Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism, Part 5
Republished with permission from Dr. Reluctant. In this series, Dr. Henebury responds to a collection of criticisms of dispensationalism entitled “95 Theses against Dispensationalism” written by a group called “The Nicene Council.” Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Thesis 24
Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism in pointing out that “the prevailing method of interpretation among the Jews at the time of Christ was certainly this same method” (J. D. Pentecost), they overlook the problem that this led those Jews to misunderstand Christ and to reject him as their Messiah because he did not come as the king which their method of interpretation predicted.
Response: It is not advisable to refer to dispensational interpretation as “literalism”—so-called or otherwise, since this leads to misunderstandings and misrepresentations (see below). It is far better to treat the Bible the same way one would treat any other book. It seems preposterous to us to scout around for an alternative hermeneutics just because the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, it is precisely because the Bible is the Word of God to man that one would expect it not to require some esoteric interpretation unless very good reasons could be given for doing so.
Although some evangelicals would disagree, we think there is great wisdom contained in these words of Peters:
If God has really intended to make known His will to man, it follows that to secure knowledge on our part, He must convey His truth to us in accordance with the well-known rules of language. He must adapt Himself to our mode of communicating thought and ideas. If His words were given to be understood, it follows that He must have employed language to convey the sense intended, agreeably to the laws grammatically expressed, controlling all language; and that, instead of seeking a sense which the words in themselves do not contain, we are primarily to obtain the sense that the words obviously embrace, making due allowance for the existence of figures of speech when indicated by the context, scope or construction of the passage. (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 1.47)
That many Jews in the time of Jesus expected Him to fulfill the Word by setting up His literal (not spiritual) messianic kingdom at His first advent was due in part to their not realizing that He must first suffer and become “sin for us” (Isa. 53) before He would come as king (e.g. Matt. 26:64, 27:11 with Dan. 7:13-14) They did not see that there would be a time-gap between the first and second advents (see Mic. 5:2, Isa. 61:1-2, Lk. 1:31-33).
Unless they are heretics, all Christians believe in a time gap between the advents. And they do this, not by employing some allegorizing hermeneutic (which would be suspicious as an apologetic), but rather, by believing what the Bible says. Christ will come again (Lk. 18:8, Jn. 14:1-3, Acts 1:11, Rev. 22:20).
Finally, how strange it was that those who were closest to Him, who heard more of His teaching than anyone else, should ask Him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). Apparently not only did they expect a literal earthly kingdom in line with OT predictions, but they also appeared not to think the Church was the “New Israel”! And Jesus said nothing to alter their expectation!
Thesis 25
Despite the dispensationalists’ partial defense of their so-called literalism by appealing to the method of interpretation of the first century Jews, such “literalism” led those Jews to misunderstand Christ’s basic teaching by believing that he would rebuild the destroyed temple in three days (John 2:20-21); that converts must enter a second time into his mother’s womb (John 3:4); and that one must receive liquid water from Jesus rather than spiritual water (John 4:10-11), and must actually eat his flesh (John 6:51-52, 66).
Response: Since no dispensationalist has ever made these same mistakes in interpretation, this objection is pointless. This is what happens when one goes fishing for red herrings rather than paying attention to how the (older) hermeneutics manuals (Terry, Ramm) define grammatical-historical hermeneutics. In this case, “literal” interpretation is morphed into “literalistic” interpretation. All objectors to dispensational interpretation get a couple of pages worth of material from this mischaracterization.
Thesis 26
Despite the dispensationalists’ interpretive methodology arguing that we must interpret the Old Testament on its own merit without reference to the New Testament, so that we must “interpret ‘the New Testament in the light of the Old’” (Alan Johnson), the unified, organic nature of Scripture and its typological, unfolding character require that we consult the New Testament as the divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament, noting that all the prophecies are “yea and amen in Christ” (2 Cor 1:20); that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (Rev 19:10); and, in fact, that many Old Testament passages were written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor 10:11) and were a “mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past” (Col. 1:26; Rev 10:7).
Response: First, Alan Johnson is not a dispensationalist. But since Scripture is a unified and organic whole, certainly we must, in some sense, “interpret the New Testament in light of the Old.” Every Bible interpreter must do that. What responsible Bible student would deny it? Where would our biblical worldview be if we did not allow Genesis 1-4 to guide us as New Testament believers?
The question is, “To what extent can the New Testament be used to interpret the Old?” The passages cited do not answer this question for us. Second Corinthians 1:20 speaks to the Divine provenance of the Gospel preached by Paul and his companions. The verse does not say “prophecies” but “promises.” In context the promises are those of the Gospel. However, because Christ is the Fulcrum of the outworking of God’s decrees it would not be amiss to relate every promise to Him. But this hardly gives Christians license to give the OT promises a complete makeover so that they look nothing like the original statements. Likewise 1 Corinthians 10:11 tells us that the OT stories “were written for our instruction.” The context is Divine recompense upon evil works (v.6). To enlist the passage to teach the legitimacy of an ill-advised mixture of allegorical/typological/literal interpretation of the OT is to be guilty of “textual kidnapping.”
The Colossians passage will be dealt with in due time. It proves nothing as it stands in the sentence. It has simply been spliced and connected to a strand from the 1 Corinthians passage without regard for its original usage. We are unclear as to what function Rev. 10:7 is supposed to play in establishing this thesis.
But the cat is being let out of the bag by this thesis. The Nicene Council require the OT to be exposed to the acid of their “typological” hermeneutic whenever it suits. This makes the OT a wax nose that can be made to look any way the objectors wish it to look. Responsible dispensationalists refuse to operate this way. We affirm the integrity of both Testaments as equally worthy of the same grammatical-historical hermeneutical consideration. We affirm that to use the NT – especially an artificial set of theological covenants not found in the NT – as a lens through which to re-interpret the OT is not at all to use it “as a divinely-ordained interpreter of the Old Testament” but to demean the OT so as to make room for the deductions of systems such as Covenant theology.
Of course, the NT provides much more light on many precious truths. But both Testaments can be interpreted together satisfactorily without the adoption of such a fabricated prioritization of one Testament above the other.
Paul Henebury Bio
Paul Martin Henebury is a native of Manchester, England and a graduate of London Theological Seminary and Tyndale Theological Seminary (MDiv, PhD). He has been a Church-planter, pastor and a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics. He was also editor of the Conservative Theological Journal (later Journal of Dispensational Theology). He is now the President of Telos School of Theology.
Do many dispensationalists believe that Israel was rash to accept the covenant that God offered to them at Sinai? Or is that just a fringe view held by a few that has no real effect or influence on the dispensational system?
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I have heard one or two state their belief that Israel was rash in accepting the Sinaitic Covenant, but I don’t see it as representing anything else but a rather odd point of view. For one thing, if God Almighty was thundering at me from close proximity I think I’d agree to anything. The adverb “rashly” is inappropriate under the circumstances. The very nature of God requires of the creature full obedience. Hence, to refuse the covenant would be to refuse God Himself.
The view has nothing going for it biblically and is wholly separate from Dispensationalism as a system. What the Law Covenant did was to set Israel apart from the nations. It was their covenant which the prophets called them back to repeatedly. Israel was to be different; a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations. This required them to be distinct, and, moreover, will require it in the future (e.g. Isa. 62:1-2; Zech. 8:20-23; 14:16-21; Rom. 11:25-29).
Hope this helps.
The view has nothing going for it biblically and is wholly separate from Dispensationalism as a system. What the Law Covenant did was to set Israel apart from the nations. It was their covenant which the prophets called them back to repeatedly. Israel was to be different; a kingdom of priests and a light to the nations. This required them to be distinct, and, moreover, will require it in the future (e.g. Isa. 62:1-2; Zech. 8:20-23; 14:16-21; Rom. 11:25-29).
Hope this helps.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I have seen this in quite a few of these “dispensationalism versus covenant theology” charts such as the one below. However, I am wondering if it is “dispensationalism as explained by non-dispensationalists.”
http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/covenant%20theology%20&…
http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/DeafPreterist/compare.html
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/covenant%20theology%20&…
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
I’d add to what Paul said that I think there is ample reason to believe every covenant God has made/offered has been gracious in character, including the Mosaic/Sinai covenant, law-focused though it was. And it’s never “rash” to gratefully welcome grace.
JobK… on the links there: they do all appear to be pretty biased in the anti-disp. direction. Some more than others. Even http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm this one which appears more fair than the others, makes the generalization that dispensationalists are “almost never 5 point Calvinist.” I think this used to be closer to the truth than it is today. I know quite a few five pointers who are dispies.
JobK… on the links there: they do all appear to be pretty biased in the anti-disp. direction. Some more than others. Even http://faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm this one which appears more fair than the others, makes the generalization that dispensationalists are “almost never 5 point Calvinist.” I think this used to be closer to the truth than it is today. I know quite a few five pointers who are dispies.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Upon further inspection, all those charts seem to have a very similar common origin. Looks like various separate people found the same work and appropriated it for their websites. And since the originator of the chart A) is unknown and B) did not provide sources or footnotes (i.e. did he come to these conclusions by reading Ryrie or Scofield) we have no way of knowing how widespread these beliefs are, or how influential they were in developing the dispensational system.
Now as far as whether Israel was “rash to accept the covenant”, the truth is that they had no choice in the matter to accept or deny. God imposed the covenant on them, exercising His prerogative, right and authority to do so as the sovereign Creator. The Biblical narrative makes this explicit and obvious as God tells them through Moses: “I am your God and this is what you will do.” If the theologians who developed the dispensational system had the view that Israel somehow had any sort of choice or say in the matter, then that is a serious problem because they were operating from a very erroneous set of presuppositions.
Now the idea that Israel had a choice to accept or reject being God’s covenant nation was an idea that Jewish rabbis developed at some point. The story goes that God offered the covenant to all the nations of the world and they rejected it. Israel was simply the last nation, and they accepted God’s offer only because He was holding a mountain over their heads threatening to crush and kill them if they didn’t! This teaching or belief of theirs has its purposes within Jewry, but I find the presupposition between this idea - that God either could not or would not act in this matter without at least the appearance of human decision or consent - to be simply amazing. It reminds me of the similarly jaw-dropping Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had the ability to decide to choose or reject whether to bear Jesus Christ, and that God chose Mary for this role only because He knew in advance that she would accept.
Now many anti-dispensationalists allege that dispensationalism was developed by Christians who became too familiar and comfortable with the Talmud and other Jewish traditional writings, and developed a Christian theology that centers on (or at least elevates) Israel and Judaism. I would have to learn more about the development of dispensatonalism to see if those charges are true.
Now as far as whether Israel was “rash to accept the covenant”, the truth is that they had no choice in the matter to accept or deny. God imposed the covenant on them, exercising His prerogative, right and authority to do so as the sovereign Creator. The Biblical narrative makes this explicit and obvious as God tells them through Moses: “I am your God and this is what you will do.” If the theologians who developed the dispensational system had the view that Israel somehow had any sort of choice or say in the matter, then that is a serious problem because they were operating from a very erroneous set of presuppositions.
Now the idea that Israel had a choice to accept or reject being God’s covenant nation was an idea that Jewish rabbis developed at some point. The story goes that God offered the covenant to all the nations of the world and they rejected it. Israel was simply the last nation, and they accepted God’s offer only because He was holding a mountain over their heads threatening to crush and kill them if they didn’t! This teaching or belief of theirs has its purposes within Jewry, but I find the presupposition between this idea - that God either could not or would not act in this matter without at least the appearance of human decision or consent - to be simply amazing. It reminds me of the similarly jaw-dropping Roman Catholic teaching that Mary had the ability to decide to choose or reject whether to bear Jesus Christ, and that God chose Mary for this role only because He knew in advance that she would accept.
Now many anti-dispensationalists allege that dispensationalism was developed by Christians who became too familiar and comfortable with the Talmud and other Jewish traditional writings, and developed a Christian theology that centers on (or at least elevates) Israel and Judaism. I would have to learn more about the development of dispensatonalism to see if those charges are true.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
When I read Exodus, it looks to me like they had a choice. Of course, rejecting the covenant would have had consequences and they probably felt (probably accurately) that they would be destroyed.
Still, it’s a covenant and they do “ratify” it. A second generation does so again in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy.
Still, it’s a covenant and they do “ratify” it. A second generation does so again in the closing chapters of Deuteronomy.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
No argument with any of that, really. I don’t think the fact that God offers the covenants on His own terms is in dispute. But always He extends a relationship opportunity that must then be accepted or rejected.
And that opportunity is always a gracious act that the human beings involved are foolish to refuse.
Exodus 19:7–8 (NKJV) — 7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.
Deuteronomy 29:9–13 (NKJV) — 9 Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. 10 “All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water— 12 that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, 13 that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
And that opportunity is always a gracious act that the human beings involved are foolish to refuse.
Exodus 19:7–8 (NKJV) — 7 So Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before them all these words which the LORD commanded him. 8 Then all the people answered together and said, “All that the LORD has spoken we will do.” So Moses brought back the words of the people to the LORD.
Deuteronomy 29:9–13 (NKJV) — 9 Therefore keep the words of this covenant, and do them, that you may prosper in all that you do. 10 “All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, 11 your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water— 12 that you may enter into covenant with the LORD your God, and into His oath, which the LORD your God makes with you today, 13 that He may establish you today as a people for Himself, and that He may be God to you, just as He has spoken to you, and just as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The idea of covenants does not come from covenant theologians. The idea comes from the Bible. The guys you’re quoting there don’t deny the existence of covenants but rather emphasize the distinctions between the biblical covenants and some features of other types of covenants.
“Covenants” is a perfectly good word for them. We really don’t need another. “Testament” is really just another word for covenant.
In the end, it makes little difference what we call them. What they are is quite clear. But using terms that are generally understood is usually a good rule if we want to avoid confusing people.
Dispensationalists also affirm the reality of covenants. For example, Ryrie, p.190 Dispensationalism:
Also, I’m pretty sure that Moulton is a Covenant Theologian (he is certainly no dispensationalist) and prefers “promissory dispositions” because CT likes to see the covenants as aspects of the one Covenant of Grace.
So you have the relationship between “covenants” and Covenant Theology almost exactly backwards.
“Covenants” is a perfectly good word for them. We really don’t need another. “Testament” is really just another word for covenant.
In the end, it makes little difference what we call them. What they are is quite clear. But using terms that are generally understood is usually a good rule if we want to avoid confusing people.
Dispensationalists also affirm the reality of covenants. For example, Ryrie, p.190 Dispensationalism:
… the covenants of with Abraham, Israel, David, and others are so clearly and specifically revealed. Abraham had no doubt that a covenant was being made when God Himself passed between the pieces of the sacrifice (Gen. 15:17-21).In the context he is arguing against the Covenant Theology idea of a “Covenant of Grace” on the grounds that it is not clearly revealed like the other covenants are.
Also, I’m pretty sure that Moulton is a Covenant Theologian (he is certainly no dispensationalist) and prefers “promissory dispositions” because CT likes to see the covenants as aspects of the one Covenant of Grace.
So you have the relationship between “covenants” and Covenant Theology almost exactly backwards.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
As with so many things, context is the key.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Jack,
Can you help me here?
What is the big win when a diatheke is defined as a promissory disposition rather than a covenant? Especially, as it relates to both covenantalism and dispensationalism.
Can you help me here?
What is the big win when a diatheke is defined as a promissory disposition rather than a covenant? Especially, as it relates to both covenantalism and dispensationalism.
Regardless of the vocab. choice of the NT writers, the OT is crystal clear about what these were. They were covenants. Not covenants in which both sides negotiate the terms, no. But a covenant is simply a promise.
On diatheke…
I think the BAGD entry makes a very solid point that God’s covenants are such that He alone sets the terms. However, the recipients enter into the agreement in most cases (the covenant we all Noahic would be an example of one where no agreement seems to have been involved. God just promises. In the case of David, there is no formal entering into the covenant by David, but conditions are clearly included and so David’s response and commitment to keep the conditions clearly represents his entering into the covenant God offered. The Sinai cov’t is the most clearly mutual in my view. Again, the terms are presented unilaterally and non-negotiably by God, but the people clearly accept them.)
But once again, we could call them nergopharps if we wanted to. They remain what the contexts clearly indicate they were, regardless.
On diatheke…
[BAGD Lexicon]
2. As a transl. of בְּרִית in LXX δ. loses the sense of ‘will, testament’ insofar as a δ. decreed by God cannot require the death of the testator to make it operative. Nevertheless, another essential characteristic of a testament is retained, namely that it is the declaration of one person’s will, not the result of an agreement betw. two parties, like a compact or a contract. This is without doubt one of the main reasons why the LXX rendered בְּרִית by δ. In the ‘covenants’ of God, it was God alone who set the conditions; hence covenant (s. Murray, New [Oxford] Engl. Dict. s.v.‘covenant’ sb. 7) can be used to trans. δ. only when this is kept in mind.
[Louw, J. P., and Nida, E. A. (1996). Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament : Based on semantic domains]
διαθήκη, ης f
a making of a covenant: 34.43
b covenant: 34.44
c testament: 57.124
[Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains]It appears to me that the claim that no one in the NT world would have understood the term to mean “covenant” is unjustified especially given the fact that the NT occurrences usually refer to OT texts where the covenant idea is quite clear.
1347 διαθήκη (diathēkē), ης (ēs), ἡ (hē): n.fem.; ≡ DBLHebr 1382; Str 1242; TDNT 2.106—1. LN 34.43 making of a covenant, promise in a solemn agreement (Mk 14:24; Lk 1:72; 22:20; Ac 3:25; 7:8; Ro 11:27; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6; Gal 4:24; Eph 2:12; Heb 7:22; 12:24; 13:20); 2. LN 34.44 covenant, the content of an agreement between two parties (Gal 3:15); 3. LN 57.124 testament, making of a will (Heb 9:16, 17+)
I think the BAGD entry makes a very solid point that God’s covenants are such that He alone sets the terms. However, the recipients enter into the agreement in most cases (the covenant we all Noahic would be an example of one where no agreement seems to have been involved. God just promises. In the case of David, there is no formal entering into the covenant by David, but conditions are clearly included and so David’s response and commitment to keep the conditions clearly represents his entering into the covenant God offered. The Sinai cov’t is the most clearly mutual in my view. Again, the terms are presented unilaterally and non-negotiably by God, but the people clearly accept them.)
But once again, we could call them nergopharps if we wanted to. They remain what the contexts clearly indicate they were, regardless.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
You have a pact as soon as one party promises something and another promises something back. This clearly occurred at Sinai and again later at the plains of Moab. The BAGD entry on diatheke doesn’t rule that out if you look at the whole thing. But if it did, it would be wrong.
I don’t think the meaning of diatheke really has a whole lot to do with the progressive dispensationalism controversy. Whether we call it a “new covenant” or a “new diatheke” we still have to figure out if there are two of them or just one. And we are still talking about promises.
Personally, I have no difficulty at all with calling a one way promise a covenant… especially since in almost every case there is the option of entering into it or rejecting it (and suffering the consequences).
Deuteronomy 26:17–18 (NKJV) — 17 Today you have proclaimed the LORD to be your God, and that you will walk in His ways and keep His statutes, His commandments, and His judgments, and that you will obey His voice. 18 Also today the LORD has proclaimed you to be His special people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His commandments
I’m sorry, but you’ll never convince that this is not a covenant.
I don’t think the meaning of diatheke really has a whole lot to do with the progressive dispensationalism controversy. Whether we call it a “new covenant” or a “new diatheke” we still have to figure out if there are two of them or just one. And we are still talking about promises.
Personally, I have no difficulty at all with calling a one way promise a covenant… especially since in almost every case there is the option of entering into it or rejecting it (and suffering the consequences).
I’m sorry, but you’ll never convince that this is not a covenant.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Thanks Jack. That was quite helpful.
I finished “The Kingdom of Christ” by Russell Moore a few weeks ago. Its all about the rapprochement of dispie and cov’t theologies, and the promise that holds for social and spiritual benefits. Interesting read. But i didn’t come across the battle on diatheke, nor when I read Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church by Blaising and Bock, et. al.
So thanks for pointing out the issue.
So, from your perspective, if you hold that a diatheke is a promissory disposition (epangellia, I guess?), how does that help you define exactly what the New Covenant is for the church today? IOW, what light does it shed that we have missed perhaps before?
I finished “The Kingdom of Christ” by Russell Moore a few weeks ago. Its all about the rapprochement of dispie and cov’t theologies, and the promise that holds for social and spiritual benefits. Interesting read. But i didn’t come across the battle on diatheke, nor when I read Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church by Blaising and Bock, et. al.
So thanks for pointing out the issue.
So, from your perspective, if you hold that a diatheke is a promissory disposition (epangellia, I guess?), how does that help you define exactly what the New Covenant is for the church today? IOW, what light does it shed that we have missed perhaps before?
Thanks Jack. The last sentence helped me a lot to frame the argument.
How would you understand Hebrews 8:6, “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”
Is Jesus right now not mediating a better covenant? Is he now mediating an antitype?
Also, where does God’s election of the redeemed come into play (Eph. 1:4-7)? Is that specific redemption to foreknown people, or a general will of redemption, toward all people?
Thanks.
How would you understand Hebrews 8:6, “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.”
Is Jesus right now not mediating a better covenant? Is he now mediating an antitype?
Also, where does God’s election of the redeemed come into play (Eph. 1:4-7)? Is that specific redemption to foreknown people, or a general will of redemption, toward all people?
Thanks.
This is an interesting discussion, and I would like to join in a little if I may?
If I am reading things right there are several threads going:
1. When God made a “covenant” - be it unilateral (e.g. Noahic) or bilateral (Mosaic), there was of necessity a human response to the revelation. Granted this is self-evident, the real issue is whether the human response is of any import. If the covenant is unilateral the answer is “No.” For example, God will never bring another global flood upon the world regardless of any ones response to that promise. In the case of a bilateral covenant however, the response of those to whom the covenant is addressed obligates that party to the terms of the agreement.
In both cases the terms are drawn up by the Superior Party (the Suzerain if you like). This, by the way, may be the reason the LXX and the NT uses the more one-sided term “diatheke” instead of “syntheke.” In the unilateral treaties in the OT it is the Suzerain (God), who obligates Himself, while no obligation to bring about the fulfillment of the terms of the covenant come upon the second party (e.g. Israel). And even though the unconditional covenants may have subsidiary conditions appended to them, these conditions in no way absolve God from His obligation to bring the wording of His covenant to pass.
2. As Aaron rightly says it is the context which decides the use of a word in Scripture. The various contexts in which the OT covenants were “cut” do not allow for much ambiguity. Always the divine initiative is to the fore, and always a trajectory, in line with God’s overall purpose, is announced and usually set in motion. As most of God’s covenants are unilateral in character (Noahic, Abrahamic, Land, Priestly, Davidic, New), Divine obligation becomes a sort of “test” of God’s own Self-revealed nature (e.g. His veracity, omnipotence, immutability, righteousness). These things must be kept in mind when coming to the NT.
3. Although Jack is correct that “diatheke” carries the usual meaning “disposition” (in the sense of legal settlement), or “testament” - a meaning the writer of Hebrews exploits in Heb. 9:15-17 - we must allow the central quotation from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8:8f., (together with Christ’s allusion to it at the Last Supper) to be decisive. As D. Hillers rightly says, “The point worth noting is that the death of Jesus has suggested the meaning he [the writer of Hebrews] attaches to diatheke, “covenant,” and not the reverse.” - Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, (1994), 182.
4. Regarding the New Covenant the Jeremiah passage must guide our translation of the NT’s “diatheke,” especially as we cannot ask the inspired authors why they employed that particular word. Geerhardus Vos’s study, though dated, demonstrates well that, as he says, “The idea of a testamentary disposition is present in only two passages.” - “Covenant” Or “Testament”? in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (1980), 411.
In those contexts where God’s “one-sided disposition” is stressed, Vos is content to translate “covenant” in line with the Hebrew “berith” (Ibid.). He leaves upon a third, smaller category of texts which he regards as inadequately translated as “covenant.” However, it should be noted that once the two forms of ANE covenants in the Bible are considered, Vos’s unease is considerably ameliorated.
5. Personally speaking, I don’t see why dispensationalists have pulled their hair out over the New Covenant. To me at least, the language of Luke 22:20, made as it was with those who were to become “foundations” of the church (Eph. 2:20), and repeated imperturbably by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:25; when taken with the argument in Hebrews, decisively shows that Jesus, “the Mediator of the New Covenant”, made the New covenant with the Church! If one is expecting to find that in Jeremiah or Ezekiel then one is not a dispensationalist. Those prophets did not envisage “the Body of Christ” so they did not write about the relationship of the New covenant to the Church.
Does this necessitate two separate new covenants? No indeed! It means only that the same new covenant was given to the Church as shall be given to Israel. From my simplistic perspective I just don’t see a real problem there :-)
If I am reading things right there are several threads going:
1. When God made a “covenant” - be it unilateral (e.g. Noahic) or bilateral (Mosaic), there was of necessity a human response to the revelation. Granted this is self-evident, the real issue is whether the human response is of any import. If the covenant is unilateral the answer is “No.” For example, God will never bring another global flood upon the world regardless of any ones response to that promise. In the case of a bilateral covenant however, the response of those to whom the covenant is addressed obligates that party to the terms of the agreement.
In both cases the terms are drawn up by the Superior Party (the Suzerain if you like). This, by the way, may be the reason the LXX and the NT uses the more one-sided term “diatheke” instead of “syntheke.” In the unilateral treaties in the OT it is the Suzerain (God), who obligates Himself, while no obligation to bring about the fulfillment of the terms of the covenant come upon the second party (e.g. Israel). And even though the unconditional covenants may have subsidiary conditions appended to them, these conditions in no way absolve God from His obligation to bring the wording of His covenant to pass.
2. As Aaron rightly says it is the context which decides the use of a word in Scripture. The various contexts in which the OT covenants were “cut” do not allow for much ambiguity. Always the divine initiative is to the fore, and always a trajectory, in line with God’s overall purpose, is announced and usually set in motion. As most of God’s covenants are unilateral in character (Noahic, Abrahamic, Land, Priestly, Davidic, New), Divine obligation becomes a sort of “test” of God’s own Self-revealed nature (e.g. His veracity, omnipotence, immutability, righteousness). These things must be kept in mind when coming to the NT.
3. Although Jack is correct that “diatheke” carries the usual meaning “disposition” (in the sense of legal settlement), or “testament” - a meaning the writer of Hebrews exploits in Heb. 9:15-17 - we must allow the central quotation from Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8:8f., (together with Christ’s allusion to it at the Last Supper) to be decisive. As D. Hillers rightly says, “The point worth noting is that the death of Jesus has suggested the meaning he [the writer of Hebrews] attaches to diatheke, “covenant,” and not the reverse.” - Delbert R. Hillers, Covenant: The History of a Biblical Idea, (1994), 182.
4. Regarding the New Covenant the Jeremiah passage must guide our translation of the NT’s “diatheke,” especially as we cannot ask the inspired authors why they employed that particular word. Geerhardus Vos’s study, though dated, demonstrates well that, as he says, “The idea of a testamentary disposition is present in only two passages.” - “Covenant” Or “Testament”? in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (1980), 411.
In those contexts where God’s “one-sided disposition” is stressed, Vos is content to translate “covenant” in line with the Hebrew “berith” (Ibid.). He leaves upon a third, smaller category of texts which he regards as inadequately translated as “covenant.” However, it should be noted that once the two forms of ANE covenants in the Bible are considered, Vos’s unease is considerably ameliorated.
5. Personally speaking, I don’t see why dispensationalists have pulled their hair out over the New Covenant. To me at least, the language of Luke 22:20, made as it was with those who were to become “foundations” of the church (Eph. 2:20), and repeated imperturbably by Paul in 1 Cor. 11:25; when taken with the argument in Hebrews, decisively shows that Jesus, “the Mediator of the New Covenant”, made the New covenant with the Church! If one is expecting to find that in Jeremiah or Ezekiel then one is not a dispensationalist. Those prophets did not envisage “the Body of Christ” so they did not write about the relationship of the New covenant to the Church.
Does this necessitate two separate new covenants? No indeed! It means only that the same new covenant was given to the Church as shall be given to Israel. From my simplistic perspective I just don’t see a real problem there :-)
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Hi All,
Is there an article out there describing the various views on how the church “fits” into the New Cov’t? Jack’s perspective (if I read you right, Jack) is that it doesn’t. Yours, Dr. Reluctance (and mine, too) is that it does. I’m guessing Aaron, you do too.
But it seems that the catching point for us who do see the NC having a relationship with the church is defining that relationship (except Jack - score one for you!).
After all we have to wrestle with these points. Even Heb. 8:8 mentions not the church, but Israel and Judah. But I think Paul’s points, especially #5, must be a little challenging at least for you, Jack. And I didn’t really get an answer to my question on Heb. 8:6 (if you did, forgive my thickheadedness).
Is there an article out there describing the various views on how the church “fits” into the New Cov’t? Jack’s perspective (if I read you right, Jack) is that it doesn’t. Yours, Dr. Reluctance (and mine, too) is that it does. I’m guessing Aaron, you do too.
But it seems that the catching point for us who do see the NC having a relationship with the church is defining that relationship (except Jack - score one for you!).
After all we have to wrestle with these points. Even Heb. 8:8 mentions not the church, but Israel and Judah. But I think Paul’s points, especially #5, must be a little challenging at least for you, Jack. And I didn’t really get an answer to my question on Heb. 8:6 (if you did, forgive my thickheadedness).
We must be wary of not resting our case upon typology. We are not inspired and we are sometimes apt to see things, including types, which are not there. If a type/anti-type relationship exists let us acknowledge it retrospectively rather than make interpretive decisions on it.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Paul, thanks for your helpful comments here.
Jack: We seem to be sort of talking past eachother or something. When I say that God extends covenant on His own terms and people are given a chance to enter into it (what Paul referred to as bilateral), certainly the terms of the covenant are not altered at all. However, what God does is altered because the covenant is rejected.
In Israel’s case, the passage you quoted clearly contains the word “if.” What this means is that if they do not choose to meet the conditions (i.e., they reject the covenant) the promised blessings do not follow.
Some covenants have “ifs” and some don’t. The ones that do, present people with a choice as to how they will respond to the covenant. The ones that do not are still covenants because God has promised something. It’s just not conditioned on anybody’s response.
But again, I can’t see how it matters a whole lot—except that there is no way to do justice to the OT texts involved if we deny that these are covenants. That’s never a trivial thing.
Paul, I like your take on New Covenant. It may be that I haven’t read enough, but I don’t really see the difficulty either. I’m guessing you probably have read enough so I feel validated. :)
Jack: We seem to be sort of talking past eachother or something. When I say that God extends covenant on His own terms and people are given a chance to enter into it (what Paul referred to as bilateral), certainly the terms of the covenant are not altered at all. However, what God does is altered because the covenant is rejected.
In Israel’s case, the passage you quoted clearly contains the word “if.” What this means is that if they do not choose to meet the conditions (i.e., they reject the covenant) the promised blessings do not follow.
Some covenants have “ifs” and some don’t. The ones that do, present people with a choice as to how they will respond to the covenant. The ones that do not are still covenants because God has promised something. It’s just not conditioned on anybody’s response.
But again, I can’t see how it matters a whole lot—except that there is no way to do justice to the OT texts involved if we deny that these are covenants. That’s never a trivial thing.
Paul, I like your take on New Covenant. It may be that I haven’t read enough, but I don’t really see the difficulty either. I’m guessing you probably have read enough so I feel validated. :)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Hello Jack, and thank you for your responses.
You ask:
But your question includes an assumption which I tried to avoid in my post. That is, that the NC (remember, Jeremiah uses “berith”) is promised to Israel only. I say the NC was promised to Israel alone in the OT and that it could not have been otherwise. If there had been mention of the NC being given to the Church in an OT prophet then a major plank of traditional dispensationalism would be washed away.
So I am saying that Jesus Christ initiated the NC for the Church at the Last Supper. Thus, we, through Christ, obtain spiritual (though not necessarily immaterial) blessings (Eph. 1:3, 18, 2:7) by the same means whereby future Israel shall attain to its particular covenant promises (like the ones you listed). Thus, the NC is the means of access into the blessings of God for both the Church and Israel.
You write:
That, at least, is where I’m coming from. Feel free to disagree and respond. I appreciate your thinking even if I don’t find myself in total sympathy with it.
Your brother,
Paul
You ask:
If Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 11:25 are teaching that Christians partake in the New Diatheke promised to the nation of Israel then why does he place that diatheke in the future here?As I read it, Paul is saying that the Lord’s Table bears a direct relation to the institution of the New Covenant with those who were to become the foundations of the Church. Hence, as these disciples were incorporated into the Body of Christ and the New Covenant (NC) was made with them it is, both exegetically and theologically speaking, easier said than done to declare that the NC was not made by Christ with the Church. The fact that this fact was revealed later to Paul (i.e. Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 11:23) does not deflect the force of the conclusion. It must be faced: especially by a person who wishes to read the Bible “literally.”
But your question includes an assumption which I tried to avoid in my post. That is, that the NC (remember, Jeremiah uses “berith”) is promised to Israel only. I say the NC was promised to Israel alone in the OT and that it could not have been otherwise. If there had been mention of the NC being given to the Church in an OT prophet then a major plank of traditional dispensationalism would be washed away.
So I am saying that Jesus Christ initiated the NC for the Church at the Last Supper. Thus, we, through Christ, obtain spiritual (though not necessarily immaterial) blessings (Eph. 1:3, 18, 2:7) by the same means whereby future Israel shall attain to its particular covenant promises (like the ones you listed). Thus, the NC is the means of access into the blessings of God for both the Church and Israel.
It is clear that the conditions which will be in place when the New Diatheke is in force are not conditions that are in place now.Quite right, although you ought to call it the New Covenant if you are citing the OT (unless you are quoting the LXX).
Besides, if the New Diatheke promised to Israel was for the Christian why does the author of Hebrews not apply it to the Christian?Well, the NC promises to Israel are not the NC promises to the Church. Why the writer of Hebrews does not deal with this is not known to me. Perhaps because he is writing “to the Hebrews”? There are things in that epistle (e.g. the infamous warning passages) which may perhaps speak to the Remnant (in the Tribulation?). Maybe not, but your point contains an argument from silence. Sometimes Scripture just does not tell us everything we would like it to say. :-)
You write:
It was only later after Paul was converted that a fuller understanding of the significance of the Lord Jesus’ death upon the Cross was understood. Evidently Paul received a special revelation (“I have received of the Lord…”) to give him a fuller understanding of the meaning of the Lord Jesus’ words spoken on the eve of the Cross.Okay, but as I have said, that does not effect the issue, which is “what was the meaning Paul was given about the relation of the Lord’s Supper to the New Covenant?” I think the meaning is clear.
In the upper room the blood of a New Diatheke was set in the context of the kingdom, and that is clearly in reference to Israel’s New Covenant:Well, seeing as we shall also be in the kingdom I don’t see the need for splitting hairs (if you will forgive me putting it that way). You may hold that the Church will not be on earth during the Millennium? I am not there. Really, whether one takes Matt. 26 or Lk. 22 to be referring just to Israel’s NC, or whether the further revelation, which you agree was given to Paul, was nascent in the Lord’s words (which I believe to be true), one cannot skirt around the fact that the men that Jesus made the NC with in the Upper Room became foundational members of the NT Church. And if the men Jesus made the NC with are foundations of His Church, surely the NC is made with the Church as reflected in 1 Cor.11 (I shall not introduce 2 Cor.3:6 here, though some dispensationalist attempts to excise the Church from the passage strike me as excruciating).
“…for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Mt.26:28-29).
Paul specifically ties communion to the Lord’s return at the rapture and not to the kingdom—”you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
This is clear evidence that Paul’s words in regard to the Lord’s supper are not in regard to Israel’s New Diatheke but instead is in regard to the New Diatheke which is in operation today.Not Israel’s NC promises no, but the Church’s. Btw, we ought not speak of the NC in the OT as possessing discrete blessings which are absent from the Abrahamic Covenant, expansively understood to include Land, Kingly, Priestly blessings. There was no way into those blessings without the NC. And it is the same for the Church. The same NC is needed for the Church to enter into its blessings (see e.g. Gal. 3:6-9).
The truths concerning the Body of Christ were not known until Paul was converted. Charles C. Ryrie said: “In the Upper Room that payment is clearly related to the future fulfillment of the new covenant. This is to be expected since those gathered there did not understand that there would even be an intervening church age” [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press, 1995] , p.172).Ryrie believes that the Church has no relation to the NC, but the quotation above does not address the issues I raise here. The same may be said with regard to the Ironside quotation. Indeed, both men appear to think that because Jeremiah refers only to the NC being made with Israel, that this somehow debars Christ from making it with the Church. But why not? Paul says He did!
That, at least, is where I’m coming from. Feel free to disagree and respond. I appreciate your thinking even if I don’t find myself in total sympathy with it.
Your brother,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Jack, here are my thoughts (for what they are worth):
If Paul is referring to the NC promised to Israel then it is clear there is no typology involved. They are the same NC!
Paul, I have a good reason for seeing a typological relationship. Do you think that the New Diatheke to which Paul refers to here is the same New Diatheke which was promised to the house of Israel?The passage in 2 Cor. 3:6 to which you repair concerns the NC that Christ made with the Church. It does not concern the same NC which He shall make with the house of Israel in the future.
If Paul is referring to the NC promised to Israel then it is clear there is no typology involved. They are the same NC!
From the immediate context we can see that the “ministry” to which Paul made reference is in regard to a “testament” and not to a “covenant”I think your definition of “covenant” is too narrow. It can include the concept of “testament” as even Vos admitted.
In a commentary on 2 Corinthians 4:1 Homer Kent, Jr., writes that “ ‘This ministry’ to which he referred was the ministry of the new covenant (3:6). It was the task of proclaiming and teaching the gospel of Christ, the glorious news that sins have been forgiven through Christ’s death” (Kent, “The Glory of Christian Ministry: An Analysis of 2 Corinthians 2:14 -4:18,” Grace Theological Journal 2.2 [Fall 1981] , p.181).If I am right this ministry pertains to the Church’s relation to the NC as I have tried to set it out. Note, Kent has no problem with the term “New Covenant”
Again, do you believe that the New Diatheke which Paul refers to at 2 Corinthians 3:6 is the same New Diatheke that was promised to the house of Israel?The covenant is the same, but the subjects (i.e. the church in 2 Cor. and Israel in Hebrews) are not.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Jack Hampton] Ted, let me try this again. The Lord Jesus’ work in His role as Mediator was fulfilled at the Cross. Let us look at the following verse:Hi Jack,
This puts the Lord Jesus’ work in regard to being a Mediator in the past.
It was the Lord Jesus’ death on the Cross which restored peace between God and man once for all, and that was by providing a “reconciliation”:
So the Lord Jesus’ work in regard to His role as a Mediator was fulfilled at the Cross.
He is the Mediator of a New Diatheke but He has already done the work in the past that defines that role. He has already done the work associated with His role as Mediator for both the “type” and the “anti-type.”
If I understand your point rightly, it is that the mediatorial work is all done, accomplished at the cross. Therefore, He is no longer the Mediator of the NC.
Am I understanding it?
Jack,
Given that the church is not in the New Covenant of Luke 22:20, should churches not practice communion?
Was Paul’s gospel different than Jesus’?
Given that the church is not in the New Covenant of Luke 22:20, should churches not practice communion?
Was Paul’s gospel different than Jesus’?
Jack,
I thought I made my position clear, but I guess it was clear only to me :(
Let’s try again:
In my post “Some Thoughts” above (#25) I wrote:
My surprise increases with your quotation from Chafer which includes his dichotomy of Heavenly versus earthly peoples. But I have already stated:
Then you write:
Next, you ask:
“The Christian ministry is essentially the ministry of the new covenant. This covenant, promised in the Old Testament, is realized in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the effect of which is the writing of God’s law in the hearts of His people.” - Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians , New London Commentary, (1962), 93-94. (I would not subscribe to the direction of replacement theology in which he takes this truth of course).
Because of the NC work of Christ, Paul has what he calls further on, “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).
Finally,
If I may, since you have previously appealed to him as an authority, let me quote Geerhardus Vos on diatheke in 2 Corinthians 3:
“With Paul in ii Corinthians 3 and Galatians 4 the motive for the introduction of the idea is historico-comparative. In neither context is there anything to suggest a “testament.”” - Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation , 407.
God bless,
Paul
I thought I made my position clear, but I guess it was clear only to me :(
Let’s try again:
In my post “Some Thoughts” above (#25) I wrote:
If one is expecting to find that [i.e. the Church’s involvement in the NC] in Jeremiah or Ezekiel then one is not a dispensationalist. Those prophets did not envisage “the Body of Christ” so they did not write about the relationship of the New covenant to the Church.And in the quotation which you cite above I specifically say that the NC made with the Church is
Does this necessitate two separate new covenants? No indeed! It means only that the same new covenant was given to the Church as shall be given to Israel. From my simplistic perspective I just don’t see a real problem there.
the same NC which He shall make with the house of Israel in the future.Why then are you concluding that I am speaking about two NC’s?
My surprise increases with your quotation from Chafer which includes his dichotomy of Heavenly versus earthly peoples. But I have already stated:
You may hold that the Church will not be on earth during the Millennium? I am not there.Hence, I do not agree with Chafer, either on this matter, nor indeed on his language about “a covenant “styled” after another covenant.”
Then you write:
But then later you say that the New Diatheke of 2 Corinthians and the New Diatheke spoken of in Hebrews are the same but the subjects are not.But when I wrote
The covenant is the same, but the subjects (i.e. the church in 2 Cor. and Israel in Hebrews) are not., it was a follow up on my answer to your inquiry about why Hebrews does not apply the NC explicitly to “Christians” I simply plead the Fifth:
Well, the NC promises to Israel are not the NC promises to the Church. Why the writer of Hebrews does not deal with this is not known to me.Please go back and revisit the context of this answer. For the record I believe the truths the writer is dealing with are for Christians. The quotation of Jer. 31 and the inclusion of the line “to Israel and Judah” MAY mean that the writer’s particular focus is upon those parties. If so, the subjects are Israel. But the eternal truths also pertain to the whole Church as (I believe) the NC was also made with the Church so we could have access to new life and our promises in Christ.
Next, you ask:
Do you agree that the “ministry of the New Testament” to which Paul makes reference is referring to a ministry to preach the gospel of Christ—therefore His reference to “the new testament” is to the gospel of Christ?Yes to the first part and no to the second. Yes in that Paul is referring to his ministry of preaching and teaching the Gospel. This is because the Gospel of Jesus Christ includes His inauguration of the New Covenant. Indeed, if Christ had not removed the old and replaced it with the new it would not be possible to preach the Gospel. But the Gospel is not a synonym for the New Covenant. The Gospel, as I said, includes the NC in its message and depends upon it for its validity. So when you aver
therefore His reference to “the new testament” is to the gospel of Christ?my reply is, “No, it is a reference to the fact that by the Gospel the NC is ministered to sinners.” As P. E. Hughes says:
“The Christian ministry is essentially the ministry of the new covenant. This covenant, promised in the Old Testament, is realized in the gospel of Jesus Christ, the effect of which is the writing of God’s law in the hearts of His people.” - Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians , New London Commentary, (1962), 93-94. (I would not subscribe to the direction of replacement theology in which he takes this truth of course).
Because of the NC work of Christ, Paul has what he calls further on, “the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).
Finally,
If the “covenant” is the same and Paul’s reference to a diatheke is to the “gospel” then we must believe that the New Diatheke promised to the nation of Israel is that same gospel.Paul is dealing with the effect of the NC for those elect in Christ (the NT Church). The Gospel he preaches is for them . He is not there dealing with future Israel who will enter into the benefits of the NC accruing to them after the removal of the Church - or so I believe. This all means that even though I say that the self-same NC has been made with the Church as shall be made with Israel, the covenant provides the basis for salvation and blessing in accordance with what God has purposed for the Church and Israel respectively. As far as the Church is concerned, this is why Paul cites the appropriate passage from Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:6-9.
That is the only possible conclusion that I can see since you say that they are the same.
If I may, since you have previously appealed to him as an authority, let me quote Geerhardus Vos on diatheke in 2 Corinthians 3:
“With Paul in ii Corinthians 3 and Galatians 4 the motive for the introduction of the idea is historico-comparative. In neither context is there anything to suggest a “testament.”” - Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation , 407.
God bless,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Jack,
I’m now the one who is running into confusion. I don’t have much time, but a few things should be said:
1. I really do not think you have proved what you claim to have proved (i.e. that the NC in 2 Cor. 3 is an exact synonym for the Gospel). You have just stated the obvious fact that the NC includes some of the same elements as the Gospel. since the Gospel rests upon the NC this is not surprising. This partly explains Paul’s usage of NC language in 2 Cor. 3.
2. In answer to a question from Ted you said you believed that Christ had mediated the NC (although He continues to mediate it today?). This is a little obscure due to your insistence upon speaking of “a new diatheke” which may or may not in fact be the NC). Some clarification would help me here.
3. There are several reasons for not equating the Gospel with the New Covenant as exactly the same things:
a). The death of Christ, through “the blood of the covenant” did not inaugurate nor ratify the Gospel (as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4), like it did the NC. The ratification of the NC as a covenant did not require Christ’s Resurrection, only His blood.
b). We could not speak of Christ initiating the Gospel at the Last Supper, but we can speak of Him initiating the NC.
c). The Risen Christ is needed for the Gospel to be preachable (cf. Rom. 4:25; 10:9), but the NC requires only “the death of the testator” (admitting the translation for the sake of argument).
d). Christ cannot be called the Mediator of the Gospel in the same way as He is “the Mediator of the New Covenant.” The Gospel is not a covenant but requires one (the NC) for the benefits it announces.
e). The NC was inaugurated before it could be mediated by the Risen Christ. But, as I have said, the Gospel required a Risen Christ before it could be preached.
Thus, when Paul speaks of ministering the NC in 2 Cor. 3 he means that by the preaching of the Gospel the benefits contained within the inaugurated NC are declared to sinners.
4. You write:
I have provided an abundance of evidence that demonstrates that the words “new testament” at 2 Corinthians 3:6 are referring to the “gospel of Christ.”
I trow not :)
Therefore when Paul refers to the “ministry of the new testament” the words “new testament” must refer to the gospel. Either those words are in reference to the “gospel” or they are in regard to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 3131. They cannot be referring to both.
Yer got me! You appear to be saying that the NC in 2 Cor. 3 cannot be the NC referred to by Jeremiah It must instead be the Gospel? Does this mean you think the NC in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which all writers say is alluded to by Paul in 2 Cor. 3 (E.g. Comm. on the NT Use of the OT ,754), and which is clearly referred to by the author of Hebrews, is actually not that covenant? That is, because you believe it is the Gospel it cannot be the NC of Jer. 31?
I’m perplexed here brother! If it is not the NC per Jer. 31 just what is it?
You say, “Either the life of which Paul makes reference comes from the gospel or it comes from a New Covenant. I have provided ample evidence that it comes from the gospel. Please provide any evidence that you have which demonstrates that the life spoken of does not come from the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way that I can see which will allow you to defend your view. After all, that life comes only as a result of the “gospel” or as a result of the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31. It cannot come as a result of both.”
I say the life we have comes by the Gospel via the NC upon which it rests. You are saying something very different.
Must dash!
I’m now the one who is running into confusion. I don’t have much time, but a few things should be said:
1. I really do not think you have proved what you claim to have proved (i.e. that the NC in 2 Cor. 3 is an exact synonym for the Gospel). You have just stated the obvious fact that the NC includes some of the same elements as the Gospel. since the Gospel rests upon the NC this is not surprising. This partly explains Paul’s usage of NC language in 2 Cor. 3.
2. In answer to a question from Ted you said you believed that Christ had mediated the NC (although He continues to mediate it today?). This is a little obscure due to your insistence upon speaking of “a new diatheke” which may or may not in fact be the NC). Some clarification would help me here.
3. There are several reasons for not equating the Gospel with the New Covenant as exactly the same things:
a). The death of Christ, through “the blood of the covenant” did not inaugurate nor ratify the Gospel (as outlined in 1 Cor. 15:1-4), like it did the NC. The ratification of the NC as a covenant did not require Christ’s Resurrection, only His blood.
b). We could not speak of Christ initiating the Gospel at the Last Supper, but we can speak of Him initiating the NC.
c). The Risen Christ is needed for the Gospel to be preachable (cf. Rom. 4:25; 10:9), but the NC requires only “the death of the testator” (admitting the translation for the sake of argument).
d). Christ cannot be called the Mediator of the Gospel in the same way as He is “the Mediator of the New Covenant.” The Gospel is not a covenant but requires one (the NC) for the benefits it announces.
e). The NC was inaugurated before it could be mediated by the Risen Christ. But, as I have said, the Gospel required a Risen Christ before it could be preached.
Thus, when Paul speaks of ministering the NC in 2 Cor. 3 he means that by the preaching of the Gospel the benefits contained within the inaugurated NC are declared to sinners.
4. You write:
I have provided an abundance of evidence that demonstrates that the words “new testament” at 2 Corinthians 3:6 are referring to the “gospel of Christ.”
I trow not :)
Therefore when Paul refers to the “ministry of the new testament” the words “new testament” must refer to the gospel. Either those words are in reference to the “gospel” or they are in regard to the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 3131. They cannot be referring to both.
Yer got me! You appear to be saying that the NC in 2 Cor. 3 cannot be the NC referred to by Jeremiah It must instead be the Gospel? Does this mean you think the NC in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, which all writers say is alluded to by Paul in 2 Cor. 3 (E.g. Comm. on the NT Use of the OT ,754), and which is clearly referred to by the author of Hebrews, is actually not that covenant? That is, because you believe it is the Gospel it cannot be the NC of Jer. 31?
I’m perplexed here brother! If it is not the NC per Jer. 31 just what is it?
You say, “Either the life of which Paul makes reference comes from the gospel or it comes from a New Covenant. I have provided ample evidence that it comes from the gospel. Please provide any evidence that you have which demonstrates that the life spoken of does not come from the gospel that comes in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is the only way that I can see which will allow you to defend your view. After all, that life comes only as a result of the “gospel” or as a result of the “New Covenant” of Jeremiah 31:31. It cannot come as a result of both.”
I say the life we have comes by the Gospel via the NC upon which it rests. You are saying something very different.
Must dash!
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
OK. Then who is this promissory disposition in Christ toward, the Father, or each person?
If each person, then doesn’t it depend on each person to receive it?
And since it depends on each person to receive it, isn’t that each person doing their part in a covenant.
Jesus has done His part - die and resurrect. Thus He is, as you seem to say, the mediator who is all done with His mediatorial work. Nothing is left for him to do there.
Now we do our part of the covenant - believe, right?
If each person, then doesn’t it depend on each person to receive it?
And since it depends on each person to receive it, isn’t that each person doing their part in a covenant.
Jesus has done His part - die and resurrect. Thus He is, as you seem to say, the mediator who is all done with His mediatorial work. Nothing is left for him to do there.
Now we do our part of the covenant - believe, right?
[Ted] And since it depends on each person to receive it, isn’t that each person doing their part in a covenant.Bingo. We can call it a nergopharp but it’s still a covenant.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jack Hampton] It is not what one does that brings salvation but instead what one doesn’t do.Sorry Jack, but you cannot have it both ways. No matter how you say it, you still have someone participating in the process. What you describe is not a passive, unaware beneficiary, but an involved, participatory party - whether you describe it as doing something to receive or choosing not to do something to receive.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Jack,
How can one be saved by one does not do, and have a monergistic regeneration? If what one does not do is not resist the Holy Spirit, is that still something the person is doing - they are not resisting the Holy Spirit?
If someone does not close their heart to the truth, is that still not what that person is doing?
Or are you saying it is God doing that (not resisting the HS, not closing their heart) for that person?
How can one be saved by one does not do, and have a monergistic regeneration? If what one does not do is not resist the Holy Spirit, is that still something the person is doing - they are not resisting the Holy Spirit?
If someone does not close their heart to the truth, is that still not what that person is doing?
Or are you saying it is God doing that (not resisting the HS, not closing their heart) for that person?
It is what one does not do that saves the sinner.In other words, when one sins less, they get saved?
Jack,
I understand what you are saying and know of a friend of mine that describes his salvation in the passive terms you described. He told me of when he was a teen and a man sitting down with him and explaining the gospel and on the way home, him realizing that he was saved. It did not enter his mind to resist, rather that he fully yielded to the enlightenment provided by the Spirit of God.
However, this is his experience and it certainly was not mine. And of course experiences are not that upon which we based our theology as we all know but I wanted to relate to you that I understand from a personal account of someone I know, very well, a description of their coming to a saving knowledge of Christ in the manner you are describing.
And you may have a delicate but worthy consideration regarding the nuanced positions that “choosing” and “believing” might require and where and how our wills are involved. But I have a very exegetical question for you if one was to prescribe this view of the process of our believing on Christ.
In Acts 16:31 the imperative command is given, “…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…”. If believing were the passive context you are asserting, how do you reconcile this with the word pisteuson being in the active voice as opposed to the passive voice?
For comparison allow me to reference Ephesians 5:18 where we are commanded, “…be ye filled with the Spirit;”. Here the passive voice is used because it is clear we do not control or will the Spirit, rather we acquiesce to his control. And with the passive voice as we know, the subject receives the action of the verb. But even here, one must will to acquiesce to the control or influence of the Spirit.
The comparison is not with the two contexts but with the use of the active and passive voices. If our believing was passive, why is it not communicated this way with the passive voice in Acts?
I understand what you are saying and know of a friend of mine that describes his salvation in the passive terms you described. He told me of when he was a teen and a man sitting down with him and explaining the gospel and on the way home, him realizing that he was saved. It did not enter his mind to resist, rather that he fully yielded to the enlightenment provided by the Spirit of God.
However, this is his experience and it certainly was not mine. And of course experiences are not that upon which we based our theology as we all know but I wanted to relate to you that I understand from a personal account of someone I know, very well, a description of their coming to a saving knowledge of Christ in the manner you are describing.
And you may have a delicate but worthy consideration regarding the nuanced positions that “choosing” and “believing” might require and where and how our wills are involved. But I have a very exegetical question for you if one was to prescribe this view of the process of our believing on Christ.
In Acts 16:31 the imperative command is given, “…believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved…”. If believing were the passive context you are asserting, how do you reconcile this with the word pisteuson being in the active voice as opposed to the passive voice?
For comparison allow me to reference Ephesians 5:18 where we are commanded, “…be ye filled with the Spirit;”. Here the passive voice is used because it is clear we do not control or will the Spirit, rather we acquiesce to his control. And with the passive voice as we know, the subject receives the action of the verb. But even here, one must will to acquiesce to the control or influence of the Spirit.
The comparison is not with the two contexts but with the use of the active and passive voices. If our believing was passive, why is it not communicated this way with the passive voice in Acts?
Thanks again Jack,
I know you have more than one person to read and respond to and there is no reason why I should take precedence. Please feel free to reply or not to this comment. I put it out there only as an observation.
You write above (#42):
1. I have previously cited Geerhardus Vos’s opinion on whether 2 Cor. 3 could be construed as a testament.
The clear allusions to the New Covenant (berith - which is not a testament) from Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 2 Corinthians 3 show that he is definitely referring to that covenant. The context is decisive, ergo, one cannot make the sweeping identification of diatheke as “last will and testament” wherever it occurs in the NT. So you are rowing upstream.
2. The meaning of diatheke in Heb. 9:15 is “covenant.” This is clear because the writer is referencing the Mosaic “covenant” in the preceding verses (vv.11-13). If diatheke meant “last will and testament” in v.15 the connection with the Mosaic Covenant in vv.11-13 would be lost and the whole argument rendered suspect. This conclusion comes into sharp relief once chapter 8 is considered. The superiority of the “better covenant” (Heb.8:6) demands it correspond to the Mosaic Covenant, and hence, that it be itself a true covenant and not a last will and testament. This understanding is assured by the contrast of v.7 which see.
Then, Heb. 8:8-12 gives the longest quotation of the OT by any NT writer. Is it in reference to a testament or a true covenant? The answer is impossible to ignore; it is to a “covenant” (OT “berith”) and not a testament!
3. The all important verse upon which your entire theory rests is Heb. 9:16-17. But there is no reason for translating diatheke as “testament” in the sense of “last will and testament” in this verse. For one thing, it would create an equivocation within the argument. But secondly, the meaning “covenant” makes perfect sense.
George H. Guthrie writes: “Interpreters often have read 9:16-17 in terms of “will” or “testament,” but these verses should be read, in their context, as speaking of the establishment of a covenant… “The one arranging [diatithemi] it,” occurring in participial form, in 9:16-17, refers to the sacrificial animal that must die for a covenant to be established (G.H. Guthrie 1998: 313). This fits perfectly with the argument of 9:18-22, which deals with Moses’ inauguration of the Sinai covenant with the sprinkling of blood (Exod. 24:3-8). - in, G. k. Beale & D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old , 2009, 973.
4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:
He says,
I know you have more than one person to read and respond to and there is no reason why I should take precedence. Please feel free to reply or not to this comment. I put it out there only as an observation.
You write above (#42):
In verse 15 the words “new testament” has a direct reference to “death,” and further comments on that same death continues into verses 16 and 17. So here the words “new teastament” are defined as being a “Last Will and Testament.”It seems to me that your whole case depends upon the supposition that diatheke must mean “last will and testament” in Hebrews 9:15-17. You then extrapolate from this text and apply this one meaning to the rest of the uses of diatheke in the New Testament. There are several reasons for believing this to be a faux pas:
Geerhardus Vos wrote, “In the New Testament the diatheke as a ‘last will’ is once brought into connection with the sacrifice of Christ…” (Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” The Princeton Thelogical Review, Vol. 13, No.4, 1915, 601).
The author of the book of Hebrews would not place a different meaning on the word diatheke in verse 16 than he placed on it at verse 15 as that would certainly impair the logical coherence of his whole argument. Scott Murray states that James Swetnam “has argued cogently for taking all four instances as ‘testament.’ To begin with, Swetnam presumed that the author of Hebrews had sufficient rhetorical facility that he would have avoided what has been termed an ‘awkward construction.’ The awkward construction would be where the first and last uses of διαθήκη taken as ‘covenant’ and the second and third as ‘testament.’ Attributing to the author of the letter to the Hebrews this kind of clumsiness is hardly credible” ( Scott R. Murray, “The Concept of διαθήκη in the Letter to the Hebrews,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 66:1 [Jan. 2002] , 56. Murray cites Swetnam, “A Suggested Interpretation of Hebrews 9, 15-18,” The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 [October 1965] , 373-390).
1. I have previously cited Geerhardus Vos’s opinion on whether 2 Cor. 3 could be construed as a testament.
“With Paul in ii Corinthians 3 and Galatians 4 the motive for the introduction of the idea is historico-comparative. In neither context is there anything to suggest a “testament.’” - Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation , 407.Other corroborations of this could be produced, but it should be unnecessary.
The clear allusions to the New Covenant (berith - which is not a testament) from Jeremiah and Ezekiel in 2 Corinthians 3 show that he is definitely referring to that covenant. The context is decisive, ergo, one cannot make the sweeping identification of diatheke as “last will and testament” wherever it occurs in the NT. So you are rowing upstream.
2. The meaning of diatheke in Heb. 9:15 is “covenant.” This is clear because the writer is referencing the Mosaic “covenant” in the preceding verses (vv.11-13). If diatheke meant “last will and testament” in v.15 the connection with the Mosaic Covenant in vv.11-13 would be lost and the whole argument rendered suspect. This conclusion comes into sharp relief once chapter 8 is considered. The superiority of the “better covenant” (Heb.8:6) demands it correspond to the Mosaic Covenant, and hence, that it be itself a true covenant and not a last will and testament. This understanding is assured by the contrast of v.7 which see.
Then, Heb. 8:8-12 gives the longest quotation of the OT by any NT writer. Is it in reference to a testament or a true covenant? The answer is impossible to ignore; it is to a “covenant” (OT “berith”) and not a testament!
3. The all important verse upon which your entire theory rests is Heb. 9:16-17. But there is no reason for translating diatheke as “testament” in the sense of “last will and testament” in this verse. For one thing, it would create an equivocation within the argument. But secondly, the meaning “covenant” makes perfect sense.
George H. Guthrie writes: “Interpreters often have read 9:16-17 in terms of “will” or “testament,” but these verses should be read, in their context, as speaking of the establishment of a covenant… “The one arranging [diatithemi] it,” occurring in participial form, in 9:16-17, refers to the sacrificial animal that must die for a covenant to be established (G.H. Guthrie 1998: 313). This fits perfectly with the argument of 9:18-22, which deals with Moses’ inauguration of the Sinai covenant with the sprinkling of blood (Exod. 24:3-8). - in, G. k. Beale & D. A. Carson, editors, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old , 2009, 973.
4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:
He says,
As we have seen, the context of v.15 seems to demand the sense of ‘covenant’ because only covenants have mediators [italics mine] , while in v.18 mention is made of the ‘first diatheke kaine diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:6 to be the NC appealed to by Paul in the immediate context (v.3). Neither is the “new diatheke” as you call it a covenant despite being contrasted with the “old diatheke” of Moses in v.13 and the whole surrounding context. Exegetically speaking, you are on difficult ground to say the least.
Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.
I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.
Follow up in the next post…
God bless,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Sorry, I appear to be having difficulties getting everything to post :(
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Jack Hampton]It would be to misunderstand me to say I am asserting Paul, here, is saying the believer has “no control whether or not he can be filled” rather that the filling, itself, is done by the Spirit and the participation by the believer is deciding to yield to the Spirit’s filled or yielding, unlike the active voice which would be the believer doing the filling himself instead of yielding to be filled.
Alex, if a Christian has no control over whether or not he can be filled with the pirit then why does Paul tell him to “be filled with the Spirit”? That certainly implies that the control of receiving the Spirit or not is in the hands of the Christian.
[Jack Hampton] I plan to study more about the Greek in regard to the active and passive voices. If the meaning which you place on the “active” voice is correct then I would think that the “will” must be involved in a man’s salvation. But I believe that the Scriptures veto that idea:I look forward to your response in your further study on the distinction and implication of the active and passive voices. As to this quote of the passage, where it states, “not by the will of man”, my understanding with respect to that phrase is not that there is no exercise of his will in believing, rather this phrase refers to man dictating and fulfilling what he must do to be saved as opposed to God dictating and performing for man what he must believe in order to be saved.
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (Jn.1:12-13).
“So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (Ro.9:16).
[Jack Hampton] I do not know your beliefs on this subject but I will ask you. With the following verse in view do you think that if a sinner does not resist the Holy Spirit and he does not close his heart to the truth then he will be saved?I think that if a sinner does not resist the HS, he is not sinning, but doing righteousness. And if he does not close his heart to the truth, he is not sinning, but doing righteousness. He is manifesting the fruit of regeneration.
You would credit the unregenerate sinner with righteousness, thus making his salvation synergistic.
[Jack Hampton] “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor.4:6).Its such a great verse, Jack. But it proves monergistic regeneration.
In that verse your heart is likened to the the uncreated kosmos. Dead. Lifeless. Empty. Nothing. Dark.
Then, wihtout any permission from the universe, God sovereignly acts upon it:
“LET THERE BE LIGHT!”
And in a flash, in the uncreated vastness, due to no power of its own, but all from the power coming from God, comes LIGHT!
And by grace, you wrote the truth of Scripture: “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ”(2 Cor.4:6).
Good choice on verses.
God compares the darkness in your heart before regeneration to something that doesn’t even exist, and has no power either to resist, or comply, with His will. His point, ENTIRELY, is to place all the power of regeneration in God alone. He doesn’t have a problem doing that, you know.
I do not believe that the teaching of Calvinism in regard to “monergistic regeneration” is correctYou may not like the doctrine of monergistic regeneration, but your God does. And I think one day soon you will be eternally thankful that He does.
I do not believe in their teaching on “irresistible grace.”Jack, how much resistance did the universe put up against God when He said, “Let there be light?”
If you want to say 2 Cor. 4:6 doesn’t teach salvation, but only the enlightenment of the sinner, who still has to believe, read the rest of the verse again - it pertains to salvation: “to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Why, God’s sovereign work of shining in the sinner’s heart of Jesus Christ is always irresistible, becasue Jesus Christ is so desirable. He is made beautiful to the sinner, whose resistance melts away in the overwhelming enlightening work of God. He is regenerated in that act, for He see Jesus Christ as God sees Jesus Christ, all beautiful, all glorious, and infinitely worthy of worship.
Great verse, Jack. Thanks for sharing it.
I have thought, myself, about this monergistic and synergistic argument and it reflects, I believe, the all too unfortunate binary approach in theology of many Reformed and/or Calvinist students and teachers (I understand and accept there are binary issues at times but this is one that is resultant of deliberate but unnecessary construct). They have a singular model and all others are, by default, one single opposing class they conveniently label synergistic without regard to valid exegetical or theological nuances and subtleties whose properties simply cannot fairly, and with intellectual and theological honesty, be forced into either of these two models. And this is accomplished by narrowing their definition and rather broadly defining those not agreeing with them, establishing unnecessary and invalid theological antagonisms as well as an invalid and elitist scale that does not work toward discovery or enlightenment.
4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:
He says,
He says,
As we have seen, the context of v.15 seems to demand the sense of ‘covenant’ because only covenants have mediators [italics mine] , while in v.18 mention is made of the ‘first diatheke kaine diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:6 to be the NC appealed to by Paul in the immediate context (v.3). Neither is the “new diatheke” as you call it a covenant despite being contrasted with the “old diatheke” of Moses in v.13 and the whole surrounding context. Exegetically speaking, you are on difficult ground to say the least.
Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.
I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
I skipped about nine posts that came after this, so maybe I’m completely irrelevant at this point but…
FWIW, I don’t believe regeneration precedes faith. For a number of reasons (that I can’t remember now !) they really have to happen at the same time.
He cannot “will” himself to believe that five plus five equals nine or eleven or anything other than ten.Actually, people will not to believe things all the time. For example, Rom.1 indicates that the knowledge of God’s existence is built in. It’s plain to see both in the creation and intuitively. But people chose not to believe this. There is a huge will factor in belief.
FWIW, I don’t believe regeneration precedes faith. For a number of reasons (that I can’t remember now !) they really have to happen at the same time.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m going to try to end my Post #54 in the fashion I had intended (please ignore #59). Sorry for the confusion. I meant to say this:
4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:
He says,
a).
c).
5. Although the testamentary interpretation in Hebrews 9:15-17 is accepted by Bruce, Vos and others, none of them proceed to do what you do with it, which is to apply the meaning “last will and testament” to other NT uses of diatheke. You are quite alone in this novelty.
Further, if Guthrie, O’Brien and others are to be followed on giving diatheke an uninterrupted meaning as “covenant” in the passage in line with the rest of Hebrews, then the objection about “a sudden transition, from one sense to another of the same word” (Bruce) is satisfactorily answered.
6. Finally, in Post #47 you state blankly
Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.
I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.
Paul
4. When one adds to this the critical observations of P. T. O’Brien your position is weakened yet further. O’Brien’s full discussion can be found on pages 328-332 of his recent The Letter To The Hebrews in the Pillar series. I shall condense his argument below:
He says,
a).
As we have seen, the context of v.15 seems to demand the sense of ‘covenant’ because only covenants have mediators [italics mine] , while in v.18 mention is made of the ‘first diatheke’, namely, the Sinai event and hence can only be a covenant.b).
What our author says in vv.16-17 does not correspond to any ‘any known form of Hellenistic (or indeed any other) legal practice.’ A Hellenistic will was secure and valid when it was written down, witnessed and deposited, not when the testator died. Further, the distribution of the estate could occur when the testator was still living.Indeed, don’t we see this very thing in the Parable of the Prodigal Son?
c).
The wider context of Hebrews with our author’s view of inheritance and his emphasis on the cult appears incongruous with the model of the secular Hellenistic testament.Quotations from Peter. T. O’Brien, The Letter To The Hebrews, Pillar (2010), 329-330
5. Although the testamentary interpretation in Hebrews 9:15-17 is accepted by Bruce, Vos and others, none of them proceed to do what you do with it, which is to apply the meaning “last will and testament” to other NT uses of diatheke. You are quite alone in this novelty.
Further, if Guthrie, O’Brien and others are to be followed on giving diatheke an uninterrupted meaning as “covenant” in the passage in line with the rest of Hebrews, then the objection about “a sudden transition, from one sense to another of the same word” (Bruce) is satisfactorily answered.
6. Finally, in Post #47 you state blankly
The gospel is not a covenant. It is a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it. It stands on its own.But in another post to me you said
Therefore when Paul refers to the “ministry of the new testament” the words “new testament” must refer to the gospel.From this it becomes easy to see that you do not hold kaine diatheke in 2 Cor. 3:6 to be the NC appealed to by Paul in the immediate context (v.3). Neither is the “new diatheke” as you call it a covenant despite being contrasted with the “old diatheke” of Moses in v.13 and the whole surrounding context. Exegetically speaking, you are on difficult ground to say the least.
Moreover, although you insist the gospel “is not a covenant” you allow it to be “the new testament.”! But how can you make “a proclamation that is true whether or not anyone believes it” into a last will and testament in distinction to a “covenant”? As I’ve shown (and as all scholars I know agree), the translation “covenant”, which lines up with the intended meaning of diatheke in the LXX, fits the context of 2 Cor. 3.
I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
[Jack Hampton] The passing from death unto life comes as a result of believing. Therefore it is obvious that the “receiving of life” or “regeneration” does not precede faith.Yes, but the act of believing is done by a believer, not an unbeliever.
We are commanded, even while dead spiritually, to believe.
Lazarus was commanded, even while dead physically, to come forth.
A command doesn’t mean we have the inherent power to fulfill the command. Our power to believe in the gospel is as much as Lazarus’ power to come out of the tomb.
That’s why the Lord says, “I am the resurrection and the life.” He must do the work of giving us life that we cannot do. True salvation is of the Lord. It is not Jesus doing His part and you doing your part. That’s why you have to humble yourself like a little child to receive it.
Logically speaking, regeneration precedes faith. But in the Scripture, they occur at the same moment. We cannot initiate saving faith, it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). But once regenerated, we believe.
If you want to believe that you contributed faith to your salvation, you may continue to do so. But I know I did not, but that my salvation is entirely a gift of grace.
The only thing I contributed to my salvation was my sin.
I will just throw this in John 1:12 (King James Version)
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Jack,
Many thanks for the useful interaction we have had. I have been benefited from crossing swords with you over the meaning of “diatheke” in the NT, even if I remain unmoved by your reasoning. I have to move on to other things now, but before I do I wish to give it one last go as it were. I shall utilize your last to me as a foil for my argument. As your post was long my quotations will be selective.
These are points with which you must contend. It will not do to cite authors who wrote a hundred years ago. There have been many advances made in recent years of our understanding of Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds, not to mention studies on the biblical meaning of “covenant” that Anderson and Vos did not have access to. The NASB & ESV of course, translate diatheke as “covenant” in these verses, not as “testament.” My purpose is, as I say, simply to show that the meaning “last will and testament” does not bear the kind of certitude you load it with even in this passage.
I then refer to George Guthrie (a noted expert on Hebrews), who like O’Brien argues for a death, not of a man but of a sacrificial animal in this context. You object to this interpretation on the basis that it,
Anyway, let’s move along.
2.
Although you recommend that P.T. O’Brien invest in a lexicon you should be aware that no lexicon supports your making diatheke into “testament” in every instance in the NT. This is both because the LXX uses diatheke to translate berith, therefore obviating the Hellenistic meaning “testament” in the OT, and also because the NT writers employed the LXX and so carried over its special berith/diatheke translation into their own Greek work. It is also because the NT writers quote and allude to the OT when they speak about the new diatheke, therefore showing that they construe diatheke to mean “covenant” and not “last will and testament” in all but possibly two cases. Indeed, to proceed along the lines you are commending leads into what James Barr (The Semantics of Biblical Literature,218) dubbed the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer.”
While I’m at it I will quote from elsewhere in the same article:
As such we need to take this information forward with us to all of our encounters with diatheke in the New Testament. It is not likely we will be required to abandon the conception of diatheke as covenant and give to it the meaning of “will” and “testament” in the vast majority of its NT appearances.
After giving us the views of Berkhof in regard to the choice of diatheke over syntheke you state:
Let us not get lost in the woods here. My main point is that “last will and testament” is exactly the wrong meaning of diatheke in all but maybe two contexts. With that I am content to rest my case.
God bless you and yours,
Paul
Many thanks for the useful interaction we have had. I have been benefited from crossing swords with you over the meaning of “diatheke” in the NT, even if I remain unmoved by your reasoning. I have to move on to other things now, but before I do I wish to give it one last go as it were. I shall utilize your last to me as a foil for my argument. As your post was long my quotations will be selective.
[Jack Hampton]1. What I am trying to demonstrate is not that diatheke in Heb. 9:16-17 cannot at all be translated “testament”; just that there are strong reasons produced by recent scholarship why that translation may not be; a. the best option, and, b. necessary. The arguments of O’Brien which I reproduced were passed over as if they were of no consequence. Yet, if he is right that “only covenants have mediators”; and that the author’s language in this section “does not correspond to ‘any form of Hellenistic (or indeed any other) legal practice”, it would appear that your avowed certainty is seriously challenged (the third observation may be skipped for present purposes).[Paul Henebury] I just don’t think you are on solid exegetical or theological ground here my brother.Paul, that is exactly what I was thinking about you when you say that the following verses are not in regard to a “last will and testament”:
“For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth” (Heb.9:16-17; KJV).
These are points with which you must contend. It will not do to cite authors who wrote a hundred years ago. There have been many advances made in recent years of our understanding of Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds, not to mention studies on the biblical meaning of “covenant” that Anderson and Vos did not have access to. The NASB & ESV of course, translate diatheke as “covenant” in these verses, not as “testament.” My purpose is, as I say, simply to show that the meaning “last will and testament” does not bear the kind of certitude you load it with even in this passage.
I then refer to George Guthrie (a noted expert on Hebrews), who like O’Brien argues for a death, not of a man but of a sacrificial animal in this context. You object to this interpretation on the basis that it,
speaks of “men” and not animals. But the Greek does not require us to translate that way. Therefore your point carries less force than you expect. That might be the correct rendering of thanaton tou diathemenou but one cannot simply assert it dogmatically like you have done.
Of course you will probably say at Sinai the sprinkling of blood was “symbolic.” However, the author of Hebrews stated in no uncertain terms that before the diatheke he was speaking of can come into force there must of necessity be a death of the one who makes the diatheke.Well, if O’Brien and Guthrie are correct (and both reject Westcott’s rigid view btw) the one who makes the covenant is the covenant-making animal which is sacrificed. and they arrive at this position based on the context (9:10-18), the lack of supporting evidence for mediated testaments, or wills which required the death of the testator in the ancient world. Their conclusions may be wrong, but their exegesis cannot be dismissed as easily as you think.
That was never the case with covenants between God and man nor between man and man.Never??
However, a study of ancient Middle East Covenants reveals that in many instances was a symbolic death played no part in those covenants.and in many cases a symbolic death played an important part (e.g. Gen. 15; Jer.34). Moreover, there is one in the immediate context of the text under discussion (Heb. 9:18-21)! Beacham’s observation becomes completely beside the point in view of this last reference.
With all this in mind it is inconceivable to even imagine that the author of Hebrews is referring to a “covenant” and not to a “will.” There is nothing said in these verses that even hints that a “will” is not in view and at the same time there is much that indicates that the reference is not to a “covenant.”But Jack, until you interact with e.g., the arguments above and its specific challenges to your position this is an assertion without much actual substance.
Anyway, let’s move along.
2.
Yes but this is a fast shuffle! You deflect attention away from what Vos said about 2 Cor. 3 by quoting him on Eph. 2. We weren’t dealing with Eph. 2! I quoted Vos because you are trying to make diatheke mean the same thing (“last will and testament”) everywhere it shows up in the NT. Vos directly contradicts you (as does nearly every scholar I have read). F. F. Bruce, for example, writes:1. I have previously cited Geerhardus Vos’s opinion on whether 2 Cor. 3 could be construed as a testament.Vos also said that “in Eph. ii. 12 the phrase ‘covenants of the promise,’ in which the genitive is epexegetical, yields positive proof that Paul regards the diatheke as so many successive promissory dispositions of God, not as a series of mutual agreements between God and the people” (Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” The Princeton Thelogical Review [Vol. 13, No.4, 1915] , 609).
Other corroborations of this could be produced, but it should be unnecessary.
“Testament” is certainly the predominant sense of the word in Hellenistic Greek; but in the Greek Bible it usually takes its meaning from the Old Testament Hebrew word berith , which does not have the sense of “testament.”- The Epistle To The Hebrews (NICNT, 1981), 211.
Although you recommend that P.T. O’Brien invest in a lexicon you should be aware that no lexicon supports your making diatheke into “testament” in every instance in the NT. This is both because the LXX uses diatheke to translate berith, therefore obviating the Hellenistic meaning “testament” in the OT, and also because the NT writers employed the LXX and so carried over its special berith/diatheke translation into their own Greek work. It is also because the NT writers quote and allude to the OT when they speak about the new diatheke, therefore showing that they construe diatheke to mean “covenant” and not “last will and testament” in all but possibly two cases. Indeed, to proceed along the lines you are commending leads into what James Barr (The Semantics of Biblical Literature,218) dubbed the fallacy of “illegitimate totality transfer.”
A “will” is in fact a promissory disposition. And you had no response when I pointed out that Vos said that “in the New Testament the diatheke as a ‘last will’ is once brought into connection with the sacrifice of Christ…” (Ibid., 601).I would have thought this is a hostile witness against your view that new diatheke equals “last will and testament” in the rest of Hebrews and the NT! Indeed, let me cite the very same article:
To assume that it [diatheke] signifies “testament” elsewhere we need other evidence than this single passage [i.e. Heb.9:15-17]. And such evidence does not exist. In none of the other contexts where diatheke occurs is there anything that even remotely suggests the idea of a last will.- Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, The Epistle of the Diatheke” as reprinted in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, 182
While I’m at it I will quote from elsewhere in the same article:
In Hebrew Scriptures the meaning “testament” has no standing at all., 165
…nothing is more certain than that such a conception of berith as a “testament” is totally foreign to the intent of the Hebrew Scriptures…(Ibid, 166).
As such we need to take this information forward with us to all of our encounters with diatheke in the New Testament. It is not likely we will be required to abandon the conception of diatheke as covenant and give to it the meaning of “will” and “testament” in the vast majority of its NT appearances.
P.T. O’Brien should have invested in a Greek-English Lexicon before he made such a blunder. I have offered a revised answer in the regard to the Lord Jesus’ role as Mediator in post # 43 on this thread, a post where O’Brien’s assertion is found to be in error.I assume O’Brien has one or two lexicons knocking around! Pitting Sir Robert Anderson (#43) against P.T. O’Brien puts the venerable Commissioner at a disadvantage. For one thing, Anderson did not have access to a half the research availed upon by O’Brien. Secondly, he was not, nor did he claim to be, a NT scholar, as his work on The Hebrews Epistle, relying as it does upon Grimm’s lexicon and Deissman’s studies, amply shows. Thus, you have not shown “O’Brien’s assertion…to be in error.”
After giving us the views of Berkhof in regard to the choice of diatheke over syntheke you state:
If the authors of the New Testament wanted to express the idea of a “covenant” then why did they use a word that does not mean “covenant”?But all this is patently known Jack. And you are begging the question (see Vos above). The fact is the translators of the LXX chose diatheke to translate berith “covenant”. Why? I have already said that the main idea is that the covenant is always made from God’s side. In fact, in all but one case (Sinai) the biblical covenants are unilateral - hence syntheke would be the wrong word to use to translate berith - especially as regards the new covenant which is unilateral!
Let us not get lost in the woods here. My main point is that “last will and testament” is exactly the wrong meaning of diatheke in all but maybe two contexts. With that I am content to rest my case.
Thank you for your time and your generous spirit.And thanks to you brother! I have enjoyed this exchange. Now the comments have switched direction and I feel it is time to get off.
God bless you and yours,
Paul
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
Discussion