The New Covenant Contradiction
I came across an online article recently that was directed specifically at confused and questioning Adventists. It instructed the bewildered reader, “If you are confused about the Gospel message in any way, study exclusively from the books of Paul for one month!” The author claimed that this activity would put to rest any doubts you may still have about the fact that the law of God is no longer binding or applicable for you.
Interestingly, the technique seems to work. When Christians who have previously exalted and endorsed God’s TRUE law begin to study only from Paul’s epistles, their priorities shift. They quickly lose their respect for the authority of God’s instruction and begin to look at it as a curse rather than a blessing. As a result, they soon hurry to the nearest New Covenant Christian church proclaiming joyfully to all their friends, “We are no longer under the law! Paul said so!” Without considering the Old Testament directives or even the words of Jesus that support the authority of God’s TRUE law, the argument is over before it has even begun.
While all of us as Christians consider the New Covenant to be a foundational tenet of both ancient and modern Christianity, most of us as Christians are not aware that the “New Covenant” doctrine that defines Christianity is the exclusive invention of Paul of Tarsus, and a fundamental part of his select NuGospel.
In Paul’s personal NuGospel, God no longer sees you as a sinner, because when God looks at you all he sees is Jesus, who presumably died in your place. Whatever you do doesn’t matter; the God of the Universe who knows all and sees all somehow doesn’t see your sins. All God sees is Jesus. You no longer will be held accountable for your own sins, because Jesus paid it all when he died on the cross.[1] Because Jesus paid God’s “blood price” for all past and future sins, man no longer needs to worry about his actions. He just has to believe that Jesus is Lord and that “Jesus paid for his sins,” and he will be saved.
Perhaps the most remarkable problem with this belief is that while God specifically and in no uncertain terms strictly prohibits human sacrifice as murder within His TRUE Law—Paul’s “NuContract” gospel is all about God somehow demanding this sin, the blood of a human sacrifice, as the means to atone for the sin of the world!
Loosely based on a complete misinterpretation (or misappropriation) of Jeremiah 31:31, this New Covenant, which is the basis of Paul’s NuGospel and stars his NuJesus, is designed to be an all-powerful mechanism within Paul’s theological repertoire that literally gives him the power and authority to up-end and literally change the TRUE Law of God. Ironically, Paul totally misinterprets Jeremiah’s discussion of the “renewed covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31 that was specifically meant for Israel and Judah and reinterprets it to instead apply to Christian Gentiles.
The basic premise of Paul’s NuGospel is that the Jews, who were under the “Old Covenant” failed to follow the law perfectly. Therefore, God is said to have rejected them and their efforts at obedience. Instead, he has chosen to pour out His blessing of the “New Covenant” on the Gentiles. Furthermore, because asking people to keep God’s TRUE instruction didn’t work, God threw that requirement out. (This illustrates that God can learn from His mistakes.) Now, God rewards Gentiles for doing exactly what the Jews did in the first place – disobeying God’s instruction!
Here is where Adventists tend to get into trouble with other Evangelical Christian fundamentalist groups. Adventists feel that they need to keep the Ten Commandments and even believe that in the end times, commandment keeping will be a deal-breaker that defines and separates the people of God. “New Covenant Theology” Christians, on the other hand, feel that it is insulting to God if you try to keep the commandments, especially the Fourth Commandment which refers to the Sabbath. This will get you charged by NCT adherents with trying to “work your way to heaven”. You will get called “legalistic” and a “Judaizer”, which is the ultimate slur that one Christian can call another Christian. (Never mind that Jesus himself was a Jew.)[2]
God our Father has been portrayed by many as being a vindictive monster who cannot stand to even look upon sin,[3] and this “sinners in the hands of an angry God” depiction is one thing that makes Paul’s “no responsibility” NuGospel so attractive. Who wouldn’t appreciate being skipped over when it comes to the accountability portion of God’s judgment? However, this variation of the gospel is not the Gospel that Jesus himself, a Jew, taught! Jesus upheld the Jewish belief that you need to obey and follow God’s TRUE Law, and love and honor God.
The differences between Paul’s NuGospel and the TRUE Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles taught have not been lost on Biblical scholars down through the ages. Most mainstream Christian scholars will endeavor to explain away Paul’s multi-layered differences as later revelation within the context of this “NuContract” (i.e. “New Covenant”) doctrine.
While we in Christendom are told by Jesus to “establish the truth on the witness of two or three”, again, a concept that comes straight out of Hebraic law, the only foundation for Christendom’s version of or interpretation of the New Covenant is Paul and Paul alone.[4]
It was this authentic Hebraic perspective that indeed presented Paul and his Gentile-centric Hellenistic NuGospel with its most formidable challenge. On the one hand, Paul is claiming that he is a Jew, a Hebrew, and a Pharisees’ Pharisee. He even name-drops that he has studied under Gamaliel, perhaps one of the finest Hebraic scholars of the time.
On the other hand, Paul’s Jewish brethren are successfully opposing him and his NuGospel every step of the way. Paul is having difficulty convincing people that he really is a Jew with Jewish upbringing and beliefs! Paul now needs a way to somehow convince these Gentiles who have been instructed by real Jews that his (Paul’s) NuGospel is really based (however loosely) in Judaic ancestry and true Hebraic thought.
Paul’s New Covenant theology is also supported by the mysterious and unknown author of the book of Hebrews. For many centuries, because of the deep Pauline themes within the book, it was more or less automatically assumed by most learned scholars that Paul had written Hebrews. However, the general consensus of Christian scholars today is that Paul himself probably did not write Hebrews, but someone very close to him most likely did. [5]
E.F. Scott notes that the book of Hebrews is the “riddle of the New Testament.” William Barclay notes,
“When [the book of Hebrews] was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess…. It was not until the time of Athanasium, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.”[6]
While Barclay has a problem with understanding why this “great book” had to wait so long for “full recognition”, other scholars do not harbor his perplexity. One of the main reasons why the author of a book needs to be known is so that we can authenticate the book’s time of writing. An unknown author leaves the book open to a terribly late authorship that may have been well outside of the first century. In other words, a book written in the 2nd or early 3rd century qualifies to be “Scripture” about as much as the writings of Tertullian, Martin Luther, Ellen White or Dwight Moody would be considered “Scripture”.
Another unsettling problem is that Barclay and other theologians, both ancient and modern, all too easily dismiss as a mere footnote the vehement historical disputing of this book on their way to espousing their love and adoration for it as a supposed pillar and mainstay of “Christian” theology. Clearly, for such a deeply polarizing and disputed book, it was only a pillar of theology for a sectarian fraction of period “Christians”—the Pauline ones. The rest of the period Christians considered the book of Hebrews to be a fraud.
In the end, all of us are essentially forced to observe the same thing: no one really knows who wrote the book of Hebrews; or as Origen offers, “… only God knows for sure.”
Recently, I asked the question in a discussion on Facebook, “Who is the author of Hebrews?” The general consensus of the two Christians responding to the discussion was, “It doesn’t matter if we know who wrote the book of Hebrews, because we KNOW who the Author is.” There were warm fuzzy kudos and pats on the proverbial back and that was the end of it. The illogic of it all still astounds me; this defense is the epitome of circular reasoning! This unknown authorship should throw us into deep suspicion about the origin and content of the book of Hebrews, yet somehow, it escapes any and all scrutiny by the majority of today’s Christians because it is in the Bible.
In spite of the heavy opposition to the book of Hebrews from the ancient Church even well into the fourth century, the book indeed supported the Pauline NuGospel. Because this mysterious book was eventually canonized into the Scriptures themselves, man was able to falsely make the pagan assertion that his god required sacrifice—human sacrifice! —as the means of atonement for sin.
[1] This is a common refrain in Christian doctrine and music. How many of us are not familiar with the song, “Jesus paid it all. All to Him I owe. Sin had left a crimson stain; He washed it white as snow.” (Elvina Hall, 1865)
[2]This policy is sometimes taken to ridiculous lengths. I have known some former Adventists who, in order to prove that they are not trying to gain favor with God (or “work their way to heaven) by being vegetarian, will actually force themselves to start eating meat. It is as if they believe that exhibiting compassion toward God’s living creatures is in some way “working your way to heaven”!
[3] See Endnote “Can God Really Not Look Upon Sin?”
[4] Since the author of the book of Hebrews is unknown, in fact many scholars believed for centuries that Paul had indeed written it; it cannot be validated as any kind of additional historical witness.
[5]Luther felt strongly that Apollos, an understudy of Paul’s, had written the book. Tertullian believed that it was Barnabas who may actually have written the book. (The Daily Bible Study Series, The Letter to the Hebrews, William Barclay, Introduction, pp. 7-9) Enigmatically, the book doesn’t at all mention who has written it, which has added to the controversy of whether or not it should have been included for canonization within the Roman Catholic Bible. Indeed, many, many books, letters, epistles and other early Christian writings did not make canonization because primarily their authorship, among other secondary criteria, could not at all be proved—even if only through tradition! If Apollos wrote the book, which is highly likely, then Apollos could likely not use his name. A man named after a Greek pagan god would not be inspiring to the Messianic (Jewish) Christian peoples who sought to distance themselves from anything even remotely idolatrous.
A renowned German scholar named Harnack postulated the notion that Aquila and Priscilla, two people mentioned within Luke’s book of Acts, may have actually written the book of Hebrews. It was written at a time when women were not allowed to teach, and the absence of the name of the author might attest to such an anonymous authorship.
[6] Ibid. p. 5