Observations from the back row of the 2010 Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics

Jack,

Ironside does not appear to parse these passages like you do. He was not sympathetic with dividing between “testament” and “covenant.” Note this one,

“The new covenant is the will of our blesseed Lord whereby He decrees that all who put their trust in Him should receive part in that eternal inheritance which He gladly shares with all believers. By His death this testament came into force.” — Harry Ironside on Hebrews 9:11-23

Another point, Jack,

So when did God reveal that Jesus had actually died for more than just Israel? I certainly believe, like you, that a massive amount of church truth was first communicated to Jesus’ disciples through Paul (cf. 2 Peter 3:16ff). Your answers, and your use of this truth, however, raise a lot more questions for me. What did Jesus mean when he said, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whoever believes in him will have everlasting life.” Are you saying that “world” meant Israel until Paul gave it another meaning?

In addition, on what basis did Jesus tell the people of Sychar (John 4) that they could receive the water of life if Paul had not yet revealed that Jesus had shed his blood for them also? Samaritans were not part of the covenant: circumcision or no circumcision. Jesus said that they did not know what they worshipped. Even when the Samaritans turned in great numbers to faith in Jesus (Acts 8), Paul had not yet had any revelation that Jews were saved by the blood of the covenant, whereas others are saved by the blood of the testament at the death of the testator. So how did the Samaritans celebrate communion? What in the world would Peter and John have told them, if they believed that the “many” who are saved by the blood of the New Covenant are only Israelites? Paul had not yet revealed that there is another communion related to the rapture for the sake of the Samaritans (I am arguing according to your interpretation. I am not at all convinced by it).

Take this a step further, how did the church at Antioch even celebrate communion before Paul got there a long time after its beginning? The church was planted by Christians who fled Jerusalem TO GET AWAY FROM Paul. If they all beleived that the “many” in Matthew 26: 28-29 was only Israelites, communion would have been a non-starter. How did the Jewish believers even evangelize in Antioch if they had not yet been informed by Paul that Jesus had actually died for all?

Jack, I need to repeat a question, because you did not seem to understand what I meant. Let me rephrase it. Look through the confessions of faith throughout church history (Catholic and Protestant ones are enough) to see what they say about the meaning of the Lord’s supper. They repeatedly reference the words of Jesus in the Gospels about the first celebration. So, I ask again, have nearly all genuine believers throughout the church age gotten this point wrong? For they repeatedly point to Jesus’ words “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood,” as referring to themselves (like Harry Ironside did).

Jack,

Yes, in answer to your question, I do believe that the New Testament and the New Covenant in 2 Corinthians 3:6 is all the same thing. The KJV no doubt was influenced in its translation by the Vulgate. The word is Novem Testamentum. But The Vulgate uses the same word to translate Matthew 26:28: Novum Testamentum, for the New Covenant of which Jesus speaks at the Lord’s supper. Obviously the Vulgate looked at them as being the same. In Greek, 2 Corinthians 3:6 uses kaine diatheke, the same word used elsewhere in the New Testament for “New Covenant.” German Bibles likewise use the word Bund for this passage, meaning “Covenant.” I would guess that many translations other than English translate the same way. The NIV translates 2 Cor 3:6, “new covenant.” It would be hard for a person just reading his Bible to come up with something different, than that Paul believed himself and other ministers with him to be ministers of the New Covenant. So yes, that is exactly what I believe.

By the way, David Lowrey, whom you cited earlier, also looks at 2 Cor 3:6 as referring to the New Covenant. Likewise, Homer Kent is rather adamant in his comments on Hebrews 9, that there is no difference between “covenant” and “testament.” He says that since the New Covenant includes an inheritance, it requires a testament. That is the point of Heb 9:16-17.

Finally, Jack, I hope I have understood you correctly about communion in the New Testament and the Gospel about the death and resurrection of Christ.

1. You believe that no non-Jews were ever told that Christ died for them until God revealed it to Paul after his conversion. Thus, they were saved and received the Holy Spirit without ever knowing that any blood was shed on their behalf (although they knew from reading the Old Testament that there is no forgiveness without the shedding of blood - and although the promises to Israel by the prophets inherently taught that the Gentiles would be saved when the New Covenant came into force).

2. You believe that there is a difference between being saved through the New Covenant and being saved through mercy. (even though Hebrews 8:12 says about the New Covenant, “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”)

3. You believe that there were no communion services held in Gentile churches until they heard from Paul that Christ had died for their sins also.

4. You believe that after Cornelius received the Holy Spirit and was baptized he became a proselyte of the gate (although this was a term in Judaism about Jewish faith, not Christian)

If I have understood you correctly, Jack, then I have to say that I cannot in any sense accept what you are saying. The Gospel, according to Paul, included in its core the pronouncement that “Christ died for our sins.” There is no indication anywhere in Scripture that the Gospel at any time changed: either before or after Paul’s conversion. If Gentiles who were saved before they were taught by Paul, then of course they were saved without the preaching of the Gospel. The apostles and the early disciples were told to be witnesses to all nations: “it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, begining at Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46). It runs completely counter to the content of the Gospel, that any can be saved without believing that Christ shed his blood for them. It is counter to the New Testament, that anyone can be saved apart from the Gospel.

I will let you have the last word, Jack. And I will read what you say. I will not write any more on this topic. The more you explain yourself, the more you confirm me in my belief that from the time of the ascension of Christ to heaven, all men: Jews and Gentiles, have always been saved because they believed that Christ died for their sins, and were commanded by Christ to celebrate His death by the Lord’s supper. Your writing further confirms to me that we as Christians participate in the blessings of the New Covenant, and are ministers of the New Covenant. I have enjoyed the exchange.

It is truly a marvel that dispensationalists still wrestle with this issue.

Jack, I had suspected you were a hyperDT. I suspect no more. That clears up a lot.

Moving right along, DTers failure to accurately deal with the NC has been embarrassing.

Eph 2:11-13 informs us of what Paul believed:

11 So then, remember that at one time you were Gentiles in the flesh-called “the uncircumcised” by those called “the circumcised,” done by hand in the flesh. 12 At that time you were without the Messiah, excluded from the citizenship of Israel, and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, with no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus, you who were far away have been brought near by the blood of the Messiah.

What were the covenants of the promise? Well, since it is plural it cannot be limited to just the Abrahamic. The Mosaic Covenant was not based on promise according to Gal 4. That leaves the Davidic and New to go with the Abrahamic.

There are not 2 new covenants as Chafer and Ryrie falsely believed and unfortunately taught the masses who either didn’t have Eph 2 in their Bible or were illiterate.

This is referring to having “access…unto the Father” (Eph.2:18).

Yes, but that isn’t all that it is referring to. The whole contrast in this section is what the Jews have as a possession versus what the Gentiles lacked. At some point you have to be honest with the text and let that inform your position. You missed everything I said before and didn’t respond to what the section I referred to says. I would encourage you to read the passage before responding next time.

According to the text, Gentiles:

1. Without Christ

2. Aliens from Israel

3. Strangers from the promise Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New)

4. No hope

5. Without God

But now due to the death of Christ, we are brought near. Being near to Christ is what grants the Gentiles access to God, hope, members of the promise covenants, fellowship with Israel, and Christ.

You just quote selected verses from the chapter and leave out the parts that tell us exactly how the Christian draws near.

In the course of responding to someone and being specific about an issue, it is required to cut off a passage at a certain verse. This nonsense should really stop. If I just posted Ephesians as the reference, you would ask for a verse(s). I get the tactic and am not amused. Demonstrate the ability to respond to a point without ignoring it and posting a bunch of other verses that you think prove something else. We really don’t need more fundies who operate the Chicago way.

Jack, I didn’t ignore your point. I saw it for what it was. You can post 1000 verses about how the NC was for Israel and I would agree. That is not the issue.

I posted Eph 2 to help you understand that although the NC was promised to the Jew, in this mystery the Gentile has been brought in as a full member. That is what verses 11 and 12 say, something you failed to address.

Of course there is so much about the NC that has not been fulfilled. All of that will be accomplished at the return of Christ, when Israel will embrace their Messiah (Rom 11).

Jack, go back and for the first time read post #30.

Jack, go back and reread post #30.

When you read it, you will see that Paul outlined in Eph 2 that prior to Christ Gentiles have 5 things against them. But thanks to the work of Christ, they now have all 5 of those things. If Gentiles are not part of the NC, then they are still without Christ.

You further err continually in your understanding of being an alien from the commonwealth of Israel. By being in full fellowship with Israel within the body of Christ I share complete equality. Saved gentiles under the OC did not have complete equality.

I know the theological aberration you are coming from, so this all makes perfect sense to me. I just don’t find any value in trying to repeatedly go back to actually reading the text of Scripture when you won’t.

According to Paul, Gentiles had 5 things against them:

1. Without Christ

2. Aliens from Israel

3. Strangers from the promise Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New)

4. No hope

5. Without God

You are willing to concede that Gentiles now have Christ, hope, and God. At the same time though youare unwilling due to your prior theological commitment to see that Gentiles are no longer strangers to the promise Covenants neither are they outside of fellowship with Israel.

I wonder if this passage would be considered a chiasm, which would pit it together like this:

1. Without Christ

2. Aliens from Israel

3. Strangers from the promise covenants

4. No hope

5. Without God

The point of a chiasm tends toward the middle issue(s).

If Gentiles are still strangers from the promise covenants, then they are still without Christ. This isn’t a buffet where you get to pick and choose what you want to keep. It is a package deal. I hope you find this helpful and instructive. It was all right there in post #30 had you bothered to actually read it.