In the comments on a recent article I came across, someone made the following statement:
…Then move to something controversial: Zech. 12:10-14 and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In guiding our people responsibly through that passage, we need to wrestle with similar “outpouring” language in the NT, but also with the limited object of the outpouring in Zech. 12:10, “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”
If we leave behind the matter of literalness, who is to say our application isn’t heresy (to quote Haddon Robinson)? Am I, a new covenant believer, in the house of David? Am I an inhabitant of Jerusalem? (I wish)… [emphasis added]
As I was typing up a response to the idea that we are not “new covenant believers”, I thought my answer might make for a good blog post. So I’m sharing my response for your benefit. Do I hit the mark? Does this make sense? I’d love your input after reading my reply below.
I want to challenge this a bit. And I’m just using Ted’s words here it isn’t about him it’s a bigger issue. What John is doing is trying to do justice to the NT teaching which is quite clear on how much continuity there is between God’s people before Christ and afterward. The comments here by the opposing view center only on Zecharaiah mostly.
If we just had Jer. 31, then yes, we aren’t “new covenant believers”, to use Ted’s terms. But the New Testament tells us the new covenant has begun. Jesus said as much in his inauguration of the Lord’s Supper ceremony for the church. “And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, ‘This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.’ ” (Luke 22:20 ESV) Paul tells us that he is a minister of the new covenant:
“Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” (2 Corinthians 3:5-6 ESV)
In context, the ministry of the new covenant is Paul’s ministry of spreading the gospel among the gentiles (4:1 “this ministry”… and 4:3-6 “our gospel”).
Furthermore, Hebrews says the old covenant is passing away and insufficient because the new covenant is here, see chapters 8 and 10 of Hebrews where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is quoted and applied as a current reality.
Not only are we “new covenant believers”, we are inhabitants of “Jerusalem” who is our true mother (see Gal. 4:26, Heb. 12:22) and seek a heavenly city in the same sense that OT believers sought a heavenly (not earthly) city (Heb. 13:14, cf. Heb. 11:13-16).
This NT language means something. The NT description of God’s people being a living temple is something that goes beyond OT realities. Something is happening in the NT and it will affect how we understand the OT. 1 Peter tells us that the OT authors often didn’t know what they were writing of, but were writing for our benefit (1 Pt. 1:10-12). And what happened to the OT saints is a lesson and instruction for us and was written for our encouragement (1 Cor. 10:11, Rom. 15:4).
I believe that following the lead of the NT apostles and Jesus, in how they used OT Scripture and saw that it culminated in Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace, is how best to interpret Scripture. Scripture doesn’t leave us without a hermeneutic. A redemptive-historical hermeneutic aims to follow the teaching of the Bible about itself and to understand how Christ truly sums up all things in His own ministry. He fulfills the Law.
I think John Davis’ last paragraph captures the NT age experience well. The new covenant is here but we aren’t experiencing it in all its fullness quite yet. That may mean a millennium, but it certainly means more than a millennium. Christ will reign and we will live on a restored earth for all eternity.
This post follows on the heels of my recent entry on Gal. 6:16 which I’d encourage you to read, if the thought of the NT depiction of the church in OT terms is new to you. Again, I’m interested in any input you might have regarding this question. Are we, or aren’t we, “new covenant believers”?
Excellent post! I read your comments first at Sharper Iron, then followed you here. You have brilliantly captured essence and provided support in a flowing style–all within a short comment. I am in awe (both positively of the masterful way in which you responded and negatively of the satisfaction some seem to have in remaining in the confines of their hermeneutical box).
Just a clarification– After rereading my comment, I just want to ensure that it is understood that my negative awe was directed toward the confinement of the dispensationalists, not to you! (My ability for clear communication is clearly not so strong as yours.)
Thanks Dan. It’s been a long process of growing in this understanding of Scripture. And I have to praise God for any ability to communicate well. Glad you were blessed by it, and glad you share in the new covenant realities because of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Have a blessed day,
Bob
The first thought that came to mind when reading the question…I sure hope we are, or else we’re in a whole heap of trouble…*; ) Did Jesus have the authority to re-write the old covenant? Did He have the authority to sign the new one? Who IS covered by the new covenant? How might we know for sure?
Uh…rereading this whole thing–were you thinking that Ted was questioning whether we were New Covenant believers? The commas in his question seem to indicate that he acknowledges that he is a New Covenant believer, but wonders whether being so puts him in the house of David. IOW, his question is “Am I, who happens to be a New Covenant believer, in the house of David?” That’s the way it was understood, right? Just wondering now based on your title.
The answer to Ted’s question is still yes. Through adoption into Christ we are of David’s house as much as Abraham is our father.
Dan,
I took it that he was questioning we are new covenant believers. Some dispys do that. I may have been wrong though.
Bob,
It boggles my mind that any Bible student would question whether we, who are justified by believing in Jesus, are “New Covenant Believers.” What else could we be? And yet I know, from past conversations with strong classic dispensationalists, that some do question this assertion. The problem seems to be that they are forced to posit two new covenants, one for Israel, and another for the church. DT demands that they deny that the NT church inherits the New Covanent promised in Jer. 31:31-34, since it is made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
This is one of the texts that forced me to concede that the church IS “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” since Hebrews 8:6-13 makes crystal clear that this promise is fulfilled in the church. Incidently, this same Jeremiah text presents serious problems for CT of the pedo-baptist variety.
Your post on SI was clear and insightful. Thanks!
Warm regards,
Greg
Thanks Greg. I think you and I took it the same that he was questioning the new covenant aspect being applied to believers.
I just left a question for the fellow at the SI thread to see if I was misreading him or not. Thanks for bringing that up, Dan. I’d hate to be reading him wrong.
Here is what the reply was:
Wow! I just double clicked your Zech. ref above and was taken to biblia.com. I had been wanting RefTagger, but had never taken the time to follow the link. I will definitely be using their site. I have long been a fan of Bible Gateway and now I will use Biblia as well.
This morning at church we had Patrick Klein from Vision Beyond Borders. He was reporting on the dangers of owning or having a Bible in your possession in muslim dominated countries and speaking about a recent trip to Iran. It occurred to me that this is exactly the mission that sites such as the ones mentioned above are engaged in…Distribution of the Word of God around the world and across many borders. “Blogging the Gospel” on sights such as yours and others is another form of mission outreach to these same people…albeit the audience would be more tech savvy. When we blog about American living and life style with the gospel message thrown in, in good measure, we have created shall we say a safe haven for biblical knowledge to be transfered to the muslim culture without endangering the inquiring mind…
Good point, Nancy. You are correct, a good reason to keep blogging for the Lord.
Ted’s response uses very slippery language. He and other dispensationalists believe we are engrafted into Israel’s ‘spiritual’ blessings, but not Israel, nor Israel physical blessings. They, in essence ‘spiritualize’ the Abrahamic covenant.
This view may eventually lead one to deny the substitutionary nature of Christ.
This is a debate that I have much to say on, but I tend to be overly emotion in my responses, as I’ve experienced a lot of harsh treatment from the other side. Bob, I appreciate the way you and John (and others) argue your points from Scripture – I think a casual observer would note that you are not defending an emotionally held tradition, but rather trying, earnestly, to understand God’s Word.
I hope the discussion continues and bears much fruit.
Thanks Andrew.
Andrew,
Let me add my “amen” to your comments. I, too, tend to get more heated than I should. I, too, have benefited from reading the approach of Bob and John.
Blessings,
Greg Barkman
Pastor Barkman -
It was your kind reminder on another post on this blog that reminded me that I’m not showing Christian charity in the way I form my responses. I thank you for that.
Andrew
Bob,
Good article, but I disagree (as the token dispensationalist). I do not believe that the NC is currently inaugurated (BTY, it is improper to speak of covenants being inaugurated – or even partially inaugurated. They in fact are “cut” – signed, as contracts) or cut. We know some very specific things about the New Covenant within the pages of the OT. We know that it is with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah.” We know that the covenant will be cut in the wilderness. We know that the covenant will be cut when Israel passes under the rod. We know that the covenant is associated with physical restoration of Israel to the land – with all of the blessings associated with the covenant. We know that the NC is a bilateral covenant between Israel and the davidic King (as opposed to a unilateral covenant – both parties swear the oath). There are references to all of these (I didn’t have time to grab and post them all, if you want them I can do that later). Thus, I only need to explain the NT passages in light of the Old (which is possibly done in keeping a consistent system).
Andrew,
I would say that a proper dispensational understanding of the Abrahamic covenant includes the Gentiles – the Gentiles are in fact listed within the blessings and provisions of the covenant – they are listed as receiving the blessing of the seed – a point which Paul picks up in Galatians.
Brother Watson -
Thank you for that acknowledgement regarding the seed of Abraham. Some of the folks in the debate at SI have denied that very point when I have interacted with them in other places.
May I ask how you interpret Christ’s words regarding the New Covenant, i.e., ‘this cup is the new covenant in my blood.’ How do you handle, say Hebrews 8-12, or Paul’s use of the new covenant in 2 Cor 3:6?
As I stated, I have to deal with the NT texts:
1. Lord’s Supper – the bloody death of Christ as displayed by the cup in the Lord’s Supper is the basis on which the New Covenant is built and is possible, it does not declare the cutting of the covenant. Covenants are enacted and cut by the swearing of an oath, even if they are accompanied by a feast (There is a book in progress by RBP between three-four dispensational scholars dealing with the issue of the NC – my ThD advisor is one of them – this is the position he teaches).
2. Hebrews – Hebrews 8 quotes Jeremiah for a specific reason – to show that by “declaring the New Covenant” the “Old Covenant” became obsolete. As soon as Apple announced IPhone 3, IPhone 2 became obsolete.
3. 2 Cor 3:6ff – New Covenant is anarthrous, Paul is likening his ministry to a ministry like the New Covenant – playing on words like “tables of stone” and “tables of flesh.” He is using methods of argumentation common within 2nd Temple Jewish thought – arguments from analogies.
The difference between Bob and I (and possibly you Andrew) is a question of hermeneutics – can the OT stand on its own with what it says, or can/does the NT add/change/reinterpret/find deeper meaning/replace/supplement/supplant (I won’t put this term in your mouth)to the OT? I would argue that the OT can be understood on its own, and that the NT is understood in light of the Old. I’m guessing that you would have some kind of canonical/complementary hermeneutic.
The prequel and sequel…the OT stands on it’s own, but it is always pointing us to the future…The NT tells us that that future is here in and though the very Blood that sealed and made the NC possible! The OT leaves us incomplete and wanting more…the NT tells us…”It is finished!”
If we try to stand alone on either…we just don’t quite “get it”.
Dear CA Watson,
Isn’t trying to understand the NT in light of the OT backwards? 1) Progressive revelation requires the reverse. 2) NT Scripture states the reverse. (I Peter 1:10-12, Romans 16:25,26, etc.) 3) Logic requires that the later revelation explain the former, not vise versa.
Blessings,
Greg
GN Barkman,
I would say, no.
1. I would understand progressive revelation means that we gain more revelation in quantity, not that the revelation increases in quality (contra Waltke et al)
2. I don’t think that you have correctly pointed out what the texts say in those references – the prophets in 1 Peter 1 were looking forward to the suffering and glorification of the Messiah, not understanding latter revelation based upon the former. The second verse all depends on how you understand “mystery.” Either a mystery is something not previously revealed (dispensationalism) or something hidden in older texts (PD/CT).
3. Please demonstrate your logic. Is it not logical to begin reading at the beginning of a book? If you read a textbook on corporate finance, and the book explains to you what Present Value means in chapter 2, and PV comes up again in a later equation, shouldn’t you understand the PV in the current equation on the basis of what you learned PV to mean in ch 2? The same concept exists in biblical studies – with concepts such as Kingdom, NC, Messiah, Israel, etc.
But we’re reading a Story, Chris. Earlier events don’t make sense until the plot twist is unveiled at the end, then all the seemingly disparate and loose ends of the story’s fabric get tightly, and satisfyingly woven together at the end. Earlier events make sense now when you have the key. The NT purports to be the interpretive key to the OT. I take the NT at face value.
3. 2 Cor 3:6ff – New Covenant is anarthrous, Paul is likening his ministry to a ministry like the New Covenant – playing on words like “tables of stone†and “tables of flesh.†He is using methods of argumentation common within 2nd Temple Jewish thought – arguments from analogies.
Have you read Jason Meyer’s The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology? He shows how repeatedly Paul contrasts the current age over and against the previous one in a new covenant-is-here kind of way. The antitheseis between the ages is bigtime Pauline theology, in light of that the reference to his ministry of the new covenant makes total sense.
CA Watson,
I think you have crystalized the heart of the difference between dispensationalism, and those approaches that fit more broadly under the label of Covenant Theology.
Namely, does one begin with the OT, and lock in his interpretation of the OT before he comes to the NT, or does one hold his initial understanding of the OT more loosely, and allow the NT to aid his understanding of the OT?
My own preaching, predominently in the NT, led me to the second approach. I kept bumping into NT writers who quoated OT texts and interpreted and applied them differently than my previous understanding when I only considered the OT. I gradually realized that inspired authors had much to teach me about the meaning of the OT, and I finally began to pay more attention to what they said. Instead of taking my OT interpretation to the NT, and forcing my interpretation of the NT to fit my previous understanding of the OT, I began to revisit the OT in the light of the new illumination granted by NT authors. After all, they were inspired, and I am not. Their understanding of the OT trumps mine, and trumps every other non-inspired author, no matter how respected and learned he may be.
That’s what led me away from DT and toward CT. It was not something I was looking for, or planned nor wanted to do. Far from it, it was something I was forced into by the NT.
Thanks for making the differences between these two approaches so clear.
Warm regards,
Greg
Bob,
I realize that we are reading a story – the Old Testament (indeed the entire text) is a story about a Kingdom – which existed in time, space, and history on this earth, a kingdom which was essentially destroyed and lost. A kingdom which was offered by the king, when rejected, the king left. A kingdom which next time will not be offered but forced upon the earth (however, I do hold a Cullmanian perspective of history on top of the Dispensational perspective – just without a present Kingdom or NC). Such was the view of the Kingdom (and with some, the NC) of John Nelson Darby and Alva J. McClain. I recommend “The Greatness of the Kingdom” if you haven’t read it.
I have read Meyers book – and he is simply another voice in the evangelical NT scholarly consensus (for the most part) on the inaugurated eschatology (our NT prof holds to the consensus – so I’ve heard the argument a dozen times). There are still a few dispensationalists who don’t hold to it, however. I realize that my position is defensible, but in the minority.
Allow me to recommend this page for your edification – dispensationalists thinking out loud about the NC https://www.bbc.edu/council/related_materials.asp (some of these are the basis of the book I was telling you about). See especially the papers by Roy Beacham and George Gunn.
Interesting, Chris. Given the history of church interpretation prior to Darby and McClain, and the near consensus even among dispensationalists (think progressives and many normative/revised dispensationalists who disagree on this point) today regarding this point, I am comfortable in keeping the reading I have of the NT as declaring an inaugarated eschatology and the kingdom being here but not yet. I don’t see a kingdom offer/rejection motif being very convincing in the Gospels at all. That being said, let me know when that book is published and I’ll try to read and review it.
Sorry about your comment, it somehow made it to the spam bin. I rescued it….
The thing that always hits me smack in the middle of this NT / OT what-interprets-what discussion is God’s activity in relation to sin. What reason does the OT give for God passing over sin w/o judgment? Seems that if I’m reading the OT alone I’m lost in seeming inconsistency. But when I read Romans 3 and especially verse 25, I learn God’s righteous working through the whole of the past. Thank God we can understand the Old because of the New!
Thanks Dan. We truly are blessed to have the whole corpus of revelation.
A good householder will bring things out of his treasure things both old and new. I think both testaments are complimentary to one another, and without the other it would be difficult to understand either.
agreed