Table of Contents
Parent: JesusWordsOnly
Irreconcilable Differences in Paul s New Covenant Theology
Furthermore, there are certain contradictions between Jesus and Paul that refute the whole idea that Jesus and Paul can be reconciled on the covenant-of-grace explanation.
Jesus taught that anyone who would teach against the keeping of the least command in the Law would be least in the kingdom of heaven. Not until heaven and earth pass away, Jesus says, will one little letter of the Law cease until all things are accomplished. (Matt. 5:18). If Jesus intended that the Law would be accomplished in toto six months later when He died on the cross, He made an incongruous statement that the Law would continue until "heaven and earth pass away...." And Jesus would have made the further incongruous remark that a New Testament kingdom member must keep "the least command in the Law."
Obviously, Jesus sees the New Covenant precisely as (Jer. 31:31) explained. The New Covenant continued the Torah (Law). And as Isaiah said, Servant-Messiah "will magnify the Law (Torah), and make it honorable." ((Isa. 42:21).) (For more discussion, see page 233 et seq .) The New Covenant in Jeremiah and Isaiah is thus just as Jesus sees it: the Law continues forward in the New Covenant, reinforced but never done away with until the heavens and earth pass away.
Paul clearly contradicts Jesus in this respect. Paul says the Law is nailed to a tree, abolished, etc., by Christ's death on the cross. (See chapter entitled, "Did Paul Negate the Law's Further Applicability?" on page 73.)
Also, Paul sees Israel is displaced as covenant partner. Paul says Israel now corresponds to the cursed child of Hagar, in bondage to keep the Law which cannot save. Paul insists Israel can reap no blessing from obeying the Law given Moses. Paul continues and says we under the New Covenant are free to live without the Law. We are analogized to be Isaac's children. We live instead under a covenant of grace. (Gal. 4:28 ff.) However, this means Jesus and Paul contradict on one of the core premises upon which hangs the validity of the Dispensational Jesus-Paul solution.
Remember Premise #5? It said:
- Premise #5: Jesus was inspired in expounding to a different audience who are under the covenant of Law but not under Paul's covenant of grace.
Jesus would not agree that persons of the New Covenant are free to disregard the Law. Remember Jesus said the one who teaches against the validity of the least command in the Law would be least in the kingdom of heaven. Jesus then reiterates that not a jot will depart from the Law of Moses until heaven and earth pass away. (Matt. 5:18). Jesus is obviously warning a member of His New Covenant community to follow the Law. For Jesus, there is no such thing as a Covenant of Grace that throws out the Law two years later. (Jer. 31:31) et seq. expressly promises a New Covenant of "forgiveness and mercy" in which the Law continues and the covenant relationship with Israel's seed continues. That is why there is no such thing as a dual audience of different covenant partners-one under law and one under grace-as covenant theology adopts to protect Paul's validity.
As Pastor John MacArthur says, "both law and grace are part of the program of God in every dispensation." (J. MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, supra, at 31-32.)
Thus, dispensationalism/covenant theology, in its explanation of how to reconcile Paul to Jesus, insists Paul is correct on a key premise at odds with Jesus and (Jer. 31:31) et seq. and (Isa. 42:21). See also (Isa. 59:21).