Election and the covenant

[npetreley]

TCGreek,

I am still fleshing out a lot of stuff too. That's the process of spiritual growth and learning. Some take that Zech 14 to be Armageddon before the thousand years. I tend towards after, but am not dogmatic on it.

I think it contains both. Here you have the nations gathered against Jerusalem, and the Lord defeats them.

2 For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem;
The city shall be taken,
The houses rifled,
And the women ravished.
Half of the city shall go into captivity,
But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
3 Then the LORD will go forth
And fight against those nations,
As He fights in the day of battle.

The chapter ends with the Lord and Jerusalem in peace and victory.

But there's more to this story. It just doesn't continue in Zechariah.

Here's what stands out as a key for me. I don't happen to believe in the "seven year tribulation period", but only in a "great tribulation". But let's assume for a moment that the basic chronology of the seven year period is valid. It starts when the anti-christ makes some peace deal with Israel. Then 3 1/2 years later, he is revealed as the man of sin. There is great persecution, which leads up to a climactic battle.

Now look at Ezekiel 38:11

You will say, ‘I will go up against a land of unwalled villages; I will go to a peaceful people, who dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates’

Where in this "tribulation" chronology can you imagine Israel being a peaceful land of unwalled villages? I just don't see it. Not even a peace plan will lead to a scenario like that in just 3 1/2 years, and even if it did, the nations do not rise up against Israel immediately after the man of sin is revealed. By the time the nations gather against Israel, it has already started suffering the great tribulation persecution. It isn't a "peaceful people, who dwell safely" at that point.

In other words, the ONLY situation where I can fathom Israel being a peaceful nation of unwalled villages is near the end of the millennium. In this case, there has been a LONG period of peace. That's why I believe passages like Ezekiel 38 are talking about the end of the millennium.

 

[TCGreek]

I think it contains both. Here you have the nations gathered against Jerusalem, and the Lord defeats them.



The chapter ends with the Lord and Jerusalem in peace and victory.

But there's more to this story. It just doesn't continue in Zechariah.

Here's what stands out as a key for me. I don't happen to believe in the "seven year tribulation period", but only in a "great tribulation". But let's assume for a moment that the basic chronology of the seven year period is valid. It starts when the anti-christ makes some peace deal with Israel. Then 3 1/2 years later, he is revealed as the man of sin. There is great persecution, which leads up to a climactic battle.

Now look at Ezekiel 38:11



Where in this "tribulation" chronology can you imagine Israel being a peaceful land of unwalled villages? I just don't see it. Not even a peace plan will lead to a scenario like that in just 3 1/2 years, and even if it did, the nations do not rise up against Israel immediately after the man of sin is revealed. By the time the nations gather against Israel, it has already started suffering the great tribulation persecution. It isn't a "peaceful people, who dwell safely" at that point.

In other words, the ONLY situation where I can fathom Israel being a peaceful nation of unwalled villages is near the end of the millennium. In this case, there has been a LONG period of peace. That's why I believe passages like Ezekiel 38 are talking about the end of the millennium.

1. I'm still baffled; Sometimes I wonder what is the point to all this eschatological fighting.

2. What it is with numbers in apocalyptic literature?

3. I find myself vacilliating between views.

 

[TCGreek]

Pastor Larry,

1. Doesn't Paul destroy the separate salvation destiny of Jews and Gentiles in Eph. 2:11-22 as espouse by Dispensationalists?

Eph 2:11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands--
Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility
Eph 2:15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
Eph 2:16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
Eph 2:17 And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near.
Eph 2:18 For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father.
Eph 2:19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Eph 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Eph 2:21 in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.
Eph 2:22 In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

2. There seems to be one covenant of grace for both Jews and Gentiles here.

 

[npetreley]

1. I'm still baffled; Sometimes I wonder what is the point to all this eschatological fighting.

I see no point in fighting about it at all, except in extreme cases where people preach things like replacement theology. I figure we'll find out how it all plays out, so it's hardly worth getting emotionally invested in one view over another.

 

[TCGreek]

I see no point in fighting about it at all, except in extreme cases where people preach things like replacement theology. I figure we'll find out how it all plays out, so it's hardly worth getting emotionally invested in one view over another.

1. A careful reading of Romans 9-11 prevents me from subscribing to Replacement Theology.

2. But in the end, we'll all be a part of the Grand Finale, if you will.

3. What else does God have to prove to the evils that be? Isn't Redemptive History replete with the display of God's glory?

4. What then is the point of the elect if there's going to be this cataclysmic unfolding and a second crop of saints to be gathered? It all seems confusing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't happen to believe in the "seven year tribulation period",

Then you have some severe problems in Daniel and the NT. But that's another issue I supposed.

Where in this "tribulation" chronology can you imagine Israel being a peaceful land of unwalled villages?. I just don't see it.

Me either. But some do believe that the first half will be relatively peaceful, so it is not out of the question. But 1 Thess 5 talks of the DOL coming at a time when men are saying 'Peace peace" which means it Christ's return cannot be posttribulational.

Not even a peace plan will lead to a scenario like that in just 3 1/2 years,

That's exactly what Dan 9:27 seems to contradict.

In other words, the ONLY situation where I can fathom Israel being a peaceful nation of unwalled villages is near the end of the millennium.

But that just doesn't square with Scripture which describes the reign of the Messiah as one of peace. The whole millennium is peaceful because Christ has destroyed his enemies in the millennium and Satan is bound.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. Doesn't Paul destroy the separate salvation destiny of Jews and Gentiles in Eph. 2:11-22 as espouse by Dispensationalists?

I don't know of many dispensationalists who espouse a separate salvation destiny. Most, as far as I konw, believe that Jews and Gentiles now are in the church, and will be glorified in the millennium. Jews saved during the Millennium will be "normally human" and will die and be resurrected into the eternal state where they will be in heaven with the church.

2. There seems to be one covenant of grace for both Jews and Gentiles here

I don't see any covenant of grace. If you could point it out, I would be glad to study into it, but so far I haven't seen it anywhere. Eph 2 is teaching that there is one body, the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. It says nothing about the issues with OT Israel vs. the church vs end time Israel. It just isn't talking about that.

 

[TCGreek]

I don't know of many dispensationalists who espouse a separate salvation destiny. Most, as far as I konw, believe that Jews and Gentiles now are in the church, and will be glorified in the millennium. Jews saved during the Millennium will be "normally human" and will die and be resurrected into the eternal state where they will be in heaven with the church.

1. Well stated.

I don't see any covenant of grace. If you could point it out, I would be glad to study into it, but so far I haven't seen it anywhere. Eph 2 is teaching that there is one body, the church, made up of Jews and Gentiles. It says nothing about the issues with OT Israel vs. the church vs end time Israel. It just isn't talking about that.

2. I'm giving you all my best punches. So I can't refute that based on Eph. 2.

 

[TCGreek]

Pastor Larry,

1. What is wrong with this quote?

2. It is an argument for Covenant Theology by J. Ligon Duncan III, Senior Minister of First Presbyterian Church.

When Jesus wanted to explain the significance of His death to His disciples, He went to the doctrine of the covenants (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11). When God wanted to assure Abraham of the certainty of His word of promise, He went to the covenant (Genesis 12, 15, and 17). When God wanted to set apart His people, ingrain His work in their minds, tangibly reveal Himself in love and mercy, and confirm their future inheritance, He gave the covenant signs (Genesis 17, Exodus 12, 17, and 31, Matthew 28, Acts 2, Luke 22). When Luke wanted to show early Christians that Jesus’ life and ministry were the fulfillment of God’s ancient purposes for His chosen people, he went to the covenants and quoted Zacharias’ prophecy which shows that believers in the very earliest days of ‘the Jesus movement’ understood Jesus and His messianic work as a fulfillment (not a ‘Plan B’) of God’s covenant with Abraham (Luke 1:72-73). When the Psalmist and the author of Hebrews want to show how God’s redemptive plan is ordered and on what basis it unfolds in history, they went to the covenants (see Psalm 78, 89, Hebrews 6-10).

 

[Pastor Larry]

When Jesus wanted to explain the significance of His death to His disciples, He went to the doctrine of the covenants (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11).

He went to one specific covenant, and one specific part of that one specific covenant ... the NC that brings forgiveness through death of Christ. But again, the Bible doesn't call that the covenant of grace.

When God wanted to assure Abraham of the certainty of His word of promise, He went to the covenant (Genesis 12, 15, and 17).

I agree. And yet Duncan would have this AC mean nothing since he would say it is over or completely fulfilled in Christ. It clearly wasn't. Gen 12, 15, 17 talk about a definable piece of real estate, a genetic seed, and a blessing in several different ways. Duncan wants to subsume that all in Christ; it is impossible to do so without great damage to the meaning of words.

When God wanted to set apart His people, ingrain His work in their minds, tangibly reveal Himself in love and mercy, and confirm their future inheritance, He gave the covenant signs (Genesis 17, Exodus 12, 17, and 31, Matthew 28, Acts 2, Luke 22). When Luke wanted to show early Christians that Jesus’ life and ministry were the fulfillment of God’s ancient purposes for His chosen people, he went to the covenants and quoted Zacharias’ prophecy which shows that believers in the very earliest days of ‘the Jesus movement’ understood Jesus and His messianic work as a fulfillment (not a ‘Plan B’) of God’s covenant with Abraham (Luke 1:72-73). When the Psalmist and the author of Hebrews want to show how God’s redemptive plan is ordered and on what basis it unfolds in history, they went to the covenants (see Psalm 78, 89, Hebrews 6-10).

I think this is just gobbedly gook. It would take an awful lot of explanation to even know exactly what he means by this.

You probably took this off the monergism website didn;t you? I think I read something similar there by Duncan.

I recommend studying God's covenant with his people. Forget about the church for a bit. Just study the Abrahamic, Mosaic (with Palestinian), Davidic, and New covenant. Make a list of everything that they promise. I think it soon becomes clear that covenant theology has no answer without changing the meaning of the words and just plain ignoring some of them. I can't, in good conscience, do that.

 

[TCGreek]

He went to one specific covenant, and one specific part of that one specific covenant ... the NC that brings forgiveness through death of Christ. But again, the Bible doesn't call that the covenant of grace.

1. But does the Bible have to label a particular doctrine for us to accept it? What matters is the truth that is being taught, not the label (ex. Trinity).

I agree. And yet Duncan would have this AC mean nothing since he would say it is over or completely fulfilled in Christ. It clearly wasn't. Gen 12, 15, 17 talk about a definable piece of real estate, a genetic seed, and a blessing in several different ways. Duncan wants to subsume that all in Christ; it is impossible to do so without great damage to the meaning of words.

I think this is just gobbedly gook. It would take an awful lot of explanation to even know exactly what he means by this.

You probably took this off the monergism website didn;t you? I think I read something similar there by Duncan.

I recommend studying God's covenant with his people. Forget about the church for a bit. Just study the Abrahamic, Mosaic (with Palestinian), Davidic, and New covenant. Make a list of everything that they promise. I think it soon becomes clear that covenant theology has no answer without changing the meaning of the words and just plain ignoring some of them. I can't, in good conscience, do that.

2. As I've pointed out, I continue to struggle with what to spiritualize and what not to spiritualize. Yes, I've notice the inconsistencies.

3. What type of Dispensationalist are you? How many do you subscribe to?

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. But does the Bible have to label a particular doctrine for us to accept it? What matters is the truth that is being taught, not the label (ex. Trinity).

No, but first we need to recognize that something is not found in Scripture but is placed on it, then we need to judge it by what is in Scripture. On that, the covenant of grace falls beccause it misuses the real covenants.

2. As I've pointed out, I continue to struggle with what to spiritualize and what not to spiritualize. Yes, I've notice the inconsistencies.

I think this is a bit of a difficult question. There is no doubt that some genres used symbolic language, but that part of a normal or literal hermeneutic. I don't think we should spiritualize anything. We should recognize figurative or symbolic language where the author intended to use such language.

3. What type of Dispensationalist are you? How many do you subscribe to?

I am a traditional or classical dispensationalist. I personally hold to seven.

 

[TCGreek]

No, but first we need to recognize that something is not found in Scripture but is placed on it, then we need to judge it by what is in Scripture. On that, the covenant of grace falls beccause it misuses the real covenants.

1. From Scripture I see only Four distinct covenants: AC, MC, DC and NC

I think this is a bit of a difficult question. There is no doubt that some genres used symbolic language, but that part of a normal or literal hermeneutic. I don't think we should spiritualize anything. We should recognize figurative or symbolic language where the author intended to use such language.

I am a traditional or classical dispensationalist. I personally hold to seven.

2. Yes, I agree we need to respect the genres of Scripture while holding to a literal interpretation.

3. I realize God is not done with ethnic Israel yet (Rom 9-11), so I might end up being hybrid. I see the internal inconsistencies with CT.

4. Isn't your seven-dispensational approach guilty of putting labels where they do not belong?

 

[ReformedBaptist]

1. From Scripture I see only Four distinct covenants: AC, MC, DC and NC



2. Yes, I agree we need to respect the genres of Scripture while holding to a literal interpretation.

3. I realize God is not done with ethnic Israel yet (Rom 9-11), so I might end up being hybrid. I see the internal inconsistencies with CT.

4. Isn't your seven-dispensational approach guilty of putting labels where they do not belong?

TC,

I don't know if you say the conclusion I came to on Romans 11 regarding the covenant mentioned there and all Israel being saved. I had never heard such a conclusion before so I poked around. I look to two commentators: Calvin and Gill. I wasn't surpised by Calvin's view, but it wasn't the same conclusion I drew from the text. I expected the same from Gill, but found he drew the same conclusion I did. I was surprised by that.

There certainly is some difference among those who hold CT.

Talked to my pastor today about it too and he sees the same thing. He recommended Iain Murray's book "The Purtian Hope"

 

[npetreley]

Then you have some severe problems in Daniel and the NT. But that's another issue I supposed.

If you're referring to the 70th week, I didn't say there isn't going to be a period of 7 years. The 70th week may certainly be a future event. I just don't believe it will be a seven year "tribulation period". I don't see any reason to think the first half will be marked by tribulation - certainly not world-wide tribulation.

It's not a very important distinction, IMO, but as far as I'm concerned, calling it the "tribulation period" blurs the impact of the great tribulation, which is clearly described in the Bible, and it isn't a 7 year period.

 

[rjprince]

TC,


Only four distinct covanants?


Here is my list:

1) Noahic - Gen 6:18; 9:9-17
2) Abrahamic - Gen 15:18; 17:2,4,7-11,13,14,19,21; esp see 17:8; Exod 2:24; 6:4; Judg 2:1
3) Mosaic - Exod 19:5; 24:7-8; 34:10-17, 27-28; Deut 5:2-3
4) Land (or Palestinian) - Deut 29:1; 29:9,12,14,21,25; see also Deut 30:1-10
5) Davidic - 2Sam 7:4-16; 1Chron 17:3-15; Jer 33:20-21
6) New - Jer 31:31-34

And of course there is no covenant of redemption, works, or grace mentioned in Scripture.

 

[rjprince]

I wasn't surpised by Calvin's view, but it wasn't the same conclusion I drew from the text. I expected the same from Gill, but found he drew the same conclusion I did. I was surprised by that.

I like what John Gill says in regard to verse 27,

Rom 11:27 - For this is my covenant unto them,.... This is what God has promised to them in covenant, and he will be as good as his word; his covenant will never be broken, it will always remain sure and inviolable; so that there is not only a possibility, and a probability, but even a certainty, of the call and conversion of the Jews; which promise and covenant will have their accomplishment,

when I, saith the Lord,

shall take away their sins: some think that the apostle alludes to Jer_31:34; others, that he takes this passage out of Isa_27:9; where in the Septuagint version the selfsame phrase is used; though it may be no citation, or reference, but the apostle's own words, explaining what is meant by "turning away ungodliness from Jacob", Rom_11:26; and as before; regards not the taking away of their sins by the sacrifice of Christ, which is done already, and is what the blood of bulls and goats could not do; but of the removing of their sins from themselves, from their consciences, by the application of the blood of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness.

Gill does not see this as another covenant, as I read him, but as the New Covenant. I would go farther and say that this is when God formally brings Israel into the New Covenant relationship with Him and "writes his law in their hearts" (not the same as believers having the indwelling HS, as CTs often alledge).

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I like what John Gill says in regard to verse 27,



Gill does not see this as another covenant, as I read him, but as the New Covenant. I would go farther and say that this is when God formally brings Israel into the New Covenant relationship with Him and "writes his law in their hearts" (not the same as believers having the indwelling HS, as CTs often alledge).

Well, I disagree. He says its not the sacrifice of Christ which is the New Covenant, but a Covenant of THE promise. (those are my words)

This covenant spoken of in Isaiah 59 (NOT Jer 31) is a promise whereby God has coventanted to save Israel (Jews according to the flesh) and so great number of them that it can be said that all Israel will be saved. The comparrison was made that while some are saved now according to the election of grace, and the rest hardened, then all will be saved. So I can allow a small minority of them are saved not, or else it means every single one of them. Either way this is an amazing prophesy and so sure and secure that it will indeed happen.

And we have good reason to believe that their grafting in at that time will produce global revival. The Apostle teaches that if their falling away was riches to the Gentiles, what will their grafting in be?

 

[Pastor Larry]

4. Isn't your seven-dispensational approach guilty of putting labels where they do not belong?

Guilty of putting labels? Sure. Where they do not belong? I don't think so. I think teh difference between the dispensations and the covenants of grace/works is the biblical foundation. The definition of dispensation is essentially an economy in God's plan with man wherein man is responsible to God for the revelation given him. That simply means that as revelation increased (progressive revelation), mans' responsibility changed (the content of his saving faith).

RJPrince, as for the four distinct covenants, the discussion here is specifically related to God's covenant with Isreal. The Noahic was not with Israel. The land covenant (Palestinian) is taken by many (myself included) to be a part of hte Mosaic covenant rather than a distinct one. The promises of the land covenant are found in the Abrahamic covenant; The Mosaic covenant gives the stipulation for inhabiting the land for any given generation. Add to that the fact that it comes in Deuteronomy (the second giving of hte Mosaic covenant on the verge of entering the land). So I don't see it as a distinct covenant.

Npetreley, as for the 7-year tribulation, so long as we see a seven year period though, perhaps the label is not all that important. Some do see the seven seal, trumpet, bowl judgments going all through the seven years and some see them just in the last 3 1/2.

 

[rjprince]

RJPrince, as for the four distinct covenants, the discussion here is specifically related to God's covenant with Isreal. The Noahic was not with Israel. The land covenant (Palestinian) is taken by many (myself included) to be a part of hte Mosaic covenant rather than a distinct one. The promises of the land covenant are found in the Abrahamic covenant; The Mosaic covenant gives the stipulation for inhabiting the land for any given generation. Add to that the fact that it comes in Deuteronomy (the second giving of hte Mosaic covenant on the verge of entering the land). So I don't see it as a distinct covenant.

Agreed, Noahic Covenant is not with Israel, but Noah and all humanity. I always include it because it is a "Biblical" covenant as opposed to the 2/3 non-Biblical covenants of CT.


Disagree about blending the Land C with the MC on the basis of:


De 29:1 These are the words of the covenant, which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.

And the unconditional aspects of the LC/PC which I cannot see as having been done away when the MC was done away.