A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology by C. Matthew McMahon

[ChristopherPaul]

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]

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]

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.

Would someone please clarify?

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]

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.

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."

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]

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]

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.


2. As demonstrative of his mission, or his actual sending to the discharge of his office. These words are the symbol and solemn sign of God's conferring that honour upon him, which gave him his instalment.


3. As predictive, for there is included in them a supposition that God would prepare a body for him, wherein he might exercise his priesthood, and which he might offer up unto him. "”John Owen.

 

[BrianBowman]

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

 

[Steve Owen]

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."

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks Jeff!

 

[Greg]

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!

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

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]

Originally posted by Greg

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!

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

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?

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]

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

 

[Arch2k]

You might also appreciate Covenant Thelogy by J Ligon Duncon.

 

[Steve Owen]

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).

Kind Regards,

Brian

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]

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]

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.

Professor: Explain it for me then.

Student: Jeremiah is prophesying that the New Covenant to come is going to be different than (sic) the Old Covenant in that it is in the heart. The Old Covenant was not in the heart. This is the New Testament writers´ point in Hebrews 8.

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!"

Professor: I understand that, but you should always take time to do a word study or two, and be sure of your syntax ands grammar. Even though we are talking simplistically about the covenant, we should address the word here. This is a little deeper than how we have been talking, and may be a bit technical for you. The Hebrew word is not just the simple "œnew" but "œrenew" or "œrefresh." The word for "new" is an adjective that is used 53 times in the Old Testament. It comes from the verb form of the word. That verb form is its root and its basic meaning. When we trace the verb through the Old Testament, it is used to mean, "renew or repair;" cf. Isa 61:4; 2 Chron. 24:4, 12;
Psalm 51:10 (12) Lam. 5:21; 1 Sam. 11:14; 2 Chron. 15:8; Job 10:17; Psalm 104:30; Psa. 103:5; 2 Chron. 24:4; 24:12; and etc.

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"¦
Professor: Well, yes, actually, there is more to it than just quoting a verse or two. For example, without going into great detail, is the station of "kingship" new or not? Is having a new king something brand new or a renewal of the class of kingship? How does the Hebrew mind think about this? How does the rest of Scripture demonstrate this?

Student: I would have to concede that a new king does not make the class of "œkingness" new, although a new king is a good element of fulfilment to kingship.

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.

Professor: Was he saved by grace through faith?

Student: Yes.

Professor: Did he have the Spirit indwelling him as you and I do?

Student: I want to say "œyes" because men cannot be born again without the Spirit. But my Dispensationalism hinders me from that. Didn´t Pentecost give us a new "œDispensation" of the Spirit?

Professor: In external scope, yes it did. In regeneration, absolutely not. Those who believe that Pentecost marked a changed in the way the Spirit works in the heart are very mistaken. Think about Jesus in John 3 with Nicodemas (sic). What did he say to Nicodemas in verse 10? He said that Nicodemas was Israel´s teacher and he did not understand what it means to be born again. He was rebuking him because Nicodemas should have understood the Old Testament idea of being
regenerated. So let me ask again, was Abraham filled with the Spirit and 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?

Student: I guess I might have been reading something more into the passage that wasn´t there.

Professor: I think so too. It is a common mistake to believe that the New Covenant initiates regeneration of the heart.

Student: But what about Hebrews 8? It quotes this at length surrounding the ministry of Jesus as High priest forever? Is Hebrews wrong?

Professor: What is wrong is the interpretation of Jeremiah 31 that YOU bring to Hebrews 8. Hebrews 8 quotes the whole passage we just read in Jeremiah. But what if you misunderstand Jeremiah 31? Will you ever understand Hebrew 8?

Student: No I suppose not.

Professor: That is simple Bible hermeneutics. Ok, so now we see this is a renewed covenant, the scaffolding of the Mosaic covenant is gone, and the writing is on the heart. But this is not new, it is the renewed covenant of Abraham, and that is an important point.

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.

Student: Then what exactly are you saying? "“ this is confusing me!

Professor: Well"¦"¦"¦.In the fulfilment of the New Covenant, the renewed covenant of Abraham, there will be no more teachers. Might I ask, when will everyone, from the least in the kingdom to the greatest in the kingdom, know the Lord? And remember, this is a time when there are no more teachers.

Student: I would have to say in heaven. Only in heaven will everyone know the Lord completely and in heaven there will be no teachers.

Professor: Is this making sense to you yet?

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]

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

Phillip

 

[BrianBowman]

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]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!