Posted anonymously by: Greg Gibson

Greg Allen, you’ve raised some questions that I’ve addressed in my study. You may want to read the whole study, if you’re interested. Most of the questions readers ask me about it can be answered from the title alone: “22 Reasons Why All O.T. Commands Are Cancelled and We Must Obey All N.T. Commands.”

Also, you may find this “30-Second, Law Hermeneutic Test” helpful for defining others’ views:
http://www.jesussaidfollowme.org/blog/index.php/2007/08/30/does-new-covenant-theology-allow-beastiality-and-incest/

Glennspring, By theocracy laws, I meant civil laws (including executing adulterers, gays, etc.) By holiness laws, I meant mixing different fibers, seeds, etc. However, I was using the categories of CT, which I believe are invalid because of the 3 NT verses showing that the law of Moses is one indivisible whole.

Greg Gibson

Posted anonymously by: Greg Gibson

P.S. At first glance, it may seem that my view is radical compared to CT. However, my difference in practice with most CT’s is minor. We obey most of the same commands, except the Sabbath (since it’s not commanded in the New Testament canon.) So, we obey the same commands, but from different sources of authority: CT = OT + NT, NCT = NT

Greg Gibson

Greg Gibson,

I have read through a good portion of your study and I think it is one of the most thorough studies of the topic that I have come across.

One issue you deal with is the eternal nature of the Ten Commandment law. You make some very good points about this and I think you’re explanations are persuasive, but I would just qualify my support of your position by noting that in the three Gospel accounts where Jesus is confronted by the rich young ruler/lawyer (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) about the Law, Jesus refers him to the Ten Commandment law specifically (or at least the second half of the Decalogue minus coveting). (Actually, in Matthew Jesus adds the summarative command of loving your neighbor as yourself, in Mark Jesus adds the command to not defraud--a form of stealing and giving false witness IMO, and in Luke, Jesus repeats the second half of the Decalogue, minus coveting).

In addition, in Romans 7 Paul also specifies the Ten Commandment Law when he says that were it not for the Law he would not know about coveting.

So, I think the reason so many conservative Christians place the Ten Commandments in a unique, eternal position is due in part to these references.

Perhaps I’ve overlooked your explanation of this in your study, but how do you respond to this?

Glenn

P.S. By way of introduction, I am a Seventh Day Adventist by upbringing and still attend an SDA church, although my views of some of the church’s positions are a bit more fluid than they once were. 

Posted anonymously by: Greg Gibson

Glenn,

...in the three Gospel accounts where Jesus is confronted by the rich young ruler/lawyer (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 18) about the Law, Jesus refers him to the Ten Commandment law

Please remember that during the time of Jesus ministry, the 10 Commandments were still in force, until they were abolished by His death. (Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14)

In addition, in Romans 7 Paul also specifies the Ten Commandment Law when he says that were it not for the Law he would not know about coveting.

I think my above answer also applies here. (Although, this passage is debated by interpreters.) I think Paul is talking about his pre-conversion experience under the law of Moses.

Greg Gibson

Hey Stan,

Sorry to keep bringing up old topics… but I had to say thank you for posting the link to Packer’s intro to Witsius’ book. What a wonderful article explaining Covenant Theology! I think I’ve mentioned to you that we go to churches from the same denomination (PCA), and at first I thought that all the talk about the covenant was odd (just like all the talk about a “sovereign” God was weird to me). I had never really heard the word mentioned in my Adventist upbringing and experience. It is starting to make so much more sense now. I think I’ll try to read Witsius’ book at some point, but for now I just wanted to thank you for posting the link. Our sovereign, covenant making God is truly amazing!

Nate

Soli Deo Gloria - 10 September 2009 06:11 AM

Hey Stan,

Sorry to keep bringing up old topics… but I had to say thank you for posting the link to Packer’s intro to Witsius’ book. What a wonderful article explaining Covenant Theology! I think I’ve mentioned to you that we go to churches from the same denomination (PCA), and at first I thought that all the talk about the covenant was odd (just like all the talk about a “sovereign” God was weird to me). I had never really heard the word mentioned in my Adventist upbringing and experience. It is starting to make so much more sense now. I think I’ll try to read Witsius’ book at some point, but for now I just wanted to thank you for posting the link. Our sovereign, covenant making God is truly amazing!

Nate

Nate,

Thanks for bringing up the older threads. I had forgotten that I posted this. There is a wealth of information on CT at this link:

http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Covenant-Theology/

I love the fact that when we study the Bible from the perspective of one covenant of grace, we see a God who keeps his promises and who has been gracious working with his people throughout redemption history.

Stan

Stan Ermshar - 10 September 2009 09:30 AM

I love the fact that when we study the Bible from the perspective of one covenant of grace, we see a God who keeps his promises and who has been gracious working with his people throughout redemption history.

100% agreed! I think Galatians 3 portrays this beautiful link in the covenant of grace from Abraham to Christ, which the law (Mosaic covenant, all 613) does not annul. Thanks for the monergism link also, looks like I have a lot of reading to do!

Nate

The very first link called “Covenant Theology” under the link Stan provided is to some lectures by J. Ligon Duncan.

His explanation of Genesis 15 was one that I had heard for the first time in a Bible study at our church, but it is always worth revisiting, as this is a truly perplexing passage for nearly everyone who picks up the Scriptures. First it would be helpful to give his explanation of the common sort of covenant that might happen in the ancient Near East.

There were other forms of covenants as well.  For instance, covenants were used as international treaties.  Let’s say a suzerain, and by a suzerain I mean some sort of petty monarch, someone who has the power over a particular region, conquers another tribe.  It was not uncommon in the ancient Near East for a suzerain to go into an area, conquer a people, and basically require them to make a covenant with him, and that covenant would go something like this:  “If you will pay me a tithe of your plantings, your yield at harvest time, if you will promise to offer your sons of fighting age to me in military service in times of war; if you will promise not to rebel against me, and if you will promise to recognize my lordship over you, then I will (a) not slaughter you immediately, and (b) provide a system of justice and courts and establish order in your land and we’ll get along.” And in that context the relationship was rather unequal.  The suzerain had all the chips and the vassal basically had the choice: I either enter into this agreement or we are wiped out.

And now here is his explanation of Genesis 15.

Now in Genesis 15, we see something very interesting.  Abram asks a question of the Lord.  In verse 8 of Genesis 15, Abram says, “Oh Lord God, how may I know that I shall possess it,” and he is talking about the land of Canaan.  “How may I know that I may possess it?” And the Lord says to him in verse 9, “‘Bring me a three year old heifer and a three year old female goat and a three year old ram and a turtle dove and a young pigeon’. Then he brought all of these to him and cut them in two and lay each half opposite the other, but he did not cut the birds, and the birds of prey came down upon the carcasses and Abram drove them away, and now when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram and behold, terror and great darkness fell upon him.  And God said to Abram, ‘know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs where they will be enslaved and oppressed 400 years. But I will judge the nation whom they will serve and afterwards, they will come out with many possessions.  And as for you, you will go to your fathers in peace, and you shall be buried at a good old age.  Then in the fourth generation, they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete’. And when it came about when the sun had set, it became very dark and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and flaming torch which passed between these pieces.”

Now that bizarre scene in response to the simple question, “How am I going to know that I am going to have the land, Lord?” is simply a covenant-making ceremony, where animals are slaughtered and the vassal of the covenant walks between the pieces, right?  Wrong.  The vassal in that covenant didn’t walk between the pieces.  The suzerain, the sovereign, walked between the pieces.  And therefore, he was saying to Abram, “Abram, if I do not give you the land, be it done to me as we have done to these animals.” Now anybody in the Near Eastern world, who picked that up and was familiar with how covenants ought to be made, would be on the floor having read that passage, because there is no example in any other world religion of either, (a) a God who enters into covenant with His people, or, (b) a God who takes upon Himself the self-malediction for the fulfillment of the promises of the covenant.

Nate

Thanks Nate.  The link to Ligon Duncan’s material didn’t seem to work but it can be found easily on the monergism link.  Ligon Duncan is a great speaker as well as i had the privilege of hearing him speak at a Ligonier’s conference. Great thoughts on Genesis 15!

Stan

That is weird… for some reason when I copy and paste the link directly from First Pres Jackson’s page, parts of the link magically disappear. I removed it, but like you said, it is easy to find his lectures from the monergism link.

Nate