The Law in the thought of those worth hearing: Part II

In part I of this series of posts, I said:

Too often while reading contemporary authors on the law in the life of believers, I find myself asking the question, “Haven’t these guys read the great minds of the past on this issue?” Sometimes I get the feeling (remember – feelings are “nothing more than feelings”) that much ink has been spilled prior to consulting the giants of church history and, in particular, Reformed theologians of previous eras. This series of posts will provide readers with some quotes from  and my interaction with some statments by a few guys I think are worth listening to on this issue. The reason why John Owen is prominant in the discussion below is becasue I wrote my dissertation on him (and Geerhardus Vos). The analysis below shows that Owen is main-stream Reformed orthodox in his view of the law.

Post I considered The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others.

This time we will look at: 

Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

 

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says: 

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8]

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.


[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

Practical Shepherding

Evaluating practical issues of local church ministry biblically, theologically, and pastorally.

 

Really good stuff here by Pastor Brian Croft

Canonical Structure of the OT – 1

Canonical structure refers to the final form of our English Bibles primarily – both order and content. This discipline is often called canonical criticism. Canonical criticism is defined as follows:

An approach that seeks to interpret the biblical books with respect to their authoritative status and theological context within the Bible. Canonical criticism thus focuses on the final form of the biblical texts rather than their earlier stages of composition or transmission (though recognition of the stages plays an integral role in some uses of this approach). Furthermore, canonical critics argue that the object of biblical interpretation is theological reflection within a community of faith. For example, Torah and the Gospels have a special function in the canon. They are set apart as first and foundational; hence the Prophets in the OT and Paul in the NT should be read in the light of the Torah and the Gospels respectively, even though the Prophets and Paul’s letters may predate the present form of the Torah and Gospels. Canonical criticism sees the Bible as “Scripture,” as authoritative writings of the community of faith,[1] and incorporates theological reflection as part of the reading of a text.[2]

Any text under consideration must be interpreted in light of its place and function within the entire canon of Scripture. Some books are theologically foundational to others and the latter must be understood in light of the former and the former is often explained by the latter.

1.      Canonical structure of the Old Testament:  We will consider the canonical structure of our English Bibles then the canonical structure of the ancient Hebrew Bible.

 

a.      Canonical structure of the English Bible: Our English Bibles are comprised of 39 Old Testament books. They follow the basic order and number of the Septuagint (LXX) – Genesis – Malachi. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated by “Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria from the third to the second century B.C.”[3] LXX (Roman numeral for 70) stands for a tradition that says 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 72 days. It is an interesting phenomenon of history that the LXX changed the order of the Hebrew canon (see below) and number of books, though not the content, and added the Apocrypha. Why do our English Bibles have 39 books instead of the 24 books of the ancient Hebrew canon? The reason for this is due to the fact that the first English Bibles followed the order of the Latin Vulgate, which followed the order of the LXX[4] though Jerome translated into Latin from the Hebrew text.

Our English Old Testaments reflect a four-fold division of its 39 books considered from the standpoint of genre: I. The Law (Pentateuch) – 5 books; II. Historical Books (Joshua-Esther) – 12 books; III. Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon) – 5 books; and IV. Prophets (A. Major Prophets [Isaiah-Daniel] – 5 books; B. Minor Prophets [Hosea-Malachi] – 12 books) – 17 books.[5] The Pentateuch is the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament. The historical books trace ancient Old Covenant Israel’s history immediately subsequent to the death of Moses through the period of the judges and to the establishment of the monarchy and return from exile. The poetical books cover diverse issues related to Job, worship, and wisdom. The prophets are God’s prosecuting attorneys who both look to the past (i.e., the Pentateuch) and promise deliverance in the future.

b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible (in the next post)


[1] This is important to note at this time. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were brought together by the community of faith. They are the compositional and organizational product of believers. This means that theological reasons are behind the final form of the canon.

[2] PDBS, 23.

[3] PDBS, 105.

[4] Cf. David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations: A General Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 34, for a brief discussion of the order of the English Bible.

[5] This analysis of the division of the English Old Testament is found in Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 34.

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Two (II)

In my last post, I said, “In my next post I will interact with Wells, where he says, “[w]hen we look at those [i.e., verses in Moses’ writings concerning the Sabbath] we find that each speaks only of what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26). On page 29, he makes a similar statement. Commenting on Exodus 20:8, he says, “This text, of course, contains the command to keep a Sabbath. It clearly addresses only Israelites and others who live within their land, so it does not seem to be relevant under the New Covenant.”

On one level, I can agree with these statements. The Pentateuch was written by Moses for Israel just prior to his death and their entrance into the Promised Land. It is not a moral manual for mankind, per se. It was a covenantal document for a single nation in covenant with God. On another level, however, I find Wells’ statements at least potentially troublesome. I say potentially because it all depends on what he means. If he means that the Pentateuch was written for Israel just prior to entering the Promised Land and it focuses primarily upon them and their vocation as God’s covenant nation in preparation for the coming of the Messiah and new covenant, I am fine with that. However, if he means, since texts in the Pentateuch address only “what Israelites and people living in her land must do” (26), therefore utilizing them as containing or applying laws or commands which are relevant for all mankind is very dangerous and simply wrong, then I disagree. My hunch is that the latter is what Tom means. In other words, the Sabbath command, in any and all conceivable senses, is for God’s ancient covenant people while in the Promised Land and for them (and those in their land) exclusively.

Let’s assume that position (though not attributing it to Tom Wells). Let’s also extend it to other laws in the Pentateuch, even all pentateuchal laws. Here’s how that position would be formulated: Since Moses wrote the Pentateuch for Israel to be obeyed in the Promised Land, it contains laws exclusively applicable to them while in Canaan. Again, on one level I think this is right. Israel was God’s people under a national covenant with a distinct land for a distinct period of time and distinct purpose. However, it is one thing to affirm this and another to deny that at least some of Israel’s laws transcend her as God’s covenant nation and transcend her land. In other words, could it be that some of Israel’s laws transcend Israel and are actually laws applicable to all men that pre-dated Israel’s covenantal status and were incorporated into Israel’s law and are still applicable to all men? Or we could put it this way: Though Israel had a unique law for a unique vocation in the history of redemption, individual Israelites were considered by God on two levels – citizens of a covenantal nation and creatures created in His image. This would mean that God incorporated into Israel’s law some laws applicable to all men because all men are created in the image of God with the work of the law written on their hearts and accountable to God for the same essential things. To further clarify, this means that God incorporated into Israel’s national law some laws that all men are under because all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.

I can think of at least three ways that Israel’s law is used in the Bible which proves that, on one level, it contained at least some laws that transcended old covenant boundaries. First, pagan nations were indicted for breaking some of Israel’s laws. Leviticus 18:24 says, “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things [the laws dealing with sexually immoral relationships stated in Lev. 1:1-23]; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.” At some level, the pagan nations mentioned were under the laws of Lev. 18:1ff.. If they weren’t, how could God punish them for violating laws they were not under and still be just? Though they did not break the old covenant by violating these laws, they still broke God’s law as His creatures. We are not told by Moses how they came into contact with these laws, but what we are told is that they were guilty of violating them.

There is a second way which shows that at least some of the laws of the old covenant transcended the national and geographic boundaries of the old covenant. New covenant believers are commanded to obey some of the very same laws as published in the Mosaic writings (cf. Rom. 13:8-10; Eph. 6:4). These commandments first found in Moses’ writings are subsequently incorporated into the new covenant Scriptures. This further illustrates the fact that at least some laws first promulgated in the Pentateuch specifically for old covenant Israel in the land of Canaan transcend the old covenant both nationally and geographically.

And third (and very importantly), Christ is said to have died for Jews and Gentiles, redeeming them from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13). Galatians 3:14 goes on to say that Christ redeemed us (Jew and Gentile) from the curse of the law “in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” So here, on one level, the law of the Jews is the law that cursed Gentiles (as well as Jews) and under which curse Christ died. Elsewhere Paul argues forcefully that Jew and Greek are both “under sin” (Rom. 3:9) and “under the Law” (Rom. 3:19). The “Law” must be the law of the Old Testament, at least on some level. This, again, goes to show that the old covenant law as national law for Israel is only one of its functions, but not its only function. At least some of the laws of ancient Israel are common to all men because, once again, all men have at least two things in common – creation imago Dei and general revelation.

Other nations were indicted for breaking laws promulgated by Moses (actually by God via Moses) in the Pentateuch.[1] New covenant citizens are called to obey at least some of the very same laws as Moses penned for ancient Israel. And Gentiles, never under Israel’s law as a national covenant, were yet under the curse of the law, on some level. And our Lord Jesus bore the curse of the law for both Jew and Gentile. I think these factors lead us to this conclusion: At least some of the law of Israel is common to all men. Therefore, God incorporated moral law (i.e., law common to all men) into old covenant Israel’s national law as positive law for Israel under the old covenant.

I’ll close with this question: Could it be that the Sabbath law is part of God’s law common to all men? If it is, it would have to be connected to creation imago Dei and general revelation. It would need biblical links to both creation and to the work of the law written on the heart. As for me, I think those links are clear in the Bible.


[1] Some of the laws first promulgated in the law of Moses were assumed to be in place prior to the written law. Cf., for example, the case of Cain in Gen. 4:8 and 1 Jn. 3:12. Cain hated his brother to death. He murdered him, yet murder was not promulgated as sinful until way after Gen. 4:8. Here is actually another way (a fourth) in which a law of Israel, as God’s old covenant nation, is shown to transcend the old covenant. In this case, a law formally promulgated via Moses at Sinai is assumed to be valid prior to its formal, covenantal publication. The Sabbath command, by the way, also gets some press prior to the old covenant and its law in Exod. 16.

Canonical Structure and Hermeneutics: Intro.

Canonical structure can help us with interpreting the Bible. The shape in which the Bible comes to us appears to have a theology behind it. Though we do not believe that inspiration extends to the shape of the canon, this does not mean that we cannot gain insight from it in terms of how the books were viewed by those who put them together in the form that we have received them.[1] The first thing we should do is take note of the structure of the canon, then seek to explore why the canon might be so structured and how that might assist us in the process of interpretation.[2] In the posts ahead of us in this series, we will discuss two issues: A. Canonical Structure and B. Hermeneutical Implications of Canonical Structure.


[1] We will not discuss the historical issues related to the formation of the canon. That subject is discussed in OTI, NTI, and Doctrine of the Word.

[2] In one sense, canonical structure and hermeneutics is an historical issue. It is a consideration of the theology behind the shape of the canon, which itself is outside of the canon. But in another sense, it is inner-canonical and so very much a theological issue because we possess the Bible in the form it comes to us. Again, we are discussing the final shape of the canon not its process.

Pin It on Pinterest