In the preceding chapter we started to talk about Christ, our new covenant Prophet, being a true Lawgiver who replaces Moses in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as High Priest. We have noted how important Deuteronomy 18:15-19 is in any discussion of Christ as Prophet. Let us look carefully at a new covenant text with references back to Deuteronomy 18:15-19. In John 17:8 our Lord is speaking to his Father.

For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me (NKJV). 

How can responsible exegesis make this statement mean that Jesus never gives any new law, but merely gives the true interpretation of what Moses has already spoken? Jesus does not say or imply that his work was merely to interpret Moses. He has manifested God’s name to the elect (John 17:6) by speaking “the words the Father gave him.” We cannot reduce such a statement to mean that the Father did no more than give his Son the true exegesis of the “eternal unchanging moral law of God” that he had given to Moses. The words in the prophecy of Deuteronomy 18:15-19 demand that a new Lawgiver^[1] will come who will give new revelation. If Christ merely interprets Moses without giving any new laws, he simply does not fulfill this prophecy in Deuteronomy 18. You cannot make “For I have given to them the words which You have given Me” to mean “I have given them the correct meaning of the words you gave to Moses.”

In order to understand why some theologians cannot allow Christ to be a new Lawgiver who replaces Moses as lawgiver in exactly the same way that he replaces Aaron as high priest, we must clearly understand the basic presuppositions of their system of theology. One very vital question helps to pinpoint those unstated warrants: With whom is Christ contrasting himself in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, “But I say unto you”? This is a key question. Is Christ here speaking merely as an exegete of Moses or is he speaking as a prophet and new lawgiver in his own right? In the context, it reads as though Christ is contrasting his teaching with that of Moses, but that exegesis is anathema to Covenant Theology. That system of theology insists Christ is not in any way contrasting his teaching with that of Moses. He is only refuting the false misunderstanding the Pharisees have of Moses. 

We must be certain we understand what people actually believe before we can interact with them. Covenant Theology has three basic maxims upon which their theology of law rests. These maxims are not debatable.

ONE: There is one unchanging covenant of grace in all ages for all men (Westminster Confession of Faith 7:4-6). Do not confuse this statement with the doctrine that states there is only one way of salvation in all ages. We reject the first but believe and teach the second. The only gospel message in the whole of Scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, is that salvation is “by grace through faith.” Abraham, and all other Old Testament saints, were all saved by grace through faith in the same gospel message as we are saved today. However, God’s one sovereign purpose of grace in all ages to save his one elect people and a purely theological temporal covenant of grace are not the same things. 

TWO: There is one redeemed people of God in all ages under this one covenant of grace. By “redeemed people of God,” Covenant Theology means the one true church includes the entire physical nation of Israel, both adults and children along with the New Testament believers and their children. They view the “redeemed nation of Israel” as part of the one true church of God. The Christian church is the same church as Israel with Gentile believers and their children added to it.

THREE: There is one unchanging standard of moral conduct for the one redeemed people of God under the one covenant of grace. If the moral code for a Christian differs in any way from the moral code for an Israelite, then there are two codes of conduct and Covenant Theology’s view of law is destroyed. (See John Murray’s Principles of Conduct.)^[2]

Let us again ask the key question: With whom is Christ contrasting himself in the Sermon on the Mount when he says, “But I say unto you”? I would answer, “He is contrasting himself with Moses and the old covenant.” However, remember we have kept insisting that contrasting is not contradicting! I would say that Christ is speaking as the new Lawgiver who replaces Moses in his role as “that Prophet” promised in Deuteronomy 18. Our Lord is laying out the rules for the new kingdom of grace and is contrasting those new laws, based on grace and redemption, with the laws of Moses, based on pure law, for the theocracy of Israel. The new laws make much higher demands because they are given to redeemed saints and not to hard-hearted sinners, as was the case with Israel. Covenant Theology, on the other hand, must insist that Christ is only contrasting himself with the rabbinical distortions of the law of Moses. To allow Christ to change in any way any of the “eternal unchanging moral law” of God, given to Moses at Sinai, would destroy the very foundation of Covenant Theology’s view of law.

I agree that Christ often refutes the Pharisee’s distortion of the law of Moses (Matt.15:1-20; 23:1-36). However, he also clearly demonstrates the great difference between the law of Moses that established an earthly theocracy and the laws of grace that govern the body of Christ. Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, is doing something other than just giving the “true interpretation” of Moses. All of the contrasts he makes are with specific statements recorded in the Old Testament. There is not a single mention in the Sermon on the Mount of any distortion of Moses by a Pharisee. Every statement of contrast is between specific statements by Moses with specific statements of contrast by Christ. There is no textual evidence to support the idea that Christ is correcting rabbinical distortions of Moses. An unbiased reading of the text leads the reader to conclude that our Lord is giving new and higher laws based on grace.

Here are some examples of Covenant Theology’s view of Christ’s “But I say unto you” statements in the Sermon on the Mount. They are both clear and emphatic. Greg Bahnsen writes:

Christ’s primary concern at this point [Matt. 5:17-48] was the validity and meaning of the older Testamental law. From the antitheses listed in verse 21-48 we see that Christ was concerned to show how the meaning of the Law was being distorted (and thus its fine points overlooked).

These radical commands (vv. 21-48) do NOT supersede the older Testamental law; they illustrate and explain it … In six antitheses between His teaching and the scribal interpretations Christ demonstrates His confirmation of the older Testamental law ….

So we see in Matthew 5:21-48 examples of how Christ confirms the older Testamental law and reproves the Pharisaical use of it; the antitheses are case law applications of the principle enunciated in Matthew 5:17-20. Christ did not come to abrogate the law; far from it! He confirmed it in full measure, thereby condemning scribal legalism and showing us the pattern of our Christian sanctification.^[3]

Bahnsen is not alone in this view. A.W. Pink agrees with Bahnsen.

Christ is not here [Matt. 5:28-42] pitting Himself against the Mosaic law, nor is He inculcating a superior spirituality. … our Lord’s design in these verses has been misapprehended, the prevailing but erroneous idea being held that they set forth the vastly superior moral standard of the New Covenant over that which was obtained under Judaism.^[4]

Dr. Richard Barcellos’s whole book, In Defense of the Decalogue, agrees with the above quotations. Barcellos defends Covenant Theology’s view of the Ten Commandments as the “unchanging moral law of God.” I defend the authority of Christ to be a true Lawgiver. The following quotation from my review of Barcellos summarizes the discussion.

We would claim for our reply that it is a defense of the enduring laws of God contained in (but not exhausted by) the Ten Commandments, then expounded and expanded by our Lord Jesus Christ, the new lawgiver, in his ministry and later through the inspired epistles of the New Covenant Scriptures. Our basic disagreement with Barcellos has nothing to do with whether the revelation of God’s will for his people comes in clear and concrete commandments, or whether the Ten Commandments are a vital part of that revelation applicable to a child of God today. Our difference is (1) whether Moses is the greatest lawgiver that ever lived, including the Lord Jesus Christ himself, or (2) whether Jesus replaced Moses as the new prophet and lawgiver in the very same sense that he replaced Aaron as the new high priest. These two contrary principles underlie the two positions. New Covenant Theology defends Jesus Christ as the new, greater, full, and final lawgiver who replaces Moses. We insist that the laws of Christ, given to the children of the kingdom of grace, make higher demands than those given by God to Israel at Sinai. Our position makes us theological supernomians, rather than antinomians as some of our opponents have claimed. Barcellos defends Moses as the greatest lawgiver who ever lived and the laws that God gave him at Sinai are the highest laws ever given.^[5]

Walter Chantry, another contemporary writer, makes the Covenant Theology position clear.

Our Lord Jesus Christ himself did not give a condensed and definitive code of morality. In his great sermon on kingdom righteousness (Matt. 5), the greatest Prophet produced no new standard. He merely gave clear exposition of the old statutes. These were selected, not to make a complete list of duties, but to correct the prevailing misinterpretations of the hour.^[6]

Are we justified in asking this question: If Christ is indeed “the greatest Prophet” but he “produced no new standard” of moral duty for believers, then was he really a prophet or was he only a scribe or a rabbi? Why are the above-quoted writers, as well as all those committed to Covenant Theology, so adamant that Christ in no way changed or added to any of the laws of God given to Moses at Sinai? Why do they insist that we must raise Moses above Christ himself in the area of lawgiver? The answer is quite simple. They do it for the same reason they make an issue over the Sabbath. If there is even the slightest change in the “moral laws” given to Israel and the “moral laws” given to the church, then we have two different canons of conduct: one for Israel and a different one for the church,^[7] but that is impossible in Covenant Theology. There must be a “Christian Sabbath” under the new covenant or Covenant Theology has lost one of its foundation stones. If there are two canons of conduct, one for Israel that includes a weekly Sabbath and another one for the church that sees Christ as the fulfilling and abolishing the Sabbath, then Covenant Theology’s view of law is invalid. If we pull the Sabbath commandment out of “THE unchanging moral law,” or change in any way any other commandment, then the entire system collapses. This is why churches and preachers of this persuasion are not primarily interested in whether or not their church members watch football on Sunday as long as they acknowledge that the Sabbath is in force and it is their duty to be “holy.” Exactly how they demonstrate their holiness is entirely up to each individual and their personal “Christian liberty.”^[8]

You will notice that in the quotation above, Bahnsen writes “older Testamental law” instead of Old Testament. Bahnsen does this to demonstrate as forcefully as possible that there are no such things as real, true, and radically different new and old covenants. There is only one covenant of grace, with an older and a newer version of that one and same covenant. We wonder why the writers of both the Old Testament Scriptures and New Testament Scriptures never once use either the word “older” or the phrase “older Testamental law” when they write about the old and new covenants. 

Why does Bahnsen reject the very words that the Holy Spirit used, “old covenant,” and instead use the words “older Testamental law” that the Holy Spirit never used even once? Does, or does not, the Word of God clearly state in plain words that there is indeed both a new and an old covenant, and further, that the new covenant has replaced and done away with the old covenant in its entirety (Heb. 8:6-13)? Where does the Word of God, even one time, refer to two (an older and a newer) administrations of one and the same “Testamental law”? Again, we must not confuse what Bahnsen, Pink, and Chantry teach about one unchanging covenant of grace with two administrations with the theological tenet that God has one unchanging purpose in sovereign grace that is administrated differently under different covenants in different ages. We believe the latter and reject the former. Covenant Theology confuses God’s single sovereign purpose in grace with a theological temporal covenant of grace that has no textual evidence in Scripture.

As I mentioned, Bahnsen, Pink, and Chantry are not alone in this “new version of the same covenant” idea. This is standard Covenant Theology. The following is from a theological note in The Reformation Study Bible (R.C. Sproul, General Editor) on Genesis 12:3, titled “God’s Covenant of Grace.” 

As Hebrews 7-10 explains, through Christ God inaugurated a better version of His one eternal covenant with sinners (Heb. 13:20)—a better covenant with better promises (Heb. 8:6)…This better covenant guarantees a better hope than had ever been made explicit by the former version of the covenant …^[9]

A careful reading of that statement reveals the confusion involved. 

First, we read, “Hebrews 7–10 explains, through Christ God inaugurated a better version of His one eternal covenant with sinners.” It should be self-evident that God’s one eternal covenant with sinners cannot possibly have a “better” version. The text in Hebrews 7-10 nowhere mentions or intimates anything about a better “version” of “the covenant.” It specifically speaks of a new, different, and better covenant that replaces an old, different and obsolete covenant. Using the word version to modify covenant adds to the Word of God and literally changes its meaning. 

The Reformation Study Bible immediately follows its “better version” statement by explaining what it means—there is “a better covenant with better promises.” Now which is it? Is it a better version of a former covenant or is it a totally new, different and better covenant than the one it replaces? It cannot be both. Version is not a synonym for covenant. Is this new covenant better than the old one because the new covenant is based on different and better promises? That is exactly what Hebrews 8:6 states. The foundation of the old covenant was based on law and said “do or die.” The new covenant is based on grace and says, “It is finished, only believe.” That is not a better version of the same covenant; that is a radical and new covenant based on different and better promises.

The same confusion occurs in the next statement—”This better covenant guarantees a better hope than had ever been made explicit by the former version of the covenant.” Is there a real new covenant or is there only a newer version of a former covenant? The writer cannot seem to make up his mind. Are we not justified in asking, “Where is this ‘former version of the covenant’ ever mentioned in Scripture?” I challenge anyone to find where either the Old Testament or Hebrews 7-10 mentions a “better version” of any covenant. The Word of God explicitly says new covenant! It never says new “version” or new “administration” of “one eternal covenant.” Textually, a specifically new and radically different covenant totally replaces an old and obsolete covenant. It is that simple! If that is true, then the “one covenant with two administrations or versions” reading of the text is incorrect.

The words “versions” or “administrations” are theological terms, not biblical terms. They are theological necessities produced by logic not biblical facts obtained from exegeting Scripture verses. Covenant Theology will pay lip service to a new covenant, but in reality, they do not actually mean a new “covenant” but only a “better version” of one eternal covenant. To keep their theological system intact, they play word games. The Reformation Study Bible quote demonstrates this fact quite clearly. Covenant Theology will speak of a new covenant and in the very same breath deny that it really is a new covenant. It is only a better version, or administration, of that one eternal covenant. There is no true new and different covenant in Covenant Theology! 

The blurring of “covenant” into “version” is standard Covenant Theology practice because that is precisely what the WCF teaches in Chapter 7, “God’s Covenant with Man.” The Confession states that the new covenant that replaces the old covenant does not “differ in substance,” because there is only one covenant of grace. “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.”^[10]

Here again we would point out that we whole-heartedly agree that God’s one sovereign purpose in grace has been administered differently under different covenants. Likewise, we agree there are not two covenants of grace. However, unlike Covenant Theology, we believe that Israel never was under any covenant of grace. If the nation of Israel had been under a covenant of grace, what grounds would God have had for casting her off? Israel was not under the same covenant that the church is.^[11] If we are under the same covenant that Israel was under, how can we be sure that God will not cast us off as he did Israel?

Covenant Theology writers often will refer to the old and new covenants as the “Older Covenant of Grace” and the “Newer Covenant of Grace.” J. Barton Payne published a book on the Old Testament and titled it The Older Covenant of Grace. In reality, in Covenant Theology there is no real new covenant that is different in substance and nature from the old covenant. I repeat; it seems to us that Covenant Theology confuses God’s one unchanging purpose in grace, which clearly shows there is only one way of saving sinners in all ages, with a non-textual temporal covenant of grace. 

Statements like those just quoted from the Reformation Study Bible amaze me. More amazing yet is that Reformed Covenantal Baptists (Dr. Fred Malone’s term) are ready to defend vehemently the “one covenant with two administrations” theology so essential to the Covenant Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith and so contrary to historic theology. It is this covenant concept that Reformed Baptist Dr. Richard Barcellos is trying to protect in his book In Defense of the Decalogue.

Covenant Theology cannot have a new prophet who replaces Moses as a lawgiver. Christ, as that new Prophet, merely interprets the law that Moses already gave at Sinai, but he does not bring any new revelation about what constitutes true holiness. The Covenant Theology mantra is “Moses will drive you to Christ to be justified and Christ will lead you back to Moses to be sanctified.” This clearly runs contrary to the text of Deuteronomy 18:15-18, which demands that someone bring new revelation. Mere interpretation of existing revelation will not fulfill the prophecy in this text.

---