Matthew's Covenant Theology Lessons

Status
Not open for further replies.
blhowes

blhowes

Puritan Board Professor
As you know, Matthew has started a series on [u:66ba7cc7c8]Covenant Theology[/u:66ba7cc7c8] at his "home church". Since he's doing it in such a systematic way, I thought it might be interesting to discuss each week's lessons, kind of like we've done with books in the past. Since there seems to be much that CT and reformed baptists have in common, I thought it would be most instructive to go through his lessons to see where the two groups agree and disagree. For those who are still undecided (like yours truly), it would also be an excellent way to see what you understand so far, and ask any questions as they come up.

I took a stab at taking notes on lesson 1, where Matthew is laying the groundwork for what follows. My guess would be that everybody would be in agreement with what's been taught so far. Any thoughts, pro or con, about what's been taught so far?

[b:66ba7cc7c8]My question:[/b:66ba7cc7c8]
Before posting the notes, I have a question that maybe somebody knows the answer to (I'm not sure if it'll be explained in more detail in upcoming lessons).

The Hebrew definition for covenant was to cut or strike a covenant - a death blow. Genesis 15:10 is used to illustrate, where the heifer, she goat, and ram are divided in two. I don't understand how that definition relates to the other definitions of covenant given in the lesson?

Thanks,
Bob

[size=18:66ba7cc7c8][b:66ba7cc7c8]Lesson 1 Notes
The Use of Such a Study as This. Why study covenant theology?[/b:66ba7cc7c8][/size:66ba7cc7c8]

[b:66ba7cc7c8][size=18:66ba7cc7c8]1.[/size:66ba7cc7c8][/b:66ba7cc7c8] Its God's redemptive plan through history. If its God's, then its a matter of eternal salvation. How might a sinful man approach God?
Exodus 3:5

[b:66ba7cc7c8][size=18:66ba7cc7c8]2.[/size:66ba7cc7c8][/b:66ba7cc7c8] Uses of the word covenant in the scriptures (bereeth in Hebrew and diatheke in Greek)
[b:66ba7cc7c8]a.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] An immutable (doesn't change) ordinance made about something. (Jer 33:20,21) (To be discussed later, Hebrews 9 speaks of the covenant in the same way)
[b:66ba7cc7c8]b.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] A sure and stable promise. Not a contract between two parties. God is going to do this.Exo 34:10
[b:66ba7cc7c8]c.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] A precept (general rule or a statute) Jer 34:12-13
[b:66ba7cc7c8]d.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] A mutual agreement between two parties with respect to something.(This is how it is regularly used in the OT and the NT) Gen 14:13, Gen 26:28,29, 1 Samuel 18:3

[b:66ba7cc7c8][size=18:66ba7cc7c8]3.[/size:66ba7cc7c8][/b:66ba7cc7c8] Order of Biblical Record with God and man. (Covenant of redemption will be covered later).
[b:66ba7cc7c8]a.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] Covenant 1 - day and night
[b:66ba7cc7c8]b.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] God's covenant with man - What is a covenant? A covenant of God with man is an agreement between God and man about the way of obtaining consummate happiness, including a threatening of eternal destruction with which the contender of the happiness offered in that way is to be punished.
[b:66ba7cc7c8]c.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] Hebrew definition - to cut a covenant or strike a covenant, a death blow Gen 15:10
[b:66ba7cc7c8]d.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] Greek definition - uses the same definition. continues the Hebrew ideas.

[b:66ba7cc7c8][size=18:66ba7cc7c8]4.[/size:66ba7cc7c8][/b:66ba7cc7c8] Three elements of the covenant, when God makes a covenant with man
[b:66ba7cc7c8]a.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] Promise of eternal life
[b:66ba7cc7c8]b.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] The prescription of the conditions for obtaining the promise. (How ya get it)
[b:66ba7cc7c8]c.[/b:66ba7cc7c8] Penal sanctions against transgressors of the conditions of the covenant

These three are always in every covenant in some way in dealing with the way that God works when God makes a covenant with men. Exception to the rule: Noah

The covenant was not an option for man. Man is not the initiator of the covenant. God is and it is non-negotiable. Man is commanded to except it. Not to desire the promises is to refuse the goodness of God - Dispensational theology does not desire the promises.

There's no other way. This is the perfect way.

Man can't reject it. A covenant is required by the law of God. What is the law? The perfect reflection of God's character.
 
[quote:67614aacd4]
The Hebrew definition for covenant was to cut or strike a covenant - a death blow. Genesis 15:10 is used to illustrate, where the heifer, she goat, and ram are divided in two. I don't understand how that definition relates to the other definitions of covenant given in the lesson?
[/quote:67614aacd4]

Its the most common use of the word in Hebrew. There were 3 other "definitions" that could be used, but is most commonly used in that way - to cut a covenant.
 
Matthew,
So, is the Hebrew usage of the word (cutting the animals in two) in Gen 15:10 a graphical way of saying the same thing that you said in part 4 of the lesson where you list the elements of the covenant?
Bob

a. Promise of eternal life
b. The prescription of the conditions for obtaining the promise. (How ya get it)
c. Penal sanctions against transgressors of the conditions of the covenant
 
No, the physical word does not have that definition. Rather, the term or idea surrounding "covenant" simply means to "cut a covenant." But what, then, does "cutting a covenant" ENTAIL?

Basically, as you quoted,
a. Promise of eternal life
b. The prescription of the conditions for obtaining the promise. (How ya get it)
c. Penal sanctions against transgressors of the conditions of the covenant

You will continually find this around the common unsage of the Hebrew "to cut a cuvenant" such as in the case with Adam, Noah, as we will see, Abraham, etc.
 
Matt, I had listened to both messages (which are [i:5b18caad9f]great[/i:5b18caad9f], by the way), but when I listened to the beginning of Part 2, it seemed like I was coming in right in the middle of a thought already started, one that was not specifically referred to in the first message. On my download, the first thing I hear is: "Yeah, I just hit something (unclear). Alright, so what we talked about was the similarities and differences, and understanding that the justice, goodness and holiness of God, that doesn't [i:5b18caad9f]leave[/i:5b18caad9f] the covenant of grace..." Did my download (which is the 40 MB version, BTW) miss the first minute or so?

Chris

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by Me Died Blue]
 
Matt,

I just want to tell you that your gifts in the area of teaching are obvious. Your voice even sounds like that of a professor. There is no doubt in my mind that God will enable you to fulfill the dream his has given you. Take heart, friend, and trust in Him.
 
Ralph wrote:
Where can i listing the sermons from Mathhew of covenant Theology , can someone give me the link ?

Click on the words "Covenant Theology" in the first line of my first post for this thread and it'll take you right there.

Bob
 
Matthew,
Its really been a blessing listening to the messages on the covenants. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

I just wanted to ask a question (for you or anybody else) about what's been covered so far.

I was just wondering how deep God expects us to dig into the scriptures to identify the various covenants? I'm thinking specifically about the covenant of works with Adam.

For the other covenants (Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), God comes right out and tells us that he's making a covenant with them. He also makes mention of these covenants throughout the scriptures. There's no doubt that God made a covenant with them.

Its not that straightforward with the covenant with Adam. When God spoke to Adam in the garden, he didn't say something like "I'm making a covenant with you..." as he does with the others. The rest of the scriptures don't repeatedly refer to a covenant with Adam, as they do with the other covenants (except maybe that verse in Hosea).

That doesn't mean that its not a covenant. I'm just wondering if God expects us to dig that deep for the covenant of works when we don't have to with the other covenants?

Thanks,
Bob
 
Mat 13:44 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
 
bob -


[quote:a8a12a7180]
That doesn't mean that its not a covenant. I'm just wondering if God expects us to dig that deep for the covenant of works when we don't have to with the other covenants?
[/quote:a8a12a7180]

Great question. Important too especially when dealing with things like the Sabbath Day and the Christian, the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, Tithing, etc.

It would be nice, all around, for God simply to make a list for us - "do this and live" "don't do this, etc." He simply does not do that all the time.

However, though we need to pick at the mind of God, and work through things, does not make them any less important, or any less God's will. He expects us to know His Word perfectly, and to hide it in our heart.

So to answer your question, the answer woudl be:

Yes, we dig, dig and keep on digging. No one has exhausted the Word. As much as we need to study to know His will and understand His word, we should strive for it. Clarity becomes apparent through 1) exegesis, 2) apprehnsion of unity, and 3) non-contradiction with any other part of the revelaed word.

In this case (Adam and the covenant of works) there is digging to do. Sometimes that means checking Genesis-Revelation to explain it adequately. I KNOW, without doubt, though, that God would have us pick at His mind no matter how long it takes us to get it right.

Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

We often quote the first, not the second. Whatever is revealed does not always have to be "clear" - god likes us to pick at His Word.
 
[quote:5b209bd590][i:5b209bd590]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:5b209bd590]
Deut. 29:29, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law."

We often quote the first, not the second. Whatever is revealed does not always have to be "clear" - god likes us to pick at His Word. [/quote:5b209bd590]

In other words, the Bible was not written for those who have no desire to study it but for those who would seek the Lord.
 
I just finished from Ezekiel Hopkins (the works, volume 2) : THE DOCTRINE OF THE TWO COVENANTS, it's a great discourse about C-T
:thumbup:
 
[quote:38d0f7ace5]
I just want to tell you that your gifts in the area of teaching are obvious. Your voice even sounds like that of a professor. There is no doubt in my mind that God will enable you to fulfill the dream his has given you. Take heart, friend, and trust in Him.
[/quote:38d0f7ace5]

Its tough being in Midian. I smell like sheep.

But thanks for the encouragemebnt Craig.
 
[quote:373eb24e90]Its tough being in Midian. I smell like sheep.

But thanks for the encouragemebnt Craig. [/quote:373eb24e90]

I resemble that remark.........Tina and I have no sheep here. bentley used to look like a sheep before we had him groomed! Matt, have you been wearing your glasses? :lol:
 
Yes, I have been wearing them. But I don't need them to know I am wandering around the sheep pastures of Midian right now! :lol: Peeeeeewwwwww!
 
Matthew,
I have a couple questions about your 8th lesson.

I'm not sure of the exact words that you used, but the idea was that Adam was basically predestined to rebel against God and eat of the fruit. God withdrew his hand of goodness from Adam and so Adam rebelled.

I had heard RC Sproul teach this same idea about how God hardens the heart of an individual. Since we're all sinners, we are free to sin when God removes his restraining influence.

It just seemed to me that it'd be different with Adam. Before the fall, Adam didn't have the same sinful nature as we do. So, if God removed his hand of goodness, wouldn't Adam be free to choose what he wanted?

I also have a question about Hosea 6:7. As you know, some translations use Adam and some use men.

If its correctly translated as "Adam", then its clear that God made a covenant with Adam.

Now lets say, for the sake of argument, that "men" is the correct translation. Does the word "men" refer to anybody who's ever lived, as in all mankind? If so, then I'm wondering which of the covenants that's explicitly mentioned in the Bible would this be referring to?

Bob

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by blhowes]
 
The Hebrew could so either way. Buit that does not maena "Adam" should go either way because it can.

Like all mankind, Israel rebelled in the covenant I made with them. (That does not make sense - the covenatn was made with Adam, and subsequently his pregenecy, i.e. all mankind. But, Adam was the one responsible FOR original sin. He broke the covenant, like Israel broke the covenant. Otherwise, in my estimation the Hebrew concept there makes no sense.

As for his fall -

Think about the stick illustration - if the Holy Spirit is the old man holding the stick, and Adam is the stick, what happens when the old man let's it go? It falls.
 
[quote:1e8eb8eba5][i:1e8eb8eba5]Originally posted by webmaster[/i:1e8eb8eba5]
The Hebrew could so either way. Buit that does not maena "Adam" should go either way because it can.

Like all mankind, Israel rebelled in the covenant I made with them. (That does not make sense - the covenatn was made with Adam, and subsequently his pregenecy, i.e. all mankind. But, Adam was the one responsible FOR original sin. He broke the covenant, like Israel broke the covenant. Otherwise, in my estimation the Hebrew concept there makes no sense.

As for his fall -

Think about the stick illustration - if the Holy Spirit is the old man holding the stick, and Adam is the stick, what happens when the old man let's it go? It falls. [/quote:1e8eb8eba5]

Matthew,

I'm not sure I understand this. It is not my impression that Adam was ever doomed to failure. The idea was not that Adam if he passed the test would be given the spiritual ability to obey, but rather that he would be confirmed in that ability (the whole [i:1e8eb8eba5]donum superadditum[/i:1e8eb8eba5] issue with Romanism)

Isn't the point that the "old man" as it were did not let go of the "stick" - but rather that the stick was created so perfetly straight that it could stand on end without the man, but with the possibility of falling? And after the fall the stick is so bent that it can only stand by being held?
 
[b:b72e2fb16e]Matthew wrote:[/b:b72e2fb16e]
As for his fall -
Think about the stick illustration - if the Holy Spirit is the old man holding the stick, and Adam is the stick, what happens when the old man let's it go? It falls

I guess I've always thought that Adam had a free will, of sorts, before the fall. It was free in the sense that he didn't have the same propensity to choose sin, the way we do, since he didn't yet have the sinful nature.

Bob

[Edited on 4-2-2004 by blhowes]
 
Fred said:

[quote:0f9148eacb]
Isn't the point that the "old man" as it were did not let go of the "stick" - but rather that the stick was created so perfetly straight that it could stand on end without the man, but with the possibility of falling? And after the fall the stick is so bent that it can only stand by being held?
[/quote:0f9148eacb]

No, the stick could never stand on it own, even in the garden. Think of asking the same question this way - what could Adam do without the continued help of the the Holy Spirit? That the same as asking if the stick, no matter how straight, would fall if the old man let it go.

Bob states it well, "Adam had a free will, of sorts, before the fall. It was free in the sense that he didn't have the same propensity to choose sin, the way we do, since he didn't yet have the sinful nature."

That's excellent, succint, and in my estimation, quite correct.

to say Adam was "perfect" (or as straight as you want him to be) does not mean he is immutable. We often confuse perfection with "he just couldn't change" or had a "really really" hard time in changing.

Adam was created so that in a particular set of circumstacnes (thus ordained by God) he would freely chose to disobey - which is exactly God's intention. The end event proves the intention of the Ordainer. God so manipulated the events, that Adam had a choice, but the only "choice" open to him was to fall, and he freely chose it. Now ont he other hand, if the Holy Spirit had not allowed him to do so, then he woudl not have fallen.

Does this not make sense? I think there may be some tension here if one is an Infra over a Supra. I think that tension falls inside the compound and divided sense which we have discussed onthe board before.
 
Just a quick question about message 2-3, regarding the covenant of redemption. You talked about the covenant that was made between the Father and the Son before the world was created. Was the covenant just between the Father and the Son, or was this covenant made by the trinity?

Thanks again for recording and posting these messages. They are a real blessing.

Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Question for Matthew's: lessons on infant baptism
Replies
1
Views
2K
C. Matthew McMahon
C. Matthew McMahon
blhowes
  • Locked
Matthew's Articles
Replies
7
Views
2K
biblelighthouse
B
Reformed Roman
  • Locked
New Covenant Theology vs Covenant Theology
2
Replies
35
Views
16K
zsmcd
zsmcd
C
  • Locked
Classical Covenant Theology vs Klinean Covenant Theology
Replies
2
Views
4K
eqdj
eqdj
Richard King
  • Locked
Replacement theology = covenant theology?
Replies
19
Views
8K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Back
Top