So here we are in another new day and we begin with Douglas Moo on the covenant and the Mosaic Law, expounding Galatians.Brief outline of the paper
Moo used no headings but these could have been inserted
1. Hermeneutical assumptions
2. Galatians
3. Threefold division of the Law
4. Detour “Under the law”
5. Back to Galatians
6. Other texts - Matthew 5:17; Romans 10:4
7. Important nuances
Extras
Dr Moo spoke of method. An affirmation of systematics. On the other hand, speculation is to be avoided. We must be grounded in Scripture. There is a hermeneutical spiral and we never arrive. He commented on the NT use of the word covenant. It is not that we cannot use Scripture words in ways not found in Scripture. However, we are raising the question of whether the Reformed use of the word covenant meshes with the NT. OT terminology does not necessarily (in fact is unlikely to) match NT terminology. As for the term New Covenant theology, Moo is uneasy about such categorisation. The view is that held by Luther, dispensationalists, etc. Labels are necessary but this one is not helpful.
We all struggle with certain texts but Scriptural data is important. Textual data. Moo spoke of himself jokingly as just a humble NT scholar! Some people like his undoubted humility. I'm a suspicious type and so I'm not sure it proves anything.
On the threefold division, uses of the Law, etc he simply asks do any of these distinctions become a basis for continuity or discontinuity in the NT data? Trying to find a way to express continuity. Form and substance does not work. No Mosaic Law continues to have authority over the believer except as it does through Christ and his Apostles. (This is no doubt correct but is something of a truism if the Ten Commandments are all treated like this – as I am sure they are).
Place of the law in the Christian life. There is a tendency to give the law too great a place. If Paul was asked about this he would emphasise life in the Spirit. Law is important but it must not supplant the Spirit.
Questions of clarification
Dr Moo questioned our use of the word clarification but answered many questions including these
1. When NCT types speak of the need for commands to be repeated in the NT they are not saying that in a wooden, proof texting way.
2. I asked Dr Moo if his position was Reformed. He agreed it was not but claims to be Reformed in other respects. To be fair to be Reformed while rejecting covenant theology is a strange kind of reformed but then some Reformed people would say that about all Baptists!
3. We are bound only to what is repeated in the NT – this was reiterated.
4. Dr Moo is inerrantist lining up with the view of Greg Beale.
5. When asked about the Spirit as prophesied in Ezekiel and the fact that the Spirit was to be given “so that you will obey the Law". He felt there must be a difference between the prophetic concept and the NT reality. What the NT transformed heart would look like was not clear to OT saints.
6. As for any difference between morality in the NT and in the Decalogue there is none – except with the inevitable fourth commandment. The Decalogue, however, is OT not NT. The 4th commandment is not an eternal moral law. Otherwise why the change to a Sunday? After our small group meeting we came back and questioned Dr Moo further.
Further questions
These included
1. In Matthew 23 Jesus tells the people to do what the religious leaders say but not what they do was the religious leaders say but not what they do was raised. It is difficult but is probably to do with the change of dispensation.
2. Implications of NCT. Fourth commandment. Importance of the Lord's Day. If we lose this aren't we losing out and failing to witness to Christ's resurrection.
3. When asked to confess a dispensationalist background Dr Moo denied having one but affirmed that he had many good friends who are dispensationalist.
4. Fears of disaster if NCT takes hold were expressed and the matter of creation and the Sabbath raised. Dr Moo doubted whether the Sabbath was established at creation.
5. OT/NT believers. Certainly there is continuity but there must be discontinuity. It is seen by Moo in terms of greater inward power and direction.
6. Tom Holland (WEST) spoke of huge differences between the discussion of the Law in the Gospels and in the epistles. We must not confuse the two. We are too atomistic in our approach too. The context of Gentiles and Jews is important. The covenant is a marriage relationship. We must see the bigger picture, the context. 7. The question of bestiality was raised as this is a command not repeated in the NT but there is surely no difference in the way Moo would deal with this as opposed to a Reformed theologian.
If you would like a less pedestrian and more up to the minute blog try here with Adrian Reynolds.
