Are we living fully in the New Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pkananen

Puritan Board Freshman
Would you say that we are fully living in the New Covenant era? Obviously I know that Christ's death on the cross was the initiation of the New Covenant. But when I read the promise of the law being written on our hearts in Jeremiah 31, I also see that we are to expect that we have no need to "teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD." Although we have the spirit in us that allows us to desire God's law, I also know that it is truly not written on my heart in such a way that I do not daily have to remind myself to "Know the Lord".

Jeremiah 31
31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

In other words, it seems this passage is essentially describing the new heavens and the new earth, and the glorified state in which we will exist, living in perfect communion with God. Is it wrong to say the New Covenant era in its fullness is the age to come? How does covenant theology understand this distinction, if it does at all?
 
Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.
 
Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.

Exactly, the covenant was initiated. Christ performed his priestly role and sat down at the right hand of the Father. But the promises of the New Covenant seem to not yet have fully arrived.
 
Luke 22:20 In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you.

Exactly, the covenant was initiated. Christ performed his priestly role and sat down at the right hand of the Father. But the promises of the New Covenant seem to not yet have fully arrived.

How?
There is a new exodus from the bondage of sin and the spirit dwells with in us. We are the people of God, the reconstituted Israel who are justified by faith.
 
Peter,
We call it: the Already; and the Not Yet. Inauguration and Consummation of both kingdom and covenant.

Trent, we're out of Egypt, but now in the wilderness, still on the way to the Promised Land.

The expectation perspective of the Old Covenant era constantly sets side by side 1) Messiah's arrival and the setting up of his kingdom, and 2) the immediate fulfillment of all the highest hopes and expectations of that kingdom. There are a host of utterly irreconcilable facts that accompany the expectation, items which cannot possibly be disentangled from the perspective prior to the Messianic age.

Such as: the Messiah must be cut off, and the Messiah remains forever. On the face of it, these two expectations appear completely at odds. Or, how can the Messiah be despised and rejected, and be the glory of his people Israel and desire of all the nations?

We are living in days of grace, an era of opportunity to receive entrance into a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Messiah has come, and achieved an impossible victory. He has overturned his enemies' rebellion, frustrated their plots, turning their triumph on its head, making their curse (hanging him on a tree) the indispensable sacrifice for the sin of the world. He triumphs over his foes in the cross.

In the resurrection and ascension, the true Son of David is "adopted" (this day I have begotten you) and enthroned as the Father's Agent. He sends forth his angels to the ends of the earth to gather his elect. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way. An end of Justice' reprieve and offers of mercy is nearer now than ever. Today is the day of salvation.

The consummated kingdom is the time when perfection reigns. That's heaven (new heavens/earth). We (the church militant) are not in heaven yet.
 
Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.
 
Would you say that we are fully living in the New Covenant era? Obviously I know that Christ's death on the cross was the initiation of the New Covenant. But when I read the promise of the law being written on our hearts in Jeremiah 31, I also see that we are to expect that we have no need to "teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD." Although we have the spirit in us that allows us to desire God's law, I also know that it is truly not written on my heart in such a way that I do not daily have to remind myself to "Know the Lord".

Jeremiah 31
31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. 33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

In other words, it seems this passage is essentially describing the new heavens and the new earth, and the glorified state in which we will exist, living in perfect communion with God. Is it wrong to say the New Covenant era in its fullness is the age to come? How does covenant theology understand this distinction, if it does at all?

The passage which speaks about the end of teaching is speaking about the end of the mediatorial functions of prophet, priest and king in the Church. All true believers are prophets, priests and kings - spiritually speaking - in the New Testament era, and we are taught by the Lord Himself, Christ Jesus, whom we know. Cf. also e.g. Joel 2:28. Mediatorial distinctions which were basic the the Old Testament/Mosaic Administration are ended.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2
 
Peter,
We call it: the Already; and the Not Yet. Inauguration and Consummation of both kingdom and covenant.

Trent, we're out of Egypt, but now in the wilderness, still on the way to the Promised Land.

The expectation perspective of the Old Covenant era constantly sets side by side 1) Messiah's arrival and the setting up of his kingdom, and 2) the immediate fulfillment of all the highest hopes and expectations of that kingdom. There are a host of utterly irreconcilable facts that accompany the expectation, items which cannot possibly be disentangled from the perspective prior to the Messianic age.

Such as: the Messiah must be cut off, and the Messiah remains forever. On the face of it, these two expectations appear completely at odds. Or, how can the Messiah be despised and rejected, and be the glory of his people Israel and desire of all the nations?

We are living in days of grace, an era of opportunity to receive entrance into a kingdom that cannot be shaken. Messiah has come, and achieved an impossible victory. He has overturned his enemies' rebellion, frustrated their plots, turning their triumph on its head, making their curse (hanging him on a tree) the indispensable sacrifice for the sin of the world. He triumphs over his foes in the cross.

In the resurrection and ascension, the true Son of David is "adopted" (this day I have begotten you) and enthroned as the Father's Agent. He sends forth his angels to the ends of the earth to gather his elect. Kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish in the way. An end of Justice' reprieve and offers of mercy is nearer now than ever. Today is the day of salvation.

The consummated kingdom is the time when perfection reigns. That's heaven (new heavens/earth). We (the church militant) are not in heaven yet.

Yes, this is my understanding as well. I'm very familiar with the "already, not yet" fulfillment and I agree it fits within the OT promise of the New Covenant.
 
Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
 
How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
If we understand correctly what is being stated by Jeremiah, Paul, and the rest, there's no reconciliation required, because covenant Theology IS what the Bible teaches.

One of the first realities that needs to be wrestled with is the Exile. The Exile brought in a ruined state of affairs. We need to understand the ruin of the Exile in parallel with the ruin of the original Fall. Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise parallels the people of God cast out of the Land. And just as God's ultimate intent for the human race is not derailed in the beginning, neither is God's ultimate intent for his typological people derailed. And just as another covenant is introduced on the post-edenic stage, "not like" the first covenant of works; so another covenant is promised to the Old Covenant people post-exile that will not be like the Sinaic covenant.

The Exile is as much a devastation of the covenant relationship God has with the chosen people, as the first Exile from Eden devastates the basic relation the human race has with its Maker. But God is not done with humanity, and he's not done with Israel. It will, however, take a new covenant to fully restore what went wrong.

This is what Jesus does when he goes to the cross. He inaugurates the New Covenant in his blood. The last administration of the Covenant of Grace has begun.


When God promises through the prophets to call his scattered, old covenant people back after they broke his covenant--as he had indicated he would do as far back as Moses--he doesn't do so "alone." Isaiah's concluding chapters are full of this. For example, Is.49:22, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders." 60:4,10, "Lift up your eyes all around, and see; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.... Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you; for in my wrath I struck you, but in my favor I have had mercy on you."

When the Lord scatters his people among the Gentiles, they become no-people (Hos.1:9); they cease to have any externally recognizable differentiation. They wanted to be Gentiles, so the Lord gives them what they want, Ezk.20:23,25; v26, "I pronounced them unclean." It is interesting to note, that he also refuses to give them what they want, v32ff. He promises them a practical repeat of the first Exodus.

The point of the Restoration--whether taught by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah--is that when the Lord brings his strangers Home again, they do not come out alone. They come out arm-in-arm with Gentiles, carried by Gentiles, surrounded by Gentiles. They lost their pure differentiation. But their election was always according to grace, and God promised Abraham a great posterity which began with real flesh-and-blood. It is as though in scattering them, their visible status as "chosen" is both lost, but also diffused. And in their summons, these are not extracted like a magnet over sand pulling out the iron filings, and leaving the inert dust behind. But with the elect remnant come the residue of the nations, and the promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations is fulfilled.

Not as though it did not happen before. In the original Exodus, the same nucleus of the Holy Family (now many thousands in number) is surrounded by a "mixed multitude" of Gentiles--Egyptians, Edomites, etc.--all seeking escape from the Land of Death. All which prefer forsaking their worthless idols, and a madman of a king, to align with the cause of these Israelites who's God is bringing them out to save them. "Save us, also!" All these swore to keep covenant at the Mount, and were incorporated into Israel's tribes.


Another reality, not enough appreciated, is that Israel is reducible to One Person. The "house of Israel [meaning but part of Israel as a whole] and the house of Judah [the rest of Israel as a whole]" are only what they are by union with the One who will inherit all his father's estate. Which is to say, that the New Covenant is ultimately made between Christ, the true Israel, the Seed, the Vine; and God Almighty. That's the true nature of this promised covenant, and indeed of all the covenants. The covenant of grace is first made with Christ, and all the elect as his seed, West. Larger Cat. #31.

So, in Old Covenant terms, when God by his prophet speaks to his church, it is perfectly reasonable for him to use common language describing the church of that era: "house of Israel, house of Judah." That is a name for the people of God in the Old Testament.

It is not the case that when the New Covenant day arrives, that the people of God in the New Covenant era must somehow distinguish between two fundamentally different "kinds" of people: those in the New Covenant who are "house of Israel/Judah" and those who are of "house of Gentiles." All those who are "grafted in" are not grafted into anything like a preexisting nation or people, but into ONE PERSON. The distinction Paul makes between a "natural" branch and a "wild" branch (Rom.11:21,24) to explain their origin, does not extend to distinguishing between branches altogether grafted into Christ.

Finally, in Rom.9:4, Paul does not affirm aught except that the holy nation up to that time was the most blessed and privileged on the face of the earth. They were the home of the patriarchs (v5) which should bring forth the Savior of the world, and the adoption (esp. a royalty designation), the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises. The New Covenant is an element of Israel's birthright, one which they should be falling over themselves in their haste to lay hold of it. And yet, they (inexplicably?) do not. This is Paul's great grief with respect to them. They should be in the first rank, but they reject the gospel instead. What a tragedy.

But, even this is still part of the plan. Jewish/Israelite pride will serve a greater end. And in the end, they will abandon that pride and take up their place in the redeemed whole.



That's the teaching of the Bible, and Covenant Theology.
 
You use a lot of words ;)

How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?
If we understand correctly what is being stated by Jeremiah, Paul, and the rest, there's no reconciliation required, because covenant Theology IS what the Bible teaches.
Um, ok. I'm not saying it doesn't, but that alone is circular reasoning.

One of the first realities that needs to be wrestled with is the Exile. The Exile brought in a ruined state of affairs. We need to understand the ruin of the Exile in parallel with the ruin of the original Fall. Adam and Eve cast out of Paradise parallels the people of God cast out of the Land. And just as God's ultimate intent for the human race is not derailed in the beginning, neither is God's ultimate intent for his typological people derailed. And just as another covenant is introduced on the post-edenic stage, "not like" the first covenant of works; so another covenant is promised to the Old Covenant people post-exile that will not be like the Sinaic covenant.

The Exile is as much a devastation of the covenant relationship God has with the chosen people, as the first Exile from Eden devastates the basic relation the human race has with its Maker. But God is not done with humanity, and he's not done with Israel. It will, however, take a new covenant to fully restore what went wrong.


This is what Jesus does when he goes to the cross. He inaugurates the New Covenant in his blood. The last administration of the Covenant of Grace has begun.
Agreed.


When God promises through the prophets to call his scattered, old covenant people back after they broke his covenant--as he had indicated he would do as far back as Moses--he doesn't do so "alone." Isaiah's concluding chapters are full of this. For example, Is.49:22, "Thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I will lift up my hand to the nations, and raise my signal to the peoples; and they shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders." 60:4,10, "Lift up your eyes all around, and see; they all gather together, they come to you; your sons shall come from afar, and your daughters shall be carried on the hip.... Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you; for in my wrath I struck you, but in my favor I have had mercy on you."

When the Lord scatters his people among the Gentiles, they become no-people (Hos.1:9); they cease to have any externally recognizable differentiation. They wanted to be Gentiles, so the Lord gives them what they want, Ezk.20:23,25; v26, "I pronounced them unclean." It is interesting to note, that he also refuses to give them what they want, v32ff. He promises them a practical repeat of the first Exodus.

The point of the Restoration--whether taught by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah--is that when the Lord brings his strangers Home again, they do not come out alone. They come out arm-in-arm with Gentiles, carried by Gentiles, surrounded by Gentiles.
Agreed.

They lost their pure differentiation. But their election was always according to grace, and God promised Abraham a great posterity which began with real flesh-and-blood. It is as though in scattering them, their visible status as "chosen" is both lost, but also diffused. And in their summons, these are not extracted like a magnet over sand pulling out the iron filings, and leaving the inert dust behind. But with the elect remnant come the residue of the nations, and the promise to Abraham to be the father of many nations is fulfilled.
I agree with most of this, but I disagree that their 'chosen' status is lost. How can a covenant with them be revoked? Is that not what 'chosen' means? Indeed, Gentiles did join the nation of Israel as converts in the OT. They were surely saved by grace alone through faith. But there was never a covenant made with these Gentiles, by God. In my view, this does NOT mean they are not elect. They absolutely were, but their election was not explicitly mentioned in God's covenant. Yes, we understand them as the spiritual seed of Abraham. I do not argue with this.

Not as though it did not happen before. In the original Exodus, the same nucleus of the Holy Family (now many thousands in number) is surrounded by a "mixed multitude" of Gentiles--Egyptians, Edomites, etc.--all seeking escape from the Land of Death. All which prefer forsaking their worthless idols, and a madman of a king, to align with the cause of these Israelites who's God is bringing them out to save them. "Save us, also!" All these swore to keep covenant at the Mount, and were incorporated into Israel's tribes.
I agree with this.

Another reality, not enough appreciated, is that Israel is reducible to One Person. The "house of Israel [meaning but part of Israel as a whole] and the house of Judah [the rest of Israel as a whole]" are only what they are by union with the One who will inherit all his father's estate.
I agree that only by union with Christ will they inherit anything, but I do not agree that Israel is reducible to one person.

Which is to say, that the New Covenant is ultimately made between Christ, the true Israel, the Seed, the Vine; and God Almighty. That's the true nature of this promised covenant, and indeed of all the covenants. The covenant of grace is first made with Christ, and all the elect as his seed, West. Larger Cat. #31.
But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.

So, in Old Covenant terms, when God by his prophet speaks to his church, it is perfectly reasonable for him to use common language describing the church of that era: "house of Israel, house of Judah." That is a name for the people of God in the Old Testament.
I would argue that there is no loss or change of the name of the people of God in the New Testament, just that today the wild branches greatly outnumber the natural branches. And, in Christ, there is no need for Gentiles to join the nation of Israel.

It is not the case that when the New Covenant day arrives, that the people of God in the New Covenant era must somehow distinguish between two fundamentally different "kinds" of people: those in the New Covenant who are "house of Israel/Judah" and those who are of "house of Gentiles." All those who are "grafted in" are not grafted into anything like a preexisting nation or people, but into ONE PERSON. The distinction Paul makes between a "natural" branch and a "wild" branch (Rom.11:21,24) to explain their origin, does not extend to distinguishing between branches altogether grafted into Christ.
Paul's usage of natural branches loses meaning in your argument, especially since natural branches are not grafted in unless they are first broken off! There are indeed natural branches that were not broken off, as Paul says in 11:17. Now, in Christ, there is no class by which natural branches are superior, but Paul's rule in all of the churches was that calling was to remain Jew and Gentile. And likewise we do not see that the Jewish apostles abandoned Jewish worship according to the Torah.


Finally, in Rom.9:4, Paul does not affirm aught except that the holy nation up to that time was the most blessed and privileged on the face of the earth. They were the home of the patriarchs (v5) which should bring forth the Savior of the world, and the adoption (esp. a royalty designation), the glory, the covenants, the law, the worship, the promises. The New Covenant is an element of Israel's birthright, one which they should be falling over themselves in their haste to lay hold of it. And yet, they (inexplicably?) do not. This is Paul's great grief with respect to them. They should be in the first rank, but they reject the gospel instead. What a tragedy.
But it is clear not that Israel just happened to be the home of the covenants, but that the covenants were made with them! They alone are named as the explicit physical recipients of the covenants and promises. There is a subtle distinction here, and I feel like you're trying to downplay the ownership of the covenants by them, as opposed to them just being the vehicle, with the covenants as accidental cargo.

It is indeed a tragedy, and astonishingly, one that has resulted in the salvation of much of the world. Sadly, we have also caused his people great grief and sorrow through our past wrongs, and we must work hard to provoke them to jealousy. I would argue that make this easier by acknowledging that what God has promised them. I am thankful that based on your comment below you seem to understand this.

But, even this is still part of the plan. Jewish/Israelite pride will serve a greater end. And in the end, they will abandon that pride and take up their place in the redeemed whole.


That's the teaching of the Bible, and Covenant Theology.
I agree with most things you have said here. I'm not sure how big our differences are in totality.
 
But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.
So we're talking about the Ishmaelites and the Samartians, correct?
 
On a related note, I found a previous thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/83018-Jeremiah-31-31-34-amp-Infant-Baptism that addresses some of these same questions. It was helpful.


I'll move on to verses 33-34:

33*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34*And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

This portion of the New Covenant makes it quite clear that we are not living in its fullness. This indicates the people of God living in communion with him in a way that does not require the reminder to crucify the flesh to obey God's law, and to provoke our brothers to faith.

Also, we know this description does not fit the nation of Israel today. Based on this passage, we would expect that all of Israel would be walking with the Lord. We look forward to Paul's words in Romans 11:26-27:

26*And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27* “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

I would argue that this passage is a clear description of the age to come.
 
But this is not what Jeremiah 31 says. The covenant is made explicitly with the House of Israel and Jacob, and as evidence of this God says he will write his law on the hearts of those to whom the covenant applies. And, in fact, we are reminded again that this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.
So we're talking about the Ishmaelites and the Samartians, correct?

I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.

Here's an example to illustrate what I am saying.

If after this day in history, no more Gentiles were appointed to salvation, it would not contradict God's promises. (Think of this as the 'fullness of the Gentiles'). However, if no more Israelites were appointed to salvation, it WOULD contradict God's promises.
 
I'm not sure how big our differences are.

I would say that whereever you disagree and miss that the Abhrahamic Promise is to those who are sons not of the flesh but of Promise then you have missed Covenant theology at the core.

And I would argue that to whatever degree you think the covenants AREN'T made to Abraham's physical sons, you are at danger of being an arrogant wild branch. Paul warned explicitly against this.

I'm more interested in heeding Paul's warning, rather than offending a theological theory. Granted, I think that most of Covenant Theology is indeed correct, but it is not infallible and I believe its position towards Israel is a spiritual danger.
 
Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?

The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.

There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)
 
Hello Peter,

Is it a fair comment to say.
That Covenant Theology informs our understanding of Eschatology.
I think your Eschatology is informing your understanding of Covenant Theology.
I suggest that the ground is much firmer if you leave the "last things" to last.
And build on the rock and not in the sand.

I have no problem modifying my eschatology based on a proper understanding of the covenants, and vice versa. I hold the Bible to be infallible, and I'm committed to challenging any of my presuppositions based on proper Biblical understanding.

Let's go through the New Covenant promises to see what God said and how we should understand it. Let's look at verses 31-32 first.

31*“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32*not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

God says his covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. We who are grafted in as wild branches share in the covenant promise, just as Paul teaches, right? Paul confirms the covenant continues to belong to his kinsmen according to the flesh in Romans 9:4. Do we agree with this teaching? How do we reconcile this with Covenant Theology?

The fact that the Jewish nation hasn't been abandoned by God is evinced by the fact (a) that there still is a Jewish nation, and (b) that a small remnant of that Jewish nation is part of the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the international New Testament Church. There is spiritual and ecclesiastical equality in the NT Israel of God, whereas under the OT if you were a believer but not a Jew, you were "second class".

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

But we don't say that people have to deny their nationality when they become Christians, or that they are men or women, or employer or employee.

The unbelieving Jews, like unbelieving Gentiles, need to come into the Israel of God by faith in Jesus Christ.

God is working in His providence with the Jews, as He is with the Scots and Americans.

There shall be an handful of corn in the earth upon the top of the mountains;
the fruit thereof shall shake like Lebanon:
and they of the city shall flourish like grass of the earth. (Psalm 72:16)

:up:
 
I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.

Peter,

I find it actually sad to see how you have some ability to absolutize God's promise for one group and not another. If, as you keep claiming, God's promise not failing has specific referent to the people to whom it was made at the time the Lord made the Promise then, by definition, Samaritans are no less of the "House of Israel".

I am not being "arrogant" about branches being broken off. There may still be natural branches that will be grafted back in but that is different than stating that the ultimate referent in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 8) is physical descendants. I believe that Christ, and those in Him, are the ultimate referent. You will say to me "How can this be and pound the table and exclaim 'House of Judah! House of Israel!"

To which I'll just say "Samaritans and Galatians 3" and then you'll change your tune as to how "absolute" prophetic language is in the Old Testament and I'll say: "Precisely so. Physician, heal thyself."
 
I would argue you are committing a logical fallacy here. Galatians 4 clearly shows how not all of the physical sons are sons of the promise. However, that does NOT mean that sons of the promise are not physical sons. They are indeed! Again, this is based on God's spoken covenants. I see a clear distinction between these spoken covenants and those to whom it applies and God's act of election. Clearly, all who are elect have a covenant from God, but this is not literally the covenant made with Abraham, and spoken of in Jeremiah 31.

Peter,

I find it actually sad to see how you have some ability to absolutize God's promise for one group and not another. If, as you keep claiming, God's promise not failing has specific referent to the people to whom it was made at the time the Lord made the Promise then, by definition, Samaritans are no less of the "House of Israel".

I am not being "arrogant" about branches being broken off. There may still be natural branches that will be grafted back in but that is different than stating that the ultimate referent in Jeremiah 31 (Hebrews 8) is physical descendants. I believe that Christ, and those in Him, are the ultimate referent. You will say to me "How can this be and pound the table and exclaim 'House of Judah! House of Israel!"

To which I'll just say "Samaritans and Galatians 3" and then you'll change your tune as to how "absolute" prophetic language is in the Old Testament and I'll say: "Precisely so. Physician, heal thyself."

Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.

I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.

You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.
 
Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.

I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.

You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.

Peter,

You are terribly naive if you think you are avoiding presuppositions. You apparently haven't studied hermeneutics to any large degree.

My point is that *you* are doing the same thing you're accusing me of. I can quote a verse that makes the Promise to Abraham's descendants in Genesis and then chide you for "relativizing" God's Word when you don't include the Samaritans or the Edomites or the Ishmaelites.

You'll then respond with Scripture that further illuminates that the true objects of that Promise were clarified by Revelation that follows.

Exactly.

Thus, the problem here is not relativizing of God's Promises but understanding them in light of New Testament revelation.

Paul speaks in many ways in Romans and Galatians that unstable men twist to their destruction. Paul also says in Romans of the advantage the Jew has in having the oracles of God. By this he is not saying that his kinsmen have the oracles in distinction from the Church but speaks in a historical manner concerning their possession of these oracles. In noting that the Covenants belong to his kinsmen he is speaking historically - not to make absolute their possession as if to overthrow what he has already said about election - but to point out that, from an external perspective, the Covenant Promise does belong to them even as they have broken it and been cut off. It is precisely the same notion as in Hebrews and the warning to the Church. One must press in the the Covenant promises of which he has been externally joined unto. The Covenant *belongs* to a baptized man in the sense that he is under its administration (even if externally) but that does not mean that the substance of that Covenant (which is in Christ) is his Covenant.

It is really sad how your focus on the Covenant will actually veil your vision of the internal/external distinction of the Covenant relates to you and your own family.
 
Why should it be sad? Is that not the mystery of election that we cling to? I am not absolutizing anything. I'm only asking that you not relativize God's words. His words were exact.

I didn't pound my fist, I showed how you are committing a logical fallacy in your assertion.

You are comfortable changing the meaning of God's words in Jeremiah 31. I am not comfortable with that. Paul said the covenants belong to Israel, his kinsmen according to the flesh. You don't like that idea. The hermeneutic you are using requires changing the meaning of God's words, but fits nicely into a system. I'd prefer to use a theological system by which I do not have to alter the meaning of God's words. I am not trying to be insulting by saying this, but I cannot in good conscience say that your reading does not require a change in what God says.

Peter,

You are terribly naive if you think you are avoiding presuppositions. You apparently haven't studied hermeneutics to any large degree.

My point is that *you* are doing the same thing you're accusing me of. I can quote a verse that makes the Promise to Abraham's descendants in Genesis and then chide you for "relativizing" God's Word when you don't include the Samaritans or the Edomites or the Ishmaelites.

You'll then respond with Scripture that further illuminates that the true objects of that Promise were clarified by Revelation that follows.

Exactly.

Thus, the problem here is not relativizing of God's Promises but understanding them in light of New Testament revelation.

Paul speaks in many ways in Romans and Galatians that unstable men twist to their destruction. Paul also says in Romans of the advantage the Jew has in having the oracles of God. By this he is not saying that his kinsmen have the oracles in distinction from the Church but speaks in a historical manner concerning their possession of these oracles. In noting that the Covenants belong to his kinsmen he is speaking historically - not to make absolute their possession as if to overthrow what he has already said about election - but to point out that, from an external perspective, the Covenant Promise does belong to them even as they have broken it and been cut off. It is precisely the same notion as in Hebrews and the warning to the Church. One must press in the the Covenant promises of which he has been externally joined unto. The Covenant *belongs* to a baptized man in the sense that he is under its administration (even if externally) but that does not mean that the substance of that Covenant (which is in Christ) is his Covenant.

It is really sad how your focus on the Covenant will actually veil your vision of the internal/external distinction of the Covenant relates to you and your own family.

The primary reason I am arguing that we need to reconsider a Jewish perspective on these issues is to remove preconceptions that we have. We have 2000 years of church history under our belt. There are presuppositions in this history that we must examine. Does it occur to you that a Israel-centric view of God's covenants may be difficult for you to accept when the Protestant church has as one of its greatest heroes someone who advocated burning the homes and synagogues of Jews? I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.
 
If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

I'm sorry but your command of Church history is really poor if you think that the Reformation and all of Church history can be summarized by Martin Luther. You'll have to do a lot better than that.

You're assuming a hermeneutical "reset" is necessary. You're imbibing the hermeneutic of the heretic. That doesn't make you a heretic but it implies that the Church has been without the witness of the Spirit for 2000 years and now you (and a handful of people) know what Jesus and the Apostles *really* meant.

Why should I be heeding you? Why not N.T. Wright? Why not E.P. Sander? Why not Karl Barth?
 
Peter,

You wrote: I appreciate Martin Luther and what he did, but he also wrote the blueprint for Kristallnacht. Have you ensured you aren't bringing anti-Judaic presuppositions to the hermeneutical table?

Luther, as is well known, had some problematic thoughts in this area. However, to accuse him, after he's been in the grave for hundreds of years, of being a precursor and inspiration for Reinhard Heydrich, is inexcusable.
 
Peter,

To echo a sentiment from another thread involving intertwined issues with this one, The Book of Hebrews seems to hold the answer to many of your most pressing questions--all of which are profitable for discussion and debate btw.

Heb. 8:13--In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

This shows that the Old Covenant is obsolete. If the Old Covenant is obsolete, then logically, we must be living "fully" in the New Covenant. As others have pointed out, the glories and benificences of the eternal state have, obviously, not occurred. But we aren't floating in covenantal vacuum.

Hebrews 9;13-16--13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
 
Hebrews 10:11-18-- 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. 15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, 16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. 18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.
 
If you're trying to do a hermeneutical reset here, you'll have to begin by acknowledging you're starting with a Jewish context when you start reading the NT scriptures.

Peter,

While we're doing a hermeneutical "reset",what has your "reset" taught you about the Trinity?

Please articulate the nature of the Godhead and the hypostatic union?

Thank you...
 
You use a lot of words ;)
Whatever. :rolleyes:

How can a covenant with them be revoked?
In substance, it is a covenant with faith, not with unbelief. In administration, it is a covenant with the visible church, a mixture of (hidden) elect and reprobate. God cut off LOTS of people under the Old Covenant--faithless covenant breakers. He "revoked" their covenant blessings, which were not mixed with faith, Heb.4:2.

God did not revoke covenant with the remnant according to faith, because his covenant with them is IN Christ. Always in Christ. God doesn't revoke his covenant with his church insofar as it contains the pure elect within it, who are the seed of Christ. With them he revokes nothing, because in Christ all the promises are Yea and Amen. Here's where we will never come to an agreement: we deny there is a permanent covenant with some earthly, biological/religious partition of humanity, exclusive of others even when they have a common faith altogether, a common Object of faith and worship.

Gentiles did join the nation of Israel as converts in the OT. They were surely saved by grace alone through faith. But there was never a covenant made with these Gentiles
You deny that covenant (the Old Covenant!) was made with OT Gentile converts. That is... incredible. It is beyond belief.

How do you get around Sinai?!? Where is that host of foreigners come out of Egypt, if not incorporated into the mass, and all swearing at the same time to the same covenant? Before then, how do you get around Gen.17, and the sign of the covenant applied to more than 318 men who are in no wise descended of Abraham?

When Gentiles joined with the children of Israel, forsaking their old identities and embracing the life of faith in Jehovah, they became Israelites. They were summoned to the feasts, and all the rest of the religious life at the center of the national awareness at its best. For 1400yrs, these converts affirmed with all the rest, in the 10 Commandments, they were slaves in Egypt, Dt.5:6,15; in the Passover, "He delivered our houses," Ex.12:27; and in the Firstfruits, Dt.26:5-10.
"A Syrian ready to perish was my father, and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there with a few, and became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous: And the Egyptians evil entreated us, and afflicted us, and laid upon us hard bondage: And when we cried unto the LORD God of our fathers, the LORD heard our voice, and looked on our affliction, and our labour, and our oppression: And the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terribleness, and with signs, and with wonders: And he hath brought us into this place, and hath given us this land, even a land that floweth with milk and honey. And now, behold, I have brought the firstfruits of the land, which thou, O LORD, hast given me."​
Don't tell me these people had no covenant with Jehovah--through Abraham their father, the patriarchs, and Moses. In the Day of Atonement, "For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people," Lev.23:29. To which people did they belong?

According to the imperfect representation of the church in the world, covenant may be, and has been revoked. Never more evidently than in the Exile. The visible church-state of Israel/Judah is so far gone as to their ability to typify God's perfect people before the world, that he casts them off. A regathering is promised, thank God for it. The remnant hopes for it, prays for it. God even brings some people back to the land as a kind of "firstfruits" of a greater harvest. There's a glimmer of life in the moribund visible OT church. But Daniel's prophecy is clear: only Messiah's appearance will bring an end to the Days of Indignation.

I do not agree that Israel is reducible to one person.
Why? Who is the one, true Israelite? Who alone obeyed all the law, and donated that obedience to the record of his seed, who have nothing else to commend them? Gal.3:16, "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of ONE, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Mt.2:15, "And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son," speaking of one, namely Jesus.

this covenant that God made was with the physical children of Abraham.
Why should an OTJew try to make converts? "Come to glory, where you can be our water-carriers and hewers of wood. Hey! it's better than hell, right?" Sounds like the current crop of JWs, these who promote a "second class" kingdom citizenship (because heaven already has its 144K maximum).

This idea that there are exclusively earthly promises, things that belong to an exclusive club, and the only way to get into it is by birth. Scripture deplores this concept. It's horrible. It promotes pride. Moses and the prophets don't support such an understanding. The NT positively rubbishes it. No, the covenant is with the church, specifically with believers in the church, OT and NT; and not with a pure physical race, even when that race is reduced to the believers of that race.

And how is it made with the church, whether OT or NT? Only in and through Christ, the only one who actually obtains the inheritance directly.


Paul's usage of natural branches loses meaning in your argument
Nonsense. To make your point, you have to reverse the significance of the branch's origin. How does the "natural" branch get its identity? Because it was once IN THE VINE. Does the branch support the root, or the root the branch?, Rom.11:18. Paul says not a whisper about continuing significance of branches IN THE VINE, which have different origins.

Paul's rule in all of the churches was that calling was to remain Jew and Gentile.
Prove. Not only is this NOT a rule, all the evidence runs the other way, to a diminishing of all distinctions. Eph.2 has already been mentioned. Gal.3:28, "There is neither Jew nor Greek." Rom.10:12, "For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek." Col.3:11, "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision." Over and over and over again.

The reason for distinctive ethnic identity for the church under the Old Covenant is done. It's finished. Something better has come. God has not "cast off his foreknown people, Rom.11:2. Who are these people? Does Paul refer to ethnicity here? No, but to election out of the ethnic class. That is the exclusive NT meaning of the verb "foreknow" when referring to humans--personal, electing love. Here in ch.11, Paul culminates his argument begun in ch.9 to answer the objection: that apparently God's declaration and will to save had limits, because "look at Israel's spurning this grace, their election."

The objection has only surface plausibility. It assumes the coextensive application of external identity (chosen people) and inward grace (savingly elect). Paul then goes to work explaining how there never was any such coextensive relation. "They are not all [true] Israel, who are of [i.e. are ethnically/religiously affiliated with] Israel," Rom.9:6. And then he goes to prove it in the rest of the ch. from the OT. And explains the nature and work of the external call in combination with the internal call in ch.10. And finally, in ch.11, goes on to rejoice that God is still in the business of calling his elect even from the ethnic Jews. He's not abandoned that crew, even though the church-state as a whole refused to acclaim Jesus Messiah.

As a member of that ethnic group, Paul (and all the original believers) had a broken heart for their brethren after the flesh. Who doesn't care about their family, especially if that family, that clan, that nation is largely heading down to perdition?

It is right to care about your family. It is right to care about the US nation, or some part thereof, and pray for their salvation. I was a missionary kid once; and because I was, I have a personal care and burden about Egyptians, and Arabs generally. Scripture advises us to remember the ethnic stock of the Twelve Tribes, and pray for their salvation; for they once constituted virtually the whole of the world's great hope for salvation. And when it arrived, they were mostly blind to it.

It would be too easy to write them off. So, we are urged not to do it. They need prayer. But not so they will continue forever (even after salvation) to maintain their exclusive pride-of-place (as if they had such). But to glory not in patrimony, or in circumcision, or anything except Christ.
 
This is a little bit off topic, but I think a good time to bring it up:

LC 31 says the covenant of grace was made with the "elect." But we believe in a mixed covenant in this world as well as a perfect covenant, right (Jer 31)? So if the covenant of grace was always made with the "elect" only, from Genesis 3 to Christ, are non-elect children still considered being in covenant with God? If so, how, if the covenant is truly only between God and the elect? Is the administration just different on this side of eternity? Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top