Monday, November 27, 2006


Hello all. As a Calvinistic Baptist who holds to covenant theology, I thought I would finally give New Covenant Theology a fair hearing and study. I will be honest. There are aspects of New Covenant Theology that I have found attractive (such as its focus toward Christ as higher than the Law of Moses), but there are also certain elements I have found somewhat disturbing (such as its view of the Sermon on the Mount).

But, having said that, I am going to give it a fair hearing. I think this will be useful because many theological disagreements, I believe, are because we do not accurately define our terms and get down to the nitty-gritty. (I thank Paul Manata for pointing this out well.) Also, perhaps our differences can help us. We can learn from New Covenant Theology as covenant theologians, I think. I do think that some strands of covenant theology put more focus on the Law than they do on Christ. Our New Covenant brethren may help us correct this.


As I embark on this study, I think it is so important as to not merely skim works, but to read them carefully word for word. I will be reading the following works, on both sides:

New Covenant Theology, by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel

In Defense of the Decalogue, by Richard Barcellos

Articles by Jon Zens

Articles by John Reisinger

As I read these articles, I would like to invite us all to come to the dialogue. I encourage many comments from both sides. I invite New Covenant brethren, as well as covenant brethren (paedobaptists as well as credobaptists).

Please pray as we embark on this study together.


In-Depth Studies is a website which I have some concerns about. The brethren (I do believe they are our brethren) over there do not believe that the active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer. I have discussed this elsewhere, but for now I will simply post Greg Welty's short article refuting Steve Lehrer's position.

My main reason why I think this happens with certain New Covenant folks is because instead of considering the whole of Scripture as a system, I think these men take certain key texts. They mention that they do not see the imputation of active obedience, but they do see where Jesus had to obey the Law to be the perfect sacrifice. But with that line of thinking, we could ask the question, where does Scripture say His passive obedience is imputed?

The dangers of denying the imputation of the active obedience are many. It is very much connected to the imputation of Adam's disobedience, per Romans 5; it therefore opens up a possible denial of the doctrine of original sin; it may open up a doorway toward Rome or the East.

This can be further discussed in the comments section if you wish. For now, here is Greg Welty's excellent article.

A Response to Steve Lehrer’s "The Active Obedience of Christ in NCT (Part II)"
by Greg Welty Download in MS Word format (7k)-->
In his "The Active Obedience of Christ in NCT (Part II)," Steve Lehrer argues that Paul is exclusively addressing Jews in Galatians 3:10-14. Thus, when Paul says that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the (Mosaic) law" (3:13), he means to say that only Jews (and not Gentiles) were under the curse of the Mosaic law.
Lehrer says that "We believe that the verses under consideration are addressed only to Jewish Christians. We realize that this is a minority opinion. But we believe that our argument from Scripture is decisive." So what is Lehrer’s Scriptural argument that Paul is exclusively addressing Jews in Ga 3:10-14? And is it decisive?
First, Lehrer says that "in verses 2:15-17 Paul begins addressing Jews." As a matter of fact, Paul is simply continuing his account of his conversation with Peter, the conversation he began in v. 14, and continues until v. 21 (this is where the NIV ends the quotation). That is, Paul is informing his predominantly Gentile readership of the conversation he had with Peter. To be sure, in these verses Paul is addressing Peter’s Jewish background ("we who are Jews by birth"), pressing upon Peter the knowledge which Peter as a Jew should have appreciated. Nevertheless, Paul is recording this conversation for the benefit of a church in a predominantly Gentile region. Paul is writing to Gentiles about a conversation he had with a Jew. He is not writing to Jews exclusively.
Second, Lehrer says that "Paul continues in 3:6-9 to advance his argument," and that Paul does so "with no clues that the addressees change." Yes, but since Lehrer has misidentified the ‘addressees’ in Gal 2:15-17 as Jews, it is no wonder that Lehrer thinks that the addressees continue to be Jews exclusively. As we have seen above, Lehrer has collapsed the distinction between Paul’s conversation with Peter, and Paul’s recounting of that conversation to the Galatians. Apparently, when Paul "advances his argument" and says in 3:1 "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?", Lehrer thinks that the Galatians were exclusively Jews, which is a very odd hypothesis about a church in a predominantly Gentile region, founded by the one who was the apostle to the Gentiles (1:16; 2:2; 2:7,8,9). For only if the ‘us’ of Ga 3:13 is addressed exclusively to Jews can Lehrer argue that Gentiles are not under the curse of the Mosaic law. It is no wonder that Lehrer concedes that his view "is a minority opinion"!
Third, Lehrer says that Paul’s argument in Ga 3:6-9 "runs as follows: Why would you ‘who are Jews by birth’ rely on the law to be justified before God? Doing this not only brings the curse of the Mosaic Covenant down on you, but to go back to the Mosaic Covenant is to shut off God’s work in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and bringing the gospel to the Gentiles." Again, Lehrer confuses Paul’s language about himself and Peter (‘we who are Jews by birth’) with his writing to the Galatians. In addition, there is not the slightest chance that Ga 3:6-9 teaches that those who "rely on the law to be justified before God" and who "go back to the Mosaic Covenant," by that very act "shut off God’s work in fulfilling the Abrahamic Covenant and bringing the gospel to the Gentiles." If anyone actually reads the text of Ga 3:6-9, he will see that it cannot even remotely be said to teach this. Where is this in the text? Indeed, the whole idea is very odd. A legalistic Jew, in the era of the New Covenant, can by his legalism prevent the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant? How can that be, when Lehrer himself later argues that it is the death of Christ which objectively removed the ‘barrier to the Abrahamic Promise of salvation to the Gentiles being fulfilled’? Lehrer goes so far as to claim that "If Jewish believers decide to go backwards, they deny the Gentiles the possibility of salvation, which is the fulfillment of the prior promise to Abraham." One wonders how backsliding Jews can undo the work of Christ and "deny the Gentiles the possibility of salvation"!
Fourth, Lehrer emphasises the pronoun ‘us’ and ‘we’ throughout Ga 3:13-14, and sets it in contrast with ‘the Gentiles’ in v. 14: "Christ redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit" (v. 14). But this contrast between people groups is not necessary at all in order for the passage to make sense. "Angry Muslims bombed us so that Americans might receive a curse." "Christ redeemed us in order that blessing might come to the Gentiles." In each case, only one people-group (not two) is the recipient of the actions described (Americans, Gentiles). There is no need to set ‘us’/‘we’ against ‘Gentiles’ in order for the passage to make perfect sense. Lehrer thinks otherwise, because he thinks Christ’s "overall purpose of taking on the curse of the law was to move it out of the way because it was a barrier to the Abrahamic Promise of salvation to the Gentiles being fulfilled." But one searches the Galatians passage in vain for this talk of the law as a ‘barrier’ that somehow prevents ‘fulfilment’ of the promises. On the contrary, Paul says that the law was a tutor that leads us to Christ!
Another way to see how Lehrer’s specific contrast doesn’t make sense, is to note how it splits up the hina purpose clauses of v. 14. Paul says that "Christ redeemed us" with a double purpose in mind: "in order that [hina] the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus," and "so that [hina] by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Since according to Ga 3:8-9 the Abrahamic blessing is justification itself, on Lehrer’s view Christ redeemed Jews in order to justify Gentiles, so that Jews might receive the Spirit. But why do Jews specifically need to be redeemed, in order for Gentiles to be justified? Does it not make much more sense to think that Gentiles need to be redeemed in order for Gentiles to be justified? And why do Gentiles specifically need to be justified, in order for Jews to receive the Spirit? The fact of the matter is that the same people are redeemed, justified, and indwelt by the Spirit; this is Paul’s consistent teaching throughout his letters. By importing a contrast between Jews and Gentiles in Ga 3:13-14, Lehrer turns the passage into a big puzzle.
Fifth, Lehrer says Paul’s argument in Ga 3:10-14 ‘echoes’ his argument in Eph 2:11-19. But they are two completely different arguments. In Ga 3, the argument is that the law is a tutor that reveals our sin and leads us to Christ. In Eph 2, the argument is that the law is a barrier that divides Jews and Gentiles. If anything, the function of the law in Ga 3 as that which reveals our sin and need of Christ only supports the relevance of that law to Gentiles. Paul argues in Ga 3:21 that the law is not ‘opposed to the promises of God’. The law is not a source of righteousness that competes with what can be obtained from the promise. And how do we know this? Because "the Scripture declares that the whole world [ta panta] is a prisoner of sin" (Ga 3:22).
Sixth, Lehrer cites Ga 3:22, "But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin," and comments: "The Mosaic Law placed all who were under it under the power of sin." Lehrer is right to correlate the condemning power of the law with those who were under the law. But (as we just saw above) Paul’s statement is that the whole world is a prisoner of that sin which the law reveals. Lehrer reads into v. 22 an exclusively Jewish context, despite the fact that Paul is talking about all men.
Seventh, Lehrer emphasises the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘us’ throughout Ga 3:23-25, in an attempt to make Paul’s readers exclusively Jewish. But this overlooks the very next verse: "26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Paul’s readers were Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, female. They were not exclusively Jewish.
Eighth, Lehrer tries to make a parallel between Gal 4:4-5 and Gal 3:13-14. To be sure, both passages talk about Christ’s work of redemption. But to import a distinction between Jews and Gentiles into Gal 3:13-14 generates the implausibilities noted in the fourth point above. Alleged ‘parallels’ do not illuminate a passage if they turn it into a big puzzle.
Ninth, and finally, Lehrer overlooks the specific evidence for the Gentile readership of Galatians, found in 4:8-11. Would Paul tell Jews that they formerly ‘did not know God,’ that they ‘were slaves to those who by nature are not gods,’ that the Mosaic law was composed of ‘weak and miserable principles’? Surely he is addressing Gentiles who have escaped from pagan religion. As The Expositor’s Bible Commentary puts it, "That highly undesirable former state was also one of ignorance of the true God in which the pagans worshiped those who were not gods. The reference is clearly to the idols of paganism, which, in typically Jewish idiom, Paul terms ‘no gods.’ This ignorance was actually one cause of their bondage to paganism." And why would Paul warn Jews not to allow themselves to be circumcised (5:2-3), if Jews by definition would already be circumcised?
Clearly, the Galatians are former pagans. Just as clearly, Christ redeemed these Gentiles from the curse of the Mosaic law, by becoming a curse for them (Ga 3:13).


Josh Brisby said...

Hey everyone. I forgot to mention another concern I have with the In-Depth Studies brothers. They have taken their New Covenant position to an extreme, saying that, if it is not discussed in the New Testament, we must therefore assume that it is permissible. For example, Lehrer has affirmed that things like bestiality and incest are permissible today (as long as they are not against the laws of the state) because they are not spoken of in the New Testament. Of course, he has received criticism from his fellow New Covenant folks as well on this. He has also received criticism from other New Covenant brethren on his denial of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ.

Josh Brisby said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Reid Curry said...

Hey Brother!

Glad to see your desire to consider NCT. I still have yet to fully study it, and will simply state I have not landed a conclusion. I have not read everything on the subject, nor have I yet completely compared what I have read to Scripture. I have been very busy with work, but as things slow down I hope to also spend more time in these studies.

You may want to more evenly distribute your reading to include Steve Lehrer's recent book, New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered. It is available free as a PDF download at

Also, Lehrer has changed his position on Gal 3 which Greg Welty challenged in the paper you included. I would suggest that you and your readership read their paper on the imputation of the law-keeping of Christ here:

as well as to the appendix found here:

And in response to your question, "where does Scripture say His passive obedience is imputed?", here are just two texts which Steve and Geoff deal with in their papers.

2 Cor 5:18-21
Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Rom 5:6-19
For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-- for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Have a great day... studying Scripture!

Because of God's Great Mercy,

~ Reid

Josh Brisby said...


Thank you for those excellent suggestions. I encourage my readers to take a look at those links that our brother Reid gave us.

It is interesting that Lehrer uses those texts for passive obedience imputed--I always thought of those in the active sense. But the point is, we can't really divide it up into active and passive categories anyways--all of Christ's obedience--his life, death, and resurrection--is imputed to us. We get all of Christ in our imputation. This is likewise how we cannot split up Adam's disobedience. We get "all of Adam" in the imputation of original sin, to the effect that we are "sons of Adam." Likewise, by Christ's mercy, we get all of Christ in His imputation to us, which makes us "sons of Christ."

Something to consider concerning the phrase "fulfill all righteousness" that Jesus used with John the Baptist: if our Lord was merely saying that it was necessary for Him to be baptized only for the purpose of qualifying Him to be the perfect sacrifice (so that we get only His sacrifice in our imputation), then how is "righteousness" being fulfilled? How is it being completed? Indeed, even the Spanish word for "righteousness" is "justicia," from where we get the word "justice." Justice is most certainly a law-related word. The concept of righteousness is related to the Law. How is the Law completed? How did Christ "fulfill" the Law?

I tend to think that our brothers who deny the imputation of the active obedience are not looking at Scripture as a whole, but are rather focusing on key texts. But knowing Scripture as a systematic whole will keep us from making these mistakes. For example, when Isaiah 9 says that Jesus will be called "Everlasting Father," we know that it cannot mean that Jesus is the Father (the modalist heresy)--yet the Oneness Pentecostals try to tell us that that is what it means. Likewise, our Arminian brethren look at texts which on the surface seem to teach that Jesus "atoned" for all who have ever lived, but they fail to take the broader biblical context of what "atonement" means (namely, propitiation and expiation--turning away God's wrath and taking away sin).

So, I think that knowing the Scriptures as a systematic whole will keep us from making these mistakes. As Jesus told the Saducees, they were in error because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. I respectfully think that our brothers who deny the imputation of active obedience are only looking at texts isolated from the rest of Scripture.

Sorry for the rambling--I hope this little dialogue was helpful!

--In Christ,

Josh Brisby said...

Brother Reid,

Your last two links didn't work. Do you know of any other sites we can find them at?

In Christ,

Reid Curry said...

The links somehow added some extra text at the end of the URLs.

So, click on the links. Once it comes up as 'page not found', then go up to your address bar and delete any text that appears after ".pdf". they should look like this:

Steve's Paper


The Appendix

I want to write more but I am heading out the door.

Hopefully the new links work.

Josh Brisby said...

Thank you brother Reid.

I do want to make clear to my readers, that I do believe it is important to read the articles on these links listed above. However, I also want to make clear that we must be careful. We do want to give the In-Depth Studies brothers a fair hearing; but I want to make clear to my readers that at The Reformed Oasis we do consider the rejection of the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to be aberrant theology, which we think is dangerous.

With that word of caution, though, we must guard against jumping the gun. While I have serious concerns with IDS (and particularly with Steve Lehrer), I want to make sure I accurately represent what I believe they are saying. If I ever misrepresent them publicly, then please correct me publicly.

With that in mind, may our Lord bless our studies of His Word!

--Josh Brisby

mikew said...


Certainly Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law. And NCTers who say it [the Gal. 3 passage in question] only applies to the Jews are mistaken. But so are CTers who understand that it is the Mosaic Law Paul is speaking about. The law written on all men's hearts is not the Mosaic Law. Most Gentiles then, and all Jews and Gentiles now are not and were not under the Mosaic Law. Thus Paul is not talking about the Mosaic law but rather the Law in general. This law is simply that every man is obligated to worship God alone [no other gods]by obedience to what God commands that person to do. It is theGod given conscience that directs men of right and wrong and when they do wrong they are cursed, they are under wrath, the judgement of God, i.e. condemnation.
When we are freed from the curse of the law we escape wrath and condemnation for the Law has no power over those in Christ to bring us unto condemnation. For the power of the law over men is in the condemnation they earn by their sin. Those in Christ have their sins taken away and never more to be imputed unto them.