BTS Morning Workshop 2

Key Questions, Contested IssuesThursday, 26 July 2018

9:00 am – 10:00 am: Approaching the Old Testament: Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

Approaching The Old TestamentI. The Old Testament is the Word of God

Matthew 19:4-5: "'Haven't you read,' he [Jesus] replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator 'madethem male and female,'..."

John 10:35: "Scripture cannot be broken" Mark 12:24: "'Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power

of Go Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13: "It is written" in battle with the Devil.

II. The Old Testament is the Word of God about Christ Luke 24:25-27: "...And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them

what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." Luke 24:44-45: "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures."

Your thinking life is a part of your discipleship. *Law, Prophets, Psalms (Collection called “Writings”). Psalms is the first in this collection. So when Jesus just says Psalms, he’s saying – whole Old Testament. -> See - the Lordship of Christ over Old Testament Scriptures.

John 5:39-40: "...These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

III. The New Testament Interprets the Old (see diagram)

Please submit queries and feedback to info@ggf.org.myVisit GGF.ORG.MY for more info

The Bible is a book about Christ, so we must follow its framework. When you’re in the process of doing BT, this framework is very helpful. IE: We always go back and forth (between OT and NT), a hermeneutical circle. [The diagram] is a helpful grid to start with.

IV. The Old Testament is a Progressively Revealed Word Luke 1:32-33: "The Lord God will give him [Jesus] the throne of the father David, and he

will reign over the house of Jacob for ever."2 Sam 7:11ff: There IS going to be a temple built; but God is making this house that is going to be the real temple. Rev 5:9; 7:9 Revelation is progressive. Going through the canon it gets fleshed out more and more. David’s ultimate son is not going to be Solomon. But there is a GREATER SON – JESUS. A great King than Solomon, yet to come. In the NT, the throne of David is given to Christ, and Christ is building the house *? (or is jesus already the temple) . What do we mean when we say Progressive Revelation? >> Fuller? More Complete? Clearer? We actually see things more fully than the old testament member would have seen! 1 Pet 1:10

2

Moving from good, true, instruction from the Lord, to … the key – Christ Jesus. & because God has So, Fully, Spoken, in his Son, we do NOT need any, newer, revelation. (as opposed to cult claims of newer better revelation ie Mormons)

Acts 2:30-31 (Peter): Acts 13:16-33 (Paul): Galatians 3:15-29 (Paul): Hebrews 1:1-2: "In the past God spoke (no error, not simply OT or only NT, but GOD

spoke) to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but [NOW] in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe." (implicitly or explicitly in a more final or full sense)

Q: is it wrong to read the NT without OT? Ie. In bible study, to only read NT text? >> ie. Rom 5 – What did the First Adam do? (Paul plunges straight into it). You can’t grasp Jesus’ ministry if you don’t see how he is the Last Adam. Or to grasp fading ministry without grasping how Israel had a covenant with a fading glory. (Paul is understanding NT in light of OT, and OT in light of Jesus) Must have Bible study therefore of the OT, or will not grasp who Jesus is fully.

When you talk to Jews, what do you say to them? Jesus is Lord of the Canon. The whole Bible is red letter. It’s all his word, all the word is all about him. (& Trinitarian * ) It is NOT an importation into the OT of what’s not there (but how do we prove this). This is NOT theologically neutral. It is – If CHRIST is LORD,

What if – I got a link with Jesus and I don’t need to read, need BT, etc. We are always tempted to recreate God in our own image. So we have to decide – do I take the canon of Scripture to be one big red letter from Jesus himself. So I’m never gonna put another Jesus that I’m accessing apart from Scripture over Jesus from Scripture. (Non-scriptural access to him). Boils down to your doctrine of Scripture – if we really take jesus’ words to be his words or not.

Some More Reflections on Biblical TheologyKey Insights from Geerhardus Vos

1. Biblical Theology is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.

2. Biblical Theology deals with revelation as a divine activity, not as the finished product of that activity.

3. First of all, Biblical Theology exhibits to the student of the Word the organic structure of the truth therein contained, and its organic growth as the result of revelation.

4. Biblical Theology is suited to furnish the most effective antidote to the destructive critical reviews now prevailing.

3

5. A desirable fruit of the study of Biblical Theology: the new life and freshness which it gives to the old truth, showing it in all its historic vividness and reality with the dew of the morning of revelation upon its opening leaves.

6. Biblical Theology is of the greatest importance and value for the study of Systematic Theology.

Vos on the Relationship between Systematic Theology and Biblical Theology“There is no difference in that one [of the two disciplines] would be more closely bound to the Scriptures than the other. In this they are wholly alike. Nor does the difference lie in this, that the one transforms the biblical material, whereas the other would leave it unmodified. Both equally make the truth deposited in the Bible undergo a transformation: but the difference arises from the fact that the principle by which the transformation is effected differs in each case. In Biblical Theology this principle is one of historical, in Systematic Theology it is one of logical construction. Biblical Theology draws a line of development. Systematic Theology draws a circle.” (Vos, Biblical Theology, 24-25).

Notice what Vos just said. Let’s put it into a schema:Biblical Theology Systematic Theology

What distinguishes Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology

An historical principle A logical construction (i.e., the loci method)

Draws a line of development

Draws a circle

Understanding the unfolding history of redemption over

time

Developing a systematic account of doctrines which rightly emerge

from the Bible

4

What Biblical Theology and Systematic

Theology have in common

Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology both take the biblical material and re-present it in different ways. So, in an

odd way neither Biblical nor Systematic Theology is inherently more “biblical”. Both disciplines are attempting to

be faithful to the Bible—although in different ways!

Richard Gaffin on Not Driving a Wedge between Systematic and Biblical Theology:“The latter terminology [“biblical theology” rather than “history of revelation”] is at a disadvantage, among other reasons, because it can be taken in a compartmentalizing sense, as indicating parallel disciplines, each going its own way more or less independently of the other and, when necessary, holding out for its own ‘rights.’”

Notes by Richard Gaffin on Biblical Theology:(Gaffin, “Systematic and Biblical Theology,” WTJ, v. 38, Spring 1976, 281ff.)

1. Biblical theology focuses on revelation as an historical activity and so challenges systematic theology to do justice to the historical character of revealed truth.

2. Biblical theology is indispensable to systematic theology because biblical theology is regulative of exegesis.

3. It is customary to raise objections to the name “biblical theology,” especially the adjective [BUT: as Gaffin argues, this concern/objection is misplaced. Properly understood, “biblical” is an acceptable adjective, as in “biblical theology”]

A.A. Hodge on Biblical Theology:That branch of exegetical theology “which traces the gradual evolution of the several elements of revealed truth through every successive stage to their fullest manifestation in the sacred text and which exhibits the peculiar forms and connections in which these several truths are presented by each inspired writer.” (Outlines of Theology, 1879, p. 22).See Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, and the helpful article by Vern Poythress, “Kinds of Biblical Theology,” Westminster Theological Journal 70 (2008): 129-42.

10:15 am – 11:15 am: Old Covenant and New Covenant

5

Some Reflections on Old and New CovenantWhen one engages in the task of Biblical Theology one must come to terms with the Old Covenant and New Covenant, and their relation to one another. This is perhaps one of the thorniest issues—in my opinion—in Biblical Theology. Let’s take a look at it.We have already seen that the term “new covenant” shows up once in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 31:31), while the concept appears multiple times. And when one gets to the New Testament we see a lot of “old covenant” language (as the New Testament writers look back), and “new covenant” language.To quickly summarize . . .“New Covenant” as a term in the Old Testament

Jeremiah 31:31

“New Covenant” as a concept/assumed in the Old Testament Ezekiel 36:26-28 Ezekiel 11:19-20 Ezekiel 18:31 Ezekiel 37:14 Ezekiel 39:29 Jeremiah 32:41: “everlasting covenant” Jeremiah 24:7 Jeremiah 33:15

“Old Covenant” and “New Covenant” in the New Testament

“Old Covenant” Hebrews 8:7: “that first covenant” Hebrews 8:13: “the old [covenant]” 2 Corinthians 3:7: “the ministry of death” 2 Corinthians 3:9: “the ministry of condemnation” 2 Corinthians 3:11, 13: “what was being brought to an end” 2 Corinthians 3:14: “the old covenant”

“New Covenant”Lord’s Supper Passages

Luke 22:20 Matthew 26:28 Mark 14:24

6

1 Corinthians 11:25

Other Passages 2 Corinthians 3:6 Hebrews 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24 Hebrews 7:22 and 8:6: “a better covenant”

So, perhaps the best place to start is with Jeremiah 31:31-34:“31Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Let us start with the more obvious and uncontroversial insights:1. The “new covenant” is just that—a new covenant (v. 31).2. This new covenant will not be like the old covenant (=mosaic covenant), which was

broken—which seems to imply the new covenant will not be broken (v. 33).3. In this new covenant the law will be placed within the covenant members; it will be

written on the hearts of covenant members (v. 33).4. We see the “covenant formula”: God will be their God, and the covenant people shall be

God’s people (v. 33).5. In the new covenant era people will not need to teach his neighbor—for all covenant

members will know God (v. 34).6. God will forgive the sins of covenant members, and God will remember their sin no

more” (v. 34).Now, most people could agree with my summary of Jeremiah 31:31-34 (though some folks might quibble here or there). As we look at this and related passages we will naturally be moved to ask about the levels of continuity and discontinuity as one moves from old covenant to new covenant era.Some key questions emerge:

What is really “new” about the new covenant?

7

Were people saved by grace/faith in the old covenant, was it fundamentally a gracious covenant?

Likewise (and especially pressing): If we are saved by grace in the old covenant, why was there the need of a few covenant?

If the new covenant is somehow better (more efficacious? More able to truly save? etc.), why did not God go straight to the new covenant? Why take so long getting to the new covenant?

These are all great questions, and I suppose you may have asked one or some or all of them at one point or another.

Potentially challenging issuesDo you see anything in these verses that make you think a bit?How about:

1. All covenant members knowing God (v. 34)The notion that all covenant members will know God gets us into the debate between (1) paedo-baptists and (2) credo-baptists (advocates of believer’s baptism) (v. 34). For Baptists this aspect of the new covenant is truly in force in the present. For paedo-Baptists this aspect of the new covenant has not been fully realized.

2. No longer teaching one’s neighbor and brother (v. 34)What is meant (#5 above), that in the new covenant one will not longer need to teach his neighbor and brother?This teaching might lead us to say that while we live in the new covenant era there are aspects of the new covenant which are yet to be fully realized (now we are talking about so-called “eschatology”—the “already, not-yet” dynamic or tension in the New Testament).

3. Forgiveness of sins and not remembering sin (v. 34)This is perhaps especially puzzling. So, there will be forgiveness of sins in the new covenant. Was there not forgiveness of sins under the old covenant. God did remember sins in the old covenant, but he does not remember sin in the new covenant?

4. The Law written on the heart (v. 33)This point can be easy to miss. But note: In the new covenant, the Law is not abolished or forgotten or completely set aside. Rather, God will put his law within his new covenant members, and will write it on the hearts of new covenant members.

Suffice it to say, these are big potential questions, and it only when we look at the Bible as a whole—when we do Biblical Theology—that things come together.So, let’s dive in: How do we account for the differences between “old covenant” and the “new covenant”?

8

One answer is that the difference between “old covenant” and “new covenant” is ultimately quantitative. That is,

In the old covenant only some members of the covenant have transformed hearts. In the new covenant all covenant members have transformed hearts.

That is, some say the difference is only quantitative—a larger percentage of covenant members truly have transformed hearts. But I think something else is going on too—a qualitative difference as well.

Why argue that the New Covenant is qualitatively better than the Old Covenant?

1. Jeremiah 31:33 describes the new covenant as not being like the old covenant, which was broken—implying that the new covenant would not be broken. This “unbroken” nature of the new covenant most likely points to the better mediator and better sacrifice yet to come—Jesus.

2. Jeremiah 31:33 says that God will put His law within his people, and H will write his Law on the hearts of covenant members. While one need not deny that God did work in the hearts of certain covenant members during in the old covenant, there nonetheless seems to be taught here a more radically internal nature of God’s work in new covenant members.

3. Jeremiah 31:34 says that God will forgive the iniquity of covenant members, and remember them no more. This seems to be point to some sort of final, once-for-all forgiveness of and putting away of sins. This also would seem to point to the better sacrifice of the new covenant mediator—Jesus—and hence a better covenant.

Is there anyway to know if what I think is implied in Jeremiah 31 (the three summative points just made), are in fact true? Thankfully, the book of Hebrews offers extended teaching on Jeremiah 31, and the old covenant more generally.What do we learn from the book of Hebrews? …The Book of Hebrews: commonalities/similarities with the Old CovenantThere are certain commonalities/similarities between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. This is to be expected as both are covenants, both come from God, etc.

1. Both are based on divine promises (8:6).2. Both have the same “big-picture” goal: “I will be their God, and they will be my people”

(8:10).3. Both were lawfully established (7:11; 8:6).4. Both include laws (7:5, 16, 28; 8:10).5. Both provide for the forgiveness of sins (8:12).

9

The Book of Hebrews: differences between the Old Covenant and the New CovenantBut there are differences:

1. The New Covenant is based on better promises (8:6).2. The New Covenant is based on the work of a better mediator or priest (Heb. 4:15)3. The New Covenant is based on a better priesthood (in the order of Melchizedek rather

than the order of Aaron/Levi) (6:20 and chapter 7)4. The New Covenant is based on a better sacrifice5. The New Covenant is based on a once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 7:27; 9:26, 28; 10:12, 14)6. The New Covenant secures an eternal redemption, whereas the Old Covenant does not

(Heb. 9:12) (this could of course simply be seen as a part of #3—the better sacrifice and, and #2—a better mediator). This same idea is seen in Heb. 10:14 when see that in his “single offering” Christ has perfected “for all time” those who benefit from his atoning work. Likewise, Jesus his able to save to “the uttermost”—i.e., there is a qualitative difference in the kind of salvation brought by Jesus and his work.

7. The New Covenant in a mysterious sense works backward in history, whereas the Old Covenant does not (Heb. 9:15; cf. Romans 3:25).

8. Whereas the Old Covenant is simply a “shadow,” the New Covenant is the “true form of these realities” to which the Old Covenant was pointing. Hence the Old Covenant was always intended to be preparatory to what was to follow. The Old Covenant was not permanent, whereas the New Covenant is, and this permanence is due at least in part because Jesus himself lives forever (Heb. 7:23-24).

9. In the New Covenant there is some sort of final, or ultimate, or greater (?) forgiveness of sins—rooted in the better mediator better sacrifice (Heb. 10:18). Note the logic of Heb. 10:18: “Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.Note: The reason there is no longer any offering for sin is because of a full forgiveness of sins.

10

11:30 – 12:30 am: More Reflections on Old Covenant and New CovenantGetting to the Heart of the Matter

Now perhaps we can get to the heart of the matter: How the New Covenant can be better than the Old Covenant (especially in terms of a fuller/final forgiveness of sins—Jer. 31:34). And how this relates to the obedience of the New Covenant member.But let’s make sure we grasp the significance of the issue.One unhelpful way to think of the Old Covenant or Old Testament in relationship to New Covenant or New Testament, is by saying:

(1) In the Old Covenant one is saved by works

(2) In the New Covenant one is saved by faith or grace

Not helpful!One of the things Christians can at times struggle with is how to relate

(1) Salvation in the Old Testament or Old Covenant with(2) Salvation in the New Testament or New Covenant

Or, we could say, between(1) Grace in the Old Testament or Old Covenant with(2) Grace in the New Testament or New Covenant

Another potential question:If persons are saved by grace in the Old Covenant, why was the New Covenant necessaryOr relatedly:If grace and the Old Testament sacrificial system were adequate for salvation, why was the incarnation and atonement necessary?Now that is a good question. And of course, some (the Socinians, and in a sense Pelagius) in church history have ultimately ended up denying the true necessity of the atonement.So, let’s jump in . . .

11

Atonement and Forgiveness in the Old TestamentLet’s look at a pattern in the Old Testament:Leviticus 4:26: So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 4:31: And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 4:35: And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 5:10 And the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 5:13: Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 5:16: Thus the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed in any one of these things, and he shall be forgiven.Leviticus 6:7: And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven for any of the things that one may do and thereby become guilty.”The pattern seems clear:

So, at first glance it seems that of course there was the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament.So, let’s turn to the New Testament.

Atonement and Forgiveness in the New TestamentWe simply look at one text for a moment, Hebrews 10:1-4:“1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”Now, what pops out at us is v. 4:

Atonement is offered Sins are forgiven

12

“For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.”So what is it? Is it that…

(1) There is the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament. Or

(2) There is not the forgiveness of sins in the Old Testament.This is really a Biblical Theology kind of question. For the answer to the question lies in thinking historically-redemptively. That is, in thinking across the canon about questions of continuity across the canon, and the way Christ is the center of the canon.

An Answer to a Biblical-Theological Riddle?There are two texts which begin to help us unlock this issue:

(1) Hebrews 9:15(2) Romans 3:21-25

Hebrews 9:15:“Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.”Romans 3:21-25:21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.In both of these passages we see that in some way Christ’s atoning death relates to the past, i.e., to what came before his death. Namely: sins committed under the Old Testament era.

In Hebrews 9:15 we see that the Christ “redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first [old/mosaic] covenant.” That is: Christ’s death redeems persons living under the old covenant.

Romans 3 (especially verse 25 and 26) is especially interesting:

13

Christ’s death is necessary to show God’s righteousness (v. 25) Why must God’s righteousness be manifested or shown? Because: God, in His divine forbearance, had passed over former sins (v. 25). Because: God’s righteousness had to be shown so that God might be just Himself, so that

he could be the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus. In short: our justification hinges on God being just.

And: God’s justice was almost “in the balance” we might say. That is: if God had not dealt with “passed over former sins,” he would indeed have been proven to be an unjust God.

We might note that Christ’s atoning work does not only work backwards in history. It also works forward in history. Every time someone comes to faith, sin is defeated, etc., we are seeing one more application of the atoning work of Christ.

One good example would be: Revelation 12:7-12: “7Now war arose in heaven, Michael and his angels fighting against the dragon. And the dragon and his angels fought back, 8but he was defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. 11And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death. 12Therefore, rejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!”

The main thing to note here is that while (1) Christ (of course!) died in the past, the first century, it is also the case that (2) the conquering of the accuser (=Satan) is defeated—in the future—by . . . (1) the “blood of the lamb” (=the atoning work of Christ) (2) “the word of their testimony” (=testimony about Christ and his work)

Hence: It is the atoning death of Christ, and the word about this death, which is the font of the destruction of the evil one throughout all of history.

So let’s draw some things together into a biblical-theological synthesis:

14

1. The atoning work of Christ is the font or source of any and every sin that has ever been forgiven. The blood of Christ (mysteriously perhaps!) works backward in history as well as forward in history.

2. God, a good God, gave the sacrificial system in the Old Testament as a good and gracious system of regulating the lives of Old Testament covenant members.

3. There was forgiveness under the Old Testament era, and in and through the sacrificial system (i.e., outlined in Leviticus).

4. When we get to the New Testament, we realize more was going on than Old Testament saints might have realized (but see 1 Peter 1:10-11!). While it might have seemed lie the “blood of bulls and goats” was the font or source of forgiveness, they must certainly were not.

5. Rather: while there was forgiveness mediated to persons living under the Old Covenant, and this forgiveness was mediated through the Old Testament sacrificial system, the real source of forgiveness was actually the shed blood of Christ—even if during the Old Testament era this shed blood was yet to come.

6. We might say: The Old Testament sacrificial system pointed forward to, and in some mysterious sense, participated in, and received its real forgiving power from, the yet-to-occur atoning death of Christ.

7. Although it may sound counter-intuitive at first glance, we should probably say that during the Old Covenant era, it was ultimate New Covenant grace that saved sinners.

8. If indeed the New Covenant is qualitatively better than the Old Covenant (as we have tried to argue), then it seems right to say that the grace of God experience during the New Covenant era is somehow greater, more full, more ultimate, etc. There is an “advance” in the New Covenant which is qualitative.

Let’s look at some insights from some good Christian thinkers . . .Henri Blocher suggest that the biblical writers:“represent sins that God had forgiven under the Old Testament, but which had not been objectively done away with by the sacrifice of goats and bulls, as “stored” somewhere and waiting for the true atonement to be made: Hebrews 9:15, Romans 3:25 (paresis, God had left them unpunished, in an apparent denial of his justice). With such a sense of successive time, the proleptic character of the experience of grace before the coming of Christ called for a concrete marking. Enjoyment in advance could not be full and free, as full and free as it is in the Christian era.”1

Henri Blocher can also write:

1 Henri Blocher, “Old Covenant, New Covenant,” in Always Reforming, 2006: 260-62. 15

“Since the covenant of grace is founded on a precise historical event (the cross of Calvary), since it is concluded in Jesus Christ the incarnate Son, believers in previous ages could share in its benefits only proleptically.”2 O. Palmer Robertson puts it this way: “Only in anticipation of the finished work of Christ could an act of heart-renewal be performed under the provisions of the old covenant.”3

And here is John Calvin: “The power, then, to penetrate into the heart was not inherent in the law, but it was a benefit transferred to the law from the gospel.”

ConclusionThe New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. Obedience is required in both covenants, but there seems to be a more profound ability to obey in the New Covenant, since the New Covenant is a better covenant.

Also:The gospel itself—centered on the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus—is the font of redemption throughout history, and the transforming power of the gospel, and hence the better or increased ability to obey is experienced by new covenant members, who live after the time of the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus.

2 Ibid. 260. Emphasis his. Note well: While Blocher uses the phrase ‘covenant of grace,’ he is not—ultimately—working with a ‘covenant of works’/’covenant of grace’ scheme, at least in how this scheme tends to be understood. 3 Robertson 1980: 292. Robertson is relying on Calvin, as Blocher notes. Robertson quotes from Calvin on Jeremiah: ‘the power, then, to penetrate into the heart was not inherent in the law, but it was a benefit transferred to the law from the gospel’ Cf. Blocher 2006: 260.

16