By Paul Henebury on
Covenants
Hermeneutics

Read part 1 and part 2.

In the Bible there is always a correspondence between God’s words and His actions. You see it in the Creation narratives: “God said…and it was so.” You see it in the gospel: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” You see it in such mundane places as the curing of Naaman, or Jesus’ healing of Jairus’s daughter. When God says He is going to do something, you can bank on it. While there are places where God relents on judgment (especially after intercession), our faith depends upon the fixity of His meaning. God will do what He says He will do.

This is important on two fronts: first because God must be as good as His word or His character is in question. God’s attributes of veracity and immutability stand behind His promises. The second reason God must mean what He says is because God requires faith from us. Faith must “know” what it is that is to be believed. Faith cannot thrive where ambiguity is let in. Faith has to be able to separate truth from error, or we are wasting our time warning people against error. If the meaning is uncertain, doubt has a foothold.

This is where we left off last time. Covenants necessarily take up within themselves this notion of dis-ambiguity.

But in that case what is one to make of this?

Israel is called God’s son… Only later will the full import of this be apparent as the perfect Son of God comes to fulfill in his own life all God’s purposes for Israel.(Graeme Goldsworthy, According To Plan, 141)

This is the same writer who said, “God cannot go back on his [covenanted] word.” But sadly he doesn’t mean what one would think he means (that God will do what He has said He will do). Note here the equivocation on the word “son.” In the case of Israel it is a figure of speech. In the case of Jesus it is actually true. No wonder “the full import” was not known in OT times! Notice also that Goldsworthy thinks that “God’s purposes for Israel” (a Nation to whom land is covenanted—Gen. 15), are “fulfilled” in the life of Christ (a Person). According to the OT revelation, the Messiah was to “raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel” (Isa. 49:6), so that He “will make her wilderness like Eden” (Isa. 51:3; Ezek. 36:35), where, using covenant language, He has promised the Nation, “you will dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezek. 36:28; Amos 9:14-15). They have been led to expect God’s blessing on their restored land (Hos. 2:18; Isa. 11:6-10; Ezek. 34:25-27), and God Himself will “betroth you to me forever” (Hos. 2:19).

Since these are all covenanted promises, backed by the oath of God; and since covenants are reinforcements of clear speech which guarantee something, Goldsworthy’s explanation of how God is not going back on His word by fulfilling all this in Christ is a little hard to see. Actually, the explanation itself is filled with just the kind of ambiguities which covenants are supposed to eradicate.

No wonder then, we can be told that,

The semi-nomadic wanderings of Abraham and his descendants in Canaan did not serve God’s purposes of revelation fully enough. Throughout the Old Testament, possession of the land is presented as a shadow of the future reality of God’s people in his kingdom. (Ibid, 130-131)

And in which covenant of the Old Testament is one told this? Where are “the words of the covenant” which create this expectation? What is the expectation these covenants do create?

We must add here that the theological covenants of Reformed theology do not pass muster in this regard because they have nebulous specificity. Covenant theologians disagree regarding what each of these supposed covenants does. Since none of them are described in the Bible (they are inferred from viewing the two Testaments from a particular angle), they are in no sense on a par with the clearly defined covenants of Scripture.

According to Goldsworthy, the gospel event must be presupposed for the OT to be rightlyunderstood (76). But if the covenants which God made could not be rightly understood until afterJesus had died and gone back to heaven, and if by the words used they raised false expectations in God’s people in throughout the OT era, we would be forced to admit that God’s word, even under oath, apparently (in some theologies) is ambiguous, and that deliberately! Just what was an OT saint supposed to believe when reading the covenants?

One might not wish to go there, but I do not see a way out—apart, that is, from adopting ambiguous language.

More to come…

Discussion

Mon, 08/11/14

I am surprised this article hasn’t gotten any discussion! It is a very basic principle that God means what He says, and that the meaning of God’s covenants must have been understandable to their original audience:

  • Did God really mean it when He made the covenant with Abraham? Were the promises to Abraham, his descendants (Israel) and Gentiles simply absorbed, sponge-like, into Christ? Or, are some of these promises not yet fulfilled?

Michael Vlach writes:

“… supercessionists, in rightly claiming that Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT, mistakenly assume that the details of the OT prophesies are absorbed into Christ in some Hindu or Platonic-like way that makes the specifics of these prophesies no longer relevant,” (Has The Church Replaced Israel: A Theological Evaluation [Nashville, TN: B&H, 2010] , 9).

Paul Henebury wrote:

Since these are all covenanted promises, backed by the oath of God; and since covenants are reinforcements of clear speech which guarantee something, Goldsworthy’s explanation of how God is not going back on His word by fulfilling all this in Christ is a little hard to see.

According to Goldsworthy, the gospel event must be presupposed for the OT to be rightly understood (76). But if the covenants which God made could not be rightly understood until afterJesus had died and gone back to heaven, and if by the words used they raised false expectations in God’s people in throughout the OT era, we would be forced to admit that God’s word, even under oath, apparently (in some theologies) is ambiguous, and that deliberately! Just what was an OT saint supposed to believe when reading the covenants?

What do the non-dispensationalists think about this?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Mon, 08/11/14

I’ve discussed the land promises to Israel with a preterist, and he pointed out Joshua 21:43-45 43 So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. 44 The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. 45 Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass.

and Nehemiah 9:7-8 7 “You are the Lord God, who chose Abram and brought him out of Ur of the Chaldeans and named him Abraham. 8 You found his heart faithful to you, and you made a covenant with him to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Jebusites and Girgashites. You have kept your promise because you are righteous.

So according to him, those verses say the land promises have already been fulfilled, and I can see how they certainly seem to read that way. So how can I explain those verses to him and tell him that they do NOT really mean the promises have been fulfilled?

Mon, 08/11/14

Look at the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. God’s words will be your guide. The covenant with Abraham was unconditional; meaning that God’s promise was not contingent on anything man did. God Himself passed between the broken pieces of the offering in Gen 15:17-21. He told Abraham:

“And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever,” (Gen 13:14-15).

Forever means something. It means forever.

Genesis 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Everlasting also means something. It means forever. Israel didn’t possess the land forever; she disobeyed the terms of the conditional, Mosaic Covenant and is being disciplined even to this very day. God promised to honor the Abrahamic Covenant, and He’ll do it by way of a new and better covenant in Christ. The failure of the old covenant demonstrated the necessity for the new.

How did the Israelites themselves understand the land promise in the Abrahamic Covenant?

Moses pleaded with God in the aftermath of the golden calf incident:

“Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people,” (Ex 32:13-14).

God warned Israel about the blessings and cursings for covenant disobedience (under the terms of the conditional, temporary Mosaic Covenant). Listen to what God says:

“And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD,” (Lev 26:44-45).

Why will God not cast Israel aside for violating the Mosaic Covenant? Because He made a promise to Abraham, and that promise is unconditional. He’ll bring them back to the land under the terms of a new and better covenant in Christ.

I could go on, and on, and on, and on. If you take the terms of the various covenants seriously, then you have a solid framework for understand all of God’s actions throughout Scripture.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Mon, 08/11/14

[TylerR]

Forever means something. It means forever.

I believe I did have a discussion with him about the word “forever.” I remember him claiming that the Hebrew word translated “forever” actually means “long duration’ or “until the end of a period of time.” He said the Hebrew word does not actually convey the concept of eternity as our English word “forever” does. Was he wrong in that assessment? I’ve never studied Hebrew myself (and I suspect he hasn’t either).

Mon, 08/11/14

Why do people always run to the original languages when they’re cornered? I suspect it is a desperate attempt to escape the implications of his own folly. Tell him to show you an English translation that agrees with his ridiculous claim. I haven’t had Hebrew yet (which is why I probably won’t finish my MDiv until about 2075). I don’t think you need Hebrew to answer this question.

What legitimate English translation on the market understands “forever” not meaning “forever?” If it didn’t mean forever, it wouldn’t have been translated “forever.” Look at some dynamic equivalence translation which are less tied to the literal text. For example, the NLT says “I am giving all this land, as far as you can see, to you and your descendants as a permanent possession,” (Gen 13:15).

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Mon, 08/11/14

[TylerR]

Why do people always run to the original languages when they’re cornered? I suspect it is a desperate attempt to escape the implications of his own folly. Tell him to show you an English translation that agrees with his ridiculous claim. I haven’t had Hebrew yet (which is why I probably won’t finish my MDiv until about 2075). I don’t think you need Hebrew to answer this question.

What legitimate English translation on the market understands “forever” not meaning “forever?” If it didn’t mean forever, it wouldn’t have been translated “forever.” Look at some dynamic equivalence translation which are less tied to the literal text. For example, the NLT says “I am giving all this land, as far as you can see, to you and your descendants as a permanent possession,” (Gen 13:15).

I suppose I could use this line of reasoning with him, but I suspect he would then accuse me of running to the ENGLISH language when I’m cornered in order to deny the truth of Joshua 21:43-45 in which the author specifically stated that all the promises had been fulfilled. I hadn’t really noticed those verses in Joshua until he pointed them out. I wonder why Joshua would word it that way.

Mon, 08/11/14

Kevin:

You are not cornered. They conquered the land. They then lost it because they failed to uphold the Mosaic Covenant. That covenant was conditional; the blessings and the cursings (Lev 26; Deut 28-30) make this quite clear. The Mosaic Covenant did not negate the Abrahamic. It was a means to fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant; one that failed due to man’s sin. It did not negate the Abrahamic Covenant, or what God promised to do with the New Covenant.

Israel did not possess the land forever. And yet, God promised they would - that promise was unconditional. To suggest Israel lost it permanently through disobedience is to say that God’s predicated His own faithfulness in the Abrahamic Covenant on man’s obedience. If that’s the case, then we’re all doomed.

God made specific promises to (1) Abraham, (2) his descendants, and (3) Gentiles in the Abrahamic Covenant. What warrant do we have to believe these promises were not real and literal?

You can answer the Joshua question easily. Zoom out to the bigger picture - God means what He says:

  • God promised a seed of the woman would crush the head of the serpent (Gen 3:15).
  • This is why God was longsuffering enough to start over and give Adam and Eve a new son, Seth, after Abel had been murdered and Cain had been cursed and banished. Else, how could this promise be fulfilled?
  • This is why God was longsuffering enough to save Noah and his family, and start over again after humanity descended into moral chaos
  • This was why God was longsuffering enough to start over again with Abraham. He promised to (1) bless Abraham and give him a son, (2) give him descendants more numerous than the stars in the sky or the sand on the beach, (3) those descendants would possess a particular land forever, (4) all the nations of earth would be blessed through Abraham. More could be said, but you get the point.
    • Also, realize that Israel is God’s elect people. If you believe in unconditional election, then you have a problem here if you claim the church is the new Israel.
  • God furthered this great promise by creating a theocracy, where God’s people would be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation who followed God’s perfect law, drawing all people to God by their own holy example. Israel would be blessed for covenant faithfulness, and cursed for unfaithfulness - this is a conditional covenant.
  • God continued to further the promise to Abraham by making a covenant with David. God’s people would have a king from David’s lineage whose kingdom and throne would never pass away. God further promised that His mercy would not depart from David’s “house” like it did with Saul - this is an unconditional promise.
  • Israel failed at it’s zenith under Solomon; thus God punished Israel by splitting the kingdom in two and eventually destroying both halves when they failed to keep the Mosaic Covenant
  • God promised to bring Israel back to the land after He scattered her, under the terms of a new and better covenant, where God would give them a new heart and a new spirit and everybody will know the Lord. The reason He bothered, and didn’t cast off Israel permanently for her unfaithfulness is because God made an unconditional promise to Abraham. All throughout the prophets, that one promise is the linchpin of their hopes for restoration. Look at Zacharias’ prayer (Lk 1:67-89; esp vv. 72-74).
  • Christ came to offer this kingdom and glory to His covenant people. They rejected Him. Christ then announced the mystery of the church, an insertion into God’s program, where both Jews and Gentiles will be fellow-heirs in Christ for the first time ever. The building block of the church is Spirit-baptism and the permanent in-dwelling of the Spirit - a New Covenant distinctive. The New Covenant has been inaugurated in part, and the rest awaits fulfillment
  • God promised to bring Israel back to their land and give them their king, and cleanse their hearts and give them a new Spirit. This will happen, because God made unconditional promises in the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants. God’s promises are not dependant on us. You can’t read Scripture without acknowledging that Israelites have understood these covenants to be literal.

You question about Joshua is easy to answer. Take your friend out to the bigger picture, and look ask him what he thinks of the covenants God has made. Does He mean what He says?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

Mon, 08/11/14

This must be understood as Joshua standing in the land after many victories and declaring the Lord’s faithfulness. But that it was not intended to describe absolute possession or fulfillment is seen later in Joshua 23:3-5, 7, 11-13 where there is still more work to do and more places to conquer. Likewise with Nehemiah, he bemoans the loss of the land. But he does not include all the grant we read of in Gen. 15, which extends approximately 300,000 square miles.

Kevin, with respect you will not make any headway with your Preterist until you take him to Jer. 33:14-26 and nail his feet to the fire there. Ask him to exegete the whole passage. He won’t do it!

Regards,

Paul H

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Mon, 08/11/14

[Paul Henebury]

Kevin, with respect you will not make any headway with your Preterist until you take him to Jer. 33:14-26 and nail his feet to the fire there. Ask him to exegete the whole passage. He won’t do it!

I actually did ask my friend to explain this passage in a conversation on Facebook. Our conversation is now over 30 posts long, and we have covered the definition of Israel, whether God’s requirements can morph over time, and even the definition of forever. There is a particular question he had in the course of our conversation, and I want to ask it here to figure out the best way to phrase an answer. When I first asked him to explain Jer. 33:14-26, I stated that the verses contained prophesies that “won’t be fulfilled until God restores Israel and Judah as a nation, with Christ ruling over them and with temple worship being restored in the Millennial kingdom.” I hope that was a correct way of phrasing things. Later in the conversation, he wrote, “I just read back through all of your comments above & I am totally struck by confusion. I am baffled, and I mean that in a way to denote my feelings & not to shame you in some way, by the way you insist that a worldly nation of Israel and the sacrificial system will return in one breath, and then claim to be a Christian whose faith is based upon the scriptures and whose savior is Jesus in another breath. Again, I’m trying to put this in a way that isn’t an attack, but the two ideas seem to be completely against each other. How can you take Hebrews 9 & 10 (and others, but it’s very plain here) which paint the picture of how much of a better sacrifice Jesus made and therefore how much more perfect of a system the new covenant is and then follow that up with the idea that the old way will be restored?”

So how do I explain a future sacrificial system to someone? Thanks.

Mon, 08/11/14

Kevin,

First thing I would say is, don’t provide your interpretation of the passage. You said, “I stated that the verses contained prophesies that “won’t be fulfilled until God restores Israel and Judah as a nation, with Christ ruling over them and with temple worship being restored in the Millennial kingdom.”

But this gives him no room to figure out the passage free from your interpretation. What is needed is for him to provide his interpretation (without skipping the details), and then knowing what to do with it.

Second thing is, what you report he wrote must be understood for what it is. He is baffled BECAUSE of his own preunderstanding. It is in his head, not on the page of Holy Writ. Whether or not Israel will be restored as a nation has get absolutely nothing to do with Calvary as a sacrifice. The two things are in no way logically at odds. There is an assumption operating in the back of his mind that creates confusion (probably that there can be only one people of God - the church). And what IS “very plain” in Hebrews 9 & 10 is that the New covenant in Christ replaces the old covenant (the Law). His atonement in the ‘true tabernacle’ in heaven knocks out the repeated ministrations of the High Priest and priests under the old covenant in the temple. So what? The ‘Millennial Temple’ is a New covenant temple! Hebrews 10:1-18 shows that is issue is the replacement of the old covenant with the New. Jesus’ sacrifice dealt with sin as the cleansing of the conscience toward God once for all. Here may I recommend a reading of my posts on ‘The Forgotten Covenant’, especially Pt. 4.

You don’t have to explain a future sacrificial system to anyone until they have faced Jer. 33:14-26 etc. I know you have discussed it, but I would bet a fair sum that he has not exegeted it for you. How can he talk about how Hebrews 9 & 10 is “very plain” and ignore the even more plain language in Jeremiah 33?

Hope that helps.

God bless you and yours,

Paul H

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Mon, 08/11/14

[Paul Henebury] I know you have discussed it, but I would bet a fair sum that he has not exegeted it for you. How can he talk about how Hebrews 9 & 10 is “very plain” and ignore the even more plain language in Jeremiah 33?
Well, when I first asked him to explain the passage, he asked me what in particular I wanted to know. We have had conversations in the past where one of us has gone off in one particular direction when the person asking the question was looking for a different particular direction. So that is why I gave my summary to him. Then he DID explain how he interpreted each of the verses. Maybe that was just discussing and not exegeting, but what would he have had to do differently to exegete it? I thought exegete just meant to give an interpretation. The main point of his interpretation is that Christ is the fulfillment of the person sitting on David’s throne and of the person ministering as a priest, since Christ is our high priest.

I know you said that I don’t have to explain a future sacrificial system to anyone until they have faced Jeremiah 33, but I myself HAVE faced it, and take it literally, but I am still confused myself about the purpose or function of the sacrifices in a New Covenant temple. I’ll be sure to read that article you had linked. I probably will not discuss sacrifices with him anytime soon. because right now we are back to questions about WHO would get the benefits of the Abrahamic covenant. He asked me if i consider Christians to be “the seed of Abraham.” My top-of-the-head response is “no,” but I need to check out whether there might be some verse that ties us in tangentially with “the seed of Abraham” before I give him that answer. I know we are included in “all the nations of the world” being blessed.

Mon, 08/11/14

I see, well straight off I hope you see that his explanation of Jer. 33 was not an exegesis (i.e. a mining of what is there) but a reinterpretation. Though Jesus can fulfill the Davidic covenant, He can only do so in the terms of that covenant (e.g. 33:17, my concern in these posts), not typologically. Anyway, as a Judah-ite Jesus can in no way fulfill the language of promise to the Levites in Jer. 33. Further, Jer. 33:15 locates the ‘Branch of righteousness’ in the earth. So your friend dodged the location, the covenant meaning of throne, the time (‘in that day’), the tribe of priests, and probably the identification of those who ‘despise My people’ in v.24.

If you haven’t done so, it would be helpful to ask him to explain Matt. 21:43.

As for the seed of Abraham, I have some posts which deal with it if you’re inhterested: http://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/galatians-3-the-land-and-the-abrahamic-covenant-what-was-paul-thinking-pt-1/

God bless,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Mon, 08/11/14

[Paul Henebury]

So your friend dodged the location, the covenant meaning of throne, the time (‘in that day’), the tribe of priests, and probably the identification of those who ‘despise My people’ in v.24.

Thanks for this list. I’ll have to cover some of these items with him. We have already talked about David’s throne, and I insisted that the throne had to be referring exclusively to an earthly throne which will one day be re-established. That does get me thinking, though, about the specific words of Jeremiah 33:17 “David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel.” If the throne is ONLY an earthly throne, then that verse would not be true of the time period from the captivity all the way through today. So do I need to adjust my wording and say that David’s throne refers both to Christ ruling in heaven and to the physical throne that will be on earth later?

If you haven’t done so, it would be helpful to ask him to explain Matt. 21:43.
I’m not sure that would be so helpful, since he would then ask ME to explain how I understand this verse. I think he would even thank me for pointing it out, since to him it would support his viewpoint that the kingdom has been taken from Israel and given to the church, made up of people who are “a royal priesthood, a holy nation” from I Peter 2:9. So how IS that verse supposed to be explained?

Also, I have another question regarding covenants. I know that nothing can be added or taken away from a covenant, and the meaning of specific words cannot be changed to mean something different later. I also know that “covenants prescribe obligations and raise certain expectations,” as you wrote in part 2 of your series. In an unconditional covenant, God is going to fulfill the expectations (His promises) even if men do not keep the obligations. My question is - Do the obligations of God’s covenants remain in place throughout time? Are they an unchanging part of the covenant? For example, God made a covenant with Noah that he wouldn’t destroy the world again with a flood, and God will keep that promise. God told Noah in the covenant to be fruitful and multiply, to institute capital punishment, and to abstain from eating blood. I can see as how those commands would still be in effect, especially the one about blood, since that was repeated in the New Testament. The obligation which I am having trouble wrapping my mind around is the obligation in the Abrahamic covenant for people to be circumcised. Has that been changed? People who are members of the church do not need to be circumcised, and that would include both Jewish and Gentile members of the church. Are ethnic Jews outside of the church still under a God-given obligation to be circumcised, even though the church is not under that obligation? Has the obligation been suspended during the church age, only to be resumed later? If so, isn’t a suspension basically the same as a change during the current time period?

Thanks for interacting with me.

Mon, 08/11/14

Kevin,

You should deal with him on Matt. 21:43 because he will teach you that the church is the nation which replaces Israel. In context Jesus is talking to the religious leaders and the nation who will get the kingdom is the people of Israel who are prepared to accept it (see also 23:37-38, noting the “until” in v.28). You want a clear replacement statement so you can go back to Jer. 33 and ask him to explain the contradiction he has made: God swearing to uphold the Davidic, Priestly and Abrahamic covenants against God being willing to take the kingdom from Israel and give it to the church. As I said, he probably did not go verse by verse explaining Jer. 33:14-26!

God promising that the earthly throne would be perpetuated because of His Davidic covenant does not necessitate an unbroken reign of kings, just an unbroken line of legal heirs. Remember that even after the Babylonian Exile Israel was hardly notable for obedience; and certainly not in Jesus’ day. Hence, they were still under Divine disapproval and the curse of the Law, which is why they had no sovereignty. Jer. 33 would make no sense at all if an unbroken reign was in view, since at that very time the reign of kings was coming to an end. But God’s covenant does not promise such a thing. It DOES promise “David shall never LACK (i.e. unbroken line) a man to sit upon his throne.” And Jer. 33:15 places the Branch (Christ) on that throne on earth when the covenant oaths are fulfilled.

This brings me to the third issue, which is about the obligation of circumcision. Circumcision is a sign or token of the covenant given to Abraham’s physical seed through Isaac and Jacob (which is why it is repeated in the Mosaic covenant). It is not given to Gentiles and is not required of Gentiles who are blessed through the Gentile provisions of the Abrahamic covenant (as Gal. 3). Israel ARE under requirement to circumcise because of their physical relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Circumcision is not in the oath of the AC so it is not something God can point to to nullify His obligations in the oath.

One has to watch for the reasoning which goes, “I think I see a problem therefore it must mean……(supply the inference).” As these posts try to show, God is not off the hook for any oath which He took unilaterally. Thank God, for if He were, we’d be eternally lost!

Your brother,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.

Mon, 08/11/14

[Paul Henebury]

This brings me to the third issue, which is about the obligation of circumcision. Circumcision is a sign or token of the covenant given to Abraham’s physical seed through Isaac and Jacob (which is why it is repeated in the Mosaic covenant). It is not given to Gentiles and is not required of Gentiles who are blessed through the Gentile provisions of the Abrahamic covenant (as Gal. 3). Israel ARE under requirement to circumcise because of their physical relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

I just want to make sure I am correctly understanding the last sentence in this part I have quoted. Are you saying that even as Christians, people who are related to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are under requirement to circumcise?

Mon, 08/11/14

Kevin,

I am saying that Jewish Christians are, like Paul, still Israelites, so it would be expected they be circumcised the 8th day. This would be a long time before they could profess Christ. So, in line with the AC (and perhaps even the MC, because of Rom. 10:1-4), all Israelite males would be circumcised.

The question comes up, “what would happen if Israelites stopped circumcising their sons?” My answer is that it would not remove the obligation on God to eventually fulfill the AC, but, like with all fulfillments, God will have to bring about a heart change (New covenant) so that He could make good His obligations.

As the next part is now up, perhaps further interaction is best there? Thanks for your questions.

Your brother,

Paul

Dr. Paul Henebury

I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.