NCT, Matt 5:17-48, and Matt 15:1-9

While reading Matt 15 this morning, I noticed in confronting the scribes and Pharisees, Jesus specifically addressed their twisting of the Mosaic Law, not the Law itself. I find that interesting, because in Matt 5:17-48, John Reisinger claims Jesus was specifically addressing the Mosaic Law itself, not the twisting of the Mosaic Law. While Reisinger’s view is possible, it’s highly unlikely. First, his position is held by only a tiny minority of scholars. Now, that doesn’t make him wrong, but it does suggest he’s probably wrong. Conservative scholars overwhelmingly disagree with his view, and believe Jesus was dealing with the perversion of the Mosaic Law in Matt 5, just as He was in Matt 15. Second, Matt 5:43 presents a major challenge for those holding to Reisinger’s view. Jesus said “"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. The problem is these words are never uttered in the OT. Never. Reisinger believes Jesus was dealing with the Mosaic Law, not a twisting of it by the Pharisees and scribes. Therefore, these words or at least this concept must be found in the OT. They aren’t. When I came to the section of his book dealing with this passage, I was expecting to see some cogent explanation. There was none to be found. Reisinger claims this concept comes from Deut 23:3-6, but a quick examination will show that isn’t the case. He wrote two sentences attempting to show v43 was describing the attitude the Israelite was to have towards an Ammonite; he didn’t even acknowledge the problem. Finally, in light of Matt 15, Reisinger’s view just doesn’t make sense. Why would Jesus suddenly shift gears like this?

I admit I still have much to learn about this, but this sounds like a desperate attempt to de-link the Mosaic Law from the NT, as if the Law and the Decalogue in particular, is somehow evil. I understand most of the Law has been abrogated. I understand its primary use for the Christian is Gal 3:24 “Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” But I don’t understand such haphazard handling of the Scripture.

What’s up with John Piper?

Got a card in the mail a couple of weeks ago about the 2009 Desiring God annual conference. I was unfamiliar with some of the speakers Piper had lined up, but one I was somewhat familiar with…..and very surprised. A gentleman named Doug Wilson.

I used to be on Wilson’s Credenda Agenda mailing list, and I’ve always understood Wilson to be somewhat on the fringe of Reformed orthodoxy. A far bigger problem is Wilson’s connection with the Federal Vision/Auburn Avenue theology movement. Bottom line, whatever you think of him, Wilson comes with a lot of baggage. So the question is, why did Piper invite him to share the pulpit with him? This really has me scratching my head. There are so many fine scholars around that don’t have Wilson’s problems. So why did Piper do this?

I like Piper a lot. I own many of his books. I subscribe to his podcast. He’s a giant in contemporary evangelicalism. A real rock star in our movement. His ministry has been richly blessed by God. He has been steadfast in his defense of the Scripture, and is one of our finest expositional preachers. But I admit, I’ve always been a little uncomfortable with him. I usually attribute that to the fact he is so emotional……complete opposite of myself. But I’ve always been a little uneasy about a few things:

- His Fuller Seminary connection, Dan Fuller in particular.

- Sharing his pulpit with Mark Driscoll. Driscoll has problems, but not nearly as serious as those presented by Wilson.

- His absolutist position on marriage and divorce

And now sharing the pulpit with Doug Wilson – the strangest thing of all. I don’t get it.

Kursk

For you military historians, 66 years ago today the battle of Kursk began.  It was fought on the Eastern Front between Germany and the Soviet Union, and was the greatest tank battle in history.  You read about it, and it’s hard to believe.

Current Reading/Listening

I’m currently reading “The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses” by Vern Poythress.  Poythress is fine scholar and writer. His “Understanding Dispensationalists” is a must read, and has helped me considerably.

The thing I find attractive about CT vs NCT is CT seems to acknowledge the continuity between the OT and NT; the plan of redemption is continuous.  I know I’m overstating this, but NCT seems to want to slice and dice the plan of redemption. 

I think some NCT brethren are a bit concerned that reformed baptists are going to fall into the clutches of the presbyterians. It’s not going to happen.  There is a fundamental difference between RBs and presbyterians, and it’s enormous. Who is included as a member of the New Covenant?  RBs are steadfast – only believers are in the New Covenant, which is why we’re credobaptists. That is a chasm that cannot be bridged.

I’m also reading the latest installment in the NAC Studies in Bible and Theology Series - “That You May Know.”  I’ve read all the books in this series so far, and all have been very good, some superb.  I’ll keep buying them.

The IPOD is a great invention. I subscribe to their podcast and automatically download MacArthur and Piper’s sermons, and Sproul’s “Renewing Your Mind”, and listen to them at the gym while working out.  I just subscribed to Horton’s “White Horse Inn” today also.  Also, just finished listening to a 12 part series by Lee Irons the theology of Meredith Kline. I burned ‘em to a CD and listened to it in the car while I was road tripping. Great stuff…..

Health Woes

I noticed a couple of weeks ago my heart suddenly started beating strangely.  I went to the doc, and he told me I had atrial fibrilation, and was so concerned, he made an appointment to see a cardiologist.  To make a long story short, a TEE and cardioversion took care of it on 2 July, but I had A-fib for 10 days, and I had all the symptoms – fatigue, weakness, lightheadedness, and just generally felt lousy.  I hope it doesn’t come back.  I’m wondering why it happened in the first place.  I see the cardiologist again on Friday, and I’m hoping he can tell me something.  One possibility is stimulants; the only stimulant I ingest is caffeine, and I drink a lot of coffee. Or I should say I used to. I cut way back a few days ago; I needed to anyway.

It’s ironic. I watch what I eat, exercise a lot, don’t smoke or drink, but still, I get ill. Another reminder that God is in control.

NCT, The Sabbath, etc.

Really wondering about New Covenant Theology.  Don’t really get it, so I’ve been reading some material.  I recently finished John Reisinger’s latest book on the subj entitled “In defense of Jesus.”  He wrote it to counter Rich Barcellos’ book “In Defense of the Decalogue” .  I was generally disappointed.  The booked seemed to me to be not only shoddy, but mean-spirited.   Some years ago, Barcellos wrote an article in Table Talk in which he criticized NCT in general, and Reisinger in particular, referring to him as “antinomian.”  I wish Barcellos hadn’t done that, but I understand why many believe NCT to be at it’s core antinomian, or at least lead to antinomianism.  Anyway, the book did nothing to persuade me to abandon Covenant Theology in favor of NCT.

NCT is anti-Sabbatarian, and generally opposed to the tripartite division of the law.  They believe the 10 Commandments have been fulfilled by Christ (no argument there), and therefore have been rescinded.  But they believe nine of the 10 are still in effect, because they’ve been repeated in the NT, the only exception being the 4th, which is about the Sabbath.  Of course, you can only arrive at this point if you believe something from the OT has to be repeated in the NT in order to still be in effect.  I think that’s a flawed hermeneutic, and I’m not sure where this comes from.

My Pastor just preached about the Sabbath, and while it was a fine presentation, it was still unpersuasive, as it didn’t deal with the central hermeneutical (to me) problem. More later.