On Biblical Covenants (Pastors Talk, Episode 267)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- What covenant is the new covenant replacing? If your answer is the old covenant, what do you mean?
In this episode of Pastors Talk, Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman chat with Bobby Jamieson about the implications of biblical covenants in a local church.
Give at 9marks.org/talk
📚 JOIN OUR BOOK CLUB ON 5/22 📚
www.9marks.org...
Related Resources:
📖 Books:
- Kingdom through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum (www.crossway.o...)
- Covenant and God's Purpose for the World by Tom Schreiner (www.crossway.o...)
📃 Articles:
- How (Not) to Preach the Pentateuchby David King (www.9marks.org...)
- A Progressive Covenantal Perspective: Theonomy and Moses’s Law by Jason DeRouchie (www.9marks.org...)
🎧 Podcast:
- Genesis 15-17: On The Lord’s Covenant Ceremony, Sarah’s Covenant Scheme, and Abraham’s Covenant Sign (www.9marks.org...)
- Exodus 19-20: On Thoughts, Words, Deeds, Deeds, Words, Thoughts (www.9marks.org...)
- 2 Samuel 7: On the Mountain Top of the Old Testament Which Teaches Us, Yet Again, That the Bible Is Amazing ( • 2 Samuel 7: On the Mou... )
📔 Journal:
- A New Christian Authoritarianism? (www.9marks.org...)
Join the 9Marks community:
WEBSITE: www.9marks.org
TWITTER: / 9marks
FACEBOOK: / 9marks
INSTAGRAM: www.instragram...
BOOKSTORE: www.9marks.org...
#9Marks
Helpful discussion brothers, as a new pastor, understanding biblical covenants has been one of my steepest theological learning curves.
Regards how the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic relate to one another, I find the below helpful.
Pg. 97 of Renihan (Mystert of Christ) states "As a covenantal foundation (speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant), we find that in the scriptures subsequent covenants are made with the same parties (Abraham's offspring) in the same kingdom-realm (Canaan) with the same promises (blessed life in Canaan) and with the same precepts (positive laws) and the same penalities (disinheritance). Therefore, what is commonly known as the Old Covenant began with Abraham and ought to be viewed collectively in such a way that the Old Covenant includes the Abrahamic , the Mosaic Covenant, and the Davidic Covenant."
I think this helps remove the confusion of how those 3 covenants relate, and when we see 'Old Covenant' in the NT refering to the Mosaic Covenant (the most extensive of the 3), I take it that it essentially captures all 3 since all 3 were made to the Kingdom of Israel.
brother, the new covenant is also made with Israel (Jer 31:31) so that is not really a distinction. And when the NT says the new covenant makes the first one obsolete/growing old/ready to vanish away (Heb 8:13), I do not believe that includes the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants in that. The new covenant and the Christ "event" are the means to fulfill the promises of those covenants. Abrahamic (everlasting land, people, blessing) and Davidic (Son of God King on the throne of David) covenants are therefore eternal like the new covenant.
@@chrislabrec Wouldn't you say they (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) have both temporal and spiritual (eternal) promises? I would argue (and Renihan does as well) that the temporal promises to Abraham, Moses, David (Israel broadly) were all fulfilled by God within the OT and that the eternal (spiritual) promises were then fulfilled through Christ and made available to all through grace by faith via the New Covenant.
@@jordancda I don't see the promises of the covenants as a dichotomy of temporal and spiritual blessings. Some older dispensationalists thought there was an earthly people of God, the Jews, and a spiritual people of God, the church. Some covenantalists also see that dichotomy. Rather, as embodied souls we enjoy temporal and spiritual blessings as a whole. You can't enjoy one without the other, just like we cannot be only a body or only a soul. They are two sides of the same coin. Abraham won't enjoy one or the other, but both. So will all who are in Christ. Heb 11 says Abraham lived "in the land of promise, as in a foreign land.....was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." You see he knew even while in the land of promise that there was a greater blessing yet to come. He had yet to experience what God was promising to him in his covenant. Heb 11:13 "These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar". All the covenant promises of God are eternal and will be experienced by all of God's people.
@@chrislabrec the land of Canaan was not the new heavens and the new earth. There's a distinction, however you want to articulate it. Gentiles in Christ did not inherit the land of Canaan. Offspring of Abraham who did inherit the land do not inherit the new heavens and the new earth apart from Christ.
@@chrislabrec That's not quite what I was positing. Of course, I agree with you that we all receive both spiritual and temporal blessings from God. My argument is exactly what you reference in Hebrews 11. Abraham and the other "believers" under the old covenant received temporal and earthly blessings from God, but they did not see the object of their faith and source of their salvation. They trusted God and had faith in his promise, but the object of their faith was the (unknown to them) Christ who would be the single offspring (that Brandon references below). They had faith in the promise of His coming that was made to Abraham (the spiritual promises I mentioned) and were saved by their faith in the sure promise. So, the Abrahamic covenant promised and provided temporal promises and blessings (Canaan, fruitfulness, blessing in the land) and also spiritual promises and blessings (a new and better covenant, instituted by Christ, bringing salvation to all by grace through faith).
Thanks, brothers! Appreciate the insights on this. I was just doing some research on communion and the New Covenant's connections to church unity. Lord bless!
“The mosaic covenant needs to be set in its covenantal and redemptive historical context.”
It isn’t simply that the old covenant “failed to work” but a necessary means to highlight and showcase God’s redemptive plan through Christ. Without the law and our failure to obey God through the law, the new covenant wouldn’t be a major highlight. Christ’s atoning work is seemingly less sufficient at first sight, if so. But because of the law and the mosaic covenant, our eyes are now open to see God’s amazing grace, and his wonderful salvation.
amazing teaching and sharing 👏🏽
I can hardly follow the conversation! Had to watch a couple of times. I'm nowhere near as fast, mentally. Anyway, I shared the video with a friend who recently started observing Old Testament feasts and laws, even as a non-Jewish believer, after they joined a small church. Hope its helpful to them. But I don't know if they'll be able to follow along! 😅 If anyone knows resources better suited to the average Christian, I'll gladly take recommendations.
Good discussion. I think something that would help with what they were trying to articulate is recognizing that God made different promises to Abraham.
One promise pertained to his numerous carnal offspring.
The other pertained to his single offspring, the Messiah.
The first promise of the the land was to his numerous offspring and was conditioned upon obedience to Mosaic law (Ex.19:5-8; 23:20-22; Deut 4:1; 6:3, 17-18, 24-25; 7:12; 8:1-2; 11:8, 22-24; 29:13; Jer 11:5). The Cov of Circumcision & the Mosaic did not operate on different bases.
The 2nd promise of the blessing of the nations was only in his single offspring, Jesus (Gal 3, etc). It is conditioned upon union with Christ, which is summarily referred to as "through faith."
Thus in Gal 3, Paul is not contrasting the Abrahamic Cov with the Mosaic Cov. He is contrasting the different Abrahamic promises, which makes much more sense of Gal 3:16. 1st promise was to offsprings plural. 2nd promise was to offspring singular (Gen 22:17a vs 17b-18 cf Gal 3:8 - Check the ESV or Ref Study bible note on 22:17-18). 3:18 is not referring to different kind/types/basis of covenants. "Law" in that verse is not generic "law" but specifically "the law" (the one that came 430 years after). Likewise "promise" is not generic (a principle of inheritance), but specific: "the promise." Which promise? He specified in 3:8. The inheritance of this specific promise does not come through "the law," because it comes through this specific promise of the Christ, and as Paul said in 2:21, "if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose."
Without distinguishing these promises, Jamieson's comments seem to contradict. He said the law did not bring about the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises because it operated on a different basis, but then also said "What it means for them [Israel; Abe's numerous carnal offspring] to participate in Abraham and Covenant is mediated through the law, right? The law defines the terms of their participation in those promises given to Abraham." In other words, the inheritance of the land does come through the law. But I think this distinction between promises is latent in what he said. Making it more clear and explicit would I think help clarify things.
Here's more on this: contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/
The promise to Abraham and his offspring of land was an everlasting promise (Gen 13:14, 17:8). Its fulfillment was unconditional. As Jameison said, the Mosiac Law defined the terms of their participation or enjoyment of that promise. It was based on obedience. Then comes the better covenant, the new covenant that changes the terms of the participation in, or enjoyment of, that promise. Now its based on Jesus' obedience, so all those in Christ, including Abraham and all those with the faith of Abraham will enjoy it. Heb 11 says Abraham lived "in the land of promise, as in a foreign land.....was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God." Abraham enjoyed living in the promised land, but ultimately he was looking forward to the new heavens and new earth, as we all are. The land is part of the "blessing" promise, the reversal of the curse, the exile from eden. You can't separate the different promises and apply them to different people groups.
@@chrislabrec Thanks for the comment. Everlasting needs to be understood contextually. The Levitical priesthood was also everlasting, except that didn't mean indefinitely without end. contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/07/09/everlasting-and-forever/
The fulfillment over the land promise was definitely not unconditional, as Scripture says it was conditioned upon Mosaic law (see the verses I referenced above). Unless you're working with a different definition of unconditional in which conditions are included. Was it guaranteed to happen? Yes. Was it unconditional? No.
No, the New Covenant does not "change the terms of that promise." As Paul said, to change the terms of a covenant once established would be to nullify the covenant (Gal 3:15).
"You can't separate the different promises and apply them to different people groups."
Yes, I believe you can because Scripture does.