The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-37

By Geoff A. Adams 

It is a great privilege to be covenantal with God! It involves being the objects of God's election, commitment and faithfulness. The concept of covenant is dominant in the Old Testament. In Isaiah 54 and 55 alone we may see divine, covenantal loyalty (chesed) in association with covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Israel and David. Some suggest that there is a fade-out of the concept because there are only sixteen uses of the term in the New Testament. We argue that its ceremonial use in the Lord's Supper continues to make it a dominant idea. The bifurcation of the Scriptures, in dealing with the old and new covenants, seems natural. One belongs to the age of preparation, the other to that of the fulfillment.

What, then, is the biblical significance of the term covenant (Heb. berith) as employed by Jeremiah? W.J. Dumbrell argues well:

To judge from secular biblical examples - and these are more than likely representative of the general ancient world picture - covenants presupposed a set of existing relationships to which by formal ceremony they gave binding expression. They operated between two parties, though the status of the parties varied considerably. The language of covenant was carefully prescribed by convention. One "cut a covenant," oath and witnesses were moreover involved, and often there was an associated sign. [1] 

Dumbrell further asserts: "The very fact of creation involved God's entering into relationships with the world .... The world and man are part of one total divine construction and we cannot entertain the salvation of man in isolation from the world which he has affected." [2] Thus the idea of perpetuating a relationship is important to the concept of covenant.

We are introduced to the expression in Genesis 6 in reference to Noah. Here it is a sovereign, unconditional, gracious prediction and promise. God initiates the action and determines its terms. The beneficiaries are Noah, his family, and every living thing. So the giraffes were included in this natural berith. The seal of the covenant is the rainbow, and the promise is that there will never be another universal flood. Salvation history may henceforth flow uninterruptedly. Immediately we run into a semantic problem as our word "covenant" is often associated with a bilateral compact with the parties of equal standing. Although the Old Testament gives us bilateral examples of men covenanting with men, as David did with Jonathan, and covenants which men made with God, as Jacob at Bethel, the usage with Noah was essentially unilateral. As we look at the divine covenants made with Abraham, Israel and David, again the initiative is always taken by God, and He sovereignly dispenses blessing on His own terms. Features common to these divine covenants then would include the sacred oath, as in Genesis 15 where God takes a self-maledictory vow as the theophany passes through the severed carcasses of animals (cf. Jer. 34:18). Also redemptive covenants usually have the shedding of blood, as in Exodus 24:6ff. So we have a sworn, solemn, religious engagement by God graciously to bestow blessing on a people already in a special relationship. Leon Morris stresses that the unilateral emphasis does not deny the aspect that the people have to accept or reject the covenant, but the emphasis is not on this aspect. [3]

Significantly, the Septuagint regularly translated berith with diatheke, so emphasizing the sovereign, unilateral nature of the covenant. As we move into the New Testament the word employed again is diatheke rather than suntheke. The latter would suggest a bilateral compact, while the former often was associated with the unilateral last will and testament of a person. [4] Hebrews 9:17 plainly suggests that meaning. To be the beneficiary of such a covenant was a great advantage: to think that a sovereign Creator commits Himself to be gracious to a fallen world is a marvel of marvels.

In the days of the Babylonian exile of the sixth century B.C. three prophetic voices were raised: Jeremiah in the land of Palestine, and Ezekiel and Daniel in captivity. They witnessed the death of the old theocracy. [5] Never again in biblical history would Israel be an independent nation. It would have to exist under the rule of the Babylonians, the Medes and the Persians, the Greeks or the Romans. That which was conceived of as impossible had occurred, and the sacred temple had been polluted and destroyed. Israel in exile is treated as uncircumcised. Jeremiah, after counseling submission to the divinely decreed judgment by the Babylonians, now could disclose that the God of grace would restore the nation. Something much more effective than Josiah's revival was envisaged. There would be a second exodus (Jer. 23:7f.; 32:37ff.). This was to be accompanied by spiritual blessing. It would also involve the Gentiles, for Jeremiah's call made him a prophet to the nations (Jer. 1:5,10). The time of the Gentiles was dawning. He then gives the new covenant teaching. Ezekiel and Daniel also predict a similar program (Ezek. 34:25; Dan. 9:27).

Before looking more closely at Jeremiah 31, let us remind ourselves of the nature of the inspired Scriptures. The revelation is progressive (John 16:12, 25; Eph. 3:5; Heb. 1:1f.). That which appears in germinal form in the Old Testament fully blossoms out in the New. As Augustine said: "The New is in the Old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed."

The Old Testament can even be titled "Great Expectations," for it is replete with promises of ultimate deliverance. There is but one salvation history, based on the determinate counsel of God's will (Eph. 1:11). In Jeremiah 31:32 the old covenant is identified as that which God made with Israel in the day He "took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt," referring to that made at the birth of the nation (Ex. 24). This deliverance is also associated with the covenantal arrangement made previously with Abraham in Exodus 2:24. The family of seventy-five had multiplied to about 1.5 million in Egypt. After cruel oppression God granted them supernatural redemption. A theocracy was established. The anticipated new covenant is unlike it, we are distinctly told. Here, like Odysseus, we must avoid both Scylla and Charybdis. On one side there is identification of the old with the new and on the other the dispensational, fragmentary approach to the Scriptures which sharply contrasts law and grace. We should remember that in the gracious covenant God made with Abraham there was yet an element of obligation introduced with circumcision. Also in the old covenant there is a gracious element with redemptive mercies and the gospel types and shadows. We must remember that the Sinaitic covenant did not cancel the promises made to Abraham and his seed (Gal. 3:21). In a genuine sense it engineered an incipient fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises. [6] The nomadic family had become a multitude; as a nation they were now organized to enter the promised land, and the "mixed multitude" (Ex. 12:38) that went up suggested the beginning of Israel's blessing on the Gentiles. This is in sharp contrast with a statement by Randy Seiver: "God's purpose in giving the Mosaic law was to erect a barrier in the fulfillment of the promises that He might demonstrate more clearly the gracious nature of the covenant that He had made with Abraham and his seed." [7]

Continuity of the Old and New 

To be faithful to Jeremiah's teaching we must note the continuity between the old and new covenants, before we examine the discontinuity. Let us now show that both are marriage covenants; both refer to Israel; both deal with inscription of the law (Torah). Both have the goal that Jehovah should be their God and they His people. Both provide means of grace and involve precious promises. Let us examine matters more closely.

The term berith is applicable to both and the emphasis in each case is on God's sovereign dispensation. Hosea, with his parable of the prodigal wife, reminds us that Israel entered into a marriage covenant with Jehovah at Sinai (Hos. 1:2). So Jeremiah 31:32 speaks of a broken covenant, "although I was a husband to them." The Hebrew word baal can mean owner, possessor, husband or Baal. In commenting on Jeremiah 3:14, C.F. Keil notes, "whence come the meanings, take to wife, have oneself married, which are to be maintained here and in xxxi.32." [8] The perfect tense requires here a past action, in the light of the reference to the covenant having been broken. Keil continues:

though Jahveh had united Israel Himself, they have broken the covenant and thereby rendered it necessary to make a new one. God the Lord, in virtue of His unchangeable faithfulness, would not alter the relation He had Himself established in His love, but simply found it anew in a way which obviated the breaking of the covenant by Israel. For it was a defect connected with the covenant made with Israel at Sinai, that it could be broken on their part. This defect is not to exist in the new covenant which God will make in after times. [9] 

The new covenant's reference, "for they shall all know Me," may involve the Hebraic concept of the intimacy of marriage (Gen. 4:1). Certainly in Ephesians 5:28-32 the new Israel is married to Christ and the idea of a covenant is clearly associated with marriage in Malachi 2:14.

The Sinaitic covenant was with national Israel, and now Jeremiah refers to the house of Israel, the northern kingdom, and to the house of Judah, the southern kingdom, being reunited after returning from exile. However, the new covenant is with a new and enlarged Israel. The passage makes no direct mention of the Gentiles (cf. Jer. 3:16-19; 16:19), yet Jeremiah, in referring to Abraham's seed and to a land flowing with milk and honey which was promised to the forefathers, alludes in the context to the Abrahamic covenant (Jer. 32:22; 33:26). The apostle Paul declares that Abraham was pre-evangelized: "All the nations shall be blessed in you" (Gal. 3:8). So we are not surprised when the author of the epistle to the Hebrews directly relates the church with this blessing (Heb. 8:6-13). Already the believer has come to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22). There is one household of faith embracing God's servant Moses and us, "if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end" (Heb. 3:1-6). As with Israel there is only a remnant of the apostate nation which is to be rescued, so, after the opposition of the heathen world is subdued by God's destructive judgment, only those "left of all the nations" (Zech. 14:16) would survive. [10] This inclusion of the Gentiles is in harmony with what Isaiah had earlier predicted, as he spoke of all nations flowing up to Zion and of Israel being "the third party with Egypt and Assyria" (Isa. 2:2f.; 19:24f.). Yes, the new covenant is still with Israel, but it is a new Israel. As the old Israel was not without its share of grace, it was qualified to typify the new. According to Dumbrell:

In substance the message of his book is that the time of the gentiles has arrived with the hegemony of Babylon. The end of the political history of Israel has thus virtually come. The facts of exile will bear this out. The political connections which were established with Israel by covenant thus stood in need at this time of theological restatement. . . . Jeremiah's new covenant theology was therefore intended to provide for the necessary transition from Israel as a nation to Israel as a theological ideal. [11]

Another element suggesting continuity is the reference to the writing of the law. The Decalogue had been thundered forth at Mount Sinai to the consternation of Israel. Immediately they felt the need of a mediator (Ex. 20:19). God reminds them: "You yourselves have seen that I have spoken to you from heaven" (Ex. 20:22). For a permanent record God later engraves the Decalogue upon two stone tablets (Ex. 31:18). After Moses' rash act of breaking the tablets, God's finger again engraves the Torah upon stone. This reminds us of the unique position the Decalogue had in the theocracy. It could represent the whole covenantal arrangement. In the complex of civil, ceremonial and moral laws, it alone was given audibly and directly to the people. It was inscribed by God. It was placed in the ark of the covenant.

From the New Testament we see the abrogation of some elements of the Mosaic law: Christ pronounced all food clean (Mark 7:19), God rent the veil of the temple, and we observe the switch from nationalism to internationalism. This suggests that all legal elements were not of the same eternal value. In denouncing the scribes and Pharisees, Christ made mention of "the weightier provisions of the law" (Matt. 23:23). When He was interrogated by a lawyer demanding which was the great commandment of the law He extrapolated from the Pentateuch and declared: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37). Then He referred to Leviticus 19:18 for the second commandment. How ably do these summarize the Ten Words in a positive way, for he who loves God worships no rival, does not misrepresent and slander God with an idolatrous representation, does not resort to blasphemy or to word magic, [12] thus taking His name in vain, and sanctifies time for the worship of God. Likewise, he who loves his neighbor starts in the family by lovingly obeying his parents. Love prevents murder, adultery, theft, false accusation and covetousness. We are not surprised that in Romans 13:10, "love therefore is the fulfillment of the law" and applies to the church enactments from the Decalogue. We admit that some local and temporal elements may be involved in the Decalogue itself. Reference is made to Palestine and to marriage for instance, matters suited for this life, but unsuitable for the heavenly state. Likewise, the largely negative presentation may have been necessary as these were the transgressions likely to disturb the relationship between God and Israel, but the positive expression demanding love is much more comprehensive. As thus interpreted, do we not have morality of eternal and universal application? Is this not the morality of heaven? The royal law of love will, no doubt, find new applications in the eternal state. The God of love (1 John 4:7) has given us a transcript of His divine nature in His moral law. The One with whom there is "no variation" (James 1:17) does not change His standards of righteousness.

It should be remembered that the Decalogue itself is not just a legal arrangement. Von Rad reminds us, "Israel was elected by Jahweh before she was given the commandments. As a result of this election she became Jehovah's chosen people, and this, in fact, happened before she had had any opportunity of proving her obedience. ...." [13] Still, the saving event of the Exodus "is indissolubly bound up with the obligation to obey certain norms which clearly mark out the chosen people's sphere," [14] just as occurs in the early Christian community. The same author further reminds us that in antiquity "a special relationship with a god was inconceivable without the acceptance and binding recognition of specific ordinances." [15] It was culturally and morally fitting that Israel accept God's sovereign rights over them. There can be no doubt that Israel came to interpret the law in a legalistic manner, for Paul can indict them: "not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3). In all of this we should be reminded that the law/grace controversy may be in danger of oversimplification. There is law in grace and grace in law.

With the new covenant God inscribes the royal law upon the heart and not upon stone tablets. The stony heart is to be softened and the unclean heart circumcised (Jer. 4:4), for God "will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised" (Jer. 9:25). Though Israel washed itself with lye and used much soap the stain of their iniquity would not be removed (Jer. 2:22). They needed the ministry of Jehovah Tsidkenu (Jer. 23:6). Now the heart is to be programmed for righteousness. The law would be internal and not just external. However, the law itself had spoken of circumcision of the heart (Deut. 30:6). Again the writing is the work of God.

Another feature suggesting continuity is the common goal of both covenants. This should not be surprising if we recognize that there was a lamb slain from the foundation of the world (1 Peter 1:19f.) and a people chosen in Christ, also in eternity (Eph. 1 :4). The one way of salvation involves one household of faith (Heb. 3:2ff.) and one olive tree (Rom. 11:17). Justification is by grace through faith for Abraham before the Mosaic law was given, and for David who lived in the days of the theocracy (Rom. 4:1-8). Likewise, it remains the same for the church. All was possible in ancient time because of the retroactive influence of Christ's act of propitiation (Rom. 3:25f.). Old Testament saints got to heaven on credit! We read in Leviticus 26:12: "I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people." Likewise, in Jeremiah 31:1 God declares: "I will be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people." Again in verse 33: "I will be their God, and they shall be My people." While all of creation belongs to the Creator, yet His people are His special possession, who are "the riches of the glory of His inheritance" (Ex. 19:5; Eph. 1:18). At the same time the Lord yearns for a reciprocal response from the recipients of grace. This obtains under both the old and new covenants.

The last similarity to be mentioned is that both provide means of grace and both are associated with precious promises. Many blessings were promised to the obedient in Deuteronomy 28, but while many of these were physical there were also spiritual promises of a coming Messiah (Deut. 18:18ff.). The many types and shadows further elaborated on these. Repentance and forgiveness were experienced by the saints, as the Psalter testifies. Forgiveness is to the fore in the new covenant also, as well as all the blessings of a Spirit-filled life. Let us not forget that Christ saw that the law, the prophets and the Psalms all testified to His death and subsequent glory (Luke 24:44). The saints will recline in the kingdom with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11). In the light of these similarities we are not surprised to read that a glory was attached to the old as well as to the new covenants (2 Cor. 3:7f.).

T.E. McComiskey discusses this well in a section dealing with law and grace. He writes:

Law and grace are not opposing concepts. Faith and legalism are. If law is regarded as a covenant of works, on the basis of which one may receive eternal life, then law and grace are competing modes of salvation. 

The law does not command one to work in order to achieve a relationship with God. It assumes an established relationship with God. It commands one to obey in order to maintain their relationship. Leviticus 18 makes it clear that disobedience will sever one's relationship to the promise (vv. 28-29) the relationship is presumed to have been established. The great statements of the law are preceded by a consciousness of a relationship established solely on the basis of grace. The magnificent cadences of the law should not be allowed to drown out the major theme expressed in words such as, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:6); "I have remembered my covenant ... " (Exod. 6:5). The relationship was established by a gracious oath on the part of God. It would be realized regardless of human success or failure ... one had only to respond to that affirmation in trust. If that promise was to be realized it had to be protected and obedience had to be encouraged. It was the function of the law to do this. Legal obedience is a manifestation of faith in the promise. 

The grace that shines with such magnificence in the new covenant is not different in essence from the grace that obtained through the era of law. It guarantees the same promise. It elicits the same faith and it requires obedience for the maintenance of the promise. [16] 

So God is concerned with maintaining a special, gracious relationship with Israel.

The Covenant in Jeremiah: Renewed? Or New? 

In the light of the foregoing should we see that Jeremiah is talking of a renewed covenant, or of a new covenant? The Hebrew word for new has both meanings. Unhesitatingly we say that it is a new covenant. Christ came to bring new wine and this required new wineskins (Matt. 9: 17). The great divide was reached with the coming of the messianic age and the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. We pass from the age of preparation to the time of fulfillment. The least in the kingdom is greater than John, Christ's herald (Matt. 11:11). So the old is obsolete and ready to vanish away, possibly referring in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple in A.D. 70 (Heb. 8: 13). This left most Israelites dumbfounded. They could see no continuity. Their religion was being polluted!

The change is so great that it requires a change of priesthood and a change of law (Heb. 7:12). As James Stephens indicates: "The law which God gave to Israel made Levitical priestly service on their behalf indispensable, so that law and priesthood stood together, if the priest should be set aside it would involve the setting aside of the law also." [17] The Levitical priesthood was limited by the sin of the priests and by their limited life expectancy. So their atoning, sanctifying and intercessory ministries were only good as types. A priest after the order of Melchizedek was needed, one with an endless life who was immaculate, and Christ, of the non-priestly tribe of Judah, the God-man alone meets the need. The legal system was ultimately inadequate.

Then the nationalistic covenant with Israel was conditional. The people committed themselves, "All that the Lord has spoken we will do!" (Ex. 19:8). Obedience would bring nationalistic blessing; disobedience would bring a curse (Deut. 28). In this sense, "the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, he who practices them shall live by them" (Gal. 3:12). Blessing as a nation could be experienced only by loyalty to the covenant, as was similarly true of suzereign/vassal treaties of the Middle East. In Eden obedience to the Creator was demanded. In effect, Christ's exhortation, "Do this and you will live" (Luke 10:28), was operative. To survive in Paradise, Adam and Eve had to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. All creatures owe their Creator this obedience. Release from this obligation is possible only through the gracious substitutionary ministry of Christ (Rom. 5:18f.). As with the lawyer who confronted Christ, so Israel, in its period of instruction, had to be reminded of God's demand for perfection. Faced with its total inability to conform to God's law it was being reminded of the urgent need of grace. Yes, Moses was a faithful servant in the household of faith (Heb. 3:1-6), and far from being in opposition to the gospel given to Abraham he was active in helping to bring in the jubilee. He provided a testimony to the messianic age.

The old was thus lapsable and God can indict Israel, "My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them" (Jer. 31:32). God did not break the covenant and so the covenantal curses of Deuteronomy were still in effect in Jeremiah's day (Deut. 28:15ff.). God's original program would be accomplished on a higher plane (Ex. 19:6; 1 Peter 2:9f.). Israel was the guilty party. However, the new is everlasting as the weakness of the flesh will be overcome. In the words of McComiskey, "The major difference is the facilitation of obedience through the gift of the Holy Spirit and the expression of the promise in a way more appropriate to the era initiated by the death of Christ and the ministry of the Spirit." [18] Only a miracle could enable an Ethiopian to change his skin (Jer. 13:23), and a supernatural work of grace is necessary for Israel to be in fellowship with Jehovah. The heart needed to be changed. In Hebraic usage it represented the mind, will, emotions and imagination. One purposes in his heart. The thoughts of the heart need to be forgiven. Today we might say that there is a need for a brain transplant. So instead of the law being "set before" Israel (Ex. 21: 1), it needed to be internalized. In the light of the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel the ignorance of Nicodemus about the rebirth from above was blameworthy (John 3: 10). The inscription of the law on fleshly tablets of the heart was possible only by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so Israel needed to be born of the Spirit. Ezekiel clearly enunciated this (36:26f.). The teacher of Israel should have done his homework.

In a sense the old was parenthetical, a time of schooling for Israel between the time of the gospel being given to Abraham and the time when Christ came to fulfill it (Gal. 3:17-19). However, this is not to deny that it was itself a tutor to lead us to and not away from Christ (Gal. 3:24). Its systematic teaching on the holiness and righteousness of God and the perfection demanded by its precepts enabled the believer to see how marred was God's image in him. Man's total inability to conform brought him under the ministry of condemnation and death (2 Cor. 3:7ff.). Man needs to feel lost before he is interested in salvation, illustrated by Christ's method of evangelism of the self righteous (Matt. 19: 16ff.). Let us remember, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Rom. 7:12).

Believers of the new covenant should be able to join the psalmist as he sang: "O how I love Thy law! It is my meditation all the day" (Ps. 119:97), for they can relish it no longer just in its germinal form. It has now been freed, for the believer, from its curse. Notwithstanding, we must remember that fallen man was too weak to keep the law. It was never designed to rescue him.

Again, the old was incomplete and even the prophetic supplementation still left the prophets realizing that they ministered to a future race (1 Peter 1:10). Christ, in the last days, must complete its revelation (Heb. 1:1f.). Its incompleteness in part was associated with much being typical and symbolic. Typical men, objects, events, institutions and offices all pointed ahead. Von Rad reminds us, "That the things which happened to Israel on her way were always types, and that this Old Testament saving event was full of pointers forward to the New, was, of course, only revealed through the coming of Christ." [19] Types were inadequate and beggarly, but in directing to the messianic age they did become means of grace to the believers of that day.

Since God pronounced a blessing on those who blessed Abraham, the father of the faithful, and a curse on those who cursed him (Gen. 12:3), "faith is clearly the prerequisite for receiving the benefits of the promise." [20] This applies under both the old and the new covenants. A pure pedigree from Abraham is insufficient. Forgiveness was obtainable under the old regime, although the blood of animals could only "sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh" and not the conscience (Heb. 9:13f.). Yet the trust in the messianic hope could enable David and others to cry: "How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered!" (Ps. 32:1). However, as the sacrifices themselves were a perpetual reminder of sin (Heb. 10:3), the degree of assurance enjoyed by the saints in Israel must have been inferior to those who can look back to the cross.

A key element of the new covenant is the promise, "I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more" (Jer. 31:34). It assumes a time when the holy wrath of God has been fully appeased and a complete atonement for the people of God has been achieved. The forgiveness is so complete that sin would no longer be remembered. According to Dumbrell "sin would not be a factor in the new age under consideration." [21] The old covenant had been ratified with the shedding of blood, so also is the new (1 Cor. 1:25). The passage also suggests a sinless society. Often in the Prophets notes of finality appear. In other words we have justification, sanctification and glorification all completed and Israel in a state of consummation.

When one compares Exodus 19:5f. with 1 Peter 2:9, one realizes that the kingdom of Israel was a typical representation of Christ's kingdom. Both are designed to be "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." Both are regarded as God's special treasure. Paul also asserts that the

fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:14). 

Their history was an example (tupos), for instruction to those upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11). The antitype does away with the type: Christ's sacrifice must end animal sacrifices and the veil of the temple has to be rent, for believers now form God's temple (1 Cor. 3: 16). In passing to the antitype we must expect it greatly to surpass the type. Thus Abraham looked for spiritual counterparts when he failed to possess the land personally (Heb. 11:16).

Another significant difference is that the Holy Spirit had not been given under the old covenant (John 7:39). His coming in power had to await the glorification of Christ and His throne gift. This is not to deny a cosmic ministry of the Spirit (Gen. 1:2), nor an anointing of the agents of the theocracy. Neither does it deny the personal regeneration and sanctification of the elect in the days of the Old Testament, but it refers to Pentecost, when Joel's prediction was realized. Ezekiel, a contemporary of Jeremiah, in speaking of the everlasting covenant of peace which God will establish, shows how it will be activated by the Spirit of God (Ezek. 16:60; 34:25; 36:25-29). This suggests a new Israel, an Israel 100 percent regenerate. All will know the Lord. There will be an intimate loving, trustful and obedient relationship. There will be no need of evangelists, for it is a holy community. The old Israel fell into apostasy in the first generation, and we are not surprised when we recall that they had left Egypt as a mixed multitude. Israelites and Gentiles were assembled, and the godly and ungodly journeyed together. No longer will adults and their offspring automatically form the Israel of God. The Lord has sons but no grandsons.

As we consider the implications of Israel being totally regenerate we see that the application to the church age is somewhat limited, even though the Epistle to the Hebrews in part does so apply it. The church universal is far removed from this ideal, but so are most local churched. What pastor can guarantee, even after the most stringent regulations, that every member is truly born from above by the Holy Spirit? We have another instance of the "now" and the "not yet." In the words of Von Rad, "the 'today' of the fulfillment (Luke 4:21) at the same time opens faith's eyes to a new consummation of salvation." [22] Surely this teaching, as much other prophetic teaching, can be actualized only in the time of consummation. So Isaiah anticipates new heavens and a new earth (65:17f., 25) and looking past any millennium sees death being swallowed up (25:8). As death is the last enemy (1 Cor. 15:26), we are thrust into the eternal state. If one sin in Eden brought a curse upon creation, that curse surely cannot be lifted until sin is finally dealt with. Thus we are in the time of consummation and not in a temporary Paradise. Certainly, in the meantime, we should aim at a regenerate membership for our churches, but not being omniscient we have to rely on people's professions, and they may not be accurate.

As we mention the new Israel of God we must see the individualism involved. No longer can it be said: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" (Jer. 31:29). Unlike Noah's ark we enter the kingdom one by one. A personal response to the gospel is involved and God deals with those of every tribe, tongue and nation individually. Still we must not stop at this, for the whole passage on the new covenant stresses the corporate aspect. We are all to fit into one household and to form one nation. The bitter divisions in Israel of the past have all disappeared. So the new covenant involves the godly remnant of this Israel and the godly remnant of the Gentiles also delivered from all its schisms. Paul in Romans 9-11 anticipates and prays for extensive revival blessing among all his kinsmen. In the light of the stress on the ethnic usage of "Israel" in these chapters, we personally see hope for a large-scale conversion in Israel in the words, "and thus all Israel will be saved." The fullness of the Gentiles did not involve every Gentile, so this does not deny remnant teaching for the Jews (Rom. 11 :5). Paul goes on to allude, it would seem, to Isaiah 59:20; 27:9; Psalm 14:7 as well as Jeremiah 31:33ff. to prove, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob" (Rom. 11:26f.). The "mystery" of the regrafting of ethnic Israel into the one olive tree is seen as a resurrection from the dead (Rom. 11:15, 25). This is through the mercy showered on the Gentiles and thus relates to the church age. All is conditioned on their not remaining in unbelief (Rom. 11:23). The fullness of Israel can then cause blessing to flow over to the Gentiles as well, in this day of grace.

Jeremiah had many trials to face, but especially his lamentations were over Jerusalem. His tears prefigure Christ's weeping at a later day. Yet the prophet saw light at the end of the tunnel. The God of grace would remedy the chaotic conditions. A new Israel would appear in which He could delight. Jeremiah sees this as future. No mention is made by him of the covenant being ratified by blood. At the Last Supper Christ solemnly announces the inauguration of the new covenant. Now His people can rejoice that His loving-kindness and covenantal loyalty guarantee them access to the heavenly Jerusalem.

Conclusion: The Significance 

In conclusion we may consider what is the significance of this teaching on the new covenant for the church. The Lord's Supper should remind us that our Old Testament heritage is greater than many realize. [23] The salvation history commenced in Genesis logically leads to the New Testament. The patriarchs were more than types: they were the founding fathers of the true Israel. Down the ages there were seven thousand who did not bow the knee to Baal. God preserved an elect remnant. Pedagogic necessity required that God deal with those who were shut up to the coming faith (Gal. 3:23) in concrete rather than abstract forms. So the restoration prophesied by Jeremiah involved the repossession of Anathoth in Palestine (Jer. 32:8ff.), but elements were fused by Ezekiel to suggest a return to Eden (Ezek. 36:35). Earlier Isaiah had associated future blessing with the new heavens and the new earth.

The Old Testament needs the New to introduce fulfillment, but the New needs the Old for the beginnings of salvation history. The New relies on the categories of thought of the Old to represent the glorious ministry of the Messiah. So let us hold fast to the unity of the Scriptures and stress the progressiveness of revelation. The Jerusalem of Christ's day was so conservative of the old covenant and of its traditions that when Stephen was seen to speak in a derogatory manner of the law he was stoned. So Scripture was fulfilled: "And no one, after drinking old wine wishes for new; for he says - 'the old is good enough'" (Luke 5:39). The church for its authority and blessing has the whole canon of the Scriptures, so let us not go to the other extreme and discount the Old Testament. The New Testament standing alone is incomplete and in a sense incomprehensible.

Yes, the church is graced with both promise and oath (Heb. 6:13ff.). It is in covenantal relationship with Jehovah and this is everlasting. God has taken upon Himself to see that a new Israel will appear. Such a bestowal of grace calls for covenantal loyalty of His people. Instead of saying, "Remember Lot's wife" (Luke 17:32), maybe we should now say, "Remember the fall of Jerusalem." The house of Israel has lain desolate for centuries, for it broke the covenant with Jehovah. Through Christ's mediatorial work and the enabling of the Holy Spirit the elect of God will perseveringly remain faithful to the new covenant. The distinction between those who profess to be Israelites, and those who genuinely are, will be marked by covenantal loyalty.

Author 

Geoffrey A. Adams, Principal of Toronto Baptist Seminary, 1959-94, is now Professor Emeritus of Biblical Theology. He is active in Jarvis Street Baptist Church, Toronto, Ontario, and has published articles in The Gospel Witness.

Endnotes:

1. W. J. Dumbrell, Covenant and Creation (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 20. 
2. Ibid., 41. 
3. Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 89. 
4. Some analogy may be found in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. 
5. E. J. Young, Old Testament Prophecy (Toronto: Gospel Witness, 1990), 170. 
6. G. Yos, Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 103. 
7. J. Reisinger and R. Seiver, God's Righteous Kingdom Unrighteously Defended, 24. 
8. C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), Jeremiah, 1:90. 
9. Ibid., 2:38. 
10. G. F. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978 reprint), 516. 
11. W. J. Dumbrell, op. cit., 173. 
12. G. Yos, op. cit., 137. 
13. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper and Row, 1965), 2:391. 
14. Ibid., 39lf. 
15. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 2:192. 
16. T.E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 223f. 
17. James Stephens, Expository Addresses on The Epistle to The Hebrews (London: Highgate Road Chapel, 1943), 77. 
18. T. E. McComiskey, op; cit., 224. 
19. G. von Rad, op. cit., 2:384. 
20. T.E. McComiskey, op. cit., 16. 
21. Dumbrell, op. cit., 200. 
22. G. von Rad, op. cit., 2:383. 
23. Ibid., 386.

Divine Law: A New Covenant Perspective

By Fred G. Zaspel

Jews in Jesus' and Paul's day certainly did not divide up the law into categories; on the contrary, there was a strong insistence that the law was a unity and could not be obeyed in parts. This being the case, we would require strong evidence from within the New Testament to think that the word "law" in certain texts can apply only to one part of the law. - Douglas J. Moo 

It is only in retrospect that an event, person or institution may be seen as typical. The existence of types necessitates there being other events, persons or institutions (earlier or later) of which they are typical. - David Baker   

Introduction 

At least part of what makes the subject of divine law such a rewarding area of study is the wide range of biblical and theological issues which it touches. The study takes the student from the many passages bristling with exegetical challenges to hermeneutical issues such as redemptive history and typology and on through to theological categories such as ecclesiology, soteriology, even eschatology. But most rewarding of all, as we should expect, the study finds its culmination in the person and work of Christ. It is to this end that our study should always lead us. Further, as is widely recognized among Christian interpreters, it is a biblical-theological approach which most easily and most accurately facilitates this pursuit. Like so many other teachings of the Scriptures, we should expect to find the doctrine of divine law progressively unfolded throughout the history of redemption. Specific issues of discussion (and dispute!) are best treated in this context.

Law Before Moses 

Survey. The subject begins virtually with history itself. "The law was given through Moses" (John 1:17), to be sure, but of course that is not to say that before Moses there was no law from God. Indeed, we so take this for granted that when we read in the Old Testament of pre-Mosaic sinners judged for their wickedness we never stop to ask what law code it was which they had" violated and to which they were held accountable. We very naturally and very rightly understand that they knew better. And, in fact, if we would stop to ask the question of the apostle Paul, his answer would be the same: they knew better. It is this very point he expounds at some length in Romans 1-2. "That which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them" (1:19). The knowledge man had (has) of God he has suppressed (1:18ff.). That is to say, man sinned even before Moses took the nature of rebellion. Man "approves" [1] neither of God nor His law (1:28). Against God's law man universally turned away, and did so even in the knowledge of the coming judgment (1:32).

Are there exceptions to this rule of universal rebellion? Only in degree. All have transgressed, and even those who "had not the law" instinctively knew and to some degree obeyed the law's requirements (2:14). This law "written in their hearts" (2:15) served both to inform their "conscience" and direct their lives. Accordingly, when Paul declares "all under sin" (Rom. 3:9), the Gentiles are not condemned for their violation of the terms of Sinai; for to them the Sinaitic legislation was never given (2:14). Rather, they are declared culpable for suppressing the truth that was in them (Rom. 1:18-19). These things they knew to be wrong, independent of the formal legislation of Sinai.

To say the same from a contrasting standpoint, Paul speaks of the Gentile who "keeps the requirements of the law" (Rom. 2:26; cf. 2:14). This could hardly imply that the Gentiles "who have not the law" of Moses are in fact fulfilling every requirement of it. Clearly, he means only that they observed principles of righteousness which were in keeping with those contained also in the law of Moses. It is in this sense alone that Gentiles can be said to "fulfill the law" (v. 27). Again, it is evident that there is a law - a standard of moral righteousness - that is independent of Mosaic legislation. Divine law is published universally within every man; it is a standard of righteousness that exists independent of any formal codification. To restate the point, those who violated the eternal moral precepts of divine law before Moses knew better.

For that matter, we very naturally and very rightly understand the same in reference to those Gentiles of Moses' day who were "far off" (Eph.2:13) from the law which he mediated to Israel. We are not surprised that the prophets who went to such people did not, in order to establish their guilt, hold before them the tablets of stone. [2] Their sin constituted rebellion against the law of God, yes, the law of God written on their hearts. As men made in God's image, they knew better. And when their "iniquity became full," they were judged accordingly. [3]

Conclusion. The picture we see of divine law in the Old Testament, both in pre-Mosaic times and in "extra-Mosaic" contexts, is one of inner witnesses, conscience. God's image in man impresses within him an intuitive sense of right and wrong. Formal code or no, it was a sufficiently clear rule of life which all men, in varying degrees, have both obeyed and suppressed. And it is to this that men were and are justly held accountable.

The Law Through Moses

Its Occasion. Since it is into this context that God gave His law to Israel through Moses, we may be excused for wondering why it was necessary! Why give law to those who already have God's law in them?

The answer, of course, lies in the unique status of the nation of Israel. With them God was entering into special, covenantal relationship. That relationship carried with it specific privileges and responsibilities, and these responsibilities had to be made plain. Accordingly, a covenant detailing the terms of the relationship was formally enacted. It is in this covenant that God's law to Israel through Moses is embedded.

Its Content. Given its unique, covenantal setting it does not surprise us that this Mosaic law was not identical to that law of God in man. It was far more specific and detailed. Those principles of divine law which were both eternal and universal were, in the law of Moses, not only  formally codified but also fleshed out in specific ways. For example, man's obligation to worship God is something recognized intuitively (cf. Rom. 1:18-25). But in the Mosaic legislation this requirement was given specific applications: the Sabbath and other holy days and festivals, the sacrifices, the entire Levitical system. These additions were specific applications and extensions of the principles embedded in the law of God, given now within the framework of a particular covenantal relationship and obligatory so long as that covenant was in force. But they were not essential elements of that divine law itself. To repeat, divine law underlay and formed the basis of the Mosaic legislation, and it was there given a particular codification and many specific applications. [4]

Important also is the recognition that this law of God in men's hearts from creation onward is nearly identical with the Decalogue which came by Moses. Other than the fourth command (Sabbath) virtually all of the "Ten Words" were in force well before Moses; [5] it would seem so since the beginning of human history. Idolatry, murder, theft, adultery, etc., did not first become wrong when Israel was at Sinai. The great bulk of the Decalogue, then, is clearly but a formal codification of the law of God that was (and is) in man's heart naturally. These matters are reflective of the very character and holiness of God and are thus eternal principles of righteousness that are binding upon all men regardless of formal codification - Mosaic or otherwise. With or without formal legal codes, all men are judged by this standard. The law of God exists quite independent of Mosaic legislation. There is indeed overlap, but not exact duplication.

The relation between the law of God and the law of Moses, then, is one of foundation - extrapolation. That is, Mosaic legislation is founded upon the law of God and makes specific applications from it. It formally stated the principles of divine law and also gave specifics as to how those laws were to be carried out in that economy. With Moses the law of God was formally codified and applied to a people who stood in a distinctive covenantal relation to God.

The two laws, then, are neither identical nor altogether different. The one formed the basis of the other, and the second required more than the first. But the two cannot be equated absolutely. [6] Divine law written on the heart informs all men in terms of eternal principles of morality. The Mosaic codification of that law informed Israel of its peculiar responsibilities in its privileged relationship under God.

What exactly was Israel's part in this covenant? A great bulk of the Pentateuch and the writings and the prophets all extrapolate on this very issue. But specifically, the terms are summarized in the Ten Commandments. The Decalogue is the statement of the covenant.

Indeed, God Himself says so. "Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.' ... And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Ex. 34:27-28).

Much hermeneutical and theological confusion has resulted from a failure to appreciate this identification. These ten words to Israel are the covenant; apart from this foundational summary statement (the Decalogue), there is no covenant at all.

Its Nature. This "old covenant" further stipulated not only the specific responsibilities of the Israelites, with whom the covenant was made, but also the responsibilities which God in covenant agreement took on Himself in this relationship. What was God's part? He would bless Israel in every way if she would do her part. Leviticus 26 spells this out in detail. [7] Indeed, God made this clear at the very outset: "Now then, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples" (Ex. 19:5; see vv. 1-8). If Israel would remain faithful and obedient, she would enjoy God's protection and blessing. "So you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, by which a man may live if he does them" (Lev. 18:5; cf. Rom. 10:5). But "Cursed is he who does not continue in all the things that are written in the book of the law to do them" (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10).

The old covenant was, therefore, very much performance oriented. Attempts to characterize the Mosaic covenant as gracious in nature inevitably fail. [8] The agreement was one of conditional blessing, and the obedience it required was absolute and allowed no exception. One must "continue" in obedience to "all" the law's demands. It is for this reason that the apostle refers to the old covenant as "the letter that kills" and "the ministry of death" (2 Cor. 3:6- 7). In contrast to the new covenant, which makes "better promises" (Heb. 8:6) and offers life to sinners, the old covenant could only condemn sinners. It held out promises of blessing for those who were obedient, but for those who transgressed its demands, it held out only a curse.

Mosaic Law and Redemptive History 

So the law was given formally through Moses because of the unique relationship into which God was entering with Israel. But that relationship, we find, had a purpose. It was not an end in itself. It was established for the purpose of demonstrating something essential to the outworking of God's redemptive program.

Here was a law given which demanded obedience for life (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26). That raises yet another question: Did not God promise to Abraham that His blessing would come by grace? How could law, with all its curses, enter where grace had already been promised?

Paul takes up this question in Galatians 3. "The law is not of faith; on the contrary, 'He who practices them shall live by them'" (3:12; citing Lev. 18:5). Moreover, "If the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise" (3: 18). That is, law speaks of works, not faith. By very definition and upon threat of condemnation, law demands absolute obedience. "But God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise. Why the law then?" (vv. 18b-19a). That is, why did God insert law after He had already made the promise of grace? Surely, the law, coming later, could not annul the promise (v. 17)! But why add law, with its rigorous demands and threats, when grace has already been announced?

Answer: the law was "added because of [9] transgression" (v. 19b). That is, the law's purpose was to objectify sin and thereby demonstrate it as "transgression." This is Paul's statement in Romans 5:13 also: "Sin is not imputed [10] when there is no law." The idea in both of these passages is that of itemization, objectification, delineation. The purpose of the law was to specify sin with clarity. Once sin is thus objectified, that sin is shown to be transgression. It is in this sense that the law "was added because of transgression." Paul presents the nation of Israel as a showcase nation, a microcosm of the world. In the experience of Israel He set out, in giving the law, to demonstrate on a national level the fact of human sin and thus the law's inability to justify. Given man's failure, the law could only condemn.

But this He did only until the seed came (v. 19), "before faith came" (v. 23). The law functioned as Israel's "tutor to lead us to Christ, [11] that we may be justified by faith" (v. 24). That is, by establishing the fact of human sinfulness, men are driven to Christ, the only alternative. This is Paul's gospel. Christ is "the seed" to whom the promise was made (v. 16); and in that He alone has satisfied all of the law's demands, both actively and passively, He is the only means of justification. Righteousness comes not by personal merit in the eyes of the law, but by faith in the One whose merit is truly sufficient and so who died as "a curse for us" (v. 13). The law, with all its beauty and holiness, was incapable of justifying sinners. But in pronouncing condemnation, it pointed away from itself to Christ. [12] It spoke of sin, but in doing so it spoke of Him; therefore, while the law itself is not gracious, it was made to serve a gracious purpose in redemptive history. It did not annul the Abrahamic promise of grace, demanding perfection though it did (vv. 17, 21). It rather forced men to see the necessity of that promise of grace and in fact threw them back upon it, and herein lay its purpose in the history of redemption (vv. 21-24).

Divine Law in This New Covenant Age

The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law. Moses' law, then, served a very significant purpose in the divine schema. It reaches its "end" (telos) in Christ (Rom. 10:4).

So now what remains of law? Plainly, we should not expect that with the passing of the old covenant there remains no more law! God's law was well known and well read before its Mosaic codification, and it has been ever since. Nor should it surprise us, after Moses, to find sin defined as "lawlessness" (anomia, 1 John 3:4) or to find explicit references to law (Gal. 6:2; James 1:25) or to find duties enjoined upon us as obligatory. Early dispensationalist writers regularly denied the continuing relevance of law in the life of the believer, who is "under grace." [13] But the obligations of God upon His creatures have not ceased, and never could those obligations have any less binding force. The Formula of Concord (1576), although confusing the law of God and the law of Moses, is entirely correct in its insistence that the law of God is today a "certain rule after which [regenerate men] may and ought to shape their life." [14] The law of God is an eternal standard; never could it become any less a binding rule of life.

The Passing Relevance of Moses. But what of the Mosaic formulation/codification of that law? And what of us who are related to God under the terms, not of the old, but of the new covenant? Is there a codification of law for us?

Here we enter a large body of teaching, found primarily in the Pauline literature, which at the same time teaches us both that Moses' law has "passed away" (katargeo) and that we are not "without law" (anomos). In some sense, Moses is gone, but law is not. This demands clarification. [15]

Since the relationship between the law of God and the law of Moses is one of obvious overlap and similarity but not exact identity, some differences between the two are of course expected. Specific applications of divine law under Moses - such as ceremonial rites, dietary regulations, and certain civil and personal obligations - were not themselves essential to the law of God which underlay the Mosaic legislation. They were specific applications of that law to those who were related to God under the terms of that old covenant. Accordingly, we should not expect the old covenant to be the ultimate expression of the believer's rule of life under the new covenant.

Moreover, when Paul speaks of the law as a rule of life, he insists that we must not allow a man to be judged on Mosaic grounds (e.g., Col. 2:16). In a way that often struck Paul's critics as antinomian, Paul spoke recklessly (or so it would seem) about the passing relevance of the Mosaic code. He repeatedly speaks of it in the past tense. The law had its purpose, it served that purpose, and now it is passed away. Indeed, this was both a matter of heated dispute in the early church and of unified pronouncement by the apostolic company (Acts 15). The issue generally centered on the place of circumcision in the new covenant community and the necessity of law-keeping as a means of justification (Galatians), but the decision rendered was a part of a larger principle; viz., that Moses' law itself had no binding relation to the believer whatsoever (Acts 15:10, 19; Gal. 3:19-25; 4:21-31; 5:1-12; 2 Cor. 3). Paul's repeated theme of Christian liberty (Rom. 14; Galatians) argues from the assumption that Moses' law is not binding on the Christian; indeed, it is the weaker brother who insists upon Mosaic demands (Rom. 14:1ff.; cf. Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16). Again, the Mosaic code is consistently spoken of in the past tense and so is no longer in effect (Rom. 8:3; 9:31-32; Gal. 3:23-24; 4:5; Heb. 7:19; etc.), and as fulfilled and replaced in Jesus Christ (Matt. 5:17-20; Heb. 7:12; 10:1-9). Indeed, it was "abolished" (katargesas, Eph. 2:15; cf. 2 Cor. 3:11, 13) and "wiped out" (exalepsas, Col. 2:14). It is in fact the very Mosaic covenant that is now annulled and replaced (Heb. 8:6-9:1; 2 Cor. 3), not just a part of it. With the covenant itself abolished, its law (Ex. 34:27-28) is likewise no longer in force.

The popular hermeneutical attempt to divide Moses' law into so many parts and then interpret New Testament statements of the passing of law accordingly is simplistic, nor can it be maintained exegetically. To argue that not the moral (i.e., decalogue) but only the civil and/or ceremonial aspects of Moses are passed, when Paul says that it is in fact the old covenant itself, "written and engraven in stones," that has passed away, misses Paul's point. It is Moses en toto that he says has gone (2 Cor. 3). Moreover, the apostle speaks not only in general, all-encompassing terms but also in specifics. That which is "engraved on stones" (2 Cor. 3:7) and "the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us" (Col. 2:14) refer not to civil or ceremonial applications of the Decalogue but to the Decalogue itself. It is the Mosaic legislation in its entirety and the Decalogue specifically that Paul says "fades away" (katargesas, 2 Cor. 3:11, 13; cf. exalepsas, Col. 2:14).

Of critical significance here again is the statement of Exodus 34:27-28, noted earlier, where God identifies "the Ten Commandments" as "the words of the covenant." No dividing of Moses will fit here. The legislation of Sinai is an inseparable unit, and this statement (Ex. 34:27-28) must inform the apostolic declarations of its abolition. It is the Mosaic code as a whole and in all its parts that has passed away, and the apostolic declarations to that end must therefore be seen to embrace even the Decalogue. [16]

Still further, the tripartite division of Moses fails of its own definitions. If the "ceremonial" law is but an application of the first table of the "moral" law, and if the "civil" law is but an application of the second table of the "moral" law, [17] the supposed three divisions of Moses have thereby been reduced to two and then to one. And that one part is "the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." "The whole law" [18] stands or falls together as an indivisible unit.

It would be wrong to forget this stated, essential unity of the old covenant/Decalogue when reading New Testament statements of the covenant's/law's abolition (e.g., 2 Cor. 3). The statements are as broad and inclusive as they appear. And this is to be expected. The new covenant believer is not under the old covenant but the new. It would be an odd thing indeed if "the words of the [old] covenant, the Ten Commandments" (Ex. 34:28) were made to be the new covenant believer's rule of life. We would rather expect that for new covenant believers divine law would be codified in the new covenant.

There is still more to be said here, but only after some other considerations are discussed.

Moses' Law Fulfilled: Matthew 5:17 

Interpretation. It is precisely this point (i.e., the passing nature of Mosaic law) which again directs our attention to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not that there is no law. Nor is it that Moses is simply cut off or "overthrown." [19] Rather, Moses is "fulfilled." [20] In this regard, Matthew 5:17-21 is of primary significance. [21]

One outstanding aspect of Matthew's Christology is his "better than Moses" motif. From the slaughter of the infants to the temptation in the wilderness following the baptism in water and lasting forty days and on to the mountain, the giving of the law on the mountain, the parallels are extensive and quite beyond coincidence. Jesus is the prophet "like Moses" whom Moses said would come and to whose word Moses said we would be held accountable (Deut. 18:15-19).

It is in this context that Jesus' opening words, "I came to fulfill" (Matt. 5:17) and His following explication, "You have heard it said ... but I say unto you" (5:21ff.), are found. And it is at the climax of this that Jesus emphasizes the unsurpassed significance of "these words of Mine" as the ultimate standard of judgment (7:24-27). Disobedience to His words constitutes "lawlessness." [22] This, together with "The Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath" (12:8) and the voice from heaven insisting on obedience (akouo) to Christ's words (17:5) and on to Jesus' own "all authority has been given to Me" (28:18) - all point to Christ as the new Lawgiver, the One of whom Moses wrote. It is His commandments which are to be taught and kept (v. 20). [23] His authority is supreme, and His law is obligatory.

This lordship Jesus proceeds to exercise. Many have argued that in the ensuing antitheses of the Sermon on the Mount [24] Jesus corrects rabbinic perversions of Moses. Perhaps He does. But the fact remains that Jesus here quotes Moses and proceeds to take him in sometimes very unexpected directions. [25] From "Do not murder" to "Do not hate," and from "Do not commit adultery" to "Do not lust" may not seem like a long jump, but it is an addition to the original commands which no fair exegesis of those commands would have yielded. And from here Jesus' exercise of authority becomes even more evident. Taking Moses' allowance for divorce and replacing it with "Do not divorce except for fornication" is plainly a rescinding of Moses; it is no clarification. Moses' command was intended to curtail divorce, yes; but Jesus goes further still and curtails Moses! Likewise, proceeding from Moses' lex talionis, the famous "eye for an eye" command, to a command to nonresistance is an exercise of authority superior to that of Moses. Whatever hyperbole may be involved here, Jesus plainly places severe restrictions on Moses. He is not clarifying Moses. He is advancing. And He is rescinding. He is restricting. And He is adding. In short, He is exercising His prerogatives as the "greater than Moses," the new interpreter of the will of God. Matthew is careful to record for us that this is precisely what impressed those who heard our Lord speak these things. "He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Matt. 7:29) whose ultimate appeal was to Moses. Jesus, rather, exercised the prerogative of lordship.

All this informs the meaning of "fulfill." In keeping with the Matthean usage of pleroo [26] Jesus portrays the law of Moses as having a forward look, anticipating a "fuller" significance to come. The coming of Jesus had an eschatological significance in relation to Moses; it brought about what Moses' law anticipated. Moses' law did not "fall," [27] nor was it "destroyed." [28] It was "filled full" with that which it could only anticipate. Simply put, Jesus did not merely rubberstamp Moses, nor did He merely clarify him. The meaning of His claim to fulfill is more climactic than that; there is eschatological transcendence. Jesus' teaching brings about that for which Moses' law was ultimately intended. It expresses fully and ideally the righteousness anticipated at Sinai and in the prophets. The old law was not "full" in itself; it had a forward look. It anticipated a "fulfilling" which in Christ's teaching finally came to perfect realization. As John Brown put it, Jesus "holds himself up as the person appointed by God to finish the work which [the law and Prophets] had left incomplete." [29]

Although he comes to different final conclusions than those offered here, Brevard Childs states the point well:

The depth of the disagreement [between Jesus and the Pharisees] is underestimated when scholars suggest that Jesus was only opposing the Pharisaic tradition of the law, but leaving the Mosaic law itself intact. Nor is the controversy adequately described by claiming that Jesus sought only to dispense with the OT ceremonial law while retaining the ethical imperatives. Rather, the issue turned on Jesus' claim to be the new interpreter of the will as revealed in the law. [30] 

Where does this leave Moses? Clearly, he has taken a back seat. No, he is not now to be ignored; but the law he gave remains relevant only insofar as it is read through Christian lenses. Moses can no longer be read by Himself. His Fulfiller has come, and it would be wrong to ignore Him for Moses' sake. Moses himself would not allow this; we must hear this Prophet who is like - but greater than - Moses (Deut. 18:15-19). We read Moses and learn from him, but our loyalty is to the One of whom he spoke, the One who took Moses' law and "filled it full."

In other words, Jesus' lordship extends even over Moses. It is no longer Moses, but Jesus who informs our conscience. It is His moral instruction that shapes our lives and defines true sanctification. [31]

Explication. Paul reasons from this very premise in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, where he argues that he is not bound by Moses; he is rather "under the law of Christ." [32] Paul explains that while in a given circumstance he is free to choose either course of action, he is free from Mosaic legislation (v. 20); he is "without law" and has perfect liberty to act accordingly (v. 21a). However (not to be misunderstood!), he is "not without law" absolutely; he is "under the law of Christ." Here Paul is clear on both scores:

1. he is not obliged to Moses' law, [33] and 
2. he is obliged to the law of Christ. 

Again, Jesus' stands above even Moses. [34]

This aspect of Christology is one that is frequently fleshed out in the New Testament. As already noted, this is a prominent note in the Matthean Christology. His words must be obeyed (Matt. 17:5). It is His words which will be brought to bear in the final judgment (7:24-27). And it is His words which must form the whole substance of our discipling ministry (Matt. 28:20). But the other New Testament writers build on this idea also. On the eve of His crucifixion Jesus explained to His disciples that while He had more to tell them and although He was soon to leave, He would nonetheless give "all truth" to them via the Holy Spirit whom He sends in His name (John 16:12-14; cf. 17:8). This, Jesus' word, the disciples would in turn give to us (John 17:8,18,20). The full revelation in Christ (Heb. 1:1-2) [35] is the "tradition" which the apostles pass along to the Christian community and which we are responsible to faithfully "hold" (2 Thess. 2:15). For all the New Testament writers, Jesus has highest priority, even in terms of moral and ethical instruction. We will not go back to Moses, for it is in Jesus that Moses is made "complete." [36]

The Sabbath Question 

This better positions us to deal with the question of the Sabbath. Does it remain a binding rule? What do the new covenant Scriptures have to say about the Sabbath? Not surprisingly, it is nowhere enjoined upon the new covenant believer. I say this is not surprising, for we would not expect new covenant believers to observe that which was the "sign" of the old covenant (Ex. 31:13-14, 16-17). Instead, the New Testament writers speak of the Sabbath in redemptive-historical categories: the day finds its significance in the person and work of Christ.

The linguistic ties here are impressive and fit well with the New Testament teaching on the subject. Matthew's record of Jesus' promise of "rest" to those who come to Him for it (Matt. 11:28), may not be enough information to take us very far, but taken up as it is in the following chapter we are well on our way to a redemptive-historical/Christocentric understanding. "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8) would hardly seem to be a rubberstamping of Moses! It is rather Jesus' claim of the right to exercise His own prerogatives over the day. [37] Granted, exactly where Jesus is taking the Sabbath is not here stated; but we are left with the distinct impression that as a result of His coming, the Sabbath will undergo some kind of transformation. To borrow from His words in the previous chapter, He is Himself the "rest" which the day typified.

Nor are Matthew 11 and 12 our only clues. The writer to the Hebrews treats the subject in exactly this way (Heb. 4:1- 10). Here we learn that the Sabbath, as all the law, [38] had a forward look. It anticipated a "rest" which is realized in Christ. The day enjoys no other continuing significance. It found its significance in Christ.

This is the direction in which Paul takes the Sabbath also. In Colossians 2:16-17 the apostle insists that we must not submit to judgment concerning Sabbath observance. His reason? The Sabbath was but the "shadow" of which Christ is the reality. [39] It was intended as a picture only. It carried but a typical significance. It had a forward look in that it anticipated the rest enjoyed in Christ. It has no continuing relevance of its own. It has been "filled full" in Christ.

All this should not surprise us. Given the forward look which Jesus specifically stated that the old had, we should expect the epochal event of His coming to have some effect here also. And so it does.

In light of all this it is not surprising to notice the apostolic denial of Sabbath day observance. In Colossians 2:16 Paul specifies that the Sabbath law must not be laid upon us as obligatory for the simple reason that the One whom it anticipated has now come. In Galatians 4:9-11 he expresses horrified surprise that some at Galatia would turn back to observing the day, a backward step which for Paul carried devastating implications. And in Romans 14 it is the weaker brother who observes the day as holy. The stronger brother understands that no particular day is holy but that all days are equally holy under God. The natural and easiest understanding of these verses recognizes an end to Sabbath day observance. The Sabbath, the sign of the old covenant, bore a greater significance than a continuing regulation of activity on a certain day of the week. It pointed forward to soteric verities realized in Christ.

The traditional Puritan/Reformed position which sees the Sabbath as an abiding obligation even on new covenant believers [40] is generally argued first of all from the standpoint of the "eternal" nature of the Decalogue/"moraI" law, as opposed to the passing relevance of the "civil" and "ceremonial" categories of Moses. But as already observed, this argument begins with an unwarranted assumption (i.e., that we must divide Moses so) and proceeds to a foregone conclusion (i.e., that the Decalogue is the expression of God's eternal moral law). These are matters which demand exegetical support but which find none. Moreover, the division is unnecessary. It ignores the old covenant setting of the Sabbath and its status as the old covenant "sign." It is further plagued by those specific statements, highlighted above, which deny Sabbath day observance to the new covenant believer. It also runs against those statements, also highlighted above, which in speaking of the abolition of the Mosaic code refer specifically to the Decalogue. But more to the point, that position misses the new covenant significance of the Sabbath and fails to see its fulfillment in Christ. [41]

Conclusion 

Divine law continues, but not in its Mosaic formulation. Christ supersedes Moses. This is no "destroying" of Moses but rather his "fulfilling" (Matt. 5:17; cf. Deut. 18:15-19). Christ is the one of whom Moses wrote (John 5:46), whose law would be absolute and the ultimate standard of judgment (Deut. 18:15-19). By no means are we left without law. Rather, Christ has taken morals a step higher, above Moses. From Him we learn God's highest expression of holiness.

Summary 

There are distinct advantages to this reading of the subject. On the one hand, it avoids the older dispensationalist tendency of denying any relevance of law to the new covenant believer; law there is, and it is a continuing rule of life. On the other hand, it renders the complex and apparently artificial tripartite division of Moses irrelevant. Such difficult hermeneutical grids are simply unnecessary, for to be without Moses is not to be without law. This also allows the Sabbath discussion to proceed on exegetical and theological grounds rather than on the less stable ground of hermeneutical presuppositions. In short, this perspective harmonizes the statements of both the abolition of Moses and the enduring continuity of law.

More importantly, this new covenant perspective provides a Christocentric focus which takes seriously Christ's claims of lordship. It is, in fact, a theology of lordship. Moses wrote of Christ (Matt. 5:46) in many ways, and this new covenant perspective on the law makes that fact all the more evident. Christ fulfills and stands above all that came before Him. Unlike the scribes whose highest appeal was to Moses, Jesus teaches on His own authority, an authority that is unique (Matt. 7:29).

Author 

Fred G. Zaspel is pastor of Word of Life Baptist Church, Pottsville, Pennsylvania. He has contributed to numerous publications and produces a helpful theological web page for the internet.

Endnotes 

1. Ouk edokimasan. 
2. E.g., Amos 1-2. 
3. Genesis 15:16. Some specifics can be ascertained here also. Note. the various sins for which men were condemned of God in pre-Mosaic times: covetousness (Gen. 3:6), fall;e worship (Gen. 4:5, whatever the exact nature of it), murder (4:8-11), adultery/sexual profligacy (6:1-7; 19:4ff.), evil thinking (6:5), dishonor of parents (9:22-25), pride and selfishness (11:4ff.), injustice (16:5ff.), incest (19:3lff.), lying and deceit (chap. 27), false gods and idolatry (Ex. 12:12; Rom. 1:25), etc. Guilt was justly established in all these apart from formal legislation. However subjective, divine law is specific and detailed. 
4. This also explains the "Because I told you to" nature of so many of the law's requirements (e.g., the dietary regulations). 
5. It is impossible to find clear pre-Mosaic statements regarding the third and fifth commands (the name of the Lord and honor of parents), but these obligations would appear implicit in the actions of the patriarchs toward their parents and in their reverence toward God. 
6. It is likely that the distinction is implicit even in Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant (31:31-33) where "my [God's] law" is placed in contrast to the law of the old covenant, not a continuation of it. This which is new is "not according to" the Mosaic covenant.
7. Notice throughout the chapter the "If you ... then I ..." nature of the covenant.
8. Kaiser attempts to interpret this old covenant "Do this and live" stipulation not in terms of justification but of sanctification of justified people (Walter C. Kaiser, "Leviticus 18:5 and Paul: Do This and You Shall Live [Eternally]?" JETS 14 [1971], 19-28). But the argument reduces the stipulation to a tautology: "The man who does these things shall do these things." That the stipulation demanded complete and continuing conformity to the law for justification seems its easiest first reading, and it fits well with the prophets' enforcement of the covenant and the curses of the covenant stated so plainly in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Moreover, Paul's use of these words in Romans 10:5 (as also his Citation of Deut. 27:26 in Gal. 3:10) runs in this same (soteriological) direction. The attempt to justification by law obligated one to keep the law perfectly and forever in order to attain that justification. The law, therefore, can only condemn; for all have transgressed its demands. It makes promises only to obedient people, not to sinners.
9. Ton parabaseon charin ("because of transgression") here expresses purpose.
10. Ellogeo, "to keep a record of something - 'to record, to list.' ... 'but where there is no law, no account is kept of sins.' ... 'a sin is not listed as a sin'" (Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek- English Lexicon of the New and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New York: United Bible Societies, 1989]), 394.
11. Paidagogos eis Christon.
12. Cf. Romans 3:21, "being witnessed by the law."
13. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Grace: The Glorious Theme (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 87ff., 152ff.; M. R. DeHaan, Law or Grace? (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965),140-41; Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew (Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1961), 232; Clarence Larkin, Rightly Dividing the Word (philadelphia: Rev. Clarence Larkin Est., n.d.), 195-96; McClain, op. cit., ch. 7; C. L Scofield, Law and Grace (Winona Lake, Indiana: BMH Books, 1973), chap. 6. For a brief interaction with this view, see my The Continuing Relevance of Divine Law (Hatfield, Pennsylvania: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1991), 8-10.
14. Article VI, "Of the Third Use of the Law" (Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983], 3:131).
15. This passing relevance of Moses is spoken of both in terms of the law's justifying and/or condemning qualities (soteriology) and of the law as a rule of life (the so-called "third use" of the law). As a condemning force it has nothing whatever to say to those who are "in Christ." This was discussed earlier; it forms a large segment of the Pauline soteriology. The law's condemning power is stopped in that it is satisfied in the penal death of our Substitute, who provided for us all the righteousness the law requires (Rom. 3:21-26; Phil. 3:8-9; etc.). But it is Moses as a rule of life that is under discussion here.
16. This is Luther's position exactly. "That Moses does not bind the Gentiles can be proved from Exodus 20[:1], where God himself speaks, 'I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' This text makes it clear that even the Ten Commandments do not pertain to us. For God never led us out of Egypt, but only the Jews. The sectarian spirits want to saddle us with Moses and all the commandments. We will just skip that. We will regard Moses as a teacher, but we will not regard him as our lawgiver - unless he agrees with both the New Testament and the natural law .... Paul and the New Testament ... abolish the sabbath, to show us that the sabbath was given to the Jews alone." Luther goes on to explain that to the new covenant believer, every day is equally holy. ("How Christians Should Regard Moses," Luther's Works, 35:165-66). Luther's entire treatise here is worthy of careful attention.
17. Walter Kaiser, Toward an Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 118.
18. Holon ton nomon, James 2:10.
19. Kataluo, Matthew 5:17.
20. Pleroo, Matthew 5:17.
21. For a fuller treatment of this subject, see my The Status of Mosaic Law in This Messianic Age: A Theological and Exegetical Analysis of Matthew 5:17-20 (Th.M. thesis; Biblical Theological Seminary, 1994); or a very much abbreviated version of the same, New Covenant Theology and Mosaic Law (pottsville, Pennsylvania: Word of Life Baptist Church, 1994), available also at http://www.infLnet/-tulip.
22. Anomia, 7:23.
23. Cf. the oft-repeated "Jesus said"; the 55 "I say" sayings, significantly more than any other gospel writer; "My words"; the discourses, etc.
24. "You have heard it said .... But I say unto you," Matthew 5:2lff.
25. "'The law,' is a phrase which, to a Jew, conveyed the idea of the Mosaic institution, the peculiar order of things under which the Israelitish people were placed at Mount Sinai. That is the law to which our Lord seems to refer; and I apprehend interpreters would not likely have supposed that the reference was to anything else, had it not been that they found difficulty in explaining words, which seemed to them to imply a declaration of inviolable stability to a system which was temporary as well as local, and which has in fact long ceased to exist" (John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, vol. 1 [1850, reprint; Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990], 171).
26. See D. A Carson, Matthew in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 142-45. Also Vern Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Brentwood, Tennessee: Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991),263-69. Also John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, 170-72.
27. Pipto, v. 18.
28. Katalusai, v.17.
29. The entire quote: "I apprehend the word 'fulfil' is used in the sense of 'complete,' 'fill up,' 'perfect.' This is so common a use of the term, as to make it unnecessary to quote examples of it. It is as if he had said, 'My design is not to invalidate the Old Testament revelation, but to complete it. It is but the first part of a great divine manifestation; I come to give the remaining and the most important part of it.' Our Lord came to complete divine revelation. ... In these words our Lord sanctions the divine authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, and at the same time holds himself up as the person appointed by God to finish the work which they had left incomplete ..." (Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, 170).
30. Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 71-72; emphasis added.
31. Cf. Douglas Moo, "The Law of Moses or the Law of Christ" in Continuity and Discontinuity, John S. Feinberg, ed. (Westchester, IIIinois: Crossway Books, 1988), 204-206.
32. Ennomos Christou, v. 21b; so BAG.
33. Me on autos hupo nomon.
34. Paul spoke like this earlier: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Cor. 7:19). Any man living under the old covenant would object, "But circumcision is the commandment of God!" And so it was. But Paul discards it out of hand - it is "nothing." Again, Paul's point of reference was not Mosaic but Christological. The writer to the Hebrews speaks the same way when he observes that "when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also" (Heb. 7:12). The Lord Jesus brought with Him a new law which has displaced the old.
35. Cf. Jude 3, the "once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints" faith (te hapax paradotheise tois hagiois pistei).
36. John Brown, Discourses and Sayings of Our Lord, 1:170. Cf. note 27 above.
37. This is how the narrative of Matthew 12/Mark 2 leads us. See my Jesus and the Sabbath (pottsville, Pennsylvania: Word of Life Baptist Church, 1993). Also available at http://www.infLnet/-tulip.
38. Cf. the discussion of Matthew 5:17ff. above.
39. Soma, body.
40. Ironically, the sabbatarian is not properly a "Reformed" position, for the continental Reformers themselves did not so observe the day. Calvin's "lawn bowling" on the Sabbath is well known. See also the quote of Luther above (note 16).
41. This continuing relevance of the Sabbath is also argued on the grounds that it is a "creation ordinance." But the argument finds precious little exegetical support. Nothing in the Genesis account establishes such. Nowhere is it given to Adam as a day to be observed, nor is there any example of Adam observing it so. To be sure, the day was sanctified, and on it God rested (cf. "His rest," Heb. 4:10). But nothing more is said about it until Israel is so instructed at the giving of the manna (Ex. 16) and the giving of the law at Sinai (Ex. 20:8), and here Sabbath day observance is stated to be given to them as the sign of the old covenant (Ex. 31:12-18). This is confirmed in Nehemiah 9:14 where it is plainly stated that it was at Sinai that the Sabbath was first "made known" to Israel. From Israel's standpoint, Sabbath observance was not an ancient but a very new phenomenon.

The Last Passover, the First Lord's Supper, and the New Covenant

By S. Lewis Johnson, Jr.

Atonement may be the most important word in Christian theology. There is no question that it is one of the most important words, for it refers to that which Jesus Christ accomplished in the restoration of the shattered relationship between sinners and a holy God. The price demanded by heaven for the restoration of the relationship was the death of the Son of God. It is this fact that liberal Christianity has been unable to accept and still is unable to accept. Some years ago Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, one of the twentieth-century giants of theology, put his finger on the essential difference between genuine Christianity and its liberal imitation. Warfield wrote,

Liberal Christianity has always ... sought to keep the word Christianity and the word redemptive, but eliminate the historic Christian conviction that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in His sacrificial death on the cross, wrought the reconciliation of men with God. For faith in a crucified Redeemer whose life is a ransom for sinners they have substituted a Christlike attitude, or a religious feeling, or even membership in the redemptive community. 

It has been said that liberal Christianity lacks the power to originate a church and can only exist as a parasite, growing upon some sturdier stock. I believe this to be true, but whether it is true or not, there is no doubt but that liberal Christianity is not Christianity at all. The man who believes that he is redeemed by the blood of a divine Savior dying for him upon a cross is of a totally different character from the man who thinks that he may redeem himself by a Christlike attitude wrought out from within his own being. [1] 

Warfield goes on to say,

There is indeed no alternative. The redeemed in the blood of Christ, after all is said, are a people apart. Call them "Christians" or call them what you please, they are of a specifically different religion from those who know no such experience. It may be within the rights of those who felt no need of such a redemption and have never experienced its transforming power to contend that their religion is a better religion than the Christianity of the cross. It is distinctly not within their rights to maintain that it is the same religion as the Christianity of the cross. On their own showing it is not that. [2] 

Many passages in the New Testament give our Lord's own teaching on His death. For example, in Matthew 20:28 our Lord said, "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." In John 10:11 He says of Himself, "I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep," the thought again being that of an atoning sacrifice.

None of the many passages on the atonement is clearer than the passage describing the last genuine Passover Service and the first observance of the Lord's Supper.

And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is My body." And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom" (Matt. 26:26-29). 

He contends that His death is a voluntary, propitiatory ransom price paid vicariously for culprits under judgment. This passage, as well as the ones cited above, overthrow all so-called "moral influence" theories of the atonement, often traced to Peter Abelard. There is some doubt about Abelard's position, [3] but he has generally been thought to have taught that the Lord's passion so displays the love of God that it moves men to serve Him in loving response. In other words, an atoning substitutionary ransom price was unnecessary; the cross as a supreme example of God's love awakening a response of love in us is sufficient. As Lane says, "The idea that the cross awakens a loving response on our part is true as far as it goes, but manifestly fails to do full justice to Romans 3:19-26." [4] What about the penalty of sin and the righteous judgment of God?

The passages cited above represent a different religion and ultimately establish a particular atonement, effected by a penal, substitutionary sacrifice. And it is here that the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism may be plainly seen. The point at issue is: Did Jesus Christ, the Messiah, offer Himself a sacrifice to God to make the salvation of all men possible, or did He offer Himself to secure infallibly the salvation of His people? The Arminians affirm the former, the consistent Calvinists the latter. As Toplady said, "Payment God cannot twice demand, first from my bleeding Surety's hand, and then again at mine."

Arminianism is a theological system of contingency, or conditionalism, "a scheme," Cunningham has said,

for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves, instead of ascribing it wholly, as the Bible does, to the sovereign grace of God, - the perfect and all-sufficient work of Christ, - and the efficacious and omnipotent operation of the Spirit. [5]

Does not this mean that the work of atonement is limited? Well, yes, of course, but both of these viewpoints limit the atonement. Those who believe in a grace that is sovereign limit the intent of the atonement, relating its intent to the electing grace of the Triune God, while Arminians limit the efficacy of the atonement, admitting that their atonement does not save all for whom it was intended. Which is the more biblical - and better? To preach an atonement designed for everyone, while admitting that it does not save everyone, is to limit its power, or as Warfield says somewhere, to evaporate its substance. Those who limit the atonement are also simply confessing a belief in the power of the atonement of Christ, a power so great that it renders certain the salvation of all for whom it was offered. [6]

The Lord's Supper was instituted at the time of the observance of the last Passover by the Lord and His apostles (cf. Matt. 26:20-29). The occasion, usually a very festive one, was shattered by the Lord's announcement, "Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me" (v. 21). Psalm 41:9, "Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me," has come to its ultimate reference. The calm revelation of Judas' treachery is made without vindictiveness. Stress rests rather on the fact that the death of the Son of Man is in harmony with the divine plan and purpose, for Jesus follows His shocking revelation of betrayal with the words, "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (v. 24). The striking juxtaposition of the divine predetermination, reflected in the words, "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him," with the full responsibility of Judas, reflected in the words, "It would be better for him if he had not been born," underlines the harmony of divine sovereignty with human responsibility for sin. Spiritual inability is due solely to human sin, and sin does not lessen responsibility, as if the more unable we are to do that which is right, then the less liable we are for sin's judgment, for if that were the case, then the more sinful and enslaved a man becomes, the less he would be responsible.

There are three movements of thought in the account of the Supper:

1. the preparation of our Passover for His Passover (vv. 17-20);
2. the designation of the betrayer (vv. 21-25); 
3. the institution of the Lord's Supper (vv. 26-29).  

We are concentrating our attention on the third of the movements.

The Ceremony of the Bread (v. 26) 

The Passover ritual involved a preliminary course, with a word of blessing spoken by the paterfamilias over a first cup of wine. The preliminary dish consisted of green herbs, bitter herbs, and a sauce made of fruit puree, set on a table containing also a bowl of salt water to remind the participants of the tears shed while they were slaves in Egypt. Then the meal proper was served, but not yet eaten. A second cup of wine was put upon the table, while the second part of the ritual, the explanation of the meaning of the Passover by the paterfamilias, takes place. The first part of the Hallel, Psalms 113-114, was sung here. At that time the third feature itself took place, "grace" was spoken by the paterfamilias over the unleavened bread, the aphikomen (half of a cake of unleavened bread). It was probably at this point that our Lord instituted the Lord's Supper. The meal itself consisted of the paschal lamb, the bread, the bitter herbs dipped in the sauce, the charoseth, and the lamb wrapped together. After prayer a third cup of wine was drunk. It is this third cup that is most likely the cup of the Lord's Supper, for it was called by the Jews, just as Paul calls the Christian cup, "the cup of blessing" (cf. 1 Cor. 10:10). Finally, the service was closed over a fourth cup, amid praise and the singing of the remainder of the Hallel, Psalms 115-118. It is against this background that Matthew gives his account of the last Passover and the first Lord's Supper. [7]

As Klaas Schilder has so beautifully put it, standing behind the element of the bread is the Passover lamb, which by virtue of the lamb's typical place in the history of the deliverance from Egypt condemns Jesus to death. He knows what the bread represents. "Two lines meet in the guest chamber," Schilder points out, "that of the Old and that of the New Testament." He adds later, "Now the switch is thrown over. . . . Nothing can be out of line, or the place becomes one of disaster." [8]

In verse 26 Matthew states that Jesus "took bread, gave thanks and broke it." The partaking of the bread is first, since it represents the body of Christ, the necessary means of the incarnation. The breaking of the bread refers to His death. As someone has said, like a good surveyor with a transit compass, we must begin at the right place, and that place is suggested in the clause, "(He) gave it to His disciples." The Son's sovereign initiative in His work in our behalf is denoted thereby.

In the clause that identifies the bread as representative of the body of Christ the word "is" is the copula of symbolic relation. [9] Just as the field represents the world in 13:38, so the bread represents the Lord's body. Our Lord's other uses of metaphors and figures of speech, such as speaking of Himself as a door, a vine, or the good shepherd make it plain that this use, too, is metaphorical. "The fact that the elements in the Lord's Supper are still called 'bread' and 'the cup' after they are partaken of (1 Cor. 11:26-28) also suggests this," as Stein notes. [10] And how can the bread be His body in His hand?

Luke's account at this point adds the words, "Do this in remembrance of Me" (22:19), words that are not found in Matthew or Mark. Because the words are not found in the two gospels, some have questioned the authenticity of them. The words, however, are found in the earliest account of the Lord's Supper, in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (cf. v. 24).

There is here that which might legitimately be called an act of arrogant audacity, if one bears in mind the situation. The celebration of the Passover was the celebration of the mighty deliverance of the children of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, a celebration of the mighty acts of the God who appeared to Moses at the burning bush and defined Himself to Moses in this way, "I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by My name, the Lord, I did not make Myself known to them. I also established My covenant with them to give them the land of Canaan, where they lived as aliens" (Ex. 6:2-4). He further told Moses, "And I will bring you to the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to you for a possession; I am the Lord" (v. 8). In other words, the God who was to be remembered in the celebration of the Passover was Yahweh, the covenant-making and covenant-keeping God. What presumptuous confidence and boastful audacity to call upon the members of the nation that possessed "the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises" (Rom. 9:4) to transfer their worship, as they might have thought, from the God of their fathers to Jesus of Nazareth, and to lay aside their ancient covenants for a new covenant, to replace the annual celebration of the impressive ritual of the Passover for a simple feast of remembrance in bread and wine. It was as one has said,

And now, here is a Galilean peasant, in a borrowed upper room, within four-and-twenty hours of His ignominious death which might seem to blast all His work, who steps forward and says, "I put away that ancient covenant which knits this nation to God. It is antiquated. I am the true offering and sacrifice, by the blood of which, sprinkled on altar and on a people, a new covenant, built upon better promises, shall henceforth be." [11] 

In putting aside the Passover and in establishing the Lord's Supper as the feast of remembrance for God's people, the Lord Jesus reveals His conception of His authority and of its meaning. What sense of authority and power does He possess that enables Him to command both Jews and Gentiles to lay aside the ancient God-appointed celebration of the festival of the Passover for the simple supper of remembrance? What enables Him to ask His small family of followers to lower their regard of the importance of Moses in the light of the regard they must have for Him?

By this substitution of the Lord's Supper for the Passover what could He have meant except that He is the Passover Lamb? Must He not have meant that the true sacrifice is His own sacrifice, soon to be accomplished on Calvary's tree? Can He have meant anything other than that the true safety of the soul is not in the blood of animals, but in His blood? It is His death that opens the door of deliverance from the guilt, condemnation, and bondage of sin for the Israel and Gentiles of God (cf. Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6; Gal. 6:16). One can understand with what joy and satisfaction the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed" (1 Cor. 5:7).

What did our Lord wish His disciples to remember in the observance of the Lord's Supper? Different answers have been given. "One suggestion," Stein offers,

is that Jesus wanted His disciples to petition God to remember Him and deliver Him. The emphasis of all four accounts, however, is not for the disciples to intercede with God on behalf of Jesus. In the present context such an interpretation is not possible. A more popular way of understanding this saying is to see it as instituting a continual memorial in which believers are to reflect back on the death of Jesus. Still another suggestion is to interpret the verb "remember" as meaning to proclaim. This fits well with 1 Corinthians 11:26, where Paul states, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." This suggestion understands the Lord's Supper as being primarily an evangelistic proclamation of the gospel. The best way of understanding this saying, however, is to see it as directed to and meant for the church. The command is best seen as ordering the continual celebration and recounting of Jesus' vicarious death and His forthcoming return. Just as the Passover was intended to celebrate-recount-recapitulate the exodus, so the "remembrance" of the Lord's Supper is intended to celebrate-recount-recapitulate the death of Christ, our Passover, and His future coming. [12] 

The Ceremony of the Cup (vv. 27-28) 

In these significant verses the apostle makes it plain that the new and final covenant is grounded in a blood sacrifice, just as the old covenant was (cf. Ex. 24:1-8). The four accounts of the Lord's Supper associate the cup with blood and with a covenant. [13] Our Lord acts with sovereign authority in dispensing the cup and its contents representing the blood, acting as the sole source of the benefits of His work of redemption. The active verbs in the two verses, the verb "broke" used of the bread in verse 26 and the verb "offered" (lit., "gave'') used of the cup in verse 27, may be intended to emphasize the voluntary character of the sacrifice soon to be made. And it should be pointed out that, after the beginning of the institution of the Lord's Supper, Jesus partook of neither bread nor cup. He appears to underline the point in Luke 22: 17 where we read, "And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves.'" He Himself needs no atoning ministry!

Everything to this point leads up to Matthew 26:28, where it says, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." Both Luke and Paul add the adjective new to "covenant," linking closely the Lord's Supper to Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). There may be some question as to whether Jesus explicitly used the adjective new, but it is clearly implicit in His teaching. [14]

The statement in verse 28, "this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," may be, as suggested earlier, the most important atonement statement in Scripture, representing as it does the explicit teaching of our Lord Himself. The breaking of the bread had suggested the violent death of the cross, and the outpoured wine, red like blood, when combined with the breaking of the bread, suggested something similar to a twofold parabolic lesson, expressing the truth, "I must die sacrificially."

That the sacrifice of Christ is the ratification of the new covenant, [15] as the blood of the covenant Moses sprinkled upon the people of Israel in the ceremony described in Exodus 24 ratified the old covenant, has enormous significance for the body of Christ. The new covenant belongs to the covenantal history of salvation, having its roots in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, both unconditional in nature and guaranteed of ultimate fulfillment by the promises of the Lord God. The new covenant, set forth preeminently in Jeremiah 31:31-34 and 32:37-44, but also set out in such places as Isaiah 61:8-9; Ezekiel 16:60-63; 36:24-32 and 37:26-27, and treated fully in the Epistle to the Hebrews, reiterates and expands the basic Abrahamic and Davidic promises (Ezek. 16:60-63, "in the days of thy youth'') and supplies the redemptive ground of the biblical covenantal promises, especially of the forgiveness of sins. The promises are now firmly founded upon the accomplished atonement of the Son of God and only await the divinely determined time of fulfillment. In the meantime the redeemed, the heirs of the promises, are being gathered into the flock of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ, by the ministry in effectual grace of the Spirit of God. That the consummation is certain is seen in the unconditional nature of the new covenant provisions. The reiteration of the divine determination in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is impressive: verse 31 - "I will make"; verse 33 - "I will make," "I will put," "I will write," "I will be"; verse 34 - "I will forgive," "I will remember their sin no more." There is no abandonment of the responsibility of belief on the part of the recipients of the covenantal blessing, but there is the comforting assurance that the promises include the gift of faith with them (cf. Rom. 3:1-8; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29, etc.). "Jeremiah," H. Cunliffe-Jones has written, "found that the absence of the knowledge of God was the source of all that was wrong (8:7) and the presence of a knowledge of God was the source of all blessedness." [17] That blessedness God promises to supply to the inheritors of the new covenant promises who then will experience deliverance from the wandering heart, the plague of the race since Eden.

Jesus states in verse 28 that the blood of the covenant is "poured out for many." Matthew's "for" is the rendering of the preposition peri (NIV, "for''), but both Mark and Luke use hyper (NIV, "for"). Paul, in 1 Corinthians 11:25, says, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood," simply identifying the cup with the covenant, the following prepositional phrase supplying the manner of the identification. The wine contained in the cup represents the blood which is the seal of the covenant. [18] The statement here suggests that to drink the cup is to enter into the covenant established in the blood of Christ. This indicates a seriousness in the participation in the Lord's Supper that is rarely stressed. To partake is to recognize that one is professing a covenantal relationship with God. [19]

The prepositions used by the authors in the phrases to explain the object of the shedding of the atoning blood differ. Matthew 26:28 uses the phrase "for many," the preposition "for" being the rendering of the Greek preposition peri (NIV, "for"), while Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20 use the phrases "for many" and "for you" respectively as renderings of the preposition hyper (NIV, "for"). Paul's statement is not parallel with Mark and Luke, although he does use hyper (NIV, "for") in connection with the bread, saying, "This is My body, which is for you" (NIV, 1 Cor. 11:24).

While the use of the preposition peri (NIV, "for'') by Matthew is not as clearly a reference to substitution as the use of hyper (NlV, "for") by Mark and Luke, there is no denial of substitution. The references of hyper in Mark and Luke are harmonious with the concept of substitution. The fundamental idea of the preposition hyper, however, is in behalf of and, thus, connotes the idea of representation, although there is abundant evidence in classical and Hellenistic Greek that it also denoted proxyship in the sense of in lieu of, an idea close to the idea of substitution, the well-known illustration being that in the papyri of one who writes or signs in the name of an illiterate person, that is, for his benefit as his substitute. Paul's use of the preposition in 2 Corinthians 5:14 seems clearly substitutional. I would conclude that our Lord's words in Mark 14:24 and in Luke 22:19-20 refer to His coming death as a representative death for the many, but a representative death that shades into and implies a substitutionary death. [20]

If, then, the wine of the Lord's Supper is "My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many," what is meant by this most important statement? In the simplest terms the death of our Lord is a penal substitutionary sacrifice that ratifies the new covenant with "the many." The expression, "the many," is derived from Isaiah's language concerning the Servant of Jehovah's ministry, particularly in Isaiah 53:11-12, where the very term "many" is found. The Servant's death was violent (cf. vv. 6-9, 10, 12), penal and substitutionary (vv. 6, 10-12). [21] The "many" in the light of the context of the chapter are those now believing Israelites who, in the future, reflecting on their past unbelief acknowledge their sin and guilt and the saving ministry of the Messiah. That "the many" refers to the elect of God is plain from the context of Isaiah 53, for in verses 11 and 12, where the term is found three times, the text of verse 11 states that the righteous Servant, the Messiah, will justify them, [22] a reference that can refer only to believers. It seems plain to me that there is no reason to take the word many, which actually occurs five times in the great prophecy, in any other sense than in the sense of the believing elect. The passage affords no support for the contention that the soteriological passages using the term many refer to all men, or all persons, without exception, or each and every person who has ever or ever will live.

The term "poured out," derived from Isaiah 53:12, where its Hebrew equivalent is used, is important. It signifies a violent death, the death of a sacrificial victim, although in this case a willing Victim, for it is Isaiah's Servant of the Lord who Himself "poured out His soul unto death."

It is necessary to say a further word about "the many." In the light of the context it is clear that "the many" must include the believing members of the nation Israel, for they were in mind particularly in the passage in the Isaiah passage, as well as in the Upper Room when the apostles met with our Lord. And, after all, it is with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" that the new covenant is first made (cf. Jer. 31:31). There are reasons, however, for the extension of the covenant to others, for the new covenant reiterates and expands the basic Abrahamic and Davidic covenant promises, although its stress rests upon the personal redemptive blessings, especially the forgiveness of sins. In the fundamental covenant made with Abraham it was stated, "and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). From this text and its application by the Scripture authors in the remainder of the Bible it is clear that the Abrahamic promises comprehend the inclusion of Gentiles (cf. Isa. 42:1, 6; 49:6; 60:3; John 10:16; Rom. 16:25-27; Eph. 2: 11-22; 3:5-6).

It is in Romans 11 that Paul most fully develops his teaching that Israel and the Gentiles both have glorious futures. In his famous illustration of the olive tree, representative of the divine messianic promise program, the apostle explains his understanding of the history of salvation. While there is a remnant of saved Israelites in the people of God, the vast majority of the nation are blind in their unbelief (vv. 1-10). In the meantime by the fall of Israel worldwide salvation has come to the Gentiles by their grafting into the olive tree (vv. 11-12). But the Gentiles are warned that unbelief will bring unsparing judgment; after all, they are the unnatural branches of the olive tree (vv. 13-24). The olive tree of messianic blessing belongs to Israel, and it is much more to be expected that the natural branches will be regrafted "into their own olive tree" (v. 25). God is able to graft them in "again" (v. 23), the apostle has asserted. Thus, the apostle declares that it is more to be expected that Israel will be returned to messianic blessing than that Gentiles shall be saved. And this, Paul says, with the full understanding and in the full glow of the mighty turning of the Gentiles to God through His ministry! So the reader is not surprised to read in verse 26, "and thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.' And this is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins" (vv. 26-27). The following paragraph, verses 28-32, with "a finely balanced antithesis" [23] in verse 28 and a chiasmus in verses 30-31, represents a "reiteration and confirmation" of verses 11-27. [24] In this way the apostle in his philosophy of history explained what God is doing in the present age. Later in this same epistle (Rom. 15:7-13) he further explains to the Romans the divine rationale of the ministry of the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, to the patriarchs and to the Gentiles. He writes,

Wherefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God. For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers, and for the Gentiles to glorify God for His mercy; as it is written, "Therefore I will give praise to Thee among the Gentiles, and I will sing to Thy name." [25] And again he says, "Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people." [26] And again, "Praise the Lord all you Gentiles, and let all the peoples praise Him." [27] And again Isaiah says, "There shall come the root of Jesse, and He who arises to rule over the Gentiles, in Him shall the Gentiles hope" [28] (Rom. 15:7-12). 

While all the accounts of the Lord's Supper understand the reference to the blood of the covenant as atoning for sins of the people, it is Matthew who appears to see this the most clearly, for he specifically says that the blood is poured out "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). [29] This is the marvelous purpose of the atoning work of our Lord. If, when He was preparing the apostles for His departure from them, He said to them in effect, "Never, as long as you live, forget My death; never forget My broken body on that cross and the spurting and flowing of My blood." In reality He was saying to them, "The time shall, now, must come when what I have done will accomplish its purpose in mankind, when I will be reunited with you and all who so trust in Me." "The communion would stand as the expression of Christ's mistaken estimate of His own importance," Maclaren has said, "if there were not beyond the grave the perfecting of it, and the full appropriation and joyful possession of all which the death that it signifies brought to mankind." [30]

Many years ago Donald Grey Barnhouse, the well-known pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, was preaching one Sunday morning on the witness of the Holy Spirit in conversion (cf. Rom. 8:16). A twelve-year-old boy sitting in the gallery was listening very intently, Dr. Barnhouse said, as he spoke on God's treatment of our sin. "When I came to my summing up," Dr. Barnhouse said, and those familiar with Barnhouse's preaching will remember him often doing this, gathering many of the great promises into one impressive sentence, "I put all of the promises into a single sentence. Our sins are forgiven, forgotten, cleansed, pardoned, atoned for, remitted, covered; they have been cast into the depths of the sea, blotted out as a thick cloud, removed as far as the east is from the west, cast behind God's back." [31]

Barnhouse said at the close of the service he went to the front door to greet those attending. "Just as I was turning away from greeting one group of people," he said, "the boy caught my sleeve and said, 'Good sermon, Doc!' I smiled and he continued, 'Gee, we're sure sittin' pretty, aren't we?''' That, Barnhouse said, was an example of the witness of the Spirit with our spirit.

The Great Supper (v. 29) 

The Last Passover and the Long Abstinence. Our Lord declares that there will be no more drinking of the wine until the coming of the Father's kingdom. A long abstinence has followed the last Passover, but the hope of the Shepherd's flock is not dimmed. In fact, the words are words that convert the memorial into a prophecy. The covenant looks on to a new day, and the implications are large. The family of the Redeemer may look forward to the time when the paterfamilias will be with His family again. In fact, the vow itself is comforting, for it suggests that in the meantime He will live only for the kingdom that is coming and its citizens. Then, as Luke puts it, the Supper will find its fulfillment (Luke 22:16).

The Consummation of the Kingdom. The new covenant does look on to the new day. We are not surprised, for the context of its initial appearance in the Word of God in Jeremiah 31:31-40 is filled with prophetic implications of the coming messianic kingdom, a kingdom that embraces the fulfillment of the Abrahamic and Davidic promises, even touching the ancient land (cf. Jer. 32:36-44; Ezek. 16:60-63; 36:26-32; 37:26-27). [32] Then, as Luke says in his account of the Supper, "For I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God" (22:16). Simply put, the Passover and the Lord's Supper culminate in the messianic reign of Jesus Christ.

"The celebration of the Lord's Supper," G. C. Berkouwer writes in concurrence,

will always stand in this eschatological light, in the sign of this urgent, "not yet," in the sign of expectation and prospect. The Lord's Supper and the "with you" comprised in that Supper are oriented toward a different "with you" in a new presence (parousia), toward the ultimate fulfillment in the kingdom of God. [33] 

The Lord's Supper, then, is not simply a memorial service of remembrance. It is also a festival associated with the fulfillment of the days of our Lord's abstinence from partaking of the elements of remembrance. It is a festival of anticipation, as Paul underlines when he writes, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes" (1 Cor. 11:26). And it is a festival of eternity, for our Lord gives indication of its continuance in heaven, when He says, "until that day when I go on drinking [34] it new with you in My Father's kingdom." That promise is of great encouragement to us as we live in what we believe are difficult days of departure from the Word of God on the part of a large number within the professing church of Jesus Christ.

"If He died," Maclaren says,

as the rite says when He did, and if dying He left such a commentary upon His act as that ordinance affords, then He cannot have done with the world; then the powers that were set in motion by His death cannot pause nor cease their action until they have reached their appropriate culmination in effecting all that it was in them to effect. If, leaving His people, He said to them, "never forget My death for you, My broken body, and My shed blood," He therein said that the time will come, must come, when all the powers of the Cross shall be incorporated in humanity, and when the parted shall be reunited. The Communion would stand as the expression of Christ's mistaken estimate of His own importance, if there were not beyond the grave the perfecting of it, and the full appropriation and joyful possession of all which the death that it signifies brought to mankind. [35] 

The Convention of the Redeemed. The cross, with its broken body and poured out blood, the communion with its bread and wine and its eating and drinking, lead on to the coming and the kingdom, as Good Friday via Easter leads on to Epiphany. In the meantime we serve, worship and feed on the bread and wine of our salvation. The day will come when He will drink the fruit of the vine "with you in My Father's kingdom." Thus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, who offers the priestly sacrifice instituting the new covenant in blood, explaining its meaning as the Great Prophet, looks on to the gathering of His people at His advent as King of Kings in the kingdom of God, "My Father's kingdom," as He says in verse 29. Does He need this festival? He says He will drink the fruit of the vine again with His own in His Father's kingdom. Well, no, He does not need this, but He desires the love, submission and society of His redeemed people, and in marvelous condescension counts it His joy to feast with us. And Paul's marvelous prophecy expresses our side of the eternal festival with the words, "and thus we shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:17). This is what Maclaren was thinking about when he wrote of a state in which, unless the universe is really a godless chaos, a man shall have all that he wants, but only want what he ought to want. [36]

In this way and with these words the Lord shed "the light of victory" over what at first appeared to be a calamity. In the Supper He explains the meaning of His death so that the apostles may see it as "not just the fulfillment of the Passover alone but of the whole Old Testament sacrificial worship." [37] The passio magna is not defeat; it is glorious overcoming victory.

Author 

Dr. S. Lewis Johnson held professorships at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois, and Dallas Theological Seminary before formal retirement.

Endnotes 

1. Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, "The Essence of Christianity and the Cross of Christ," The Person and Work of Christ, ed. by Samuel G. Craig (philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Publishing Company, 1950), 30. 
2. Ibid. 
3. Cf. A. N. S. Lane, "Abelard, Peter," NDOT, 1-2. 
4. Ibid., 1. 
5. William Cunningham, Historical Theology (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1969 [orig. ed., 1862]), 11:377. 
6. Tom Wells, A Price for a People: The Meaning of Christ's Death (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992).
7. The description of the likely celebration of the supper is taken from Joachim Jeremias' The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (London, 1966), 57-60, and Alfred Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953 [orig. eds., 1883, 1886]), 11:490-512. 
8. Klaas Schilder, Christ in His Suffering, (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Publishers, 1978) 1:157-58. 
9. The verb eimi often means to signify (cf. 1 Cor. 11 :25; John 8:12; 10:9; 1 Cor. 10:4; Rev. 1:20), as does the verb to be in English. 
10. Cf. Robert H. Stein, Jesus the Messiah: A Survey of the Life of Christ (Downers Grove, Illinois, and Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1996) 207-208. "The fact that the elements in the Lord's Supper are still called 'bread' and 'the cup' after they are partaken of (l Cor. 11:26-28) also suggests this," Stein remarks, adding, "If the disciples were asked during their participation in this meal, 'Where is the body of Jesus?', it is extremely unlikely that they would have pointed to the bread. They would have pointed to Jesus their host." The explanation of the fact that the bread and wine never appear to have heard the words of the priest in the transubstantiation is found, so the Church of Rome claims, in the distinction one must make between "substance" and "accidents." The "substance" is the true reality; the "accidents" are the appearances, the perceptible characteristics. The former changes; the latter do not. As Cyril of Jerusalem said, "Judge not by the taste, but by faith." That was the advice given Alexander Whyte, the well-known Scottish Presbyterian minister and principal of New College in Edinburgh, by Cardinal Newman. He told Whyte that "the substance of the bread and wine was converted into the substance of the very flesh and blood of Christ," the appearances, or accidents (shape, size, color, taste, etc.) remaining the same, but the senses were to be denied. Years ago in the early years of my Christian life I read Father Charles Chiniquy's book, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, a vivid account of his conversion to Protestantism. He also wrote a book titled Forty Years in the Church of Christ and other works. I remember him puzzling over whether, when a mouse upon occasion nibbles on the bread upon the altar, the mouse really nibbles on the body of Christ. Later I read somewhere that Thomas Aquinas, perhaps the greatest philosopher and theologian of the medieval church, was asked that very question and that he had replied in the affirmative. 
11. Alexander Maclaren, The Gospel According to St Matthew: Chapters XVIII To XXVIII, in Expositions of Holy Scripture (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), 11:245. 
12. Stein, 209. 
13. Ibid. 
14. Ibid., 210. 
15. Gleason Archer's comments on the word covenant here are apropos. "The term for covenant employed in the New Testament is diatheke, the word used constantly in the LXX for berit. Since the ordinary Greek word for 'contract' or 'compact' (syntheke) implied equality on the part of the contracting parties, the Greek-speaking Jews preferred diatheke (coming from diatithemai 'to make a disposition of one's own property') in the sense of a 'unilateral enactment in secular Greek this word usually meant 'will' or 'testament,' but even classical authors like Aristophanes (Birds, 439) occasionally used it of a covenant wherein one of the two parties had an overwhelming superiority over the other and could dictate his own terms. Hence the biblical diatheke Signified (in a way much more specific than did berit) an arrangement made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or reject but cannot alter. Johannes Bohm (in Kittel's TWNT, 11:137) defines it as: "The decree (Verfuegung) of God, the powerful disclosure of the sovereign will of God in history whereby he constitutes the relationship, the authoritative divine ordinance (institution) which introduces a corresponding order of affairs." Cf. G. L. Archer, Jr., "Covenant," Baker's Dictionary of  Theology, ed. by Everett F. Harrison, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1960), 14344.
16. The twofold application of the blood in the sealing of the covenant of the law, as Childs suggests, may indicate "a twofold aspect of the covenant. On the one hand, the blood dashed on the altar in place of a sacrifice speaks of  God's gracious forgiveness in accepting this as an offering. On the other hand, the blood scattered on the people binds them in a blood oath," and we might add, a blood oath of obedience, for the Law of Moses was just such a legal covenant. Cf. Hebrews 9:18-22. See Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1974), 506. Cf. W. H. Grispen, Exodus, trans. by Ed van der Maas (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 238-39.
17. H. Cunliff-Jones, The Book of Jeremiah (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1960), 197.
18. Cf. Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1953), 247. The authors suggest that the adverb "mystically" is an equivalent of the prepositional phrase. Paul's version, contrary to both Mark and Luke, has no allusion to Isaiah 53. Cf. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 555. 
19. Cf. C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, 1968), 269. 
20. Cf. the excellent appendix by M. J. Harris in the third volume of DNTT, III:1171-1215 and the note on the meaning of huper by E. K. Simpson in The Pastoral Epistles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 110-12. Both authors, while acknowledging that the emphasis in huper is on reprsentation and in anti on substitution, yet a representative many be a substitute and is such not infrequently.
21. Alexander Maclaren, in discussing this passage, said, "I insist upon no theory of an atonement. I believe there is no gospel, worth calling so, worth the preaching, worth your believing, or that will ever move the world or purify society, except the gospel which begins with the fact of an atonement and points to the cross as the altar on which the Sacrifice for the sins of the world, without whose death pardon is impossible, had died for us all." Cf. his The Gospel According to St. Matthew: Chapters xviii to xxviii in Expositions of Holy Scripture (London: Hodder and Sroughton, 1906), 249. It seems, however, to me that in these statements of our Lord concerning the Supper there is sufficient reason for affirming a penal substitutionary theory of a voluntary sacrifice by our Lord for our sins. His theory is that of universal redemption, but it is a theory, if unrecognized.
22. Joachim Jeremias, in an important article (TDNT, VI:536-45), has stated that the Hebrew word (ha) rabim, with the meaning many, should be given the inclusive sense, that is, the meaning of all, since the Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for all. In this article I do not have the space to discuss the question in detail. Tom Wells, in his helpful book, A Price for a People (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1992), has discussed the matter in some detail, making the point that one may accept Jeremias' judgment that many refers to the totality of a community or group, however small or large, or all of a given group. The family of God is such a group, and it is clear from the use of the term in Isaiah 52:13-53:12 that in its five uses there it refers to all of a given group, the elect of Israel, for in the future they confess their failure in the past to discern their Messiah, but now have come to understand. The many includes all of that group in thorough harmony with the usage of the Hebrew term for many. If one needs further evidence, a simple look at the context will bring conviction, for in 53: 11 the prophet states that all of the many are justified by God's "righteous Servant," the Messiah. The word could not refer to everyone without exception. Cf. J. Jeremias, polloi, TDNT, VI:53645.
23. James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 9-16 (Dallas: Word, 1988), 693.
24. William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967 [reprint of 1979 ed.]), 351. C,ranfield, however, sees verse 32 as an explanation of verses 30-31 and a conclusion of the argument of chapters nine to eleven as a whole. Cf. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Ltd., 1979), 11:586.
25. See 2 Samuel 22:50; Psalm 18:49.
26. Deuteronomy 32:43.
27. Psalm 117:1.
28. Isaiah 11:10.
29. The word eis (NIV, "for") indicates the goal of the pouring out of the blood. It was done to accomplish the forgiveness of sins.
30. Alexander Maclaren, Matthew, 11:255.
31. Donald Grey Barnhouse, God's Heirs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 103-105.
32. Two articles, looking at the new covenant in different ways, are Walter C. Kaiser's "The Old Promise and the New Covenant" (JETS [1972]),15:11-23, and Marten H. Woudstra's "The Everlasting Covenant in Ezekiel" 16:59-63 (Calvin Theological Journal [April 1971], 6:22-47. What seems clear is that the new covenant includes a definite reference to the messianic kingdom that follows, and our Lord's words seem to support this. It is also significant that the apostle Paul in his well-known statement, "and so all Israel shall be saved" (Rom. 11:26), goes on to cite from passages that include Jeremiah 31:33-34, it evidently being the apostle's mind that it is then that the new covenant promises find fulfillment. He adds in verse 27 in support, "And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins," words from Jeremiah 31:33-34.
33. G. C. Berkouwer, The Sacraments, trans. by Hugo Bekker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 191-92.
34. The two occurrences of the word "drink" occur in two different Greek tenses. The first occurrence (NIV, "drink'') is in the aorist tense in the subjunctive mood, representing the action simply as an event, but the second occurrence of the verb (NIV, "drink'') is in the present tense, a tense that usually suggests durative, or continuing, action. If that is true in this context, it might suggest the continuance throughout eternity of the enjoyment of the festival of remembrance. The suggestion may lay too much weight on the contrast in tenses, but the celebration will be an eternal one. Mark contains the same contrast in tenses (cf. 14:25).
35. Maclaren, 255.
36. Ibid., 258.
37. Berkouwer, 196.