Vanhoozer truth and hermeneutics

Why are they saying such awful things about truth and interpretation?

“All this stuff about hermeneutics is really a way of avoiding the truth question.” So spoke homo Tyndaliens, Tyndale man, to be precise, a NT Ph.D. student at Tyndale House, Cambridge, in 1984. My immediate reply: no, all this stuff about truth is really a way of avoiding the hermeneutical question. What I now want to say to my erstwhile colleague is this: all this stuff about hermeneutics is a way of facing up to the truth question: “Hermeneutics has become a bogey with which to frighten the children, and yet . . . its message is really rather simple. Appropriating ancient . . . texts [and not ancient only!] requires an effort of understanding and not just philological skills.”

Contemporary evangelicals had best face up to both questions. The temptation of conservative evangelicals is to play the propositional truth card in order to trump interpretation; the temptation of what we might call “emergent” evangelicals is to play the interpretation card in order to trump propositional truth. Neither move is ultimately satisfying, nor edifying.

From 'Lost in Interpretation: Truth, Scripture and Hermeneutics,' JETS Mar. 2005 89-114

Preterism and typology

David Field has some helpful comments on preterism here. I really would like to thank him for the help he has been to me, and I'm sure others, on thinking through this issue over the last couple of months. I'm certain he has helped me to read the Scriptures in a more faithful way.

However I wouldn't be as certain that a preteristic reading allows us to affirm point a) "we do not necessarily think that everything is going to get worse before Jesus comes back (the verses which look like 'getting worse and worse' aren't about that)."

Typologically why the Noanic flood judgment that Peter refers to 2 Peter 3:5-8 should be typological of the AD 70 end of a world judgment and not of the judgment at Jesus second advent makes no sense. If we can say that we should actually expect to see similar nonsense in our day as in the pre-flood days because the characteristics of the ungodly are the same in any age, then why should we not also expect to see the same state of affairs existing just prior to Jesus' return as existed both immediately preceding the flood and the AD 70 end of world judgments - affairs which include the righteous minority being oppressed unrighteous majority.

Surely in this way, those passages which Preterism rightly identifies as having the AD 70 end of world judgment as their referent, are typologically informative for the end of world judgment at Jesus' return. Given the unity in which God works out his purposes that underlies a typological reading of Scripture, one would therefore expect on the basis of the flood, the Exile, Jesus' cross and resurrection and AD 70 that the final judgment anti-typical judgment would echo these judgments in this way.

Baptism and sacred lineage

Acknowledging that baptism takes the place of circumcision, need not of necessity demand that the covenant sign be administered to the children of believers now. At least one aspect of circumcision, for which it was an eminently fitting sign, was that it functioned as the sign of the sacred lineage of Israel which ended with Christ the promised seed. It would appear that this aspect of the sign has now lost it's significance. While both the New Testament church and Old Testament Israel are God's people, it must be acknowledged that pre first-advent Israel alone had the role of ensuring that blessing would come by way of decent through Abraham's physical seed (Gal.3:16). This is not to deny the continuity that clearly exists between Old Testament Israel and the church but to seek to take account of the biblically framed distinctives.

Barth speaks of the redemptive-historical change which he understands has come about in the relation between parents and children. In the Old Covenant, marriage and propagation were determined by their place in the history of redemption: before Christ came there was "a redemptive-historical necessity of propagation." But after Christ came this necessity ceased to exist because the sacred lineage had found its fulfillment and hence also its termination. Thus he suggests, "it could have continued, but it did not have to."

Since Christ's first advent, salvation is no longer of necessity bound to the succession of generations. "It was," says Barth, "now a matter of man being God's child in his spiritual communion with the one Son of God and Men. Of God's children it can henceforth be said with Jn. 1:13 that they do not receive life by means of the will of man, but of God."

Critiquing Barth, Berkouwer notes that it is the contrast which he assumes between natural and spiritual birth that leads him astray. He states, "to contrast spiritual birth since the coming of Messiah with natural birth in the lineage of Israel, is to misunderstand the spiritual significance of God's covenant and of circumcision. ... it was never the case in the Old Testament that natural birth, apart from faith, placed a person automatically amongst the people of God."

But Berkouwer's criticism fails precisely on the point of Barth's distinctive. One can acknowledge with Berkouwer that the prophets demanded faith under the Old Covenant and that those adults lacking such and demonstrating open rebellion against the covenant would have come rightly under it's sanctions. Yet it is obvious that it certainly was the case that "natural birth, apart from faith, placed a person automatically amongst the people of God," for it was impossible to be born into Israel and not become a member of God's people, and that in order that the sacred lineage might continue until the promised seed arrived.

Paedobaptists often seem so keen to affirm the spiritual nature of the Covenant with Abraham, which Romans 4 clearly says was one of faith, that when Credobaptists state that there are also natural or physical elements inherent to that Covenant then they are heard as saying the Old Covenant was only merely external. It seems to me that Israel's distinctive role in redemption history as those through whose lineage the Messiah must come, demonstrates that Abraham's children are those of faith (Rom. 4:12) and hence the covenant has a truly spiritual aspect, but also during the time prior to Christ's advent, his physical decedents, some of whom will share in his faith, whilst others evidence that they do not.

Hodge: nature of the church III - 2 Abrahamic covenants

It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the natiofi; to the other, God and his true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i.e. of the covenant of grace,) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.

When Christ came "the commonwealth" was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."-Acts viii. 37. The Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship of Christ, and for mutual watch and care. The question, when any such organization is to be regarded as a portion of the true Church, is one to which the Protestant answer has already been given in a few words, but its fuller discussion must be reserved to some other occasion. (Princeton Review, October 1853).

Hodge: nature of church II - objections answered

1. The objections which the Romish and Ritual class, urge against this doctrine, are either founded on misconception, or resolve themselves into objections against the scriptural view of the nature of the Church as "the company of believers." Thus, in the first place, it is objected that in the Scriptures and in all ecclesiastical history, the Church is spoken of and addressed as a visible society of professing Christians. The churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, and Rome, were all such societies; and the whole body of such professors constituted THE CHURCH. History traces the origin, the extension, the trials, and the triumphs of that outward community. It is vain, therefore, to deny that body to be the Church, which the Bible and all Christendom unite in so designating. But was not the ancient Hebrew commonwealth called Israel, Jerusalem, Zion? Is not its history, as a visible society, recorded from Abraham to the destruction of Jerusalem? And yet does not Paul say expressly, that he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; that the external Israel is not the true Israel? In this objection the real point at issue is overlooked. The question is not, whether a man who professes to be a Christian, may properly be so addressed and so treated, but whether profession makes a man a true Christian. The question is not, whether a society of professing Christians may properly be called a Church, and be so regarded, but whether their being such a society constitutes them a competent part of the body of Christ. The whole question is, What is the subject of the attributes and prerogatives of the body of Christ? Is it the external body of professors, or the company of believers? If calling a man a Christian does not imply that he has the character and the inheritance of the disciples of Christ; if calling the Jewish commonwealth Israel did not imply that they were the true Israel, then calling the professors of the true religion the Church, does not imply that they are the body of Christ. When the designation given to any man or body of men, involves nothing more than what they are called.

To address any one as emperor, king, or president, is to admit his claim to such title. But when the designation is expressive of some inward quality, and a state of mind, its application does not imply its actual possession, but simply that it is claimed. To call men saints, believers, the children of God, or a Church, supposes them to be true believers, or the true Church, only on the assumption that "no internal virtue" is necessary to union with the Church, or to make a man a believer and a child of God.at is external or official, its application implies they are what they are called.

That doctrine admits the propriety of calling any man a Christian who professes to be a worshipper of Christ, and of designating any company of such men a church. It only denies that he is a real Christian who is one only in name; or that that is a true Church, which is such only in profession.

2. It is objected that the possession of officers, of laws, of terms of communion, necessarily supposes the Church to have the visibility of an external society. How can a man be received into the Church, or excommunicated from it, if the Church is not an outward organization? Did the fact that the Hebrews had officers and laws, a temple, a ritual, terms of admission and exclusion, make the external Israel the true Israel, or prove that the visibility of the latter was that of a state or commonwealth? Protestants admit that true believers form themselves into a visible society, with officers, laws, and terms of communion-but they deny that such society is the true Church, any further than it consists of true believers. Everything comes back to the question, What is the Church? True believers constitute the true Church; professed believers constitute the outward Church. These two things are not to be confounded. The external body is not, as such, the body of Christ.

The true Israel was not the commonwealth, as such, and the outward organization, with its laws and officers, though intimately related with the spiritual body as the true Church, did not constitute it. The question, how far the outward Church is the true Church, is easily answered. Just so far as it is what it professes to be, and no further. So far as it is a company of faithful men, animated and controlled by the Holy Spirit, it is a true Church, a constituent member of the body of Christ. If it be asked further, how we are to know whether a given society is to be regarded as a Church; we answer, precisely as we know whether a given individual is to be regarded as a Christian, i. e. by their profession and conduct.

Bossuet presents this objection in the light of a contradiction. He says, "Protestants insist that the Church consists exclusively of believers, and is therefore an invisible body. But when asked for the signs of a Church, they say, the word and sacraments: thus making it an external society with ordinances, a ministry, and public service. If so, how can it consist exclusively of the pious? And where was there any such society, answering to the Protestant definition, before the Reformation?"* This objection rests upon the misconception which Ritualists do not appear able to rid themselves of. When Protestants say the Church is invisible, they only mean that an inward and consequently invisible state of mind is the condition of membership, and not that those who have this internal qualification are invisible, or that they cannot be so known as to enable us to discharge the duties which we owe them. When asked, what makes a man a Christian? we say, true faith. When asked, whom must we regard and treat as Christians? we answer, those who make a credible profession of their faith. Is there any contradiction in this? Is there any force in the objection, that if faith is an inward quality, it cannot be proved by outward evidence? Thus, when Protestants are asked, what is the true Church? they answer, the company of believers. When asked, what associations are to be regarded and treated as churches? they answer, those in which the gospel is preached.

3. A third objection is very much of the same kind as the preceding. If the Church consists exclusively of believers, it is invisible. We are, however, required to obey the Church, to hear the Church, &c. But how can we hear and obey an invisible body? To this the answer is, the Church is no more invisible than believers are. We are commanded to love the brethren; to do good to all men, especially to the household of faith. As faith, however, is invisible, it may be asked, in the spirit of this objection, how can we tell who are believers? Christ says, by their fruits.

4. Much the most plausible argument of Romanists is derived from the analogy of the old dispensation. That the Church is a visible society, consisting of the professors of the true religion, as distinguished from the body of true believers, known only to God, is plain, they say, because under the old dispensation it was such a society, embracing all the descendants of Abraham who professed the true religion, and received the sign of circumcision. To this external society were given the oracles of God, the covenants, the promises, the means of grace. Out of its pale there was no salvation. Union with it was the necessary condition of acceptance with God. This was a divine institution. It was a visible Church, consisting of professors, and not exclusively of believers. If such a society existed then by divine appointment, what has become of it? Has it ceased to exist? Has removing its restriction to one people destroyed its nature? Does lopping certain branches from the tree destroy the tree itself? Far from it. The Church exists as an external society now as it did then; what once belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, now belongs to the visible Church. As union with the commonwealth of Israel was necessary to salvation then, so union with the visible Church is necessary to salvation now. And as subjection to the priesthood, and especially to the high-priest, was necessary to union with Israel then, so submission to the regular ministry, and especially to the Pope, is necessary to union with the Church now. Such is the favourite argument of Romanists; and such, (striking out illogically the last clause, which requires subjection to prelates, or the Pope,) we are sorry to say is the argument of some Protestants, and even of some Presbyterians.

The fallacy of this whole argument lies in the false assumption, that the external Israel was the true Church. It was not the body of Christ; it was not pervaded by his Spirit. Membership in it did not constitute membership in the body of Christ. The rejection or destruction of the external Israel was not the destruction of the Church. The apostacy of the former was not the apostacy of the latter. The attributes, promises, and prerogatives of the one, were not those of the other. In short, they were not the same, and, therefore, that the visibility of the one was that of an external organization, is no proof that the visibility of the Church is that of an external society. All this is included, not only in the express declaration of the Apostle, that the external Israel was not the true Israel, but is involved in his whole argument. It was, indeed, the main point of discussion between himself and theJews. The great question was, is a man made a member of the true Israel, and a partaker of the promise, by circumcision and subjection, or by faith in Christ? If the former, then the Jews were right, and Paul was wrong as to the whole issue. But if the latter, then Paul was right and the Jews wrong. And this is the precise question between us and Romanists, and Anglicans. If the external Israel was the true Israel, then Romanists are right and Protestants are wrong as to the method of salvation.

Besides, if we admit that the external Israel was the true Church, then we must admit that the true Church apostatized; for it is undeniable that the whole external Israel, as an organized body, did repeatedly, and for long periods, lapse into idolatry. Nay more, we must admit that the true Church rejected and crucified Christ; for he was rejected by the external Israel, by the Sanhedrim, by the priesthood, by the elders, and by the people. All this is in direct opposition to the Scriptures, and would involve a breach of promise on the part of God. Paul avoids this fatal conclusion by denying that the external Church is, as such, the true Church, or that the promises made to the latter were made to the former. (Princeton Review, October 1853).

Hodge: visibility and nature of the church I

The Jews claimed all these promises for the external organization, i. e. for the natural descendants of Abraham, united to him and to each other by the outward profession of the covenant, and by the sign of circumcision. They held, that external conformity to Judaism made a man a Jew, a member of that body to which all these promises and prerogatives belonged; and, consequently, that the apostacy or rejection of that external body would involve the destruction of the Church, and a failure of the promise of God. In like manner Ritualists teach that what is said and promised to the Church belongs to the external visible society of professing Christians, and that the destruction of that society would be the destruction of the Church.
In opposition to all this, Paul taught,

1. That he is not a Jew who is one outwardly.
2. Circumcision, which was outward, in the flesh, did not secure an interest in the divine promises.
3. That he only was a Jew, i. e. one of the true people of God, who was such in virtue of the state of his heart.
4. That the body to which the divine promises were made, was not the outward organization, but the inward, invisible body; not the Israel according to the flesh, but the Israel according to the spirit.

This is the Protestant doctrine of the Church, which teaches that he is not a Christian who is such by mere profession, and that it is not water baptism which makes a man a member of that body to which the promises are made, and consequently that the visibility of the Church is not that which belongs to an external society, but to true believers, or the communion of saints.

The same doctrine taught by the apostle Paul, is no less plainly taught by the apostle John. In his day many who had been baptized, and received into the communion of the external society of Christians, were not true believers. How were they regarded by the apostle? Did their external profession make them members of the true Church, to which the promises pertain? St. John answers this question by saying, " They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that it might be made manifest that they were not all of us. But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." 1 John ii. 19, 20. It is here taught,

1. That many are included in the pale of the external Church, who are not members of the true Church.
2. That those only who have an unction of the Holy One, leading them into the knowledge of the truth, constitute the Church.
3. And consequently the visibility of the Church is that which belongs to the body of true believers.

The great argument, however, on this subject, is the utter incongruity between what the Bible teaches concerning the Church, and the Romish doctrine that the Church is visible as an external organization. If that is so, then such organization is the Church; then, as the Church is holy, the body and bride of Christ, the temple and family of God, all the members of that organization are holy, members of Christ's body, and partakers of his life. Then, too, as Christ has promised to guide his Church into the knowledge of the truth, that external organization can never err as to any essential doctrine. Then, also, as we are commanded to obey the Church, if we refuse submission to this external body, we are to be regarded as heathen men and publicans. Then, moreover, as Christ saves all the members of his body and none other, he saves all included in this external organization, and consigns to eternal death-all out of it. And then, finally, ministers admit to heaven all whom they receive into this society, and cast into hell all whom they reject from it. These are not only the logical, but the avowed and admitted conclusions of the principle in question.

It becomes those who call themselves Protestants, to look these consequences in the face, before they join the Papists and Puseyites in ridiculing the idea of a Church composed exclusively of believers, and insist that the body to which the attributes and promises of the Church belong, is the visible organization of professing Christians. ( Princeton Review, October 1853.)

Owen on totus Christus

David Field has some interesting stuff on totus Christus, here and here, the former of which he generously attributes to me - (I seem to remember being in the room at the time David put the pieces together).

For Augustine totus Christus is an important doctine which unites Christology and Ecclesiology by affirming the real connection of Christ, the head, to the Church, his body. The concept has been summarised as “Christ, as head, is always present and active in his body, the church; the church and Christ form one single person.”

Thus one reads the following passage from Augustine's Homilies on the Gospel of John:

Then let us rejoice and give thanks that we are made not only Christians, but Christ. Do you understand, brothers, and apprehend the grace of God upon us? Marvel, be glad, we are made Christ. For if he is the head, we are the members: the whole man is he and we… The fullness of Christ, then, is head and members. Head and members, what is that? Christ and the Church (In. Io. XXI.8).

Concerned that the concept that we have no Christ without the Church takes away from the uniqueness of Christ, making him incomplete, I've looked around to find the concept if not the language of totus Christus being used elsewhere in later Protestant thought.

So here is John Owen from Vol. 5 'The Doctrine of Justification by Faith', section viii 'Imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ'. It's great!

This, then, I say, is the foundation of the imputation of the sins of the church unto Christ,-- namely, that he and it are one person; the grounds whereof we must inquire into.

But hereon sundry discourses do ensue, and various inquiries are made,--What a person is? In what sense, and in how many senses, that word may be used? What is the true notion of it? What is a natural person? What a legal, civil, or political person? In the explication whereof some have fallen mistakes. And if we should enter into this field, we need not fear matter enough of debate and altercation. But I must needs say, that these things belong not unto our present occasion; nor is the union of Christ and the church illustrated, but obscured by them.

For Christ and believers are neither one natural person, nor a legal or political person, nor any such person as the laws, customs, or usages of men do know or allow of. They are one mystical person; whereof although there may be some imperfect resemblances found in natural or political unions, yet the union from whence that denomination is taken between him and us is of that nature, and arises from such reasons and causes, as no personal union among men (or the union of many persons) has any concernment in. And therefore, as to the representation of it unto our weak understandings, unable to comprehend the depth of heavenly mysteries, it is compared unto unions of divers kinds and natures.

So is it represented by that of man and wife; not as unto those mutual affections which give them only a moral union, but from the extraction of the first woman from the flesh and bone of the first man, and the institution of God for the individual society of life thereon. This the apostle at large declares, Eph.5:25-32: whence he concludes, that from the union thus represented, "We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones," verse 30; or have such a relation unto him as Eve had to Adam, when she was made of his flesh and bone, and so was one flesh with him. So, also, it is compared unto the union of the head and members of the same natural body, 1 Cor.12:12; and unto a political union also, between a ruling or political head and its political members; but never exclusively unto the union of a natural head and its members comprised in the same expression, Eph.4:15; Col.2:19. And so also unto sundry things in nature, as a vine and its branches, John 15:1,2. And it is declared by the relation that was between Adam and his posterity, by God's institution and the law of creation, Rom.5:12, etc.

And the Holy Ghost, by representing the union that is between Christ and believers by such a variety of resemblances, in things agreeing only in the common or general notion of union, on various grounds, does sufficiently manifest that it is not of, nor can be reduced unto, any one kind of them.

And this will yet be made more evident by the consideration of the causes of it, and the grounds whereinto it is resolved. But whereas it would require much time and diligence to handle them at large, which the mention of them here, being occasional, will not admit, I shall only briefly refer unto the heads of them:

1. The first spring or cause of this union, and of all the other causes of it, lies in that eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son concerning the recovery and salvation of fallen mankind. Herein, among other things, as the effects thereof, the assumption of our nature (the foundation of this union) was designed. The nature and terms of this compact, counsel, and agreement, I have declared elsewhere; and therefore must not here again insist upon it. But the relation between Christ and the church, proceeding from hence, and so being an effect of infinite wisdom, in the counsel of the Father and Son, to be made effectual by the Holy Spirit, must be distinguished from all other unions or relations whatever.

2. The Lord Christ, as unto the nature which he was to assume, was hereon predestinated unto grace and glory. He was "proegnoosmenos",- -"foreordained," predestinated, "before the foundation of the world," 1 Pet.1:20; that is, he was so, as unto his office, so unto all the grace and glory required thereunto, and consequent thereon. All the grace and glory of the human nature of Christ was an effect of free divine preordination. God chose it from all eternity unto a participation of all which it received in time. Neither can any other cause of the glorious exaltation of that portion of our nature be assigned.

3. This grace and glory whereunto he was preordained was twofold:

(1.) That which was peculiar unto himself;

(2.) That which was to be communicated, by and through him, unto the church.

(1.) Of the first sort was the "charis henooseoos",--the grace of personal union; that single effect of divine wisdom (whereof there is no shadow nor resemblance in any other works of God, either of creation, providence, or grace), which his nature was filled withal: "Full of grace and truth." And all his personal glory, power, authority, and majesty as mediator, in his exaltation at the right hand of God, which is expressive of them all, do belong hereunto. These things were peculiar unto him, and all of them effects of his eternal predestination. But,

(2.) He was not thus predestinated absolutely, but also with respect unto that grace and glory which in him and by him was to be communicated unto the church.

Preach! preacher, woo, woo, woo!

It was Richard Sibbes who said the, 'To preach is to woo', explaining it thus

The preachers are 'paranymphi', the friends of the bridegroom, that are to procure the marriage between Christ and his Church; therefore they are not only to lay open the riches of her husband, Christ, but likewise to entreat for a marriage, and to use all the gifts and parts that God hath given them to bring Christ and his Church together. (Works Vol. V)

Powlison on Cosmetic Saviours

Nothing for a month but when I saw this I just had to link to it.

Bahnsen's theonomic hermeneutic

In By No Other Standard, Bahnsen notes that a distinction between the ceremonial and moral law can be validly drawn and alludes to Hosea 6:6 and Ephesians 2:5 to support this. While noting that some laws have both ceremonial and moral elements to them he suggest that Israel did not need Old Testament law to be "written out in delineated literary subsections in order for them to be, nevertheless, clearly distinguishable." Further, Bahnsen claims that with the "coming of New Covenant revelation which helps us understand even better the meaning and purpose of Old Covenant commands, the cogency and necessity of something life the moral/ceremonial distinction becomes all the more apparent." (BNOS 97)

The distinction between moral and ceremonial laws can be explained thus:

Moral laws reflect the absolute righteousness and judgment of God, guiding man’s life into the paths of righteousness; such laws define holiness and sin, restrain evil through punishment of infractions, and drive the sinner to Christ for salvation.

On the other hand, ceremonial laws — or redemptive provisions — reflect the mercy of God in saving those who have violated His moral standards; such laws define the way of redemption, typify Christ’s saving economy, and maintain the holiness (or “separation”) of the redeemed community. (BTS 135-6)

Ceremonial laws were binding to Jews not Gentiles and displayed the way of redemption. Moral laws, on the other hand, were to be emulated as the effect of redemption. Thus Judaizers are those who seek to enforce ceremonial boundary marking laws on Gentiles under the New Covenant, laws that had been abrogated under Christ (Eph. 2:15). For Bahnsen it is then, ceremonial law that is the schoolmaster whom, "we are no longer under in our Christ-given maturity".

But in that Bahnsen can affirm that ceremonial law was a "foreshadow of the Messiah and His redemming work, applied to the Jews (and to us) by faith", he does not deny that Old Covenant ceremonial ritual has import into New Covenant ceremony.