Dispensationalism

Read the series.

We are now in a position to tackle the main objections to the view that the Church is a full party (with future Israel) in the New covenant. As we will see, for this to be so it must be established that the New covenant is in effect now. I intend to try to prove that by looking again at the salient passages, noting how the “Israel-only” arguments are unsatisfactory. But before I do that I want to highlight the main points I have made in this series:

Read the series.

Many American Christians have questions about something called “the rapture.” These questions are often tied to a particular flavor of premillennialism called “dispensationalism.” According to this framework, “the rapture” means “the idea that Christ will remove the church from the world prior to the great tribulation.”¹ They believe the rapture is before the Great Tribulation, so it is “pre-tribulational.” This teaching relies heavily on 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, along with other supporting passages.

Read the series.

Hebrews – Epistle of the New Covenant

Hebrews starts off by elevating Jesus Christ, proving from the OT that He is divine, but that He also “purged our sins” (Heb. 1:3) because He took upon Himself humanity (cf. Heb. 1:6; 2:9, 17). Jesus holds the office of High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-16). And the question arises, whose High Priest is He?

Read the series.

Read the series.

Read the series.

The New Covenant in the Gospels

Coming now to the Four Gospels, let me begin with Simeon’s statement in Luke 2. Luke tells us that Simeon was,

waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. (Lk. 2:25)

As far as Simeon was concerned Jesus was to have a dual salvific role to the Gentiles and also to Israel:

Read the series.

Looking at Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in Light of the New Covenant

Many lists of New covenant verses do not include Isaiah 52:13-53:12. But I believe there is justification for using it as at least a supporting passage for the study of the New covenant. Allow me to explain my reasons for this.

Read the series.

Although being cognizant of Fredrickson’s research regarding pre-19th century commentators on Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 I think a selection of quotes from representative scholarship will help drive my point home. My point being that it is not some novel view that understands the “covenant” in these texts as being, in fact, Jesus Himself. Many may wish to avoid saying “Jesus is the New covenant.” But I think it hard to circumvent the claim that “Jesus is the embodiment of the New covenant.”