21- A NEW LOOK AT A NEW CONVENANT MINISTRY

Reopening The Case, Re-Examining The Evidence Part II

The late and beloved Charles Frederick Baker wrote this in A Dispensational Theology :

"Historical Christianity, especially in its covenant type of theology , has practically taken these covenants away from the people with whom God made them, and has appropriated them to the Church of this dispensation. On the other hand, some dispensationalists, in an effort to maintain the unique distinctiveness of this dispensation of the mystery, have denied that the present Church has any relationship whatsoever to Israel's covenants. It shall be our purpose to study the covenants to see if either of these positions is true or perhaps to arrive at a mediating position." ( page 88 )

"It thus seems to be the clear teaching of the Apostle that the covenants were made with Israel, that Israel is not at present enjoying the blessings of the covenants but that they will at a future day, and that at the present time members of the Body of Christ are, in some sense, partaking of the spiritual blessings of these covenants." ( page 89 )

Mr. Baker, in the above quotation on page 89, states that there are things that the Apostle Paul teaches, (with qualifications, according to this reader/writer) :

"That the covenants were made with Israel"

"That Israel is not at present enjoying the blessings of the covenants"

"That they will at a future day"

"That at the present time members of the Body of Christ are, in some sense
partaking of the spiritual blessings of these covenants." ( Italics, under-
lining, bold type, my emphasis )

The qualifier is : "It thus seems the clear teaching of the Apostle…" This phrase becomes 'unclear' with the use of the indefinite 'in some sense'. But we must continue to read Mr. Baker's theology to get a 'clear' and fuller explanation of these introductory remarks.

In discussing "The Median Dispensational View", he clarifies the above statements :

"Thus it appears that in sovereign grace God has bestowed upon the
Gentiles who had no covenant ties with God (Ephesians 2:12), all
of the spiritual blessings in redemption which He had covenanted
with Israel and which Israel had rejected. This was done, not in
fulfillment of a covenant promise, but in sovereign grace, and
hence, although God has always been gracious, this is called the
dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:2)" (page 103)

The title to a small tract by Mr. Baker also gives a more clearer idea that he wants convey ( in this writer's opinion ). That title is Parallel..Not Identical". In this tract, he discusses the subjects: grace, Gentile salvation, the Gospel, 'In Christ' as they are unfolded in the Bible, and shown to be words which run parallel in usage as found in various places (and/or dispensations) but are not identical.

If Mr. Baker were living today, more than likely we would see a revision to some of these areas to make further clarifications, because of the on going debate, dialogue and deliberations presently taking place among Covenant theologians with Dispensationalists and/or between Dispensationalists and Dispensationalists.

As a matter of fact, that is what this paper is all about. Mr. Baker is not speaking for everyone who may hold a "Median Dispensational View", when he states about this view :

"It holds that the blessings of the New Covenant began to be ministered
to the nation of Israel on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, …" (page 103)

Part I of this paper deals with this very idea and takes issue with it.

This writer will look at the New Covenant references including those that Paul presents and make an evaluation and draw some conclusions that hopefully ( although they may not satisfy all readers ) will make a contribution to a better understanding of the problem facing all students of the Bible, who are serious seekers of what the message of the Bible truly is.

The following study should be prefaced with the understanding that Paul's authority was three-fold : He accepted the written so-called Old Testament as God's word. The Bible for Paul during the Acts and after, was the so-called Old Testament. He also accepted the teachings of Jesus Christ in his incarnation ministry, although the "Gospel" records of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not penned during Paul's ministry in Acts. Paul learned much of the teachings of the Lord in his incarnation ministry through members of the Twelve, but not all things that Paul was familiar, as shown below.

Finally, he accepted teachings received from this same Lord Jesus Christ, by revelation, after his glorification :which includes and is a combination of his resurrection, his ascension and his seating at God's right hand. Some of the subjects of these revelations concerned the life and teachings of the Lord in his incarnation ministry. This could include the matters found in I Cor. 11:17-34.

Galatians 4:24 This verse mentions two covenants. The one from Mount Sinai is the Mosaic. The other covenant is NOT the New Covenant, but rather the Abrahamic. The likening of Paul and the Galatians ( 'we, brethren' of 4:28 ) to be considered, as Isaac was, as children of the promise, does not make the believer during and since Paul's day totally and completely identical with the standing of believers in Isaac's day. But it calls for a standing that is Law-free.

It is an argument that puts Paul's converts in a standing before God, like unto Abraham and Isaac, that is faith based. This promise relates to the times of Isaac and Ishmael, and is the basis for the allegory in this context. The argument in Galatians 4:21-31 concerns the same argument in 3:15-29, where there is the contrast of the promise versus the Law, which dates 430 years later (than the promise ) and when it did come, it was added to ( but did not replace ) the promise. The approach of Paul in his arguments in the Galatian epistle must be recognized as refutations of the attack by the enemies of Paul. Paul shows the true/real purpose of the Law.

Ephesians 2:12 There is no mention of the "New Covenant" here. Granted, indirectly, this could include the New Covenant, because it could be considered one of 'the covenants of promise". Cf. Hebrews 8:6 On the other hand, the New Covenant in Jeremiah was only a prophecy of "things to come", not a record of a covenant already made, in effect and having been enjoyed by Israel in the historical past and thus, NOT enjoyed in the Gentiles' historical past.

The teaching , the direction and the argument of Paul's logic in Eph. 2:12-19, states that what the Gentiles did not have, being Gentiles, (in times past), they NOW have "in Christ Jesus". They have become near by the blood of Christ.

At that time in the past, they were "aliens from the commonwealth (politeias) of Israel" and "strangers (zenoi ) of/from the covenants of promise" (Eph. 2:12 ) Arriving at 2:19, They are, " no more strangers (zenoi ) and sojourners" but, fellowcitizens (sumpolitai) not of Israel's commonwealth, but of/with the saints (true believers out of Israel ) and of the household of God". Cf. Eph. 3:6

Luke 22:20 This verse mentions the 'New Covenant'. Whatever meaning there is for this verse, the Acts of the Apostles does NOT show evidence that there is a redemptive understanding for this verse, by those who were there and who heard. The walk on the road to Emmaus by Cleopas and another disciple gives a glimpse of the understanding and vision these two had, which is representative for all of the disciples at that time. "..We hoped that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel…." Luke 24:21a. But he had redeemed through the cross. The fact of Christ's death was evident. The interpretation of that fact was not revealed until the ministry of the Apostle Paul..

So, of course, they did not know. None of the disciples could have gleaned this from the limited revelation that the Lord gave. But he never intended to give more at this time. This was the burden and pleasure of the Apostle Paul. He alone, of all the apostles, first revealed the truth of the death and crucifixion as 'good news'. Luke 22;30 needs to be read along with Matthew 26;29 and Mark 14;25, where there is a connection to the future Kingdom where there will be reunion and celebration.

The Epistle To The Hebrews. F.F. Bruce's Peter, Stephen, James and John would be a good book to read as background material for this New Covenant study. The sub-title is Studies in Non-Pauline Christianity. Bruce feels that the writer of Hebrews gives a Non-Pauline view of 'Christianity'. But the argument in Hebrews remains the same regardless of who wrote it. The writer of this paper believes that a key word or thought running throughout the book is 'future' , not the idea of 'present'. In the writer's first argument, dealing with the Son as appointed heir of all things ( pertaining to the 'future') and the Son's superiority over the angels, he closes ( the argument about angels ) with a reference to "the world to come whereof we speak." Hebrews 2:5

Hebrews 2:8c, "But now we see not yet all things put under him" is a statement which anticipates a 'future'. Hebrews 3:14 hints of a forward look toward 'the end'. Hebrews 4:1 mentions a promise, not the idea of a fulfillment of that promise. Hebrews 4:11 gives an exhortation to 'labor therefore to enter into that rest….' which implies the 'future'. Hebrews 6:5b speaks of the powers of the world (age) to come. It is not here yet. Hebrews 6:18b refers to the hope set before us, looking towards the future. Hebrews 7:19 speaks concerning the bringing in of a better hope, again, looking to the future.

Hebrews 8:6 mentions a better covenant, the new covenant, established upon better promises and the emphasis should be on the promises and not on their fulfillment.

The eighth chapter closes with the idea that at the mention of a 'new' , he hath made the first old, but there is NOT the replacement of the old with the 'new' in this context or is there by implication an idea of a present replacement. But, the chapter closes with the idea about that which being made old and aging is ready to vanish away( but it has not vanished away yet, nor has it been replaced. That remains for the future.)

Hebrews 9:11 explains that Christ has become an high priest of good things to come. This again is not a present thing, but is looking towards the future. Cf. Hebrews 10:1

Hebrews 10:36 speaks about receiving the promise, which at the time of writing, they had NOT received. It was still anticipated.

The great heroes of faith, "…these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better things for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. Hebrews 11:39-40 The New Covenant is to be viewed as having still a future to be realized. The two groups in view here have not enjoyed the realization together YET, it is still in the future.

Hebrews 13:14 speaks about the future, about a continuing city that is (still) to come.

Hebrews then, is an epistle that deals with many aspects of the New Covenant, but never speaks of it as having a historical past, ( that is, having a historical past, say, from the Acts 2 Pentecost) or thus to have arrived and fulfilled or as presently here and being enjoyed or experienced.

Romans 11:26-27 These verses mentions the word covenant, which is accepted as a reference to the New Covenant. There is no intimation that there is a relationship of the Body of Christ in these verses to the New Covenant. No further comment needed.

I Corinthians 11:17-34 This portion does not indicate ( to this writer ) that the New Covenant as mentioned in this context has an action of out-flowing 'spiritual blessings which the Body of Christ is accepting and receiving' or in some sense partaking. Here is the bread, the cup, the eating and the drinking and here is the remembrance OF HIM. Others may read in or out of this passage whatever they see, feel or understand.

As pointed out in Part I, there is never an intimation or a full blown explanation and exposition of the meaning of the cross, the blood, the death of Messiah as it may/might relate to the New Covenant as presented in the Acts of the Apostles. Neither is this text giving an exposition of 'new covenant' theology as in might relate to the church, which is Christ's body. Paul is recording a celebration received from the Lord, that happened the night in which he was betrayed………………which celebration was to be 'celebrated' by the church, which is his body.

It is this writer's understanding that Paul is delivering what he also received of the Lord.

He does not expound on the matter here. He does not receive here the New Covenant, but receives and delivers a historical unfolding of the celebrating event.

To Be Continued...

Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi