Covenant Theology in Hebrews
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 07. 2020
- Jeremy Boothby speaks about covenant theology through the biblical-theological lens of the book of Hebrews. In so doing, he compares and contrasts 1689 Federalism and other particular baptist approaches to covenant theology with that of confessional Reformed covenant theology. Following the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, Boothby gets to the heart of the difference between particular baptists and Reformed paedobaptists.
The matter hinges on the present life-setting of the New Covenant Church in the wilderness. The author of Hebrews compares the church, which is presently in the New Covenant, to the first generation of Israelites in the wilderness. They were on their pilgrimage and had not yet entered their promised rest. As such, there was a real possibility of apostasy from the covenant. Likewise, the New Covenant Church has not yet entered the New Heavens and New Earth, to which earthly Canaan pointed. The author encourages covenant members to strive to enter their rest, not to fall away as they follow their forerunner and heavenly high priest, Jesus Christ.
Rev. Boothby is pastor of Christ Covenant OPC in Amarillo, Texas.
This is Christ the Center episode 655 (www.reformedforum.org/ctc655)
I just listened to, and am grateful for, this discussion. I'm reformed baptist in my leanings, and formerly reformed presbyterian, but I've been devouring these Christ the Center/Reformed Forum podcasts. You do a great job in hosting, Camden. Thank you!
Watching from Thailand 🇹🇭
Saving this one, to listen again and again. Great points!
I'm gonna have to listen to this again to pickup what i missed. A great discussion. Thanks for uploading this to CZcams.
This was awesome. I just finished William Lane’s commentary on Mark. He speaks of Jesus being in the wilderness during his ministry, that there was a wilderness motif throughout his ministry. I wonder if there is any parallel with the church being in the wilderness, not yet In the new heaven and earth, and Christ being in the wilderness and not yet resurrected/ascended. Jesus also exhibited perfect obedience and faith during his wilderness experience. Maybe I am stretching things...
Awesome. Thank you so much!
I can't thank enough Reformed Forum for all there work and service to the church. What an episode!
I have a question that reformed baptists give that I don't have an answer.
"How can 10:29 mean that the apostate was sanctified by the blood of the covenant when preceding this, in 10:14, everyone that is sanctified (and therefore are in the covenant) has been made perfect forever by the one offering of Christ (meaning that the sanctified are the elect) and therefore, can never apostatize?"
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
Hebrews 10:14 NASB
"Isn't it a contradiction to say that for the author of Hebrews in 10:14 the sanctified were perfected by Christ's sacrifice (because the sanctified are the elect because Christ died only for them), but yet in 10:29 the sanctified that was perfected can apostatize in the manner that it describes there (meaning that they're not the elect and aren't perfected, even though 10:14 suggests that every sanctified were perfected and therefore, are elect because Christ died only for them)?
Is it possible that the sanctified in 10:29 is Christ himself or the covenant itself and not the apostate; and if so, does that change your paedobaptistic-covenantal-theological presuppositions of the book of Hebrews (meaning that you accept that for the book of Hebrews the sanctified (because they're in the covenant and are being sanctified) were perfected (they're the elect because Christ died only for them), and therefore the ones that are in the covenant are only the elect because the ones that are sanctified were perfected because Christ died only for them)?
Or, is it possible that the apostate in 10:29 isn't a true apostate , but is a truly sanctified believer and thus, perfected by Christ (in lite of the meaning of sanctified and perfected in 10:14), and that the explanation for this is the judgment of God in like manner as the judgment upon the man excommunicated in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 that his flesh was destroyed but his spirit saved on the day of Christ, being this a correlation to excommunication in Numbers 15:30 which is referenced in 10:26 of Hebrews? And if so, doesn't this means that the sanctified in 10:29 confirms my thesis [the reformed baptist thesis] that all in the new covenant are all elect because all that are in the new covenant are sanctified because they were perfect by and in Christ as 10:14 suggests, and therefore, if you have someone like the one in 10:29, he can still be saved because, as verse 30 suggested, he is still God's people but is judge like 1 Corinthians 3:12-17?
Or, is it about the coming judgment of the Lord over the old covenant breakers (Israel) in 70AD?"
This are questions that I as a presbyterian cannot answer fully.
My one introductory answer is that there is a difference between ἁγιαζομένους (those who are being sanctified) in verse 14, and ἡγιάσθη (he was sanctified) in verse 29, even though it comes form the same root ἁγιάζω.
ἁγιαζομένους in verse 14 is a verb - Present Passive Participle - Accusative Plural Masculine,
and is telling that the sanctified were made perfect by Christ and that's why they are being sanctified in the now
(is there here a pauline eschatological overlay of the now and not yet, proving he's the author?).
But ἡγιάσθη in verse 29 is verb - Aorist Passive Indicative - 3rd Person Singular,
and it doesn't have the same meaning since is not a present reality for the one sanctified (he's not being sanctified because he has apostatize from the covenant mentioned there).
"The aorist is characterized by its emphasis on punctiliar action; that is, the concept of the verb is considered without regard for past, present, or future time. There is no direct or clear English equivalent for this tense, though it is generally rendered as a simple past tense in most translations. The events described by the aorist tense are classified into a number of categories by grammarians. The most common of these include a view of the action as having begun from a certain point ("inceptive aorist"), or having ended at a certain point ("cumulative aorist"), or merely existing at a certain point ("punctiliar aorist").("information from blue letter bible)
But then I get stuck there, sense I'm just starting greek. And that doesn't answer the question of whether the sanctified in verse 29 is the apostate, or Christ himself as the high priest in the law sanctified himself before offering for the people, or the covenant was sanctified.
But hopefully someone in Reformed Forum reads this and helps me with it. :)
Love you all, and God bless.
Χριστιανός ישוע I have also been thinking about this issue. I think there are two valid readings to v29: ‘by which he was sanctified.’ The first is that it is referring to the apostate and the second is that it is referring to Christ; I think an exegetical case can be made for both. I tend to lean to the reading that v29 refers to the apostate because of v30: ‘The Lord will judge his people’.
From the context, starting from v26, we are told, for the one who carries on in deliberate sin ‘there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins’ and in v27 the judgement spoken of seems to be a most severe one - one that ‘consumes the adversaries’. So I struggle to see how this judgment spoken of is not the irreversible eschatological judgment of the wicked.
Therefore I have to conclude that the word ‘sanctified’ in v29 is being used in a different way to that in v14. I cannot speak to the Greek because I’m just a layman. I would love to see this issue discussed in depth by brothers who are more qualified than myself.
@T. folia Thanks for recommending Calvin's commentary on Hebrews. I don't have it, and I'm sure that it will help alot.
To answer your question, I'm not asking whether a true believer (and elect) can apostate and lose there salvation. I'm very much reformed and I affirm the P (perseverance of the saints). And I've read the confessions and affirm there teaching.
My questions that are in quotation (because they are questions that reformed baptist give) are about the understanding of verse 29 in light of what has been said in verse 14.
Some refomed baptist say that we presbyterians say that the sanctified in verse 29 is the apostate, and therefore, you can have non-elect in the new covenant (and baptized infants), but they challenge the fact that in verse 14 if a person is called "sanctified" it's because he/she was perfected by Christ, and therefore they are elect. This for them means that the sanctified in verse 29 is not the apostate, but rather it is Christ the one sanctified by the blood of the covenant. Therefore, if it is Christ in verse 29, presbyterians don't have a proof text in Hebrews 10:29 about an apostate being in the new covenant, sense it is Christ the sanctified, giving them a proof that only the elect are in the new covenant (and therefore, no babies baptized).
@@user-yx2pb9st7n If you are interested, we discussed this verse in response to a more recent episode where Boothby gave a fuller explanation. Our comments are towards the latter half of the video czcams.com/video/xSYSgGUVypA/video.html
@@Bewareofthewolves I believe the judgment spoken of is the eschatological judgment of the wicked, but I fail to see how that therefore rules out the interpretation that "sanctified" in v29 refers to Christ being set apart for his priestly work. The apostate has profaned the blood by which Christ was sanctified by abandoning the gospel. He will therefore be judged. Note also that "The Lord will judge his people" is not necessarily commenting on membership in the New Covenant. It's simply a quotation from the Old Covenant (which the apostate wants to return to) warning an Old Covenant member that he will be judged and establishing more generally God as judge (note Rom 12:19 quotation of the same passage).
@@brandonadams07 I wanted to ask if you disagree with John Gill`s Commentary below and if yow do disagree are you able to state where exactly you disagree?
Hebrews 10:29
"Of how much sorer punishment",.... Than a mere corporeal death, which was the punishment inflicted on the transgressors of the law of Moses.
"Suppose ye;".... the apostle appeals to the Hebrews themselves, and makes them judges of what punishment
"shall he be thought worthy;"..... who is described as follows:
"who hath trodden under foot the Son of God:"....... this seems to be a stronger expression than crucifying him again, Heb_6:6 and is to be understood, not of what was in fact committed, but in will by persons; who, could they have had their will of him, would have pulled him from his throne, and trampled upon him: it is a phrase expressive of the utmost scorn, contempt, and ill usage; and which such are guilty of, who deny his deity, and eternal sonship; who render him useless in his offices, undervalue his sacrifice, despise his righteousness, and strip him of the glory of his person, office, and grace. And this is aggravated by his being the Son of God who is thus used, who became the son of man for the sake of men, is superior to men, and equal with God:
"and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy"...... thing; or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it איך דכלנש, "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant": though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy:
"and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace;"...... by denying his being, deity, and personality; despising his powerful operations as enthusiasm; treating his extraordinary gifts as illusions; and ascribing his miracles to Satan, and representing the Gospel dictated by him as a fable, or a lie: and this is aggravated by his being "the spirit of grace"; the author, giver, and applier of all grace to the saints; and who therefore ought not to be in the least slighted, but highly esteemed and honoured; nor will such affronts go unpunished.
Glad to hear ARF on Reformed Forum
fascinating!
I would love a follow up episode on this tackling Ephesians 2:12 and how it’s used in some closer species of 1689 Federalism. In Rob Venturas book, the team tackles this challenge at least in part by showing how their continuity with the reformed while not expressly put in the term “2 administrations” is maintained by way of the “covenant of redemption”, a term which didn’t find express use in WCF but seems compatible with WCF 3 and 7.
How might a Presbyterian or Continental reformed take on the expressly stated “covenants of promise” language in Ephesians 2:12 go? The reformation study Bible does not allude to any form of progressive revelatory structure assumed by Baptist in this phrase but the ESV Study Bible seems to allow for a more granular (biblical theological) take on this phrase.
Hendriksen/Kistemaker turn the plural into a singular, flattening out the progressive revelatory “in time” reality, only maintaining them as re-affirmations in their commentary.
The Reformation study Bible however takes an unintentional mediatory view however when in Derek Thomas’ article on covenant theology as he maintains the distinct language of “covenants” then goes to say that these “covenants” were subsumed under the covenant of grace. And he says expressly that “The covenant of grace has sometimes been confused with the covenant of redemption (as in, e.g., Westminster Larger Catechism 31). In these instances, the covenant of grace is viewed from an eternal perspective in which the requirement (condition) of faith on the part of the believer is seen as God’s (gracious) gift rather than a condition/requirement on the part of the believer.”
All that to say, the temporal revelatory structure in the form of successive covenants ( Adamic, Noahic, Mosaic, Davidic) seems to imply a potential closer relationship to Reformed Federalism and 1689 Federalism if a plurality of covenants under the 1st administration would be permissible.
Hoping the conversation can move forward so we can have some more local ARFs across the USA :)
Grayslake!? I lived there in 1977🤩 God preformed a real miracle for me there!! Saved me from a warlocks grip (no kidding) I think that incident helped bring me to Christ not to long after. God honors faith and the cries of the desperate! Note-- avoid ANYTHING or one connected with the occult!!
How do we see the paper?
Really enjoy listening to your program. I am a CREDO Baptist in the reformed tradition so I have much common ground with my Presbyterian Brothers. I certainly believe that Old Testament Believers were saved by grace through faith just as surely as New Testament believers. I believe the scriptures are quite clear about that both in the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps I'm missing something but I fail to see a straightforward connection between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. I don't see a lot of mention of baptism in the book of Hebrews. In fact it seems that it only appears one time in Hebrews 6:2 and it actually says baptisms and seems to be a bit unclear as to whether it is Spirit baptism or water baptism or both. I'm not quite sure how this book supports pedobaptism. Those who came to the Tabernacle and were sprinkled with blood were adults who came of their own volition into the presence of the Lord not babies so evidently I'm missing the connection with infant baptism somehow. I am somewhat curious as to whether the magisterial reformers would have developed the practice of infant baptism independently and biblically had it not been taught by the Church of Rome. I know that the reformed understanding of baptism is very different then the understanding of Rome of course. It is my understanding that Rome actually teaches that infant baptism washes away the stain of the original sin of Adam and puts people in the same position as so-called prevenient Grace does for The Arminian. Though it is obvious we have no idea concerning the identity of the elect It seems like a contradiction in terms to say that an unbeliever is part of the Covenant or part of the family. it seems to me that that would be to confuse appearance with reality because according to 2nd Timothy 2:19 the Lord knows them that are His. Perhaps someone could help me out with this. Grace and peace to you and love in Christ.
How does this view square with perseverance of the saints? I just don’t understand how the elect could finally fall away
I’d agree with several other comments that question whether ‘in the wilderness’ is an appropriate descriptor of the Church and New Covenant believers… but, I’m commenting to ask about your use of the phrases “heavenly realities” and “consummate realities” when discussing Kline, Vos, and Clowney.
By calling the sacrificial system a copy or type of a consummate reality, are you suggesting that either in the existing Heavenly realm or the New Heavens and New Earth that sacrifices are/will be made?
Explain to me the circumcision of Christ on the Cross. I understand that He FULLFILLED the Law ⚖ perfectly.
I do not recognize this representation of the Reformed Baptist position as anything I've seen in print or pulpit. Or that I would preach.
Gods rest lies ahead. Ok do you guys think the promise of Jeremiah 31:31 is in our future then?
Yes, not everyone in the visible church at this point is regenerate and those that comit apostasy were united to christ in some way John 15, Romans 11, Galatians 5:4. The author of Hebrew quotes Jeremiah 31 to show that christ has fulfilled the Old covenant preists role so the prophecy that "they shall not teach one another saying know the lord" is forfilled because this was the part of the high preist role Deuteronomy 33:8-10. The spirit is poured out on every class of people not just certain classes and we can all draw near to the throne of God, however their is still weat amoung the tears everyone in the Covent will not be regenerate untill the resurection and final coming of christ.
Fallen away in Hebrews = Fallen from grace (Galatians). One who has "entered into His rest" is a regenerate New Covenant member. There is no falling away from His work. We are in the wilderness in this life, but we (regenerate believers) are seated with Him in Christ. Our salvation is now and not yet.
This was quite convincing in many respects. One question I have relates to how Christ's blood is sprinkled not just for the regenerate but also potential unregenerate members of the covenant community. If that is the case however, what does that do to the doctrine of limited atonement? It seems to me that this covenant understanding would make Christ shed blood for some of those who ultimately wouldn't be saved, which makes it hard to hold to limited atonement--or at least hard to hold to the notion that Christ's sacrifice is completely sufficient. Thoughts?
So as LDS we still have threats and curses
Explain?
The rest is first personal we rest from trying in self effort to perform the law and allow Christ in us to do it through us .those in the wilderness died there including Moses Moses doesn’t get to heaven? Your mixing the kingdom of God with the kingdom of heaven in a way that’s unbiblical two trees equal two natures the flesh equals bad tree spirit equals good tree I’m circumcised in the spirit my flesh is cut away it no longer effects my spirit man
in the OC all males were circumcised regardless of faith. in the NC only confessors are baptized. because baptism does not equal circumcision, regeneration equals circumcision
While iron sharpens iron, too many of the arguments presented were but straw. I heard no reference to Leviticus from which so many of the symbols presented in the letter to the Hebrews came. And, while there are a very great many who misappropriate a concept of works-based salvation from the giving of the Mosaic law and the Mosaic covenant, that is an error that plays no part in the discussion of the validity of paedo-baptism vs. credo baptism. Additionally, why grossly caricature Baptists as having said, "oh, we made a mistake [baptizing a person who apostates]." I have never heard a single Baptist use that or any similar phrase. To the arguments presented, please consider 1 Corinthians 12:17-19 and I John 2:12.
(51:38) That is the reason the author of Hebrews emphasize the "better" covenant? There was nothing wrong with the covenant of works, however it. like the law, was "weak" because of our fallen nature's inability to keep it.
Our 'destination' is not the new heavens and new Earth. It is 'In Christ' we have arrived in our rest.we have ceased striving.
Sounds gnostic. Maybe you should rethink your phrasing.
Strictly in regards to justification, we have ceased striving. Our present rest in Christ speaks nothing of our ongoing 'war!' of sanctification. And although we will be on the new Earth, surely that is not our Heart's destination. Not gnostic, just a lazy typer.
When trying to better understand our “destination,” I think you need to look back to what Adam’s original destination was in the Garden had he fulfilled the Covenant of Works. Adam would have completed the probation and advanced his estate to the point where he would not have been able to sin and therefore he would have been confirmed in life in the communion bond with God. Meredith Kline focuses on this in God Heaven and Har Magedon. Justification by faith in Christ moves the Christian beyond the probation and secures heaven for us, while we continue to live in a “not yet” mode here on earth, which is analogous to the wilderness wondering of the Israelites - we are pilgrims, sojourners, exiles living cruciform lives this side of heaven.
@@PaDutchRunner firstly, there is nothing in God's holy scripture that says anything about a probationary period by which Adam could secure Holiness and no longer sin. It is simply conjecture on your part. Secondly, Christians do not believe in the Roman Catholic doctrine of ' Middle knowledge' where Roman Catholics discuss what might have occurred. Christians live in God's reality. Where there is only one reality that did occur and the one reality that God caused to be demonstrates our need for him. That is our reality. There is no human including Adam that could ever have fulfilled the law. Christ and Christ only perfectly fulfilled the law and in Christian doctrine there is never ever a contingent '"what if?" Thank you for your time and interaction.
@@deanvanlaarhoven1413 czcams.com/video/9IMGyNUqKIo/video.htmlsi=8zQd_Nu-1COw9m1R