Prequel to “Responding to Dispensationalism”, Installation #16: Historical Definitions

In the Reformed, and even in the non-Reformed segments of Christian scholarship which are Calvinistic, most of us are jealous to defend the historical definition of Calvinism as it is applied to those topics of debate related to it today; and I use the word debate informally here. Those of us who have embraced the theology and anthropology proclaimed by the Reformers, laid out in the Synod of Dort, and reiterated in the subsequent confessions of Presbyterianism and historic Baptist theology, are ready to remind those with whom we debate the issues of God’s sovereignty over the human will and salvation, that the term Calvinism has a definite and absolute meaning which is rooted in history and can be objectively observed and either adopted or rejected in the context of contemporary theological debates. This is necessary because there are some who would wrongly attempt to adopt the title of Calvinist or Calvinism (due to motivations beyond my knowledge) by distorting the historical definition of the terms and applying only a warped shell of their proper meaning. One such person in this generation is Norm Geisler, co-founder of Southern Evangelical Seminary. I don’t doubt that Dr. Geisler has made many great contributions to the Church, but his book, Chosen but Free is not one such contribution; in it he calls himself a “moderate Calvinist” (not a term first applied by Dr. Geisler), but is only able to do so by taking the five points commonly and historically associated with Calvinism and redefining each of them to suit his palate. Not only is this a fallacious engagement, but it is confusing and does nothing to promote truth and edification among the audiences of these debates. Men like Geisler, Gordon Olson, R. T. Kendall, and the Amyraldian proponents of the 17th century attempt to hold such a moderate position, and in an effort to co-opt the terms at hand, the three men mentioned have failed in their attempt to show that John Calvin “wasn’t even a Calvinist at the point of limited atonement” (a point that modern Calvinists assert must be affirmed in order for one to refer to himself as a Calvinist) therefore they too have a right to claim the term Calvinist for themselves. Again, I’m not sure of their motivation behind their desire to call themselves any form of Calvinist anyway, and this entire portion of the dialogue seems to me to be a red herring fallacy which is only distracting persons from the core theological issues which have given rise to the debate in the first place, which is the theology summed up in the acrostic explicated at Dort: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints, and perhaps the doctrine at the crux of the whole matter is this, that regeneration precedes faith; it is out of this doctrine that the other five points flow, and it is this doctrine that the men mentioned above must prove that John Calvin didn’t believe in order to prove that he wasn’t a “Calvinist”. Certainly Calvin believed more things about the Bible than just the five points of theology attributed to him in essence at Dort, and the differences between Reformed and non-Reformed theology is obviously more than just a debate over the five points of Calvinism, but the point I have tried to make here is that (understanding that language is fluid), at least regarding the definitions of theological ideas, I among many others think it is paramount to the protection of the Church of God to protect the historical definitions of theological concepts from major shifts; the etymology of the word Calvinism is not the only issue here, like it is in the migration of the meanings of words as they transverse time and culture, in the definition of theological notions, the meaning of entire systems of ideas are at stake. Take for instance the definition of the word evangelical, it has evolved so greatly that it is nearly as broad as the word, conservative. Imagine if the word trinity, which Christians use to describe the idea behind the Godhead; one in essence and three in person, if it were to have moved in the same degree as the word evangelical, then the same destructive confusion would result regarding the doctrine of the triune God.

At this point I am sure you think that I have mistakenly or inappropriately titled this article, but I will now proceed to tie these two issues together. Some of the same persons who are so jealous to protect the term Calvinism are not so diligent in guarding other theological terms used to describe systems of belief. The term Dispensationalism has been plagued by just such an abusive history. If you have read many of my former posts, you will be aware by now that I am not a Dispensationalist but I, like all those who have addressed the hermeneutical debates, have also had to deal with the difficulty of pinning down just what it is my opponents believe; so the question arises, what type of Dispensationalism are you criticizing anyway? This is a legitimate question to ask, and it is important to answer if my monologue in this discussion is to be understood in context and useful in cultivating an appreciation for the many difficult distinctions between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and furthering even my own understanding of the distinctions within Dispensational theology.

My plan in one or more later articles is to describe the major differences in Classic/Historical Dispensationalism, Ryrie Dispensationalism, and Progressive Dispensationalism, and why I believe that the later (and perhaps even the Ryrie type of Dispensationalism) has so departed from the historical definition that, for the same reason that Dr. Geisler cannot call himself a Calvinist of any stripe, Progressive Dispensationalist should likewise refrain from calling themselves any type of Dispensationalist.

The Difficulty of Death

There seems to be a tendency with Americans (and perhaps many other cultures in the world do it in different ways) where we do all we can to avoid the reality of death; rather than face it when it occurs, we do all that is in our power to disguise the situation as something less painful-something that is easier to deal with than what happens after death. It is as though these pacifying rituals are woven into our culture.

From the songs chosen to be sung, right down to the way we have our departed loved ones made-up for the day of their burial; the day we memorialize their lives we try our best to "push back the darkness" of the curse by pretending that it isn't there. We try not to even say that someone has died, instead we say that they have "passed away", "passed on", "gone home", and others. We tell one another that "oh, he went so peacefully and it was almost as though we could hear the rushing of angel wings as they came down to usher him into heaven".

And perhaps the most telling symptom of our desire to ignore the reality of death is that ritual where we spend godless amounts of money to make the empty shell of our loved one look as though their spirit still inhabits it. We comment to one another about how he looks 15 years younger, for heaven's sake people, it's a dead body...there is no spirit there. The pain and fear of death is rarely subsided by our futile cultic practices, in fact I think the reason we have accepted and prescribed the way we commonly deal with death is so that we don't have to really mourn those who God has removed from this earth; if we can talk more about how peacefully they went, and paint their bodies well enough that they don't really look dead (rather, they resemble some over-botoxed, 70 year old Hollywood has been) and sing songs about how happy they are to now be in the presence of Jesus, then we don't have to wonder if they were scared when they crossed the Jordan, or reflect on their lives with a measure of realism and really wonder if their bodies will actually be resurrected to new life instead of eternal punishment, and whatever happened to the funeral dirge, can we never be content to just mourn? We are told that it is OK to cry, but then we only sing songs of "victory", thus the whole emphasis that the Bible places on the difficulty of sin and the consequence of death is put to the side at the one time during our lives when it should have front page priority so we can face the frightening prospect of dying, an event about which even Christians should fear.

Certainly, we do have hope beyond the grave, hope that we will spend eternity with the Person who saved us from the wrath to come, but the final leg of our journey there has to be the most difficult. Because of Christs victory over it, death no longer has its sting, but that doesn't mean that death is no longer scary, it means that Christ purchased resurrection for all that the Father has given Him, and death has no eternal hold on their souls.

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #15:Questioning Dispensational Presuppositions

Below I have listed several questions that I have for any of you dispensationalists out there. My intentions as I have posted this series of articles and as I pose the following questions are as noble as a sinners intentions can be; I have no desire to incite anger, and my writings on this topic, though at times pointed and critical, are purely meant to redeem my own understanding and the understanding of others regarding how we are to read the Bible. I don't claim to have come to a full grasp on this or any theological topic; all we can do is present our theology, "per tendo", in the present. I must admit that I had hoped that this series would have provoked more dialogue but as I am aware, there probably aren't many dispensationalists who visit this blog. Nevertheless, here are the questions:

Several Provocative & Exposing Questions for Dispensationalists

1. Did Jesus come simply to offer His earthly kingdom to the nation of Israel, or instead, did He come to proclaim that His Kingdom was near at hand even then; how do dispensationalists deal with the passages that appear to present the "now" nature of the Kingdom; does the dispensational view force its adherents to claim that Christ presented two different Kingdoms during His incarnate time on earth?

2. What is the nature of the Kingdom offered by Jesus; was it earthly and time bound or was it a spiritual Kingdom; was it both?

3. If the Kingdom offer was "legitimate" (legitimate in the sense which I understand it to be taken by dispensationalists, namely that the nation of Israel could have accepted the earthly kingdom at that time) would the cross have happened or even been necessary if the Jews had received it?

4. Was there a specific point in the ministry of Christ where God considered the Kingdom postponed due to the Jews rejection of it?

5. If the answer to question number 4 is yes, then what are the differences in the Kingdom Christ offered before the Jews rejected it and the Kingdom He offered after they had rejected it?

6. Who are the partakers in the New Covenant; to whom are the promises of the New Covenant made?

7. If the New Covenant was made with the nation of Israel alone , then why do Christians with a dispensational hermeneutic partake of the Lord’s Table?

8. If the promises of the Mosaic Covenant were conditional, and the Jews didn’t live up to those conditions, then on what basis can they charge God with injustice (the hypothetical objection Paul answers in Romans 9) if God doesn't establish a future earthly Kingdom that is primarily Jewish in nature? God was not obligated to fulfilling the promises of the Mosaic covenant after the nation of Israel broken the covenant…so why would they still expect the fulfillment of those promises?

9. Do dispensationalists believe that the promises God made to Abraham were intended to be fulfilled specifically to the nation of Israel, upon their obedience to the commands of the Mosaic Covenant?

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #14: The Types & Shadows of Christ: A discussion of Hebrews 9:6-28

The Types and Shadows of Christ

Hebrews 9

6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go regularly into the first section, performing their ritual duties, 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the unintentional sins of the people. 8 By this the Holy Spirit indicates that the way into the holy places is not yet opened as long as the first section is still standing 9 (which is symbolic for the present age).

The Temporal Weakness of the Old Covenant Priesthood

Verse 7 of Hebrews 9 tells us that the high priest alone goes into the second section of the temple alter, and only then with the blood sacrifice for himself and the people’s sins (for which they may not even be repenting) and even then he only goes in once a year. Verse 8 follows by saying that the presence of the second section, the infrequency of the visit, and the limited membership of visitors allowed all indicate that the way into the holy places is not yet opened because the first section is still standing; while these restrictions are in place, the alter is inaccessible—that is the metaphor provided by these things.

11 But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) 12 he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. 13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, 14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. 15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant.

The Eternal Accomplishment of the New Covenant Priest

At the appearance of the archetype of the temple, Christ our High Priest takes His own blood into the second section and once and for all offers the perfect blood of His holy body, thus the curtain is rent in two and the dividing wall crumbles. And that is why in verse 15 it says therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant. Because of these things we may rightly surmise that whenever the earthly high priest is restricted from going into the second section, and even then he is the only one who may enter in, the holy place is closed, so if these restrictions were ever put in place again, in a future earthly temple, then the holy place must have been closed again, and closed again, then our eternal redemption has not yet been secured—this view does great damage to the atonement of Christ and His High Priestly work. And because He has opened the holy places by entering in, our consciences have been purified from dead works so we can serve the living God, but if the holy places are closed then our consciences have not been cleansed and we may not serve Him, and Christ is not yet the mediator of a new covenant.

It is stated that one of the reasons Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant is due to the nature of His work as The High Priest; this High Priest was without spot or blemish, and He doesn’t have to enter into the holy places more than once, and the holy places He enters to secure this redemption are the holy places not made with human hands, thus the security is everlasting.

16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant that God commanded for you." 21 And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. 22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. 23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Where There’s a Will, There’s a Metaphor

The author compares the ratification of the New Covenant with the fact that a will establishes the occurrence of a death. The will exists in some sense before it’s the owner’s death but its promises cannot be distributed until the death takes place. It is the same with Christ and the promises of the New Covenant, the promises could not be distributed until He had died. The Old Covenant was no different, the stipulations and promises were of no effect until they were inaugurated by the sprinkling of the blood, signifying that a death had occurred to ratify the covenant God had made with His people. The contrast is then made between the earthly vessels of worship and the heavenly ones they symbolized, the former had to be sprinkled with the blood of bulls and goats, but the later were sprinkled, as it were, with the blood of Christ; His position is permanent, and His sacrifice propitiatory!

As a type of Christ’s blood and His body, the typological will was inaugurated by the blood of calves and goats being sprinkled on the tent made with hands and the vessels of worship as a shadow of the heavenly items they flattered. What is so very important here, as this passage ends, is an eschatology we see attached to the description of the shadow and substance of Christ. Notice at this point the sheer absence of a future temple made with hands, additional human priests to memorialize the Old Covenant sacrifices of animal bodies and the sprinkling of their blood—which cannot possibly propitiate the wrath of God, and that there is no reconstitution of the Mosaic law as a means of dealing with sin (even if it is just as a temporary covering). In fact, the exact opposite is displayed—it is said that Christ was offered once, and then He returns—not to deal with sin mind you (not to atone for sin) for His dealing with sin was done on the cross and He does not return to do it again, but to save those who eagerly wait for His return; no secret rapture, no earthly temple, just the real temple it pictured and the return of the King of the Universe with a shout and the blowing of a trumpet (as it is elsewhere described). And if there ever was an appropriate place for the Holy Spirit to use a New Testament author to tell us about how we should interpret Jeremiah and other’s prophesies in a dispensational way, it would certainly be here—but it isn’t.

New Covenant Inheritance

In reality the author of the book of Hebrews is saying that because Christ did all these things for us, we are the partakers of the New Covenant and Christ is its mediator—our mediator, the mediator for the called, the mediator of the New Covenant promises of eternal inheritance…and what is that inheritance? For one thing, it is the inheritance of having the law of God written on our hearts of flesh with which God replaced the hearts of stone we once had, and which were pictured by the law having been written the first time on stone tablets, but the inheritance for those in the New Covenant, at least in part, is that the law is no longer written in stone but in flesh. Another form of our inheritance is Christ as our God and our position as His people, and the fact that all of those who receive covenant blessings—all those in the covenant—will also be true heirs of the promises Jeremiah prophesied.

We all know that at one’s death the inheritance of His possessions are distributed according to His last will and testament, so too it is at the death of Christ. So yet another form of inheritance is that of the inheritance of His possessions, and they are distributed according to His will. Christ told His disciples that the kingdom was at hand and that His coming in the flesh inaugurated His kingdom and His death and resurrection ratified it, and so began the distribution of the inheritance—such distribution is delayed in two ways: not all of the heirs have been translated into the kingdom in time, and not all the inheritance due to individual heirs is distributed at once. Like the kingdom, there is investiture and achievement, like a marriage, there is betrothal and consummation, so too in the distribution of the inheritance there is a beginning and an end and the amount of time in between is known only to God. Just as Christ is the Seed of Abraham and the God of Abraham’s seed; the Greater Son of David, and David’s King; the Precious Lamb of God, and the High Priest wielding the sacrificial blade—so too He is the Fellow Heir with His brothers and at the same time He is the Glorious King from whose bountiful kingdom we benefit as heirs.

Sproul Quote on Understanding Scripture

Here is a quote by the very quotable, R.C. Sproul, from his book on the interpretation of scripture, Knowing Scripture.

"Absurdities often sound profound because they are incapable of being understood. When we hear things we do not understand, sometimes we think they are simply too deep or weighty for us to grasp when in fact they are merely unintelligible statements like "one-hand clapping". the Bible does not talk like that. The Bible speaks of God in meaningful patterns of speech. Some of those patterns are more difficult than others, but they are not meant to be nonsense statements that only a guru can fathom."

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #13: The Types & Shadows of Christ: A discussion of Hebrews 8:1-13

The Types and Shadows of Christ

Hebrews 8

1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."

The Future Temple?

To suggest that the earthly priests will one day make sacrifices again is to suggest either that, they will once again service the stipulations of that old and terrible covenant, or that a third covenant after the New Covenant must be set up for them to mediate. The former cannot be true because it would cause a digression in spite of God’s revelation and the author says this in verse 4, “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” If in a Dispensational millennium, earthly priests are offering gifts according to the law in an earthly temple, and Christ is present on earth with them, then based on what is said in verse 4 He would not be a priest at all. It is significant that the author of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 here and thus there cannot be a third covenant after the New Covenant for the earthly high priest to mediate because “the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” There couldn’t be a clearer statement than the one in verse four to cause us to believe that once Christ has come in the flesh, and especially after His return, there will never be any reestablishment of the Levitical priesthood because if Christ were on earth at the time when (as Dispensationalism claims) Ezekiel’s temple is built and priests after the order of Aaron are making sacrifices, “he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law”

The Dispensational view of the kingdom, the temple, and the future earthly high priests is that, in the institution of this new covenant, the old one vanishes. It is not postponed or put off for a little while, it completely vanishes because Christ’s incarnation never ceases. Unless one suggests that the phrase “vanish away” means that it will only temporarily disappear, then its meaning here cannot be rightly understood in the confines of that dispensational perspective (a coming time when God will resume His dealings with ethnic Israel in the Old Covenant, giving them the blessings of that covenant—which above it is said to have vanished). I believe that some have recommended that the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is a covenant renewal connected to what Paul also spoke of in Romans 11, where it is said that, in this way, all Israel will be saved. But to consign the New Covenant (the covenant prophesied by Jeremiah) exclusively to ethnic Israel is to deny all references to the New Covenant in the Apostolic writings, in fact it is a denial of the New Testament all together because that is the purpose of the canon of post incarnation scriptures—to proclaim the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ; to show Christ as the substance of former shadows and the archetype of former types, and to name the New covenant as a contrast to the Old Mosaic covenant. Therefore when the author of the book of Hebrews uses the word “vanishes”, he means to say that the Old Covenant is finished and over because the new and better covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.

6 But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Because we are captive to our culture and confine ourselves by our own literary intuitions, we get hung up on the chronology in verse 10. Speaking about the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews makes the statement, “…after those days…” and it offends our sensibilities to suggest that Jeremiah and the author here could possibly be talking about the Abrahamic covenant, because, chronologically speaking, that covenant came before those days, because those days refers to the days of the Old Mosaic Covenant; the days when God brought them out of Egypt. But it is neither right nor good to draw such a hard line here, yes it is very true that God cut the covenant with Abraham before He brought the people out of the land of Egypt but the promises of that covenant, and all its blessings were not distributed before the exodus; the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and its fulfillment is most certainly after those days, and it is therefore perfectly alright for the author of Hebrews to speak of it that way. So we can say that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant’s promises. We know that God made His covenant with Abraham prior to the Mosaic Covenant, but in verse 13 the author says that this New Covenant makes the first one obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is the first one being spoken of here, even though it is second coming after Abrahamic covenant. The point is that in relationship to the New Covenant, the Old covenant is the first one, and my specific point here is to say that we should not be confused by thinking that this is contradictory language because in reality it is language that is relative—the Mosaic to the New.

I think that if we look very carefully at the meaning of the Hebrews 8 passage above, we will see only two covenants represented: the Old Covenant and the New; the Mosaic covenant which was a reinstitution (or fulfillment of sorts) of the covenant made with Adam and the covenant in Christ’s blood (which in part, is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant). It is said that Christ obtained a more excellent ministry in His high priestly position than that of the earthly priests because He mediates a covenant with better promises—promises of life, while the covenant mediated by the earthly priests promised only physical land under the condition of obedience to the whole law, and condemnation through the law upon their corporate disobedience. So the promises of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, though they did point to the better promises of the New Covenant, were but shadows of the promises God has made to His people in the New Covenant.

The True Israel of God

One of the reasons why covenant theologians say that the church is the true Israel of God is because the New Testament places us gentiles in the New Covenant, and it relates the New Covenant with the sacrament of communion. The covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is the new covenant in Christ’s blood. The days which are coming (spoken of in Jeremiah) are inaugurated by the days after Christ has come in the flesh and the people with whom the covenant is made, according to the prophecy in Jeremiah, are the house of Judah and Israel, but according to the author of Hebrews (and the rest of the pertinent verses in the New Testament) the members of that group ultimately include more than just the physical descendants of Abraham. So the questions we must ask ourselves now is, does the New Testament author contradict the Old by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the author misinterpret the Old Testament verses by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the New Testament author actually give us the fuller revelation of those verses by expanding their meaning? I submit that the later is the right answer. One of the promises of the New Covenant is that the law will be written on the hearts of everyone who partakes in that covenant, a writing which was typified in the Old Covenant by the writing of the law on stone tablets. They will not need to teach their neighbors and brothers like the remnant of saints (true Israelites) had to do in the Old Covenant because they were members of two groups—they were the children of God because they shared in the faith that Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised, and they were part off the physical nation of Israel who received the benefits of the physical land by way of the Old Covenant, but those old saints might also have been witnesses to other Old Covenant members who may have been their physical brothers who shared with them in the Mosaic covenant blessings but with whom they were not spiritual brothers because they had not been born of God. So it is right to say that in the Mosaic covenant not all its partakers were of the true Israel of God but all those in this New Covenant will be part of the True Israel of God, the seed of Abraham; they are the true circumcision.

Conclusion

So in essence, the Old Covenant is only a type which foreshadows the new just like the old Sabbath rest is only a shadow of the substantial rest we have in Christ.

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #12: The Types & Shadows of Christ: A discussion of Hebrews 7:13-24, & 28

The Types and Shadows of Christ

Hebrews 7 (continued)

13 For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. 15 This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, 16 who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life.

In this portion of the passage it is apparent that Christ is made our High Priest outside of the normal ordinance; He did not come from the regular line of earthly priests.

17 For it is witnessed of him, "You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek." 18 On the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness 19 (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God. 20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: "The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, 'You are a priest forever.'" 22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. 23 The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, 24 but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever.

The Oath

The “witness” mentioned in verse 17 is David, found in verse 4 of Psalm 110, and the oath mentioned in 21 we also find in a quote from that Psalm. This Psalm of David justifies the statement made later, in verse 28 that, “the word of the oath, which came later than the law”; the oath as stated in verse 21 came after the establishment of the ritual covenant stipulations of Moses, which pointed to Christ. The priests under the Old Covenant did not have an oath—in other words; they did not receive the promise to continue forever in their duties, not as individuals; neither did their office receive the promise of permanence.

The Former Commandment

The “former commandment” in verse 18 refers to the order of Levitical priesthood under the Mosaic Covenant. How is it set aside, well the preceding verses have quite clearly told us that when Christ came, this former commandment (because of its uselessness and weakness to accomplish the deeds of the Substance it symbolized) necessarily had to be trumped by the eventual establishment of the Permanent High Priest it shadowed—the “Better Hope” which was introduced to draw us near to God; though God’s wrath was stayed by those sacrifices, no one’s sins were propitiated by them, thus no one was drawn near to God by the rituals of the Old Covenant.

The Better Hope

The Levitical priesthood (in all its historical import and usefulness in pointing to the coming Messiah) was too weak to do what the real High Priest can do—mediate for us with clean hands, having no sin which needed covering; the High Priest makes us perfect but the Levitical priest only pointed out our imperfection, covering the people temporarily by their duties; the best they could do was to symbolize Christ in that office. On the other hand, the “Better Hope” was given an oath, a promise that He would one day become that High Priest forever.

Hebrews 7

28 For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

Calvin again, on verse 28:

"28. For the law, etc. From the defects of men he draws his conclusion as to the weakness of the priesthood, as though he had said, “Since the law makes no real priests, the defect must by some other means be remedied; and it is remedied by the word of the oath; for Christ was made a priest, being not of the common order of men, but the Son of God, subject to no defect, but adorned and endowed with the highest perfection.” He again reminds us, that the oath was posterior to the law, in order to show that God, being not satisfied with the priesthood of the law, designed to constitute a better priesthood; for in the institutions of God what succeeds advances the former to a better state, or it abolishes what was designed to exist only for a time."

Christ was made a high priest by the Father, and his position is forever. Do you think it is proper to interpret the bible, and to systematize the theology of a Mediator between us and God in such a way that there will one day be an earthly high priest (for whom the offering must also be made) in the position of making offerings for Israel while the real High Priest is on Earth in their presence? I think it does great damage to the meaningfulness of the shadow and substance relationship to have both in concurrent operation. Certainly Christ will not put a moratorium on His high priestly activities in any future era so that the old ways can be reinstated; if Christ ever suspended His high priestly activities we would all certainly perish. As we have seen, through the contextual interpretation of the Word, and as we must conclude, the Levitical priest who assumes the old, cultic rituals of the Old Covenant after Christ has come in the flesh to put those things away, his "worship" and "mediation" will be a foul stench in the nostrils of God.

In the passages above there is no indication of a restoration of the type or the shadow which will work as an ordained memorial. Again, I must ask, how would the supposed future, human high priest view these scriptures in a millennium wherein his duties contradict the very meaning of these passages in Hebrews? Meditate on the dispensationalists claim that there will be a "cooperation" of the high priest appointed by the Law and the perfect High Priest made with an oath, and I will discuss that topic later as I plow through Hebrews 8.

Bob Dylan Quote & My Comments

Below is a quote from a Bob Dylan song.

"Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly

before they're forever banned?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,

the answer is blowin' in the wind."

Normally, Dylan rejected any attachment to a particular social movement: the hippy movement, the folk movement in music, etc. On many occasions he even claimed that there was no real deep message invested in the lyrics of his songs, and that most of his audience takes them too seriously. Even though that claim itself is considered by his fans to be satirical, it was obvious that he did not intend for his lyrics to be co opted as a rally cry by any organization or organised movement.

All that being said, I do want to comment on the underlined portion of the lyrics I quoted above. It certainly is a noble desire to have wars and conflicts end, in fact it is one that I share. Dylan released this song on the 1963 album titled, "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan", this was a tumultuous time in American history: the civil rights movement, the death of the President in November, and about one year earlier, several nations (the US included) signed an agreement to insure the neutrality of Laos, and the conflict in Vietnam had been escalating since 1959, so it is clear to see how his environment ( a nation being polarized by a clash in cultures and the threat war) might have fueled such lyrics. Unfortunately, though the sentiment is valid, the argument disguised in the question, "...how many times must the cannon balls fly before they're forever banned?" is utterly unrealistic. This lyric makes me ponder the reality of original sin, and the falleness that typifies the world in which we live. Imagine a world where the government was united under one state head; lead by one body of legislators to create laws, and one body to carry them out worldwide. Imagine that this world government does ban the "cannonball", the problem is that, the very governing body which bans them must exempt themselves so as to be invested with the power to weld cannonballs themselves to prevent anyone else from doing so...I'm thankful that, even in this fallen world, by the common grace of God, He granted the fathers of our country the wisdom to decide that each citizen (with some necessary exclusions) has the right to bear "cannonballs". Unfortunately, the world in which Dylan made his plea is not the one in which his dream could come true, in fact, the banning of cannonballs would inevitably lead to the tyrannizing of the entire world under the government of fallen men which make fallen laws.

Fortunately for those redeemed by Christ, they will live in a future world, redeemed even of the cannonball. If the answer is truly "blowing in the wind", as Dylan suggests, then that Wind must be the Holy Spirit.

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #10: The Types & Shadows of Christ: A discussion of Hebrews 4

The Types and Shadows of Christ

Hebrews 4

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not have spoken of another day later on. 9 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, 10 for whoever has entered God's rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

We must first understand that the way that God has determined to relate to His creation and creatures through out all of redemptive history has been through covenant. These covenants are specifically noted in scripture by the nature of the language used to describe how God has determined to either, condition the distribution of His blessings or to grant these blessings out of His own beneficence and because of His own accomplished Holiness. The former (which would include the covenants He made with Adam and Moses) resembles the type of treaty that kings and rulers made with people how would benefit from their relationship only if they fulfilled whatever stipulations the king had set up. The covenant was “cut” by the blood sacrifice of an animal and the two parties would pass between the severed halves, in essence saying, that if we do not uphold our part in the covenant, this which has happened to these animals will happen to us, it was the same for the recipients and the king; if either party didn’t fulfill those obligation placed on them, a severe consequence, often referred to as a curse, would befall the offending party. The later (which would include the covenant made with Abraham, David, and the New Covenant) resembles the type of “royal grant” which a king or ruler would grant unilateral blessing because of his gracious character and never dependant on the obedience of its recipients. In these cases, a substitute sacrifice would be made to “cut” the covenant and represent the means by which any offence to the king by the recipients would be justly absolved. In this type of covenant the beneficiary alone places the warning of curse on himself. Imagine the first covenant is like the relationship between Americans and our government, as long as we keep the stipulations of the law then we benefit from the protection of the government. The later type of covenant is more like a convicted felon receiving a presidential pardon.

Negative Polemic – What this passage doesn’t mean

I think the first thing to do as we discuss this passage is to define the “them” who are spoken of here. I believe that some have suggested that those spoken of here are the ethnic Jews with whom God will take up once again, the Mosaic economy some time in the future, thus fulfilling the land promises made to Abraham. Misunderstanding and confusing the two covenants, these men claim that what God promised to Abraham, He eventually started to fulfill in the covenant with Moses but upon Israel’s disobedience they were punished in exile and when Christ came as their Messiah to offer the kingdom to the nation of Israel they rejected Him so God brought salvation to the gentiles because of the disobedience of ethnic Israel and also to make them jealous. Though some of these views are true, it is nevertheless wrong to consider the “them” spoken of in verse 8 exclusively as ethnic Israelites. We have the full revelation of God from which to draw as we consider our interpretation of Old Testament passages and their reference in the New Testament. If we develop a comprehensive understanding of these covenants and their promises as we bring New Testament verses in to bear on their meaning we will come to the conclusion that the people being referred to by the author of Hebrews in this passage are the seed of Abraham, the true circumcision; this group spans all of redemptive history. That is why he can say that, “there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God", and the Sabbath rest is that rest which is inaugurated in Christ’s first appearance and which will be consummated in His second coming.

Positive Polemic – What this passage does mean

I think that the actual point of Hebrews 4:8 is to say that Joshua did not give the people rest, at least not ultimate rest. Joshua in this verse (and as an historical person) represents the means by which God had Israel enter the physical land; the land is often referred to as a place where the people of God will find rest, but the physical land that was given by Joshua did not give the people rest upon their entry and it will not give a day of rest to anyone—in fact, once they entered the land they still had to keep the whole law in order to stay there—that is no rest at all. We find a striking similarity in the creation account where God establishes a pattern of six days of work and then rest. Take that rest for instance (a rest I believe to represent one of the blessings of the covenant between God and Adam), it was at the end of 6 days of work; God worked six days and then rested as if to say that, if Adam fulfilled the covenant obligations: don’t eat of this tree, then he would rest from his work at the end of the fulfillment of his obligations. The promise of rest is conditioned upon his obedience, an obedience for which God doesn’t say “I will fulfill the obligations of this covenant for you so that I may grant the covenantal promises to you.” This day of rest is not a future day when the nation of Israel will acquire rest in the physical land by having God fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant because of their obedience to the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant. Actually, it is a future day of rest when God, because of Christ’s obedience to the stipulations of the Covenant of Life, fulfills the Abrahamic promises to his children in eternity.

Christ in all of creation

Even after the fall we get a vivid description of the covenant God made with Adam (the covenant of life) in creation—in the general revelation of God, there is no provision for the eternal salvation of the soul; no promise of resurrection; no grace for justification, in that revelation only law is presented which shows us that God exists and that His holiness condemns us—For this creation order, God instituted the seven day week, six days of work with the promise of rest on the seventh. In the Mosaic covenant, which was a reiteration of the covenant of life—not the covenant God made with Abraham. In the Mosaic Covenant, God instituted many Sabbaths, one of which was weekly—all of these Sabbaths ultimately point to the rest we find in Christ; they are types and shadows of Christ who is the archetype and substance. The fascinating thing is that point when the church, after the cross, changes the weekly day of worship to the first day of the week. So now we have a picture of a seven day week where the first day is a day of rest and then six days of work are to follow. I believe that this format pictures the conditionality of the Mosaic Covenant in which the first order of weekly Sabbath was set up—six days of work and then a day of rest; “Do all of these things and I will bless you”. But the opposite is true for the members of the New Covenant, the order of the weekly Sabbath was to begin with a day of rest and then go out to work the other six days, as if to say to the partakers of the New Covenant that, because you enjoy my spiritual rest you will indeed do good works as an identification of character. The circular nature of this cycle exposes the present need that all God’s children have to renew their faith in Christ every week, even daily in personal reading of the Word, but also in a special way once a week with the people of God where He meets us audibly in the proclamation of the Word and tacitly in the proclamation of His blood and body.

The Abrahamic Covenant

The Abrahamic Covenant was very much one sided, God cut the animals in two and passed through them, God granted the promises and blessings of the covenant to Abraham and his seed because God Himself, in Christ, would fulfill the stipulations of the covenant. Understand that there were stipulations in that covenant, good works are demanded to be sure, and repentance and belief are the full revelation of those stipulations, but it remains unconditional because Christ fulfilled all the righteous requirements of God and His righteousness was “counted to Abraham before he was circumcised”, and because of the gracious unconditional nature of the covenant, Abraham’s subsequent love of God and ultimate desire to please Him (however small) was guaranteed. So, instead of “do this and you will live…” we hear, “I will do this, and you will live”; in the Abrahamic covenant we hear about another day later on to which the author of Hebrews refers. So my conclusion is that the later day is the day of Christ’s appearing, a day which was inaugurated in His incarnation and will be consummated in His second coming, when “the people of God” will find their ultimate rest.

I think that dispensationalists would disagree that there is an overarching theological interpretation of the Bible which suggests that the Old Testament saints never fully understood the meaning of many of the prophecies. Yes, as the Dispensationalist would agree, there was an historical grammatical interpretation to be understood; the prophecies did mean something to the Old Testament saints, but they often misunderstood their true meaning because God didn’t fully reveal it to them—there was yet a future, spiritual meaning to many of those prophesies. So in hindsight, the prophesies made in the Old Testament have great meaning for all who read them because they are telling the story of redemption, they are not simply subject to the historical grammatical interpretation. The pattern we actually see regarding revelation and our understanding of it is this: prophesy then fulfillment, and then understanding. Because I can’t say it any better, I quote Sam Waldron below,

“It is also relevant to note that a comprehensive hermeneutic must take into account the necessity of a theological interpretation of the Bible. The Bible has both a divine and human authorship. Historical-grammatical interpretation goes no further than the human authorship. It asks only what the original human author might or could have meant by what he wrote. The Bible affirms for itself in addition divine authorship. While what the divine author meant in any given passage will not contradict what the human authors meant, it must be obvious that the intention of the divine author could go considerably beyond what the human author meant or could have meant."

This theological interpretation may be what is sometimes referred to as the “analogy of faith”—scripture is keen on its own interpretation and the later revelation in time is profitable in the interpretation of the former.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1, Sections 9 & 10

“The infallible rule for the interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore whenever there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched by other passages which speak more clearly.
The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and by which must be examined all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men and private spirits can be no other than the Holy Scripture, delivered by the Spirit. And in the sentence of Scripture we are to rest, for it is in Scripture, delivered by the Spirit, that our faith is finally resolved.”

Responding to Dispensationalism, Installation #9: Who are the partakers of the New Covenant?: A discussion of Jeremiah 31

Who are the Partakers of the New Covenant?

Jeremiah 31

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

This passage is pregnant with meaning. A couple things that are clear from a quick look are that: it is a prophecy of an event future to the writer, and it is a different covenant from the one God made with the people when He brought them out of Egypt (the Mosaic Covenant); it is “new” in reference to the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt.

Possibly the largest hurdle for a theologian steeped in Dispensational tradition to get over is the fact that the New Testament authors apply the term “Israel of God” to a group that includes ethnic Jews and Gentiles, and above is probably the prime Old Testament reference; located in verse 33 it is stated this way, But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. Prominent preacher and defender of the truth, John Macarthur said in his recent diatribe against Covenant Theology at large and Amillennialism specifically, that we can never understand references to the house of Israel or Judah as ever meaning anything but the physical form of those houses as being primarily represented by ethnic Jews. At this point, I would like to direct you to a work that has been done online: the chapter in Sam Waldron's book regarding John Macarthur's misrepresentation of Amillennialism called "The Israel of God" is helpful information here as well when he considers the New Testament understanding of the Church as the elect remnant. I don’t believe that I could answer Macarthur’s or any other form of dispensational objection to the covenantal use of the term in the New Testament any better that Dr. Waldron has already done.

In Luke 22 Christ uses the cup of wine in the upper room as a picture of the cup of God’s wrath which He must drink on the cross—Christ drank it and we must partake of Christ, so as a sacred meal which signifies the body and blood of Christ, we do the same until His return to renew our faith in the invisible Word by the visible means of the covenant meal. We can appropriate this for us today because when Christ instituted the meal, He referenced Jeremiah 31 in the gospel account: Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul then interprets the gospel accounts of this event for us, 1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. So Christ institutes the sacrament of communion for New Covenant members, then Paul places us into the group of New Covenant members by applying this institution to us.

In chapter 8, the writer of Hebrews quotes the entire passage from Jeremiah 31 regarding the New Covenant and names Christ as its mediator. So with Christ as it’s mediator, and with the way the New testament speaks of “the Israel of God’, the “true circumcision”, and Abraham’s offspring” as inclusive of all races, Christ’s declaration to His disciples that the New Covenant is in His blood, and with Paul’s application of communion to Christians today, we can safely say that the New Covenant (spoken of through the prophet Jeremiah) is a covenant God made with all believers. This covenant was confirmed on the cross; the cutting of that covenant spanned millennia and it most certainly does include all those who believe. Even though the prophet spoke of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, we must understand that the correct interpretation of those houses expands far beyond the historical/grammatical and goes (like all prophecy) into the redemptive historical “meta-narrative” and, in the broad sense, God would have us to understand through the Scriptures, that those houses included all those who believe and who are counted righteous in Christ.

Well, if you are a Dispensationalist you might want to call that Replacement Theology, and that term might be accurate if what was being said by Covenant theologians was that, the group (of which all believers in this post incarnation age are included) to whom this new covenant is made are getting the promises that were made to the people who God brought out of Egypt because they were unfaithful, and that God decided not to fulfill those promises He made through Moses to the nation of Israel, but instead He “replaced” them with another group, one which would certainly obey; if that was what Covenant theologians were saying, then the term "Replacement Theology" might stick. The fact remains that Covenant theologians have not, are not and will not say that. The unconditional promises made to Abraham will certainly be kept, and they will be kept with those to whom God always intended— Abraham’s seed, those in Christ; so God remains faithful. Those promises were not the same as the conditional promises which were made to Moses and the people who God brought out of Egypt—they broke the covenant and thus God did keep His promise to curse those in that covenant for corporate disobedience, the promises made to Abraham were never intended to be fulfilled through, and were not reiterated in the Mosaic Covenant, instead, the promises made to Abraham and his offspring (as stated very clearly in Romans 4) did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith, so that the beneficiaries of those promises are all of those who have faith, either in the coming Messiah or the Messiah who came, thus God can say through Paul that His promises have not failed because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, so there are Israelites who will not be saved, and an “Israel” who will.

As I have heard it described by Kim Riddlebarger, one of the hosts of “The White Horse Inn”, it may be helpful to think of it this way, there could have been an ethnic Jew under the Mosaic Covenant who was personally obedient to the law of Moses and who was enjoying the blessings that were afforded to that covenant (enjoying milk and honey in the promised physical land) but who, at the same time, was a child of God’s wrath because he was without faith. There also could have been an ethnic Jew whose family was killed in the Babylonian invasion and who was carried off into exile and captivity, and who was no longer able to keep the temple laws but who, at the same time, was a child of God who would eventually enjoy the rest of Christ in the promised spiritual land because of the real sacrifice of Christ and because of his faith in that future Messiah, thus in eternity he would worship by the real Temple which is Christ Himself.