It has been stated in some of the recent discussion that, although the covenant may have been an important way in which God dealt with his people in the past, the coming of Christ has rendered the arrangement somewhat less relevant. The suggestion seems to be that, even though “covenant” is a biblical term, the concept has very little to do with the work of Christ; or perhaps, if it is somehow connected with Christ, it is really not all that pertinent to our salvation. I would suggest, on the contrary, that Christ has everything to do with God’s covenants, past and present, and that the New Covenant especially is a very important part of the salvation we have in Christ.
I pass over, for now, a discussion of Christ’s relationship to the former covenants made in the Old Testament. Many volumes have been written, and many more could still be written, on how Jesus is the focal point of God’s covenants made with Abraham, with
First of all, the establishment of the New Covenant was one of the primary purposes for which Christ shed his blood on the cross. We see this from the first celebration of the Lord’s Supper in which Jesus referred to the cup as “my blood of the covenant” (Mt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24) and as “the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:21; I Cor. 11:24). Hebrews also tells us that the reason Christ had to die was that the New Covenant could not have been put into effect without the shedding of his blood (Hb. 8:16-17). The New Covenant, then, is a work initiated and inaugurated by Christ, particularly through his death.
Second, the New Covenant is a work that continues to be mediated by Christ (Heb. 8:6). It is an arrangement that he perpetually guarantees and administrates (Heb 7:22). It is through this covenant that he continually intercedes for the saints before God (Heb 7:25). The New Covenant, then, is the work of Christ from beginning to end, he being both its founder and perfecter (12:2). It is founded upon his sacrificial death and perfected through his heavenly intercession. The covenant, then, far from being an atrifact with which Christ did away, is an arrangement which he died to ratify and a relationship that he lives again to mediate.
The importance of this covenant becomes even clearer when we look at the specific aspects of our salvation that are provided through it. It is through this covenant in Christ that our sins have been forgiven (Mt. 26:28; Rom. 11:27; Heb 8:12; 9:15, 22). It is through this covenant in Christ that God has become our God and we have become his people (Heb 8:11). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are able to draw near to God (Heb 7:25). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are sanctified (Heb 10:29). It is through this covenant in Christ that God’s laws have been put into our minds and written upon our hearts (Heb 8:11). It is through this covenant in Christ that our consciences have been purified to serve God (Heb 9:14). It is through this covenant in Christ that we are to receive our promised eternal inheritance (Heb 9:15) In short, it is through this covenant in Christ that we are saved (Heb 7:25).
Why would it be, then, in light of all these things, that someone would think that covenants are merely Old Testament arrangements which Christ set aside at his coming? How could someone say that after the death of Christ, we are no longer saved by covenants? If we are saved by something other than God’s covenant, then certainly, we are saved by something other than the work of Christ-- the scriptures will not allow the two to be separated. God thought that this covenant was worth the blood of his Son; certainly it is worth more attention than evangelicals tend to give it.
15 comments:
We partake of the New Covenant as aliens grafted into the vine. We are adopted into the household by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ.
Saved by a covenant? Ok, I guess that's like saying we are saved by a hammer and three nails, but I don't lift that up higher than need be.
I think it's a bit dangerous to get all your data from the one letter. Hebrews is written to Hebrews. Now, it's all God's word and it's all profitable (settle down everyone), but I read the book as mainly an explanation of all the rich and deep Israelite heritage (Rom 9:4-5) being fulfilled in Christ. Of course it's going to focus on covenants.
How can an alien/stranger to all that heritage appreciate the depth and richness of something not previously promised to him? I can't, I don't have that heritage, I'm not a Hebrew. How can I understand something "better" if I never had anything to compare?
I'm probably off topic, way off track - I just don't think we are somehow retroactively plugged into all that Jewish heritage. And neither are our kids.
I readily admit, I could be a bit of an oikonomiac.
As I was the one that made the comment that the work of Christ changed things (which I still stand behind) I feel I should respond;-)
When I made the comment that Christ changed everything I was speaking in the manner in which someone is saved. I somewhat agree with Fisher that we are saved by the covenants in the sense of God keeping His covenants, but that is not the point to the story. The only thing I would add to that is that the covenants are something we are saved into by the work of Christ - if it wasn't for His work you would never be a part of the covenant. The point of the story is Christ. By putting the work of Christ on the same level as the covenants (which are important) you are making Christ the means to end - and He is not, He is the end of the story.
Christ fulfilled the law and everyone from John the Baptist through Christ and the Apostles preached Christ and Him Crucified, not covenants. By putting the salvatory work of Christ on the same level as being in the covenants, you lessen the work of Christ. I know you just spent a blog saying they are the same, but in my opinion we should never put anything on the same level of the work of Christ.
To exalt and magnify the person and work of Christ has been, in this discussion, my primary goal. My main point all along has been that Christ’s work has accomplished, not less, but much more than most Christians realize.
I believe, for example, that by his death on the cross, Christ has accomplished precisely, Josh, what you have denied: he has in fact taken believing gentiles and plugged them retroactively into all that heritage of the Jews, so that their God has also become our God, their fathers have also become our fathers, their scriptures have also become our scriptures (even the book of Hebrews), their history has also become our history, their promises have also become our promises, and yes, their covenants have also become our covenants.
To find, Matt, that by saying as much, and by emphasizing along with Christ the covenantal nature of his work, I am perceived to lessen that work, is more than befuddling; it is sincerely grieving. I shall attempt, however, to answer each of your observations in turn.
Let me address your comments first, Josh:
We partake of the New Covenant as aliens grafted into the vine. We are adopted into the household by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ.
Absolutely.
Saved by a covenant? Ok, I guess that's like saying we are saved by a hammer and three nails, but I don't lift that up higher than need be.
If the scriptures described us as receiving as many saving benefits through the hammer and nails as they specifically do through the covenant (even if it were mainly in one book of the Bible), I could have an easier time seeing the similarities between the two statements. You’re right, we shouldn’t lift the covenantal nature of Christ’s work higher than need be; I do think, however, that we should lift it up at least as high as the scriptures do.
I think it's a bit dangerous to get all your data from the one letter. Hebrews is written to Hebrews. Now, it's all God's word and it's all profitable (settle down everyone), but I read the book as mainly an explanation of all the rich and deep Israelite heritage (Rom 9:4-5) being fulfilled in Christ. Of course it's going to focus on covenants.
First of all, I know you read my whole post and therefore saw that I didn’t get all of my data from one letter; nevertheless, you’re point is well taken: the passages were mostly from the book of Hebrews. I do not, however, see how it could be dangerous, in attempting to explain the work of Christ, to rely so heavily on one of the most specifically Christ-exalting portions of scripture.
You seem to suggest that Christ’s work is described in this letter in such clear covenantal terms merely to help the Jewish audience better appreciate it. Couldn’t it be that he describes it that way because that’s really the way it is?
How can an alien/stranger to all that heritage appreciate the depth and richness of something not previously promised to him? I can't, I don't have that heritage, I'm not a Hebrew. How can I understand something "better" if I never had anything to compare?
Yes. It is truly difficult to appreciate our biblical heritage. It is especially difficult for those of us who have been told for our entire spiritual lives that (despite our continual spinning around to “Father Abraham”) the Old Testament has little to nothing to do with us.
I'm probably off topic, way off track - I just don't think we are somehow retroactively plugged into all that Jewish heritage. And neither are our kids.
Quite the contrary. I believe you have precisely nailed the issue. This is, in fact, the primary difference between us.
I readily admit, I could be a bit of an oikonomiac.
There are worse things to be, for sure.
Now for you, Mr. McGriff,
When I made the comment that Christ changed everything I was speaking in the manner in which someone is saved.
I’m wondering, based on past conversations we’ve had, if you really meant what you said here. Do you really think Christ changed the manner in which someone is saved? If so, in what way?
I somewhat agree with Fisher that we are saved by the covenants in the sense of God keeping His covenants...
I agree as well. I also think we are additionally saved by the covenant in precisely the ways in which Hebrews describes. If you think that I have used these passages improperly, please tell me how.
…but that is not the point to the story. The point of the story is Christ. By putting the work of Christ on the same level as the covenants (which are important) you are making Christ the means to end - and He is not, He is the end of the story… I know you just spent a blog saying they are the same, but in my opinion we should never put anything on the same level of the work of Christ
I honestly don’t know what to say to this. It is true: I believe, as the scriptures plainly say, that inaugurating and mediating the New Covenant is the work of Christ. I certainly cannot see any problem in putting the work of Christ on the same level as the work of Christ. Nor do I see how it misses the point of the story of Christ to focus on the work Christ came to do. Perhaps you can help me understand your meaning a little better.
Brad,
These are the kind of 'emerging conversations' I enjoy ;-)
If I made you think that I believed people where ever saved apart from Christ then that is my poor communication skills. For it says in Heb 11:26 that Moses considered the reproach of Christ greater then treasures of Egypt.
We just see other things differently. When I read the Bible through I see repentance and trust in Christ stressed more then covenants after His work was completed. That's not dispensationalism, that's my simple understanding.
Very well, brother. Hopefully, over time and with God's help, we can all grow to see things less differently. That is, after all, Christ's goal for his people. (Eph 4:13)
Now that is something we agree on brother! I have to believe that our Lord will cause us both to grow and see things less differently. I have seen it happen with me and fisher and I am sure it will happen with us.
I always enjoy how much you make me think.
I agree, these discussions are incredibly edifying and challenging.
And if we don't get it figured out in this life, we will after this dispensation of grace (6th of 7) is over when the secret rapture happens and we all mysteriously disappear (along with my credit card debt) and the way up we can marvel at Israel rebuilding the temple and reinstitution of the Law for salvation. This is assuming we don't get hit with helicopters coming out of the pit.
Don't try to disect that one. It's airtight. My tongue-speaking Grandma said so.
Genius, Fish. This whole discussion was worth those last nine lines.
off topic (but only slightly) i thought you would find this quote interesting, for i think it destroys a bit of the characature placed on a premillennial view:
the mediatorial reign of Christ is not limited to this precise measure of time. the record specifically states that this measure applies to the reign of the saints: "They...shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev 20:6). in a very real sense, the mediatorial reign of Christ Himself may be said to begin de jure with His judicial work from heaven, as suggested by the announcement in 11:16--"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of the Lord, and of His Christ." and not only so, but His mediatorial reign extends beyond the end of the thousand years. "For he must reign," paul writes, "till he hath put all enemies under his feet." The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (I Cor 15:25-26). And the destruction of death is beyond the end of the thousand years (Rev 20:7,14)
--Alva J McClain
A Saint in Glory Stands
"Excerpts from classroom, pulpit and writings"
Danny,
Very interesting indeed, especially this statement:
the record specifically states that this measure applies to the reign of the saints: "They...shall reign with him a thousand years" (Rev 20:6).
The problem, from my humble point of view, is that this observation does not go nearly far enough. The measure does not, according to a literal reading of the text, apply to the saints in general, but only to those who are beheaded in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 20:4) The rest of the dead, that is, everyone else, do not come to life until the thousand years are ended.
In other words, a consistent literal interpretation of this passage demands the conclusion that this resurrection and reign is one in which no one, no one, no one, but tribulation martyrs take part.
I have yet to meet a premillenialist who adequately takes this fact into account. I would be most delighted to hear how you might do so.
Think of the question this way: How can the bodily return of Christ (or the rapture for that matter) at which all the saints will be raised, take place before the millennial period when the scriptures expressly say that all but tribulation martyrs will be raised only after that period has ended?
Oh, one more thing. If you should say, perhaps, that the bodily return of Christ or the rapture take place before this resurrection, in what sense can the resurrection and reign of the tribulation martyrs be called, as it is, the "first" resurrection? (Rev. 20:6) How many resurrections of the saints can there be before the first resurretion?
>>I have yet to meet a premillenialist who adequately takes this fact into account.<<
Methinks you have met one.
Perhaps you're right; I'll rephrase:
"I have yet to hear a premillennial explanation of this fact that I have been able to understand."
Post a Comment