Here is the first of a set of links to some TELOS video teachings on my position on the New Covenant. As I see it, this is the heart of Biblical Covenantalism. I hope you will watch all five videos in the series, which, as it happens, is part of a larger series entitled ‘The Covenant Program’:
TELOS Videos on the New Covenant
6 comments On TELOS Videos on the New Covenant
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Paul:
Thanks for the concise videos on Biblical Covenantalism and particularly the new covenant. I am appreciative of the references to Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 as a prophecy of the Servant (the Messiah) being given by the LORD “as a covenant to the people.” (NKJV). I am writing a study of Isaiah and will adjust my comments on these verses to include a more exact understanding as to Christ as the new covenant in contrast to Christ as the mediator of the new covenant, but are these the same thing? I have another question: How does Christ as the new covenant impact Jews who believe in Christ for salvation – does this mean they are fully participating in the new covenant now – or will this complete fulfillment need to wait for the messianic kingdom to come? Implied in this question is another: – Do members of the body of Christ completely participate in the new covenant now? This may seem like I should really know the answer but I am seeking to be precise. I am of the strong opinion that new covenant “theology” should not be equated with the messianic kingdom to come. They are two different issues and need to be accurately understood and explained as different issues. However, all who will participate in the messianic kingdom will have participated in the new covenant – through the shed blood of Christ and perhaps more accurately through belief in the accomplishment of the shed blood of Christ – which can be simplified by stating through believing in the Son of God for salvation.
Ray,
Since I hold that Christ IS the incarnation of the New covenant I say that any and every person, no matter which people-group they belong to,is connected to it because they are connected to Him (although perhaps in differing ways). So because the church is “In Christ” it fully participates in the New covenant, but it doesn’t participate in all the elements of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. Recall that a major plank of my argument is that the New covenant is the way all the other unilateral covenants are brought to literal completion.
Does that help?
P
Paul
This is a very helpful response. This is an area of biblical theology that I am still learning and seeking to be precise in my understanding. Your teaching on Biblical Covenantalism is extremely welcome as it helps to clarify many of the issues that I have been seeking to improve my understanding. Thanks for your patience as I work though this topic. It seems that this is an issue that is not clarified (at least to my satisfaction) in many of the theological works that I have consulted. You are a brilliant light shining through some very dark clouds!
Dear Brother Henebury,
Since you think that those in the Body of Christ participate in Israel’s New Covenant then do you believe that Lewis Sperry Chafer was in error when he said that the Body of Christ is an intercalation in the Divine purpose toward Israel and has no relationship, either directly or indirectly, to that purpose?:
“But for the Church intercalation — which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation” (Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology [Dallas: Dallas Seminary, 1948] 4:41; 5:348-349).
Thanks!
I see the Church as one of three tracks which God preordained for the completion of His triadic plan for the peoples of God. Just as Israel was “a new thing” in history, so the Church was “a new man” in history. I would not be happy therefore, with Chafer’s dichotomy. Although the Church and Israel must be kept separate as entities, both are within the one plan of God.
I don’t know if that addresses your question. More of my view is found in this series: https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/christ-at-the-center-conclusion-pt-7b/