An Examination Of The Presuppositions
Of Covenant And Dispensational Theology

10. A Positive Textual Presentation Of The Relationship
Of The Old And New Covenants

For our purposes here we will examine Rom. 3:9-4:8 and Gal. 3:1-6:2 (focusing on Rom. 3:21 and Gal. 6:2). This will allow us to discuss some important issues, and give us much to think about as we come to grips with Christ's truth.

10.1 Rom. 3:9-4:8. 3:9 - Paul's goal is to show that all men, Jews and Gentiles, are "under sin." In chapters 1-3, he has already shown this. Both those without law and those with law are destitute of righteousness, and sinful by nature.

3:10-18 - In these verses, Paul quotes from the O. T., specifically from the Psalms and Isaiah. In these quotations, Paul demonstrates from the "law" that Jews and Gentiles are totally depraved. They, being unrighteous, need a righteousness in order to stand before God.

3:19-20 - Verse 20 has often been used to show that the Ten Commandments must be preached to convict of sin: "God's law is an essential ingredient of gospel preaching, for 'by the law is the knowledge of sin'" (Chantry, p. 36). Historically, the "law" in 3:20b has been equated with the Ten Commandments. But there is nothing in the context to warrant this conclusion. In verse 9 Paul states that all men are "under sin." He proves this by quoting form "law." Here, he has in view the entire O. T. (John Murray, Romans, Vol. 1, pp. 240, 105). The translation "under law" in v. 19 is incorrect. The Greek is en nomos ("in the law"), not hupo nomos ("under the law"). Whatever the O. T. says, it says to those described in it, namely Jews and Gentiles (Murray, p. 106). Thus, while the Ten Commandments are a part of the O. T., the "law" in 3:20b certainly cannot be equated with the Ten, and contextually it refers to the whole O. T. If anyone reads Genesis through Malachi, he will come to a full knowledge of sin - the sin of Adam, the sin that brought the flood, the sin that brought fire on Sodom, the sin that caused Israel to be cast out of the land, etc., and thereby come to a knowledge of his sinfulness.

3.21 - This is a very significant verse, for it is a transition from the proven unrighteousness of men to the revealed righteousness of God. In this verse, I believe we have an assertion of both the discontinuity and continuity of the Old and New Covenants (cf. Murray, Romans, Vol. 1, p. 109). The discontinuity is revealed in the phrase, "without law a righteousness of God has been manifested." "Righteousness" cannot come by the law. Therefore, gospel righteousness has come apart from law, that is, "in a sphere different from that in which the law says, 'do this and live'" (Wuest's Word Studies, Romans, p. 57). John Brown says "without law" means that this righteousness "stands apart from law; it is founded on other principles: it is characterized by different qualities" (Commentary on Romans, ad. 3:21). The "now" of 3:21, says John Murray, "should not be deprived of its temporal force" (Romans, Vol. 1, p. 108). "When Paul says 'without the law' the absoluteness of this negative must not be toned down" (Ibid., p. 109). Thus, Murray continues, "the emphasis falls upon the manifestation without law rather than upon the fact that it is righteousness without law" (Ibid., p. 110).

In this Messianic age, then, a righteousness has been manifested which is "apart from law." It is founded, not on the legal principle of "do this and live," but on "the law of faith" (3:27). This, then, is the essence of what Paul means in Gal 3:12 when he says that the law is "not of faith." Because this righteousness is "without law," it is for Jews and Gentiles (3:22-23). Paul shows in 4:10 that righteousness by faith came to Abraham "without law" - and in his case, prior to the law.

The continuity in 3:21 is seen in the fact that this righteousness is witnessed to in the O. T. Habakkuk 2:4, for example, often quoted in the N. T., teaches justification by faith. While the law, contemplated as a legal covenant, was "not of faith," the O. T. documents taught righteousness by faith (Gal. 3:11-12). The gospel, then, was manifested in history apart from law, but was foretold in the law (Gal. 3:8).

The history of covenant theology shows a tendency to overplay the continuity, and not do justice to the revealed discontinuity of the two covenants. Discontinuity is virtually ruled out as a possibility when all covenants are viewed as administrations of one covenant of grace. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, have ruled out the possibility of continuity by teaching that the O. T. is "silent" about this present "intercalation" age. We must do full justice to all that is revealed in Rom. 3:21.

3:31 - Historically, covenant theology has seen this text as establishing the abiding validity of the "moral law" under the gospel. Charles Hodge is representative of this when he says concerning this text, "no moral obligation is weakened" (Commentary on Romans, ad. 3:31). However, it appears that Paul's point here, and in the preceding and following context, is to validate the fact that his teaching is not contrary to the law.

In 3:27, Paul uses the phrase "law of faith" as opposed to salvation by works. Some might suppose that this invalidates the O. T. Thus, in 3:31, he indicates that his gospel upholds the law. for righteousness by faith was "witnessed by the law and prophets: (3:21). F. F. Bruce summarizes the teaching of 3:31 and the context by saying:

"do we then overthrow the law by this faith?" . . . "By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." In the immediate context, in which Paul goes on to expound the narrative of Abraham's faith which was reckoned to him for righteousness (4:1-25), it might appear that the law which is upheld by the gospel of justification by faith is the Torah in the wider sense -- the Pentateuch, and more particularly the Genesis account of Abraham. That is so, but Paul goes on farther to show that the law in its stricter sense, as toe embodiment of God's will, is upheld and fulfilled more adequately in the age of faith than was possible "before faith came," when law kept the people "under restraint" (Gal. 3:23). Only in an atmosphere of spiritual liberty can God's will be properly obeyed and his law upheld (Heart Set Free, p. 201).

In summarizing this Romans context, I believe the remarks of Geerhardus Vos are appropriate and insightful.

It is evident that there are two distinct points of view from which the content of the old dispensation can be regarded. When considered in comparison with the final unfolding and rearranged structure of the N. T., negative judgments are in place. When, on the other hand, the O. T. is taken as an entirety by itself and as rounded off provisionally in itself, and looked at, as it were, with the eyes of the O. T. itself, we find it necessary to take into account the positive element by which it prefigured and anticipated typically the N. T. (Biblical Theology. p. 144).

10.2 Gal. 3:1-6:2. In this context, it appears to me that we must remember that Paul is dealing with people who have been urged to come under Moses. This makes his appeal to the law of Christ in 6:2 take on increased significance.

3:1-5 - Paul confronts the Galatians with the original way in which they come to Christ. The answer to his question is obvious: they came to Christ through faith, not through the law. Covenant theology has argued, and not without textual foundation (Gal. 5:4), that the issue here is not sanctification, but justification. Their position, of course, avers that the Christian is not under the law for justification, but that he is under the law in sanctification. However, it is impossible to separate the way of justification and sanctification in the N. T. If we are justified by faith, so we are sanctified by faith - the just live by faith in all of their days (cf. H. Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith [Baker, 1978], p. 480). If justification does not come by law, than, to Paul, neither does sanctification: "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law" (Gal. 5:18; cf. Rom. 6:14). The gospel brings justification, sanctification, and all blessings in Christ. Many Galatians were trying to maintain their standing before God with the law, and Paul tells them it just will not work (cf. Tom Smith, "Have You Fallen From Grace?," Free Grace Herald, May, 1979).

3:17-29 - Paul here shows that blessing comes via the Abrahamic promise. Abraham stands as our reference point in the history of redemption. He was justified by faith prior to his own circumcision, and 430 years prior to the law. Abraham was essentially like a heathen when justified -- he was without law and uncircumcised. Thus for Christians to come under the Mosaic covenant is retrogressive and dangerous.

For Paul there is obviously some tremendously significant difference between the Abrahamic-promise and Mosaic-law covenants. The one was a uni-lateral declaration of God's purpose in Christ (3:16-17; cf. Gen. 15:17-18). The other was bi-lateral, and involved the consent of the people (Exod. 19:8; 24:7). The Abrahamic covenant was incapable of being forfeited; the Mosaic covenant was conditioned upon obedience, and indeed was "broken" (Jer. 34:32). However, in covenant theology, the Mosaic covenant is transformed into a "fresh administration of the covenant of grace" (cf. 7.3 above), and asserted to be the same in substance as the covenant with Abraham. Frankly, in this regard, there is no place in covenant theology for Paul's line of reasoning in Gal. 3:17-29. Redemptive history is leveled, with the result that all covenants are the same.

Further, covenant theology has historically viewed this context with reference to effectual calling, and not with reference to salvation history (cf. 8.6 above). We must understand the apostle's perspective in this context.

Gal. 3:24 - The "to bring us" is in italics in the King James Version. These words are not in the Greek text. It should read, "the law was our schoolmaster unto [or, until] Christ." The "to bring us" rendering makes it appear that Paul has in view our personal calling into salvation. Gal. 3:24, based on this idea, has been used to teach that in the process of salvation, men must first be convicted by the Ten Commandments, and then are driven to Christ. For example, Archbishop Usher said, "First, the covenant of the law is urged, to make sin, and the punishment thereof known . . . After this preparation, the promisees of God are propounded" (quoted by Bridges, Christian Ministry, pp. 233-234). Walter Chantry states that gospel preachers must "exposit the Ten Commandments until men are slain thereby (Rom. 7:11). When you see that men have been wounded by the law, then it is time to pour in the balm of Gospel oil. It is the sharp needle of the law that makes way for the scarlet thread of the Gospel" (Today's Gospel, p. 43). But, clearly, this is not what Paul is teaching in Gal. 3:24. Rather, he is showing the advance of history from the Abrahamic covenant to the Mosaic covenant, to the coming of Christ. He does this to show that salvation is of faith, not of law (3:18), and that salvation is connected with promise, not law (3:17). Notice the following historical terminology in this context: "430 years after . . . [the law] was added . . . till the seed [Christ] should come . . . before faith came, we [Jews] were kept under the law, shut up to the faith which should afterwards be revealed . . . the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ . . . But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster . . . until the time appointed of the father . . . the fullness of time was come." Ernest DeWitt Burton said concerning 3:24:

Nor is the reference to the individual experience under law as bringing men individually to faith in Christ. For the context makes it clear that the apostle is speaking, rather, of the historic succession of the period of revelation upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ (Galatians, p. 200).

This text, probably more than any other, has been used to prove that law must be preached before gospel. In fact, the Puritans built a whole theology of "law-preaching" on this text. But this is a misunderstanding of the mind of the Spirit. That the Ten Commandments must convict Jews and Gentiles prior to gospel preaching is the last thing in Paul's mind in this text. If the Galatians had been so driven to the gospel by the law in the beginning, would not his point that they are not "made perfect" through the law after salvation lose its punch?

4:10-11, 15 - I would just point out here that we need to mark well the danger of coming "under law" (cf. 5:18). There is something to be afraid of when we go one-on-one with the law (cf. Anthony A. Hoekema. The Christian Looks At Himself, "Romans Seven"). The "sense of blessing" the gospel brings with it simply cannot be maintained when a person is "under law." Paul, therefore, feared for people when they lost sight of their status in Christ as "under grace" (Rom. 6:14). Because covenant theology is so old covenant oriented, as I believe its history amply demonstrates, and makes no qualms about keeping the Christian "under the conduct of Moses" (Bolton, p. 760. inherent dangers are built into the system. The Christian is asked to learn the "hard lesson" (and hard it is) of stopping his ears to the curses of the law with reference to justification, but opening his ears to that same law in sanctification. Thus, in order to maintain this system, Abraham is put under the yoke of the law, and the Mosaic covenant is said to be the same as the Abrahamic! (Cf. 7.3, 8.6 above).

6.2 - The false teachers in Galatia were imposing dangerous burdens on the brethren. Paul exhorts them, therefore, to turn away from these burdens, and to rather give themselves to the bearing of one another's burdens. In this way they will fully fulfill the "law of Christ".

The Jewish people were weighted down with many burdens. First, there were those burdens imposed by the Pharisees: "they tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders" (Matt. 23:4); "you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry" (Luke 11:46). Secondly, there was the burden of the Mosaic economy itself: "a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear" (Acts 15:10). It is in the light of these burdens that we must understand the invitation of Christ in Matt. 11:28, "come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."

In Galatia, then, the Judaizers were putting believers under such burdens again. Paul challenges them to bear one another's burdens, and in this way they will fulfill Christ's law. Thus, to paraphrase, Paul is saying: "I would have you to bear, not the burden of the Mosaic law (which none can bear), but bear one another's burdens and thereby fulfill Christ's law." What does Paul mean by "the law of Christ"? It is the "new commandment" to love one another (John 13:34-35; 15:12-13). I think John Brown's words are most instructive:

"The law" here [5:14] plainly does not signify the Mosaic law, but the law by which Christians are bound to regulate themselves; for, as the apostle elsewhere says, though completely free from the obligation of the Mosaic law, they are "not with out law to God, but under the law to Christ" . . . There seems to be a tacit contrast [in 6.2] between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. It is as if the apostle had said, "This bearing one another's burdens is a far better thing than those external observances which your new teachers are so anxious to impose on you. To be sure, it is not like them, a keeping of the law of Moses, but infinitely better, it is a fulfilling of the law of Christ - the law of love (Galatians, pp. 287, 326).

In light of the fact that in his Galatian Epistle Paul has in view the imposition of the Mosaic system on believers, his focus on the "law of Christ" is all the more significant. It indicates where our attention is to be directed in this age: to the words of the Prophet in Whom God has spoken in these last days (Acts 3:22-23; Matt. 7:24; 17:5).