sound of grace, issue 182, nov-2011

8/2/2019 Sound of Grace, Issue 182, Nov-2011

1/20

that might follow.2 This is a duty-based ethic. The main

advocate for this approach was Immanuel Kant (1724-

1804).

Teleological theories include consequentialism andutilitarianism. What is morally good or bad is determined

by the end it brings about. Michael Hill writes, A teleo-

logical ethic gives accounts of why actions are morally

right or wrong in terms of the goals envisaged.3 This is a

results-based ethic. Popular advocates include Jeremy

Bentham, J.S. Mill, and G.E. Moore.

2 Michael Hill, The How and Why of Love (Australia: Matthias

Media, 2002), 25.

3 Hill, The How and Why of Love, 26.

Let me clearly state my millennial position at the very beginning of this ar-

ticle. I am not a premillennialist, an amillennialist, or a postmillennialist. I am amillennial agnostic. I honestly do not know what to believe about a millennium.In one sense, I am an existential millennialist, since I am unsure if an objectiveviewpoint exists, and even if it does, I am by no means certain that I can accessit. I have no hope offinding the final answer. Let me explain.

1. Most Premillenialist requires an earthly, Jewish kingdom that lasts one thousand years (a literal millennium).1 Ifthis kingdom fails to materialize, God has broken his covenant with Abraham, because part of that covenant includeda Promised Land. An earthly kingdom requires an actual place, capable of being located on a map. At the risk of over-simplifying, the minimal requirement for premillennialism is one thousand years of Jewish rule in the physical PromisedLand. If this is an accurate account of premillennialism, then I cannot be a Premil. I see no necessity for a millenniumof earthly rule to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies concerning an everlasting kingdom. It seems to me that the

1 I say most because men like Dr. Don Carson would be a Premillenialist but would not be a Dispensationalist.

It is good fo r the heart to be stre ngthened by grace Hebrews 13:9

New Covenant Theology and

Prophecy Part 1

John G. Reisinger

G RS O U N D O F

A EC

Schools of Ethics

Historically, there have been three schools of ethics:

deontological, teleological, and virtue ethics.

Deontological ethics considers an act right or wrongbecause it should be done. This could be because it keeps

a promise, it is just, or because God commands it.1 As

Michael Hill writes, Deontological theories argue that

there are certain features of actions like murder or adultery

that make them right or wrong, and therefore binds people

to do them (or not). All deontological theories agree that

people ought to do the right thing simply because it is

right, and not because of any consequences or outcomes

1 John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg,Ethics for a Brave New

World 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 35.

Christian Ethics

A. Blake White

ReisingerContinued on page 2

WhiteContinued on page 12

In This Issue

New Covenant Theology andProphecyPart 1

John G. Reisinger1

Christian EthicsA. Blake White

1

The Vital Message of Jude for theTwenty-First Century 3 of 3

Steve West

3

The Time of Reformation 3 of 3A 'New Covenant Theology'Exposition of Hebrews 9

Stan F. Vaninger

5


2/20

Page 2 November 2011 Issue 182Sound of Grace is a publication of SovereignGrace New Covenant Ministries, a tax exempt501(c)3 corporation. Contributions to Sound ofGrace are deductible under section 170 of theCode.

Sound of Grace is published 10 times a year.The subscription price is shown below. This isa paper unashamedly committed to the truthof Gods sovereign grace and New CovenantTheology. We invite all who love these sametruths to pray for us and help us financially.

We do not take any paid advertising.

The use of an article by a particular person isnot an endorsement of all that person believes,but it merely means that we thought that aparticular article was worthy of printing.

Sound of Grace Board: John G. Reisinger,John Thorhauer, Bob VanWingerden andJacob Moseley.

Editor: John G. Reisinger; Phone: (585)396-3385; e-mail: [email protected].

Webmaster: Maurice Bergeron:[email protected]

General Manager: Jacob Moseley:[email protected]

Send all orders and all subscriptions to: Soundof Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive, Frederick,MD 21703-6938 Phone 800-376-4146 or301-473-8781 Fax 240-206-0373. Visit thebookstore: http://www.newcovenantmedia.com

Address all editorial material and questionsto: John G. Reisinger, 3302 County Road 16,Canandaigua, NY 14424-2441.

Scripture quotations marked (NIV) are takenfrom the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONALVERSION Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 byInternational Bible Society. Used by Permis-

sion. All rights reserved.Scripture quotations marked NKJV are takenfrom the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by Permis-sion. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked (ESV) are fromThe Holy Bible, English Standard Version,copyright 2001 by Crossway Bibles, adivision of Good News Publishers. Used bypermission. All rights reserved.

ContributionsOrders

Discover, MasterCard or VISA

If you wish to make a tax-deductible contribu-

tion to Sound of Grace, please mail a checkto: Sound of Grace, 5317 Wye Creek Drive,Frederick, MD 21703-6938.

Please check the mailing label to find theexpiration of your subscription. Please sendpayment if you want your subscription to con-tinue$20.00 for ten issues. Or if you wouldprefer to have a pdf file emailed, that is avail-able for $10.00 for ten issues. If you are unableto subscribe at this time, please call or drop anote in the mail and we will be glad to continuesending Sound of Grace free of charge.

ReisingerContinued from page 1


hermeneutic that produces this view isflawed. If we insist on a rigid literal-ism in this matter, then one thousandyears of rule does not qualify aseverlasting. In the light of forever,one thousand years is a tiny fraction.

Furthermore, if we posit an everlast-ing kingdom that is marked by certaingeographic boundaries on this planetas it presently exists, then we precludethe possibility of a literal new earth.Here is a typical Premil statement.

In order for God to keep His prom-ises to Israel and His covenant withDavid (2 Samuel 7:8-16, 23:5; Psalm89:3-4), there must be a literal, physi-cal kingdom on this earth. To doubtthis is to call into question Gods de-sire and/or ability to keep His prom-ises, and this opens up a host of othertheological problems. For example, ifGod would renege on His promises toIsrael after proclaiming those prom-ises to be everlasting, how couldwe be sure of anything He promises,including the promises of salvation tobelievers in the Lord Jesus? The onlysolution is to take Him at His wordand understand that His promises willbe literally fulfilled.2

2. Amillennialism, as I understand

it, requires that there is no earthlyJewish kingdom that lasts for onethousand years (a literal millennium).If this is an accurate understanding ofa millennialism, then I cannot be anAmil. Where is there a Scripture textthat says there cannot be an earthlyJewish kingdom that lasts for onethousand years? The belief that thereis no necessity for a thousand-yearearthly kingdom and the belief thatthe Bible teaches that there will be no

such thingaretwo different beliefs.I feel the same way about an earthlymillennium that I do about the gift oftongues. I see no reason for the revivalof the gift of tongues and I do not seea biblical reason to believe that sucha revival will occur. However, I alsohave no text of Scripture that specifi-cally states that tongues will notberevived. Again, I think the hermeneu-

2 http://www.gotquestions.org/amillen-

nialism.html

tic that produces this view is flawed.

3. Postmillennialism, as I under-stand it, requires a millennial reign ofrighteousness resulting from either agradual conversion of the world, or alatter-day revival that converts theworld. If this understanding is accu-

rate, then I cannot be a Postmil. I donot find such a tenet in Scripture, andI believe this position, like the others,comes from a flawed hermeneutic.

As is often the case in theologicaldiscussions, the conversation aboutprophecy is complicated in twoways: through the use of non-biblicalterminology and through carelessdefinition of the biblical terms that areused. Few people realize that the OldTestament contains no references atall to a millennial reign of the Mes-siah. The New Testament containsonly six references, all within a singlepassageRevelation 20:2-6. If wewere to eliminate Revelation 20:2-6from the conversation, we would haveno reference point for a millennium,and thus no millennial views, yet wecould retain and meaningfully discussthe multiple Old Testament referencesto an eternal kingdom. In other words,some of the Old Testament writ-

ers referred frequently to a comingeternalkingdom, but none of themever mention a millennial (thousand-year) kingdom. As I pointed outearlier, a millennialkingdom is not thesame thing as an eternalkingdom. Athousand-year kingdom cannot fulfillthe promise of an eternal kingdom.We must not equate the millenniumand the eternal kingdom and allow sixverses in Revelation 20 to frame ourunderstanding of the promised eternal

kingdom of God.

When I was in Bible school, overfifty years ago, the predominant theo-logical trend was to treat the wordskingdom and millennium as inter-changeable. The wordpremillennialmeantpre-kingdom. It meant that thereturn of Christ was prior to the es-tablishment of the kingdom that Godhad promised to Abraham and the


3/20

Issue 182 November 2011 Page 3

love and Christs mercy (v. 21), all

because of Gods gracious love and

call (v. 1).

Even though there is an absolute

polarization between these two camps

nobody knows when God will call a

lost sinner to salvation or who he will

redeem. Although it may have been

tempting for the church to condemn

everyone who seemed the least bit

suspect, Jude advocates a differentcourse of action. In fact, what Jude

says seems somewhat out of step

with the harsh language used so far in

this epistle. But this is very instruc-

tive for us: Jude neither soft-pedals

around sin and false teachers, nor

indiscriminately runs over everyone

he deems less holy than himself. He

recognizes that in the midst of all this

spiritual warfare there are likely to be

casualties, and some of Gods chil-

dren may be fooled in various degreesfor various periods of time. Rather

than blasting the weak, Jude says that

believers need to be merciful to those

who doubt (v. 22).

There is some question concern-

ing exactly what type of people Jude

is referring to in this verse. In the first

place, this is one of the few places

in the New Testament where textual

critics are really unsure which textual

variant is original. Jude 22-23 simplyencapsulates a very difficult textual

problem. Second, there is a debate

concerning the meaning of the word

the NIV translates as doubt. The

word refers to dispute and is often

used when different parties are disput-

ing or quarrelling with each other.

Green takes this as the most natural

meaning of the word and argues that

WestContinued on page 10

As we saw in our examination of

Jude 1-16, Jude is writing a letter to

contend for the faith, exposing false

teachers and their destructive doc-

trines and lifestyles. Jude adduced

numerous examples from the past that

clearly show how God will punish

the ungodly for both their words and

deeds. Every case he cited showed

the ungodly being punished in the

end. Some were presuming on the

grace of God, some were overt rebels,

others mocked him and completely

disregarded all standards of decency

and morality, and ultimately God

brought them all to judgment. There

are certain ungodly people who have

slipped into the church, and Jude

wants Christs followers to make sure

they are not imitating these ungodly

scoffers.

After having dwelt on the false

teachers, Jude turns his attention to hisdear friends (v. 17) and begins to

counsel them on how they are to live.

When Jude was articulating the case

against the ungodly and the surety of

their punishment, he looked to past

examples and to prophecy. Now he

reminds the believers about what the

apostles of Christ had told themthat

scoffers were going to appear in the

last days, following their own ungodly

desires (vv. 17-18). The apostles hadwarned that these types of people

would come into the church and be

divisive (v. 19). These false brethren

are characterized by following hu-

man instincts, and the damning fact

that they do not have the Spirit, which

means they are not Christians at all (v.

19).

Jude makes a clear distinction

between these unbelievers and his

dear friends. He writes: But you,

dear friends, build yourselves up

in your most holy faith and pray in

the Holy Spirit. Keep yourselves in

Gods love as you wait for the mercy

of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you

to eternal life (v. 20). Unlike the

ungodly infiltrators, Judes beloved

friends have holy faith. What a pre-

cious possession! They are not to take

this for granted, however, or become

complacent. A complacent Christian

is a good aide for a false teacher. On

the contrary, the believers are to work

hard to build themselves up in the

faith. Hard work in sanctification is

an effective antidote to ungodliness.

This work at building themselves up

is not to take place in the sphere of

their own wisdom or power. They are

to pray in the Holy Spirit, which

doubtless included charismatic prayer,

but which is far more expansive. Pray-ing in tongues was a subset of praying

in the Spirit. All God-honoring prayer

is prayer in the Holy Spirit, just as it is

prayer in Jesus name.

It is important not to miss the main

contrast here between the believers

and unbelievers. The latter do not

even have the Spirit (v. 19), whereas

the former have the Spirit and can

pray in him (v. 20). It is impossible to

imagine how blessed the followers ofJesus Christ really are. Unbelievers

are led by their instincts and ungodly

desires; believers are led by the Spirit.

This present contrast is as stark as the

difference between their final, eternal

states. Believers are waiting for the

consummation of eternal life (v. 21),

whereas, as we have already seen,

unbelievers are waiting for the day

of judgment and darkness (vv. 4-16).

Even now believers exist in Gods

The Vital Message of Jude for theTwenty-First Century: Part 3 of 3

Steve West


4/20

Page 4 November 2011 Issue 182

David expect in the promises that Godmade to him in 2 Samuel 7? What re-sources do we have to help us resolvethis interpretive dispute: the natural(literal) versus a spiritual understand-ing of the kingdom promise in the OldTestament Scriptures?

We will begin by surveying thebasic information. First, God gaveAbraham and his seed a specificpromise about a clearly defined pieceof real estatethe land bordered bythe river of Egypt and the Euphrates(Genesis 15:18-21). We refer to thisas the Promised Land. God promisedDavid that his son would establishan eternal kingdom and would sit onthe throne of that kingdom (2 Sam.7:11b-16). Next, we ask how Abraham

and David understood their promises.What did they expect as the fulfill-ment of those promises? When andhow were the promises to be fulfilled?How can we discover whether Abra-ham understood the promise to him ina literal sense (with the occupation ofthe Promised Land as the fulfillmentof the covenant) or if he spiritual-ized the promise (with the occupationof the land as a type of inheritingheaven)? How do we know what Da-

vid expected?To attempt to answer our particu-

lar question, we will begin with thebiblical text concerning the promiseto Abraham. If we allow the OldTestament Scriptures to give us ouranswers, we likely will embracea premillennial understanding ofAbrahams and Davids expectations.At the risk of over-simplifying, wewill refer to this as a Dispensationalhermeneutic. If we use the texts in the

New Testament Scriptures that dealwith the promise to Abraham we like-ly will favor the amillennial position.Again, at the risk of over-simplifying,we will call this a Covenant herme-neutic (short for Covenant theology).Currently, New Covenant theologyhas no clearly defined hermeneutic.Adherents of New Covenant theologyhave attempted to answer this ques-


children of Israel. In this scheme, themillennial reign of Christ describedthe kingdom that Messiah offered theJews at his first coming. They rejectedit, and thus God postponed its imple-mentation until Messiahs second

coming. More recently, premillennial-ists maintain that the millennium isan aspectof thekingdom. The wordsmillennium and kingdom are nolonger interchangeable.

What would happen if we usedthe phrase eternal kingdom instead ofthe word millennium to describe anddefine our prophetic view? We wouldthen have the following three views IFwe maintained the current categoriesused in this discussion: pre-eternal

kingdom; a-eternal kingdom; andpost-eternal kingdom. Let us, then,pose the following question: What isthe relationship of the second com-ing of Christ to the eternal kingdompromised to Abraham, David, and theJewish nation? Has Messiah alreadyestablished that kingdom or will he doso in the future?

Those who hold the a-eternal king-dom view would believe there is noeternal kingdom. This position wouldindeed make God unreliable in thathe has promised something that willnot happen. Who wants to adopt thisview? I think we could eliminate thiscategory from the discussion. Therewould be no a-eternal kingdom (amil-lennial view).

Those who favor thepost-eternalkingdom perspective would believethe establishment of the eternalkingdom precedes the second coming,

but if the kingdom is eternal, thereis no after-the-kingdom, and thus weare hard-pressed to speak meaning-fully about a temporal second com-ing. Some Christians have adoptedthe doctrine of a non-physical returnof Messiah, but no Christians I knowof suggest a non-temporal return.Nothing can happen afterthe eternalkingdom, because given the natureof eternity, there is no after. Giventhe terms of the discussion, it would

seem impossible to hold a post-eternalkingdom (postmillennial view).3

An individual who holds thepre-eternal kingdom view would have tobelieve that the eternal kingdom hasnot yet come. Who wants to denythat the kingdom has come in some

sense and to some degree? I think wecan eliminate this view, too, from thediscussion. There would be no pre-eternal kingdom (premillennial view).

If we recast the conversationwith the promised kingdom terms,we eliminate all three millennialviews. This is why I am an existentialmillennialist. I am not, however, anexistential or an agnostic kingdomist(if I may coin a new term for thisdiscussion). The hermeneutical pointthat prevents this is the way that theauthors of the New Testament Scrip-tures interpret the kingdom promisesrecorded in the Old Testament Scrip-tures. The authors of the New Testa-ment grant us access to two views ofthese promises: their understandingof the promises, and their understand-ing of how the individuals to whomthe kingdom promises were madeunderstood those promises. My read-ing of these New Testament writers

challenges the view that these authorsunderstood the kingdom promises inthe Old Testament in a literal senseand never spiritualized them.

For the purposes of this article,let us consider two examples. BothAbraham and David received king-dom promises from God. The ques-tion that we want to answer concernstheir understanding of those promises.Did they spiritualize those promises

or did they understand them in naturallanguage (as we define natural inthe early twenty-first century)thatis, did they take the promises liter-ally? Exactly what did Abrahambelieve that God was promising himin Genesis 15:18-21? Exactly what did

3 We would have to speak of a mid-

kingdom coming; that is, that the second

coming will happen after the establish-

ment of the eternal kingdom or during the

time of the kingdom. ReisingerContinued on page 6


5/20


cleansing it is. The blood of Christcleanses our conscience from deadworks to serve the living God. Hereis a very clear statement of what truesaving faith in the blood of Christbrings about in the heart of the believ-er. The blood of Christ brings abouta transformation; one could use theword reformation, a word which en-capsulates the essence of Jeremiahsprophecy.3 It writes the law of God onour hearts, turns us away from a lifeof sin (dead works) and turns us to alife of serving the living God. There ismore than that to salvation, of course.Our writer gives two more results ofthe blood of Christ in verse 15.

Verse 13 mentions the ashes ofa heifer. Even though the word redis not in the text, this is certainly areference to the ashes of a red heiferspoken of in Numbers 19. Accordingto this chapter, Israel was required to

take a red heifer without spot or blem-ish outside the camp, slaughter it, andburn it on a wood fire and then gatherthe ashes. These ashes were then tobe mixed with water and used by thepriests to cleanse those who becomeceremoniously unclean. Anyone whotouched a corpse (or touched a graveor human bones) or entered a roomwhere there was a corpse becameunclean and had to go to the priests tobe sprinkled with this water on the 3rd

day and the 7th

day. Numbers 19:10, 21says that this law is a statute foreverto Israel (the Hebrew word used hereactually conveys indefinite continu-ance rather than endlessness4).

3 R. T. France, Hebrews, inExpositors

Bible Commentary, Revised Edition, Vol-

ume 13, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,

2006), 115.

4 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer Jr.,

Bruce K. Waltke, Theological Wordbook

13 For if the sprinkling of defiledpersons with the blood of goats and

bulls and with the ashes of a heifer

sanctifies for the purification of the

flesh, 14how much more will the bloodof Christ, who through the eternal

Spirit offered himself without blem-

ish to God, purify our consciencefrom dead works to serve the living

God.15 Therefore he is the mediator

of a new covenant, so that those who

are called may receive the promisedeternal inheritance, since a death has

occurred that redeems them from thetransgressions committed under the

first covenant.

By using thefor if / how muchmore structure in verses 13 and 14,our author brings into focus both thecontinuity and discontinuity of thehistorical shift from the Old Covenantto the New Covenant. Both involveblood sacrifices and purification. Butthe sacrifices of the two covenants arevery different as well as the natureof the purifications. The explanationgiven clearly shows the superiority ofthe New Covenant purification whilethe superiority of Christs sacrificeis explicitly stated later in 9:23. Thelanguage of Hebrews 9 repeatedlyemphasizes both the continuity anddiscontinuity associated with thereformation brought about by Christ.If too much emphasis is placed uponthe continuity in salvation history, ourcomprehension of Gods plan will begreatly impaired. John G. Reisingerreminds us, The very term NewCovenant necessitates discontinuity.You cannot have an Old Covenantreplaced by a New Covenant withouthaving discontinuity.1

With great insight, David L. Bakerpoints out that Jesus Christ is, in

1 John G. Reisinger, Continuity and

Discontinuity, (Frederick, MD: New Cov-

enant Media, 2011), 37.

fact, the greatest discontinuity. TheNew Testament declares that the newcovenant has been realized in JesusChrist, though this is a fulfillmentbeyond all prophetic speculation....Paradoxically, therefore, the greatestdiscontinuity is the coming of Jesus.From one perspective he fulfilledthe promises and hopes of the OldTestament, and yet from another hesurpassed all expectations.2 Hebrews9 certainly confirms that observation.Deut. 18:15-19 tells us another prophetlike Moses would be forthcoming(continuity) but give us no hint howmuch greater and better than Mosesthis new prophet would be (disconti-nuity). Putting together all of the OTMessianic prophecies seen with hind-sight still falls short of the amazingfulfillment we find in the NT.

Verse 13 says that the blood ofgoats and calves performed according

to Mosaic law was for the purifyingof the flesh. This may not be clearto the modern reader. Sprinklingblood on just about anything willmake a mess. It will not cleanse butmake dirty. It will help to look aheadto verse 22, under the law almosteverything is purified (cleansed) withblood. What is spoken of in verse 13is a ritual and symbolic cleansing.The sprinkling of sacrificial bloodsymbolized cleansing from sin in the

Levitical ritual. Once we see this, thepoint of verse 13 is clear enough. Thecleansing of the Mosaic sacrifices wasan external cleansing only. It had noreal effect on the inner person. It wasonly an external ritual. But then inverse 14, we have the contrast. Theblood of Christ affects an internalcleansing. And what an incredible

2 Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible,

Third Edition, 223 (in Chapter 9 which is

entitled Continuity and Discontinuity). VaningerContinued on page 15

The Time of ReformationPart 3 of 3

A New Covenant Theology Exposition of Hebrews 9

Stan F. Vaninger


6/20


tion by modifying either Covenantalhermeneutics or Dispensationalhermeneutics. This article representsan attempt to begin serious worktoward establishing New Covenanthermeneutics from the ground upthat is, without beginning with eitherCovenantal or Dispensational herme-neutics.

I propose that we frame the discus-sion in terms of the word kingdominstead of the word millennium, asI have done thus far. Next, I proposethat we lookfirst for explicit answerswithin the biblical texts, consideringthe evidence from both the Old andNew Testaments. Some readers mightobject that the New Testament authors

were removed from both Abrahamand David by time and culture, andthus what those New Testament writ-ers offer us tells us more about theirthought world than it does about thethought world of Abraham and David.Astute readers might point out thatwe cannot even assume continuity be-tween the thought worlds of Abrahamand David. These objections wouldbe serious indeed if we did not havethe assurance that the Scriptures, both

Hebrew and Greek, are Gods inspiredWord to his people. Thus, we can trustwhat the New Testament authors tellus about Abraham and David. Fur-thermore, the New Testament writers,although removed from Abrahamand David by time and place, aremuch closer to them than we are. Wewould be hermeneutically arrogant toprivilege our common sense readingof Abraham and David over the NewTestament writers inspired reading

of those men. Therefore, as a tenetof New Covenant hermeneutics, Ipropose that when the New TestamentScriptures speak to our questions, weallow what it says to be the final wordand the word from which we builddoctrine.

Having proposed the desirabilityof examining all of Gods Word foranswers to our question, let us re-fine that question. Do the authors of

Scripture who post-date Abraham andDavid and who refer to the kingdompromise explicitly state that the prom-ises to Abraham and David (1) havebeen fulfilled, (2) are in the processof being fulfilled, or (3) are awaitingfuture fulfillment? Is the well-knownstatement, The new is in the oldconcealed and the old is in the newrevealed, correct? Specifically, whatdo the new covenant Scriptures sayabout the land promised to Abrahamand the eternal kingdom promises toDavid? According to those Scriptures,exactly how did Abraham and Davidunderstand what was being promisedto them?

I used to state that if the OldTestament were all of the Scripture

to which I had access, I would be apremillennialist. I would believe thatthe land promised to Abraham had notyet been totally fulfilled and I wouldbelieve that Davids kingdom andthrone had not yet been established.I would no longer say that. A fellowpastor recently offered proof from theNew Testament Scriptures that oldcovenant believers knew and under-stood more than we usually creditthem with knowing.

Christ chided Nicodemus (John3:10), the disciples on the road toEmmaus (Luke 24:24-27, 44-47), thePharisees (John 5:39, John 8:56), andhis disciples (Acts 1:8 as the answerto Acts 1:6) for failing to interprettheir Scriptures (our Old Testament)typologically. Christ expected, at theleast, that his audience would under-stand that all of the Hebrew Scriptureswere about him, and that they shouldread those Scriptures Messianically.His expectation of their reading lens

precluded a wooden, literalistic (plainsense everywhere) hermeneutic.From: Chad Bresson

In addition to the New Testa-ment evidence, the Old Testamentitself does not allow me to stand bymy previous statement. Joshua seesGods kingdom promises to Abrahamas having been fulfilled. Amillen-nialists use this passage from the OldTestament to support their position.

If this is all that God said about theland promise, I would join their ranks.However, such is not the case.

So the LORD gave Israel all the

land he had sworn to give theirancestors, and they took possession

of it and settled there. The LORD gave

them rest on every side, just as he

had sworn to their ancestors. Not oneof their enemies withstood them; the

LORD gave all their enemies into their

hands. Not one of all the LORDs goodpromises to Israel failed; every one

was fulfilled. (Joshua 21:43-45, NIV)

These verses are explicit. Theyspecifically state that (1), the Lordgave Israel ALL the land he had

sworn to their ancestors. Israelliterally (2) took possession of it(i.e., the Promised Land) and they(3) settled there (in the PromisedLand). (4) God gave them rest on ev-ery side, just as he had sworn to their

ancestors, and (5), not one of theirenemies withstood them; the Lord

gave all of their enemies into their

hands. (6) Verse 45 is an explicit,comprehensive statement, Not one ofall the LORDs good promises to Israel

failed; every one was fulfilled. Ac-cording to Joshua, Abrahams descen-dants occupied the land as an everlast-

ing possession. This would seem tobe the kind of explicit text that we areseeking. Indeed, if this were the finalverse in the Scriptures that mentionedthe Abrahamic kingdom promise, wewould be justified in stating that Godhas definitely already fulfilled thatpromise.

The text in Joshua, however, is notthe final word. Some of the Old Testa-ment writers who post-date Joshua

present the promise as still in effectand awaiting another fulfillment (see1 Chron. 16:13-18; Psalm 105:6-11; Jer.32:37-41 as examples). If we ask, HasGod fulfilled every promise to Abra-ham and his seed, including the landpromised in Genesis 15? The answer,according to Joshua 21, is, Yes, be-yond question. If we ask, Do otherOld Testament Scriptures, writtenlong after Joshua wrote, clearly holdout the land promise as still future?



7/20



The answer again must be, Yes.Are we contradicting ourselves? Wecertainly are not contradicting Scrip-ture since both answers come fromScripture. On the one hand, Scripturesays, The Lord gave Israel ALL theland he had sworn to their ancestors(Joshua 21:43, emphasis mine). On theother hand, long after Joshua died,David reiterated Gods promise andapplied it to Israel in conflict with thePhilistines over the Promised Land,thus making the promises fulfillmentsalient to the circumstances aboutwhich he wrote.

He remembers his covenant for-

ever, the word he commanded, for a

thousand generations, the covenant he

made with Abraham, the oath he swore

to Isaac. He confirmed it to Jacob asa decree, to Israel as an everlasting

covenant: To you I will give the land of

Canaan as the portion you will inherit.

(Psalm 105:8-11, NIV)

We might want to consider thispassage as a confirmation of thefulfilled promise: the threat from thePhilistines might have caused someIsraelites to wonder if God was goingto break his promise. David is as-suring them that their victory over

the Philistines is evidence of Godsfaithfulness. They will continue toretain possession (everlasting pos-session) of the Promised Land pre-cisely because the promise has beenfulfilled. But Jeremiah, writing evenlater, reiterates the promise again andapplies it to a captive Israel in exile.Abrahams offspring are not in pos-session of the Promised Land; it is nolonger their kingdom; it would seemthat the everlasting possession part

of the promise has failed. Jeremiahoffers hope by referring to an everlast-ing covenant whose kingdom promisesounds remarkably like that given toAbraham, yet the fulfillment of thispromise is future:

I will make an everlasting cov-

enant with them and will assur-

edly plant them in this land in the

territory of Benjamin, in the villagesaround Jerusalem, in the towns of

Judah and in the towns of the hill

country, of the western foothills and

of the Negev (Jer. 32:40, 41, 44,NIV)

This text is not enough to makeme a Premillenialist but it is enoughto keep me from being an Amillen-nialists. It is clear that Gods people

did not view the promise as over anddone with the initial settling of Ca-naan. Joshua 21:43-45 is not enoughto make us believe that there cannotbe some future fulfillment, but it isenough to keep us from insisting thatGods people viewed the fulfillment asentirely future.

So how did Abraham understandthis promise? When (and if) we knowthat, we will get help in knowing howto interpret the Old Testament promis-

es concerning the kingdom. While wecannot know everything that Abra-ham and David believed about theirpromises, we can know exactly howthey understood the essence of therespective covenants that God madewith each of them. We know exactlywhat Abraham understood God waspromising in the land promise, and weknow exactly what David expectedGod was going to do in the kingdompromised to him. We know, because

the New Testament explicitly statestheir expectations. Remember ourNew Covenant hermeneutic: when theNew Testament Scriptures speak toour question, we allow that answer tobe the final one; the one from whichwe build doctrine.

Allow me, for the sake of illus-tration, to offer the following con-structed interview with Abraham,conducted in the present.

Interviewer: Abraham, I under-stand God made a covenant with youand promised to give you a son bySarah. He reaffirmed that promisewhen both you and Sarah were far tooold to beget or bear children.

Abraham: That is correct. AndGod kept that promise and miracu-lously enabled Sarah to conceiveand to give birth to a child whom wenamed Isaac.

Inter.: God also promised to giveyou and your seed a specific piece ofland where you would eternally dwellin security and safety.

Abr.: That is correct. That promiseis recorded in Genesis 15:18-21.

Inter.: Did you and your seedinherit that land in fulfillment of thatpromise?

Abr.: Yes. Scripture, in bothJoshua 21:43-45 and Hebrews 11:8-11,records the fulfillment of that prom-ise. Joshua said, the LORD gave Israelall the land he had sworn to give theirancestors, and they took possessionof it and settled there (Joshua 21:43).Hebrews 11:9 records how I under-stood the promise: [Abraham] made

his home in the promised land like astranger in a foreign country. Whileactually living in the Promised Land,I felt like a stranger still waiting fora permanent home. I knew God hadsomething far better and greater thanCanaan.

Inter.: While you were makingyour home in the Promised Land,what were you thinking? Did youview your sojourn in the PromisedLand to be the fulfillment of the

promise God made to you in Genesis17:8? Did you understand that youhad found what you had been lookingforward to by faith in Gods covenantpromise?

Abr.: No, not at all. The authorof Hebrews accurately conveyed mystate of mind and my expectations:By faith Abraham, when called togo to a place he would later receive

as his inheritance, obeyed and went,

even though he did not know where hewas going. By faith he made his home

in the promised land like a stranger

in a foreign country; he lived in tents,

as did Isaac and Jacob, who were

heirs with him of the same promise.

For he was looking forward to the city

with foundations, whose architect and

builder is God. (Heb. 11:8-10)

Inter.: Let me be sure I understand


8/20

Page 8 November 2011 Issue 182ReisingerContinued from page 7 apply to our understanding of the

relationship between the old and newcovenants in their respective teachingabout the eternal kingdom promisedto Abraham and David.

At this point in my investigation, Ihave found no New Testament reitera-

tion or application of the land promiseas God made it in Genesis 15. TheNew Testament authors do not referto the land promise in the way thatDavid or Jeremiah did. The eleventhchapter of Romans may be a debatablesection concerning the future conver-sion of Israel, but no one suggests thatPaul mentions the land as part of hisargument. We may disagree about thestatus of the prophecies in the Bookof Revelationwhether they are

already fulfilled or are awaiting futurefulfillment, but no one asserts thatthe land promise reappears anywherein the entire Book of the Revelation.The closest thing to a New Testamentreiteration of the land promise madeto Abraham is Romans 4:13.

It was not through the law that

Abraham and his offspring received

the promise that he would be heir ofthe world, but through the righteous-

ness that comes by faith.

So where do we stand in our at-tempt to establish a New Covenanthermeneutic? What have we accom-plished so far? Several things seemclear. First, the land promise madeto Abraham was, at a given point intime, completely fulfilled. Abrahamand some of his offspring literallydwelt in the land of promise, for someperiod of time. We have explicit andunambiguous evidence in Joshua21:34-45. Some may want to argue

that Abraham did not actually pos-sess the land in its entirety, but that isnot the way that Joshua viewed it. Hestates his view emphatically, in bothpositive and negative terms: Not oneof all the LORDs good promises to

Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

Remember, those good promises in-cluded the Promised Land!

Second, an initial fulfillmentdoes not rule out subsequent fulfill-

you. Are you saying that at the verymoment you were making your homein the Promised Land, you realizedthat this land was not the essence ofthe promise God made to you?

Abr.: That is correct. I knew, by

faith, that the true land that Godpromised to me was a spiritual landand not physical dirt. I was lookingpast Canaan to a heavenly city. Youcan read about it in Hebrews 11.

Inter.: From your vantage point ofnow being in heaven, are you waitingfor Messiah to come again and thistime to establish Israel, along withyourself, in the Promised Land? IfGod does not give you and your seedthe Promised Land as a permanent

possession, will you be disappointedand feel that God was unfaithful to hiscovenant?

Abr.: You are joking! Or are you?Who in his right mind would tradewhat every glorified saint, includingmyself, and all the Jews who died infaith, now enjoy in the true PromisedLand of heaven for ten thousandlands of Palestine?

End of interview.

It seems clear from the account inHebrews that Abraham understoodGods promise in a spiritual sense.While living in the Promised Land,Abraham still considered himself astranger. He was looking beyond Ca-naan for a spiritual city whose makerand builder was God. The author ofHebrews clearly spiritualizes Godspromise to Abraham. The questionhas been legitimately raised concern-ing exactly how Abraham understoodwhat Hebrews attributes to him. Afellow pastor has given a good answerto that question.

When the N.T. writer tells uswhat Abraham believed concerninga city whose foundations were builtby God, why should I just assumethat Abraham somehow exegeted(spiritualized) that from what waspreviously given to him? In otherwords, why cant I entertain thenotion that God simply told him that

(Heb. 11:10)? Did Abraham haveto spiritualize what was alreadysaid, or was he told something extraby Godsomething Moses didntknow to write down but the writerof Hebrews was given to writedown and give to us? In other wordsHOW was Abraham made aware of

that city without foundations? If yousay Abraham spiritualized what wastold him, can you prove that? Whycouldnt someone just say God toldhim about that heavenly city in someother encounter that we werent toldin Genesis about? After all, in John8:56 Jesus tells us information thatAbraham knew about Christ andrejoiced. Am I to assume that Abra-ham got that understanding aboutChrist from exegeting only whathe was told in Genesis, or was heshown new revelationsomethingextra that Genesis doesnt tell usabout specifically? I mean we knowAbraham believed in a city withoutfoundations (and rejoicing in Christ).What were not told is HOW thatknowledge came to himor do we?From Pastor Mark LaCour

This spiritualization of the Prom-ised Land raises some questions aboutthe way the new covenant authorstreated the land promise. Clearly, oneof the key components of Gods cove-

nant with Abraham as recorded in theOld Testament was the land describedin Genesis 15:18-21. This land promisefigured prominently in the reiterationand application of the Abrahamic cov-enant beyond the initial settlement, aswe saw from the Scriptures we cited.How do the authors of the new cov-enant Scriptures treat the land prom-ise in the light of the Old Testamentrecord? Did Jesus and his apostleshold out to the Israel of their day the

same land promise that the Old Testa-ment prophets held out to the Israelof their day? Or did the writers of theNew Testament Scriptures point theirfellow Jews to the cross and the resur-rected Messiah as the blessed hope, ordid they point the Jews to some futureact of God in which God finally willliterally fulfill his covenant promisesof the land? These questions addressthe New Covenant hermeneutic weare trying to establish. They directly


9/20

Issue 182 November 2011 Page 9ments, either of the same nature or ofa complementary nature. The authorsof Scripture sometimes view prom-ises as having double fulfillment intime or in essence. We will say moreabout this when we look at how Davidunderstood Gods covenant to estab-lish his kingdom forever and to seatone his sons on that kingdoms throne.For now, we see the New TestamentScriptures spiritualization of Abra-hams understanding of Gods landpromise. Abraham took possession ofit and settled there, but even while oc-cupying the land, he viewed himselfas a stranger because he was lookingpast Canaan to a heavenly city whosemaker and builder was God. He waslooking for heaven, not Canaan. Thisprompts us to ask if Abrahams under-standing of Gods kingdom promise isunique, or is this the uniform under-standing of the authors of the NewTestament Scriptures as they interpretOld Testament kingdom promises?Does Hebrews 11:8-11 provide a her-meneutical principle for interpretingall kingdom prophesies?

As more people move into NewCovenant theology, we face an in-creasing need for a clearly articulated

New Covenant hermeneutic. Recently,someone raised the question as towhether one can consistently hold toboth New Covenant theology and Dis-pensational theology. New Covenanttheology adherents currently includeself-identified premillennial and dis-pensational theologians. The BunyanConference has profited from speak-ers such as Jack Jeffery, David Morrisand Fred Zaspel, all of whom espousesome form of premillennialism and

some form of dispensationalism . Wehave no desire to deprive ourselves ofwhat they have to offer.

Should we even try to establish aNew Covenant hermeneutic? Would itperhaps be wiser to leave the subjectalone and continue to borrow the USmilitarys slogan, Dont ask, donttell? If we discuss the subject, do werun the danger of splitting the camp?There is no question that it is impos-

sible for a Covenant theologian tohold to New Covenant theology. Is thesame thing true of dispensationalism?Will a New Covenant hermeneuticalarticulation result in a fixed either/orposition with regard to understandingprophecy, or will our hermeneutic befluid enough to accommodate dif-ferent understandings as legitimateand acceptable? I am convinced thatan open dialogue concerning thehermeneutical principles that we useto settle questions like continuity/discontinuity is long overdue. Ulti-mately, we must decide if the issueis one of submission to Scripture orif the biblical treatment of the matterallows for tenuous and conditionalpositions. If the latter is the case, thequestion becomes one of intellectualco-existence.

Andy Wood offers the follow-ing quotation in a web article titledDispensational Hermeneutics: TheGrammaticoHistorical Method.4

The interpreter should, therefore,endeavour to take himself from thepresent, and to transport himself intothe historical position of his author,look through his eyes, note his sur-roundings, feel with his heart, and

catch his emotion. Herein we notethe import of the term grammatico-historicalinterpretation. (Terry,Milton S.Biblical Hermeneutics. NY:Philips and Hunt, 1883; reprint, GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1976. 231.)

When I studied Abraham andGods promises to him, I tried to live,breathe, and walk in Abrahams shoes.When God described the PromisedLand so clearly and so specifically(Gen. 15:18-21), it was impossible for

me not to take it literally. The problemwith this approach, however, was thatI took my twentieth-century, cultural-ly-conditioned self with me. I createdAbraham in my image, a move thatwe earlier categorized as an improperhermeneutic. Since we can neitherprove nor disprove that my commonsense response is ubiquitous (stretch-ing across both time and culture and

4 http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teach-

ing/documents/articles/25/25.pdf

thus constituting a universal humanresponse), we have to find other waysto ascertain Abrahams response.When the seeds of New Covenant the-ology began to take root in my mind,I realized that I could not transportmyself into the historical position ofAbraham (because I would inevitablyproject me onto Abraham), butI coulduse the New Testament to see if itshed light on Abrahams expectations.

In general, the kind of questionwe are asking requires grammatico-historical exegesisbringing outof the text the meaning the writersintended to convey and which theyexpected their audience to gather.When we want to know what some-one thought, surely it is appropriate

to consider the nuances of languagethey used, the genre in which theyexpressed their ideas, the histori-cal background of their era, and thelife setting (the culture) of their faithcommunity. However, when we haveNew Testament evidence that statesexplicitly what they thought, we havea surer witness. In the case of Abra-hams expectations, we have that surerwitness. Furthermore, we fail to privi-lege that which God has so graciously

provided for us (the surer witness)when we base our interpretation ofAbrahams understanding solely onthe Old Testament accounts of Abra-ham and then make that the basisof interpreting the New Testamentteaching on Abraham. What Abrahamunderstood about the land promiseis not settled in Genesis, but in theNew Testament. Since I have NewTestament evidence, I must get a clearunderstanding of Abrahams thinking

and expectations from the New Testa-ment Scriptures, and then read thatback into the Old Testament teachingon Abraham. This kind of readingwould be anachronistic (an improperhermeneutic, to be sure) were it notfor the doctrine of inspiration, butsince we do hold to that doctrine, wecan make this kind of reading the firstbiblical principle of New Covenanthermeneutics. As a first principle, it is



10/20


in the context of Jude, where there

are contentious false teachers, there

would be disputing.1 If this is the case,

Jude is instructing the true believers to

be merciful to those who are disput-

ing with them, who may be arguing

on behalf of the false teachers. PeterDavids, on the other hand, defends the

translation as doubt on the grounds

that when the word is used without

reference to disputants, it refers to an

internalas opposed to externalstrug-

gle.2 If this latter rendering is correct,

Jude is aware that some people are

not sure about exactly what to believe

or who to follow. Rather than coming

down hard on those who are genu-

inely confused or struggling, Jude

advocates mercy. No matter the exactmeaning of the word in this context,

however, the one common denomina-

tor is that Gods called people are to

be merciful. Whether the struggles are

internal or external, believers are to be

1 Gene Green,Jude & 2 Peter, Baker

Exegetical Commentary on the New Tes-

tament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 126.

2 Peter Davids, The Letters of 2ndPeter

and Jude, Pillar New Testament Com-

mentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2006), 100.

characterized by mercy.

As was previously mentioned, Jude

22-23 is surrounded by difficulties.

What is very clear, however, is that

the church is to endeavor to rescue

the lost and intercede for those in

danger of being swept away by false

teachings. They are to save some bysnatching them from the fire. They

are toldagainto show mercy. But

this is a mercy which is immediately

qualified. It is nothing like contempo-

rary notions of tolerance, kindness, or

love. It is a mercy that is mingled with

fear. It is a mercy that is tempered by

a hatred for sin. Christians are to fear

sin, knowing our own tendencies and

proneness to stumble (cf. Gal. 6:1).

Believers are to hate every stain thatsin brings, which Jude metaphori-

cally describes as clothing stained by

[corrupted] flesh (v. 23). Living with

such tensions is one of the reasons we

need to build ourselves up in our most

holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Even though this was not the letter

Jude had hoped he would be able to

write, he is still able to end on a note

of praise. I grew up going to a camp

called Rockwood Acres in a remotepart of central Ontario, where for

about 30 years John Reisinger was

the featured speaker at Family Camp,

summer after summer. The theme

verses of the camp are Judes note of

praise, his doxology: To him who

is able to keep you from falling and

to present you before his glorious

presence without fault and with greatjoyto the only God our Savior by

glory, majesty, power and authority,

through Jesus Christ our Lord, be-

fore all ages, now and forevermore!

Amen (vv. 24-25).

This doxology is special as it

stands, but it also takes on even more

significance when the context of Ju-

des letter is taken into consideration.

Jude has been contending for the faith,

tackling false teachers, and remindinghis readers about the judgment that

inevitably comes on the ungodly. He

has given them basic instructions for

how they are to live and how they are

to interact with those who are on the

wrong path. Great judgment is com-

ing on those who are ungodly; there

are doubters or disputers, and many

are being taken in; some need to be

snatched from the fire. It would be

easy, if one had to rely on ones own

wisdom or ability, to be paralyzedwith fear and to have serious doubts

WestContinued from page 1

I would like to help support the ministry of Sound of Grace:

A tax-deductible gift in the amount of ____ __ __ ____ __ is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via email:

A check in the amount of $10.00 for a pdf file (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

I would like to receive Sound of Grace via the USPS:

A check in the amount of $20.00 for a paper copy (payable to Sound of Grace) is enclosed.

Please continue free of charge: Via email via USPS

PLEASE PRINT CLEARLYTHANK YOU

Name: ______________________________________________

Street Address: _______________ _______ __________ _______ _

City: _______________________ State: _____ Zip: __________

Email address: ____ __________ _____@_______ _______ ______

Phone number: _______________________________________


11/20


necessary and not optional. When wehave New Testament evidence aboutthe interpretation of an Old Testamenttext, we privilege the New Testamentand not our common sense reading ofthat Old Testament passage. It wouldseem therefore, that New Covenanttheology must not interpret Hebrews11:8-11 with Genesis 15:18-21; rather,it must interpret Genesis 15:18-21 withHebrews 11:8-11. Or am I missingsomething?

One last note before we conclude.I have framed this discussion in termsof kingdom, rather than millennium.Our discussions, however, may con-tinue to include the term millennial-ism. When we talk about millennial-

ism, we are talking about somethingthat, if it happens, will happen afterwe are long gone. This is why at thispoint I refuse to make any propheticview a test of fellowship. If some ofthe best of believers in the New Testa-ment missed Messiah the first time hecame because they did not understandthe nature of the prophetic promisesin their Scriptures, should we not becareful about how we treat those whounderstand the details of his second

coming differently than we do? I fearthat if Christ returned today, somewould compare what was happen-ing with their charts, and it wouldnot fit. Let us not be among them ofwhom it was written, there standethone among you whom you know not(John 1:26).

We have focused primarily onAbraham in this article. In our nextarticle, we will look at the NewTestament evidence about how David

understood Gods covenant with him.

that heaven was attainable. Judes

readers are in the midst of very trying

spiritual circumstances, and so Jude

directs their attention away from

themselves to the living God. Take

your eyes off yourself, Jude says, and

look to him who is able. This is just

such good advice: look to God.In this context, then, it is signifi-

cant to praise God for his ability to

keep us from falling. Throughout

the Scriptures, slipping, falling, or

stumbling is often used metaphori-

cally for sin. Surrounded by spiritual

temptations, Jude reminds his readers

that God is able to keep them from

falling. This is true in terms of their

daily walk with him, and it is also true

in terms of their eternal state. God isable to keep them from falling and

to present them in front of his glory.

Absolute darkness awaits the ungodly;

the full glory of God awaits the be-

liever. In Gods glorious presence the

believer will stand blameless, without

fault. Even when standing before the

living God, there will be no spot to be

found on those who are saved. Natu-

rally, this will result in tremendous joy

or eschatological celebration.3

As is the case with all doxolo-

gies, there is an ascription of praises

to God, as well a reference to the

time through which these praises are

to be rendered. For Jude, he identi-

fies God as the only God, the Savior,

and ascribes to him glory, majesty,

power, and authority. These ascrip-

tions of praise are channeled through

3 Davids, 2nd Peter & Jude, 110.

ReisingerContinued from page 9Jesus Christ. As far as timeframe,

these praises are to be ascribed both

now and forevermore. Even though

God is to be praised now and into

the future forever, there is a further

recognition that God is not tempo-

rally conditioned. He is before all

ages, standing prior to history. Hewill persist through all ages, but he

is subject to none of them. The ages

depend on God, not he on them. He is

supratemporal, transcendent over time

and history.

Judes readers, infiltrated by false

teachers and contending for the faith,

are expected to echo their agreement

to this doxology, and the entire letter,

by joining in the final Amen. It was

over 1900 years ago that Jude wrotethis letter. Since then the centuries

have rolled by, and scoffers have

kept appearing. The church has been

attacked from without and within.

Godless men and women have abused

every doctrine of the Bible and caused

great turmoil in the lives of true be-

lievers. But God is still on the throne

of the universe. He was and is and is

to come, and he will receive praise

now and forevermore. For us, best

of all, there is coming a great day ofpraise when we finally cross the finish

line and are ushered into his glorious

presence. There we will stand without

fault and will experience pure, unadul-

terated joy. Whether we say Amen,

So be it, or Yes, we should lend

our agreement to what Jude has writ-

ten and praise the Lord.

New Covenant Media publications maybe ordered from:

WWW.NEWCOVENANTMEDIA.COM


12/20


WhiteContinued from page 1

Virtue ethics is more concerned

with the actors being than with his

actions. This view maintains that

right actions come from right sorts of

people. The four cardinal virtues are

wisdom, moderation, courage, and

justice. The theological virtues arefaith, hope, and love. This is a char-

acter-based ethic. Virtue ethics can

be traced back to Aristotle.

Should the Christian adopt one of

these three schools? Many in the past

have. The deontological approach

is attractive to some. For them, God

has said it, and we need to do it. This

position should only be attractive at

first glance though. Jesus had all sorts

of sharp words for those who kept theexternals of the law, but whose hearts

were stony. Still, there is truth there

because we oughtto do what God has

commanded.

We also see the truthfulness of the

teleological approach. One simply has

to turn to a proverb to see that moral

outcomes count. A good act is one

that brings glory to God, which is our

good. Virtue ethics is also true from

a Christian perspective. Good fruitcomes from good trees. A good act

comes from a good person.4

The Christian view encompasses

all three of these. There is no need to

try to squeeze Christian ethics into

one of the three schools. Nor is there

a need to pit these against each other.5

God is concerned with the act, the out-

come, and the actor. As Graham Cole

puts it, The holy God is interested in

the moral agent, the moral action, and

the moral aftermath.6

4 John Frame, The Doctrine of the Chris-

tian Life, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2008),

49-53.

5 Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian

Life, 31, 33-34, 240.

6 Graham Cole,He Who Gives Life

(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 246.

John Frame writes, Only God can

guarantee the coherence of the three

perspectives. The biblical God declares

Worldview

Ones worldview will determine

ones ethics. So what is a worldview?

The term is a translation of the Ger-

man word weltanschauung, mean-

ing a way of looking at the world

(welt=world, schauen=to look).7 It is

the comprehensive grid through whichwe perceive reality.8 In his classic

book, The Universe Next Door, James

Sire defines a worldview as a com-

mitment, a fundamental orientation

of the heart, that can be expressed as

a story or in a set of presuppositions

(assumptions which may be true, par-

tially true, or entirely false) which we

hold (consciously or subconsciously,

consistently or inconsistently) about

the basic constitution of reality, as thatprovides the foundation on which we

live and move and have our being.9

Albert Wolters defines a worldview

as the comprehensive framework of

ones basic beliefs about things.10 My

the moral law (the deontological perspec-

tive), and he creates human beings to find

their happiness (the teleological perspec-

tive) in obeying that law. He also makes

us so that at our best we will find Gods

law to be our chief delight (the existential

perspective [what I am labeling virtue]).So God made all three perspectives, and

he made them to cohere, The Doctrine

of the Christian Life, 123. As a New Cov-

enant Theologian, of course I take issue

with Frames view of moral law.

7 Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Wheaton,

IL: Crossway, 2005), 23. Pearceys book

is probably the go to book on world-

view currently.

8 N.T. Wright, The New Testament and

the People of God(Minneapolis: Fortress,

1992), 38.

9 James W. Sire, The Universe Next

Door(Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academ-

ic, 2004), 17.

10 Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 2.

Greg Bahnsen defines a worldview as a

network of presuppositions which are not

tested by natural science and in terms of

which all experience is related and inter-

preted,Pushing the Antithesis (Powder

Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007),

42. In an earlier book, Bahnsen defined

preferred definition comes from Mi-

chael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew.

They write:

Worldview is an articulation of the

basic beliefs embedded in a shared

grand story that are rooted in a faith

commitment and that give shape and

direction to the whole of our individu-al and corporate lives.11

Every living person has a world-

view. It is simply part of being an

adult human being.12 All people have

a set of convictions about how real-

ity functions and how they should

live.13 Our worldview informs how

we approach religion, ethics, educa-

tion, politics, environmental con-

cerns, health care, family, dress, and

entertainment. Worldviews provide amodel of the worldwhich guides its

adherents in the world.14

A helpful way to discern our

worldview is to askfive fundamental

questions:15

1. Who are we?

2. Where are we?

a worldview as a network of related

presuppositions in terms of which every

aspect of mans knowledge and awarenessis interpreted,Always Ready (Nacogdo-

ches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 2006),

119-20.

11 Michael W. Goheen and Craig G.

Bartholomew,Living at the Crossroads

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008),

23.

12 Wolters, Creation Regained, 4.

13 Pearcey, Total Truth, 23.

14 Brian J. Walsh and Richard Middle-

ton, The Transforming Vision (Downers

Grove, IL: IVP, 1984), 32.15 I am indebted to N.T. Wright,Jesus

and the Victory of God(Minneapolis:

Fortress, 1996), 443-74 for these ques-

tions. As far as I can tell, these originate

in Middleton and Walsh, The Transform-

ing Vision, 35,but they stopped with

question four. Wright originally only had

four, (NTPG, 132-33), but added the fifth

inJVG. So also Craig G. Bartholomew

and Michael W. Goheen, The Drama of

Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academ-

ic, 2004), 12.


13/20


WhiteContinued on page 14

3. Whats wrong?

4. Whats the solution?

5. What time is it?

All people have answers to these

questions, but the Christian has defi-

nite, specific, and consistent answers

to each of these:16

1. Image bearers: Humans are the

apex (not ex-ape) of creation. We are

image-bearers of the one true creator

with responsibilities which accom-

pany that status.

2. Gods good, but fallen world:

We are in a good and beautiful

(though broken) world, the creation of

the God in whose image we are made.

3. The fall: Humanity has rebelledagainst its maker. This rebellion

reflects a cosmic dislocation between

the creator and the creation.

4. Jesus: The creator has acted, is

acting, and will act within his creation

to deal with the weight of evil set up

by human rebellion and to bring his

world to the end for which he made it,

namely, that it should resonate fully

with his presence and glory.

5. The last days: We live in theoverlap of the ages. The kingdom has

come in Jesus but will not be fully

consummated until he returns to re-

new the world.

An unbeliever will have various

answers to these questions. In my

experience, their answers will usually

be inconsistent. This presents a won-

derful opportunity to ask penetrating

questions to show the bankruptcy of

any and all non-Christian worldviews.

Apologetics

It is important to see that the Chris-

tian faith uniquely has a basis for any

discussion of ethics. This fact presents

us with a wonderful apologetic oppor-

tunity. Conceptually, cultural relativ-

ism reigns. As Allan Bloom famously

put it in 1987, There is one thing a

16 Wright,NTPG, 132-33.

professor can be absolutely certain

of: almost every student entering the

university believes, or says he be-

lieves, that truth is relative.17 Theolo-

gian David Wells writes, People can

believe what they want and, within the

law, do what they want, but it be-

comes intolerable if they imagine thatwhat they believe includes standards

of belief and morality that are ap-

plicable to others. Today, that is the

unforgivable sin. It is the blasphemy

against the (secular) spirit.18

Consider these words from theHu-

manist Manifesto (1973): We affirm

that moral values derive their source

from human experience. Ethics is

autonomous and situational, needing

no theological or ideological sanction.Ethics stems from human need and

interest. Or these words from French

researcher Emile Durkheim: It can

no longer be maintained nowadays

that there is one, single morality

which is valid for all men at all times

in all places. The purpose of moral-

ity practiced by a people is to enable

it to live; hence morality changes with

societies. There is not just one moral-

ity, but several, and as many as there

are social types. And as our societieschange, so will our morality. A teen

publication called The Quest for

Excellence says, Early on in life,

you will be exposed to different value

systems from your family, church or

synagogue, and friends. It is up to

you to decide upon your own value

system to build your own ethical

code. You will have to learn what

is right for yourself through experi-

ence. Only you can decide whatis right and comfortable for you.19

Yale University law professor, Arthur

Allen Leff writes, I will put the cur-

17 Allan Bloom, The Closing of the

American Mind(New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1987), 25.

18 David Wells,Losing Our Virtue

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 51.

19 The quotations from this paragraph

are taken from Bahnsen,Pushing the

Antithesis, 168-69, 171.

rent situation as sharply as possible:

there is today no way of proving

that napalming babies is bad except

by asserting it (in a louder and louder

voice), or by defining it as so, early in

ones game, and then later slipping it

through, in a whisper, as a conclusion.

Now this is a fact of modern intellec-tual life so well and painfully known

as to be one of the few which is simul-

taneously horrifying and banal.20

So all moral decisions end up be-

ing either communally informed or

simply a matter of personal choice.

Should I help the old lady across the

street or shove her into traffic? Per-

sonal choice. Should I save an aban-

doned litter of kittens or throw them

into a wood chipper? Personal choice.You get the picture. It has become ex-

tremely unpopular to declare absolute

truths. Feeling has replaced belief. Its

okay to feel, but not to believe.21 Yet

at the same time, people are making

moral judgments allthe time. Even

though ethical relativism is the reign-

ing view of ethics today, people can-

not live this way. As Schaeffer used to

put it, they bump into reality at every

point. On this point, they are dread-

fully inconsistent.

Part of our goal is to make people

become conscious of their beliefs

(epistemologically self-conscious)

and the inconsistency of them. We

seek to deconstruct their worldview

so they can better hear the claims of

Christ. As we saw in the introduction,

epistemology is a branch of ethics.22

We ought to believe what is true. The

20 Arthur Allen Leff, Economic Analy-sis of Law: Some Realism about Nomi-

nalism, Virginia Law Review (1974),

454-455 quoted in Bahnsen,Pushing the

Antithesis, 171-72.

21 Wells,Losing Our Virtue, 107.

22 John Frame, The Doctrine of the

Knowledge of God(Phillipsburg, NJ:

P&R, 1987), 63; Greg L. Bahnsen, Van

Tils Apologetic (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R,

1998), 263.


14/20


WhiteContinued from page 13 drive that needs to be met, so go for

it. But strangely, the same person

will be horrified at the thought of

child pornography. But why? At what

age does it become inappropriate? On

what basis? They are left with arbi-

trary subjectivism. According to the

unbelieving worldview, we are a batchof complex chemical reactions. Why

would one batch care about the con-

duct of another batch? One prominent

atheist has recently made the charge

that religion poisons everything, but

the question we should ask him is So

what?26 What is is according to an

atheist worldview. Naturalism or ma-

terialism can provide a (wrong) basis

for what is, but it cannot provide a

basis for what ought. Bertrand Russell

writes, Blind to good and evil, reck-less of destruction, omnipotent matter

rolls on its relentless way.27 For the

naturalist, there is no such thing as

moral values. After all, you cannot

see them. They are not physical. They

dont grow on trees. Atheism cannot

even provide the rational basis for

reason, much less the rational basis

for good or evil. It all just is. As Tim

Keller explains, People still have

strong moral convictions, but unlikepeople in other times and places, they

dont have any visible basis for why

they find some things to be evil and

other things good. Its almost like

their moral intuitions are free-floating

in midair far off the ground.28

Those who advocate cultural

relativism (i.e., right and wrong are

26 See Douglas Wilson, God Is (Powder

Springs, GA: American Vision Press,

2008).27 Bertrand Russell, Why I am Not a

Christian (New York: Simon and Schus-

ter, 1957), 115, quoted in Bahnsen,Push-

ing the Antithesis, 172.

28 Tim Keller, The Reason for God(New

York: Dutton, 2008), 145.

moral relativist is making a moral

claim. They are saying we oughtto

believe that there are no moral ab-

solutes so they inconsistently have a

morality about no morality. This is

illustrated by the professor who denies

moral absolutes but is not okay withhis students cheating on his exams.23

The Moral Argument for Gods

Existence

In my opinion, the moral argument

for Gods existence is a very helpful

one in our day and age. This is simply

to say that ultimately only Christians

can make ethical judgments. All non-

Christian positions end up internally

contradicting themselves (self-ref-

erentially incoherent). They do not

provide an adequate basis for ethics

(or logic, beauty, science, human

dignity, or love either, for that matter).

Only the Christian faith provides the

preconditions for intelligibility.24 It is

impossible to live without an ultimate

moral standard so the non-Christian is

constantly forced to borrow from the

Christian faith. As C.S. Lewis put it,

But the most remarkable thing is this.

Whenever you find a man who sayshe does not believe in a real Right and

Wrong, you will find the same man

going back on this a moment later. He

may break his promise to you, but if

you try breaking one to him he will be

complaining Its not fair before you

can say Jack Robinson.25

For example, lets take the issue of

pornography. Most consistent atheists

and agnostics will see nothing wrong

with this. A person has this sexual

23 Bahnsen,Pushing the Antithesis, 172.

24 Bahnsen,Always Ready, 121.

25 C.S. Lewis,Mere Christianity in The

Complete C.S. Lewis (New York: Harper-

One, 2002), 17.

determined by ones culture) cannot

condemn such things as the attack

of 9/11, slavery, genocide, cannibal-

ism, female sacrifice, infanticide,

and pederasty (child molestation).

Throughout history and today, there

are cultures that practice such things.

The American atheist has no basis tocondemn any of these practices. For

their culture, this behavior is right.

The Western unbeliever is left to say,

It is wrong because I do not like it.

My Western culture is better than their

primitive culture. At the end of the

day, you simply have a difference of

opinion. Non-Christians do not have a

foundation for objective moral discus-

sion, only subjective opinions.

Moral standards presuppose ab-solute moral standards, which pre-

supposes an absolute (or sovereign)

personality.29 The only worldview that

presents a being that is both personal

and absolute is Christianity. We intui-

tively know to an extent what is right

and wrong because we are made in

Gods image. We call this our con-

science. We learn further about right

and wrong from revelation. Gods

will and character are the basis for our

ethical judgments. So when a per-son asks why rape is wrong, we say

without hesitation, Because God says

so. We can expand our answer, but

we should be quick to point outside of

ourselves to our objective grounding:

the will and character of God. The

non-Christian will also have many

reasons why rape is wrong, but all

will ultimately be a matter of personal

opinion. Keller writes, If there is no

God, then there is no way to say any

one action is moral and another im-

moral but only I like this.

In summary, without the sovereign

personal God of Scripture, there is no

room for moral discussion.30

29 John Frame,Apologetics to the Glory

of God(Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1994),

100.

30 Keller, The Reason for God, 153.

In prosperity, our friends know us; in adversity we know our friends.

Churton Collins


15/20


VaningerCont. on page 16

Many legends and traditions havearisen over the years about the ashesof the red heifer among Jews andhave attracted the attention of cer-tain circles of Christians. There is anancient tradition in the Mishnah that

there were only 9 red heifers in OTtimes, that the 10th red heifer wouldappear at the end-times and that theMessiah would prepare it for use bythe priests. During the middle ages,this was reaffirmed by the Jewishrabbi and philosopher Moses Mai-monides. A number of modern Jewishrabbis who anticipate the building of athird temple in Jerusalem in the nearfuture have picked up on this ancientlegend. Quite a few Christian proph-

ecy teachers have also. Attempts arebeing made in Israel and in the USto breed a red heifer that remainsspotless for 3 years. A recent bookby a popular prophecy teacher has anentire chapter on this subject.5 Chap-ter 16 is entitled, The Hunt for theHoly Heifer. The chapter opens withquotes from 2 modern Jewish rabbis.Rabbi Chaim Richmanis is quoted assaying, The fate of the entire worlddepends on the red heifer. Rabbi

Gershon Salomon states, Nine redheifers were born during the time ofthe tabernacle and the two temples.The tenth, according to this tradi-tion, will be born in the end-timesfor the third temple.6 Nowhere in thechapter are these quotes criticized orquestioned. The author of this bookhas something to say about Hebrews9:13-14 later in this same chapter:There is no concept here of Jesuswork removing or replacing that ofthe red heifers.7 This statementmisses the entire flow of thoughtfound in Hebrews 9-10.

of the Old Testament, 2 Volumes, (Chi-

cago, IL: Moody Press, 1980), 672-673.

5 Randall Price, The Temple and Bible

Prophecy, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House,

2005), 361-378.

6 Price, The Temple and Bible Prophecy,

361.


369.

VaningerContinued from page 5 He then goes on to tell about at-tempts to breed red heifers in Mis-sissippi and Texas by Christians. Therancher in Texas actually started aministry where you can support theeffort to supply Israel with a popu-lation of red heifers. A donation of$1000 will pay for one red heifer,$500 for , and $250 for . In 1994,Rabbi Chaim Richman traveled allthe way from Israel to see the redheifers being bred in Mississippi.He examined one seemingly perfectspecimen for 10 minutes and declared,This is the heifer that will changethe world.8 Again, the quote is givenby our Christian author with apparentapproval. I personally find this ap-palling and ridiculous. John 1:17 saysthat, Grace and truth came throughJesus Christ. The only contributionthis Mississippi cow will make to theworld will be a few hamburgers. AndI say the sooner the better! The bookI have been citing is 750 pages long.While many of the chapters containvaluable and interesting historicalinformation, the work as a wholeconveys very little understanding ofbiblical theology.

It is possible that the Jews will

someday build another temple in Je-rusalem. There are a few NT passagesthat some interpret as indicating therewill be a temple at the second com-ing of Christ. Most Jews in Israel arenot the least bit interested and thinkof the minority who want to build atemple as fanatics. The current unrestamong the Palestinians makes it seemunlikely to happen anytime soon. Butit is possible. But if the Jews ever dorebuild the templeif they restore

the priesthoodif they resume thesacrifices as some desire to doifthey go back to the Levitical ritual, itwill be a pathetic attempt to go backto an obsolete covenant, to go back tothe types and shadows and entirelymiss the realities. It will be an attemptto go back to being under a tutor andguardian instead of being sons ofGod. And some misguided Christians,


372.

instead of proclaiming the gospelto them, are encouraging them andsupporting them in their efforts to beentangled again in a yoke of bond-age (see Gal. 5:1-6).

Forget what the rabbis say; forgetabout the ancient Jewish legends and

traditions. Here are the facts from theWord of God. The ashes of the redheifer are mentioned nowhere elsein the NT outside of Hebrews 9. Theashes of the red heifer are mentionednowhere in the OT outside of Num-bers 19. There are no prophesies inthe Bible (OT or NT) about the ashesof the red heifer. It all comes fromJewish traditions, fables, and legends.It is very similar to the situation withthe ark of the covenant. Both involve

unfounded speculations that distractthe believer from the real teachings ofScripture. The Apostle Paul warns usabout this kind of error in 1 Timothy1:

3As I urged you when I was goingto Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so

that you may charge certain persons

not to teach any different doctrine,4nor to devote themselves to mythsand endless genealogies, which

promote speculations rather than

the stewardship from God that is byfaith. The aim of our charge is lovethat issues from a pure heart and a

good conscience and a sincere faith.6Certain persons, by swerving from

these, have wandered away into vaindiscussion, 7desiring to be teachers of

the law, without understanding either

what they are saying or the things

about which they make confident as-sertions.

Paul is warning against Jewishteachers who are pushing fables,

genealogies, and idle talk. Not quitethe same thing as we have been talk-ing about here but close, too close forcomfort. The books by Randall Pricecontain hundreds of quotes from Jew-ish rabbis, both ancient and modernand are full of talk about future literalfulfillment of many Old Covenanttypes and shadows. Hebrews (and theNT as a whole) reveals that all these


16/20

Page 16 November 2011 Issue 182VaningerContinued from page 15

pointed to Christ and have fulfilledtheir purpose. At the end of 1 Timothy1:4 (NKJ), Paul encourages Timothyto give heed to godly edification.There is a similar warning/encourage-mentin Titus 1:10, 11, 13, 14; 2:1.

10For there are many who are

insubordinate, empty talkers and

deceivers, especially those of the

circumcision party. 11 They must be si-lenced, since they are upsetting whole

families by teaching for shameful gain

what they ought not to teach... 13This

testimony is true. Therefore rebukethem sharply, that they maybe sound

in the faith, 14not devoting themselves

to Jewish myths and the commands of

people who turn away from the truth.

1

But as for you, teach what ac-cords with sounddoctrine.

What is godly edification? Whatis sound doctrine? Its what we findin the New Testamentin Hebrewsin Pauls lettersin the Gospels.Thats what we should get excitedabout and teach. Hebrews in its en-tirety is warning against turning backto the Jewish faith. The Galatianswere troubled by Jewish teachers whosought to turn them back to practicing

circumcision, Sabbath keeping, OTfood laws, and other Old Covenantpractices. Paul writes this to them inGalatians 4 (he is clearly exasperatedby their behavior):

9But now that you have come to

know God, or rather to be known byGod, how can you turn back again to

the weak and worthless elementary

principles of the world, whose slaves

you want to be once more? 10Youobserve days and months and seasons

and years!

11

I am afraid I may havelabored over you in vain.

Hebrews 9:15 very clearly ex-presses one of the purposes of theNew Covenant: to provide redemptionfrom the transgressions revealed bythe Old Covenant. Our writer showsan important connection between theOld Covenant and the New Covenantwhich involves both continuity anddiscontinuity. The first covenantcondemns the sinner; the new cov-

enant redeems the sinner. Christsdeath paid for the sins of the OT be-lievers (the believing remnant withinethnic Israel). The animal sacrificesthey offered in faith anticipated thebetter sacrifice of Christ which iswhat really paid for their sins.

Verse 15 is one of the key state-ments in Hebrews. It affirms in nouncertain terms that the first (Mosaic)covenant was provisional, transient,and not self-sufficient. It links the OldCovenant solidly to the New Cov-enant, teaching that the forgivenessexperienced during the OT perioddepended finallyalthough this washardly understood at the timeuponan event that was to take place in thefuture.9 The advent of the Christian

faith does not diminish the glory andbeauty of the Jewish faith even thoughit does, in fact, outshine it.

The word mediatoroccurs 6 timesin the NT, 3 times in Pauls letters,and 3 times in Hebrews. What is amediator? It is one who brings aboutthe reconciliation of two parties whowere at odds with each other, under-taking to maintain the interests andgood will of both. When the mediatorhas finished his work, all legal diffi-culties have been resolved and the twoparties shake hands to demonstratethat they are pleased with the arrange-ment and that all hostility and animos-ity have been removed. In mediatingbetween a holy, just God and sinfulmen, the mediator has taken stepsto satisfy the holiness and justice ofGod and, at the same time, provideforgiveness and redemption for thecondemned sinner and also remove allantagonism toward God.

16For where a will is involved, the

death of the one who made it must beestablished. 17For a will takes effect

only at death, since it is not in force as

long as the one who made it is alive.

Covenant (h) is anotherimportant word in this passage and inHebrews as a whole. This word occursa total of 33 times in the Greek NT:

9 Hagner, NIBC,Hebrews, 141.

Gospels 4

Acts 2

Pauls letters 9

Hebrews 17

Revelat

sound of grace, issue 182, nov-2011

Documents