Part Four - Chapter One
By John
Reisinger
Originally posted on Sound
of Grace
Statement on offsite articles
This is the fourth article in a series that reviews the book In Defense of the Decalogue by Richard Barcellos. The review is actually longer than the book. We decided it would be profitable to not only answer Barcellos’ objections, but to also set out what NCT, as we understand it, actually believes. A careful comparison of Barcellos’ book and this review will help anyone who is seriously interested to both see the differences and understand how those differences reflect a correct understanding of Scripture.
Review of Chapter 1
"New Covenant Theology and the Promise of the New Covenant"
Barcellos begins this chapter with the heading "The Issue at Stake." He writes,
The first area of challenge for New Covenant Theology concerns its central thesis, that the law written on the heart in the New Covenant is decidedly not the same as the law of the Mosaic Covenant. (p. 15)
As he develops this chapter, Barcellos asserts four major points:
First, he claims the "central thesis" of NCT is "that the law written on the heart in the New Covenant is decidedly not the same as the law of the Mosaic Covenant" (p. 15).
Second, the phrase "My law," as found in Jeremiah 31:31-34, always refers to the Ten Commandments (pp.16-21).
Third, "My law" written on the heart under the New Covenant is identical to the Ten Commandments that were written on the Tablets of the Covenant at Mount Sinai (pp.16-21).
Fourth, the primary focus of "My law" in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not about motivation but is about the content of the law written on the heart (p.20).
Basically, the main concern in the chapter is to prove that the exact laws given to Israel at Sinai on the tablets of the covenant (the Ten Commandments) are identical to the specific laws that will be written on the heart of New Covenant believers. Barcellos closes this chapter with a challenge to New Covenant Theology. He asserts that NCT places an unnecessary wedge between the Ten Commandments as a unit and New Covenant ethics: "Jeremiah is not teaching us that the New Covenant will be the death knell of the Decalogue as a unit. To the contrary, he is teaching us that the New Covenant is the death knell of the Old Covenant" (p. 24).
Our first response to this challenge is to question the validity of the statements upon which it rests. In previous articles, we have already noted the flaw in the theology of this idea. Barcellos isolates the Decalogue, or "the Law," from the rest of the Old Covenant as if they were two entirely separate things. In his opening statement of chapter 1, he implies that New Covenant Theology is wrong in its thesis regarding the nature and content of the law written on the heart under the New Covenant. His choice of the phrase "the law of the Mosaic Covenant" leads to some confusion. As we noted in our last article, Barcellos isolates "the law" (Decalogue) from "the law of the Mosaic Covenant." In his chapter "New Covenant Theology and the Identity of the Old Covenant," Barcellos writes,
The utility of the Decalogue transcends the Old Covenant. Paul uses the Decalogue as the basic, fundamental law or body of ethical divinity applicable to all men…. The Decalogue is the basic, fundamental law of the New Covenant and the basic fundamental law for all men, the Moral Law (p. 57). It is inescapable: the Ten Commandments function outside the Old Covenant as a unit contrary to the claims of New Covenant Theology. (p. 59)
Barcellos wants to make it clear that the Law is not an integral part of the "Mosaic Covenant." The Decalogue is the law of the Mosaic Covenant, but it transcends "the law of the Mosaic Covenant;" it is not an actual part of the covenant that was abrogated. This enables Barcellos to agree that the "Old Covenant" is totally finished and gone, but the "tables of the covenant," are still in full force and unchanged. The law of the Old Covenant, the Ten Commandments, written on the tables of the covenant, is still unchanged, but the Old Covenant is gone. The law remains; the covenant that administered that law is ended. That is quite a juggling act. Barcellos will not hesitate to say "…the New Covenant is the death knell of the Old Covenant" (p. 24), because he has divorced the tablets of the covenant from the Old Covenant: "Jeremiah is not teaching us that the New Covenant will be the death knell of the Decalogue as a unit" (p. 24). This is a recurring theme for Barcellos.
… the New Covenant is the death knell of the Old Covenant. The basic, fundamental law of the Old Covenant is assumed into the New Covenant, not replaced by it, according to Jeremiah. (p. 24)
In an article in the September 2002 issue of Tabletalk published by R.C. Sproul’s ministry, Barcellos writes,
In other words, although NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense, if it denies that the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New Testament, and if it replaces the moral law with another, then it is antinomian on two counts. (p. 15)
Notice that "the moral law," defined as the "basic fundamental law of the Old Covenant" (Defense p. 57), has become an entity all its own that transcends and is separate from the Old Covenant. The "moral law" is both "the law of the Old Covenant" and "the law of the New Covenant," but it is not an actual essential part of either covenant. It is certainly not a part of the Old Covenant that is abrogated. The Decalogue somehow evaporates out of the Old Covenant made with Israel before that covenant is done away with.
We agree that the basic fundamental law that was a real part of the Old Covenant is assumed into the New Covenant, and we further believe that assumption included nine of the Ten Commandments. Our differences arise from the identification of that basic, fundamental law. We do not believe that there are two kinds of morality or that the New Testament starts at ground zero and builds a totally new and different morality with no reference to, or adopting of, anything that was a part of Old Covenant (Defense, p. 23). If we believed that, how could we insist that nine of the Ten Commandments written on the tablets of the (Old) covenant are just as much in effect today as when they were given at Sinai? Barcellos has confused what we have said. (See Fred Zaspel’s excellent booklet, The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law.) 1
Our major problem with the above quote from Tabletalk is its limitation, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, of "the moral law" to the Ten Commandments. (I used ‘testament’ instead of ‘covenant’ because those are the words Barcellos used in the quote. I assume this was a conscious choice of words on his part.) NCT insists that every duty commanded to a believer, in either testament and under both covenants, is an absolute "moral" duty.2 We see little profit in downgrading the Epistles to the status of "good spiritual advice"3 as the means to exalt the Law given to Moses as the highest law ever given. This robs Jesus in order to pay Moses.
The second part of the Tabletalk quote clearly sets forth the heart of Barcellos’ deep-seated objection to NCT.4 He insists that nothing can in anyway change one jot or tittle in the Law written on the tables of the covenant: "…if it replaces the moral law with another, it is antinomian on two counts." The Law given to Moses on those stone tables is THE unchanging moral law of God. Barcellos frankly admits "NCT may not be against law in an absolute sense" (Tabletalk, p.15). But, we ask, isn’t being against law, period, the very essence of antinomianism? Barcellos is not satisfied with that definition. He defines antinomianism entirely in terms of the Decalogue. Rejection of the tablets of the covenant, or the Ten Commandments, as written at Sinai, as "the one unchanging moral law" earns one the odious label of "antinomian." It is essential that we grasp what Barcellos is really saying. If I understand his words correctly, it would seem that there is not the slightest possibility of any dialogue on this subject. Look again carefully at his words:
… if it [NCT] denies that the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New Testament, and if it replaces the moral law with another, then it is antinomian on two counts. (Tabletalk, p.15)
If it cannot be proven biblically that the tables of the covenant, or Decalogue, comprise the "unchanging moral law," then the above statement is a theological pronouncement with no biblical foundation. The question, in Barcellos’ mind, is not if we believe that God has given clear, objective and sufficient commandments to govern his people in the New Covenant Scriptures. We clearly believe and teach that very thing. It seems that it is not sufficient for him that we insist the commandments in the New Covenant Scriptures clearly include nine of the very commandments that were written on the tables of stone. Unless we accept all Ten Commandments, as they are written on the stone tables in Exodus 20, then we are antinomian! Barcellos is insistent that nobody, including Christ himself, has the authority to change in any way God’s "one unchanging moral law" given to Moses Here again is an example of the bottom-line difference between Barcellos and NCT. We insist that Christ is the new lawgiver who replaces Moses, just like he replaced Aaron. Barcellos insists that Christ neither replaces Moses as lawgiver in any sense whatever, nor does he change any of the "unchanging Moral Law" written on the tables of the covenant. Barcellos misunderstands what we mean when we say that Christ replaces Moses:
Those of this [NCT] persuasion often say, "…We are not under the Law of Moses, but under the law of Christ," as if Moses and Christ are sworn enemies. This view has many problems (Defense, p. 62).
This is caricature. We constantly insist that Christ never contradicts Moses. We do not in any way demean Moses. Will Barcellos accuse the writer of Hebrews of thinking the Old and New Covenants are sworn enemies because that writer says, "We are no longer under the Old Covenant but under the New?" Does Paul believe that the "just, holy, and good" law of God is a sworn enemy of grace because he constantly insists that we are "not under the law, but under grace"?
We will expand on this idea when we come to chapter 4 in the review. In that chapter, "New Covenant Theology and the Sermon on the Mount," Barcellos develops the comparison of Christ and Moses with regard to the law. There he writes, "Jesus is indeed introducing a contrast, but not between the Law of Moses and the Law of Christ. Rather, the contrast is between a true understanding of the Law of Moses and the false understanding evidenced in the hypocrisy of the scribes and the Pharisees" (pp. 75-76). Moses must remain the greatest lawgiver and Christ must be no more that Moses’ greatest interpreter. Barcellos is clear as crystal. The "moral law," or Decalogue, given through Moses, must remain the highest law ever given and even Jesus dare not change any of it. The battle cry of Barcellos and his publisher is, "Christ is a Law-keeper, not a law-giver." Our reply is, "He is both."
… the moral law of the Old Testament is the moral law of the New Testament…" (Tabletalk, p.15)
In essence, this means that in respect to morality there are no actual Old and New Covenants. Barcellos writes, "…Christ is stating explicitly what was already contained implicitly in the …commandment (Defense, p. 74). Moses has said all there is to say in the area of morality. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that this premise is true. Acting upon that supposition, we must ask, "Mr. Barcellos, if we accept nine of the ten laws written on stone as binding on a believer today, then does it not follow that your bottom-line objection to our view concerns the one we don’t accept; the Sabbath Commandment? Since NCT recognizes all of the other nine commandments in its system of ethics, are you not labeling us with the wicked sin of antinomianism simply because we believe the Sabbath is a ceremonial, and not a moral, law?" Cut it any way you want to and it always comes to the same thing. Barcellos’ position rests on one of two tenets: One, we are antinomian because we believe the Sabbath is fulfilled and done away in Christ; or two, we are antinomians because we "changed the law" by insisting that Christ raised the law given to Moses to a higher standard in the New Covenant Scriptures, thus giving a new and higher code of morality. One, or both, of those two things is our great crime! Our sin is not in being lawless or in rejecting the Ten Commandments, since we clearly believe and teach nine of the ten. No, our sin is daring to believe that Jesus, as a greater lawgiver, replaces Moses and his law. Remember, even Jesus himself, our new lawgiver, cannot change the ‘unchanging moral Law’ given to Moses!
It is essential to Barcellos’ position that the tables of the covenant, or Decalogue, which he insists, without textual evidence, is "THE Moral Law," must totally transcend all covenants and all dispensations (Tabletalk, p.16). That way "the Old Covenant" can disappear in totality and "the Law" can remain. We insist that "the Law" IS the "Mosaic Covenant" and the Decalogue, or tables of the covenant, a vital part of that covenant, ended when the Old Covenant ended. The Old Covenant and the tables of the covenant stand or fall together. There is no such thing as "the Law of the Old Covenant." That is linguistic sleight of hand. I repeat; the entire Law of Moses comprises the Old Covenant. The Decalogue is not "the law of the Mosaic covenant;" it is a vital part of the covenant itself. The tables of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, are a vital part of the actual covenant document that established Israel’s nationhood at Sinai. The tables of stone, upon which were written the Ten Commandments, or the terms of the covenant, were the basic foundation document of the Old Covenant. You cannot do away with the Old, or Mosaic, Covenant without also doing away with the tablets of the covenant; the Decalogue. Those tablets were a vital enduring part of the foundational covenant document upon which Israel’s special nationhood was established. You cannot do away with the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant without doing away with the covenant document, the Ten Commandments, or words of the covenant written on the stone. The "tables of the covenant" (Heb. 9:4), housed inside the ark of the covenant, were a vital part of the covenant. The ark of the covenant and the covenant document inside of it stand or fall together. It is impossible to do away with one and keep the other. In a back-handed way, Barcellos unknowingly agrees with the above.
The revelation of the Decalogue does not constitute the totality of the Old Covenant. The Decalogue, the Book of the Covenant, and the blood of the covenant all go together. (Defense, p.30)
We agree that all these things began at the same time and are integrally tied together. However, whether Barcellos will admit it or not, all of these also ended at the same time. Barcellos is correct in stating that they "all go together." It is impossible to reconcile the idea that the Decalogue transcends the Old Covenant in that quotation unless "all" does not mean all and "go" does not mean go. The context into which Barcellos has placed those words defines them, and unless we change their meaning, Barcellos says exactly what we do! Every single thing that the Old Covenant established was finished when the covenant that established it ended. Everything, including the tables of the covenant, was finished.
In my review of chapter two, there will be a discussion on "identification of the Old Covenant." It is true, as Barcellos writes, that the Decalogue is not to be equated "one-on-one" with the "Old Covenant." The Old Covenant is indeed more than the tables of the covenant, or Ten Commandments. However, it is just as true that the Ten Commandments, or Tablets of the Covenant, were just as much an essential part of the Old Covenant as were the tabernacle, priesthood, and ark of the covenant. The tables of stone constituted a vital part of the actual covenant, and therefore those tables of the covenant ended when the covenant of which they were a part ended. Barcellos makes the "Ten Commandments" to be equated one-on-one with the theological term "the Moral law." We must remember that all this is based on the unproven idea that the Ten Commandments, or tables of the covenant, are "the unchanging moral law of God." We reject this idea, and will develop our reasons for that rejection when we review chapter 5, "New Covenant Theology and the Identity of the Moral Law." We do not believe that the "the Law," meaning tables of the covenant, or Ten Commandments, can be excised out of, and separated from, the Old Covenant. The Decalogue is a vital part of the covenant itself. To arbitrarily define the Decalogue as THE unchanging moral law of God, and on the basis of that definition, to state that it transcends the covenant that develops it is an example of presuppositional hermeneutics.
In Barcellos’ exposition of Jeremiah 31:31-34, he attempts to prove that the law to which Jeremiah refers must be the Ten Commandments, and nothing else. All other laws may cease or be changed, but the Decalogue, or "the Moral Law," is forever unchanged. That law transcends all covenants and dispensations. The main point in Barcellos’ argument is that the same Ten Commandments that were written on stone will be, one-on-one, written on the heart of a New Covenant believer. I was surprised that Barcellos used Exodus 24:12 to support his point:
Understood this way, Jeremiah clearly teaches that the law of God under the New Covenant is a law that was written on stone by God and that will be written on hearts by God. Exodus 24:12 identifies the "tablets of stone" with "the law and commandments which I have written." This is a very important verse, for it uses the Hebrew word torah [law] as a synonym for what God wrote on stones.… Peter Enns acknowledges that torah [law] refers to the Decalogue in this text… (Defense, p.18)
Let’s look at the entire text of Exodus 24:12 in both the NIV and the KJV.
The LORD said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and stay here, and I will give you the tablets of stone, with the law and commands I have written for their instruction." (NIV)
And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. (KJV)
The NIV rendering could mean the "laws and commands" are in addition to (along with) the tablets of stone, or that they are synonymous with "the tablets of stone." To hold the second view you must mentally supply "upon which I have written" to be the meaning of "with." It would then read, "I will give you the tablets of stone, UPON WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN the law and commands . . . ." This makes, as Barcellos notes, the tables of stone synonymous with "the law and commands.’ The KJV seems to make "tables of stone" and "a law," and "commands" three different things. In this construction, as with the first option in the NIV, "a law and commandments" are in addition to the Ten Commandments written on the stone tablets. It would seem that both views are linguistically possible. If the second NIV choice is correct, we could ask why the redundancy with the words ‘law’ and ‘commands’ if the purpose is to establish that only the Ten Commandments are in view? Peter Enns’ statement, "‘Other uses of torah [law] include: a reference to the stone tablets (Exod. 24:12)…’" (p.19, quoted from: Willem A. Van Gemeren, General Editor, New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, Volume 4, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997], 896) is purely arbitrary and so is Barcellos’ exegesis at this point. Barcellos’ point is to prove that the Ten Commandments alone are in view in the text. He may or may not be correct. His comments do not prove his point. Covenant Theology has a tendency to see ‘Decalogue’ behind every use of the word torah unless the particular passage is talking about the end of torah and then the word can never include the Ten Commandments.5
Secondly, the "central thesis of NCT" is not, as Barcellos states, the identification of the precise law that is written in the heart in the New Covenant. Actually, we do not even believe that the identification of the precise law is the major import of the text. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is a passage frequently used by Covenant Theologians to refute NCT, but in no sense is it a key verse used by us. We agree with Barcellos that these are very important verses, but we differ as to why they are so important. We see them as important because they clearly predict that a real, true, and radically different "New Covenant" is going to replace an "Old" and obsolete covenant. That indeed is one of the key doctrines of NCT. The main idea in this text is not the content of the law written in the heart. What is in view is the coming time when both the will of God and more importantly, a sincere desire to obey that will, shall be written in the heart of every member of the covenant community. Barcellos insists that the words "My law" cannot be referring to "a disposition of heart to obey." We disagree.
The phrase "My law" in Jeremiah never [his emphasis] refers to a disposition in men but always and clearly to something revealed by God to Israel as His Old Covenant nation. (Defense, p. 21)
Barcellos has developed a lengthy and intricate series of "therefore" arguments to prove that the words "My Law" must always refer to the Decalogue. This is his main argument against us on this point, and in my mind, he is not at all convincing. Barcellos acknowledges the fact that the writers in the New Testament Scriptures, when quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34, change the word ‘law,’ singular, to ‘laws,’ plural. In a footnote on page 18, he writes, regarding Hebrews 8:10, "This text in no way negates the exposition of Jeremiah 31:33 as referring to the Decalogue. It simply argues for a redemptive-historical expansion and application of Jeremiah’s prophecy." But we believe that Barcellos’ intricate argument about "My Law," singular, equaling the Ten Commandments breaks down if he tries to use the Book of Hebrews to interpret Jeremiah 31:31-34. Where does any Scripture, Old or New Testament, ever refer to the Decalogue as "my lawS"?
Barcellos argues that "My law" always means the Ten Commandments: "The phrase ‘My Law,’ when referring to God, always refers to something revealed by Him to Israel, not only in the book of Jeremiah, but in the whole Old Testament" (pp. 17-18). If this is true, then "My lawS" cannot refer to the Ten Commandments alone, but must mean the Ten Commandments plus other laws, or other laws altogether. This poses a dilemma for Barcellos and others who hold to the thesis that the "Decalogue is the basic, fundamental law of the New Covenant … the Moral Law" (p. 57). If "lawS" (Hebrews 8’s application of Jeremiah 31) includes more than the Decalogue, then something more than the Decalogue is the Moral Law upon which the New Covenant is founded. The Decalogue plus other laws equal the Moral Law. If, on the other hand, other laws entirely are in view in Hebrews 8, then something other than the Decalogue is the "basic, fundamental law of the New Covenant." In that case, laws other than the Decalogue must equal the Moral Law. It is not enough to simply assert that the Hebrews passage does not negate the equation of "My Law" with the Decalogue. Barcellos must exposit the shift from singular to plural, and explain what he means by "a redemptive-historical expansion and application of Jeremiah’s prophecy."
We agree with John Owen’s comments on why the writer to Hebrews changed from the singular to the plural when quoting Jeremiah 31:31-34. We also agree with Owen’s understanding of the phrase "write my laws." I am indebted to John Jefferies for pointing out the following quotation from John Owen. Owen helps us to see the significance in the Holy Spirit’s very obvious and deliberate change from the singular, "my law" and "it," in Jeremiah 31:33, to "my laws" and "them" in the New Testament Scriptures (Hebrews 8:10 and Hebrews 10:18). Owen’s quotation confirms our understanding of the passage.
Expositors inquire what laws are here intended, whether the moral law only [JGR: the position of Barcellos], or others also. But there is no need of such inquiry. There is a metonymy [JGR: A figure in which the name of an attribute or adjunct is substituted for that of the thing meant] of the subject and effect in the words. It is that knowledge of the mind and will of God which is revealed in the law, and taught by it, which is promised. The "laws of God," therefore, are here taken largely, for the whole revelation of the mind and will of God. So doth TORAH originally signify "doctrine" or "instruction." By what way or revelation soever God makes known himself and his will unto us, requiring our obedience therein, it is all comprised in that expression of "his laws." (An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:149)
In this quote, Owen not only does not support Barcellos’ idea that God tattooed the Decalogue on the believer’s heart; he clearly opposes such an idea. It is clear that Owen sees the primary promise in Jeremiah to be that of motivation and not content: "It is that knowledge of the mind and will of God…which is promised." Hebrews 8:11 bears this out: "‘No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.’" Biblical use of the word knowledge encompasses more than cognizance; it involves an attitude of love as well. This has always been one of the emphases in Reformed soteriology; God’s foreknowledge of his elect includes more than mere awareness; it refers to that special love he has for them.
On the following page after the above quote, Owen speaks of the Spirit’s illumination and renewal that makes us habitually "…conformable unto the whole law of God, - that is, the rule and the law of our obedience in the new covenant …" Here Owen equates "the whole law of God," not with the Decalogue, but with the "law of our obedience in the new covenant." That is precisely what NCT believes. Owen sees the primary force of the prophecy to be talking about new and internal motivation to obedience and not specific law content. Owen sees the primary emphasis of a New Covenant believer’s obedience as controlled by the New Covenant Scriptures and not by the Law of Moses. In fairness to Barcellos, we must point out that he does admit that motivation is one of the blessings promised in Jeremiah 31, but he also insists it is not at all the primary blessing. On pages 20 - 21, he writes,
The text [Jer. 31:31-34] does not say that the law of God under the New Covenant consists of a disposition to obey. This is something that would be true of saved Old Covenant saints and would not be anything new. A disposition to obey is one of the promised blessings of the New Covenant, according to Ezekiel 11:19…. The promise of the New Covenant includes both a law to follow and a disposition of heart to obey. The phrase ‘My Law’ in Jeremiah never refers to a disposition in men but always and clearly as something revealed by God to Israel as His Old Covenant nation.
It is somewhat confusing to try to figure out how one of the blessings that comes with the New Covenant was already present under the Old Covenant. This seems to be a contradiction. If it was already in existence, why must it be promised as future and new? If the same disposition to obey was true of Old Covenant saints, what is new about it? According to Barcellos, the law is the same, the disposition to obey that law is the same, in fact, the only really new thing about the New Covenant is that everyone under it enjoys its blessings. Actually even this is not really new; since under the Old Covenant, blessings and curses were experienced corporately. When the nation of Israel was blessed, everyone in the nation enjoyed the blessing, and when the nation was cursed, everyone in the nation suffered the effects of the curse. What is new about the New Covenant? We believe Owen is far closer to the answer than Barcellos.
Owen’s quotation demonstrates one of our basic problems with the Covenant Theology of Barcellos. We do not in any way downgrade the Ten Commandments or find a single thing wrong with them. They functioned well in fulfilling the preparatory phase in God’s scheme of redemption (Hebrews 3:5). Our problem is not even with Barcellos’ defense of "the Perpetuity of the Decalogue."Our real problem is his insistence that the word "perpetuity" means the Decalogue alone is the highest, clearest, fullest, unchanging revelation of the moral character of God ever given. Cut that view any way you want to and it still denies any progressive revelation of the moral character of God. Moses said it all and nothing can be added. At Mount Sinai, we have the full message as it pertains to ethics. It is now merely a matter of correctly understanding and repeating what Moses taught. To put it bluntly, we believe this view is an insult to both God the Father and to his Son our Lord Jesus Christ. We reject any notion that enthrones Moses as the king in the conscience in the area of morality, and subjects Christ as his rubber stamp. When all the thunder and smoke is cleared away, the issue is still simple. Is, or is not, our Lord Jesus Christ a new lawgiver who replaces Moses; or is Moses the greatest and highest lawgiver that ever lived? This does not pit Christ and Moses against each other as if they were bitter enemies, as Barcellos charges (p. 62), but allows for progressive revelation in keeping with the ideas presented in the opening chapter of the letter to the Hebrews. Is the primary purpose and function of Christ, in the area of morality, to merely interpret and enforce Moses, or does he supercede and go beyond Moses? Barcellos says one thing, and NCT says the opposite.
Let’s note the particulars in Jeremiah 31:31-34 that we feel are important:
1. Verse 31 is quite clear that the Old Covenant will be replaced with a new one. "Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant…" We insist that this prophecy cannot be fulfilled by turning the promised New Covenant into a new administration of the so-called covenant of grace. In our minds, that point is one of the major theses in this text. This results in one of the basic objections that we have with Covenant Theology. Unless a literal new and different covenant fully replaces an old and obsolete covenant, then this prophecy has not been fulfilled. Let’s be both clear and emphatic. Jeremiah is not writing about a new and better administration of an existing covenant; he is talking about a new, different and better covenant. He is not teaching a New and Old "Covenant of Grace." There is no such thing in Scripture. It exists only in the minds of Covenant Theologians. Jeremiah is saying that a new covenant is going to replace an old covenant. That statement is true regardless of what specific laws may, or may not, be written for each covenant, and where those laws are located under each covenant. ‘New’ really means new and not ‘newer,’ ‘old’ really means old and not ‘older,’ and ‘covenant’ really means covenant and not ‘administration.’
On the surface, Barcellos seems to agree with this. He clearly sees and accepts the fact that a New Covenant has replaced an Old Covenant. In fact, at times he writes as if he believes NCT. Upon closer examination, however, we see that he first distorts the very essence of both of the Covenants. He excises "the Law," meaning the table of the covenants or Ten Commandments, totally out of the Old Covenant. He correctly wants the Old Covenant to include more than the Ten Commandments, but at the same time he insists those very commandments are not a part of the Old Covenant that is done away. When we ask if the tablets of the covenant, or the Ten Commandments, were a vital part of the Old Covenant that was done away in Christ, Barcellos’ answer is, "Absolutely not." He will gladly admit that the Old Covenant is indeed "totally fulfilled and, in Christ, is totally done away in its entirety," but the "unchanging moral law," or tables of the covenant, is not a part of the Old Covenant that was abrogated.
2. It is clear that God alone is going to make this New Covenant. God says, "…I will make a New Covenant…" The success of the New Covenant will be entirely the Lord’s doing. This is one of the major differences between the Old and New Covenants. The New is based on "better promises" (Hebrews 8:6). The Old said, "Do and live, disobey and die" and the New says, "It is finished, believe." The Old Covenant failed because it was based on law; the New Covenant succeeds because it is based on grace. Covenant Theology denies this and insists that the Old and New Covenants are "one in substance’ and are, in reality, an "old and new administration of the one and same Covenant of Grace."6 We believe this idea is foreign to both the prophecy in Jeremiah and the fulfillment passages in Hebrews.
3. Jeremiah 31:32 informs us that the New Covenant is going to be essentially different from the Old Covenant. The New Covenant will "Not [be] according to the covenant that I made with their fathers…" NCT and Covenant Theology cannot agree on what the great differences are between the two covenants, because Covenant Theology insists that in essence they are not really two different covenants. There can only be "one covenant in substance" with different administrations.7 In that system, the two "covenants" differ only in how they administer the so-called Covenant of Grace. We insist that "not according to" means exactly what it says. It means the New Covenant is radically and totally different in both nature and substance from the Old Covenant made at Sinai. I repeat; the great difference is that one is a covenant based on law and the other is a covenant based on grace. The New Covenant is based on the atoning work of Christ and is totally and radically different from the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai. Covenant Theology rejects this and makes Sinai an administration of the Covenant of Grace. We agree that the Old Covenant was an essential part of preparation for grace and thereby fulfilled God’s unchanging purpose of grace, however, that is radically different from calling a legal covenant a gracious covenant.
We disagree with Barcellos’ understanding of Jeremiah 31:32. He states that the real "newness" in the New Covenant is the fact that it cannot be broken.
The newness of the New Covenant can be seen in at least four ways from Jeremiah’s prophecy. First, unlike the Old Covenant, the New Covenant cannot be broken. This is what Jeremiah means in verse 32, when he says, "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD." (p. 22)
We do not believe that is primarily what Jeremiah 31:32 is talking about. We agree that one of the differences between the Old and New Covenants is the fact that the New cannot be broken. However, that is not what the phrase "not according to" in verse 32 is emphasizing. Hebrews 8:6 makes it clear that "not according to" in Jeremiah refers to the different terms upon which the two covenants rest. Jeremiah is not concerned merely with the fact that the New Covenant cannot be broken. The text is clearly concerned with why the New can and will succeed where the Old one failed. The "better terms" of the New Covenant are, "It is finished - only believe." The Old Covenant failed because the terms were "Obey and live - disobey and die." The new is based on grace and the old is based on works. But of course, Covenant Theology does not, and cannot, believe that the Old Covenant at Sinai was indeed a legal covenant with different terms from the New Covenant. It was an "administration of the one and same Covenant of Grace." Barcellos must totally change the emphasis in Jeremiah to fit into his system.
4. The Old Covenant that will be replaced is positively identified as the covenant made with Israel at Sinai "in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt …" These words can only refer to the law covenant made at Sinai. This covenant cannot be pushed back into the Garden of Eden and turned into a "Covenant of Works with Adam" as Covenant Theology seeks to do. The Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai was a legal covenant based upon "IF you obey, THEN I will…" (Ex. 19:5, 6).
5. Israel broke the old law covenant and never experienced the blessings promised. "Which my covenant [the old one] they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD …" The New Testament Scriptures, 1 Peter 2:9 in particular, clearly show that the church has inherited the specific blessings promised Israel in Exodus 19:4-6.
6. In verses 33 and 34, God clearly describes the basic differences between the Old and New Covenants. Our understanding of this text and the position of Barcellos’ Covenant Theology differ greatly. We deliberately skipped the phrase "house of Israel and house of Judah" in verse 31, since there is considerable debate over to whom that refers. Some make it refer exclusively to the church, others say it refers to the literal "house of Israel and house of Judah," and still others says it means both. Different prophetic views will argue about the time period—present or future—and the people—literal Israel or the church—this prophecy encompasses. I personally believe it refers to the present time and that the church, as the body of Christ, is in view as the true Israel of God. Many people, whom I deeply respect, disagree with me. What is clear, regardless of what prophetic view we hold, is that God promises in the New Covenant (as developed in both Jeremiah and Hebrews) that he will do the following things:
1. put my laws(Heb 10:16) in their inward parts, and
2. write them (Heb 10:16) [my laws] in their hearts; and
3. will be their God, and
4. they shall be my people. And,
5. they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for
6. they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for
7. I will forgive their iniquity, and
8. I will remember their sin no more.
The New Covenant guarantees these eight things will be true of all of God’s New Covenant people. It is because the Holy Spirit himself will affect these eight things that the success of the New Covenant is guaranteed.
In our next article we will develop the implications of these eight blessing that are promised in Jeremiah 31.
1 "The purpose of this paper is to determine the present relevance of the law of God. In brief, it is designed to show that the law of God is presently (and in every age) binding upon the believer and that while this law formed the basis of the Mosaic legislation, the two are not to be confused. Moreover, in the outworking of His plan God may choose to give His law under various codifications, but God’s law reflects eternal principles of righteousness which always constitutes a rule of life. To establish this thesis it will be necessary to, 1) investigate what law was written on man’s heart (Rom. 2:15) at creation, 2) examine the teaching of our Lord and His apostles regarding the present relevance of the law given at Sinai, 3) demonstrate that Divine law is a continuing standard of conduct and rule of life, and 4) show precisely what is the believer’s rule of life today. If the thesis is correct it must be able to stand in harmony with those New Testament texts which speak to 1) the fact that the Christian is "not under law," and 2) the binding character of certain laws which were given also within the framework of the Sinaitic Covenant (i.e. any New Testament passage speaking to the laws as Mosaic legislation must be shown to be in reference to Israel alone, and those laws binding upon the Church which were also binding upon Israel must be shown to be laws reflective of the character of God Himself, thus making them eternal principles of righteousness independent of the law of Moses)." From: Fred Zaspel, The Continuing Relevance of Dive Law, (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1991), 1, 2.
2 In a later article, we will examine the phrase "the moral law," as used by Barcellos, and show it is not a biblical concept.
3 See Christ, Lord and Lawgiver Over the Church, published by New Covenant Media, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.
4 See "An Open Letter to R. C. Sproul." This is lengthy response to an article written by Barcellos and published by Tabletalk. It is available from Sound of Grace.
5 See God’s Righteous Kingdom, by Walter Chantry, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1980) 101. Chantry discusses the meaning of the "law" in Galatians 3. He is not too concerned with what you say it means as long as your definition does not in any way include the Ten Commandments.
6 See Chantry, God’s Righteous Kingdom, 46, 47.
7 We must not be confused into allowing Covenant Theology to state that all who reject the idea of a formal Covenant of Grace made in time with man, either Adam or Abraham, are then guilty of believing that God saves sinners in different ways in different dispensations. We believe that sinners are saved the identical way in all ages and in all dispensations. God saves all men in all ages "by grace through faith." The Bible calls this "the gospel" (Gal. 3:9). Walter Chantry calls it "the canopy of that arrangement labeled ‘the Covenant of Grace’" (Kingdom, 47). We must remember that such a label is never used in Scripture, but only in theology.