John of Japan,
yes...however...when the exact language is repeated several times I think it indicates we are to pay attention to what is being said....
In Gen37...we know what it was indicating. in Isa 13, 34 we know what it was indicating.
Do you consider what if the spiritual is exactly what God intends for us to understand? It was a change in the ruling life of the people.
It certainly makes sense to me. If you denied God, and a meteor hit your city killing 50,000, and a super earthquake happened, wouldn't you run and hide? Tell you what, in Yokohama I experienced some very strong earthquakes, and they are very scary.
But no such meteor hit the earth in isa 13, or 34, and yet Babylon and Edom
were destroyed
You seem mixed up about that. The New Covenant is for all, since it is all about Christ. I think any premil dispensationalist would agree.
https://www.dbts.edu/journals/2003/Compton.pdf
There Are Two New Covenants: One for Israel and One for the Church At one time a prominent view among the Dallas Seminary faculty,12 this view argues that there is one new covenant for Israel and 1977), pp. 25–29. Ladd argues, “Therefore Hebrews 8:8–13 refutes dispensational theology at two points: It applies a prophecy to the Christian church which in its Old Testament setting referred to Israel, and it affirms that the new covenant in Christ has displaced the Old Testament cult which is therefore doomed to pass away” (pp. 26–27). 11E.g., Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1999), pp. 89–90. Mathison states: “The new covenant was inaugurated by Jesus Christ at His first coming and is being fulfilled in and through the church during this present age…. The institution of the new covenant does not await the start of the Millennium or the eternal state. Since the new covenant is the means by which God will finally and completely fulfill all previous covenant promises, and since the new covenant is specifically the covenant of the present age, these promises must be fulfilled in the present age” (p. 90). 12Principally in view here are Lewis S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 1:43; 4:314–15, 325; 7:98–99; Charles C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953), pp. 115–25; and John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), pp. 208–20. Both Ryrie and Walvoord have adjusted their views in subsequent writings. For example, in commenting on the new covenant in a later article, Walvoord states, “A solution to the problem then is that there is one covenant with application to Israel and to the church and to anyone saved by the death of Christ. In Scripture the application of the New covenant is explicitly to the church in the present age and to Israel as a nation in the future as far as millennial blessings are concerned” (“Does the Church Fulfill Israel’s Program?” BSac 137 [July–September 1980]: 219–20). However, in a more recent discussion Walvoord appears to return to his former position. Commenting on the references to the new covenant in the New Testament, Walvoord argues: “In the New Testament, in which the new covenant is related to the church, it is the grace of God as it applies to the church. While none of the major features of the covenant for Israel are repeated, nevertheless the church has a new covenant in contrast to her former estate in Adam, just as Israel has a new covenant in contrast to her former position under the Mosaic covenant….
There is no evidence that the church is ever regarded as fulfilling the many details of the new covenant in the Old Testament relating to Israel” (“The New Covenant,” in Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands: Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell, ed. Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], pp. 198–99). Ryrie has followed a similar pattern. In a later article he argues for one new
ael. Other New Testament passages speak of a second new covenant for the church which, although having some similarities, is separate and distinct from the new covenant for Israel.13 The new covenant for Israel will be fulfilled by Israel in the eschaton; the second new covenant is presently being fulfilled by the church.14
The New Covenant is Exclusively for Israel and Will be Fulfilled by Israel in the Future A view popular among early dispensationalists15 and still found today16 is that the new covenant is exclusively for Israel. Since Israel is covenant in which the church presently participates in a limited fashion and which national Israel fulfills in the eschaton (Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, s.v. “Covenant, New,” by Charles C. Ryrie, 1:392). However, in a more recent discussion Ryrie offers two separate new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, as a viable option (Dispensationalism, pp. 172–74). 13Of the NT passages that address the new covenant, both Ryrie and Walvoord identify Rom 11:26–27; Heb 8:7–13; 10:16–17 as referring to the new covenant for Israel; the other references in the NT address the new covenant for the church (Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 119–24; Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pp. 213–18). 14Commenting on the new covenant in Jer 31:31–34, Chafer notes: “There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a ‘new covenant.’ It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants—one for Israel and one for the Church—are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God’s purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel’s covenant, however, is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church’s covenant is new because it introduces that which is God’s mysterious and unrelated purpose” (Systematic Theology, 7:98–99). 15E.g., J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5 vols. (reprint ed., New York: Loizeaux, 1942), 5:330.
In his discussion on Heb 8:7–13, Darby states, “We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God’s part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter.
The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium.” Commenting on Heb 9:15, Darby adds, “The way in which the apostle always avoids the direct application of the new covenant is very striking” (5:340). Similarly, on Heb 10:15–17 Darby says, “He does not speak of the covenant in a direct way, as a privilege in which Christians had a direct part” (5:360). 16E.g., John R. Master, “The New Covenant,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, ed. Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), p. 108. Similarly, Russell L. Penney, “The Relationship of the Church to the New Covenant,” The Conservative Theological Journal 2 (December 1998): 476–77. Penney specifically notes his agreement with Darby’s position (p. 476).
8 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
the specific designee of the new covenant in the Old Testament, the new covenant provisions will be fulfilled by Israel in the eschaton. Whatever benefits the church presently enjoys that are associated with the new covenant stem not from a direct relationship to the new covenant, but indirectly through the church’s relationship to the mediator of the new covenant, that is, through Jesus Christ.17
But hey, why should I address the OP when you never did with my thread, of which you apparently consider this a continuation. Can't right now, anyway, since my wife is coming to pick me up. Sayonara.
have a nice weekend
