel?) When talking about the Ten Commandments, if you have to rely on words uninspired by the Holy Spirit (like “moral law”) to explain your theology, then you probably have a different theology than the Holy Spirit.

Did you see how many times the phrase “Ten Commandments” appears in the New Testament? Zero! (Think about that.)

(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, Greg Gibson, p. 23-24)