Some Continuities and

Discontinuities between the

Older Testament and the

Newer Testament

Robert E. Fugate

Lord of the Nations, LLC

Omaha, NE

LordoftheNations.com

Copyright © 2001 Thy Word Is Truth, LLC

P.O. Box 641592, Omaha, NE 68164

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or

otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Published by Lord of the Nations, LLC, Omaha, NE

Orders: LordoftheNations.com

Printed in the United States of America

All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from

the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas

Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked “NASB” are taken from the New

American Standard Bible®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968,

1971, 1972, 1973,1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation.

Used by permission (www.Lockman.org).

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are from The Holy Bible,

English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway

Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by

permission. All rights reserved.

Table of Contents

CONTINUITIES ....................................................................... 1 The same triune God ............................................................. 1 The same Old Testament Scripture ....................................... 3

The same central message of Scripture—Jesus Christ ......... 5 The same plan and promise of salvation ............................... 6

The same people of God, i.e., the church .............................. 7 The same basic content in the covenants .............................. 9

The same ethical requirements............................................ 14

The same eschatological purposes and promises ................ 16 The importance of continuity .............................................. 17

DISCONTINUITIES .............................................................. 21 Appendices .............................................................................. 27

Appendix A: The Law in the New Covenant in Jer 31:33 & Heb

8:10 ..................................................................................... 27 Appendix B: Continuity in Hebrews 1:1 ............................ 30

Appendix C: The NT teaches the abiding validity of the OT case

laws ..................................................................................... 31

Recommended Reading .......................................................... 34

1

Some Continuities and Discontinuities between the Older Testament and the

Newer Testament

One of the ongoing debates among the proponents of various

theological systems of interpreting Scripture is the debate over

continuity and discontinuity between the Old Testament and the

New Testament.1 The disputants attempt to determine which

theological norms and ethical practices carry over from the Old

Testament and which have been abrogated by the New Testament.

The question must inevitably deal with the uniqueness of national

Israel. The hermeneutical question of continuity/discontinuity

affects Christian practice in many areas, e.g., church/state

relations, civil laws (e.g., capital punishment, abortion is murder),

dietary laws, regulations for worship, church polity, keeping the

Sabbath, etc. Two theological systems often conflicting in these

debates are covenant theology and dispensationalism. Further

complicating the scene, various cults have supported some of their

deviant practices by appealing to Old Testament practices—

particularly a caste of mediator-priests, ritualistic worship, holy

days, a church-state, and polygamy (e.g., Roman Catholicism,

Mormonism, Seventh Day Adventism, Armstrongism, etc.). In this

booklet we will sketch some of the most significant theological and

ethical continuities and discontinuities between the Testaments,

without attempting to sort out all the minute details and

applications.

CONTINUITIES

The same triune God

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament teach that there is

only one God (Dt 6:4f; 32:39; 2 Sm 7:22; 1 Ki 8:60; Ps 86:10; Is

45:5f; Jn 5:44; Mk 12:29; 1 Tim 1:17; Ja 2:19). This one God

1 For an evangelical perspective see John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and

Discontinuity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988).

2

(Yahweh) is the creator and providential ruler of the world. He is

the Triune God. The Biblical doctrine of the Trinity teaches that

(1) God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy

Spirit, and (2) each person is fully God, and (3) there is one God.

While it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity (like all doctrines) is

progressively revealed in Scripture, we must insist that the God in

the Old Testament is the same God as is revealed in the New

Testament, the Triune God.2 Furthermore, the Old Testament itself

clearly implies that God exists as more than one person, as is

demonstrated by the following Old Testament passages:

Passages in which God speaks to himself using plural verbs

and plural pronouns (Gn 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Is 6:8);

Passages in which one person is called “God” or “the Lord”

and is distinguished from another person who is also said to

be God (Ps 45:6f [Heb 1:8]; 110:1 [Mt 22:41–46]; Ho 1:7;

Mal 3:1f);

Passages in which the angel (i.e., messenger) of Yahweh is

represented as a divine person (Gn 16:7–13; 18:1–21; 19:1–

24; 22:1f, 11–18; 24:7, 40; 28:10–17; 31:11–13; 32:9–12,

24–30; 48:15f; Ex 3:2–6; 13:21; 14:19; 23:20–23 and

33:14; 32:34; Nu 22:35, 38; Jdg 2:1f; 6:11–24; 13:2–23; 2

Sm 24:16; Ho 12:4; Zc 12:8 and Mal 3:1; cf. Josh 5:13–

6:2).

2 John B. Metzger, The Tri-Unity of God Is Jewish (St. Louis, MO: Cenveo-Plus

Communications, 2005). Robert Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues

(Grand Rapids, MI: World Publishing, 1996), pp. 188–195. David L. Cooper,

The God of Israel (Los Angeles, CA: Biblical Research Society, 1945), pp. 24–

97.

While it may be impossible for us today to know how fully individual Old

Testament saints, who lived three or four thousand years ago, understood the

Trinitarian nature of Yahweh, we do insist that the two non-Christian

monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, do not worship the same God as

Christians. Christians worship the Triune God of the Bible; non-Christian Jews

(living after God revealed himself in Jesus Christ) and Muslims do not. They

worship a false unitarian god who is not the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (1

Jn 2:22f; 2 Jn 9).

3

Passages in which the Spirit is spoken of as a distinct

person, co-causing God’s work (Gn 1:2; Ps 33:6; Is 48:16;

61:1; 63:10);

Passages that personalize God’s Word (Ps 107:20; 33:6;

147:15–18; Is 55:11; Gn 1:3);

Passages that personalize God’s Spirit (Is 63:10; 48:16; Ezk

2:2; 8:3; Zc 7:12);

Passages in which the divine Messiah is distinguished from

the Lord or the Spirit (Is 48:16; 61:1; Zc 2:10f);

Passages in which three divine persons are implied (Is

48:16; 61:1; 63:9f).

The same Old Testament Scripture

The Old Testament Scripture was the Bible for Jesus and the

Apostles. They repeatedly quoted it to prove the validity of their

teaching, and cited it as the supreme authority to settle every

doctrinal dispute.3 Jesus and the Apostles frequently introduced

their citations from the Old Testament with the phrase, “It is

[stands] written,” by which they meant, “God says.” Christ taught

that ignorance of Scripture causes error (Jn 3:10; Mt 12:3, 5, 7//Mk

2:25//Lk 6:3; Mt 19:4; 21:16; Mt 21:42//Mk 12:10; Mt 22:29,

31//Mk 12:24, 26; cf. Ho 4:6). Thus by their practice Christ and the

Apostles taught the ongoing, binding authority of the Old

Testament Scripture.

3 “The NT contains over 1,600 citations of the OT, and many more allusions to

it” (David M. Hay, Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible [IDB] suppl. [Nashville,

TN: Abingdon, 1976], p. 443. See also Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of

the Old Testament,” Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl F.H. Henry [Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958], pp. 137–138ff, and “The Old Testament in the New

Testament,” Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 1:617. Eighty percent (209/260) of

the chapters in the New Testament contain quotations from the Old Testament

(W. Gary Crampton, The Bible: God’s Word [Lynchburg, VA: Journey

Publications, 1989], p. 42).

4

The New Testament contains specific statements that teach the

ongoing validity of the Old Testament Scripture.

“Do not think that I [Jesus] came to destroy the Law or the

Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.4 For

assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one

jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is

fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these

commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in

the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them,

he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:17–

19).5

“From childhood you [Timothy] have known the Holy [Old

Testament] Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for

salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is

given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for

reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the

man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every

good work” (2 Tim 3:15–17). [No books of the NT were yet

written when Timothy was a child.]

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Roman Christians, “For whatever

was written in earlier times [i.e., the Old Testament Scripture] was

4 The best definition of the term plhro,w (“fulfill”) in this context is “to confirm

and restore the full measure, intent, and purpose of the Older Testamental law”

(Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 2nd ed. [Phillipsburg, NJ:

Presbyterian & Reformed, 1984], pp. 64ff; Bahnsen, “The Exegesis of Matthew,

5:17–19,” pp. 7f, 19. Cp. “to bring to full expression, i.e., show it forth in its true

meaning,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early

Christian Literature (BDAG), rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed.

[Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000] [BDAG], p. 829, def. 4b; 2nd ed.

BAGD, p. 671, def. 4b). 5 “Matthew 5:17–19 makes it clear that unless the heavens and the earth have

disappeared, we should definitely count on all the minutia (in Jesus’ hyperbole:

‘the jot and tittle’) and all the commands remaining in force for all believers in

all times until all have been accomplished! Our Lord does not give even the

slightest degree of comfort to the position that the NT is the hermeneutical

divide in determining for contemporary readers the proper quotient and its

remainder from the OT revelation” (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the

Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), p. 96).

5

written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the

encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope” (Ro 15:4

NASB; cf. Ro 4:23f).

Even the Old Testament law was written for New Testament

Christians: “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not

the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses,

‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.’ Is it for

oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not speak entirely for our

sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should

plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the

crop” (1 Cor 9:8–10 ESV).

The Old Testament narratives are “examples” “written for our

admonition” (1 Cor 10:1–11; cf. Heb 3–4). Paul writes, “Now

these things happened as examples for us, so that we would not

crave evil things as they also craved. … Now these things

happened to them as an example, and they were written for our

instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor

10:6, 11 NASB).

When the Apostle Paul was defending his preaching the gospel, he

argued that he was “believing all things which are written in the

Law and in the Prophets” (Ac 24:14), and “stating nothing but

what the Prophets and Moses said” (Ac 26:22 NASB; cf. 1 Pt 1:10–

12).

The Bereans were considered “more noble” than others because

they were searching the Old Testament Scriptures to test the

validity of the gospel message (Ac 17:11). Their action would not

be noble if the Old Testament was not still binding.

[Application of Old Testament case laws in the New Testament

also demonstrates the unity of Scripture; see p. 20 n 38 and

Appendix C.]

The same central message of Scripture—Jesus Christ

That Jesus Christ is the central theme of the Old Testament is

clearly taught in many New Testament passages: Lk 24:25–27, 44–

6

47; Jn 5:39, 46; Ac 3:18, 24; 10:43; 17:2f; 18:28; 26:22f; 28:23;

Ro 1:1–3; 16:26; 1 Cor 15:3f; 1 Pt 1:10–12; etc. The Old

Testament is filled with prophetic promises regarding the coming,

ministry, death, resurrection, and reign of the Messiah.6

The same plan and promise of salvation

God has only one plan of salvation for his people—a plan that

involves:

The same gospel that promises forgiveness of sins and

eternal life

Gospel (Gal 3:8; Ro 1:1–3; 3:21; 10:15f; Ac 13:32; 26:6–8;

Heb 4:2, 6; 9:15);

Forgiveness of sins (Ex 34:6f; Nu 14:18; Dt 5:9; Ps 32:1;

51:3f; 65:3; 85:2f; 86:15; 103:3, 8–14; 130:4; Is 1:18;

44:22; Jer 34:18; Ne 9:17; Jl 2:13; Jon 4:1; Mc 7:18f;

Ro 4:6–8);

Eternal life (Heb 11:10, 16, 35; Mt 22:32; 8:11);

The same ground or basis of salvation—the personal

Messianic Priestly-Mediator

(Jn 1:29; Rv 13:8; cp. substitutionary blood atonement and

ransom taught in the Old Testament by means of the goat

slain on the Day of Atonement for the sins of the people

[Lv 16] and by the Passover lamb; Ac 26:6; 28:20; 2 Cor

5:7; etc.);

6 E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament; Franz Delitzsch,

Messianic Prophecies in Historical Succession; Walter C. Kaiser, The Messiah

in the Old Testament; Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old

Testament; Charles A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy; Alec Motyer, Look to the

Rock; Edmund P. Clowney, The Unforlding Mystery: Discovering Christ in the

Old Testmant; Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The Old Testament

Witness; Patton J. Gloag, The Messianic Prophecies; James Smith, What the

Bible Teaches about the Promised Messiah.

7

The same condition or means through which salvation is

received—solely by grace through faith in the (anticipated

or accomplished) work of Christ 7

(Ex 34:6f; Gn 15:6; Hab 2:4; Heb 11, esp. vv. 2, 9f, 13–16,

26f; 2 Tim 3:15; Ro 4:3–5, 9ff; Gal 3:6–9, 17; Ac 15:11).

The same Holy Spirit regenerates (gives new birth).

Old Testament believers were regenerated; this is depicted

as: circumcision of the heart (Dt 30:6; 10:16; Jer 4:4; 6:10;

9:25f; cf. Ro 2:28f); having a new heart (Ezk 18:31; 36:26;

cf. Jer 32:39f; 24:7); a heart of flesh (instead of a heart of

stone) (Ezk 11:19f; 36:26); a new spirit within (Ezk 11:19f;

36:26; 18:31); God writing his law on the heart (Jer

31:33f); and being changed into another man (1 Sa 10:6, 9).

Jesus expected Jewish rabbis to understand the Old

Testament teaching regarding the prerequisite of the new

birth to enter the kingdom of God (Jn 3:3–10).

Called to a life of holiness (Lv 19:2; 1 Pt 1:15f).

The same people of God, i.e., the church

Throughout human history God has always had one people, his

elect who were justified by grace alone through faith alone. Both

Old Testament8 and New Testament call this people the “church”

(evkklhsi,a, assembly). The Apostle Paul, consistent with the

7 Walter C. Kaiser, Recovering the Unity of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan, 2009), pp. 169–181. 8 evkklhsi,a is used about 100 times in the Greek Old Testament, mostly for the

Hebrew qahal. Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the

Septuagint, 3 vols. in 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 1:433. Gerhard Kittle and

Gerhard Friedrich Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT), eds., 9

vols + Index [ET, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–1976], 3:527–529.

Moises Silva, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

and Exegesis, 2nd ed., 5 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 2:135–137.

The New Testament also refers to the Old Testament church (Ac 7:38 Greek

text).

8

teaching of the Old Testament,9 sharply distinguishes between

Jews who are only Jews racially and spiritual Jews (inward Jews

with circumcised hearts; the remnant; children of the Abrahamic

promise; etc.) (Ro 2:25–29; 9:6–8, 24–29; 11:5; Gal 3:7, 29; 4:25–

30; 6:15f; Phil 3:2f). Jews after the Spirit are the “Israel of God”

(Gal 6:15f). Unregenerate Jews “are not really sons of Isaac and

hence not ‘Israel’ at all (Ro 9:6–9). Rather, in their unbelief and

rejection of Christ ‘the present city of Jerusalem’ is as much the

‘son of Hagar’ as Ishmael himself was (Gal 4:25)!”10 Jews who

oppose Jesus the Messiah and persecute His church: are

blasphemers (Rv 2:9); are Satan’s spiritual and ethical children (Jn

8:44); and are the synagogue of Satan (Rv 2:9; 3:9). Consistent

with this is the fact that Abraham is the father of all believers—

whether Jew or Gentile (Ro 4:11f, 16ff; Gal 3:7–9, 13f, 29). In

fact, Old Testament saints are examples of the same faith the New

Testament speaks of (Ro 4; Heb 11). Thus salvation was never

based on being a biological member of the Jewish race (Mt 3:7–

10ff // Lk 3:7–8ff John’s baptism; Jn 8:39, 44; Ro 2:19f; Jn 1:12f;

3:3–7; Ro 9:13 Esau). Furthermore, God has now obliterated the

distinction between Jew and Gentile, having one body comprised

of both races (Gal 3:28f; 5:6; Eph 2:11–19; 3:6; Col 3:11; 1 Cor

12:13; 7:19; Ac 10:15, 34f; 15:9; Ro 10:12). Believing Gentiles are

grafted into the Jewish olive tree i.e., the Old Testament church

(Ro 11:16–24, 26, 28). This comports with Jesus metaphor that

there would be “one flock and one shepherd” (Jn 10:16; cf. 17:20–

21). Moses was a servant in God’s family/household; Christ is Son

over the same family/household (Heb 3:5f). Even Old Testament

prophecies about Israel were fulfilled in the church (cp. Jl 2:28–32

with Ac 2:17–21; cp. Am 9:11f with Ac 15:16f; cp. Jer 31:31–34

with Heb 8:8–10). Indeed, “God’s promises always applied only to

the true spiritual Israel (that is, elect Israel) within ethnic Israel (Ro

9 Dt 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4; 9:25f; etc. God’s people of faith, e.g., Abel, Isaac,

Jacob, Elijah and the 7,000, etc., stand in stark contrast to unbelieving Cain,

Ishmael, Esau, the Jewish false prophets of Baal, etc. 10 Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith

(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), p. 1025. Cf. Herman Bavinck, Reformed

Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008), 4:666f.

9

9:6–13).”11 All God’s covenant promises are ultimately for Christ

(Gal 3:16; Ps 2:8) and for those “in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20; Gal 3:14,

17, 29).

The unity of the people of God may also be demonstrated by the

fact that the same terminology used to describe God’s people in the

Old Testament is used to describe God’s people in the New

Testament: the people of God (Ac 15:14; Ro 9:25f; 1 Pt 2:9; Tit

2:14; 2 Cor 6:16; Heb 4:9); a chosen race (1 Pt 2:5); priesthood (1

Pt 2:9; Rv 1:6; 5:10); sacrifice (1 Pt 2:5; Heb 13:15); temple (1 Cor

3:16f; Eph 2:20f); tabernacle (Ac 15:14–17ff); holy nation (1 Pt

2:5, 9); twelve tribes (Ja 1:1); heavenly Jerusalem (Gal 4:26); etc.12

The New Testament church, including its government by elders

and its worship service, is patterned after the Jewish synagogue.13

The same basic content in the covenants

God has inaugurated seven epoch-making covenants14 with man:

the Covenant of Creation (Gn 1:26–28; 2:15–17; Ho 6:7) and the

Post-lapsarian Covenant made with Adam (Gn 3:14–19); the

Noahic Covenant of preservation (Gn 6:17–22; 8:20–22; 9:1–17);

the Abrahamic Covenant (Gn 12:1–3; 13:14–16; 15:18–21; 17:1–

16, 19; 22:16–18);15 the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 24:3, 7f; Dt 5:2;

29:12); the Davidic Covenant (2 Ch 21:7; Ps 89:3–4; 2 Sm 7:11–

16; 23:5; Jer 33:21–22; Ezk 34:23f; 37:25); and the New

11 Robert L. Reymond, “Who Really Owns the ‘Holy Land’?”

http://againstdispensationalism.blogspot.com/2008/10/who-really-owns-holy-

land.html. 12 See Charles D. Provan, The Church Is Israel Now (Vallecito, CA: Ross House

Books, 1987) for abundant examples. 13 D. Douglas Bannerman, The Scripture Doctrine of the Church (Grand Rapids:

Baker, 1976). 14 “A covenant is a bond in blood (or a bond of life and death), sovereignly

administered” (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants [Phillipsburg,

NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980], p. 4). 15 God’s covenants with Isaac and Jacob may be viewed as renewals of the

Abrahamic Covenant (Gn 17:19, 21; 26:3f; 28:13–15; 35:12; Ex 2:24; Ps 105:8–

10, 42f; etc.) (O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 27).

10

Covenant16 (i.e., the covenant of consummation) (Jer 31:31, 33;

Ezk 37:26; Lk 22:20).

Obedience was required in each of these covenants (e.g., in the

Abrahamic covenant, Gn 12:1, 4; 13:9, 14–18; 15:9–10; 17:1–2, 9–

14; 18:18–19; 22:15–18; 26:3–5; Heb 11:8, 17; Ja 2:21–24).17

“The demand for obedience in the Mosaic covenant is principially

identical with the same demand under the gospel.”18

All of these covenants (except the Covenant of Creation) are

various administrations of the one covenant of redemption/grace—

called “the eternal covenant” (Heb 13:20), which is unchangeable

(Heb 6:13–18).

That is why God’s covenant with Noah (Gn 9:12, 16), Abraham

and his descendants (Gn 13:15; 17:7, 13, 19; 1 Ch 16:17; Ps

105:9–11), Moses (Lv 24:8), and David (2 Sm 23:5) could all be

described as an “everlasting covenant” with “everlasting” covenant

promises that will continue “forever” (Gn 17:8; 2 Sm 7:13, 16; 2

Ch 21:7; Pss 18:50; 89:3f, 34–37; cp. Ps 132:11f).19 The essence of

each of these covenants was carried forward into the successive

16 Several expressions can be equated with the new covenant: the “everlasting

covenant” (Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezk 16:60; 37:26; Is 24:5; 55:3; 61:8); a “new heart”

or a “new spirit” (Ezk 11:19; 18:31; 36:26; Jer 32:39 LXX); the “covenant of

peace (Is 54:10; Ezk 34:25; 37:26); and “a covenant” or “my covenant” which is

placed “in that day” (Is 42:6; 49:8; Ho 2:18–20; Is 59:21). Walter C. Kaiser,

“The Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1

(Winter 1972) 14. 17 Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and

Reformed, 1947), pp. 31–36, 56–58. Ronald Youngblood, “The Abrahamic

Covenant: Conditional or Unconditional?” The Living and Active Word of God:

Studies in Honor of Samuel J. Schultz, ed. by Morris Inch and Ronald

Youngblood (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 31–46. Oswald T.

Allis, God Spake by Moses (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed,

1951), p. 72. John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 197. Daniel P. Fuller, Gospel

and Law: Contrast or Continuum? (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1998), p. 133.

William E. Cox, The New-Covenant Israel (n.p.: 1957), pp. 30–34. J. Barton

Payne, “Covenant (in the Old Testament),” ZPEB, 1:1008. 18 John Murray, Principles of Conduct, 200. 19 O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, pp. 277f. Robertson adds,

“God’s previous covenants may be regarded as “everlasting” only insofar as

they find their realization in the new covenant.”

11

covenants. Each successive covenant expanded the previous

covenants so as to include additional elements.

The New Covenant is the culmination and the realization of the

prophetic promises God made to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses,

and David.

Scripture clearly teaches that the promises of the

Abrahamic Covenant are incorporated into the New

Covenant (Jer 32:39–41;20 Lk 1:54f, 68–73; Ac 3:25f; Gal

3:29; cf. Ro 15:8f)—including: repentance from sins (Ac

3:26 citing Gn 22:18; 26:4; cf. 12:2–3; 18:18; 28:14);

justification by grace alone through faith alone (Gal 3:6–9;

Ro 4:3, 9–12, 16–18, 22; citing Gn 15:5c–6 and 17:5); and

the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:14). Abraham is the father of all who

believe—Jew and Gentile (Ro 4:11, 16f).

The New Covenant is also integrally related to the Mosaic

Covenant, since it stipulates that God will write his law as

revealed to Moses on the minds and hearts of his people

(Jer 31:31, 33; Heb 8:8–12; 10:16f; cf. Ezk 36:26–28;

37:24–26) (see Appendix A).21

At the heart of the New Covenant is the messianic rule of

the Son of David (Lk 1:32f, 67–71; Ac 2:30–36; Ezk

34:23f; 37:24–27; cf. Ac 15:16f), as had been prophetically

promised in the Davidic Covenant.

20 Under the New Covenant God’s promise to Abraham of land is no longer

limited to Canaan, but includes the entire cosmos (Ro 4:13; Eph 6:3 with Ex

20:12; Ps 2:7; Mt 5:5; 28:18–20; 1 Cor 4:21–23; cf. Heb 11:10, 16), culminating

in a renewed heaven and earth (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1). See O.

Palmer Robertson, Understanding the Land of the Bible (Phillipsburg: P&R,

1996), esp. pp. 143f; cited by Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology

of the Christian Faith (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 513–515 n 19. 21 The Mosaic Covenant is one of the covenants of promise (Eph 2:12). God’s

law is not against God’s promise (Gal 3:21). Notice the interconnectedness of

the Abrahamic (land, multiply), Mosaic (statutes, judgments, sanctuary,

tabernacle) and Davidic (Davidic ruler) Covenants in Ezk 36:26–28; 37:24–26;

Lk 1:32f, 55, 67–74; cf. Ezk 34:23f. (See “Abraham” in Exodus and

Deuteronomy.)

12

The Post-lapsarian Covenant, in which God decreed

perpetual warfare between the elect seed of the woman and

the seed of Satan (Gn 3:15), resulting in Satan being

crushed, carries over into the New Covenant (Ro 16:20).

Yet, God’s covenanting word to Noah prevents the

immediate destruction of all the wicked (Gn 8:20–22; 2 Pt

3:5–7). The Noahic Covenant reaffirms the Creation

Mandate (cp. Gn 1:26–28 with 9:1f, 7). Furthermore, the

Noahic prohibition against eating blood continues in the

new covenant (Ac 15:20f; Gn 9:4).

Even the Covenant of Creation (Gn 1:26–28) is being

restored in Christ, as believers are God’s stewards over the

earth and are discipling the nations (Mt 28:18–20; Ps 8:4–

8).

Thus, “Every covenant God makes—with Noah, Abraham, Moses,

David, and Jesus—there are these three elements [that were found

in the Creation Mandate, Gn 1:26–28]: a divine blessing, a seed,

and a land. God blesses his people by giving them descendants to

live in a land, subduing that land to bring glory to God.”22

Furthermore, Christ is the object of all God’s promises in the Old

Testament; it is only through Him that their provisions are granted

(2 Cor 1:20). For example, Christ is “the seed” (singular) of

Abraham, who received the covenantal promises made to Abraham

(Gal 3:16; cf. Mt 1:1). It is through union with Christ that the

church receives these promised blessings (Gal 3:14; Ro 8:15–17;

Rv 2:26–28; Eph 2:6). Christ is the Son of David, who rules on

David’s throne (Ac 2:30–36; Mt 1:1, 6).

Another way of demonstrating the unity of God’s covenants is by

considering that the heart of each of these covenants is the same,

i.e., the Immanuel principle—“God is with us.” The Abrahamic

Covenant (Gn 17:7), the Mosaic Covenant (Ex 6:6f; 19:4f; 29:45;

Lv 11:45; 26:12 44f; Dt 4:20; 29:13), the Davidic Covenant (2 Ki

11:17 // 2 Ch 23:16; cp. Ezk 34:24), and the New Covenant (Jer

22 John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006),

p. 250. Cf. Frame, Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2013), 1034.

13

24:7; 31:33; 32:37f; Zc 2:11; 8:8, 16; Mt 1:23; Heb 8:10; 2 Cor

6:16) all contain the same central promise as to how God will

relate to his people—“I shall be your God and you shall be my

people.” This theme is developed to show that, as a result of God

making covenant with his people, God actually dwells in the midst

of his people, particularly in the tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex

25:8; 29:42–45; Lv 26:9–13; cp. Ezk 37:26–28), the temple in

Jerusalem (anticipated in Dt 12:5, 11, 14; 14:22; 16:2, 6f, 11; etc.;

cf. the heavenly temple, Rv 7:15; 15:5), in his incarnate Son (Jn

1:14; Col 2:9), in his church (Eph 2:21f; 1 Cor 3:16f), and,

ultimately, in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rv 21:3). The Immanuel

principle, i.e., the presence of God,23 binds the whole Scripture

together.

Since the essence of each of these four covenants is the same, all of

them may be viewed as different administrations of the same basic

covenant of grace or redemption (“the eternal covenant,” Heb

13:20). Thus, as Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser explains, the

“New” covenant is

the “renewed” or “restored” covenant. … The “new”

began with the “old” promise made to Abraham, Moses,

and David; and its renewal perpetuated all those promises

and more. … Nothing was deleted, abrogated, jettisoned, or

replaced except that which was clearly so delimited from

its first appearance. Thus Jesus by His death renewed the

covenant, but He did not institute an entirely “new”

covenant.24

23 J. Ryan Lister, The Presence of God (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015). 24 Walter C. Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1978), pp. 233f, 268. Elsewhere Kaiser adds, “Both Hebrew hadas

and Greek kainos frequently mean ‘to renew’ or ‘to restore,’ as in the ‘new

commandment,’ (which is actually an old one) the ‘new moon,’ the ‘new

creature in Christ,’ the ‘new heart,’ and the ‘new heavens and new earth’” (“The

Old Promise and the New Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 [Winter

1972] 17). It is true that there is an eschatological newness to the New

Covenant, with the epochal incarnation of the eternal Son of God breaking into

human history, inaugurating the Messianic kingdom in fulfillment of Old

Testament prophecy.

14

The same ethical requirements

God’s law has commonly been divided into three categories:

moral, ceremonial, and civil.25 The moral law primarily reveals

God’s absolute righteousness and judgment, and it defines sin

(which is equated with “lawlessness,” 1 Jn 3:4 NASB, NIV).

The moral law of God (summarized in the Ten Commandments)

did not originate with the giving of the Law to Moses on Mt. Sinai.

Rather, the moral law of God was written on Adam’s heart at his

creation. This moral law continued to operate, even after the Fall

(Ro 5:13f; Gal 3:19; Ro 2:14f; 1:19f, 32). It was reinforced in

God’s subsequent covenants with Noah, Abraham (Gn 12:1; 17:1;

18:19; 26:5), and Moses (and renewed 40 years after the exodus in

the plains of Moab, Dt 5).26

25 This differentiation of three aspects of the one Law was made by Thomas

Aquinas (the Roman Catholic doctor), the Reformers (e.g., Luther,

Melanchthon, Calvin, etc.), and it appears in both Lutheran (Formula of

Concord) and Reformed Confessions (e.g., Westminster 19, Second Helvetic 12,

Belgic 25). Moreover, even the early church distinguished between the moral

law and the ceremonial law. See Didascalia Apostolorum (Teaching of the

Apostles), translated by R. Hugh Connolly (Oxford: Clarendon, 1969), pp. lix–

lxiii. This work was composed in the early 3rd century (Johannes Quasten,

Patrology, vol. 2 [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1953], pp. 147–152). The text is

reproduced in the 4th century Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 6:4 (Ante-

Nicene Fathers [ANF], eds. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, rev. by A.

Cleveland Coxe, 10 vols. [repr., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980–1983],

7:458–461). In his introduction Connolly also notes, “Irenaeus too makes a clear

distinction between the Decalogue and the ceremonial Law” (p. lxiii). See

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4:13–16 (ANF, 1:477–482) (written late 2nd

century).

Another classification of God’s law is a two-fold classification: (1) Moral

(declarative) law and (2) Restorative/Ceremonial/Typological law. In this two-

fold classification the moral law would include personal, familial, civil, and

ecclesiastical elements. See William O. Einwechter, “The Authority of God’s

Law,” Chalcedon Report 434 (October 2001) 13. 26 Francis Nigel Lee, “Christocracy and the Divine Savior’s Law for All

Mankind,” pp. 1–3 (available at: http://dr-

fnlee.org/docs6/christocracy/christocracy.pdf). Walter C. Kaiser adds, “All Ten

Commandments…appear, in one way or another, in Genesis” (Toward Old

15

The moral law is based on God’s immutable nature27 (Lv 19:2; 1

Jn 4:16); consequently, it is unchangeable. It is the same in the Old

Testament as in the New. Thus “obedience to the moral law is

God’s requirement of all people of all nations of all religions for all

times.”28 The moral law is the standard that God uses when he

brings judgment on man—Christian and non-Christian—

individuals, cities, nations, empires, or the whole world.29 It will

also be the standard on the final Day of Judgment.

Since God’s ethical standards cannot change, it comes as no

surprise to observe that God writes the same law that he gave to

Moses onto the minds and hearts of his people under the new

covenant (Jer 31:31–33; Heb 8:8–10; 10:16; Ezk 36:26f). (See

Appendix A for documentation.) Obedience to God’s moral law

(as summarized in the Ten Commandments) still results in

blessings (Eph 6:1–3).

Law and covenant are inseparable concepts. All of God’s

covenants contain law.30 Where there is no law there is no

covenant, for law is simply the written stipulations of a covenant.

To break God’s law is to break God’s covenant (Ho 8:1; Ps 78:10;

2 Ki 23:3, 24; Is 24:5).

According to our Lord and his Apostles, the heart of the ethical

teaching of the Old Testament Law was love (Dt 6:5; Lv 19:18; Mt

22:37–40; Ro 13:8–10; Gal 5:14; 1 Jn 2:7ff; etc.). God’s law

defines, and inculcates, love. Furthermore, obedience to God’s

Testament Ethics [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983], p. 82); see Lee, p. 3 note 5

and p. 4 note 14. For a more thorough demonstration of this see: Robert E.

Fugate, “Appendix C: The Ten Commandments Did Not Begin on Mount

Sinai,” in God’s Law: Foundation for Moral Order; Francis Nigel Lee, God’s

Ten Commandments: Yesterday, Today, Forever (Ventura, CA: Nordskog

Publishing, 2007). 27 Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, 2

vols. (1882; repr.: Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1990), 1:65–68. 28 Francis Nigel Lee, “Christocracy and the Divine Savior’s Law for All

Mankind,” p. 4. 29 Numerous Old and New Testament examples are cited by Greg L. Bahnsen,

Theonomy in Christian Ethics, chaps. 18–19. 30 O Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, pp. 176–177ff.

16

commands is proof of one’s love for God (Jn 14:15, 21–24; 1 Jn

5:2f). Lawlessness, on the other hand, produces “lovelessness” (Mt

24:12). Christ hates lawlessness (Heb 1:9), so he will eternally

reject the lawless (Mt 7:23; 13:41).

People commonly misunderstand Christ’s words in the Sermon on

the Mount, “You have heard…but I say to you” (Mt 5:21, 27, 33,

38, 43), as teaching a new ethic. In these verses, Christ is not

quoting the Mosaic Law, but the oral traditions of rabbinic Judaism

(i.e., the halacha).31 Christ told the Jews of his day that, by means

of these and other binding religious traditions, they “invalidated

the word of God [i.e., the Old Testament Scripture] for the sake of

your tradition” (Mt 15:6). In other words, in the Sermon on the

Mount Christ was teaching what had always been the true meaning

of God’s law. He was not acting as the new lawgiver promulgating

a higher ethical code than that of the Old Testament. This means

that lust and unrighteous anger were sins long before Christ

preached the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 15:19 // Mk 7:21f).

Several of the great eschatological promises in the Bible include

the prophecy that God’s covenant people will bless the world with

his just Law (Dt 4:5–8; Ps 119:46; Is 2:3; 42:1–4; 51:4; Mi 4:1–3).

The same eschatological purposes and promises

Believers during both Old and New Testament eras share the same

eschatological purposes and promises:

The victorious mediatorial kingdom of Christ (Lk 1:31–33,

69; Mt 6:10; 13:31–33; 28:18–20; Ac 2:32–36; 1 Cor

15:20–28; Eph 1:19–23; Rv 1:5f; 11:15, 17; Pss 2:6–12;

110:1–4; 22:27f; 72:8–11, 19; Is 2:2–4; 9:6f; 42:1–4; Jer

23:5f; 33:15; Ezk 34:23f; 36:26–28; 37:24–26; Dn 2:31–35,

44f; 7:13f);

31 Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy of Christian Ethics, pp. 92–95. Of course, in the

Sermon on the Mount Christ is dealing with sins rather than civil crimes—both

of which are addressed in the Mosaic Law.

17

Bodily resurrection from the dead (Ex 3:6 [cf. Mt 22:29–32

// Mk 12:24–27 // Lk 20:34–38]; Job 19:25–27; Ps 16:8–11

[cf. Ac 2:25–28, 31; 13:35]; Is 25:8; 26:19; Ezk 37:1–14;

Dn 12:2; cf. Gn 5:24; 22:5; Dt 32:39; 1 Sa 2:6; Job 14:13–

15; Pss 17:15; 49:14f; 68:20; 73:24f; 88:10; Ec 3:21; Ho

6:1f; Heb 11:10, 13–16, 19, 35; Lk 24:25–27, 44; Ac

26:22f);

New heavens and a new earth (Is 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pt 3:10–

13; Rv 21f); and

Eternal blessedness with the triune God (Heb 11:10, 16, 35;

Mt 22:32; 8:11).

The importance of continuity

Church history teaches us that rejecting the ongoing validity of the

Old Testament Scripture fosters countless heresies. The following

notorious examples illustrate this principle.

Marcion (died approximately A.D. 154) brought the first major

heretical challenge to the post-apostolic church. Marcion was an

ascetic with some Gnostic tenets. He sincerely believed he was a

true follower of Jesus Christ. However, he taught a complete

discontinuity between the Old Testament (the Law prescribing

justice) and the New Testament32 (the Gospel teaching love and

mercy). The Old Testament was viewed as finished and no longer a

valid standard for doctrine and ethics. In the words of Tertullian,

“Marcion’s special and principal work is the separation of the law

and the gospel” (“Against Marcion,” 1:19:4, in ANF, 3:285).

Marcion’s revulsion toward the Old Testament led him to the

logical position of having to postulate two gods: the Old Testament

god of law, justice, and wrath, and, the New Testament God of

32 The terms “Old Testament” and “New Testament” were first used by Origen

in the third century (Walter C. Kaiser, “The Old Promise and the New

Covenant: Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 [Winter 1972] 14; Toward

Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 35).

18

grace, love, and mercy.33 (Contemporary Marcionites usually

obscure the fact that their views logically necessitate different gods

in the Old and New Testaments.)

Neo-Marcionic hatred toward the Old Testament was revived by:

the unitarian Socianians, Friedrich Schleiermacher (the father of

liberal theology), Johann Semler (the father of higher criticism),

Adolf von Harnack, the German Nazis, Rudolf Bultmann, etc.34

Old Testament scholar Walter Kaiser gives a scathing critique of

holding to complete discontinuity between the Testaments when he

critiques a paper written by his colleague, Douglas Moo (who is a

Lutheran):

Ultimately, Moo is bound only by what is clearly repeated

within the New Testament teaching. What advice will he

give on marriage to close relatives (Lv 18), involvement

with forms of witchcraft and various forms of the occult

(Lv 19), against abortion (Ex 21)? Did Americans not learn

in 1973 [Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that

legalized abortion] that the largest legalized murdering

ventures in recent times—now exceeding Hitler’s six

million Jews sent up the chimney [in Lutheran Germany!]

by four times over with some twenty-four million babies

going in a bucket? What will it take to wake us up to the

narrowness of our views? If this is not a Marcionite view, it

is at least semi-Marcionite—and the disciples of our

teaching will soon prove what direction it was that we were

33 Beresford J. Kidd, A History of the Church to A.D. 461 (Oxford: Clarendon,

1922), 213–221; Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, 5 vols. (Chicago, IL:

U of Chicago, 1971), 1:71–81; William Smith and Henry Wace, eds., A

Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, 4 vols.

(London: John Murray, 1877), 3:816–824; John Bright, The Authority of the Old

Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1967], pp. 60–62). 34 D.L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible, rev. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity,

1991). John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 62–76. William

Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2 vols. [1882; reprint Edmonton, AB,

Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, 1991], 2:106.

19

heading in if we refuse to fully follow the implication of

our own thought.35

The outstanding Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen also notes the

impotence of dispensational discontinuity in dealing with moral

issues of our day, e.g., capital punishment for murder, marriages

involving consanguinity (such as a woman marrying her father),

incest, rape as a civil crime, and bestiality.36 Without the ongoing

relevance of the Old Testament Scriptures, the church has no way

of addressing many of the contemporary social and political issues

of our day. Even basic economic issues such as private ownership

of property, maintaining just weights and measures, return of

borrowed and owed goods, making restitution, etc. can only be

addressed by the Church if she holds to the unity and binding

authority of God’s revelation in both Testaments.

Theologian R.J. Rushdoony makes even farther-reaching

conclusions:

Over the centuries, virtually all heresies have been hostile

to the Old Testament, or have decreed that it is now an

ended dispensation, or in one way or another have down-

graded it in part or in whole. … Down-grading the Old

Testament is a way of re-writing the New, because the

meaning of the New is destroyed if the Old Testament is

set aside in any fashion. As a result, the “New Testament

Christianity” of such heretics winds up being no

Christianity at all.37

His examples include philosophers Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche,

and Tillich. Elsewhere Rushdoony quips,

35 Walter C. Kaiser, in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, ed.

Wayne G. Strickland (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1993), p. 400. The same

criticism could be given to Robert A. Morey (How the Old & New Testaments

Relate to Each Other [Las Vegas: Christian Scholars Press, 2002], pp. 27f; etc.). 36 Greg L. Bahnsen, By this Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian

Economics, 1985), pp. 349f. Bahnsen describes those Christians who arbitrarily

do away with whatever Old Testament laws they dislike as “latent antinomians”

(p. 301). 37 Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Gnosticism,” Chalcedon Position Paper # 74, in The

Roots of Reconstruction (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 1991), p. 325.

20

Marcion’s perversion has become “dispensational truth.” In

creating a division in the Bible, Marcion was the father of

both modernist critics and of dispensationalism. … Until

Marcion, Christians saw the Bible as one book. … For us to

read the Bible as two books rather than as one unified word

of God is to fall under Marcion’s influence. … Marcion

destroyed the unity of God’s revelation.38

Similarly, John Bright concludes, “Wherever it [Marcionism] has

been accepted, the result has been irreparable damage to the

Christian faith. … To loosen the bond between the Testaments

seems always to go hand in hand…with damage to the gospel.”39

Professor Peter Jones, in his thorough and insightful study of the

parallels between ancient Gnosticism and the contemporary new

age movement, concludes:

Stripping the Old Testament God from New Testament

Christianity did not fill the church with the Spirit of Christ, but

opened her doors to the religious pagan agenda of sexual

ecstasy, idols and spirit-inspired magic—about which the

silenced Old Testament had a lot to say.40

In sum, rejecting the ongoing validity of the Old Testament

Scripture produces a theologically-impotent form of Christianity

that cannot function as the salt of the earth (Mt 5:13). That is why

it is non-negotiable to maintain the above continuities between the

Older Testament and the Newer Testament.

On the basis of the doctrines of the unity of Scripture and of God’s

unchanging nature, we propose the following hermeneutical

principle of continuity: We must obey the Old Testament

teaching except where the New Testament has specifically

abrogated or modified its application.41 Only God has the

38 Rousas J. Rushdoony, “Marcionism,” Chalcedon Position Paper # 57, in The

Roots of Reconstruction, pp. 259, 261. 39 John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament, pp. 76, 79. 40 Peter Jones, Spirit Wars: Pagan Revival in Christian America (Mukilteo, WA:

WinePress, 1997), pp. 249f. 41 This is diametrically opposed to the Dispensational hermeneutic that

postulates that no Old Testament commands are binding on the Church unless

21

authority to modify his Word, and we can discover where he has

done so in the text itself, as Walter Kaiser explains:

Only where the text itself (in either Testament) signals the

reader that the author clearly intended the material to have

a limited application or a built-in obsolescence can we dare

to conclude that the material in that section is discontinuous

and of no permanent or literal authority. This is not to say

that the same material may not, however, have behind it an

abiding principle that is clearly taught in the abiding and

continuous revelation of God.42

DISCONTINUITIES In our emphasis on continuities between the Old Testament and the

New Testament, we do not mean that there are no discontinuities.43

The New Testament clearly teaches that there are several

discontinuities from the Old Testament. Most of these

discontinuities concern atonement for sin, ritual worship, or the

nation Israel being the only people of God that had to be kept a

separate racial entity until the birth of the Messianic Son of David.

they are reaffirmed in the New Testament. This Dispensational hermeneutic

lacks exegetical basis and contradicts the teaching and practice of Christ and the

Apostles. For example, the writers of the New Testament clearly considered the

principles of the Old Testament case laws to be binding on the Church, citing

over twenty of them with the express purpose of using them to prove New

Testament doctrine and ethics. See: 1 Tim 5:17 (Dt 25:4); 2 Cor 6:14 (Dt 22:10);

Ro 10:6–8 (Dt 30:11–13); Ac 23:1–5 (Ex 22:28; Lv 19:15; Dt 25:2); 1 Cor

14:34; Mt 19:19//Mk 10:19 (Lv 19:13, 18); Mt 15:1–6 (Ex 21:17); Lv 20:9); Mt

4:4 (Dt 8:3); 1 Cor 9:9–14 (Dt 25:4); Ro 1:32 (Lv 20:13). See pp. 3–5 and

Appendix C. 42 Walter C. Kaiser, Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament, p. 100. 43 “Indeed, there are areas of discontinuity between the testaments, but they are

not on the levels of error versus truth, law versus grace, external versus internal,

and material and national versus spiritual and universal; rather, they are those of

anticipation versus realization, historical-empirical versus eschatological-

eternal, and the provisional versus the everlasting” (Walter C. Kaiser, “The

Present State of Old Testament Studies,” JETS 18:2 [Spring 1975] 75).

22

We can lump these discontinuities together under the rubric of the

ceremonial law.44

Between Mount Sinai and Moab God gave the ceremonial law to

Israel. In general, the ceremonial laws regulated worship

(including atonement for sin), whereas the judicial laws regulated

society. Ceremonial and judicial laws are grouped together in

Deuteronomy chapters 6–25—in the very order of the Ten

Commandments (Dt 5:6–21). The purposes of the ceremonial law

were to:

foreshadow the redemptive work of Christ (e.g.,

substitutionary blood atonement for sin, priestly mediator);

and

symbolically set apart the Jews from the Gentiles.

The ceremonial law principally included: the priesthood,

ceremonial atonements, sacrifice, circumcision, ritual feasts and

holy days, and ritual places.

The Bible teaches that the ceremonial law was deliberately built

with a planned obsolescence. Its ceremonies were mere

parables/symbols (Heb 9:9), shadows (Col 2:17; Heb 8:5; 10:1),

and copies (Heb 8:5; 9:23f; Ex 25:9) of the heavenly reality. The

ceremonial law was a temporary teaching device (“tutor,” Gal

3:23–25) until the “surety” of the “better covenant” arrived (Heb

7:22; Gal 3:25). The Old Testament prophesied: the cessation of

the sacrificial system (Dn 9:27); a new prophetic mediator (Dt

18:18f); the inauguration of a new covenant (Jer 31:31–34); and a

king-priest after the order of Melchizedek rather than after the

Aaronic order (Ps 110:4; Heb 7:11–13ff).

The meaning and intention of the ceremonial laws remains the

same under the Older and New Covenants, but the manner in

44 The term “ceremonial law” is used to denote “those Old Covenant

commandments which regulated rituals and symbolic actions pertaining to the

redemption of God’s people and their separation from the unbelieving world,

rather than prescriptions about matters which were intrinsically moral” (Greg L.

Bahnsen, By This Standard, p. 352). Thus, a better term might be “restorative

law.”

23

which believers observe them has changed. Christ kept all of the

ceremonial laws so that we might observe them in Him. Christ, as

both the Lamb of God and the great high priest, fulfilled the

ceremonial law, and at Calvary it was abrogated forever (Col 2:14,

16f)—although the moral duties contained in the ceremonial law

are of permanent pedagogical value.45

Another reason for the covenantal shift in the New Testament that

abrogates the ceremonial law is the change from the nation Israel

being the only covenant people of God to the church being

comprised of people of all nations. This multi-racial church is to

disciple all nations, bringing every aspect of their culture under the

Lordship of Jesus Christ (Mt 28:18–20; Ps 2:6–12). In Christ’s

church the racial separation between Jew and Gentile has been

forever abolished (Eph 2:11 – 3:6; Ac 10:28; 15:9; Ro 10:12; Gal

3:28; 5:6; 1 Cor 7:19; 12:13; Col 3:11). The ceremonial laws were

designed to perpetuate a racial separation between Jews and

Gentiles. Thus James Dunn is on the mark in saying, “The law is

abolished insofar as it creates a breach between Jews and

Gentiles.”46

Because of this covenantal shift, the New Testament teaches that

the ceremonial laws are no longer to be kept by Christians (Heb 7–

10; Col 2:16f; Ac 10; 15 [Jerusalem Council]; Eph 2:15; Gal 3–

5)—including the Jewish food laws (Mk 7:19; 1 Tim 4:3–5; Col

2:16; Ro 14:2, 14, 17, 20ff; 1 Cor 8:8; 10:25–31; Heb 9:10; Ac

10:12–15; 15:19f, 28f). The ceremonial laws have “been ‘put out

of gear’ by the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ and redefinition

of the New Covenant people of God.”47 Because of this “change in

law” (Heb 7:12), the writer of Hebrews describes the ceremonial

law as: “set aside” (Heb 7:18); “obsolete” (Heb 8:13); “imposed

until the time of reformation” (Heb 9:10); and “abolished” (Heb

45 For example, Christians still honor the symbolized principle of separation

from ungodliness (2 Cor 6:14–18; Jude 23). 46 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (BECNT) (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 208,

paraphrasing James D.G. Dunn’s argument in Romans, 2 vols. (WBC) (Dallas,

TX: Word, 1988), p. 191. 47 Greg L. Bahnsen, No Other Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian

Economics, 1991), p. 97.

24

10:9). (Acts 15:20f probably re-institutes the Noahic ceremonial

law of Gn 9:4.48)

Theologian Francis Nigel Lee exhorts us, “We must reject

neonomianism (or the heresy which would literalistically and

legalistically practise the Old Testament ceremonial laws in New

Testament times) because neonomianism promotes Judaistic or

Romanistic rituals which obscure the finality of Calvary.”49

(Two Judaistic heretical groups opposed by the early church were

the Ebionites and the Encratites.)

Here is a summary of ceremonial laws that have been fulfilled in

Christ:

Priesthood and sacrificial system, including Levirate

marriages (Dt 25:5f; Mt 22:24) and cities of refuge (Nu

25:15, 26f).

Jewish national separation and privilege: male

circumcision as the sign of the covenant; food laws (Lv

20:22–26);50 no mixtures (e.g., seed, fabric, yoked

animals);

48 Cf. Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy of Christian Ethics, pp. 130f. 49 Ibid., p. 18. Sadly, this Biblical principle is rejected by some contemporary

messianic Jews. 5050 “The unclean animals symbolized the unclean nations, the Gentiles, with

whom Israel was forbidden to mix, whereas the clean species represented the

chosen people of Israel. Thus every time an Israelite ate meat he was reminded

of God’s grace in choosing Israel to be his people, and that as one of God’s elect

he had a duty to pursue holiness” (Gordon J. Wenham, “Law and the Legal

System in the Old Testament,” in Law, Morality, and the Bible, eds. Bruce Kaye

and Gordon Wenham [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1978], p. 30). “God had

introduced the concept of clean and unclean foods in order to separate the

Israelites from other nations; now in the New Testament period the distinction

between clean and unclean foods is abandoned in order to show that God no

longer distinguishes between ‘clean’ Jews and ‘unclean’ Gentiles” (Ac 10:15,

28) (T. Desmond Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land [Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012], 265).

25

Jewish calendar of festivals (Dt 16:16f) and sabbaths,

e.g., seventh-day sabbath,51 seventh-year land sabbath (Ex

23:10); Year of Jubilee (Lv 25:11–13, 25–27); cp. Col

2:16f.

Physical land of Israel: Legally, Israelite families could

not permanently lose or dispose of their real estate

inheritance.

This eschatological, covenantal shift is summarized in the

following table:

Old Testament

Ceremonial Types

New Testament Realities

Aaronic priesthood Mediatory priesthood of Christ (order of

Melchizedek)—provides atonement and

intercession (Ps 110:4; Heb 5 & 7);

(On the basis of Christ’s priesthood and in

union with him) Priesthood of all believers—

regarding worship, prayer, fellowship with

God (1 Pt 2:9; Rv 1:6; 5:10)

51 This does not mean that there is no Sabbath day for Christians under the New

Covenant. The Sabbath was a creation ordinance (Gn 2:2f; Ex 20:8–11). It did

not begin with the Law of Moses (Ex 16:23–30), but is part of the unchanging

moral law of God. Beginning with the resurrection of Christ, the Sabbath day

was transferred from the 7th day of the week (Saturday) to the 1st day of the

week (Sunday), which is called “the Lord’s day” (Rv 1:10), or “the first day

Sabbath” (the literal translation of the Greek in Mt 28:1 // Mk 16:1f // Lk 24:1 //

Jn 20:1; Ac 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2; cf. Ac 13:42). See: Francis Nigel Lee’s doctoral

dissertation, The Covenantal Sabbath (London: Lord’s Day Observance Society,

1966); John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, 4 vols. (Carlisle, PA:

Banner of Truth, 1976), 1:205–228; Johns D. Parker, The Sabbath Transferred

(East Orange, NJ: Johns D. Parker & Co., 1902); James Gilfillan, The Sabbath

Viewed in the Light of Reason, Revelation, and History with Sketches of Its

Literature (1882; repr., Edmonton, AB: Still Waters Revival Books); Philip G.

Kayser, “The First Day Sabbath” (Omaha, NE: Dominion Covenant Church,

2001). The Puritans also wrote many good works on the Sabbath.

26

Sacrificial system Christ, the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29; 1 Cor 5:7),

made atoning sacrifice once-for-all (Heb 9–

10)

Temple in

Jerusalem

Jesus Christ (Jn 2:19–22; Rv 21:22; cf. Col

2:9; Jn 1:14) and the church (1 Cor 3:16f;

6:19; Eph 2:20–22; 1 Pt 2:5)

One racially &

geographically

separate elect

nation (Israel)

One multi-racial, worldwide church (Mk

11:17; Gal 3:8, 28f; Eph 2:13–19; Col 3:11;

Rv 5:9f; cf. Mt 8:11f; Lk 10:33; Ac 10);

nations are Christ’s inheritance (Ps 2:6–12)

to be discipled (Mt 28:18–20) to obey

Christ’s just law (Is 2:2–4; 42:1–4) & to

worship God (Rv 21:24–26; Ps 22:27f)

Jewish calendar of

festivals &

sabbaths

First-day Sabbath commemorating

resurrection of Christ & new creation

OT sacraments:

circumcision,

washings, covenant

meals

Two NT sacraments: Baptism and Lord’s

Supper

Land of Israel Whole earth (Ro 4:13; Eph 6:3 with Ex

20:12; Ps 2:7; Mt 5:5; 28:18–20; 1 Cor 3:21–

23)

27

Appendices

Appendix A: The Law in the New Covenant in Jer 31:33 & Heb 8:10

The newness, which he before mentioned, was not so as to the

substance, but as to the form only: for God does not say here, “I

will give you another Law,” but I will write my Law, that is, the

same Law, which had formerly been delivered to the Fathers.

He then does not promise anything different as to the essence of

the doctrine, but he makes the difference to be in the form only.

John Calvin, Jeremiah, 4:131f [Cf. Calvin’s comment on Ezk

16:60f, “That which is promulgated for us in the Gospel is called

the New Covenant, not because it had no beginning previously, but

because it was renewed. … The new covenant so flowed from the

old that it was almost the same in substance, while distinguished

in form,” Ezekiel, 2:173, 178.]

“The law of God as revealed to Moses shall be written on the

heart. While the substance of the law will be the same, the mode

of its administration will be different. The form may change, but

the essence of the new covenant of Jeremiah’s prophecy relates

directly to the law-covenant made at Sinai.” O Palmer

Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, p. 41; cf. pp. 281f

“When the items of continuity found in the New covenant are

tabulated in this passage, they are…the same law, My torah (note,

not a different one than Sinai). … Thus the word ‘new’ in this

context would mean the ‘renewed’ or ‘restored’ covenant. … The

‘new’ began with the ‘old’ promise made to Abraham, Moses, and

David; and its renewal perpetuated all those promises and more. …

Nothing was deleted, abrogated, jettisoned, or replaced except that

which was clearly so delimited from its first appearance. Thus

Jesus by His death renewed the covenant, but He did not

institute an entirely ‘new’ covenant.” (Walter C. Kaiser, Toward

an Old Testament Theology, pp. 233f, 268

28

“The ‘law’ in view here is unquestionably the Mosaic

treaty.…The new covenant assumes the content of the old

Mosaic treaty. But its [new] form is like that of YHWH’s grants

to Abraham and David. Unlike the Mosaic treaty that rested on

Israel’s willingness to keep it, YHWH will unilaterally put his law

in Israel’s heart.” Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of

Conditionality Within the Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s

Apostacy and Restoration, pp. 136f (cited approvingly by Walter

C. Kaiser, “God’s Promise Plan and His Gracious Law,” Journal

of the Evangelical Theological Society [JETS] 33/3 (Sept.,

1990):298)

“Jeremiah attributed no fault to the old covenant. … Jeremiah was

so far from attributing an inherent inadequacy to the regulations of

the law that he affirmed the perpetuity of the law. … He spoke

not of a change in the nature of the torah, but of its localization. …

Jeremiah used the term torah to refer to the statutes of the

Mosiac covenant in every one of its occurrences in his

prophecy.” Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise,

pp. 84f

“There is no suggestion in Jer 31:31ff of a new law to replace that

given through Moses: the suggestion is rather that the same law of

God—‘my law’ (Jer 31:33)—will be given in a new way. What is

looked forward to is not the abolition of the law, but its true and

effective establishment.” C.E.B. Cranfield, Romans, ICC, p. 854

“The New Covenant which is to take the place of the Old, when

looking to the form…is, in substance, the realization of the Old. …

The difference between the Old and New Covenant is…a relative

one only, not an absolute one. The law of God [is] the eternal

expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to both the Old

and New Covenants…not a new constitution for the latter. … The

law is the same; the relation only is different in which God places

it to man.” E.W. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament,

1:704, 707

He is not of course proclaiming a new Torah. … By the old

covenant he means specifically the covenant made with Israel

through Moses after the Exodus, involving the promulgation of

29

Torah as the terms of the covenant. In what way will the old

covenant be superseded? Not in terms of the content of the Torah,

but in the way Israel receives it. … The substance of the Torah (the

divine instruction) is received and honoured [i.e., in the new

covenant]. Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah, NCB, pp. 400f

The law of the Lord thus forms, in the old as well as in the new

covenant, the kernel and essence of the relation instituted between

the Lord and His people. … What was commanded and applied to

the heart in the old is given in the new, and the new is but the

completion of the old covenant. C.F. Keil, Jeremiah, 2:38f

The content of the covenant agreement will be ‘my Torah.’ …

There is no indication, however, that the content of the law,

God’s will revealed in commandment, statute, and ordinance, will

be altered in the new covenant. Keown/Scalise/Smothers,

Jeremiah 26–52, WBC, 27:134

It is the same law associated with both old and new covenants. ...

The law of God is the standard of holiness required of him [the

Christian]. … There is no suggestion of antinomianism here or

anywhere else in the New Testament, which is the book of the new

covenant, nor is there any antithesis between law and love.

Philip E. Hughes, Hebrews, p. 301

The quality of the newness intrinsic to the new covenant consists

in the new manner of presenting God’s law and not in newness of

content. The people of God will be inwardly established in the law

and knowledge of the Lord. William L. Lane, Hebrews 1–8, WBC,

47A:209

The last two lines of v. 10 present the new covenant as identical in

form with the old. Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews, NIGTC, p. 417

[In Jer 31:33 the Hebrew torah is singular; the LXX translates it as

a plural (as it is in Heb 8:10). “On no other occasion does the LXX

render the Hebrew singular in this way. It may be that the

translator wished to emphasize the separate parts of God’s law to

distinguish these parts from the law of Moses as a complete unity.”

Donald Guthrie, Hebrews, TNTC, p. 176]

30

Appendix B: Continuity in Hebrews 1:1

“Both parts of God’s revelation form one unit because there is but

one Author. There is but one God who reveals, and there is but

one revelation. The Word spoken by God to the forefathers in the

past does not differ basically from the Word spoken to us by his

Son.” Simon J. Kistemaker, Hebrews, NTC (Grand Rapids: Baker,

1984), pp. 27f.

“There is an historical continuity of both periods, that the

revelation in both is substantially one and the same” (Franz

Delitzsch, Hebrews, 1:41);

“In each case it is the same God who speaks and the same

message of salvation that he offers” (Heb 4:2; 11:40). Harold W.

Attridge, Hebrews (Hermeneia, Philadedphia: Fortress, 1989), p.

38.

“Previous revelations [the OT] proceeded from the same source

and are one in design and in general character with that which is

final [the NT].” Marcus Dods, The Epistle to the Hebrews,

Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll, 5 vols.

(repr., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 4:247

The book of Hebrews teaches that God still speaks in the Old

Testament (11:4; cf. 12:24f), and that his past words were intended

to have future effect (3:5). See Paul Ellingworth, Hebrews, NIGTC

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), p. 92; cf. William L. Lane,

Hebrews 1–8, WBC, 47A:11; F.F. Bruce, Hebrews, NICNT, rev.,

p. 27.

31

Appendix C: The NT teaches the abiding validity of the OT case laws

(Ex 21–23; Dt 6–26)

Case laws relating to the state

OT capital crimes are capital crimes in the NT52—Ro 1:32,

e.g., vv 26–31 mention: idolatry; murder; homosexual acts (Lv

20:13); incorrigible rebellion against parents by juvenile

delinquents (Dt 21:18–21).

Lawful to use civil Law to punish lawless rebels—1 Tim 1:9f,

e.g., those who kill fathers or mothers (Ex 21:15); homosexuals

(Lv 20:13); kidnappers (Ex 21:16; Dt 24:7).

Corporeal punishment directly proportional to knowledge and

willfulness of the offense—Lk 12:47f (Dt 25:2f); Severe

punishment for deliberate sins—Heb 10:26–29 (Nu 15:30).

Laws of restitution—Lk 19:8 (Ex 22:1; Lv 6:2–5; Nu 5:7);

Cursing father or mother is a capital offense—Mt 15:1–6 (Ex

21:17; Lv 20:9);53

52 The New Testament reaffirms the death penalty (Mt 15:4; Ac 25:11; Ro 1:32;

13:4; Rv 13:10; cf. Ac 26:31). Note: The phrase “worthy of death” (a;xion

qana,tou) was a common legal term that denoted having committed a crime that

warranted capital punishment in Roman jurisprudence (Lk 23:15; Ac 23:29;

25:11, 25; 26:31). Paul himself clearly uses the phrase with this meaning (Ac

25:11). Therefore, the phrase should be understood to denote capital punishment

when Paul writes to the Romans (1:32). In fact, the Greek words a;xioj (worthy)

and qa,natoj (death) occur together in only six New Testament verses (Lk 23:15;

Ac 23:29; 25:11, 25; 26:31; Ro 1:32)—always with the juridical meaning of

capital punishment. (Note: Paul wrote the Epistle of Romans during the same

time period as that narrated in Ac 23–26, i.e., A.D. 57–59.) 53 Christ taught this about nine months prior to the cross and the inauguration of

the New Covenant (summer, A.D. 29 to spring, A.D. 30; see Robert L. Thomas

and Stanley N. Gundry, A Harmony of the Gospels with Explanations and

Essays, NASB [Chicago, IL: Moody, 1978], p. 348). He certainly gave no

indication that this instruction would be irrelevant after nine months! (Contrast

Jn 4:21.) Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Matthew wrote (late

50’s – early 60’s) these instructions from Christ under the assumption that they

were no longer valid!

32

Judges must judge justly, i.e., according to the standards of

God’s law—Ac 23:1–5 (Dt 25:1f; Lv 19:15, 35);

Don’t curse rulers—Ac 23:4f (Ex 22:28);

Establishing truth by two or three witnesses—2 Cor 13:1 and 1

Tim 5:19 (Dt 19:15);

Criminal guilty of capital crime is cursed—Gal 3:13 (Dt

21:22f);

Prompt payment of employees—Ja 5:4 (Lv 19:13; Dt 24:15;

Mal 3:5).

Case laws relating to the church

Don’t muzzle a threshing ox—1 Cor 9:9–14; 1 Tim 5:17f (Dt

25:4; cf. Lv 6:16);

Women keep silent be submissive in church as the Law

requires—1 Cor 14:34;

Incest requires cutting off from the covenant community—1

Cor 5 (Lv 20:11f, 14; 18:6–19).

Case laws relating to the family

Don’t be unequally yoked—2 Cor 6:14 (Dt 22:10; 7:2f).

Case laws relating to the individual

The Mosaic Law proclaims Christ;54 embracing him in faith

will produce a life that enjoys God’s blessing (rather than

adversity and death)—Ro 10:6–8 (Dt 30:12–14ff);

Man doesn’t live by bread alone but by every word that comes

from God’s mouth—Mt 4:4//Lk 4:4 (Dt 8:3);

Christians must live holy lives because God dwells in them—2

Cor 6:16 (Ex 29:45; Lv 26:12); cf. 1 Pt 1:16 (Lv 11:44);

Love your neighbor as yourself—Mt 19:19//Mk 12:31, 33//Lk

10:27; Mt 22:39f; Gal 5:14; Ja 2:8; cf. Ro 13:8 (Lv 19:18; cf.

13);

Love your enemies—Mt 5:44 and Ro 12:20 (Ex 23:4f);

54 Cranfield, Romans, ICC.

33

Don’t take personal vengeance; God is the Avenger—Ro 12:19

and Heb 10:30 (Lv 19:18; Dt 32:35) (cf. Ro 15:10 & Dt 32:43);

Curse for basing justification on person’s works (or race)

instead of on faith—Gal 3:13 (Dt 27:26).55

Christians are solemnly exhorted to learn from Israel’s acts of

disobedience and the resultant punishments (1 Cor 10:4–11 and

Heb 3–4).

Note: The New Testament’s expanded application of the Old

Testament case laws does not undermine their original jurisdiction.

55 This is not law-keeping, but lawlessness (Mt 23:28).

34

Recommended Reading

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg,

NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980).

Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace (1953; repr., Phillipsburg,

NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1988).

____. Principles of Conduct (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1957),

pp. 194–201.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2:9:4 – 2:10:23.

Clowney, Edmund P. “The New Israel,” in A Guide to Biblical

Prophecy, eds. Carl E. Armerding and W. Ward Gasque

(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), pp. 207–220.

Niell, Jeffrey D. “The Newness of the New Covenant,” in The

Case for Covenantal Baptism, ed. Gregg Strawbridge

(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2003).

North, Gary. Boundaries and Dominion: An Economic

Commentary on Leviticus. Dallas, GA: Point Five Press, 2012.

Pp. 938–943. Complete electronic edition; available at

http://garynorth.com/boundariesanddominion3.pdf.

____. Leviticus: An Economic Commentary. Tyler, TX: Institute

for Christian Economics, 1994. Pp. 637–643. Condensed print

edition.

Kaiser, Walter C. “The Old Promise and the New Covenant:

Jeremiah 31:31–34,” JETS 15:1 (Winter 1972).

____. Recovering the Unity of the Bible: One Continuous Story,

Plan, and Purpose (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009).

____. Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1978), pp. 231–235, 268f.

____. Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:

Zondervan, 1987).

____. Toward Old Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1983).

Bahnsen, Greg L. By this Standard (Tyler, TX: Institute for

Christian Economics, 1985).

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian

Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), pp. 503–535ff.

35

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1986), 2:366–373; 3:551f.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1941), pp. 279f.

Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Zacharias Ursinus on the

Heidelberg Catechism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), pp.

99f.

36

Additional Biblical Worldview Resources by Dr. Robert Fugate

Hard cover books

The Bible: God’s Words to You is an 863-page, Reformed,

presuppositional treatment of the doctrine of Scripture, including:

inspiration, inerrancy, Reformation properties of Scripture,

illumination by the Holy Spirit, Old and New Testament canon,

apocrypha, and textual criticism. One of the unique features of this

book is its presentation of the subject of bibliology from the

perspective of the Biblical world- and life- view, along with a

presuppositional approach to apologetics. The book teaches from

Scripture itself, while still providing abundant, choice citations

from the best Reformed and evangelical literature. The Bible:

God’s Words to You includes a glossary, five appendices, and

memory verses. One particularly useful appendix surveys the

doctrine of Biblical inerrancy throughout church history, offering a

litany of carefully-selected, well-referenced citations.

Endorsed by: Kenneth Gary Talbot, Ph.D., Th.D., Ed.D., J.D.; W.

Gary Crampton, Ph.D, Th.D.; Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.

Paperback books

Psycho-Heresy: Christianizing Pagan Psychologies. This 6x9-

inch, 336-page paperback examines the question, Can

psychological counseling be Christian counseling? The first

section presents the Biblical worldview—including a Biblical

theory of knowledge (i.e., epistemology) and the impossibility of

science arriving at truth (since it is based upon an epistemology of

empiricism and probabilistic inductive reasoning). The second

section presents key areas of systematic theology that are appealed

to by Christian integrationist counselors (such as the nature of

man, and general and special revelation). Since one of the main

gurus of the Christian counseling movement adamantly rejects the

gospel of “Lordship salvation” (which requires repentance from

sin), a Biblical examination of this topic is also included. On this

37

basis of the Biblical worldview and sound systematic theology, the

third section examines the roots, teachings, claims, and practices of

evangelical integrationist counseling (which attempts to synthesize

psychology and the Bible). This examination includes pervasive

psychological themes, such as: self-esteem; the meeting of

psychological “needs”; the gospel as unconditional and

undemanding love; inner healing and self-love as the keys to

personal transformation; the healing of memories; and freeing from

addictions and codependencies.

Endorsed by: Franklin Ed. Payne, M.D.; Rev. Phillip G. Kayser,

Ph.D.

Key Principles of Biblical Civil Government: Proclaiming the

Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Nations. A 134-page

introduction to the subject of civil government, from the

perspective of the Biblical worldview. Topics include: What are

the jurisdictions of family, church, and state? Can there be a

religiously neutral civil government? What is the source of just

laws? What are the Biblical qualifications for civil officials? What

constitutes a just war? How should Christians resist a tyrannical

state? Additional topics include: the idolatry of statism; the

relationship between church and state; civil disobedience; eminent

domain, etc.

Endorsed by: Hon. Howard Phillips; Lt. Colonel John Eidsmoe,

J.D.; Dr. Ted Baehr, J.D.; Jay Grimstead, D.Min.; Rev. Phillip G.

Kayser, Ph.D.; Tom Rose; Dan Smithwick; Rev. William O.

Einwechter, Th.M.; Rev. Mark R. Rushdoony.

Available in both English and Spanish editions.

God’s Mandate for Biblical Education. Education can only be

understood from the perspective of worldviews. God’s Mandate

for Biblical Education briefly examines the components of

worldviews (particularly epistemology), and then presents the

Biblical worldview of education. Nine arguments (including the

absolute lordship of Jesus Christ and covenant faithfulness) are

powerfully presented, demonstrating that Biblically-consistent,

comprehensive, Christian education is Biblically-mandated for all

subjects of study, for all Christian children. This is followed by the

38

six necessary components of Christian education, i.e., Biblically

directed: teachers, content, goals, standard, method, and

motivations. Foundational presuppositions for a Biblical

philosophy of history, language, and science are taught. (Most

people are surprised to learn that it is philosophically and logically

impossible for science to ever arrive at absolute truth!) Many other

questions are answered head-on, such as: Can education ever be

religiously neutral? What is the Biblical role of the church and the

state in the education of children? Is “classical” Christian

education Biblical? (The answers may surprise you!) The

differences between the Hebrew and Greek models of education

are powerfully presented. In summary, this 148-page book does

not deal with the well-documented evils in the public schools;

neither is it based on the unbiblical philosophy of pragmatism;

instead, it provides a hard-hitting ideology of truly Biblical

education that is applicable in all cultures, forcing Christians to re-

think most contemporary practices. Powerful quotes from Luther,

A.A. Hodge, Machen, and many others are included. God’s

Mandate for Biblical Education makes an excellent gift for pastors

and church libraries.

Endorsed by: E. Ray Moore, Th.M.; Bruce N. Shortt, Ph.D., J.D.;

Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; Tom Rose.

God’s Royal Law: Foundation of Moral Order. This 79-page

paperback answers the following questions. What are the 8

different lexical definitions of the word “law” in the New

Testament? Is God’s law inherently opposed to grace, faith, love,

and the Spirit? What different purposes does God’s law serve?

What 3 things was God’s law never designed to do? Are the

traditional divisions of God’s law (moral, civil, and ceremonial)

Biblically justified? How does Christ relate to lawless people?

What does the New Testament teach about Old Testament case

laws? What is the significance of God writing His law on the

hearts of His people in the new covenant?

Toward a Theology of Taxation. Toward a Theology of Taxation.

This 115-page paperback pioneers the application of God’s

infallible and sufficient Word to the area of taxation. Many areas

39

are explored: What types of taxes are mentioned in Scripture?

Does God disapprove of some types of tax? What tax did God

institute in Old Testament Israel? What does the prophet Samuel’s

warning against a centralized civil government teach about

increased taxation? Is the modern concept of taxation as the

vehicle for socialistic revolution really Biblical? In what ways does

“Pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” limit the civil

government? Is a tax revolt Biblical?

Endorsed by: Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; appendix printed in

Faith for All of Life.

Booklets

Antinomianism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries: An

Illustration of the Consequences of Rejecting God’s Law. This

33-page booklet describes three types of antinomians (i.e., those

rejecting God’s moral law). In these groups we see several

similarities with contemporary evangelical Christian thought: a

strong rejection of the Old Testament, producing a “New

Testament only Christianity”; elements of Greek dualism;

charismatics who “follow the Spirit” while rejecting the letter of

Scripture; contemplative worship that replaces Bible teaching;

pitting God’s law against grace (“all things are lawful”); using the

doctrine of grace to foster sexual immorality; no law but love;

church tradition trumps God’s law; socialistic communities; sinless

perfection; and universal salvation. Ideas have consequences.

Antinomianism in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries

poignantly illustrates the consequences of rejecting God’s moral

law. Contains a bibliography.

Biblical Imprecations: Christians’ Secret Weapon. One of the

perplexing ethical and hermeneutical problems facing Biblical

scholars, pastors and intercessors, is the imprecatory Psalms, i.e.,

those Psalms that call or wish for God’s judgment, calamity or

curse upon the enemies of God and God’s covenant people. Is it

ever appropriate for Christians to pray Biblical imprecatory

prayers? Why or why not? If these prayers are ever appropriate, in

40

what circumstances are they to be used and by whom? The text of

the imprecatory Psalms is given in an appendix—for convenient

use in prayer. This 56-page booklet contains a bibliography.

Endorsed by: Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Ph.D.; John Eidsmoe, J.D.,

M.Div.; Jay Grimstead, D,Min.

A Brief History and Critique of Natural Law Theory — Is Natural

Law Sufficient to Govern Society? What is “natural law” and why

is it so ambiguous? Is nature normative? Where does the Bible

command people to govern their societies by natural law? Why is

it always necessary to interpret general revelation by the Bible?

Should politically active Protestants adopt Roman Catholic natural

theology? Is natural law theory logical? Is natural law practical?

What are six consequences of basing civil laws on natural law?

This 43-page booklet contains a bibliography.

Jealousy, Hatred, and Wrath: The Disregarded Attributes of

God. This 43-page study makes a formidable, well-documented

case that the attributes or perfections of the triune God—as He has

revealed Himself in the Bible—include jealousy (especially toward

idolatry), hatred of evil, and just wrath that punishes sinners. This

provides a needed correction to the proclivity of fashioning a god

after one’s own imagination—a god whose only attribute is love. A

bibliography is included.

Justice and Sovereignty: Perfections of God Imaged by His

People. This 39-page booklet examines the Biblical teaching

regarding God’s attributes of justice and sovereignty and then

delves into how God’s people image them individually and how

they should be reflected in society. A bibliography is included.

Modernism and Postmodernism: Their History, Beliefs, Cultural

Influence—and How to Refute Them. This 54-page booklet

presents a Biblical analysis and critique of two crucial intellectual

movements that have successively dominated much thinking in the

Western world, from the 17th century to the present. The booklet

begins by defining modernism and postmodernism and briefly

tracing their historical and philosophical roots to the Renaissance

41

and especially to the Enlightenment. The key beliefs of modernism

and postmodernism are clearly and succinctly summarized.

Adopting these key beliefs has had a massive, devastating impact

on orthodox Christian theology, on Biblical hermeneutics, and on

the entire Western culture. The fundamental points of

disagreement between Biblical theism, modernism, and

postmodernism are explained. The correlation between

postmodernism and Emergent churches is also noted. A powerful,

presuppositional rebuttal of modernism and postmodernism

demonstrates that neither of them has a coherent worldview that

can provide a foundation for knowledge and ethics. After ravaging

postmodernism, the Biblical theology of language is taught.

Some Continuities and Discontinuities between the Older

Testament and the Newer Testament. This 35-page booklet

stresses the unity of Scripture and the importance of using the

entire Bible. It answers the following questions. How were people

saved in the Old Testament? What is the relationship between the

Old Testament covenants and the new covenant? Were Old

Testament ethics inferior to the ethics of the New Testament?

What continues from the Old Testament and what does not

continue and why? The hermeneutical question of continuity/

discontinuity affects Christian practice in many areas, e.g., church-

state relations, civil laws (e.g., capital punishment, abortion),

dietary laws, regulations for worship, church polity, keeping the

Sabbath, etc. A bibliography is included.

What Is the Relationship between Christianity and Culture? —

Five Historical Views and Their Consequences. This 36-page

study briefly summarizes the five predominant views regarding the

relationship between Christianity and culture, which have been

held over the last two thousand years, by different branches of the

Christian church. It then presents a compelling Biblical case for the

Christ-the-transformer-of-culture view that was taught and

practiced by Augustine, John Calvin, most Puritans, Jonathan

Edwards, Abraham Kuyper, A.A. Hodge, and others.

42

Booklet authored by Vonne L. Fugate

Ten Commandments: From Tablets of Stone into the Hearts of

God’s People. This 49-page introduction to the Ten

Commandments contains many practical applications, making it an

excellent tool for Bible study groups. Ten Commandments has

received an enthusiastic endorsement from constitutional attorney,

John Eidsmoe.