Theological distinctions between Law & Gospel

23
Mar

Sermon B: 5 S Lent: Jer 31:31-32

Posted by Tom Baker

For the 5th Sunday in Lent, not “of” Lent, the three readings are Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 5:1-10 and Mark 10:32-45. Chosen to preach about is Jeremiah 31:31-32, “Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,” says the Lord.

This text is a great opportunity to demonstrate to the congregation how they get confused about how God thinks. As is our custom, we do so by asking questions which normally elicit a wrong answer on the part of the hearer. The first question is, “How is the Bible divided?”  Most people will answer that it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. After they answer, the second question is, “What is meant by the Old Testament and the New Testament?” Most people will answer that those refer to the books prior to the coming of the Christ and then those books after His resurrection.Of course, both of those answers are in error for the Bible is divided into Law and Gospel and nowhere in the Bible does the Old or New Testament refer to the books of the Bible.

This text from Jeremiah often uses the translation of “covenant” instead of “testament” even though in the Hebrew and Greek that word can be translated either way. The text also reveals that what God means by the Old and New Covenants or Testaments are two different agreements between God and human beings. The Old Covenant was established in Exodus 24 with the people promising to obey all the commandments of God. Those promises were indeed weak and useless for within a short period of time, the people were worshiping the golden calf. So much for the Old Covenant.

In Christ we have a New Covenant or Testament also established in the Old Testament books beginning with Genesis 3:15 (the promises of the Messiah), throughout the rest of the books with special reference to Genesis 12 and 15 in which God alone makes the saving promises no longer to remember the sins of His people. That’s is why the book of Hebrews speaks of the New Covenant as one established on better promises; that is, the promises of God alone.

These two covenants relate to Law and Gospel in that while both agreements were by God’s grace, the Old Covenant necessitated the consequential obedience of the people of God. It failed, or better said, “they failed.” The New Covenant or Testament is far superior because it no longer relies on any contribution from sinful human beings. It is a covenant of grace throughout as the sinful human being receives faith as a gift, repentance as a gift, forgiveness as a gift, the robe of righteousness as a gift, being sustained in the faith as a gift and heaven as a a gift. Under the Old Covenant obedience was a matter of meritorious works; under the New Covenant obedience is a matter of faith relying on the work of Jesus Christ in light of the cross and empty tomb. For indeed, it is a covenant whereby we are saved by grace, through faith apart from works, lest anyone be tempted to boast. The two covenants do remind us of the Law and Gospel distinctions between the theology of self-glory and the theology of the cross!

Category : Law & Gospel

3 Responses to “Sermon B: 5 S Lent: Jer 31:31-32”


Mike Keith March 25, 2009

Tom,

Great post!

However, I have a question. Is it really accurate to say that under the “Old Covenant obedience was a matter of meritorious works?” The ritual sacrificial system was about faith was it not. Isn’t that teh concern God expresses through Amos – He hates the feasts – not because of the feast itself but because the people were going about it in a faithless manner? It is true that it became to be viewed as a works righteous sor tof thing – but that was not the way God instituted it. Isn’t that so?

admin March 25, 2009

You would be correct Keith if the sacrificial system was part of the Old Covenant. I believe it was part of the New Covenant in that it pointed forward to the Lamb Who was to come to take away the sins of the world. Under Judaism it did become part of a work righteous movement. The fact that God originally instituted it as part of the New Covenant is in light of the fact that God was not looking for works but faith. Thanks again for your comment.

michael March 26, 2009

Pastor Tom,

this brings out an interesting argument Paul the Apostle makes when arguing for the establishment of the Law “in the New Testament” and the results of the Law, righteousness, to all who keep it? We better not die without it, the works of the Law of Righteousness, or else! Yikes!!

Afterall he writes what appears to some a silly admonition here:

Rom 3:31 Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.

By virtue of that claim, Paul is saying Christianity is for keeping the Law of Righteousness! It is the Law of Righteousness that was perfectly kept that saves a wretch like me.

And according to Jesus Himself, if our “righteousness’ does not exceed that of the Pharisees and Saduccees, we are in big trouble!

He picked up His axe and swung it at those who were doing just as Keith points in Amos when we read things like this in the Gospels:::>

Mat 9:1 And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city.
Mat 9:2 And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”
Mat 9:3 And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man is blaspheming.”
Mat 9:4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Mat 9:5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?
Mat 9:6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”–he then said to the paralytic–”Rise, pick up your bed and go home.”

The “sacrificial” Jews under the “old covenant/testament” didn’t let it go and pressed Him further to which Jesus grabs the nut and cracks it wide open for everyone to eat, here:

Mat 9:11 And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
Mat 9:12 But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.
Mat 9:13 Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”

One of the best hallmarks of this argument, in my judgment, is with these verses found in Hebrews. The issue is not keeping the sacrificial requirements, but, receiving His Faith passively so that “He can” actively impart the results of the keeping of the Law of Righteousness to those who cannot keep it, which fruit is, “imputed Righteousness” to violators of it and hence, by this imputation one is restored to the Right standing with God Adam destroyed in the Garden:::>

Heb 9:11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation)
Heb 9:12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.
Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,
Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

As your “preached” sermon concludes, the only souls who would differ from this sermon would be those seekers of self rightesous seeking self glory! The rest of us are already dead in our trespasses and sins and already made alive in Christ by the death that He suffered for us so the Life that He now lives in service to the Living God He does for us who otherwise could not by sacrifice or any other means live!

I admit it Pastor Tom, I answered correctly to those two questions and have come to agree with you that the answers I gave were errors!

I believe it would be a correct assertion that only a Theologian of Glory would answer the way I did and we normally do, when asked those two questions:

The first question is, “How is the Bible divided?”

and

After they answer, the second question is, “What is meant by the Old Testament and the New Testament?”

For me, I have to express my gratitude for the brothers here who decided to introduce us to “your” way of thinking, Pastor Tom, because I have found that the way you think is more closely in line with the way the Bible teaches we are to think, that is, we are to think the Way God thinks!

What is the surprise is, it is not a normal way of thinking!

Thanks again for such a lucid message of Law and Gospel putting these things into the right context with wrong answers to right questions!

michael
eureka, ca.