LOOKING TO PRAISE AND WORSHIP JESUS THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known].

Saturday, January 10, 2009

But in these last days!

Hebrews 1:1-2 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, (2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.

But in these last days!!!!! Verse 1 refers to Old Testament and Old Covenant revelation and verse 2 refers to New Testament and New Covenant revelation. Certainly this means that New Testament revelation should be used to interpret Old Testament revelation. It is clear that Jesus Christ brought a change of Covenants as Hebrews goes on to fully explain. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. Why? Hebrews goes on to say that the Old Covenant is replaced by a better Covenant for which Jesus is the guarantor (Heb. 7:22). It further states that the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Yet, neither Dispensational Theology nor Covenant Theology views the Old Covenant as obsolete.

Dispensational Theology completely separates the Old from the New Covenant. For example in the thread of my last post, a dispensational adherent said, We see the law is in effect for the Jews during the tribulation period when Jesus again starts dealing with the nation Israel (Matt 24:20).

Although the New Testament clearly ends the role of physical Israel in redemptive history and brings all of humanity under the gospel of grace, the dispensationalist views a day when Israel will be dealt with completely separate from the Gentiles. Paul’s statement about there being neither Jew nor Greek does not interpret Old Testament Scripture in this view. The Old Testament is used to interpret the New in dispensational hermeneutics. Does this make sense in light of the above passage of Hebrews 1:1-2?

Covenant Theology, on the other hand, holds tightly to the Old Testament and Old Covenant principles. The New Covenant is viewed as the final revelation of a single major Covenant of grace, and there is barely a bump in the road from the Old Testament to the New Testament in Covenant theology. For example, A covenant theology adherent said the following in our last thread: ”I think the problem in Galatians 3:3 is that the Galatians were too reliant on the law without the help of the Spirit of God to seek to keep it.”

Although there are many warnings by Paul to totally reject law-keeping, Covenant Theology views Paul’s warnings on law keeping as referring only to the manner or reason for doing so. Therefore, in this view the Galatian error was not law keeping, but law keeping without the help of the Spirit of God. Does this make sense in light of the Book of Hebrews?

Any thoughts, eplanations or objections?


Blogger mark pierson said...

In the book of Hebrews we see a change of prophets from Moses to Christ; and a change of priests from Aaron to Christ.

Clearly Hebrews 8 and 10 speak of a *New Covenant*, not a mere change of administrations of the same covenant.

January 10, 2009 11:59 AM

Blogger jazzycat said...

Romans 7:6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

How can one look at this verse and conclude that our problem was not the written code, but was not looking to the Spirit to help us keep the law?

January 10, 2009 1:02 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

How can one look at the New Testament teachings and conclude that during the tribulation ethnic Jews will be under law and practice animal sacrifices?

January 10, 2009 1:05 PM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I'll be at work both today and tomorrow (on the sabbath?!?!) and won't be able to participate as much as I would like. I'll get here when I can. My bigger problem is with the classic dispy's as yours is with covenant theology - two systems frought with troubles...

January 10, 2009 1:12 PM

Blogger Gayla said...

In dealing with this very subject - of which I haven't formed a solid position yet - I listened to this from Jim McClarty. Jump down to "Israelology," sermon numbers 11-17.

I wish someone would take the time to listen and give me some feedback. I've always felt a niggling in the back of my mind that God isn't finished with Israel, just couldn't put my finger on it - I mean he made promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in which He said, "this is an everlasting covenant" etc.

Either He 'physically' fulfills these promises or He doesn't. And I've always had a problem with "spirtualizing" the supposed fulfillment of some of the promises, particularly the land promise.

Jim seems to have a very balanced view of the subject, noting that we Gentiles need to remember that we're the ones who were grafted in, we're the 'addendum' so to speak, of God's story about His people, Israel.

Anyway, I'm not well versed enough to really articulate the particulars, but Jim is, and so far I kinda like what he has tosay.

January 10, 2009 3:09 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

Thank you so much for the link. I will listen to it. I'm kinda tied up right now, but I also want to respond to the grafted in issue. Maybe later tonight....

January 10, 2009 5:10 PM

Blogger Gayla said...

Thanks, Wayne. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

January 11, 2009 9:56 AM

Blogger mark pierson said...

I listened to tape 11 and half of tape 16...

Well, I guess I don't want to "do the work" [study the Bible]

I guess I don't want to "read the thing [the Bible]"

I want to "spiritualize" the land promises.

I want to "over simplify" the message of Scripture.

I want to say Israel is replaced by the Church.

Well. what Mr. McClarty does is try to make the arguments of his opponents look silly by mischaracterizing the steps they took in order to arrive at their conclussions, i.e.,e.g. present them as lazy loafs who take the simple way to do theology.

Very telling.

Very arrogant.

Now, some questions for *you* -

Who is a Jew? see Romans 2:28-29.

Who is a child of Abraham? see Galatians 3:26-29.

Who is the "Israel of God"? see Galatians 6:16.

Do you see the Abrahamic Covenant fulfilled in Acts 3:25-26 and Galatians 3:14? If so, how?

Who does Paul say is The Seed of Abraham in Galatians 3:15-16?

Mr. McClarty is till HEAVILY influenced by dispensationalism. Too bad. One day He'll learn to let the New Testament interpret the old.

Now Gayla, please answer all of the questions I asked you in the above.


January 11, 2009 12:14 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

I have listened to the first two tapes so far. I am glad Mark answered as he understands dispensationalism much better than I do.

The purpose of this post is to show the superiority of the revelation of Christ, the New Testament, and New Covenant over the Old Testament. IOW let the New Testament interpret the Old Testament.

For example, if you would check out the following passages:
(Deut. 12:9-10, Deut. 25:19, Joshua 1:13-15 and then look at Heb 3:7 – 4:13) the land promises are presented in terms of entering a rest as in Deut. 12:9 for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that the LORD your God is giving you. & Deut. 25:19 Therefore when the LORD your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the LORD……… If you then go to the Hebrews passage you will see that to enter God’s rest is to have salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Therefore, if the land promise is a promise to enter God’s rest, then this rest [land promise] is fulfilled in the salvation that is by faith in Jesus Christ.

Who was to receive this promise? Paul says in Romans 9:6-8 But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring.

Therefore, the Israel of God are the elect. It is believers who are blessed by the promise and Paul says they are believers in the gospel of Grace. Most of the physical nation of Israel has died in unbelief until this very day because they were not recipients of this promise.

Let the New interpret the Old Testament is what I believe Hebrews 1:1-2 is advocating.

January 11, 2009 2:07 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul speaks of the covenants of promise being fulfilled through the blood of Christ. In Eph. 3:3 he discloses how the mystery was made known to him by revelation. Surely, his revelation was more complete than that of Moses and the Old Testament Prophets.

January 11, 2009 2:20 PM

Blogger Gayla said...

Mark, Wayne, thanks for listening to what you have thus far.

Mark, I love ya, but sometimes it's rather difficult to communicate with you. While you say that Jim is heavily influenced by dispensationalism, you are heavily influenced by your own system of NCT! And I must confess I'm reluctant to engage you when, right out of the gate, you attack the man's character. (You might want to listen a bit more to what he has to say; you'll find that he's far from being arrogant.)

I may or may not reply to your questions. I'll certainly look at the passages you provided. But as I said in my first comment, I'm simply not well versed enough on the subject to really articulate a solid position. I quite obviously have more study to do on the subject. One thing I won't do is pidgeonhole myself into any one "system."

Wayne, thank you for your reply. Am I correct in assuming that you believe that the church has replaced Israel? I ask b/c I have some friends who were saying essentially the same think you just said, which prompted me in this whole study in the first place. They were quite adament that the church IS Israel, and I'd never heard anything like that before.

One more thing, I have NO problem with any of the verses you both provided. They are God's word, and I know they are true. I'm just in the process of trying to reconcile all it together.

January 11, 2009 2:36 PM

Blogger jazzycat said...

No, I do not think the church replaced Israel. Most of Israel died in unbelief. The church started at Pentecost and is made up of Jew and Gentile believers. Paul referred to Old Testament believers as the remnant (Rom. 9:27). This remnant was under the Old Covenant along with unbelieving Israel, which is now obsolete.

January 11, 2009 3:17 PM


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home