The Bible’s Continuity & Discontinuity
How the Old Testament Relates to the New Testament
Yesterday I published an introductory view of three orthodox frameworks for how the Bible holds together as a cohesive unit (Covanentalism, New Covanentalism, and Dispensationalism). In today’s article, I’d like to share where my framework fits within the stream of orthodoxy.
To me, there are some ways in which there is continuity from Old Testament to New Testament and some ways there is discontinuity from Old Testament to New Testament.[1] I view the Mosaic law as one unit rather than three distinct portions.
Therefore, in my view of the Mosaic law, I do not see it broken up as civil, ceremonial, and moral to determine that the moral law is binding for Christians today. I reject a tripartite distinction of the Mosaic law as the means to determine what is morally binding on Christians today. I reject this tripartite organization of the Mosaic law for deciding the morals of Christians for the following three reasons:
1. Scripture views the old covenant as a unit. God used this unit of law in a particular way in God’s plan for Israel, and as an entire covenant (one unit), it is brought to fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.[2] Biblical texts that support viewing the Mosaic law as one unit are Galatians 5:3 and James 2:8–13 (obeying or disobeying one part of the law assumes the obeying or disobeying of the whole law), Hebrews 7:11 (the law covenant is one unit grounded in the priesthood), and Hebrews 7:12; 8:7–13 (with a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily an entire covenantal change, not just parts of it).
2. Scripture teaches that God’s plan for the entire law covenant was to be temporary and point forward to Christ, who fulfills the entire law.[3] To understand the role of the law covenant in God’s redemptive plan, it must be identified where it is found in the progressive unfolding of the covenants. The effect of doing so is that Scripture teaches the old covenant as temporal and changeable, whereas
“The New Testament teaches that as important as the law covenant is in God’s unfolding plan, it has not come to its end as an entire covenant.”[4]
3. Scripture teaches that Christians are no longer “under the law” as a covenant, and therefore it no longer functions as a “direct authority” as to what is morally lawful for Christians.[5] In Christ, the old covenant has reached its goal and is fulfilled. It has been noted by Wellum,
“Paul does not equate ‘law’ with a ‘legalistic’ misunderstanding of it; instead, ‘law’ refers to the entire law covenant, which Christians are no longer under in Christ.”[6]
To summarize the above three points in my view: Scripture does not look to a tripartite division in the law as the basis for determining the moral law today; the law covenant is viewed as a whole unit; it has not reached its end in Christ. This is why Christians are not directly bound to the law covenant. However, the Old Testament (including the law covenant) still functions for Christians as Scripture, not as a binding covenant. An important text to support this point is 1 Corinthians 9:20–21.
The Law of Christ
I preached 1 Corinthians 9:20–21 during the summer of 2014, in which I was gripped by the fact that Paul no longer saw himself as “under the law,”; and he does not view God’s law as the same as the Mosaic law! Instead, Paul viewed himself as under God’s law, but God’s law is now entirely defined by Christ.[7] This means as Moo suggests,
“The ‘law’ under which Christians live is continuous with the Mosaic law in that God’s eternal moral norms, which never change, are clearly expressed in both. But there is discontinuity in the fact that Christians live under the “law of Christ” and not under the Mosaic law. Our source for determining God’s eternal moral law is Christ and the apostles, not the Mosaic law or even the Ten Commandments.”[8]
This is why Christians do not “do” or “keep” the law; instead, Christians (those in Christ) “fulfill” the law due to Christ’s work and the power of the Spirit.
To View Scripture Through the Lens of Christ
There are two significant steps in my hermeneutics that flow out of the previously mentioned three points:
- As with any biblical text, before I directly apply it to my life, I first place the text in its covenantal location.
- Second, I must think through how the text points forward, anticipates, and is fulfilled in Christ.[9]
These two steps are how I view all Scripture through the lens of Christ.
One of the effects of this approach is that the New Covenant determines what is morally binding upon Christians today. Wellum explains,
“No part of the law is applied to us without first placing it in its covenantal location, and then asking how the entire covenant is fulfilled in Christ.”[10] Wellum goes on to add, “In answering the question, ‘what is the moral law for Christians today?’, we first gladly confess that the entirety of Scripture is our standard. But we must simultaneously add that all of Scripture’s moral teaching in only binding on us in light of its fulfillment in Christ… As a covenant, the Mosaic law does not govern us directly, yet as Scripture, and applied to us in Christ, it now takes on a prophetic-wisdom function.”[11]
I believe Wellum rightly concludes,
“In this way the law covenant expresses God’s moral demands, but it also points us forward to a greater covenant. In the new covenant the previous moral instruction is not dismissed; rather in continues and is transformed in light of the ideal that has begun in Christ and that will be consummated at Christ’s return. The new covenant, then, not only replaces the old, but it also fulfills it.”[12]
I believe the New Testament teaches the replacement and fulfillment of the old covenant. In the new covenant, the old is replaced by the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:20–21). However, instead of relying upon the law, Christians rely on Christ (Galatians 2:19–20; Philippians 3:4–14), and Christians discern God’s will in Christ and apostolic teaching (1 Corinthians 7:19, 9:21; Galatians 6:2).
Furthermore, the new covenant fulfills the old. Jesus fulfills the Law and the Prophets since they pointed forward to him, and Jesus is the one who brings them to their appointed end.
I want to point out that my Biblical system or framework through which I interpret the old and new covenants is called Progressive Covenantalism (PC going forward). PC is within the stream of Biblical orthodoxy. The broad stream allows for many different approaches to how one deals with the Old and New Testament in their hermeneutics.
On one end of the spectrum of orthodoxy is Covenantalism, on the other end is Dispensationalism, and in the middle is New Covenantalism. Between Covenantalism and New Covenantalism is PC (just as between New Covenantalism and Dispensationalism is Progressive Dispensationalism).
EXAMPLES OF MY BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS
PARENTING
On the topic of Parenting, how do I interpret familiar passages like Deuteronomy 6:5–9, Joshua 24:15, and Ephesians 6:1–4?
Deuteronomy 6:5–9
“You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.”
Question #1 — What covenant is this passage found?
Deuteronomy calls for the renewal of the Mosaic covenant as a preparation for the entrance into Canaan. This passage is found in the Mosaic covenant, where the people of God (Israel) will be blessed if they obey and cursed if they disobey.
Question #2 — How does this passage point forward to, anticipate, and fulfilled in Christ?
This passage anticipates Christ by commanding the Israelites to love the LORD their God with all their hearts, which they could not do. This command to love the LORD your God with all of your heart anticipates a new covenant when God’s people will be able to love Him from the heart.[13]
This passage is fulfilled by Christ, the only obedient Son of God, the true Israel. As the people of Israel failed to love God from their hearts, Christ loved His Father with all his heart, soul, and might.[14] Christ’s love for His Father caused him to be perfectly obedient to His Father’s will, even obedient to death on a cross. Christ’s death is what purchased and inaugurated God’s new covenant for all who repent from their sins by trusting in Jesus Christ as their Savior.
As a Christian under the new covenant, I’m indwelt with the Spirit and have a new heart[15] that can love God. It is not on the grounds of the Mosaic covenant that I can love God with my heart but based on the new covenant in Christ. As one under the new covenant, the Spirit will continue to grow my love for God, and I will desire to tell my children about who God is and His mighty works.
I do NOT believe verses 7–9 are to be kept literally; instead, they prescribe a principle for parents to teach and converse about the gospel of Christ regularly. Christian parents talking about God with their children should be the culture of the family, not a rarity.
Joshua 24:15
“And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”
Question #1 — What covenant is this passage found?
Chapter 24:2–13 Joshua is reviewing the covenant history and how God has repeatedly intervened mercifully on behalf of Israel. In 24:14–24, Joshua asks the people to renew their covenantal commitment (similar to Deut. 6). This passage is found during the Mosaic covenant.
In the Mosaic covenant, those who were the people of God were chosen by God not based on their righteousness, holiness, or faith. My point is that under this covenant, the people of God were identified by their clan/ethnicity (Jewish), not based on the Spirit’s regenerating work in the souls of the people. This must be kept in mind when reading Joshua’s declaration, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” And the moral meaning of “serving the LORD” is to be understood by the Mosaic covenant.
Question #2 — How does this passage point forward to, anticipate, and fulfilled in Christ?
This passage anticipates a better Joshua, Christ Jesus. After verse 15, the people reply, “we will serve the LORD,” Joshua’s response in verse 19 is, “You are not able to serve the LORD, for he is a holy God. He is a jealous God; he will not forgive your transgressions or your sins.” Due to the holiness of God, He will not allow the presence of sin, and the Israelites are sinners. Therefore, they cannot keep their promise to serve the LORD. But Christ did. He fulfilled this covenant. Christ perfectly served the LORD and did so for sinners.
Therefore, Christians have been adopted into God’s household with Christ Jesus as their brother. Empowered by the Spirit and freed from the bonds of my sin in Christ, I look to Christ and desire to serve Him because of His love for me.
This old covenant text is NOT my grounds for serving Christ, Christ is my grounds.
If I’ve been forgiven much, I will love much, and if I love much, I will want to keep His new covenant commandments. I do NOT interpret this old covenant passage to mean that my unregenerate family members are now bound to serve the LORD.
Ephesians 6:1–4
“Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long on the earth.” Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
Paul directly quotes the fifth commandment to this new covenant church in Ephesus, so does this mean that the Mosaic law does have binding authority over Christians today?
I want to stress that even though there is moral continuity in this command (as in the other commands), there is also a significant transformation. Paul no longer says that honoring our parents will yield long life in the land (as the fifth commandment states); instead, he expands the promise to the whole earth, giving further confirmation that the law covenant is applied to us today in and through Christ and his glorious new covenant work.[16]
These passages dealt with the topic of Parenting; I’d also like to provide an example of Corporate Worship, but I don’t want to spend too much time on it for fear of being redundant.
WORSHIP
With the change of covenants, there also seems to have been a change in emphasizing outward expressions of worship to highlighting the internal reality of prayer from one’s soul.
For example:
In the Old Covenant, there was a temple[17] for all to come and see; In the New Covenant, Christ is the “greater temple”[18] where people are to have access to and fellowship with God; After Christ’s resurrection, His Spirit dwells in Christians who are the temple[19] inwardly to go and tell.
The main word used in the Old Testament for “worship” is hishtahavah. Its basic meaning is “bow down” out of reverence, respect, and honor. It occurs 171 times. In the Greek Old Testament, 164 of those instances are translated by the Greek as proskuneo; In the Greek New Testament, this is the main word for worship. However, in the Gospels, Proskuneo is used 26 times as people reacted to Christ. Still, in the epistles, it is used only once in 1 Corinthians 14:25, where the unbeliever falls at the power of prophecy and confesses God is in the assembly. It doesn’t occur at all anywhere else in the New Testament.
Question: Why are the very epistles that were written for the New Testament church’s instruction for how the church should function missing this word and specific instructions of corporate worship?
My Answer: Jesus’ teaching about worship focused on the inward heart of worship.
That’s why Jesus didn’t use the Old Testament word for worship (proskuneo) when he taught the Samaritan woman at the well.[20] Her understanding of worship was based on outward location[21], but Jesus changed the emphasis from an outward location, “neither in this mountain or in Jerusalem.” Instead, Jesus tells her that “those worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”
I take “in spirit” to mean that this true worship is happening as an inward, spiritual moment and not mainly as an outward, physical moment. So, Jesus transformed worship from its physical location into an inward event in spirit and truth. I believe this is why Jesus taught, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. In vain do they worship me?”[22]
If the heart is distant from God, then worship is vain, meaningless, and therefore not worship. But when the heart is worshipping out of spirit and truth, it is true worship. What is happening in the soul/heart is what determines true worship.
Closing Thoughts
Even though I just laid out my framework for interpreting the Old and New Testaments, I conclude this article by emphasizing that if you don’t agree with my view, but your view is found within the stream of orthodoxy, I will rejoice with you over our Savior! Love is the aim. And there are many Christians who would not agree with how I hold the Old and New Testaments together… That is completely fine with me. This is not a hill to die on. Rather, I hope by laying out the frameworks (yesterday’s article) and providing some examples in my hermeneutics (this article), peaceful conversations among Christians will be aided.
In Essentials — Unity
In Non-Essentials — Liberty
In All Things — Charity
[1] For a detailed defense of this position, see Douglas J. Moo, The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ.
[2] For a detailed defense of this point, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Also see D.A. Carson, “The Tripartite Division of the Law: A Review of Philip Ross, The Finger of God,” in From Creation
[3] Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:15–4:7; Hebrews 7:11–12.
[4] Stephen J. Wellum, Progressive Covenantalism.
[5] Romans 6:14–15; 1 Corinthians 9:20–21; Galatians 4:4–5, 5:13–18.
[6] Wellum, Progressive Covenantalism; see also Moo, “Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” p. 328–333; Rosner, Paul and the Law, 45–81.
[7] Carson, “The Tripartite Division of the Law,” 235.
[8] Moo, “Response to Willem A. VanGemeren,” in The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian, 89.
[9] For the development of these hermeneutical points, see Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant, 81–108.
[10] Wellum, Progressive Covenantalism, 222.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Jeremiah 31:33–34
[14] John 14:31
[15] Ezekiel 36:26
[16] See Moo, “Law of Christ as the Fulfillment of the Law of Moses,” 370; and P.T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 442–445.
[17] Hebrews 9:1, “Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly sanctuary” (italics added).
[18] Matthew 12:6.
[19] Ephesians 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:4–5; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16, 6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Hebrews 3:6.
[20] John 4:20–24.
[21] John 4:20, “Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you say that in Jerusalem is the place where people ought to worship.”
[22] Matthew 15:8–9.
