A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon

[Steve Owen]

Hello Brian,
You wrote:-

I'll defer to those here whose "shoes I cannot dare even tie", however, Matt is not guilty of "root fallacy" here for the simple reason that he is establishing the meaning of the word "renew" or "new" based upon usage throughout the Scriptures - both Old and New Testaments - not simply appealing to "first mention" or the root alone. I have paid very close attention to Reformed/Covenantal scholars (at least in the Presbyterian camp) on this one Martin. Such men define and limit the usage of Biblical words primarily upon how they are defined and used in various contexts throughout Scripture - admitting the necessary translation of Hebrew->Greek via the Septuagint when necessary.

That is precisely what I have done and what Dr McMahon has failed to do. The usage of Chadash throughout the OT is very largely 'Brand New'. If you doubt this, then why not do a word-search as I suggested. Get yourself a Young's Analytical Concordance and look up New. You will then find the entries for chadash. There are a few usages that might be either new or renewed but in the overwhelming majority of the appearances it means NEW.

If you don't like Berkhof, then try any other responsible writer on Hermeneutics. They will all say the same thing. The usage of a word is the primary determinant of its meaning. The etymology comes a long way after.

It's Ok for you to disagree with Matt's hermeneutic, but please don't dismiss it with a hand wave or with limited selective appeals to Berkhof, etc.

For your information, I spent several hours preparing that critique at your specific request! A word of thanks might be in order. If you think it's wrong, then do some work yourself and show me where.

FYI, the occurrences of chadash where it clearly means New are as follows:-

Exod 1:8; Lev 23:16; 26:10; Num 28:26; Deut 20:5; 22:8; 24:5; 32:17; Josh 9:13; Judg 5:8; 15:13; 16:11, 12; 1Sam 6:7; 2Sam 6:3 (twice);21:16; 1King 11:29, 30; 2King 2:20; 1Chron 16:7; 2Chron 20:5; Job 32:19; Psa 33:3; 40:3; 96:1; 144:9; Eccl 1:9, 10; Song 7:13; Isa 41:15; 42:9, 10; 43:19; 48:6; 62:2; Jer 26:10; 31:22, 31; 36:10.

In Isaiah 65:17; 66:22; Ezek 11:19; 18:31; 36:26 both new and renewed could be argued, though I favour new.

In Lam 3:23 the probable meaning is renewed.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

[Edited on 10-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by ChristopherPaul

Originally posted by webmaster
You can easily find all of your objections handled in other threads on the board.

Could someone link the thread(s) that deal with Martin's objections? The search is quite daunting.

Here is just a handful:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5897

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5685

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5669

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5831

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5263

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=5275

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7269

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3998

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3229

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3253

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=4035

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3317

 

[BrianBowman]

Martin,

Please forgive my friend and brother. Thank you very much for your work!! I mean you no disrespect and I don't for a minute doubt the your thoroughness of your study. On "my end", I've been very occuppied for the past couple of days preparing my Mother's new home for arrival (she and my step father are moving 1000 miles from the place where they have lived for over 30 years) so I truly need to study your work more carefully and I promise to do just that. Also, I can assure you that as a serious (although beginning) student of Biblical Hebew, I have the very best of tools and resouces with which to do lexical studies (I've actually been doing the "word study" stuff for over 3 years now, but am just now really getting down to learning to actually _read_ the Hebrew text)

Kind Regards in Christ!


Brian

[Edited on 10-13-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Wannabee]

Matt,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I did not think you meant to come across that way, but it did seem a bit trite and/or authoritative. My desire was not to rebuke, but simply for clarity. Your reply shows that you took it that way. Blessings



Keep up the good work Martin.

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Brian,


Martin

 

[BrianBowman]

Hey (the traditional North Carolina greeting) Martin!

I've just read your post pretty thoroughly. I want to postpone making any comprehensive comments until I've had more time to digest the Reformed Baptist position and compare it to my own. This is the only way I can be fair to you _and_ to me . Also, I can _really_ relate to Matt's use of a dispensationist as a student as in my experience (as a former classical "Dispensational") they are much more plentyful here in America than you typically more educated Reformed Baptists

Of course we can split hairs all day long over proper hermeneutics and lexicography. You have certainly presented an able challenge to the Covenantal position, which of course has as a foundational premise the marvelous integration of the Scriptures. Perhaps I'm still reacting to my antinomian Dispensational background, but this Covenantal integration is something that has made redemptive history make so much more sense to me. Again, I'm still digesting it all.

Certainly we both see Christ throughout the Scriptures, in "types and shadows" in the Old Book and His fulness in the New. It is perhaps the way we see these things that differs and also where we start in our understanding of them. I am persuaded that the New Testament is not the place to begin, but the Old. The Hebrew idioms and culture are very important to understanding the New Testament, including the particular way the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to use and structure the Greek they expressed their writings with. To this end, I've embarked on a multi-year project to learn Biblical Hebrew and the ancient Hebrew culture (I'm hoping to travel to Israel in the next 2-3 years to study with a Hebrew scholar for 3 weeks). Anyway, enough about me.

Grace and Peace to you in our Lord Jesus Christ,


Brian

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Brian,
I think it's a pretty common error to see the Reformed Baptist position as Dispensationalist. However, the R.B. postion has a much longer and more noble history than that of Dispensationalism (It goes back to Peter- Acts 2:38 ).

I certainly agree that the O.T. is absolutely vital for us in our understanding of the covenants, but it must be read in the light of the NT, which is God's own commentary on it. In other words, Gen 17 must be read in the light of Rom 4, Gal 3 & 4 and, Hebrews etc. Come to that, it should also be read in the light of Isaiah 54.

If you want to get a handle on R.B. theology, then get a copy of the 1689 Confession and compare and contrast it with the WCF. An important difference is that we see two strands in the Abrahamic Covenant. Have a look at the Isaiah 54 thread, which no one has answered yet.

You might also like to read my post at

www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=12397&page=2

which sets out very briefly my own understanding of the continuity of the covenants.

Feel free to send me an e-mail or a u2u if you want to.

Every blessing,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[BrianBowman]

Thanks Martin,

You might also be aware that the current Dispensational trend (of the past 25 years or so) called "Progressive Dispensationalism" tends toward a more Reformed view of Soteriology. So (in America at least) we have a whole crowd of Baptists that are 5-point Calvinists with respect to salvation, while still basically holding to a classical Dispensational Ecclessiology and Eschatology.

Martin, we Covenantal guys will go along with you on Acts 2:38 if you'll "promise" not to leave out verse 39 - and indeed the whole Hebrew prophetic history bound-up in Peter's Pentecost sermon - beginning in the Old Testament where Peter did). Again, I continue to be troubled about starting in the New Testament to understand the Old. I believe our Lord's own words here in Luke 24 militate against that:

Luke 24:44-48 Then he said to them, "œThese are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, "œThus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

Much could exposited here in favor of the Covenantal position. What strikes me most is the question "what Scriptures" was our Lord referring to? Where did He begin?

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by BrianBowman
Thanks Martin,
You might also be aware that the current Dispensational trend (of the past 25 years or so) called "Progressive Dispensationalism" tends toward a more Reformed view of Soteriology. So (in America at least) we have a whole crowd of Baptists that are 5-point Calvinists with respect to salvation, while still basically holding to a classical Dispensational Ecclesiology and Eschatology.

Yeah, you still don't want to equate them with Reformed Baptists! However, if they're starting to move in the right direction, then that is certainly to be welcomed.

For Reformed Baptists in the USA, you want to look at F.I.R.E. or A.R.B.C.A. or go to www.rbtr.org

Martin, we Covenantal guys will go along with you on Acts 2:38 if you'll "promise" not to leave out verse 39 - and indeed the whole Hebrew prophetic history bound-up in Peter's Pentecost sermon - beginning in the Old Testament where Peter did).

That's fine by me. 'For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord may call.' You just need to ask yourself what the promise is.

Again, I continue to be troubled about starting in the New Testament to understand the Old. I believe our Lord's own words here in Luke 24 militate against that:

Luke 24:44-48 Then he said to them, "œThese are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and said to them, "œThus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things.

again! But when He 'opened their minds to understand the Scriptures', what did He say? Would it have contradicted anything Paul later said in Romans or Galatians? I don't think so. We need both the Old and New Testaments. "Therefore every scribe instructed in the Kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things both old and new" (Matt 13:52 ). However, we must interpret the OT in the light of what Paul and the rest of the NT say, otherwise they might just as well not have said it!

Much could exposited here in favor of the Covenantal position. What strikes me most is the question "what Scriptures" was our Lord referring to? Where did He begin?

It would certainly have involved Gen 3:15. Also, I think He would have spoken of Abel. The Lord Jesus described him as a prophet in Luke 11:50-51, and 'He .....still speaks' to us today (Heb 11:4 ). He knew nothing of circumcision or baptism, but he trusted in the Lord and in the Covenant of Grace.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[BrianBowman]

However, we must interpret the OT in the light of what Paul and the rest of the NT say, otherwise they might just as well not have said it!

. . . now brother Martin, a Covenantalist would turn your above sentence to say that "we must understand the NT in light of the entire progression of redemptive history beginning in all the way back in Genesis".

This would included "immersing our hearts and minds" in the culture and language of the ancient Hebrews and following its development throuhout their history, the divided kindgom, deportation/captivities, the intertestamental period - on into the time of Christ. These details are crucial to properly understanding the "very ground" that the Branch grew from (numerous OT verses here that we all know and love). To say it another way, as Paul did, the "root supports the branches" (Rom 11:17-20).

I am in no way ingoring the marvelous, much fuller light the NT gives us concerning the revelation of our Savior, but simply afirming the enormous foundation necessary to more fully comprehend that light!

Grace, Peace, and Love in our Savior to you!


Brian

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Paul did not need the NT to understand everything he understood about Christ's fulfillment. As a matter of fact, he wrote the NT (13 letters) based on his understanding of the OT (i.e. the NT usage for "the Scriptures.") It would seem odd to me, and all first century Christians I think, that we would understand what God said about the Messiah without understanding everything said in the OT. The NT certainly has a greater light in many areas, but at the same time, without understanding Paul's Bible, you wouldn't understand what he was ever saying in his letters.

NKJ Mark 12:10 "Have you not even read this Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

NKJ Mark 15:28 So the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with the transgressors."

NKJ Luke 4:21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}is fulfilled in your hearing."

NKJ Luke 22:37 "For I say to you that this which is written (Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}) must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end."

NKJ John 2:22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}and the word which Jesus had said.

NKJ John 7:38 "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water."
42 "Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

NKJ John 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}cannot be broken),

NKJ John 13:18 "I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'

NKJ John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}might be fulfilled.

NKJ John 19:24 They said therefore among themselves, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be," that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}might be fulfilled which says: "They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." Therefore the soldiers did these things.

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"

36 For these things were done that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}should be fulfilled, "Not one of His bones shall be broken."

37 And again another Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says, "They shall look on Him whom they pierced."

NKJ John 20:9 For as yet they did not know the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}, that He must rise again from the dead.

NKJ Acts 1:16 "Men and brethren, this Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus;

NKJ Acts 8:32 The place in the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}which he read was this: "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; And as a lamb before its shearer is silent, So He opened not His mouth.

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}, preached Jesus to him.

NKJ Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

NKJ Romans 9:17 For the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth."

NKJ Romans 10:11 For the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame."

NKJ Romans 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,

NKJ Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

22 But the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

NKJ Galatians 4:30 Nevertheless what does the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}say? "Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman."

NKJ 1 Timothy 4:13 Till I come, give attention to reading (Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}), to exhortation, to doctrine.

NKJ 1 Timothy 5:18 For the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says, "You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain," and, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

NKJ 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

NKJ James 2:8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," you do well;

23 And the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God.

NKJ James 4:5 Or do you think that the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?

NKJ 1 Peter 2:6 Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame."

NKJ 2 Peter 1:20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture {OLD TESTAMENT}is of any private interpretation,

etc.

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by webmaster]

 

[Poimen]

Matt: Would you mind if I copied and pasted those verses for my files?

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Matt,
Great use of a concordance!
Paul certainly knew and believed all the OT Scriptures; that goes without saying.
However, when he quoted them, the Holy Sprit added through him God's own commentary on them.

For example (especially for Scott's benefit! ):-
Gal 3:6-7. "Just as Abraham 'believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness', therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham."

There we have the quotation of the divinely inspired OT, and God's equally inspired commentary on it. We cannot believe the one without also believing the other.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Steve Owen]

Hi Brian,
You wrote:-

I am in no way ingoring the marvelous, much fuller light the NT gives us concerning the revelation of our Savior, but simply afirming the enormous foundation necessary to more fully comprehend that light!

Amen! But that in no way negates what I wrote in my post to you and in my reply to Matt above.

Since you and Matt are so keen on the OT, why don't you both write something on the Isaiah 54 thread that I started? I'm still waiting for someone to interact with that.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Not only can you, you don't ever have to ask that brother.

Copy these too:

NKJ Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}: 'The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD's doing, And it is marvelous in our eyes'?

NKJ Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}nor the power of God.

NKJ Matthew 26:54 "How then could the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"

56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled.

NKJ Mark 12:24 Jesus answered and said to them, "Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}nor the power of God?

NKJ Mark 14:49 "I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me. But the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}must be fulfilled."

NKJ Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

32 And they said to one another, "Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}to us?"

45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}.

NKJ John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.

NKJ Acts 17:2 Then Paul, as his custom was, went in to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT},

11 These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}daily to find out whether these things were so.

NKJ Acts 18:24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}, came to Ephesus.

28 for he vigorously refuted the Jews publicly, showing from the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}that Jesus is the Christ.

NKJ Romans 1:2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT},

NKJ Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}might have hope.

NKJ Romans 16:26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith --

NKJ 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT},

4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT},

NKJ 2 Timothy 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT}, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

NKJ 2 Peter 3:16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures {OLD TESTAMENT and NEW TESTAMENT}.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

There we have the quotation of the divinely inspired OT, and God's equally inspired commentary on it. We cannot believe the one without also believing the other.

Completely agree. But the OT is our starting point. We won't understand Paul's (i.e. the Holy Spirit's) commentary before first understanding the OT context.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by webmaster

There we have the quotation of the divinely inspired OT, and God's equally inspired commentary on it. We cannot believe the one without also believing the other.

Completely agree. But the OT is our starting point. We won't understand Paul's (i.e. the Holy Spirit's) commentary before first understanding the OT context.

We have to read and understand both, do we not? But when we have done so, we must interpret the OT in the clearer light of the New. Some of the OT was a mystery even to the inspired writers until the coming of Christ (Col 1:25-27; 1Peter 1:10-12 ).

Martin

 

[BrianBowman]

. . . friends, don't quote me on the name (but I believe it is renown OT Scholar Gordon Wenham) made a statement: "... since I completed my advanced [PhD] Hebrew and OT studies, the NT has never read the same"

Martin, I'm not found of "modern" analogies (e.g. the "newness" of automobiles ) because often too much gets lost when attempting to use them to explain Biblical truth. However, I will use _one_ for what we have been discussing here:

Consider a simple telescope (the inexpensive kind that do not have a reflective lens). If you look from the "big end" you see a very detailed, distant minature, but without much depth of field or panorama. It is my "observation" that is exactly what happens when we view redemptive history without a *very* well developed OT viewpoint.

However, If you look down the correct end of the telescope, you not only have the full panoramic depth of field, but you also the ability to see and focus on all the various objects in that field of vision. This is what happens when we view redemptive history from the viewpoint of the OT as our foundation. In this view the locus is Christ as the "alpha and omega" - "the one who inhabits eternity and whose name is holy" (Is. 57:15), but we are able to see how it all fits in the "larger picture"! Of course, as long as we are "in this tent of flesh" we will "only see dimly in a mirror", yet what we do see is much clearer than it otherwise would be.

 

[Wannabee]

Maybe I missed something, but me thinks we have case of speaking around one another. From what I'm seeing all three of you are saying the same thing a different way. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but when Martin refers to the NT above, I don't think he's referring to the canon per se, but rather to the revelation and illuminating light of the New/Better Covenant.

Hebrews 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.
Hebrews 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
Hebrews 12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.

Which, in effect, is saying the same thing that Matt and Brian have said.


If this is the case then the discussion seems to have taken a tangent that is more along the lines of straining gnats. Perhaps it would be more profitable to get down to the nuts and bolts of Martin's critique. I, for one, would love to see some serious exegetical wrangling here rather than this bantering.

 

[BrianBowman]

Joe,

... well at least were not "sallowing camels"

If this is the case then the discussion seems to have taken a tangent that is more along the lines of straining gnats. Perhaps it would be more profitable to get down to the nuts and bolts of Martin's critique. I, for one, would love to see some serious exegetical wrangling here rather than this bantering.

We have already seen such exegetical banter on several other threads, including appeals to the even "more expert" exegesis of a number of recognized Theologians from the past 500 years. From where I sit it keeps coming back to our underlying premises about the covenants and beginning points for understaning them in Scripture. Hence the reason for my last two posts.

Since you attend a Seminary where there is still a strong Dispensational influence, it would be interesting to hear you interact with Martin's comments conerning the use of a "Dispensational Student" in Matt's book.

Kind Regards in Christ,


Brian

[Edited on 10-14-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Wannabee]

Originally posted by BrianBowman
Since you attend a Seminary where there is still a strong Dispensational influence, it would be interesting to hear you interact with Martin's comments conerning the use of a "Dispensational Student" in Matt's book.

Fair enough. Your comment made me smirk because a good friend of mine recently said that he thought of me as a Reformed Baptist with dispensational tendencies. Probably a pretty accurate description.

I've made a couple of observations already, but here's a few more.

Actually, although he's not dispensationalist, I think Martin handled this much like I would expect someone in our circles to handle this. He went straight to the text and dealt directly with it.

The student in Matt's presentation is not like any dispensationalist I've been around. While I recognize that there are circles where this individual would fit, it's too bad he's presented an ultra-dispensationalist to prove his point. The student clearly departs from Scripture and relies on his "dispensational system" to attempt to discern the truth rather than on the clear teaching of Scripture. This is an obvious falacy that actually takes away from the argument.

Those in the New Testament church will be saved and regenerate. The New Testament presumes a regenerate membership in the church when they write. Regenerate people are the only ones in the New Covenant. Jesus will radically bring about a new kind of way in dealing with men. There will be no more need to teach the law because God will teach it to men and write it on their hearts. Pentecost shows us this when the Spirit comes and now dwells in men.

Let's face it, I'm surrounded by Dispensationalists, and I've not heard one make a claim such as this. A straw man is being built here for the sake of showing a great polarity that that can be used in this argument. There is some truth to it because some do believe what he portrays, but his case does not give his argument credibility because he's built it upon such a strong variant of dispensationalism. This is reminiscent of Gerstner's portrayal of dispensationalism, which takes away credibility in his argument. The student is guilty of eisegesis, but since he's so blatant about it the profs own eisegesis comes across as scholarly.

The professor merely claims authority (read authoritarianism). He should be showing the student rather than resting on his credentials to pursuade. He's abusing his privilege as a scholar and authority by not training the student to be a good Berean, but rather to simply take "man's" position on this rather than showing him how to think it through for himself. As Derick taught me when I was looking for a good seminary, "Find a school that will teach you HOW to think rather than WHAT to think." That will stick with me forever. This prof. is guilty of NOT teaching the student HOW to think, at least not think from Scripture first, but rather from his own position and authority.

Professor: It is clear that the contrast is one of regeneration. But may I ask, was Abraham regenerate?

Student: I am not sure. My Dispensationalism hinders me from answering that clearly.

I know there is not a single prof. here who could claim that Abraham was not regenerate, and I sincerely doubt that there are any students who would. The faith of Abraham is monumental throughout Scripture, NT and OT alike. This is a major frustration in this scenario.

Student: I would have to say "œyes." Otherwise I change the manner in which people go to heaven, and I suppose that is classic Dispensationalism.

Continuously we see the student stuck in a system rather than relying on Scripture. While this does happen, this is an irresponsible way to propose covenant theology. From my perspective this poor kid has been brainwashed by some horrible theolgy and this professor has come along and is simply trying to reprogram him without teaching him how to handle Scripture responsibly. Probably because he's just as brainwashed in his own theological system, rather than allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.
In the Hebrews 8 passage, how can he make his claims where it is clear that everything that Jesus represents is BETTER than the old (a word search of better in Hebrews is quite enlightening). It doesn't say that He made the old better, but that He is better, etc.

As an aside, another verse for showing that it takes the work of God to open the eyes and heart of man is Deut. 29:4. Really quite amazing and telling.

Well, that's not much, but I hope it's clear. Martin already did all the hard work.

Thanks Brian.


For our King
Joe

 

[pastorway]

posted by Wannabee
The student clearly departs from Scripture and relies on his "dispensational system" to attempt to discern the truth rather than on the clear teaching of Scripture.

Yep, and the prof in this piece did the same thing. This is a discussion about two systems and not about the Bible.......

 

[Steve Owen]

to what Joe said.
Brian, dear brother, it seems to me that you are waffling. Get into the texts and do a proper Biblical critique of what I wrote so that we can all be edified.

I am tied up with meetings today and tomorrow so the stage is yours. Go for it!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

Martin

 

[BrianBowman]

Friends,

I'm going to have to "punt" here . . . for the following reasons:

1) I'm not interested in "winning" or even advancing an arugment that will not stop because of different hermeneutical premises and even more imporantly the acceptance of exegesis that does not meet the highest standards of original language scholarship. Please let me explain. Martin, your critique is forceful, however (and say this with sincere and GREAT appreciation for you as a brother in Christ and minister of his Gospel) I don't believe that you are a Hebrew scholar.

Do you read the original text fluently? Have your been to Israel to study it's Biblical History and culture - or at least done this work on your own at home? Do you understand that "thinking" in Biblical Hebrew is not a "linear" process, like so much of the arugmentation we see above. Are you highly confident in your abilities to understand and elucidate the Hebrew idioms and grammar? You see, although I'm working on all of this, I _do not yet_ possess these abliities. Like you, I can do word counts/studies from a concordance and use them to form arguments based on my premises. I can even go a bit further and explain verb morphology and how this could inflence the interpretation.

However, I'm not yet to the point where I would attempt to pass this off as being authorative. So, we would back to "who can advance the best argument based on his premise" kind of bantering. It's the "point to several verses in the text" and say "see here my friend, this conclusively demonstrates that you can't prove your position" kind of debate. This is not profitable and can easily lead to arrogance and bitter feelings amoung those whom Christ has redeemed.

The target audience for Matt's book, a "Simple Overview of C.T." is not scholars, yet I believe that Matt is capable of providing the rigorous scholarship to back up everything in his book. So far, the arguments against it on this thread, are replete with dogmatic statments based upon exegesis that does not consider all of the factors that the most capable Bible Scholars are able to advance.

2) As I stated earlier, on top of all this, I need more time to understand the Reformed Baptist position before I can treat it fairly. I'm still assisting my aging parents to get settled into their home. It will likely be several weeks before I can revisit this.

Please forgive me if I have inordinately "opened a can of worms" and walked away.


Brian

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by BrianBowman]

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by BrianBowman]

 

[Wannabee]

Neither can I fluently read Hebrew. But I am able to work with it. Brian, your concerns with understanding the language are well founded, and I appreciate your care and concern. I hope you gain the fluency you desire. However, it is possible to accurately use the language once one has a proper of its construction and nuances. Cultural implications must be considered. It is also obvious that the eastern mind is much different than our western thought process. This does make it difficult. However, much can be gleaned from simple, responsible word studies.

Martin's contextual argument has also been brushed under. The very fact that Hebrews makes it clear that Christ's covenant is new and BETTER is something that has to be dealt with. To deny this is another imposition of theology on text where the meaning is clear.

There are other nuances that Martin did not deal with that you would be well served to consider if you dig into this (although this does overlap his study). For one, this form of chadash is the feminine adjective. As such it does not convey the exact same meaning as the verb. To force this meaning is a gross error. The first use of it is in Lev 23:16, refering to a "new grain offering." It is obvious from context that this is not a renewed or refreshed grain offering, but a new one, unlike the old. In this verse it is the exact same form as our text in Jer, even including the vowel pointing (later added by Masoretes). Gesenius was pretty clear on this.

×—Ö¸×“Ö¸×©× f. חֲדָש×ָה adj. new, e.g. used of a cart, a threshing wain, 1 Sam. 6:7; Isa. 41:5; of a house, Deut. 20:5; 22:8; of a wife, Deu. 24:5; a king, Ex. 1:8; a song, Psal. 33:3; 40:4; a name, Isa. 62:2. It often means fresh of this year; of grain (opposed to יָש×ָן), Levit. 26:10; unheard of, Eccles. 1:9, 10; "œnew gods," i.e. such as had not been previously worshipped, Deut. 32:17. חֲדָש×ָח "œsomething new," Isa. 43:19, plur. Isa. 42:9. As to חָגוּר חֲדָש×ָה 2 Sa. 21:16, see חָגַר.
Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures Page 263.

BDB has much to offer as well.

Is 42:9; 48:6;"”new, usually a. attrib. Ex 1:8 (E) a new king; so of house Dt 20:5, 22, wife 24:5, cords Ju 15:13; 16:11, 12, cart 1 S 6:7 2 S 6:3() (but del. in v b, cf. We Dr) = 1 Ch; 13:7; garment 1 K 11:29, 30, vessel 2 K 2:20, wine-skins Jos 9:13 (JE) Jb 32:19, threshing instr. Is 4:15; meal-offering Lv 23:16 (H) Nu 28:26 (P); especially (poet.) ש×ִיר ח׳ a new song (of praise) ψ 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9 Is 42:10; בְּרִית ח׳ Je 31:31; חדש××™× ×•×רץ חדש××” ש×Ö¸×žÖ·×™Ö´× Is 65:17 cf. 65:17 cf. 66:22; ש×Öµ× ×—×³ Is 62:2; רוּחַ ח׳ a new spirit Ez 11:19; 18:31; 36:26, + לֵב ח׳ 18:31; 36:26; פֶּתַח ש×ַעַר־י׳ הֶח׳ Je 26:10 new gate of (house of) י׳, cf. 36:10 (v. Gf Je 20:2); also הֶחָצֵר הַח׳ 2 Ch 20:5 the new court (v. Be Öt); ××œ×”×™× ×—×“×©××™× Ju 5:8 new gods? judges? text prob. corrupt, cf. Nö 1888, 477, MüllKönigsb. Stud. i., GACookeDeb. 34 ff. and conj. by Bu, 103, RS in BlaJudges; in gen. ×ֵין בָּל־ח׳ Ec 1:9 there is nothing new; with no subst. expr. חָגוּר חֲדָש×ָה 2 S 21:16 girt with a new (sword: but text perhaps corrupt, cf. We Klo Dr), of (food-)products of earth (opp. יָש×ָן) Lv 26:10 (H) Ct 7:14; חֲדָש×Ö´×™× Dt 32:17 new ones (i.e. gods; || מִקָּרֹב בָּ×וּ); in gen. f. חֲדָש×ָה a new thing Is 43:19 Je 31:22, fpl. Is 42:9 (opp. הָרִ×ש×ֹנֹות), 48:6. b. very rarely predicate: of י׳´s compassions ×œÖ·×‘Ö¼Ö°×§Ö¸×¨Ö´× ×—×“×©××™× La 3:23 they are new every morning; כְּבֹודִי ח׳ עִמָּדִי Jb 29:20 my glory shall be fresh with me; רְ×Öµ×” זֶה ח׳ ×”×•Ö¼× Ec 1:10 see, this is new!

Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon Page xiii.

I appologize for the formatting. I simply cut and paste and am too lazy to go through and format it for the board. All the references are clear though. These lexicons, and others, deal with chadash (fem - chadashah) in its adj. form. It is clear that the understood meaning is NEW, never "renew" (although it is possible that a couple of the references could be taken that way). Our good professor is guilty of eisegesis, irresponsible use of his credentials (again, read "authoritarianism") and biblical language. Again, he should have taught this student how to study the text instead of forcing his own system into it with his more developed rhetoric. But then, if he had done that and submitted to the authority of God's Word, he would have come to a different conclusion.


Hope that helps


Blessings
Joe


[Edited on 10-15-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[BrianBowman]

Joe,

Thank you for the "meaty" response. I think it's time (when he has the time) for "our good professor" to bring forth the full exegesis and logic that underlies the statements that you and Martin are in conflict with. Until then, the statement:

Our good professor is guilty of eisegesis, irresponsible use of his credentials (again, read "authoritarianism") and biblical language. Again, he should have taught this student how to study the text instead of forcing his own system into it with his more developed rhetoric. But then, if he had done that and submitted to the authority of God's Word, he would have come to a different conclusion.

seems a bit forceful to me and equally rhetorical.

 

[Wannabee]

Originally posted by BrianBowman
I think it's time (when he has the time) for "our good professor" to bring forth the full exegesis and logic that underlies the statements that you and Martin are in conflict with.

I agree. Although there is not much more to say on this. Unless I missed something, it is clear that the use of "new" in the passage, if it is consistent the biblical Hebrew in the rest of the OT, cannot mean "renew."

Until then, the statement:

Our good professor is guilty of eisegesis, irresponsible use of his credentials (again, read "authoritarianism") and biblical language. Again, he should have taught this student how to study the text instead of forcing his own system into it with his more developed rhetoric. But then, if he had done that and submitted to the authority of God's Word, he would have come to a different conclusion.

seems a bit forceful to me and equally rhetorical.

Perhaps it was a bit forceful (but I hardly think rhetorical), however the example is clear. Although argumentation and forcefulness are the nature of the presenation we're dealing with, the final sentence was probably too argumentative. I apologize. The preceding statements should be seriously considered though. This is a straw man argument Brian, and should be shown for what it is. I mean no offense and have simply attempted to show the falacy of the professor's hermeneutic contrasted with the clear meaning of Scripture. Matt has admitted that he did not intend to present this as an exegetical work, however, that is no excuse for any mishandling of God's Word. If I have missed or mishandled something I'd like to know, but it really does seem that proper exegesis comes to only one conclusion in this particular instance.

[Edited on 10-15-2005 by Wannabee]

 

[Steve Owen]

Brian wrote:-

Joe,

Thank you for the "meaty" response. I think it's time (when he has the time) for "our good professor" to bring forth the full exegesis and logic that underlies the statements that you and Martin are in conflict with.

I agree with this. Joe and I have made some serious allegations against Dr McMahon's article. If I have got my critique wrong then I owe him a grovelling apology. If, however, I am right then he is guilty of false teaching and of misleading the people of God. I note that nobody has yet made a serious attempt to defend his work.

In these circumstances, I think it is important that the webmaster, notwithstanding his other commitments, defends his teaching. If he is not prepared to do that, then it seems to me that at the very least he should withdraw the article from the web and apologize.

Martin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Martin,
Why should Dr. McMahon reinvent the wheel for you. All of your objections are typical for the reformed baptist and have been dealt with in the threads that Dr. McMahon has provided; go read them. I get the feeling that you think making statements like the one above will bait the good doctor into replying and dealing redundantly with your charge.

I agree with you in that one of you are correct, and the knife cuts both ways. If he is correct, and I know he is (Calvin et. al. would agree), then you are teaching a false doctrine and misleading Gods people as well.

I am closing this thread as it is not benefiting anyone at this point.