There are varying views on this and quite often you hear people rule certain things out based on their opinion that those particulars may serve as a distraction for others during corporate worship. Often these explanations make sense pragmatically, but have you considered that it makes the source of right and wrong in worship a matter of subjective opinion?

There is a principle that establishes that God’s word regulates what is and isn’t allowed in worship (and all of life). To the reformers it is part and parcel with sola scriptura. It’s called the regulative principle of worship. Brian Schwertley’s article, “Sola Scriptura and the Regulative Principle of Worship” makes the case for the regulative principle of worship (RPW) and explains a bit about what that means. Enjoy!

In dispensational theology the church age is a provisional parenthesis designed to gather in the gentiles while God’s OT people, the Jews, are temporarily placed on the sidelines. In their view the church was never intended to be God’s primary instrument for the furtherance of his Kingdom, the Jews were. In fact, dispensationalists understand the church age to be a temporal, failing, dispensation that will culminate in it being raptured out of this world and in God returning his attention to the blood-line of Abraham.

On the flip side, covenantal theologians have insisted the opposite. Covenantal theologians believe that the church IS what God had in mind when he promised the OT people that his Kingdom would flourish throughout the earth. Yes, the blood-line of Abraham were to be blinded for a season, but they do not believe in two distinct peoples of God. Instead, believing Gentiles have been grafted into an already existing people, remain one in Christ, and are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise.

How both sides interpret the parable of the mustard seed reveals quite a bit about these polar opposite views.

He put another parable before them, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his field. It is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is larger than all the garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.’” (Matthew 13:31-32)

In the dispensational view, this is a parable depicting something negative about the church. David Guzik says, “Some regard this as a beautiful picture of the church growing so large that it provides refuge for all the world. But this mustard seed plant has grown into a monstrosity, and it harbors birds – who, in the parables, are emissaries of Satan.” Similarly other dispensationalists such as Chuck Smith and Jon Courson of Calvary Chapel as well as J. Vernon McGee say the same. To the dispensationalist this is a parable about a church that eventually fails, growing into a world power and hosting all sorts of evil.

Covenantal theologians on the other-hand view this as a positive parable concerning the church. The puritan Matthew Henry even goes as far as to refer to the birds as the people of God, “The church is like a great tree, in which the fowls of the air do lodge; God’s people have recourse to it for food and rest, shade and shelter.”

What’s the true meaning of the birds in this parable? Is Christ optimistic about his church or is he pessimistic?

I’d like to think that when he stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church (Matthew 16:18) that he was being consistent. The OT sheds some light on this parable. The same picture is used in Daniel 4:11-12 to illustrate the breadth, power and fruitfulness of the babylonian kingdom under Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The beasts of the field and birds of the air that found refuge in it represented the beneficiaries of the kingdom (all flesh found refuge in it). Again the same illustration is used in Ezekial 17:22-24; except this time it’s the Kingdom established by God and it happens to overshadow all other high trees. This is the Kingdom Israel has been waiting for. The same Israel God called a nation of priests and a holy nation in Exodus 19:6 and repeated to the church in 1 Peter 2:9. It’s related to the same set of Kingdom prophecies that Christ claimed was fulfilled in his reading of Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:16-21.

Regarding the church, dispensationalists flip the bird.

So what’s the big deal whether someone is optimistic vs. pessimistic? Well, it shows in our ecclesiology (how we do/view church). It shows in the surface level view of salvation as a post-mortem fire insurance. It shows in the church’s lack of desire to dialogue over scripture in the pursuit of unity. And it shows that instead of engaging the culture and recognizing our God-given vocations we’d rather be satisfied with the “earth-is-going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket-so-why-bother” mentality.

Riddlebarger in his book, “A Case for Amillennialism” takes two chapters to set in contrast the dispensational hermeneutic from the covenantal because they have such a massive impact on how we view eschatology. This is perhaps why those who have a perverted view of redemptive history also have an extremely strange and perverted view of what is to take place in the future. Complicated charts and speculation concerning microchips, nuclear winters, the rebuilding of the temple in national Israel, conspiracies and what might happen in the future overtake the clear, simple and profound message of what has already happened in the gospel and what that means for our future.

If all of scriptures find their fulfillment in Christ, then there are many OT promises that still have profound relevance for us today. If I am going to be consistent and honest there are some passages of scripture which seem to pose a problem, for example: the land promises of Canaan to Abraham and his offspring. “and I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God (Genesis 17:8).” The issue arises in that scripture states that Gentiles have been grafted in and are the offspring of Abraham. “If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29). Is the land of Canaan the church’s now to possess?

Dispensationalists believe these prophecies refer to national Israel even though the authors of the New Testament apply them to the church. It is the church who Paul called, “the Israel of God” (Galatians 6:16). It was the church Peter was referring to when he declared, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.” Additionally, as cited above Paul declares, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:38-29).

How then does this promise apply to us today? Benjamin Miller shed’s light on this topic in his book, “The Kingdom has Drawn Near.”

“As the book of Acts opens, Jesus’ disciples have been hearing a great deal about the kingdom of God, and now it seems their Lord is about to leave them, and they still haven’t seen Caesar overthrown. They haven’t seen a lot of the radical things the Jews were expecting from their Messiah, and so they ask Jesus, ‘Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” In effect, they are saying, “Lord, we’ve received all these prophecies over all these centuries about your bringing the kingdom and restoring it to your people. Are you going to do it now, Lord?’

Jesus in a very interesting way adjusts their perspective. He tells them first of all that the issue is not when God is going to build his kingdom. It is not for these disciples, nor is it for us today, to know the precise times and seasons God the Father has set for particular manifestations of Christ’s kingdom in history, or certainly for the final and grandest manifestation of Christ’s kingdom-victory when he returns. We are not to know the times and seasons (verse 7); that is not what we are to be thinking about. We are rather to give our attention to how God builds his kingdom. God builds his kingdom, Jesus says in verse 8, through the Spirit-empowered witness of the church to Jesus Christ: ‘You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses. Your witness will begin in Jerusalem; it will spread to Judea; it will spread to Samaria; it will spread to the end of the earth. You are to be my witnesses. That is how I will build my kingdom.’

The disciples need their perspective corrected in a second area as well. They are still thinking entirely in terms of national Israel. Jesus tells them they need to stop thinking about how he is going to restore the kingdom of Israel and start thinking about how he is going to build his kingdom in the entire world, as their Spirit-empowered witness radiates out from Mount Zion in Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. This brings before us the question: What precisely is the church to witness about Jesus Christ? Of what are we to bear witness?

First, the church is to witness of Jesus Christ that he is the Sin-bearer who brings god’s reconciling grace to the world. That is the first thing we are to tell the world. We are to tell them about the Creator who has a holy law for his creatures, and that humankind has in its entirety rebelled against this law, transgressed it, and refused to obey it. We call this kind of witnessing ‘personal evangelism.’ We talk to people in the world and appeal to the witness in their own hearts and consciences that sin is real. People don’t have to be Christians to understand sin, because God has impressed a sense of his moral requirements upon their hearts; they know the world is full of evil.

<snip>

The church has repeatedly been tempted to seek social transformation without bearing witness to the cross and the resurrection, to Jesus as the Sin-bearer and the agent of God’s reconciling grace. It has repeatedly been tempted to water down its message, and to seek the moral effects of the gospel without the gospel. The Holy Spirit will never own such a message or such a project, for the Spirit has come to bear witness to him who was crucified and resurrected, and this is where we must begin if we would see God’s transforming work in our society. The foundation of kingdom transformation is always the message of the death of the King.

That being said, I fear the church has often borne witness to a half-Christ, because we have not testified of a second thing, which is no less essential. Jesus is not only the Sin-bearer who brings God’s reconciling grace to the world. He is also the Lawgiver who brings God’s renovating grace to the world. By his revealed moral will for humankind, Jesus renovates human life back into that glory for which God created it. Recall what he commanded his apostles (paraphrasing from Matthew 28): ‘Go, and make disciples of the nations, not only telling them about the cross and resurrection, but also teaching them to obey everything I have commanded. I have a law. I have commands.’ This is what is pictured for us in Isaiah 2. The nations stream uphill to Zion, the ‘mountain of the house of the Lord,’ exalted above the mountains, because ‘out of Zion,’ they say, ’shall go the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ (Isaiah 2:2-3).

We must understand, not only for our witness to the world, but also for ourselves, that pardon in Christ’s blood is never an end in itself. If in our thinking about salvation God’s pardoning us has become an end in itself, then we don’t understand salvation. God never pardons anyone and leaves it at that. God reconciles us to himself through the blood of Jesus in order that his great purposes in creating human life may be fulfilled. God created humankind for a purpose, and nothing less than the total fulfillment of that purpose will satisfy him.

This means, then, that not only our souls are to be brought under the transforming, renovating rule of Jesus; all human callings, all spheres of human life and enterprise are likewise to be brought under his transforming, renovating rule. I do not expect Jesus to sanctify me only in my soul. I expect him to sanctify me in my callings as a father, as a husband, as a citizen, as an employee. We as a church should expect to see the renovating rule of Jesus transforming all of our callings as fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, kings, magistrates, businesspersons, artists, and so on.” (Benjamin Miller, The Kingdom has Drawn Near, pg 64)

…Another way to frame the issue is to ask what change has occurred, with the coming of Jesus Christ, to the covenantal sanctions supplied by the Lord to His people Israel in the Old Testament? The limits of this essay permit only a brief, introductory suggestion in answering this important question. That suggestion is to point the reader to the apostolic confession in 2 Corinthians 1:20: “For all the promises of God find their ‘Yes’ in Him. That is why it is through Him that we utter our ‘Amen’ to God for his glory.”

In Jesus of Nazareth, the promises of God and the fulfillment of their related obedience are united. He is the Mediator of the covenant, in whom is fulfilled everything written about the Messiah in the law, the prophets, and the psalms (Lk. 24:44). All the covenant promises given to Abrahm and his descendants find fulfillment in this Seed (Gal. 3:16). As the ultimate content of all the Old Testament promises, Jesus Christ is the Father’s “Yes.” As the Head and Savior of the church, He conducts the church’s responsive “Amen.” The believing “Amen” of all our prayers and petitions-including our prayers for our baptized children-is established by the person and work of Christ. Expressing continuity between the New Testament church and the Old Testament people of God, the hebrew word amen conveys the idea of firmness and reliability, and the utterance of ‘Amen’ in public or private worship after prayers and thanksgivings expresses confidence in the faithfulness of God and the certainty of His promises.  It is, in short, the voice of faith, setting to its seal that God is true (Jn. 3:33).
(Kloosterman, To You and Your Children [Wikner], pg. 56)

Galatians 3:16-17 explains that one successive covenant does not annul the prior. That is, the covenant given to Moses does not annul the promises made to Abraham and his descendants. This confirms the unity of at least the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. Paul writes to the Galatians as a sort of clarification in this regard. In essence Paul is writing to correct an improper view of the law, to do so he clarifies the unity of the covenants. The promise given under a prior covenant can not be annulled by the succeeding. Paul makes the conclusion that the law given was therefore given not to save, but as a tutor. Paul’s logic to make this case IS the continuity of the covenants and God’s promises. If even a human covenant can not be added or removed from, how much more God’s (Gal 3:15)?!

According to Paul, looking to the law as salvation is another Gospel. If Paul calls this another Gospel, it could never have been preached even in OT times. Paul is not criticizing the orthodox view of the OT because the OT never preached salvation by works. It preached salvation by a future redeemer (Gal 3:21-22). Paul is condemning #1) a false view of the law but also #2) a view that was never biblical even in OT times. On the contrary, dispensationalists view the book of Galatians as a condemnation of the law in general.

Galatians does not condemn the law.  Galatians proves that the OT view of the law was never intended as salvific. The “New Gospel” Paul was accusing the Galatians of embracing was indeed new even in the context of orthodox Judaism. The gospel we are to believe in, is the same gospel preached to Abraham, Moses and David. It is fulfilled in Christ and the promises are ours by faith. Paul applies the promises of the Abrahamic covenant to NT Christians today and includes the gentiles who have been grafted in. This here speaks of unity!

The book of Acts emphasizes the fulfillment of these promises and states, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself (Acts 2:39).”  The scriptures teach that households of believers are Holy (1 Cor 7:14; Acts 11:14; 16:15; 16:31; 18:8) and much like the seed of Abraham, also partake of the benefits of the covenant (Gal 3:29). In the new administration of the covenant, baptism replaces circumcision and pictures a literal cleansing (1Pet 3:21), “the putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism (Col 2:11-12).”  In the words of our Catechism- baptism is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, does signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.

In its essence, of course, Christian liberty is spiritual. It consists of freedom from the bondage of the law and restoration to voluntary obedience to the will of God. Since we are free from the law as an instrument unto salvation, we respond as children to the service of God with joy and alacrity. Liberty is enjoyed in the way of faith and it ought to animate us to virtue, but slavish minds, who would use it to fulfill the lusts of the flesh, have no part in it.

Since Paul makes all external things subject to our liberty (Rom. 14:14), there is nothing unclean in itself, provided we use our freedom before God and not before men. God’s good gifts are abused if they are too ardently coveted, too proudly boasted, and too luxuriously lavished. However, unto the pure all things are pure, but all that is not out of faith is sin, and “unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure: but even their mind and conscience
is defiled” (Titus 1: 15) .

The Christian, who is God’s freeman, uses this world in faith, that is, in obedience to the commandments of God unto his glory. He must observe moderation lest he abuse God’s good gifts; he must be patient and submissive when deprived of earthly blessings. He is called to exercise love and forbearance in the use of his liberty, so that his neighbor may be edified. But since the things of this world are not sinful in themselves he may possess them, but must guard
against being possessed in the process. The pursuit of cultural achievement and the attainment of wealth are not evil in themselves; the enjoyment of food, drink and luxury are not to be despised or condemned, but God’s curses fall upon the rich because they are immersed in sensual delights and their hearts are inebriated with present pleasures while perpetually grasping for new ones (Inst. 111, 19, 9 & 111, 6-10). In his meditation upon the future life Calvin says we must learn to despise this present world because it draws us away from our calling. In that sense the things good in themselves become evil to us; hence we must learn to look upon all things in the light of eternity.

Here is the crux of the matter. This is the decisive issue! For Calvin one’s cultural striving is good or bad, depending upon one’s faith. All that is not out of faith is sin. All apostate culture is selfseeking in which man saves himself by his works and exalts his own glory. But the doctrine of justification by faith with its appendix of Christian liberty sets man free to serve God in his cultural calling. Abraham Kuyper, in his Stone Lectures, signalizes this point when he reminds us that it was this liberation of the medieval man from the burden of gaining salvation by works that set free the energy and interest which produced our modern world of science, industry, and invention. For, by Calvin’s emphasis on the proper use of this world, the gaze of the believer was directed to this beautiful cosmos in which God calls us to be his cultural agents, and to have dominion over the earth, to replenish it, and to cultivate the ground.

(The Calvinistic Concept of Culture, Henry Van Til)

I was thinking about that statement and it truly reflects the individualistic mindset of the post-modern church.  Honestly, if I was put on an island alone with a bible and no prior knowledge of Christianity I am not quite sure I would come to an understanding of the trinity, the deity of Christ or MANY of the doctrines of the Church… and the reason?!  Because Christ established a Church, not an island!  Not even the Ethiopian eunuch could figure out how to be saved on his own.  “What must I do to be saved?!”  He had the scriptures to read, but Philip needed to be transported to his aid. (Acts 8 )

The Church was established to teach, instruct and to care for the saints.  The Bible is not organized as a textbook with a table of contents for doctrine.  The church was also established to protect and derive biblical doctrine.  A clear example of this is when Peter began teaching the error that gentiles must be circumcised.  Paul refuted Peter to his face and now here you have one apostle against another.  Who was there to decide the truth?  The CHURCH!  The Presbyterian (elder) model of church was in effect.  There are no individual final authorities, popes or islands.  Elders gathered from many churches to form the Council of Jerusalem.  Their task?  To search the scriptures, debate and derive doctrine!  They went back and forth, preached to one another and finally came to a conclusion.  The counsel’s decree, derived from scripture, stood as the authority. (Acts 15)

The believer is not an island, and neither is the Church.  If left to ourselves, any individual or church’s Christianity would be error prone, surface level and divided.  The test of good doctrine is not, “would we have come up with this if left alone.”  We are called to unity and every part of the church is called to be subject to authority.  This was a major point of the reformation.  The believer is under the authority of the local church.  The local church is united to the orthodox historic church and makes up today’s church as a whole.  Today’s church as a whole is tied to the generational church at large.. and the Christ of the scriptures trumphs over all. We see this example in scripture.  Ironically, the so called “Moses model” was a picture of the collective elders appeal to Christ, not a pope.

Many councils have met since the Council of Jerusalem.  Ironically modern evangelicals presuppose the canon of scripture without recognizing the source.  They would like to imagine that God selected the books to be included in the Bible and hand delivered it to every publishing house that prints them. Truth is, it was a council, that did very much like what was done in Acts 15.

The Church throughout History has derived doctrine from the scriptures and has passed down knowledge throughout the generations.  Elders and Pastors were not self appointed, they were appointed by a Church “by the laying on of hands.”  This indicates continuity.  The post-modern Church rejects the generational church, knowledge and scholarship and claims they have done it all and can do it all on their own.  In so doing, modern evangelical’s individualism is the cause of division.  Not only do they lack the biblical model of leadership, but in their individualism they have set their church and their followers on an island.

Three aspects of the Mosaic covenant may be stressed in an effort to place this distinctive covenant in its proper biblical-theological setting: the covenant of law is related organically to the totality of God’s redemptive purposes; the covenant of law is related progressively to the totality of God’s redemptive purposes; the covenant of law finds its consummation in Jesus Christ.

First, the covenant of law is related organically to the totality of God’s redemptive purposes. To speak of an organic relationship is to suggest a living,vital inter-connection as over against an isolationistic compartmentalization.  The clear enunciation of the will of God at the time of Moses did not appear as something novel in the history of redemption.  At the same time, law did not disappear after Moses.  Law functioned significantly in the period preceding Moses, and law functions significantly in the period succeeding Moses.  While the summation of law in an externalized form may remain as the distinctive property of the Mosaic era, the presence of law throughout the history of redemption must be recognized.

1. Law is significant in all administrations prior to Moses.

References to the will of God and to the necessity of obedience to that will may be noted in each of the biblical covenants.  Adam, while receiving gratuitously the promise of a saving seed, must work in the sweat of his face to sustain life until the seed should come (Gen 3:19).  Noah receives an integral part of his mercy-filled covenant the decree of God’s will concerning the disposition of man-slayers: “Who so sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:6)

Even more comprehensively, the Abrahamic covenant of promise builds on the responsibility fo God’s people with reference to the revealed will of God.  The total allegiance to his Lord demanded of Abraham involves the whole of his life (cf. Gen 12:1; 17:1).  The patriarch must leave his father’s house and walk before the Lord in whole-hearted obedience.

Subsequent happenings under the administration of the Abrahamic covenant further indicate the presence of covenantal law, especially with regard to the sealing ordinance of circumcision.  According to Genesis 17:14, “the uncircumcised male… who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.” Quite a hair-raising incident in this very connection is recording subsequently in connection with the life of Moses.  After having received his commission to deliver Israel in fulfillment of the promise of the Abrahamic covenant, Moses begins the return trip to Egypt with his family:

Now it came about at the lodging-place on the way that the Lord met him and sought to put him to death.

Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son’s foreskin and threw it at Moses’ feet, and she said, ‘You are indeed a bridegroom of blood to me.

So He let him alone.  At that time she said, ‘You are a bridegroom of blood’– because of the circumcision (Exod 4:24-26).

Under the provision of the Abrahamic covenant of promise, God almost slays Moses for failing to observe its stipulations.  Obviously law plays a vital role in this covenantal relationship.

The presence of stipulations in the covenants prior to Moses does not detract from the uniqueness of the legal codification under Moses.  No other covenant could be characterized convincingly as “the covenant of law.” No more fitting designation could be applied to the Mosaic covenant.  Yet the continuing presence of covenantal stipulations in every earlier administration relates the covenant of Moses organically with that which precedes.  Law simply becomes predominant under Moses.

2. Law is significant in all administrations subsequent to Moses.

Both the Davidic covenant and the new covenant continue to recognize the significance of divine law in redemptive history.  At the conclusion of the Mosaic epoch, Israel’s history immediately begins the movement “toward a kingship.” The establishment of a permanent monarchy in Israel ultimately finds realization by the institution of the Davidic covenant.  The provisional dimension of God’s covenant with David is expressed rather pointedly at the time of covenant inauguration.  Concerning the line of a descendency from David, God says: “When he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men….” The framework in which this potential punishment of iniquity is to be understood is spelled out quite pointedly in David’s subsequent death-bed charge to Solomon his son and successor:

As David’s time to die drew near, he charged Solomon his son, saying, “I am going the way of all the earth.  Be strong, therefore, and show yourself a man.  And keep the charge of the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is writen in the law of Moses, that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn, so that the Lord may carry out His promise when he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons are careful of their way, to walk before Me in truth with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel’” (I Kings 2:1-4).

The law of Moses is thus seen to have an integral role in the Davidic covenant.  The entire historical narrative concerning the kings of Israel may be regarded as one magnificent verification of the promise to David, together with its accompanying threat of punishment based on the provisions of the Mosaic covenant of law.

Both the psalm-singers and the prophets of Israel sing and prophesy of the law of God. “Oh how love I they law; it is my meditation all the day,” sings the Psalmist (Ps. 119:97). “I wrote for him the ten thousand things of my law; but they are accounted as a strange thing,” complains the prophet (Hos 8:12). Quite obviously, the law functions significantly in the period of Israel’s history embraced by the Davidic covenant.  The Davidic covenant cannot be regarded as functioning as an entity to itself, isolated from the decrees of Sinai.  The “ten words” continue to posses a primary significance for God’s people.

It is with respect to the new covenant that the greatest problems arise concerning the continuing role of law.  Is the covenant of law still significant for participants in the new covenant? Do legal prescriptions apply to Christians today?  This difficult question shall be treated first by noting some general considerations that need to be kept in mind.  Then positive evidence form the New Testament confirming the role of law in the life of the Christian will be noted.

Confusion and debate on this particular issue arise in part from the efforts to understand the seemingly contradictory statements of the New Testament itself. On the one hand, a variety of new covenant Scriptures plainly assert:

Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace (Rom 6:14)

But now we have been released from the law, having died so that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter (Rom 7:6)

But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor (Gal 3:23-25)

On the other hand, Scripture equally asserts:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill.

Fur truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, no the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5:17-19) .

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.”

…So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (Rom. 7:7, 12).

What then is the Christian’s status? Does he have obligations relating to the Mosaic covenant of law? Or is he freed altogether from law-covenant?

One complicating factor in this whole matter relates to the varied ways in which the term greek:LAW is used in the New Testament. In the course of a few verses, the apostle Paul may use the same term in three or four different ways.  According to Romans 3:21, the righteousness of faith has been witnessed by “the law and the prophets.” The term “law” in this phrase refers to the Pentateuch as a literary unit.  But the first half of this same verse declares that the righteousness of God has appeared “apart from law.” The precise meaning of the term “law” in this phrase is difficult to determine.  Most likely it represents a “shorthand abbreviation” for the “works of the law” in terms of man’s capacity to please God by his own deeds of righteousness (cf. v. 20, which immediately precedes). But in any case, the meaning of “law” in the first half of Romans 3:21 is quite distinct from the meaning of the same term in the second half of the same verse.

Reading a little further in the apostle’s argument, a third use of the term greek:LAW appears.  In Romans 3:27, Paul poses a question.  By what “law” is boasting excluded from the justified?

Now Paul uses the term “law” to refer to a general principle.  It is by the “principle” of faith-justification that boasting over righteousness is excluded.

Earlier Paul appears to use the term in still a fourth sense (cf. Rom. 2:21-23).  First he cites three commandments of the Decalogue.  Then he accosts his readers: “You who boast in the law, through your breaking the law, do you dishonor God?” Paul now appears to use “law” to refer more narrowly to the Ten Commandments.  It is the “ten words” that his contemporaries have broken.

At other points, context seems to demand that the term “law” be understood as referring specifically to law-keeping a a means of justification.  In these cases, the term “law” becomes the equivalent of the Judaizer’s misapprehension of the proper role of the law in the history of redemption.

In Galations 4:21, Paul addresses himself to htose who want to be “under law.” He speaks to those who would attempt to achieve righteousness before God by personal law-keeping.  The apostle spells out a “formula of equivalencies” spanning the history of redemption.

Two antihetical alternatives for realizing acceptance by God face the Galations.  The first alternative traces its lineage back to Abraham’s slave-son Ishmael, who was born out of the patriarch’s efforts to assure the fulfillment of God’s promises on the basis of his own resources.  This alternative for “justification” manifests itself again in the law-covenant of Sinai, which corresponds to the “present Jerusalem.”

it is essential to understand Paul’s reference to the Sinai in the context of the equivalencies which he had developed.  The covenant of “law” corresponds to the “present Jerusalem,” the Jerusalem of the Judaizers.  It is the legalistic misapprehension of the Sinaitic law-covenant that is in the mind of the apostle. Slavery inevitably wil result from resorting to natural human resources as a means of pleasing God.  Ishmael, the current Judaizers, and unbelieving Israel conjointly find themselves to be slaves.

As this “formula of equivalencies” is considered, it must be stressed that the understanding of Mosaic law with which Paul is contending cannot be viewed as the divinely intended purpose of the giving of the law at Sinai.  Even though the middle member of this first triad (Hagar-Sinai-Present Jerusalem) is identified as “Mount Sinai” (v.25), it does not represnt the true purpose of the Sinaitic law-giving.

This assertion rests on the clear purpose of law-giving as explicated by Paul in Galations 3:24.  The purpose of the law was to lead to Christ, not to lead away from Christ.  The effect of the law on the current Judaizers was not in accord with God’s purpose in the giving of the law.  By reading the law in terms of an alternative way of salvation, current Judaism blinded itself to the true intention of God in the giving of the law.

The true purpose of God’s law-giving at Sinai did not find its proper manifestation in the Judaizers of the first century. Their pride compelled them to pervert God’s purpose in law-giving.  Instead of serving to convict them of the absolute impossibility of pleasing God by law-keeping, the law fostered in them a deeply entrenched determination to depend on personal resources in order to please God.  Thus the law did not serve the purposes of grace in leading the Judaizers to Christ.  Instead, it closed them off from Christ. “Law” and “Sinai” in this context must refer to legalistic misapprehension of God’s purpose in law-giving rather than the proper apprehension of God’s revelation of law.

The contrary “formula of equivalencies” runs from the free-woman  Sarah through the covenant of promise to the “above Jerusalem.” God’s sovereign and gracious intervention in the life of sinful man invariably produces children that are free.

It may be acknowledged that something in the form of law-administration lent itself to an easy misapprehension of its proper purpose in man’s redemption.  The externalized, codified form of law readily came to be understood as offering a way of life other than the faith-principle crystallized under Abraham.  It was possible to understand law properly as a schoolmaster that would lead to Christ by increasing awareness of sin.  Or it was possible to misunderstand law as a taskmaster that led away from Christ by diverting concentration from faith-righteousness to works-righteousness.  It is this latter perspective that the apostle has in mind when he addresses himself to those who wish to be “under law.” “Law” in this context points to the misapprehension of the law’s purpose as reflected in Abraham’s misdirected efforts to provide a son for himself and in the Judaizer’s efforts to provide righteousnes for themselves.

To this point, several different uses of “law” in Paul have been noted.  Other more refined significances may be involved.  Clearly it is necessary to exercise extreme care in evaluating biblical statements about the role of the “law” in the life of the Christian.  When the New Testament affirms bluntly “you are not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14), clearly does not mean “you are not under Pentateuch.” It does not mean “you are not under the Ten Commandments.” Most probably in the context of Romans 6, it means “you are not under the Mosaic covenant as a principle which would make righteousness depend on the individual’s personal resources as law-keeper.”

One positive step towards solving the difficult question of the Christian’s relation to the law may be taken by noting once more the distincitiveness of law-administration emphasized under Moses. Under the Mosaic covenant, law appeared as an externalized summation of the will of God.  The Christian does not live under an externalized ministration of law engraved in stone tablets.  Instead, he lives with the law written in his heart.  While the Christian always stands obligated to reflect the holiness and righteousness required in God’s law, he no longer relates to that law as an impersonal code standing outside himself.  Instead, the Spirit of God constantly ministers the law within the heart of the believer.

This understanding of the question gives recognition to the fading form of law-administration under the Mosaic covenant, while also treating seriously the continuing significance of the essence of the same law.  While this explanation may not satisfy all the problems arising from the Christian’s relation to the law, it does provide one fruitful area for reflection.

In addition to these general considerations, it is important to present positive evidence from the New Testament which affirms the continuing significance of the Mosaic covenant of law:

First of all,  presumptive evidence favors the continuing significance of the essence if not the form of the Mosaic law-covenant into the present day.  It is obvious from Scripture that men today continue under the provisions of other administrations of the covenant of redemption.  Romans 16:20 refers to the ultimate bruising of the head of the serpent under the Christian’s feet. The language clearly indicates the continuing significance of God’s covenant with Adam.  II Peter 3:5-7 notes the significance of God’s judgment on the wicked in Noah’s day, and appeals to the covenanting word spoken to Noah which current preserves the earth.

The designation of Abraham as “the father of us all” (Rom. 4:16, 17) indicates the significance today of the covenantal promise concerning an innumerable seed.  Even today, the “root of Jesse” rules as the hope of the Gentiles, in accord with the covenant with David (Rom 15:22).  These references to the continuing significance of the covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and David into the present could be expanded greatly.

Are we to conlcude that all the various covenantal administrations of the Old Testament find continuing significance for believers today with the single exception of the Mosaic covenant? Are we to presume that the covenant of law alone among the divinely-initiated covenants has lost its binding significance?

to be continued in Part III…

O. Palmer Robertson writes:

The Mosaic dispensation rests squarely on a covenantal rather than a legal relationship.  While law plays an extremely significant role both in the international treaty forms and in the Mosaic era, covenant always supersedes law.

Essential to the Hittite treaty form was the recognition of the historical context in which legal stipulations functioned.  The historical prologue of the documents set the current relation of conquering lord and conquered vassal in the light of past interchanges.

Nothing could be more basic to a proper understanding of the Mosaic era.  It is not law that is preeminent, but covenant.  Whatever concept of law may be advanced, it must remain at all times subservient to the broader concept of the covenant.

This point is made most obvious by a recognition of the historical context in which the covenant of law was revealed.  Historically, the nation of Israel already was in a covenantal relationship with the Lord through Abraham.  The Exodus narrative begins when God hears the groaning of Israel, and “remembers his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob” (Exod. 2:24).  After God has established himself as Israel’s Lord through the historical fact of the deliverance from Egypt, the law-covenant of Sinai is administered.  The Decalogue’s “I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage,” provides the essential historical framework in which the Sinaitic law-covenant may be understood.  As has been stated:

The laws have their place in the doctrine of the covenant.  Yahweh has chosen Israel as His people, and Israel has acknowledged Yahweh as its God. This fundamental O.T. principle is the direct basis of these laws. (W. Gutbrod, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1967), 4: 1036)

Covenant, therefore, is the larger concept, always taking precedence over law.  Covenant binds persons; externalized legal stipulations represent one mode of administration of the covenantal bond.

God renews an ancient commitment to his people by the covenant of Moses.  The law serves only as a single mode of administering the covenant of redemption.  Originally established under Adam, confirmed under Noah and Abraham, the covenantal relationship renewed under Moses cannot disturb God’s on going commitment by its emphasis to the legal dimension of the covenant relationship.

The Distinctiveness of the Mosaic Covenant

If the Mosaic covenant stands in a basic relation of unity with God’s earlier covenantal administration, what then is its distinctiveness?  What particularly characterizes this covenantal administration?  How does it stand apart from God’s other ways of dealing with his people?

The Mosaic covenant manifests its distinctiveness as an externalized summation of the will of God.  The patriarchs certainly were aware o God’s will in general terms.  On occasion, they received direct revelation concerning specific aspects of the will of God.  Under Moses, however, a full summary of God’s will was made explicit through the physical inscripturation of the law. This external-to-man, formally ordered summation of God’s will constitutes the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant.

The emphasis in the pentateuch on the “ten words” and the explicit identification of these words with the covenant itself clearly indicate that the distinctiveness of the Mosaic covenant resides in this externalized summation of God’s law.  Note in particular the language of the following verses:

… And he [Moses] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten words (Exod. 34:28).
So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the ten words; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone (Deut. 4:13).

When I went upto the mountain to receive the tablet of stone, the tablets of the covenant which the Lord had made with you….

And…at the end of the forty days and nights … the Lord gave me the two tablets of stone, the tablets of the covenant (Deut. 9:9, 11).

These verses indicate the closeness of identification between the Mosaic covenant and the “ten words.” These words summarize the essence of the Mosaic covenant.

The same verses emphasize also the externalized character of the Mosaic law-administration.  The stone-engraven character of the Mosaic covenant does not reflect simply the manner by which covenantal documents were preserved in the days of Moses.  This stark, cold, externalized form in which the covenant stipulations appeared manifests eloquently a most distinctive characteristic of the Mosaic covenant.  A law has been written, a will has been decreed; but his law stands outside man, demanding conformity.  “Law” as it is used in relation to the Mosaic covenant should not be defined simply as a revelation of the will of God.  More specifically, law denotes an externalized summation of God’s will.

In the case of the Mosaic covenant, the prominence of this external form of God’s will provides ample justification for the characterization of the Mosaic covenant as the covenant of law.  This characterization has the full support of the New Testament Scriptures.  “The law was given through Moses,” says the apostle John (John 1:17).  In his letter to the Galations, Paul clearly characterizes the Mosaic period as the epoch of “law” (Gal. 3:17)

This phrase “covenant of law” must not be confused with the traditional terminology which speaks of a “covenant of works.” The phrase “covenant of works” customarily refers to the situation at creation in which man was required to obey God perfectly in order to enter into a state of eternal blessedness.  Contrary to this relation established with man in innocence, the Mosaic covenant of law clearly addresses itself to man in sin.  this latter covenant never intended to suggest that man by perfect moral obedience could enter into a state of guaranteed covenantal blessedness.  The integral role of a substitutionary sacrificial system within the legal provisions of the Mosaic covenant clearly indicates a sober awareness of the distinction between God’s dealings with man in innocence and with man in sin.

As already has been indicated, God’s covenantal commitment to redeem from the state of sin a people to himself was in effect prior to the giving of the law at Sinai.  Israel assembled at Sinai only because God had redeemed them from Egypt.  For the covenant of law to function as a principle of salvation by works, the covenant of promise first would have to be suspended.

The concrete externalization of covenantal stipulations written on tables of stone never was intended to detract from the gracious promise of the Abrahamic covenant, as Paul argues so aptly.  The covenant of law, coming 400 years after promise, could not possibly disannul the previous covenant (Gal. 3:17).

Not only did the covenant of law not disannul the covenant of promise; more specifically, it did not offer a temporary alternative to the covenant of promise.  This particular perspective is often overlooked.  It is sometimes assumed that the covenant of law temporarily replaced the covenant of promise, or somehow ran alongside it as an alternative method of man’s salvation.   The covenant of law often has been considered as a self-contained unit which served as another basis for determining the relation of Israel to God in the period between Abrahamic covenant and the coming of Christ.  In this scheme, the covenant of promise is treated as though it has been set aside or made secondary for a period, although not “disannulled.”

However, the covenant of promise made with Abraham always has been in effect from the day of its inauguration until the present.  The coming of law did not suspend the Abrahamic covenant.  The principle enunciated in Genesis 15:6 concerning the justification of Abraham by faith never has experienced interruption.  Throughout the Mosaic period of law-covenant, God considered as righteous everyone who believed in him.

For this reason, the covenant of law as revealed at Sinai would best be divorced from “covenant of works” terminology.  The “covenant of works” refers to legal requirements laid on man at the time of his innocency in creation.  The “covenant of law” refers to a new stage in the process of God’s unfolding the richness of the covenant of redemption.  As such, the law which came through Moses did not in any way disannul or suspend the covenant of promise.