View
221
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
1/20
so many of us are discontent with life. We are living for
self rather than for God and for others which is not why
we were created. Christ died for us so that we would no
longer live for ourselves (2 Cor 5:15). As Pastor Paul Tripp
writes, To live for yourself is to rob yourself of your own
humanity.4 Read afresh Pauls words in 1 Corinthians 13:
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but havenot love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I
have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all
knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains
but have not love, I am nothing. If I give away all I have,
and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have not love,
I gain nothing. Love is patient and kind; love does not envy
or boast; itis not arrogant or rude.Itdoes not insist on its
own way; itis not irritable or resentful; itdoes not rejoice
4 Paul David Tripp,A Quest for More (Greensboro, NC: New
Growth Press, 2007), 100.
Hebrews 8:6 is one of the most important verses in the Book of Hebrews, ac-
tually in the whole New Testament, for giving us a summary of New Covenant
theology. Hebrews 8:1 informs us that this section is a statement of summary
and review.
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat
down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Heb. 8:1 NIV)
New Covenant believers have, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the very Priest we
need. He has accomplished and foreverfinished the work that Aaron could
never have accomplished. Our High Priest has entered the Most Holy Place and
has taken up permanent residence there. He has also made it possible that we
poor sinners can also enter that same Most Holy Place at any time of any day or
night. We have been given a perfect clearance
I s s u e 1 9 4 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 3
It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace Hebrews 13:9
Christ, Our New Covenant High
PriestPart 1
John G. Reisinger
In his Galatians commentary, Martin Luther writes,
The law of Christ is the law of love.1 Love is absolutely
central to the law of Christ. It seems to me that our circles
do not emphasize the centrality of love like the Bible em-
phasizes the centrality of love. Love is not simply a fuzzy
feeling of affection towards another but self-sacrificially
giving of self for the good of others and the glory of God.
2
Love is a verb.
God is love (1 John 4:8). He is the self-giving God
who calls his people to be self-giving lovers.3 This is why
1 Martin Luther, Galatians (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1998), 290.
2 Gordon Fee, Gods Empowering Presence (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1994),446-47; Michael Hill, The How and Why
of Love (Matthias Media, 2002), 78, 80, 84, 97.
3 Timothy Keller,Reason for God(New York: Dutton 2008),
215-16.
The Centrality of Love
A. Blake White
ReisingerContinued on page 2
WhiteContinued on page 12
In This Issue
Christ, Our New Covenant HighPriest Part 1
J ohn G. Reisinger
1
The Centrality of Love
A. Blake White1
Free Will & UltimateResponsibility
Steve West
3
The Cross and the Lord's Day -Part 2
Steve Carpenter
5
Indicative/Imperative
A. Blake White7
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
2/20
Page 2 February 2013 Issue 194
Sound of Grace is a publication of Sovereign
Grace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt
501(c)3 corporat ion. Contributions to Sound of
Grace are deductible under section 170 of the
Code.
Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year. The
subscription price is shown below. This is a paper
unashamedly committed to the truth of Gods
sovereign grace and New Covenant Theology.
We invite all who love these same truths to prayfor us and help us financially.
We do not take any paid advertising.
The use of an article by a particular person is not
an endorsement of all that person believes, but it
merely means that we thought that a particular
article was worthy of printing.
Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger, David
Leon, John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden and
Jacob Moseley.
Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385;
e-mail: [email protected].
General Manager: Jacob Moseley:
Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Sound
of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick,
MD 21703-6938 Phone 301-473-8781 Visit the
bookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com
Address all editorial material and questions to:
John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16, Canan-
daigua, NY 14424-2441.
Webpage: www.soundofgrace.org or
SOGNCM.org
Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are taken
from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATION-
AL VERSION Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984
by International Bible Society. Used by Permis-
sion. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken
from the New King James Version. Copyright
1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-
sion. All rights reserved.
Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The
Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright
2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good
News Publishers. Used by permission. Al l rights
reserved.
Contributions
Orders
Discover, MasterCard or VISA
If you wish to make a tax-deductible contributionto Sound of Grace, please mail a check to: Sound
of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD
21703-6938.
Please check the mailing label to find the expira-
tion of your subscription. Please send payment if
you want your subscription to continue$20.00
for ten issues. Or if you would prefer to have a
pdffile emailed, that is available for $10.00 for
ten issues. If you are unable to subscribe at this
time, please call or drop a note in the mail and
we will be glad to continue Sound of Grace free
of charge.
ReisingerContinued from page 1
ReisingerContinued on page 4
and total acceptance pass into his Fa-
thers presence (Romans 5:1-3). The
Lord Jesus Christ, acting as our older
brother and representative, has forever
accomplished what Aaron and the
blood of millions of bulls and goats
could never accomplish.
Hebrews 8:6 is a summary state-
ment of three comparisons. The verse
compares two priestly ministries, two
different covenants and two sets of
promises upon which the two cov-
enants are based. These three com-
parisons demonstrate why Aarons
priestly ministry failed and Christs
priestly ministry succeeds. I have
added numbers to the following quota-
tion in order to emphasize the threecomparisons.
But the (1)ministry Jesus has re-
ceived is as superior to theirs as the
(2)covenant of which he is mediator
is superior to the old one, and it is
founded on (3)better promises.(Heb.
8:6 NIV)
This verse is vital to any discus-
sion of Christ as our High Priest. The
writer of Hebrews sets forth three
distinct comparisons of better thingsto show why the New Covenant, set
forth in verses 7-11 as the fulfillment
of the prophecy of the New Cov-
enant t in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was so
essential and is so superior. These
three contrasts provide the sum and
substance not only of the Book of He-
brews but also of (1) the heart of the
religion of the New Covenant com-
pared to the religion of the Old Cov-
enant, or the basic difference between
Judaism and Christianity; and (2) thevital difference between the Old and
New Covenants as covenants. Each
comparison grows out of the previous
comparison, and all three are straight-
forward and uncomplicated.
First, our Lord performs a
better ministry than Aaron. The
obvious question raised by such a
statement is this: Why is Christs
ministry as High Priest so much better
than Aarons? The answer: Christs
ministry is better than Aarons min-
istry because it is based on a better
covenant. The next obvious question
then is this: Why is the New Cov-
enant that Christ established so much
better than the Old Covenant that itreplaced? The answer: Because it is
based upon better promises. That
leads to the third question: What
are those better promises and why
are they so much better? The an-
swer: The Old Covenant under which
Aaron ministered promised life on the
grounds of obedience to the law and
the New Covenant under which Christ
ministers says only believe. The Old
Covenant is based on works and the
New Covenant is based on grace. The
Old Covenant was deliberately de-
signed to be a killing covenant. The
stated purpose of that covenant was to
convict sinners of their guilt and drive
them to the Abrahamic covenant to be
justified by faith.
All of the three statements are
quite clear. We who live under the
New Covenant have the benefits of a
better ministry that was accomplished
under a better covenant based on bet-
ter promises. To identify the nature,
purpose, and function of the two con-
trasted covenants is to understand the
biblical relationship of law and grace.
Immediately upon making these three
comparisons and drawing out the
logical meaning and implications of
them, the writer of Hebrews reminds
us of why the Old Covenant had to be
discarded (Heb.8:7-8.). The Old Cove-
nant could not meet the sinners need.It could not effect justification. None
of Aarons work could bring the sinner
into Gods presence. The writer of He-
brews then quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34
to prove that the change of covenants
that was necessary in order for God
to accomplish his redemptive purpose
was clearly prophesied in the Old
Testament Scriptures. This New Cov-
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
3/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 3
WestContinued on page 8
meaning can be captured initially by
an image: when we trace the causal or
explanatory chains of action back totheir sources in the purposes of free
agents, these causal chains must come
to an end or terminate in the willings
(choices, decisions, or efforts) of the
agents, which cause or bring about
their purposes. If these willings were
in turn caused by something else,
so that the explanatory chains could
be traced back further to heredity or
environment, to God, to fate, then the
ultimacy would not lie with the agents
but with something else.1
In this paragraph Kane has ex-
plained what he means for an agent to
be the termination point for the causal
explanatory chain of a particular ac-
tion. It must come directly from the
agent, almost in an act of self-willed
creation. Later, Kane connects this
ultimacy (U) with responsibility (R):
(UR) An agent is ultimately
responsible for some (event or state)
Es occurring only if (R) the agent is
personally responsible for Es oc-
curring in a sense which entails that
something the agent voluntarily (or
willingly) did or omitted, and for
which the agent could have voluntari-
ly done otherwise, either was, or caus-
ally contributed to, Es occurrence and
made a difference to whether or not E
occurred; and (U) for every X and Y
(where X and Y represent occurrences
of events and/or states) if the agent ispersonally responsible for X, and if
Y is an arche (or sufficient ground or
cause or explanation) for X, then the
agent must also be personally respon-
sible for Y.2
Notice the important phrase the
1 Robert Kane The Significance of Free
Will(New York: Oxford University
Press, 1996), 4.
2 Kane, The Significance, 35.
It is hard to imagine a debate exist-
ing about free will, predestination, and
determinism if the concept of free willwas completely detached from issues
of morality and responsibility. A main
motivation for defending free will, in
either its secular or theological formu-
lations, is to preserve a rough notion
of freedom which entails personal
responsibility for our behavior. Not
only do we intuitively believe we are
free, we want to be free. Furthermore,
most of us want to be responsible for
what we do, and we want to be able to
hold others responsible for what theydo. But if everything is predestined,
or if determinism obtains, how can
humans be responsible for anything?
And, as we have already seen, appeal-
ing to indeterminism doesnt necessar-
ily help eitherhow am I responsible
for random movements of particles, or
random neural impulses in my brain?
The importance of ultimate
responsibility is described by liber-
tarian Robert Kane in the following(lengthy, but important) quote:
Free Will, in the traditional sense
I want to retrieve (and the sense in
which the term will be used through-
out this book), is the power of agents
to be the ultimate creators (or
originators) and sustainers of their
own ends or purposes. This notion
should be distinguished from free
action, and not simply because free
will is a power. To act freely is to
be unhindered in the pursuit of your
purposes (which are usually expressed
by intentions); to will freely, in the
traditional sense, is to be the ultimate
creator (prime mover, so to speak)
of your own purposes. Such a no-
tion ofultimate creation of purposes
is obscure, to be suremany would
say it is unintelligiblebut there is
little doubt that it has fueled intuitions
about free will from the beginning. Its
agent could have voluntarily done
otherwise. This requires alternative
possibilities (which we looked at inthe last article). Besides that, the idea
for UR (Ultimate Responsibility) is
that if the agent had alternative possi-
bilities, and if the agent causally con-
tributed to the event taking place in a
way which was sufficient to cause or
explain it, then the agent is personally
responsible. Now, Kane goes on to
present a long and extremely intricate
(not to mention highly original) model
for how this might actually take place
in the world as we know it, but thedetails of his account will have to be
neglected. The main point in focus is
the contention that if there is anything
that causes an event to take place
besides the agent, then the agent is not
ultimately responsible, and therefore
cannot be praised or blamed for what
happened.
These sorts of considerations are
rampant in theological discussions
about freedom and predestination.Does the Calvinistic God make us
puppets, dancing on our strings,
confusedly thinking were responsible
for what we do, when really its just
the divine being jerking us around? If
God foreordains everything I will ever
do, doesnt the causal chain of re-
sponsibility stop with him, not me? If
Im not ultimately responsible for my
sin, why am I still blamed for it (and
worse, punished)? On the positive
side, if I only do the good works that I
do because God decreed them for me,
how can I take any credit for it? If my
wife loves me, should I refuse to ap-
preciate her, since she only loves me
because God ordained it, and so he is
responsible for her love, not my wife?
If praise can only be traced to God,
why cant blame?
Free Will & Ultimate Responsibility
Steve West
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
4/20
Page 4 February 2013 Issue 194fice and intercession is co-extensive.
Aaron prays only for those for whom
he shed blood and made intercession.
Aaron did not offer any lambs for
the Egyptians nor did he pray for the
Philistines. The same is true under the
New Covenant. Christ died for and
prayed for his own elect people. Hedied for his sheep and prays for those
same sheep. How could he state this
more clearly?
I am the good shepherd. The good
shepherd lays down his life for the
sheep. (John 10:11)
I pray for them. I am not praying
for the world, but for those you have
given me, for they are yours. (John
17:9)
Was Aarons ministry success-ful? Did his efforts of sacrifice and
intercession pay the sinners debt and
cleanse his conscience from sin? Was
Aaron able to bring the sinner into the
presence of God without fear? The
answer to all of these questions is no.
However, we must quickly add that
the failure to accomplish these things
was not because of any sin or lack of
either effort or faith on Aarons part.
He used, correctly and in good faith,
every means that was available to
him to do his job. So why does Jesus
prevail in his priestly work and suc-
ceed in performing the same functions
in which Aaron failed? Our Lord,
like Aaron, also offers a sacrifice and
makes intercession. However, unlike
Aaron, Christ can and does bring the
sinner, without fear and with a clear
conscience, into the presence of the
thrice-holy God. Why does Christs
one offering of blood and his interces-sion on the ground of that blood ac-
complish what all of Aarons offerings
of shed blood and his prayers could
never effect in a single instance. Both
Aaron and Christ pleaded with God
on the ground of the blood they shed.
Why did one succeed and the other
fail?
Part of the answer is given in He-
ReisingerContinued from page 2
enant that was prophesied was Gods
intended purpose ever since eternity
began and was made known at the
dawn of sin in Genesis 3:15. Israel
and the Mosaic covenant were never
intended to be permanent. They were
announced as ending when Christcame. As we noted in our last article,
the nation of Israel and the religion of
Judaism upon which it was based, was
a parenthesis in Gods one unchain-
ing redemptive purpose of sovereign
grace for his one elect people.
For if there had been nothing
wrong with thatfirst covenant, no
place would have been sought for
another. But God found fault with
the people and said: The days are
coming, declares the Lord, when I
will make a new covenant with thepeople of Israel and with the peopleof Judah. It will not be like the cov-
enant I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand to lead
them out of Egypt, because they did
not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares
the Lord. This is the covenant I will
establish with the people of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord. I
will put my laws in their minds andwrite them on their hearts.I will betheir God, and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neigh-
bor, or say to one another, Know the
Lord,because they will all know me,from the least of them to the greatest.
For I will forgive their wickedness and
will remember their sins no more. By
calling this covenant new, he has
made thefirst one obsolete; and what
is obsolete and outdated will soon dis-
appear. (Heb. 8:7-13)
Any attempt to exegete Jeremiah
31:31-34 without looking at how a
New Covenant apostle understood that
specific prophecy is simply not good
hermeneutics, yet this is just what
most Covenant theologians do. We
must not start with Jeremiah, but with
how the writer of Hebrews under-
stood Jeremiah. This means that we
do not first establish a rigid meaning
of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then make
the Book of Hebrews fit into that in-
terpretation. We first understand the
theological point that the writer to the
Hebrews is making and then ask why
he chose to use Jeremiah 31:31-34 to
prove that point. This is another clear
example of the basic difference in our
hermeneutics from that of both Cov-enant Theology and dispensational-
ism. This example demonstrates what
we mean when we insist that the New
Covenant Scriptures must interpret the
Old Covenant Scriptures and not the
other way around.
It is impossible to understand a
comparison if we do not understand
both of the things being compared.
For instance, if I were to say to you,
Oranges are much sweeter thanlemons and you had never tasted a
lemon, my statement would be mean-
ingless. For my statement to make
sense you must know what both a
lemon and orange taste like. If the
writer of Hebrews exalts the ministry
of Christ as betterthan the ministry
of Aaron, and we do not have a clear
picture of, (1) exactly what Aarons
ministry was; (2) why that ministry
failed; and, (3) why the Old Covenant,
upon which Aarons entire ministrywas based, had to be replaced with
a new and better covenant instead of
just patched up, then we cannot under-
stand passages like Jeremiah 31 and
Hebrews 8. There is no clear under-
standing of the greatness of the New
Covenant until there is a clear under-
standing of the inherent weakness of
the Old Covenant.
First, we must ask, Exactly what
was Aarons ministry as high priest?His greatest single duty was to make
sacrifice for the people and then make
intercession for them as he sprinkled
the mercy seat with animal blood on
the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 5:1
states that Aaron offered gifts and
sacrifice for sins. He represented Is-
rael before God with a blood sacrifice
and then represented them in interces-
sion. This two-fold ministry of sacri-ReisingerContinued on page 6
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
5/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 5
There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3that comes close to the stated com-
mand of Genesis 1:28 where it says,
God blessed them and God said to
them, be fruitful and multiply and fill
the earth and subdue it and rule over
the fish of the sea and over the birds
of the sky and over every living thing
that moves on the earth. Nothing
close to a command such as you read
in Genesis 1:28.
There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3that comes close to the binding pur-
poses that are stated in Genesis 2:15:
The Lord God took the man and put
him in the Garden of Eden to cultivate
it and keep it. Nothing like that in
Genesis 2:1-3.
There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3
like the permission and the prohibition
of Genesis 2:16 -17: The Lord God
commanded the man saying from the
tree of the garden, from any tree of the
garden you may eat freely, but from
the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil you shall not eat for in the day
you eat from it you shall surely die.
Nothing comes close to that!
There is nothing in Genesis 2:1-3
that comes close to the timeless,
regulative principle that is established
for marriage in Genesis 2:24: For
this cause a man shall leave his father
and his mother and shall cleave to his
wife and they shall become one flesh,
yet this is what must be derived from
Genesis 2:1-3 if it is going to be a
creation ordinance.
How have interpreters made it
to be a creation ordinance if there is
nothing in the text to directly lead
to that conclusion? The answer is
by keying on the words in verse 3,
blessed and sanctified. The interpret-CarpenterContinued on page 10
he Cross and the Lords Day
Part 2
teve Carpenter
In coming to the subject of the
Sabbath in the Old Testament we
should ask a question that is offirst
importance: By whom and when was
the Sabbath first observed? That is a
very important question to ask in rela-
tion to the matter of Sabbatarianism.
By whom and when was the Sabbath
first observed? The Puritans taught
that the Sabbath was a creation ordi-
nance, and it was written on the heart
of Adam to keep the Sabbath. It was
perpetually binding on all of Adamsposterity for all of time because it
was written on the heart and sin
was the only thing that defaced that
desire to keep the Sabbath; therefore,
Sabbath observance is a part of the
moral constitution of man, and it is
not recognized as such by man now
only because he has fallen and has
a sin-darkened conscience. That is a
powerful argument for the perpetuity
of the fourth commandmentif it is
truebecause it says that the Sabbath
was instituted with the created order,
and that dictates that our starting point
is in the text of Genesis.
Lets examine the first three verses
of Genesis chapter 2: Thus the heav-
ens and the earth were completed and
all their hosts. By the seventh day God
completed His work which he had
done, and he rested on the seventh day
from all his work which he had done.
Then God blessed the seventh day andsanctified it because in it he rested
from all his work which God had cre-
ated and made. The first thing that
is worthy of observing from Genesis
2:1-3 is that there is nothing in the text
which states that the seventh day was
instituted as a Sabbath that is binding
on man. There is nothing there at all.
It does not state that the Sabbath is
binding on man.
ers pack all sorts of things into these
words making them receptacles and
just keep pouring it in until finally
when you are all done, its a creation
ordinance. The text does not sayits
very interesting to observethat the
seventh day was holy in and of itself.
It was made holy. It was appointed tobe holy. Gods resting on the seventh
day did not confer any holiness on
that day. God blessed and sanctified it
after he had rested. You can see that
in the text; its clear. Verse 3 begins
in the Hebrew with a construction
called the vowel consecutive which
indicates temporal sequence, so he,
in verse 3 says then God blessed the
seventh day and sanctified it because
in it he rested. The rest didnt make
the day holy, God made the day holy
because in it he rested, and theres a
difference between the two. Theres
a temporal sequence that is indicated
with no note of how long the tem-
poral sequence actually was. It is
probably that the sanctifying of the
seventh day followed very closely the
creation week itself, but the reason it
was blessed and sanctified probably
did not emerge with clarity until the
institution of the seventh day as a Sab-bath with the covenant nation of Israel
in Exodus 16. Genesis was written by
Moses, and it was written for Israel.
The statement in chapter 2 will have
included a view of the later institution
of the Sabbath, and the enactment of
the seventh day as holy awaited that
institution with the Nation of Israel.
We have such examples of prolep-
tic or anticipatory uses of language
throughout the Scriptures. This is theuse of language which anticipates a
future event for the language to take
on its full meaning. As an illustration
in the context of the Garden of Eden,
Genesis 3:20 says that Adam called
his wifes name Eve in anticipation
that she would be the mother of the
whole human race, yet at that point,
she had no children. It was in anticipa-
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
6/20
Page 6 February 2013 Issue 194
ReisingerContinued on page 16
We insist that there was nothing at
all bad or wrong with either the Old
Covenant or Aaron as a priest. The
Old Covenant terms were not unfair
or too rigid, but, on the contrary, they
were holy, just and good. The Old
Covenant failed simply because it
could not produce the very neces-sary things that are guaranteed in the
New Covenant. That is what Jeremiah
31:31-34 is all about. The main point
of the promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is
not that God is going to tattoo the Ten
Commandments on a New Covenant
believers heart nor is it that God is
going to write a new and different set
of rules on the heart. It is neither of
those things. The glory and expecta-
tion of the promises in the New Cov-
enant, as promised in Jeremiah 31,is that our blessed Savior is going to
accomplish what Aaron and the law
covenant given through Moses never
could accomplish. Christ is going to
affect inwardly what Aaron and the
law covenant never could accomplish.
Jeremiah 31:31-34, as can be seen
from Hebrews 8 and 10, is not a law-
centered passage, but it is a Christ-
centered passage. John MacArthur
is correct when he comments on He-brews 8:10:
The New Covenant will have a
different sort of law an internal not
an external law. Everything under the
old economy was external. Under the
Old Covenant obedience was out of
fear of punishment. Under the New
it is out of adoring love and worship-
ing thanksgiving. Formerly Gods law
was given on stone tablets and was
to be written on wrists and foreheads
and doorposts as reminders (Deut.
6:8, 9). Even when the old law was
given, of course, it was intended to be
in peoples hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the
people could not write on their hearts
like they could write on their door-
posts. And at this time the Holy Spirit,
the only changer of hearts, was not yet
given to believers. Now, however, the
Spirit writes Gods law in the minds
and hearts of those who belong to
him. In the New Covenant true wor-
ship is internal, not external, real, not
brews 10 when the writer reminds us
of the great difference between an ani-
mals blood and the blood of Christ.
However, in Hebrews 8 he uses a dif-
ferent angle to make the same point:
that which makes the intercession of
Christ effective is not just the betterblood that was shed; it also involves
the better covenant that his once-
for-all sacrifice established. Christs
ministry is successful because of the
better covenant from which he min-
isters. The covenant terms, not just the
kind ofblood, make all the difference.
We must see that the blood established
the New Covenant and the New Cov-
enant terms were based on grace while
the Old Covenant terms were based on
works.
This leads to the second of the
three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6,
which begs us to ask, Why is this
New Covenant that Christ adminis-
ters so much better than the covenant
under which Aaron ministered? What
is the weakness of the Old Covenant
upon which Aarons ministry was
based, and what are the strengths of
the New Covenant from which Christ
ministers? The writer immediatelyanswers; The New Covenant is based
on better promises than the Old
Covenant. If the two covenants were
based on the same promises, then He-
brews 8:6 would not make sense. If,
as Covenant theology insists, the New
Covenant and the Old Covenant are
the same in nature and substance,
then they are not substantially dif-
ferent at all, and again, Hebrews 8:6
becomes words without meaning. If
there is not a radically new, totally dif-
ferent and very distinctly better cov-
enant based on new, different, and bet-
ter promises or better terms than the
Old Covenant was based upon, then,
I repeat, the words have lost their
meaning. A failure to interpret Jeremi-
ahs prophecy in the light of the Book
of Hebrews highlights the different
views of the message in Hebrews.
ritual (cf. Ezek. 11:19-20, 36:26, 27;
John 14:17).1
I ask again, why did Aarons min-
istry fail? What was it that he could
not effectually accomplish? In a nut-
shell, Aaron and the priests from his
line could not meet the just and holy
demands of the covenant terms, theTen Commandments written on the ta-
bles of the covenant housed in the ark
of the covenant. The blessings prom-
ised in that covenant (Ex. 19:5- 6) de-
pended on compliance with the cove-
nant terms written on the tables of the
covenant. Neither Aaron nor the sin-
ner could meet those terms. 1) They
could not obey the covenant terms and
earn the life that was promised, and 2)
once the covenant terms were broken,they could not bring a sacrifice that
could pay for the sin and satisfy both
Gods holy character and the sinners
conscience. Aarons inability to ef-
fect entrance into Gods presence had
nothing to do with his godliness or his
consistency and perseverance. He did
all he could do and all that was ex-
pected of him. His ministry still failed
and had to be replaced. Hebrews
8:7 does not say, or imply, because
Aaron failed to faithfully perform hiswork. The real problem is the Old
Covenant terms and the sinners in-
ability to meet them. Jesus succeeds in
the same ministry where Aaron failed.
The New Covenant constantly empha-
sizes that Christ finished the work
of redemption. He offered a once for
eversacifice that satisfied Gods cov-
enant terms.
How much more, then, will the
blood of Christ, who through the eter-nal Spirit offered himself unblemished
to God, cleanse our consciences from
acts that lead to death, so that we
may serve the living God! For this
reason Christ is the mediator of a new
covenant, that those who are called
may receive the promised eternal in-
1 John MacArthur, Jr., MacArthur New
Testament Commentary (Chicago:
Moody Bible Institute,1983), 215.
ReisingerContinued from page 4
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
7/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 7
In grammar, we speak of differenttypes of moods. The indicative mood
represents the act or state as an objec-
tive fact. For example, the cat is on
the mat is an indicative statement. It
is a fact. The cat is on the mat. It is a
statement about what is.
The imperative mood expresses
an intention to influence the listeners
behavior. It is used with commands,
requests, etc. Put the cat on the mat
is an imperative statement. You arebeing told to do somethingwith the
cat.
This grammar language has often
been applied to New Testament eth-
ics, especially with regard to Pauls
letters. The indicative is what God
has done for us in Christ. It is who we
are in Christ. We are forgiven, recon-
ciled, and adopted. We are in Christ.
It is a fact. We have a new status. The
imperative is what we are called to doand be as those in Christ. It is what
God demands of us.
The distinction between indica-
tive and imperative is an important
one, for Christianity is not simply a
moralistic religion.1 The message of
Christianity is not merely Be good
people, or Do the right things. The
fundamental message of Christian-
ity is that Jesus Christ has died for
sinners, has been raised from the dead
and exalted to the Fathers right hand
and now exercises complete authority.
We are called to be good people and
do certain things in lightof that re-
1 Victor P. Furnish writes, No interpreta-
tion of the Pauline ethic can be judged
successful which does not grapple
with the problem of indicative and
imperative in Pauls thought, Theol-
ogy and Ethics in Paul(Nashville:
Abingdon, 1968), 279.
ality.2
This relationship is really whatsets Christianity over against all other
religions. Pastor Tim Keller aptly
writes, Religion operates on the prin-
ciple I obeytherefore I am accepted
by God. But the operating principle
of the gospel is I am accepted by God
through what Christ has donethere-
fore I obey.3 The order makes all the
difference in the world.
This is another way of saying
that the imperativefl
ows from the in-dicative. The indicative is the founda-
tion of the imperative. The indicative
and the imperative are closely and
necessarily associated.4 They cannot
be separated without distorting the
theology of the New Testament. We
will be asking What Would Jesus
Do? in this Christian Ethics series,
but we only ask this after we have
asked and answered the question
What Did Jesus Do? As Wolfgang
Schrage says, Gods eschatologicalact of salvation in Jesus Christ is the
absolute basis, foundation, and pre-
requisite for all Christian conduct.5
Protestants have historically guard-
ed this biblical truth by distinguishing
the doctrine of justification from the
doctrine of sanctification (or transfor-
mation). Justification is forensic; it is
a declaration. We are declared to be
in the right on the basis of faith. Faith
unites us to the Messiah so that whatis true of him is true of us. Histori-
2 As Richard Hays writes, Moral ac-
tion is a logical entailment of Gods
redemptive action,Moral Vision, 39.
3 Tim Keller, The Reason for God(NY:
Dutton, 2008), 179-80.
4 Furnish, Theology and Ethics, 223-24.
5 Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the
New Testament(Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1982), 167.
cally, the doctrine of sanctification
has referred to theprocess of becom-
ing more and more like Jesus. In this
sense, transformation is a process
while justification is a one-time event.
Our sanctification, or moral transfor-
mation, flows from our right standing,
our justification.Martin Luther guarded this distinc-
tion by speaking of the two kinds of
righteousness. He distinguished pas-
sive righteousness from active righ-
teousness. Passive righteousness is
the righteous status that we are given
by God through faith (Phil 3:8-9). We
are passive in receiving this righteous-
ness. Active righteousness is the good
works we are called to do in light of
our righteous standard. Our behaviormust match our status; our righteous
status must manifest itself in righteous
behavior.6
Lets look at Pauls letters to
show how he commands Christians
to live. First lets consider the over-
all structure of Pauls letters.7 It is
Pauls practice to lay out the doctrinal
foundations before turning to eth-
ics. Consider Galatians. Paul deals
with the seriousness of the Judaizerserror, the nature of Pauls calling, his
apostolic authority, the implications of
the gospel, his confrontation of Peter,
their reception of the Holy Spirit, the
role of the law in redemptive history,
the natures of the Abrahamic and
Old covenants, and adoption before
coming to the first major imperative
in 4:12: Become like me. Chapters
5 and 6 follow with pointed ethical
exhortation.
Ephesians is similar. It can be
nicely divided into two sections: Ch.
1-3, and Ch. 4-6. Chapters 1-3 lay
out the spiritual blessings in Christ
6 R.E.O. White,Biblical Ethics (Atlanta:
John Knox Press, 1979), 148.
7 See Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of
the New Testament(Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1982), 167.
Indicative/ImperativeContinued on
page 11
Indicative/Imperative
A. Blake White
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
8/20
Page 8 February 2013 Issue 194WestContinued f rom page 3
This nest of questions is com-
mon Sunday School fare when these
issues arise, but there are also secular
equivalents, many of which phi-
losophers are beginning to take very
seriously. Our Western justice system
is predicated on the idea that criminalsare responsible for what they do. But
if the behavior of a criminal is really
ultimately traceable to their genetics,
their Darwinian instincts, and their
social conditioning, in what sense is
it fair to hold thempersonally respon-
sible for what they do? They are really
victims: victims of chance, natural
scientific laws, and their environ-
ment. Their genetic code placed in
their particular environment resulted
in behavior that our society judgescriminal, but that does not mean they
are personally at fault. There are sev-
eral prominent philosophical voices in
the free will vs. determinism debate
that are calling for an overhaul of our
judicial system, on the basis that free
will (which is necessary for respon-
sibility) does not exist, and so it is
actually immoral to treat people as if
they are responsible for their actions.
The model shifts from punishmentto societal safety: criminals should
not be loathed and punished, they
should be pitied and quarantined. We
quarantine innocent people carrying
infectious diseases, but we treat them
kindly and with pity, making their
lives as comfortable as possible. Since
criminals are no less responsible for
their behavior than a sick person is
responsible for the virus theyre car-
rying, we should treat criminals as sad
victims, and not as responsible, mor-ally wicked individuals.
I will not bother to cite biblical
texts which indicate that the wicked
are morally responsible for what they
do, and they areblameworthy and
deserving of punishment for their
wicked behavior. It is impossible (in
my judgment) to read the Bible and
not see that that is what the Bible
teaches! Certainly God punishes the
wicked and holds them responsible for
what they do, and therefore they must
actually be responsible and deserv-
ing of punishment. God is a God of
justice, which means that when he
punishes someone the punishment fits
the crime. Hell is nothing more and
nothing less than what individual, un-regenerate rebellious sinners deserve.
If you reject the Bible, however, it
does become very difficult to actu-
ally hold people accountable for their
lives.
The chain of ultimacy for the lib-
ertarian runs beyond action to desire
and willing. To answer the question:
why did you do that? usually appeal
is made to a desire. Why did you eat
that piece of cake? I was hungry andI love chocolate. Complicated chains
of reasoning must reach a termination
point.
- Why did you work overtime last
night?
- I wanted to earn extra money
and maybe get a promotion.
- Why do you want extra mon-
ey?
- I want to go on vacation.
- Why do you want to go on vac-
tion?
- I need to relax and get away
from some stress.
- Why do you want to relax?
- I feel good when I do.
- Why do you want to feel good?
- Um, because I just do.
For ultimate responsibility, the
chain of justification must terminate
in the agent, and not beyond, in the
libertarian contention. Behavior is
motivated by desires, but what if we
are not responsible for the desires we
have? In other words, to hold people
accountable, we cannot just look at
their behavior, we must look at what
motivated their behavior. And if they
are not responsible for their desires,
they are not responsible for the actions
which are caused by their desires.
Thus libertarians argue that we cannot
simply hold people accountable for
the character that they havepeople
must be responsible for forming their
own character if they are to be ulti-
mately responsible. In other words,the agent must be the self-originator
of both their desires and consequently
their actions if they are responsible
for the behavior that flows out of their
character.
At a purely philosophical level
it is important to note that many
philosophers simply find this crite-
rion for responsibility impossible to
meet. One difficulty is how do you
begin the process of forming yourown character? The first significant
moral decision you make is based on
a neutral characterif so, why does
the neutral character incline one way
or the other? Isnt that just sheer luck
and randomness again? If the charac-
ter is not neutral, then it will incline
to either the good or bad choicebut
if the character isnt neutral (even if
the inclination one way or the other is
very tiny), we arent responsible for
it, and therefore not responsible forwhat we do! If we cant be ultimately
responsible for the first moment of
character formation, we are not ulti-
mately responsible for the subsequent
behavior which emerges from our
character, since the causal chain does
not properly terminate in the agent.
This whole position seems philosophi-
cally untenable because you either end
up with an infinite causal regress (im-
possible for a temporal, finite agent),
or you simply cant meet your own
standard. In other words, if this posi-
tion is necessary for true responsibil-
ity, nobody is or can be responsible.
From a theological perspective,
this position is unacceptable for at
least two main reasons. First, the
Bible teaches the depravity of human
beings. We are born sinners, and we
act out of our sin nature. There is a
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
9/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 9very real sense in which none of us
choose to be born as sinners, nor to
have a bent against God and righ-
teousness. Nevertheless, we are born
totally depraved, and act out of this
character. We are responsible because
we do what we want to do when we
rebel and sin. (Doing what you wantto do is the compatibilist take on what
is necessary for freedom and respon-
sibility, and once again we find the
Bible teaching what compatibilists are
arguing.) God holds us responsible
and punishes us for the actions which
flow out of our character and desires,
even though we are born with those
sinful tendencies already at work in
us.
Second, on this libertarian schemeit is hard to see how God could be
responsible for anything he is or does.
If God exists eternally and neces-
sarily, always in the full splendor of
his glory, then he did not form his
own character. His essential nature is
a given fact. All of his actions flow
out of his perfect character, and they
always have. There was never a time
when God existed and he wasntperfect; there was never a time when
God in self-formation had the alterna-
tive possibility of choosing evil, and
luckily decided to choose the good.
God is essentially holy, just, righ-
teous, and good! Furthermore, the
Bible is absolutely clear that God is
the being of maximal splendor, and
God is deserving of praise, honor,
glory, and worship. He deserves to
be praised and glorified, even though
he is not ultimately responsible forhis character on Kanes model. But
this is not a knock against God: it is a
knock against Kane! This theological
reflection, combined with the insur-
mountable philosophical problem with
such self-formation, in addition to the
Bibles teaching about sinful behav-
ior, desires, and responsibility, all
come together to overturn the ultimate
responsibility criterion. This does notmean that we are not responsible for
what we do: it means that UR is an in-
correct formulation of what is required
for an agent to be responsible. In my
next article I plan on commenting on
several famous biblical texts which
teach that humans are responsible for
what they do even though they are do-
ing what God has ordained. We must
never let humans off the hook in terms
of responsibility, but we must define
responsibility in terms that are true toScripture.
I would like to help support the ministry ofSound of Grace:
A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ______________ is enclosed.
I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:
A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.
I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email: A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdffile (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.
Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU
Name:
Street Address:
City: State/Providence: Zip/Postal:
Email address: @ Phone number:
Mail to: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick, MD 21703-6938
Christ does not give freedom to believers so they can do what they want but so they can, for the first me, do
what God wants, because of love for Him. Within the bounds of their parcular situaons and abilies, even the
most ungodly unbelievers are already free to do what they themselves want to do. They have more than ample op-
portunity to indulge the desires of the flesh, and it was hardly necessary for Christ to provide that sort of liberty.
John MacArthur
Galaans, Moody, 1987, p. 146.
Morality will keep you out of jail--but only the blood of Jesus will keep you out of Hell!
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of
God abides on him!" John 3:36
Charles Spurgeon
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
10/20
Page 10 February 2013 Issue 194
tion of her role of being the mother
of the human race that she was called
Eve. In 1 Samuel 4:1 it indicates that
Israelis camped beside a place called
Ebenezer even though it was not until
1 Samuel 7:12 that Ebenezer even
received its name. It was inserted inanticipation. In Luke 6:16 we have the
record of Jesus calling his disciples,
and it states that Judas Iscariot was
a traitor, though he wasnt known to
be a traitor at that point by all of the
other disciples. It was in anticipation.
It was a proleptic use of language.
Likewise, when the seventh day
is first mentioned, its sanctification is
referenced, though the fuller meaning
of that sanctification does not becomeapparent until God had called a cov-
enant people out of Egypt. This makes
the Sabbath a local, Jewish institution.
This is the best interpretation for sev-
eral reasons. The Sabbath as a day en-
joined upon men is not found until the
time of Moses. The first occurrence of
the word Sabbath is in Exodus 16:23.
Secondly, there is no record that the
Sabbath was ever kept until the Jews
kept it. You just have to do all sortsof things to the text of Scripture and
force it to get any Sabbath observance
between the time of Adam and Exodus
16. It just is not there.
Thirdly, the word Sabbath is never
used elsewhere in the Old Testament
except in connection with other Jew-
ish holy days and sacrifices. Its a
Jewish institution. I think one of the
most straightforward reasons that we
could suggest as to why it is a Jewish
institution comes from the reasons that
are given to the Nation of Israel as
to why they are to keep the Sabbath.
Exodus 20:8 says, Remember the
Sabbath day to keep it holy. You have
the reason for the command in Exodus
20:11 which says, For in six days the
Lord made the heavens and the earth,
the sea and all that is in them and
rested on the seventh day, therefore
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and
made it holy. What he does is to list
as the reason for Sabbath observance
the fact that God rested on the sev-
enth day in creation. Deuteronomy
5:12 states the command: Observe
the Sabbath Day to keep it holy as
the Lord your God commanded you.
Deuteronomy 5:15 says, And youshall remember that you were a slave
in the land of Egypt, and the Lord,
your God, brought you out of there by
a mighty hand and by an outstretched
arm; therefore,, the Lord, your God,
commanded you to observe the Sab-
bath day. The two reasons that are
given in the testimony of Moses in the
whole Mosaic Law where the obser-
vance of Sabbath was the seventh
day rest of God in Exodus 20 and the
deliverance out of Egypt in Deuter-onomy 5. How could they possibly
observe the Sabbath for those reasons
before the event of deliverance out of
Egypt occurred? It is very significant
that these two reasons are put together
because it is the thrust of the Old
Testament to show thatElohim the
creator is Yahweh the moral sovereign,
the two are identified and God is Lord.
They are brought together in Israelite
theology by the revelation of the OldTestament. The God who is creator
is also the God who is redeemer. The
God who is creator is also the God
who imposes his moral will upon his
creatures and makes them morally
accountable. He addresses them from
within the framework of morality, and
it is within the framework of morality
that salvation and redemption exists.
Those two are joined together in the
Old Testament. That is why words
like those at the opening of Isaiah 43where the prophet writes, But now
thus says the Lord your creator Oh Ja-
cob and he who formed you oh Israel,
do not fear for I have redeemed you.
Creator and Redeemer are placed
together which becomes the aggregate
reason for the keeping of the Sabbath.
Elohim, Creator, and Yahweh, Re-
deemer, are put together.
This theme is also continued in the
New Testament with the revelation of
the fullness in Jesus Christ. The hymn
in Colossians 1:15-20 has two stanzas.
In these two stanzas of the hymn it
exalts Christ as the first born over all
creation in verses 15-17, and then it
looks at his role as the redeemer of the
church. It says he is the first born fromamong the dead in verses 18-20. He is
Creator and Redeemer in one. This re-
flects the aggregate reason for keeping
of the Sabbath in the nation of Israel.
Some have imagined a difficulty
with the Jewishness of the Sabbath
institution because it is first mentioned
in Exodus 16 before they ever get to
Sinai in Exodus 20; therefore, they
reason that it was already an existent
institution before the giving of the TenCommandments. The answer to this
is really quite simple. In the statement
of the New Covenant that Jeremiah
records beginning in Jeremiah 31:31-
32 says, behold days are coming
declares the Lord when I will make
a New Covenant with the house of
Israel and with the house of Judah not
like the covenantnote carefully the
next few words which I made with
their fathers in the day I took them by
the hand to bring them out of the landof Egypt. The wording here is very
significant and E.W. Hengstenberg
in an essay that he wrote on the New
Covenant rightly observed that the
Sinaitic Covenant or the Mosaic Cov-
enant actually went through a process
of ratification that was only climaxed
at Sinai. It actually began with the
Passover. Is it not interesting even to
this day the legislation governing the
Passover, which is understood to be a
part of the law, is found in chapter 12
of Exodus. Please understand that the
process of God forming this cov-
enant with his people began when he
brought them by the hand to lead them
out of Egypt; therefore, they were in
the process of having that covenant
established in that wilderness period
before they got to Sinai when the Sab-
bath was given in Exodus 16.
CarpenterContinued from page 5
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
11/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 11Now there is something else that
may be worthy of observation. The
institution of the Sabbath in Exodus
16 may have a special significance in
that the Sabbath is declared through-
out the Old Testament in both the law
and the prophets to be the sign of the
Mosaic Covenant. It is interesting thatthe sign of the Mosaic Covenant was
given before the covenant itself was
finally ratified at Sinai. This reminds
us of the New Testament and the night
in which Christ was betrayed before
the New Covenant was finally ratified
in his death and resurrection when
he says to his disciples This cup
represents the New Covenant, heres
the sign of the New Covenant, Im
giving it to you. He gave them the
sign before the covenant was finallyratified. The same is true in the Old
Testament with the Mosaic Covenant.
The sign was given, and then the
covenant was ratified at Sinai. In the
New Testament the sign was given
and then the covenant was ratified in
the death and burial and triumphant
resurrection of our Lord. Furthermore,
it cannot be argued that the Jews lost
the Sabbath during their long period
in Egypt in slavery, and then it wasrestored only when they were deliv-
ered from Egypt because in Nehemiah
9:13-14 the statement is made that at
Indicative/Imperative
Continued on page 15
the time of Moses: Thou didst make
known to them thy holy Sabbath.
It was a matter of fresh revelation.
Ezekiel 20:12 reads this way: I gave
them my Sabbath. The words that
are used in Nehemiah and in Exodus
do not reflect in either case the idea of
restore. He made known and he gave;it was a new institution that belonged
to his covenant people. When was the
Sabbath given? It was given when
the Lord brought them out of Egypt.
Where did He give it? It was given in
the wilderness. Why did He give it?
It was given as a sign of that Mosaic
Covenant. It can be concluded at this
juncture in our reasoning process of
going through the Old Testament that
the Sabbath was first observed by
Israel in Exodus 16 and is observed
only by Israel throughout the whole
Old Testament.
Outside of the Pentateuch not a
word is said indicating that the Sab-
bath was for anyone but Israel from
Joshua to Job. The Sabbath is not
mentioned, in fact, in the books of
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastics,
Daniel and in ten of the twelve Minor
Prophets. Nothing is said in any of the
prophets who do mention it (Isaiah,Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea and Amos)
which can be made to apply to anyone
other than the nation of Israel.
for the individual and the community.
After laying out a lot of doctrine, Paul
urges them to live a life worthy of
the calling they have received (4:1).
Romans is similar. There is a lot of
gospel theology in chapters 1-11. It is
only after these glorious chapters that
Paul writes, Therefore, I urge you,
brothers and sisters, in view of Gods
mercy, to offer your bodies as a living
sacrifice. Chapters 12-15 are heavy
on gospel application.
This sort of gospel logic is found
throughout Pauls writings. Richard
Hays writes, Consequently, much
of Pauls moral exhortation takes
the form of reminding his readers to
view their obligations and actions in
the cosmic context of what God has
done in Christ.8 He takes both the
indicative and the imperative with
utmost seriousness and interweaves
them beautifully. Consider Romans
6: In verse 2 Paul writes that we are
those have died to sin, but in verse
11 he turns around and commands us
to Count yourselves dead to sin but
alive to God in Christ Jesus. He is
saying in essence, Act like what youare.9
Romans 6:6 says that our old self
was crucified with Christ and Colos-
sians 3:9-10 says we have taken off
our old self, but Ephesians 4:22-24
commands us to put off our old self
and to put on the new self. Again, we
should act like who we are.
Colossians 3:1-5 says, Since,
then, you have been raised with
Christ, set your hearts on thingsabove, where Christ is, seated at the
right hand of God. Set your minds on
8 Hays,Moral Vision, 39.
9 Act like what you are becomingis prob-
ably more accurate since we are not
yet glorified. This does justice to the
progressive moral transformation that
must accompany our new status.
Indicative/Imperative
Continued from page 7
!2/21/12
Dear Friends & Brethren,
Thank you for the valuable magazine "Sound of Grace."
We appreciate your labors and ministry.
A special thanks to John Reisinger.Adeline K.
It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense ofdoctrine.
Walter Shurden
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
12/20
Page 12 February 2013 Issue 194WhiteContinued from page 1
at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the
truth. Love bears all things, believes
all things, hopes all things, endures
all things. Love never ends. As for
prophecies, they will pass away; as
for tongues, they will cease; as for
knowledge, it will pass away. For we
know in part and we prophesy in part,but when the perfect comes, the partial
will pass away. When I was a child,
I spoke like a child, I thought like a
child, I reasoned like a child. When
I became a man, I gave up childish
ways. For now we see in a mirror
dimly, but then face to face. Now I
know in part; then I shall know fully,
even as I have been fully known. So
now faith, hope, and love abide, these
three; but the greatest of these is love.
(my italics)
In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus is
asked which is the great command-
ment in the Law. He replies, You
shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind. This is the
great and first commandment. And a
second is like it: You shall love your
neighbor as yourself. On these two
commandments depend all the Law
and the Prophets. Jesus, in Matthew
22:39, quotes Leviticus 19:18b (youshall love your neighbor as yourself).
We know here the neighbor was the
fellow Israelite, but we know that in
the New Covenant our neighbor is
anyone in need of help (Luke 10:25-
37). We are called to do good to all
but especially to those who are of the
household of faith (Gal 6:10).
Vertical love and horizontal love
are inextricably bound together. Away
with the talk of a personal relation-ship with Jesus that is disconnected
to other believers. Divine love issues
in interpersonal love.5 Everythingis
done allln.6 One cannot claim to
5 Craig L. Blomberg,Matthew. The New
American Commentary, (Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1992), 335.
6 Gordon Fee,Paul, the Spirit, and the
People of God(Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 1996), 66.
love Christ without love for the body
of Christ. There is an intense unity
between Christ and his people. So
when Saul was persecuting Christians,
Jesus says, Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting me? (Acts 9:4; cf. Matt
25:40).7 John says that if a person
claims to love God, yet hates hisbrother or sister, he is a liar (1 John
4:20). And this commandment we
have from him: whoever loves God
must also love his brother (1 John
4:21).
The phrase law of Christ only
occurs once in the Bible in Galatians
6:2. Preceding this verse, Paul wrote,
For you were called to freedom,
brothers. Only do not use your free-
dom as an opportunity for thefl
esh,but through love serve one another.
For the whole law is fulfilled in one
word: You shall love your neighbor as
yourself (Gal 5:13-14). Amazingly,
Paul says that true freedom comes by
becoming slaves (douleuete) of one
another through love!8 The gospel
frees us to lovingly serve our broth-
ers and sisters. Then Paul says that
the whole law is fulfilled in one word,
citing Leviticus 19:18: You shall love
your neighbor as yourself. The onewho loves his neighbor has fulfilled
what the law demands, and has thus
fulfilled the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
Pauls teaching in Romans 13:8-10 is
very similar:
Owe no one anything, except to
love each other, for the one who loves
another has fulfilled the law. For the
commandments, You shall not com-
mit adultery, You shall not murder, You
shall not steal, You shall not covet,
and any other commandment, are
summed up in this word: You shall
7 Richard N. Longenecker,Paul: Apostle
of Liberty (New York: Harper and
Row, 1964), 204.
8 Gordon Fee writes, Freedom from
the enslavement of Torah paradoxi-
cally means to take on a new form of
slavery that of loving servant hood
to one another, Gods Empowering
Presence, 426.
love your neighbor as yourself. Love
does no wrong to a neighbor; there-
fore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Love is not at odds with command-
ments. The commandments not to
commit adultery, murder, steal, and
covet are simply other ways of saying
love your neighbor. James 2:8 says,If you really fulfill the royal law
according to the Scripture, You shall
love your neighbor as yourself, you
are doing well.
Love is central to the law of
Christ.9 Christians are called to seek
the good of our neighbor, not our self
(1 Cor 10:24). Above all, we are to
put on love, which binds everything
together in perfect harmony (Col
3:14). Paul tells Timothy, The aim ofour charge is love that issues from a
pure heart and a good conscience and
a sincere faith (1 Tim 1:5). We are to
love one another with brotherly af-
fection (Rom 12:10). Paul prays that
the Lord would make us increase and
abound in love for one another and
for all (1 Thess 3:12). Everything we
do is to be done in love (1 Cor 16:24).
Peter writes, Having purified your
souls by your obedience to the truth
for a sincere brotherly love, love one
another earnestly from a pure heart
(1 Pet 1:22). All we do is for the glory
of God (1 Cor 10:31), but the immedi-
ate context of this verse is all about
the other: giving no offense to Jews or
Greeks or the church, trying to please
everyone in everything we do, not
seeking my own advantage but that of
many (1 Cor 10:32-33).
John also emphasizes the central-
ity of love. Whoever loves his brotherabides in the light (1 John 2:10). The
one who does not love his brother is
not a child of God but of the devil (1
John 3:10). For this is the message
that you have heard from the begin-
ning, that we should love one another
9 Moo, The Law of Christ as the Fulfill-
ment of the Law of Moses, inFive
Views on Law and Gospel(Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 368.
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
13/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 13
WhiteContinued on page 19
(1 John 3:11, cf. 2 John 5-6). We
know that we have passed out of death
into life, because we love the broth-
ers. Whoever does not love abides
in death (1 John 3:14). By this we
know love, that he laid down his life
for us, and we ought to lay down our
lives for the brothers (1 John 3:16).And this is his commandment, that
we believe in the name of his Son
Jesus Christ and love one another,
just as he has commanded us (1 John
3:23).
First Thessalonians 4:7-9 is a very
informative passage for the centrality
of love in the New Covenant law of
Christ: For God has not called us for
impurity, but in holiness. Therefore
whoever disregards this, disregardsnot man but God, who gives his Holy
Spirit to you. Now concerning broth-
erly love, you have no need for any-
one to write to you, for you yourselves
have been taught by God to love one
another. Three key Old Testament
New Covenant passages are Jeremiah
31, Isaiah 54, and Ezekiel 36, and
Paul alludes to all three in this impor-
tant passage. The Lord had prophesied
through the prophet Ezekiel that he
would sprinkle clean water on you,and you shall be clean from all your
uncleannesses, and from all your idols
I will cleanse you. And I will give you
a new heart, and a new spirit I will
put within you. And I will remove the
heart of stone from yourflesh and give
you a heart offlesh. And I will put
my Spirit within you, and cause you
to walk in my statutes and be careful
to obey my rules (Ezek 36:25-27, cf.
11:19).
In the new age the Lord would
pour out his Spirit empowering the
new Israel to walk in obedience. In the
chapter thirty-seven, Ezekiel recalled
the valley of the dry bones upon
whom YHWHwould pour out his
Spirit and bring life to the dead (Ezek
37:6, 14). Paul is clearly alluding to
this passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:8:10
10 T.J. Deidun,New Covenant Moral-
1 Thess 4:8: kaididonta to pneuma-
autou to hagioneishymas
Ezek 36:27 LXX: kai to
pneumamouds en hymin
Ezek 37:14 LXX: kaids to pneu-
mamoueishymas
1 Thess 4:8: who gives his HolySpirit to you
Ezek 36:27:And I will put my
Spirit within you
Ezek 37:14:And I will put my
Spirit within you
We have seen above that the New
Testament writers viewed the New
Covenant as having been inaugurated
by the death and resurrection of Jesus
Christ. The Spirit was poured out atPentecost (Acts 2). We have Gods
Spirit and a new heart.11 Jesus appeals
to Ezekiel 36 in his conversation with
Nicodemus: unless one is born of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter
the kingdom of God. That which is
born of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is born of the Spirit is spirit
(John 3:5-6).12 Jesus rebuked him
for not being familiar with this truth
though he was a teacher of Israel. The
New Covenant is here, bringing with
it the new birth where we are given
the Spirit and a new heart. Being born
from above enables and empowers
believers to love one another. Be-loved, let us love one another, for love is
from God, and whoever loves has been
ity in Paul(Rome: Biblical Institute
Press, 1981), 18-22, 55-57; Jeffrey
A.D. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians, in
Commentary on the New Testament
Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K.
Beale and D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2007), 878-880.
11 Commenting on 1 Thess 4:8, Gordon
Fee writes, This usage reflects a Pau-
line understanding of the gift of the
Spirit as the fulfillment of OT prom-
ises that Gods own Spirit will come to
indwell his people, Gods Empower-
ing Presence, 52.
12 D.A. Carson, The Gospel According
to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1991), 194-95.
born of Godand knows God (1 John 4:7
my italics).
In the next verse, Paul says, Now
concerning brotherly love, you have
no need for anyone to write to you,
for you yourselves have been taught
by God to love one another (1 Thess
4:9). Because the Thessalonians havebeen given the New Covenant prom-
ise of the Spirit, they have no need
for instruction (though Paul is writ-
ing them in this verse). They have
been taught by God (theodidaktoi) to
love one another. Paul makes up this
word theodidaktoi, but he is surely
alluding to at least two passages:
Isaiah 54 and Jeremiah 31, where we
find promises that in the New Cov-
enant age God himself will teach hispeople.13 In Jeremiahs great New
Covenant passage we read, 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.
And no longer shall each one teach his
neighbor and each his brother, say-
ing, Know the Lord, for they shall
all know me, from the least of them
to the greatest, declares the Lord (Jer
31:33-34; cf. 2 Cor 3:3). In the New
Covenant, we are taught by God. Allwill know the Lord. Putting together
several texts (Jer 31, Ezek 11, 36,
Joel 2) we see that all will know the
Lord because all will have the Spirit.
John writes, But the anointing that
you received from him abides in you,
and you have no need that anyone
should teach you (1 John 2:27). John
was clearly aware of the promises of
Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36.14
Paul also clearly alludes to orquotes Isaiah 54:13: All your chil-
dren shall be taught by the Lord
(didaktoustheou).15 Isaiah is referring
to the children of the New Covenant
13 Deidun,New Covenant Morality in
Paul, 20. Weima, 1-2 Thessalonians,
879.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
14/20
Page 14 February 2013 Issue 194
The 2013 John Bunyan Conference is scheduled for April 22-24
at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA
Speakers and Topics:
Gary George New Covenant Theology and Pastoral Ministry - 2 Messages
James M. Hamilton, Jr. Biblical Theology - 3 Messages
David Robinson Preaching Sovereignty in the Old Testament - 2 Messages
Kirk WellumJesus Christ: the Architect and Apex of the ChurchThe Wisdom of God
A. Blake WhiteTowards a Missional Ecclesiology - 2 MessagesThe Abrahamic Covenant in Galatians
Lodging for the conference is available at a reduced rate at the Country Inn and Suites by Carlson in Lewisburg, PA.Just mention that you would like accommodations for the John Bunyan Conference to receive a double occupancy
room for only $90.00 per night which includes a nice continental breakfast.
Reservations must be made by no later than April 6, 2013 to receive this reduced rate.
Reservations at the Country Inn and Suites may be made by calling 800-456-4000 or 570-524-6600. Their website is
www.countryinns.com/lewisburgpa and the address is 134 Walter Drive, Route 15, PO Box 46, Lewisburg, PA 17837.
Meals for lunch and dinner will be available at the church.
The registration is $75.00 per individual and includes five meals.
Space for meals is limited and registration will be restricted to the first 80 individuals who register. Please register by
no later than April 6, 2013. Sign-in for the conference will be from 9:30 to 10:45 am Monday, April 22, 2013
at Reformed Baptist Church.
Please call 301-473-8781 or [email protected] register; Discover, Visa or MasterCard accepted.Please register by no later than April 6, 2013.
REGISTRATION FOR THE 2013 JOHN BUNYAN CONFERENCE, LEWISBURG, PA
APRIL 22-24, 2013
Register me for the 2013 John Bunyan Conference. Enclosed is a check for $75.00.
Register me for the 2013 John Bunyan Conference. Enclosed is a check for $30.00; I will pay the remaining $45.00
upon sign-in.
Make the check payable to Sovereign Grace New Covenant Ministries with a note For 2013 John Bunyan
Conference and mail to 5317 Wye Creek Dr, Frederick, MD 21703-6938.
Name: _________________________________________________________________
Address: _______________________________________________________________City: ___________________________________________________________________
State/Province Zip/Postal Code: ________________________________________________
VISA MasterCard Discover ______ ______ ______ ______ Exp Date ____/____ CCV No. _____
Phone: _______________________ Email: ____________________________________
If you would like to make arrangements with another individual to share a room and its costs, please so indicate and
we will maintain a list of any who may be interested in such an arrangement.
Name: _____________________________________ Gender: __________________________
Phone: __________________________________ Email: ___________________________
The John Bunyan Conference
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
15/20
Issue 194 February 2013 Page 15
Indicative/Imperative
Continued from page 11
things above, not on earthly things.
For you died, and your life is now hid-
den with Christ in God. When Christ,
who is your life, appears, then you
also will appear with him in glory. Put
to death, therefore, whatever belongs
to your earthly nature: sexual immo-
rality, impurity, lust, evil desires andgreed, which is idolatry. We have
been raised with Christ and therefore
should set our hearts on things above.
We died with Christ and therefore
should put to death whatever belongs
to our earthly nature. Become what
you are.
Galatians 5:1, 5:25, and Ephesians
5:8 contain both the indicative and the
imperative in a single verse! Verse 1
of Galatians 5 reads, It is for freedom
that Christ has set us free. Stand firm,
then, and do not let yourselves be
burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Lets paraphrase what Paul is say-
ing here: Christ has set us free. Be
free. Behave in line with what God
has done for you in Christ. Verse 25
of Galatians 5 reads, Since we liveby the Spirit, let us keep in step with
the Spirit. In other words, Since we
live by the Spirit, let us live by the
Spirit. Ephesians 5:8 reads, For you
were once darkness, but now you are
light in the Lord. Live as children of
light. To paraphrase again: You are
children of light. Live as children of
light.
Philippians 2:12-13 is a classic
verse for this relationship: Therefore,
my dear friends, as you have always
obeyed not only in my presence,
but now much more in my absence
continue to work out your salvation
with fear and trembling, for it is God
who works in you to will and to act in
order to fulfill his good purpose. We
are called to work because it is God at
work.Galatians 3:27 says that we who
were baptized into Christ have clothed
ourselves with Christ, but Romans
13:14 commands us to clothe our-
selves with Christ. So clothe yourself
with Christ because you are clothed
with Christ!
Become what you are.
Speakers2013 John Bunyan Conference
Gary George is a life-long resident of Worcester County, Massachusetts in the heart of New England. He has been
the pastor of Sovereign Grace Chapel in Southbridge, MA since 1992. Gary and his wife Michelle have five grown
children.
Jim Hamilton is Associate Professor of Biblical Theology at Southern Seminary and Preaching Pastor at Kenwood
Baptist Church in Louisville, KY. He previously taught at the Houston Campus of Southwestern Seminary and is the
author ofGods Indwelling Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Old and New Testaments (B&H 2006), Gods Glory in
Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Crossway 2010), andRevelation: The Spirit Speaks to the Churches
(Crossway 2012).
David Robinson is pastor of Grace Bible Church in Cambridge Ontario. He has been pastor for the last eighteen
years and recently planted a church (Redeemer Bible Church) in nearby Kitchener. David is married to Eva and they
have three children.
Kirk Wellum is the Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary and Bible College where he also teaches Systematic and
Pastoral Theology. Before coming to TBS Kirk served as a pastor for a total of 24 years in three churches in SouthernOntario. He has written numerous articles for a variety of Christian magazines and has spoken at conferences in Canada,
the United States, the UK, and Africa. Kirk is married and has four children.
A. Blake White is currently working on a PhD in Systematic and Biblical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He has authored seven books and is married to Alicia. They have two boys,
Josiah and Asher.
Kirk Wellum will present two pre-conference messages Sunday, April 21 at 9:30 and 10:45 am atReformed Baptist Church.
For further information, please contact the church directly:
Reformed Baptist Church, 830 Buffalo Road, Lewisburg, PA 17837.Phone (570) 524-7488; Website: www.rbclewisburg.org; Email: [email protected]
7/30/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 194, February 2013
16/20
Page 16 February 2013 Issue 194
heritancenow that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins
committed under thefirst covenant.
(Heb. 9:14-15 NIV)
For Christ did not enter a man-
made sanctuary that was only a copy
of the true one; he entered heavenitself, now to appear for us in Gods
presence. Nor did he enter heaven to
offer himself again and again, the way
the high priest enters the Most Holy
Place every year with blood that is not
his own. Then Christ would have had
to suffer many times since the creation
of the world. But now he has appeared
once for all at the end of the ages to
do away with sin by the sacrifice of
himself. Just as man is destined to die
once, and after that to face judgment,
so Christ was sacrificed once to takeaway the sins of many people; and he
will appear a second time, not to bear
sin, but to bring salvation to those who
are waiting for him. (Heb. 9:24-28
NIV)
It has been noted that there were
no chairs in the tabernacle because
the priestly work of sacrifice was
neverfinished. After our Lord made
his once-for-all-time sacrifice, he sat
down because his sacrificial work
was done.
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to
them, he was taken up into heaven andhe sat at the right hand of God. (Mark
16:19; cf. Heb. 8:1)
We have looked at the first of the
three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6. We
have seen how the first comparison
insists that Christs ministry of High
Priest is better than Aarons ministry.
We will now look at the second com-
parison.
The second comparison in
Hebrews 8:6 is between the twocovenants. The writer states that the
primary reason Christs ministry suc-
ceeded where Aarons ministry failed
is because Christs ministry as High
Priest is based on a better covenant.
Everything depends on the nature of
ReisingerContinued from page 6
ReisingerContinued on p age 18
the covenant under which a priest
ministers. Christ succeeds where Aar-
on failed simply because of Aarons
inability to meet the terms of the cov-
enant under which he ministered. Our
Lord perfectly fulfills the demands of
the Old Covenant and then establishes
a new and better covenant based onbetter terms. The New Covenant un-
der which Christ ministered is based
on grace, but the Old Covenant under
which Aaron ministered was based on
works. The efficacy of the sacrifice
and the intercession can only be as
effective as the covenant under which
that work is done. What was needed
was a new covenant not merely a new
administration of the same covenant.
What was the major weakness in the
Old Covenant that necessitated it be-ing totally replaced with a new and
better covenant? The answer is quite
simple. Aaron could not meet the
terms of the Old Covenant for either
himself or for those he represented.
Postage & Handling Rates
United States
Up to $20.00 $3.95
$20.01$50.00 $6.00
$50.01 and Up 12%
Postage & Handling Rates
OverseasDiscover, VISA or
MasterCard
Please call or e-mail for rates
Postage & Handling Rates
CanadaDiscover, VISA or
MasterCard
Up to $30.00 $7.50
$30.01 and Up 25%
Ship to: _________ ______ ______ ______ _____
Street address: __________________________
City: _______________ State: ___ ___Zip: ___ _
Country: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ _
My check (payable to New Covenant Media) is enclosed
Charge to my: Discover VISA MasterCard
Expires _______/_______
Account Number: ______/______/______/______
Signature: ______ ______ ______ ______ ______ __
S h i p p i n g R a t e C h a r t f o r B o o k s
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
** The following boo