A while back I finished Jason Meyer’s excellent new book The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology (Broadman & Holman). It was there that I first grasped the significance of Paul’s declaration in 2 Cor. 3:6 “who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant“. Meyer argues that Paul was a minister of the new covenant in the same way that he ministered the gospel (see 2 Cor. 4). In other words, the new covenant is intimately related to the gospel. Let me allow Jason Meyer to explain.
…The source of Paul’s competence is not himself… it comes from God… God’s sufficiency surges within God’s new covenant, the base of operations for Paul’s ministry. God’s sufficiency is inherent or intrinsic to His new covenant…. Paul says this new covenant consists “not of the letter, but of the Spirit”….the Spirit defines the new covenant and makes it what it is….
These conclusions should not cause one to miss the semantic and grammatical links between “minister” (diakonos) and “covenant” (diatheke) in v. 6 Porter observed that “minister” (diakon-) words appear throughout the covenantal context of 2 Corinthians 3. The fact that Paul connects the service of his ministry to the concept of covenant is important in determining the relationship between the new covenant and the gospel. Paul presents parallel claims as a servant (diakonos) of the new covenant (kaines diathekes) and a servant (diakonos) of the gospel (euaggeliou). Further evidence emerges in 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 where the new covenant is parallel to “gospel” (euaggelion), especially in light of the repetition of previous themes like “glory” and “veiled”…. (pg. 75-78)
This understanding, that the very gospel Paul preached is connected to the new covenant, fits in with Jesus’ inaugurating the new covenant at the Last Supper. It fits with Hebrews 8 and 10 which apply the new covenant to the believing church of today, not a reconstituted Israel or house of Judah in years to come. The new covenant’s promise of a radical experience of the Spirit, fits with the New Testament’s emphasis on the Spirit’s present role in believers. We are living in the age of the new covenant. It is already here, but it is not yet here in the fullest sense.
Agreed. My only emendation would be the addition of the word just in the phrase, “not [just] a reconstituted Israel or house of Judah in years to come.” Reconstituted Israel belongs (largely, Rom 9-11?) to the “not yet” part of the new covenant promises.
It may belong to the not yet, but it may well not. Have you read Sam Storms’ treatment of Rom. 9-11? I remain open, and I still might see historic premil after all, but check out the comments under the Eph 2 & Dispensationalism conclusion post. Randy brings up a good point about the parable of the Tares….
Thanks for the interaction. You do recognize that many dispensationalists would not allow for an “already” aspect of the new covenant, because Jer. 33 clearly says the new covenant is for Israel only….
“The new covenant’s promise of a radical experience of the Spirit, fits with the New Testament’s emphasis on the Spirit’s present role in believers. We are living in the age of the new covenant. It is already here, but it is not yet here in the fullest sense.”
This last sentence proves to be a tripping point for many of us…the gap between the promise and perceived reality…
That’s where faith comes in. Faith in the promises of God. But yes, that is where difficulties lie….
I haven’t read Storms’ treatment; I’ll have to do that. I did recently listen to the “Evening of Eschatology” event that Bethlehem Seminary did last autumn. And I remember thinking that Storms did the best job of defending his position. But he didn’t get the buy. Give me some time to interact with his work on Romans 9-11.
Regarding Matthew 13 dispensationalists have an eschatological chronology that is robust enough to make good sense of the parable of the tares. I’m sure you remember that we would not generally understand the gathering of the wheat to refer to the rapture.
I’ve thought a lot about the argument from 2 Thessalonians 1. Research papers on 1 Thess 4-5 and on 2 Thess 1 were actually instrumental in solidifying my transition from the historic premill position I had most of the way through Bible college to a pretrib approach. I honestly think that pretrib deals with all those passages best. Though no approach is without its difficulties. I understand 2 Thessalonians 1 to be referring to a complex of related eschatological events–not unlike the familiar Isaiah 61.
I didn’t see anything in Jeremiah 33 that said it was exclusively for Israel. It does say that it is for Israel and Judah and the Levites and the house of David, sure, but I didn’t see anything in that context that ruled out Gentile inclusion. I may be missing something. I am aware of the variety of dispensational answers to this question, but I have found the best solution to be an inaugurated-but-not-yet-consummated new covenant.
Interesting. I understand there are answers, but what is the most natural approach to such passages? The New Testament seems to treat the parousia as a single event not a three-fold spread out 1007 year long thing.
Me thinks you are influenced by progressive dispensationalism to some extent – which is good. I appreciate the “inaugurated-but-not-yet-consummated new covenant” view. There’s just some other things which still push me away from the pre-trib dispensational view.
Appreciate the interaction.
My previous interaction with amillennial and postmillennial folks (mutual friends actually) hit me across the head a number of times for making the “most natural reading” a criterion for good interpretation. I wonder what the most natural reading of Isaiah 61 would be.
I appreciate your irenic tone in this interaction. There’s always more to learn.
Thanks Pittsley. Sorry for not responding sooner. You make a good point. I put a lot of stock in learning from how the NT authors interpret the OT, and I argue that they serve as an example for us. Else we are left to just finding principles and applying scientific approaches to study without much certainty of true conclusions.
I am almost finished with Sailhamer’s The Meaning of the Pentateuch and that book is reshaping a lot of things for me. He argues that the OT itself has a NT flavor to it, and the NT is more like a conclusion of the OT itself rather than an explanation of the OT. Still I find an apostolic hermeneutic helpful. It just appears that the OT authors themselves had a similar bent.
I’m still learning and studying, and appreciate your interaction. I’m currently at a pre-trib, pre-mil church and so I’m thinking through this issue a lot, lately. It’s not a dividing line for me, but it does impact one’s view on a lot of things.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob