# A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2005)

I would like to discuss this book. 

I feel it adequately accomplished the objective in that it gave a basic overview. The intent was not to be comprehensive in supporting all claims using every applicable text from scripture. That said, in discussing this work, more detail may be given and concepts delivered by the book may be elaborated on, so I concluded that the Covenant Theology Forum may be more appropriate than the Library Forum. If the moderators disagree, then please feel free to move this thread.

I have given this book to friends, whom are not from Reformed backgrounds, to help them get a start on a correct understanding of scriptures. I am finding that they have the same questions that I had when I read the book. This leads to further study and discussion, which can only be beneficial to learning.

So please post your thoughts on the book and what areas you would like clarification.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2005)

My first question is in regards to the selection of Psalm 110:4 in explaining the Covenant of Redemption. I am not sure why this specific text was used over others.

"œThe LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."

The question the Professor asks is "œWhen did this take place." To which the student responds, "œThis seems to be the conversation between God the Father and God the Son, before the world began" (pg. 19).

I am not sure how the time frame is concluded.

The professor reasons that this conversation is taking place before the foundation of the world (20). They then proceed with this presupposition, but I am still at a lost as to how they concluded that this is a valid presupposition to proceed with. 

Would someone please clarify?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> I am not sure how the time frame is concluded.
> 
> The professor reasons that this conversation is taking place before the foundation of the world (20). They then proceed with this presupposition, but I am still at a lost as to how they concluded that this is a valid presupposition to proceed with.
> ...



Chris,

If the incarnate Christ had not yet been born (which is the case in this context), then this leaves the conversation in question between God the Father, and God the Son. Both have no body, and do not exist _inside_ time. If so, they would be subject to change. 

Therefore, Matt has rightly said that the conversation happened "before the foundation of the world" which is biblical termonology (at least in many cases, if not all) for "outside of time." Election is said to have taken place "before the foundation of the world." When did election take place _exactly?_ It didn't happen _in time_, so the answer is, it happened outside of time, but in the mind of God.

The short answer is, since this is a conversation between members of the trinity (and NOT created beings in time), it must have happened "before the foundation of the world."


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 4, 2005)

Thank you Jeff. That does help explain how it is applied, but I am still unclear about some things.

First allow me to clarify that I am not refuting Matthew´s use of Psalm 110:4, or the Covenant of Redemption. I simply found this part confusing and desired more clarification.



> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> If the incarnate Christ had not yet been born (which is the case in this context), then this leaves the conversation in question between God the Father, and God the Son. Both have no body, and do not exist _inside_ time. If so, they would be subject to change.
> 
> Therefore, Matt has rightly said that the conversation happened "before the foundation of the world" which is biblical termonology (at least in many cases, if not all) for "outside of time." Election is said to have taken place "before the foundation of the world." When did election take place _exactly?_ It didn't happen _in time_, so the answer is, it happened outside of time, but in the mind of God.
> ...



It is understood that the incarnate Christ has not yet been born in this context, but this is a messianic Psalm and such a conclusion is not so obvious due to some other Messianic Psalms. Some Psalms were fulfilled after the incarnate Christ was born. In those cases should we assume they occurred outside of time as well or were they revealing what is to take place when the incarnate Christ is present?

Thanks for your time Jeff.

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by ChristopherPaul]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> In those cases should we assume they occurred outside of time as well or were they revealing what is to take place when the incarnate Christ is present?



Not necessarily. I think the context of the verse in question (and it's interpretation) really beg that this verse in particular demand a "conversation" between the trinity. I say "conversation" because of course God does not have a mouth to speak or ears to hear.

My own thoughts are that because Christ is a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek (who had no geneology hence suggesting that his line had no beginning, but has always been) that Christ's priesthood has been ordered in the COR.

We also must keep in mind that this passage operates under the idea of the "already / not yet" aspect of the covenant. Christ has been made prophet/priest/king over all things, but not yet all things are subject to him. Both now, and to come.

Again, in short, I think that because of the present tense of the passage, and the reference to Melchizedek, this passage can legitamtely be used to support the COR before time.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2005)

From Spurgeon's Treasury of David


> Ver. 4. "”Thou art a priest. This word, "Thou art", is "verbum constitutivum", a "constituting word", whereon the priesthood of Christ was founded. And it may be considered, "”
> 
> 
> 1. As declarative of God's eternal decree, with the covenant between the Father and the Son, whereby he was designed unto this office.
> ...


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 4, 2005)

See Hebrews 6:20-7:3 for more Biblical Testimony on Christ's eternal priesthood.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> My first question is in regards to the selection of Psalm 110:4 in explaining the Covenant of Redemption. I am not sure why this specific text was used over others.
> 
> "œThe LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek."
> ...



Heb 7:3. *'[Melchizedek].......without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest continually.'*

If our Lord was *'a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek'*, it is surely impossible that He should receive His appointment 'in time'. If there had been a time when He was not a High Priest, then He would not have been *'after the order of Melchizedek.'* 

Moreover, our salvation lies in the *'Hope of eternal life which God....promised before time began' * (Titus 1:2 ). This eternal promise surely demands an eternal High Priest.

There is much that I disagree with in Dr McMahon's work, but unless you are particularly keen to hear them, I will not go over the various baptistic arguments yet again. Suffice it to say that I find the 'Professor's' arguments unconvincing.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 10-4-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 4, 2005)

Martin,

Could point to another thread or web site where you have already made these arugments? I would like to read them.


Cheers,


Brian


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 4, 2005)

Hi Brian,
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that Dr McMahon's book had been discussed, though it may well have been. I meant that baptism has been thrashed about quite a bit. You might like to look at the _More CT/Baptism debate_ thread on the _Baptism _ forum. There are loads of others too!

I did start to prepare a critique of McMahon's article a while ago, but I'm afraid I lost interest in it. If you'd like a Covenant Baptist persective on it, I will dig out what I prepared and finish it off.

Martin


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 4, 2005)

Thanks Martin,

In the name of academic freedom, I think it only fair to be open and direct about your points of disagreement, and of course to farily represent the position declared in "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology". I'm fairly new to C.T. (about 1.5 years) after 10 years as a _dipsensational_ baptistic. Personally, I find Dr. McMahon's book very enlightening (but of course I'm now a Presbyterian and am convinced of the padeo position).

Kind Regards,


Brian

[Edited on 10-5-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 4, 2005)

Brian,

Webmaster's book is excellent in the display of historic Presbyterian covenantal theology. Of course it will not be baptistic, so the baptists will probably not enjoy many parts! 

For a similar stance on CT, check out R. Scott Clark on Covenant Theology.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 5, 2005)

Thanks Jeff!


----------



## Greg (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Brian,
> 
> Webmaster's book is excellent in the display of historic Presbyterian covenantal theology. Of course it will not be baptistic, so the baptists will probably not enjoy many parts!
> ...



Hi Jeff,

It seems that alot of the links on that webpage don't exist on that server anymore. Do you know if they were moved elsewhere?


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Greg_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



Greg,

The link works on my end. Here is another link to the main page. 

Or just copy and past this into your browser:

http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/

Then click on Covenant Theology.

Try that and let me know if it works.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 5, 2005)

I've emailed Dr. Clark concerning the broken links. He is addressing them.


----------



## Arch2k (Oct 5, 2005)

You might also appreciate Covenant Thelogy by J Ligon Duncon.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by BrianBowman_
> Thanks Martin,
> 
> In the name of academic freedom, I think it only fair to be open and direct about your points of disagreement, and of course to farily represent the position declared in "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology". I'm fairly new to C.T. (about 1.5 years) after 10 years as a _dipsensational_ baptistic. Personally, I find Dr. McMahon's book very enlightening (but of course I'm now a Presbyterian and am convinced of the padeo position).
> ...


I have looked out the critique that I began a while ago. I am currently updating and extending it and will post it shortly.

That won't be until next week, however as I have two sermons to give this coming Lord's Day.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 11, 2005)

Thank you for the additional information regarding the application of Psalm 110:4. It is more clear to me now how that verse applies. 

I never questioned the CoR, but I feel that, as a simple overview, this point, through the use of Psalm 110:4 was not clear in the book. I thought there was a disconnect in between the Professor asking "when" and the student responding "before the world began." I, and my friend who read this per my recommendation, asked how the student was so sure. It seemed obvious to the student, but no so obvious to the reader (in my case).

Thank you to all for the clarification, I am grateful.

This was the main point that was unclear to me. I would like to discuss more points from the book. Not so much in a critical manner in regards to the intent of the book as I did with the Psalm 110:4 pericope, but in pursuit of further study of the ideas presented.

Cheers!


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 12, 2005)

OK, here is my critique. I do not cover the whole article, but an extract which was posted by Joseph a while back. I am grateful to two colleagues who gave me additional ideas which I have incorporated.



> Professor: Okay, then, let´s move onto the crux of the Dispensational argument for a covenant change in the New Testament. Shall we read Jeremiah 31?


It is unfortunate that the "˜student´ is made to be a dispensationalist, since it keeps this article from engaging fully with Reformed Baptist theology.


> Student: "œBehold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- "œnot according to the covenant that I made with their
> fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. "œBut this is the covenant that I
> will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "œNo more shall every man teach his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." I love this passage.
> 
> ...


Not in Heb 8 only, but also in 2Cor 3:3ff.


> Student: 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.


Well, actually, Jeremiah doesn´t say that there will be no more need to teach the *law*. He says that those in the New Covenant will know the LORD and will not need to be taught to know Him. They may well need to know more ABOUT Him. They will also have the law written on their hearts, so that they will delight in it and love it (Rom 7:22 ), though they well need to learn more about it and to understand it more fully. 


> Professor: Slow down there! Let´s deal with Jeremiah first before we hit the New Testament. Let´s evaluate your answer. It is true, Jeremiah is talking about a covenant. Is it a new covenant?
> 
> Student: That is what my Bible says. "œNew." It´s right there in black and white. "œNew!"
> 
> ...


I´m sorry, but this is deplorable and the Professor needs to be fired straightaway! First of all, it is highly dangerous to determine the meaning of a word solely from its etymological root. It is more important to explore the context and general usage (cf. Berkhof: _ Principles of Biblical Interpretation) _ . Secondly, there is no verb meaning, "˜To new.´ It can only mean "˜to make new´ which obviously pre-supposes something old that is restored to its original condition. When one comes to look at the adjective which is what Jeremiah is actually using here, then things are a little different, as we shall see.


> Professor: The idea around the word itself as an adjective means taking something already existing and "renewing it" - either repairing it to a previous state or in taking something that was already and making it better. As both a noun and adjective this word refers to things new in this sense, and to things restored. Now some like to think that this word is
> exclusively meant as "œbrand new." But this does injustice to its use in the Old Testament. They will quote verses like, Exodus 1:8. Now there arose up a new king over Egypt," or Isaiah 43:19. "œI will do a new thing." These surely seem like "œnew" is "œbrand new don´t they?
> 
> Student: Yes, but I am afraid you are going to tell me otherwise"¦
> ...


We need to pause here and consider just what New means. First, let´s look at the word in English. Generally speaking, if we speak of something "˜new´, then we are supposing a contrast with something that is "˜old.´ If I say, "œI´m going to buy a new car," that pre-supposes that I am replacing an old car. If I had never owned a car before, I would simply have said, "œI´m going to buy a car." Now the new and old cars will share certain characteristics of "˜car-ness´. One may assume that they will both have four wheels and an engine. But one cannot suppose much more than that, especially if I add to my original statement, _ "œIt will not be like the old car"_ (cf. Jer 31:32 ). The old car was a Ford, the new one is a Toyota; the old car was a saloon, the new one is an estate; the old car had a petrol motor, the new one is a diesel; the old car had manual transmission, the new one is automatic, and so on. One thing is absolutely certain; the "˜new´ car is not merely the old car with the body-work touched up and the engine re-bored. It is NEW. It is possible that this new car had always been in my mind. Even when I bought the old one, I might have been thinking, "œIt will do for now, but I´m not going to keep this jalopy very long!" However, that does not change the newness of the new car when I buy it.

Now let´s look at some of the examples that the Hebrew gives. The Hebrew word used in Jer 31:31 is _chadash_. Here are some other examples of the use of the word, starting with the one that the Professor chose:-

Exodus 1:8. * "˜Now there arose a new ("˜chadash´) king over Egypt.´*

Now the fact that this king is described as 'new', suggests to us that there had previously been an old one. Both old and new kings shared certain characteristics- they were both men, and they both ruled over Egypt. But there the similarity ended. One king was good, the other bad; one king may have been clever and wise, the other stupid and ignorant. They might not even have been related. There were (if memory serves) eighteen dynasties of Egyptian Pharaohs, so this might have been a new dynasty as well as a new king. One thing we can be sure of; the new king was not the old king who had been resuscitated or necromanced in some way! He was indeed a brand new king, different from the old. As for the old king; well, he was dead. He no longer had any part to play and was stuck away in a pyramid and forgotten. Finally, contrary to what the´ Professor´ said above, the new king was WORSE than the old king, not better.

_Chadash_ is used 53 times in the O.T. The Bible speaks of "˜new houses´ (Deut 22:5 ), "˜new wives´ (Deut 32:7 ), "˜new bottles´ (Josh 9:13 ), "˜new ropes´ (Jud 16:11 ), a "˜new cart´ (1Sam 6:7 ), a "˜new sword´ (2Sam 21:16 ) etc. All these things are new in the sense that they are different from the old ones. Even where the Bible speaks of the "˜New heavens and a new earth´, we should be careful in saying that they are really "˜renewed´. It´s much more radical than that! For *"˜The heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works in it will be burned up.´* The only place where _chadash_ actually can mean "˜renewed´ is Lam 3:23 which Dr. McMahon will mention below.

The final proof that the normal meaning of _chadash_ really is "˜new´ in the sense of "˜brand new´ is the fact that when the writer to the Hebrews quotes from Jer 31, he uses the Greek word _kainos_ to translate _chadash. Kainos_ also means "˜brand new.´ 
Back to the Professor. 


> Professor: Exactly. What about Isaiah 43:19 "“ how would you explain new things that God does?
> 
> Student: Well, in thinking about this, does God do "new" things, or is He eternally immutable? It seems we have a theological conundrum. How would you reconcile the eternal immutably of God, and Him doing "œnew things?" I mean, after the act of creation and containment of creation, does He change from doing old things to doing new things?
> 
> Professor: The answer to that is yes and no. For God, no. He never does "œnew" things. It is not like He had a plan, made a mistake, and decided to do something "œnew."


This is, of course, nonsense! God did something utterly new when the Lord Jesus Christ came from Heaven to earth for the salvation of sinners. Of course the Incarnation and the Atonement were in the mind of God from all eternity, but that does not mean that they were not new things when they were accomplished. We might think of Rev 13:8 in this connection:* "˜"¦.Whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.´* Now first of all, exegetes differ as to whether "˜from the foundation of the world´ applies to the Lamb or to the names having been written in the Book of Life (see ESV translation). But even if we agree that it refers to the Lamb, surely we are not suggesting that Christ suffered twice on the cross, once on Calvary and once before time began? Such a thought would be nonsense. The text means that God´s plan of salvation was prepared before time began, but put into operation "˜in the fullness of time.´

Now the question arises, if God is immutable, how can it be that the Old Covenant was to be discarded with the coming of the New? Well, the whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to prepare the way for the Lord Jesus Christ. Through the O.C., God arranged for there to be a people with at least an outward knowledge of God for our Lord to be born into. The legal framework and the ministry of the prophets ensured that Israel would remain separate from the surrounding nations so that the forms of Jehovah worship would be maintained until He came. With His coming, the purpose of the O.C. was fulfilled and so it disappeared. There was no change of mind on God´s part; the Old Covenant was only ever a temporary addition to His _Everlasting Covenant_ until Christ should come (Gal 3:19 ). 


> But in our eyes, the realities surrounding the fulfilment of anything God does makes it new to us. For instance, if I have an old car, say a 1979 Ford Fairmont, and I buy a new car, that car is a brand new car in relation to the junk car I am giving to the junkyard.


This is actually the position of the Old and New Covenants. The writer to the Hebrews tells us that with the arrival of the New Covenant, the Old is surplus to requirements and is ready to go off to the junkyard (Heb 8:13 ).


> But if I take the old Fairmont and "œmint it out"
> then the old car becomes new. It is not really "œnew" but "œrenewed." Yet, when I sit in it, it surely is a new car to me. It puts a smile on my face to drive it.


Again, this is too silly for words. Someone who drives about in a suped-up old banger and tells everyone that it´s a brand new car is suffering from a severe case of self-deception!


> Student: I understand the point. But is that how the word is often used in the Old Testament?
> 
> Professor: Think of this: The Lord's mercies are completely new every morning, but also "œrenewed" every morning. (Lam. 3:23). Job desired that his glory was "fresh" in him, Job 29:20. This does not mean "œnew" but renewed. God´s glory cannot be "œnew," as in brand new since it always is.


Well, of course, we are not talking about God´s glory in Job 29:20, but Job´s. This is in fact a nuanced usage of _chadash_ meaning "˜new´ in the sense of "˜not stale or withered´; hence the translation, "˜fresh´, the only time that word is used in the KJV to translate _chadash._ But if we allow both Lam 3:23 and Job 29:20, we are still left with about 50 appearances of _chadash_ where it means, "˜Brand New.´ Is it possible that Jer 31:31 could be an exception along the lines of Lam 3? No, it isn´t! Firstly because of the use of the Greek word _kainos_ in Heb 8, and secondly because of the context in Jer 31. The New Covenant is NOT merely the O.C. renewed or refreshed because we are told that the N.C. will be, *"˜NOT according to the [old] covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Israel.´* How much clearer does The Holy Spirit have to make it before we will believe that the New Covenant is just that- *NEW!*


> A survey of the Old Testament will show that such a "œrenewing" in Hebrew is considered as new, though its cognate is old, and simply refreshed. It is almost never used of "new, as in "brand new," even when God says he does "œnew things" or "œnew kings" are put on thrones. There is more to the Hebrew mind and language than thinking one dimensionally about words.
> 
> Student: Okay, I am with you so far. I don´t like it, but I am with you.


I don´t like it either, and I´m not with him. I invite any readers to do a word search on _chadash_ and they will find that it means "˜new.´ Not "˜new´ in the sense of "˜never been anything remotely like it in the history of the world before´, but "˜new´ in the sense of "˜different from and replacing that which has gone before.´


> Professor: Let´s consider the context of Jeremiah 31. Chapters 30-33 have an overall structure that uses a repetition of "œBehold" four times. It structures the "œRestoration" ideas surrounding "œIsrael" and "œJudah." They were in exile and God is promises to bring them out of exile and renew the covenant He had with them. He is not going to renew it like the covenant he made with Moses "“ with burdensome Laws, so to speak. Rather, He will fulfil0 it in Christ. The context of Jeremiah is comparing Abraham's covenant with the Mosaic Law, the tablets of stone, and the promises of the Lord to Abraham, of which we know Christ is the fulfilment. Abraham´s covenant is not new. It is
> refreshed, renewed, fulfilled, completed, etc., in Christ (which ultimately points to the use of this passage in Hebrews 8). For instance, we are dealing with the same God, the same law, the same
> people (the elect), the same fallen status of people (in sin), the same status of God (gracious and longsuffering, but also judicious), the same status of justification (by faith alone), the same stipulation (blood covers sin), the same provision of the stipulation (Christ), and the same reward (peace with God and everlasting life), as one of my colleagues stated. What is really new?


The first important thing to note here is that Abraham and his covenant are not so much as mentioned in Jer 30-33. The "˜Professor´ has imported him into the text. The Lord Jesus Christ said of the Old Testament Scriptures, *"œThese are they that testify of Me."* Christ is the subject of the Old Testament, not Abraham. The fatal mistake made by covenant paedobaptists is to start with Abraham instead of with Christ. Thankfully not all of them go so far as to make him the subject of a text where he even mentioned, but the error is endemic and must be resisted. 

Christ, not Abraham, is the* "˜author and finisher of our faith.´ * It is in Christ, not Abraham, that the *"˜promises are "œyes" and in Him "œAmen!"´* The Abrahamic covenant is a "˜Covenant of Promise.´ It foreshadows the New Covenant, but it is not the real thing. *"˜These all *[the Patriarchs]* died in faith, not having received the promises but having seen them afar off were assured of them"¦..´* If we want to start our study of covenants at the beginning, we must still start with Christ because *´He is before all things, and in Him all things consist´* (Col 1:17 ) and, *´Before Abraham was, I AM´ * (John 8:58 ). 

The second point is to look at the description of the New Covenant in Hebrews. Put at its simplest, it is a "˜better´ covenant. The writer speaks of * "˜a better covenant´, ´a better hope´, "˜better promises´,* and * "˜better sacrifices´.* But the Scripture never says that the Old Covenant or the Abrahamic Covenant is made "˜better´. Rather it is Christ who is better than the prophets, better than the angels, better than Moses, better than Aaron, and as the antitype of Melchizedek, better than Abraham. The New Covenant is *´better´* because it has a better surety (Heb 7:22 ).


> Student: I would have said that regeneration is the new thing "“ the law written on the heart, but that does not seem to fit well.


Why doesn´t it fit well? It is exactly what Jeremiah is saying. * "˜"But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the LORD: "œI will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts"¦"¦..They shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them."´ *(Jer 31:33-34 ).


> Professor: The greater context does not limit Jeremiah 31 to just "œregenerate people." The restoration ideas do not limit the passage to merely an internal aspect to the covenant. If that were
> really true, then things like the Lord´s Supper, and Baptism, outward and external sacraments in the New Covenant, would not be necessary.


Baptists of course do not call them sacraments, but ordinances, because they are commanded by our Lord and therefore are indeed necessary.


> Professor: But Jeremiah 31 is not simply speaking about something
> internal "“ it is much bigger than that. It includes Israel´s children, and the fulfilment of all the promises to Abraham. Jeremiah 30:20 says, "œTheir children also shall be as before, And their
> congregation shall be established before Me; And I will punish all who oppress them." And Jeremiah 31:17, right before our passage says this, "œThere is hope in your future, says the LORD, That your children shall come back to their own border." Listen to what Jeremiah 32:18 says, "œYou show lovingkindness to thousands, and repay the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them -- the Great, the Mighty God, whose name is the LORD of hosts." And we
> should not forget Jeremiah 32:39 says, just a chapter after, but in the same context, "œthen I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children
> after them." If it is really just about "œa regenerate church membership" then why mention the "œgood of the children?" Oftentimes Jeremiah 31:31ff is ripped from its context, and misread.


We have now come to the crux of the question. When we read verses like Jer 31:17-18 and 32:39, are we talking about the physical seed of Abraham? If we are, then what Jeremiah is saying appears to be contradicted by Ezekiel 18, where we are told that each person is judged for his own sin regardless of the righteousness or otherwise of his father. Romans 9:6-8 must be considered at this point. * "˜For it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but "œin Isaac shall your seed be called." That is,  those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed.´* With respect, infant baptizers fail to act on the practical implications of these verses. They teach that there is a two-fold aspect to the covenant that God made with Abraham; there is a two-fold line of descent, physical and spiritual. All the physical Israelites are included in the physical side of the covenant, and to them came the physical promises, a great nation and the land of Caanan, and these promises have been fulfilled completely (Josh 23:14 ). But the spiritual Israelites, the true seed of Abraham (Gal 3:7 ) have inherited the spiritual promises, and although they *´have no continuing city´* during their lives, yet *´they desire a better, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them.´* (Heb 13:14; 11:16 ).

This double aspect to the Abrahamic Covenant is brought out very clearly in various other passages. Take the time to look through Luke 3:8; John 1:47; 8:30-32, 37-39; Rom 2:28-29; Gal 4:22-29 6:16. Also consider Isaiah 54:13. * "˜All your children shall be taught by the Lord.´ * Who are these children? Are they the physical offspring of Abraham? Certainly not! The Lord Jesus Christ quoted from this very verse. * "œIt is written in the prophets, "˜And they shall all be taught by God.´ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me."* The children of Isaiah 54 and therefore the children of Jer 31:17 and 32:18 are not the physical seed of Abraham but his spiritual seed. They are those who have learned of the Father and therefore fly to the Son for salvation. Of the physical seed it is written, *´You are of your father, the devil!´* (John 8:44 ). 
Back to the "˜Professor´ and his poor benighted student.


> 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.


It is unfortunate that Dr McMahon has made the student a dispensationalist, and a very poor one at that. No Reformed Baptist would ever suppose that Abraham was not regenerate. Indeed, I am reliably informed that no lecturer at TMS would suppose it either. The student sounds like a rather fundamentalist Plymouth Brother!


> Professor: (chuckle) Is Paul stupid to use Abraham as the Father of our faith?
> 
> Student: Of course not. I would have to say, yes, Abraham was regenerate.
> 
> ...


It is the Professor who is confused. No Reformed Baptist would say that the New Birth was a wholly New Testament doctrine (Ezek 36:24ff).


> 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.
> 
> Professor: If that is the case, what makes this renewed covenant in Jeremiah 31 different?
> 
> ...


Again it is the Professor who misses the point most spectacularly, confusing extreme dispensationalism with Reformed Baptist theology. Of course Abraham was born again and of course there were many Israelites under the Old Covenant who were putting their trust in the Messiah (cf. Luke 2:25 ). But from all we can tell, the large majority of them had only an external religion and were not saved.

The difference under the New Covenant is not so much qualitative as quantitative. *Everyone under the New Covenant knows the Lord.* (Jer 31:34 ). Instead of just a remnant being saved under the O.C. (Isaiah 1:9 ), the New Covenant is in Christ´s blood (Luke 22:20 ) and all those for whom it was shed (and only they) are in the New Covenant, know the Lord and will infallibly be saved (John 10:11, 27-28 ).
How does a man become a physical Israelite? By being born into an Israelite family and then being circumcised. How does a man become a spiritual Israelite? Certainly not in the same way! * "˜For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter´ * (Rom 2:28-29 ). The New Covenant is composed of those who are born again, circumcised in the heart; Fleshly circumcision is now irrelevant (Gal 6:15 ), all that matters is a new birth and therefore the seal of the N.C. is the Holy Spirit (Eph 1:14 ) and those whom He has regenerated are to receive the sign of baptism.

Back to the "˜Professor.´ 


> Professor: Tell me, what else is different about this renewed covenant?"¦"¦"¦..Let´s ask this question: Do we have teachers today?
> 
> Student: You are a teacher. So yes, we have teachers today.
> 
> Professor: But the text says we will not have any more teachers in this renewed covenant. No one will "œteach one another saying"¦"


Of course, Jeremiah does not say that there will not be any teachers in the New Covenant. He says that no one in the New Covenant will need to be taught to know the Lord. New Christians certainly need to be taught more _about_ Him, and they should, * "˜As newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that [they] may grow thereby´* (1Peter 2:2 ). Of course they still need teachers.


> Student: But we have teachers today. Are you saying the New Covenant is not now?
> 
> Professor: No.
> 
> ...


Of course it makes no sense at all. The "˜Professor´ has now lifted Jer 31 out of its natural context and placed it in the eschaton. But the New Covenant is now! There is no indication in Jer 31 or in Heb 8 that part of the N.C. is going to be delayed.

However, there is a simple way of proving that the "˜Professor´ is utterly wrong. Jer 31 is not only quoted in Heb 8, it is also found in Heb 10, and here it is placed firmly in the present:-

Heb 8:15-18. *´But the Holy Spirit also witnesses *[present tense]* to us; for after he had said before, "œThis is the covenant that I will make with them after those days," says the Lord: "œI will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "œTheir sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." Now where there is *[present tense]* remission of these, there is *[present tense again] * no longer an offering for sin.´ * 
Why is there no longer an offering for sin? Because the Lord Jesus Christ has made one perfect offering for all time. This is talking about Christians, about us! It is therefore very clearly in the present time.
But if we require further evidence that members of the N.C. do not need to be taught to know the Lord, it is available in abundance. 

Consider the following:-

John 6:45. * "œIt is written in the prophets, "˜and they shall all be taught by God.´ Therefore everyone who has learned of the Father comes to Me." *

1Cor 2:15. * "˜But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he is rightly judged by no one.´*

2Cor 3:3. * "˜Clearly you * (ie. all the Corinthian Christians) * are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.´* (cf. also v18 ).

Gal 3:29. * "˜And if you are Christ´s then you are Abraham´s seed and heirs according to the promise.´ *

1John 2:20. * "˜But you have an anointing from the Holy One and you know all things.´ *

1John 2:27. * "˜But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as that same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.´ *

Obviously the Holy Spirit does not teach brain surgery or rocket science, but He does teach us to know the Lord, and while we all need to grow in the faith, the Spirit teaches us that as well, through our study of the word. All the teachers in the world cannot teach anyone to know the Lord, unless the Holy Spirit teaches them first in regeneration.

Finally, then, there are many _renewals_ of the Old Covenant in Scripture:-
*Two Months after Sinai- *Exodus 34.
*On the plains of Moab- *Deuteronomy.
*By Joshua after the Conquest-*Josh 23-24.
*By Samuel when the Monarchy was instituted-* 1Sam 12.
*By Asa-* 2Chron 15.
*By Hezekiah-* 2Chron 29-31.
*By Josiah-* 2Kings 22-23.

But these renewals were of no avail. The people's hearts remained corrupted. As it is wrtten: *'Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to prceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day'* (Deut 29:4 ). Something more transforming was needed. Jeremiah forsaw not just another covenant renewal but a New Covenant altogether.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## pastorway (Oct 12, 2005)

fantastic work Martin! Thank you for taking the time to write this out. Wel done indeed!

Phillip


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 12, 2005)

Martin,

With all due respect to your love for Jesus Christ and years of ministry your following comment does not hold much water with Covenantalists.



> I´m sorry, but this is deplorable and the Professor needs to be fired straightaway! First of all, it is highly dangerous to determine the meaning of a word solely from its etymological root. It is more important to explore the context and general usage (cf. Berkhof: Principles of Biblical Interpretation) . Secondly, there is no verb meaning, "˜To new.´ It can only mean "˜to make new´ which obviously pre-supposes something old that is restored to its original condition. When one comes to look at the adjective which is what Jeremiah is actually using here, then things are a little different, as we shall see.



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.

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.


----------



## pastorway (Oct 12, 2005)

James White, in his 2 part series on the New Covenant in the _Reformed Baptist Theological Review_, demonstrates that Martin is absolutely correct and Matt absolutely in error exegetically in regard to the word "new" in the book of Hebrews as it defines the New Covenant.

Well worth the read if you have not....

Phillip


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 12, 2005)

. . . and we all know that is an ongoing debate/argment between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterian Covenanters. It has not yet been _proven_ and of course, like so many other issue under debate, subject to a host of underlying premises based upon hermeneutical tradition and historical viewpoint.

. . . having said that, I highly respect James White and look foward to reading his book someday.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 12, 2005)

I appreciate your post Martin, though you know I heartily disagree with you. I know you stand very firmly with the other Particular Baptists on the board. I am not going to take time to answer the post though. You can easily find all of your objections handled in other threads on the board. Repeating them would take too much time, and you have not really given us anything *"new"* to think about that has not already been dealt with on oodles of pages though tthis board.  That's not a cop-out by any means, its just a good use of my time.

Maybe some of the other "up and coming" Covenant theologians would like to take a stab at it?

Blessings.


----------



## Wannabee (Oct 13, 2005)

Well done Martin. Good research and responsible dealing with the language.

The fact that this student is an ultra- or hyper- dispensationalist should be mentioned as well. They're out there, but the polarity forced into the context of the discussion uses horrible theology to make some errant theology look good. 




> Maybe some of the other "up and coming" Covenant theologians would like to take a stab at it?


Brother Matt,
I hope you realize how this sounds. I don't think you meant to sound that way, but your comment makes it sound like you think you']ve arrived. 


For Christ,
Still a Wannabee
Joe


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 13, 2005)

Joe,
Matt clearly said that he doesn't have the time to again go over that which has been exhaustedin a bunch of other threads already. 

Just to bring you up to speed (in case you have missed it), Matt was recently ordained in the RPCGA and is now busier with things for the church.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Oct 13, 2005)

Joe you are right - that was not meant to come off that way. Let me clarify - My point was - there are many on this board who are wrestling with CT and they should exercise their thoughts against Martin's post. Its good, in that way to spar. On certain issues, I don't need to spar anymore. That kind of exercise will not do me any good. If it will do another good, then they can get the book and read that, or my other articles at APM. I will repeat: what Martin wrote is not new, and that he simply "refreshed" some old stuff we have already extensively dealt with on the board. If one reads his post over, they should see a problem with exactly what the Professor had a problem with in the student's dispensationalism.

At the same time, Joe, I have not arrived to a perfectly refined theology. But at the same time, it would be impossible for me to go backwards in my theology from where I am at now. I will never apologize for those shifts. But we all need further refining.

I would imagine that you, in respect to Arminian theology, though, have arrived at your present status, and would never go back to it, eh? Its not that you have permanently "arrived" theologically, but in another sense, you would NEVER go back to that "other" system of thought. So in that sense, it is only a theological refining that will take place and not a theological shift. The same, I believe, can be said for my position covenantally. I will not be going back.

Time, though, for me to spend refuting a position we already have in other threads would be time ill used. Sermon preparation for a bi-vocational pastor is a bear ( and I know the other pastors out there that are in similar situation are shaking thier heads in agreement with me!) I just don't have any more time than short blips here and there. If you go out to APM, I've written very little as of late, and have been posting other's material. Time is very valuable to me now.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Oct 13, 2005)

> _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.


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 13, 2005)

Matt,

Thanks for taking the time to explain. I for one did not take any of your comments in any sense of "arrival" -and- I am very indebted to your sermon preparation. Your first two sermons have really solidified my thinking about what true worship and preaching are!


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 13, 2005)

Hi Brian,


Martin


----------



## BrianBowman (Oct 13, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> _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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> 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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> 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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> _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.
> ...



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 (Oct 14, 2005)

. . . 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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> _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 (Oct 14, 2005)

> _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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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. ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö¸×” 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 ×™Ö¸×©×Ö¸×Ÿ), Levit. 26:10; unheard of, Eccles. 1:9, 10; "œnew gods," i.e. such as had not been previously worshipped, Deut. 32:17. ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö¸×— "œsomething new," Isa. 43:19, plur. Isa. 42:9. As to ×—Ö¸×’×•Ö¼×¨ ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö¸×” 2 Sa. 21:16, see ×—Ö¸×’Ö·×¨.
> _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.) ×©×Ö´×™×¨ ×—×³ a new song (of praise) Ïˆ 33:3; 40:4; 96:1; 98:1; 144:9 Is 42:10; ×‘Ö¼Ö°×¨Ö´×™×ª ×—×³ Je 31:31; ×—×“×©××™× ×•××¨×¥ ×—×“×©××” ×©×Ö¸×žÖ·×™Ö´× Is 65:17 cf. 65:17 cf. 66:22; ×©×Öµ× ×—×³ Is 62:2; ×¨×•Ö¼×—Ö· ×—×³ a new spirit Ez 11:19; 18:31; 36:26, + ×œÖµ×‘ ×—×³ 18:31; 36:26; ×¤Ö¼Ö¶×ªÖ·×— ×©×Ö·×¢Ö·×¨Ö¾×™×³ ×”Ö¶×—×³ Je 26:10 new gate of (house of) ×™×³, cf. 36:10 (v. Gf Je 20:2); also ×”Ö¶×—Ö¸×¦Öµ×¨ ×”Ö·×—×³ 2 Ch 20:5 the new court (v. Be Ã–t); ××œ×”×™× ×—×“×©××™× Ju 5:8 new gods? judges? text prob. corrupt, cf. NÃ¶ 1888, 477, MÃ¼llKÃ¶nigsb. Stud. i., GACookeDeb. 34 ff. and conj. by Bu, 103, RS in BlaJudges; in gen. ×Öµ×™×Ÿ ×‘Ö¼Ö¸×œÖ¾×—×³ Ec 1:9 there is nothing new; with no subst. expr. ×—Ö¸×’×•Ö¼×¨ ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö¸×” 2 S 21:16 girt with a new (sword: but text perhaps corrupt, cf. We Klo Dr), of (food-)products of earth (opp. ×™Ö¸×©×Ö¸×Ÿ) Lv 26:10 (H) Ct 7:14; ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö´×™× Dt 32:17 new ones (i.e. gods; || ×žÖ´×§Ö¼Ö¸×¨Ö¹×‘ ×‘Ö¼Ö¸××•Ö¼); in gen. f. ×—Ö²×“Ö¸×©×Ö¸×” a new thing Is 43:19 Je 31:22, fpl. Is 42:9 (opp. ×”Ö¸×¨Ö´××©×Ö¹× Ö¹×•×ª), 48:6. b. very rarely predicate: of ×™×³´s compassions ×œÖ·×‘Ö¼Ö°×§Ö¸×¨Ö´× ×—×“×©××™× La 3:23 they are new every morning; ×›Ö¼Ö°×‘Ö¹×•×“Ö´×™ ×—×³ ×¢Ö´×žÖ¼Ö¸×“Ö´×™ Jb 29:20 my glory shall be fresh with me; ×¨Ö°×Öµ×” ×–Ö¶×” ×—×³ ×”×•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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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 (Oct 15, 2005)

> _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:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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 (Oct 15, 2005)

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.


----------

