Sunday, September 22, 2013
Saturday, August 24, 2013
"Lordship Salvation" Theology Refuted
By Pastor Bruce K. Oyen
For many years there has been a debate among Christians about what a non-Christian must do to become a Christian. This has led to an re-examination of what classic evangelistic Biblical statements mean. For example, Acts 16:31 says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved." Historically this has has been understood to mean, "Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, and you shall be saved." But those who have become known as "Lordship-salvationists" say it means more than that. They say it means, "Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, and dedicate yourself to him without any reservations, and you shall be saved."
The result of the "Lordship-salvationist" view is that if someone claims to be a Christian but does not seem to be dedicated to the Lord, their profession of faith in Jesus Christ is questioned. Perhaps an example will make this plain. The Bible clearly teaches that after someone has become a Christian, they are to get baptized as a public demonstration of their faith. But does a non-Christian who is considering becoming a Christian need to be told that they must agree to be baptized after their conversion, or they cannot become a Christian? How we answer the question depends on what we think it means to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved.
The differences between "Lordship-salvation" theology and its opposite are great. Charles Ryrie has written an excellent book refuting "Lordship-salvation." I have read this book 5 times. It is good for personal reading, use by Bible study groups and Sunday school classes, and as a series of sermons. Click on the following link, and look it over. Then, get it, read it, believe it, and tell others about it. The book is called "SO GREAT SALVATION." Here's the link: http://www.christianbook.com/so-great-salvation-charles-ryrie/9780802478184/pd/78182?product_redirect=1&Ntt=78182&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Friday, June 28, 2013
"GOD'S SIMPLE PLAN OF SALVATION"
The following excellent Gospel message was written by Ford Porter many years ago, and updated by his son. If want to learn how to make sure your soul will go to heaven at death, read it and do what it says. Here is a link to the website from which it was taken: www.godssimpleplan.org.God’s Simple Plan of SalvationMy Friend: I am asking you the most important question of life. Your joy or your sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die?God says in order to go to Heaven, you must be born again. In John 3:7, Jesus said to Nicodemus, “Ye must be born again.” In the Bible God gives us the plan of how to be born again which means to be saved. His plan is simple! You can be saved today. How? First, my friend, you must realize you are a sinner. “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). Because you are a sinner, you are condemned to death. “For the wages [payment] of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). This includes eternal separation from God in Hell. “ . . . it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). But God loved you so much He gave His only begotten Son, Jesus, to bear your sin and die in your place. “ . . . He hath made Him [Jesus, Who knew no sin] to be sin for us . . . that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus had to shed His blood and die. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). “ . . . without shedding of blood is no remission [pardon]” (Hebrews 9:22). “ . . . God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Although we cannot understand how, God said my sins and your sins were laid upon Jesus and He died in our place. He became our substitute. It is true. God cannot lie. My friend, “God . . . commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30). This repentance is a change of mind that agrees with God that one is a sinner, and also agrees with what Jesus did for us on the Cross. In Acts 16:30-31, the Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas: “ . . . ‘Sirs, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved . . . .’ ” Simply believe on Him as the one who bore your sin, died in your place, was buried, and whom God resurrected. His resurrection powerfully assures that the believer can claim everlasting life when Jesus is received as Savior. “But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name” (John 1:12). “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Romans 10:13). Whosoever includes you. Shall be saved means not maybe, nor can, but shall be saved. Surely, you realize you are a sinner. Right now, wherever you are, repenting, lift your heart to God in prayer. In Luke 18:13, the sinner prayed: “God be merciful to me a sinner.” Just pray: “Oh God, I know I am a sinner. I believe Jesus was my substitute when He died on the Cross. I believe His shed blood, death, burial, and resurrection were for me. I now receive Him as my Savior. I thank You for the forgiveness of my sins, the gift of salvation and everlasting life, because of Your merciful grace. Amen.” Just take God at His word and claim His salvation by faith. Believe, and you will be saved. No church, no lodge, no good works can save you. Remember, God does the saving. All of it! God’s simple plan of salvation is: You are a sinner. Therefore, unless you believe on Jesus Who died in your place, you will spend eternity in Hell. If you believe on Him as your crucified, buried, and risen Savior, you receive forgiveness for all of your sins and His gift of eternal salvation by faith. You say, “Surely, it cannot be that simple.” Yes, that simple! It is scriptural. It is God’s plan. My friend, believe on Jesus and receive Him as Savior today. If His plan is not perfectly clear, read this tract over and over, without laying it down, until you understand it. Your soul is worth more than all the world. “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36). Be sure you are saved. If you lose your soul, you miss Heaven and lose all. Please! Let God save you this very moment. God’s power will save you, keep you saved, and enable you to live a victorious Christian life. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it” (1 Corinthians 10:13). Do not trust your feelings. They change. Stand on God’s promises. They never change. After you are saved, there are three things to practice daily for spiritual growth:
“Whosoever therefore shall confess [testify of] Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 10:32). | ||
Copyright: Robert Ford Porter, 1991 |
"The Final Drama: 14 Keys To Understanding The Prophetic Scriptures"
By Pastor Bruce K. Oyen and Dr. John F. Walvoord
http://www.christianbook.com/final-drama-fourteen-understanding-prophetic-scriptures/john-walvoord/9780825439711/pd/3971X?item_code=WW&netp_id=104544&event=ESRCG&view=details
Bible prophecy is interesting and important. To understand it, we need help from prophecy experts. Such an expert was the late Dr. John Walvoord, who wrote many good books, including "The Final Drama: 14 Keys To Understanding The Prophetic Scriptures."
Having carefully read this book by John Walvoord, I highly recommend it to others. It is good reading for anyone interested in Biblical prophecy from a dispensationalist perspective. But as a pastor I recommend it for a series of sermons or Bible studies. It covers 14 prophetic themes in a well-organized, thorough, yet concise manner.It would be excellemt for use in a Bible institute.Get it! Read it! Enjoy it! Share it!
Below is a link to one source for it. If you click on the link, you see its cover, and look at its chapter titles and other features.
"How We Got The Bible"
By Pastor Bruce K. Oyen and Dr. Neil R. Lightfoot
http://www.christianbook.com/how-got-the-bible-third-edition/neil-lightfoot/9780801072611/pd/072611?product_redirect=1&Ntt=072611&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
You might have noticed that the title to this posting is in quotation marks. That is because "How We Got The Bible" is the title of an excellent book by Dr. Neil R. Lightfoot. His book, though only 224 pages long, is a goldmine of information and inspiration about how we got the Bible. One of its many virtues is that the questions at the end of each chapter make it a ready-made book for Bible study classes and Bible institute classes.
Here is one of many good statements by the author: "The claims of the Bible, plus the contents of the Bible equal a convincing case for the Bible as the inspired Word of God."
I encourage you to get it, read it, and tell others about it. Below is a link to one source for it. If you click on the link, you can then look at the cover, the Table of Contents, and other features.
http://www.christianbook.com/how-got-the-bible-third-edition/neil-lightfoot/9780801072611/pd/072611?product_redirect=1&Ntt=072611&item_code=&Ntk=keywords&event=ESRCP
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
The King James Version And The Texts Upon Which It Is Based
By Pastor Bruce K. Oyen
The theme of this posting
My theme is "The King James Version And The Texts Upon Which It Is Based." Most readers of the English Bible are at least somewhat familiar with the King James Version. The King James Version's Old Testament is mostly based upon the Hebrew Masoretic text, and its New Testament is mostly based on the Greek Received Text
My goal in this posting.
My goal in this posting is to point out that there are significant differences between the King James Version and the texts upon which it is based. These differences prove we cannot say the translators always followed the Masoretic text or the Received text.
Proof the translators did not always follow the Masoretic text or the Received text
My goal in this posting.
My goal in this posting is to point out that there are significant differences between the King James Version and the texts upon which it is based. These differences prove we cannot say the translators always followed the Masoretic text or the Received text.
Proof the translators did not always follow the Masoretic text or the Received text
We can see many of the differences between the King James Version and its textual base by paying close attention to the use of italicised words in this translation. The italicised words prove it does not always follow its textual base. Some examples are given below. I have put the key verses in in red. Sometimes I copied the verses from this website: www.biblegateway.com. Sometimes I copied them from my own King James Version.
2 Samuel 21:19
One example is 2 Samule 21:19, given here in its context: "15 Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. 18 And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. 21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him. 22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."
One example is 2 Samule 21:19, given here in its context: "15 Moreover the Philistines had yet war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines: and David waxed faint. 16 And Ishbi-benob, which was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear weighed three hundred shekels of brass in weight, he being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain David. 17 But Abishai the son of Zeruiah succoured him, and smote the Philistine, and killed him. Then the men of David sware unto him, saying, Thou shalt go no more out with us to battle, that thou quench not the light of Israel. 18 And it came to pass after this, that there was again a battle with the Philistines at Gob: then Sibbechai the Hushathite slew Saph, which was of the sons of the giant. 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Beth-lehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam. 20 And there was yet a battle in Gath, where was a man of great stature, that had on every hand six fingers, and on every foot six toes, four and twenty in number; and he also was born to the giant. 21 And when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea the brother of David slew him. 22 These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants."
Note that verse 19 has three words in italics (the brother of ) because they were not in the text from which the translation was made. These words seem to have been borrowed from 1 Chronicles 20:5, in which verse they are not in italics. If the King James Version's translators had translated the text just as it is, the verse would say Elhanan slew Goliath. But we know from 1 Samuel 17:1 - 54 that David slew him. Therefore, this defect in the Masoretic text was dealt in this way by the translators.
Matthew 12:31
Another example is Matthew 12:31, which says this: "All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." Note the italicised word "Holy" in this verse. It was added by the translators because the verse would seem very strange if it referred to "blasphemy against the Ghost," so they added the word "Holy" to make it sound better. Therefore, it says "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." But, instead of adding the word "Holy," they could have done what they did with the Greek word for "Ghost" in many other verses in the King James Version New Testament. That is, they could have translated it as "Spirit." This was done, for example, in Mark 1:12, which says "And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness." The verse would then read this way: "but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto men." He is "the Holy Ghost" or "the Holy Spirit," but that is not what the Greek text of this verse says. It simply calls him "the Spirit."
1 John 2:23
Another example is 1 John 2:23, given here in its context. It says this: "22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life."
Another example is 1 John 2:23, given here in its context. It says this: "22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: [but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. 24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life."
The ten italicised words in verse 23 were not in the text from which the King James Version was made. But the translators felt they had compelling reasons to add them to their translation. It is not my intention to question the italicised words. Rather, it is to give an example of the fact that the King James Version New Testament sometimes departs from its textual base. If the translators had felt the Received Greek text was just as it should be, they would not have added the words in italics.
2 Peter 1:21.
Another example is 2 Peter 1:21. The verse says this: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Another example is 2 Peter 1:21. The verse says this: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
This verse is an important proof text for the doctrine of the divine origin of the Bible. It relates to 2 Timothy 3:16, which tells us that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." These verses and others teach us that we should believe that the Bible is the Word of God.
But what I want to point out is that in 2 Peter 1:21, the Received Text of the New Testament does not say those men were "holy men of God." It simply says they were "men of God" who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. No doubt, they were holy men. But the Greek text does not say that. If one looks up the word "holy" for this verse in the Strongest Strong's Concordance, it says "NIG, which means "Not in Greek." The Greek Received Text itself proves it does not say the men were "holy men of God," but simply "men of God." Here is the verse from this Greek text: οὐ γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπου ἠνέχθη ποτέ προφητεία ἀλλ' ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν οἱ ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι. (This quote from the Received Text was taken from this website: http://biblehub.com/tr/matthew/1.htm. It is the same as my own copy of this text. ) For some unknown reason, the added word, "holy," was not italicised in the King James Version to indicate it was not in the Greek text.
What, then, is a good view of the King James Version, and of the texts from which it was made?
The facts above prove that the King James Version sometimes differs from the Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was made. What, then, is a good view of these facts about these Hebrew and Greek texts? It is that they are generally reliable texts. What, then, is a good view of the King James Version itself? It is that it is a generally reliable translation. There are weaknesses in both the texts and the translation, but they are generally reliable. In spite of any weaknesses, both the texts behind the King James Version, and this version itself, are the Word of God.
What did King James and the translators think of most Bible translations? Of their own translation?
What follows in red is taken from the preface of the 1611 KJV. The whole preface is also available online at www.bible-researcher.com. It is proof that King James and his translators did not believe anything but the original writings of the Bible were perfect. It also is proof that they did not think a translation had to be perfect for it to be considered the Word of God. Read carefully the first and last sentences.
"An Answer to the Imputations of Our Adversaries"
"Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"
Statements by E. F. Hills about the King James Version (added after the original posting was made)
E. F. Hills was a dedicated and well-educated Chrsitian man who was a strong advocate of the King James Version. He wrote a book called, "The King James Version Defended," which I have read very carefully. I have also carefully read his book called "Believing Bible Study." In it, Hills covers some of the same material as in the book "The King James Version Defended." What follows (in red) are some quotes from the third edition of this book, published in 1979 by The Christian Research Press. They support what was stated previously in this posting. An online edition of the book can be read at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdef.htm.
On page 216, Hills wrote: "As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word, and as such they commended it to their Christian readers."
On page 217, Hills wrote: "Two editions of the King James Version were published in 1611. The first is distinguished from the second by a unique misprint, namely, Judas instead of Jesus in Matthew 26:36. The second edition corrected this mistake and also in other respects was more carefully done. Other editions followed in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, and frequently thereafter. In 1629 and 1638 the text was subjected to two minor revisions. In the 18th century the spelling and punctuation of the King James Version were modernized, and many obsolte words were changed to their modern equivalents. The two scholars responsible for these alterations were Dr. Thoams Paris (1762), of Cambridge, and Dr. Benjamin Blayney (1769), of Oxford, and it is to their efforts that the generally current form of the King James Version is due."
On page 220, after giving the textual sources of the King James Version's New Testament, Hills wrote: "Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "Sometimes the translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier Englsih versions in following the Latin Vulgate."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "Similarly, at 1 John 2:23, the King James translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible in adding the clause, he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, and in placing the the clause in italics, thus indicating that it was not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts or in the earlier editions of the Textus Receptus."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully lissted by Scrivener (1884) and Hoskier (1885)."
On page 224, Hills wrote: "Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate Versions. Also, there has been a controvery concerning the headings of the Psalms. In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In Biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain."
Statements by E. F. Hills about the King James Version (added after the original posting was made)
E. F. Hills was a dedicated and well-educated Chrsitian man who was a strong advocate of the King James Version. He wrote a book called, "The King James Version Defended," which I have read very carefully. I have also carefully read his book called "Believing Bible Study." In it, Hills covers some of the same material as in the book "The King James Version Defended." What follows (in red) are some quotes from the third edition of this book, published in 1979 by The Christian Research Press. They support what was stated previously in this posting. An online edition of the book can be read at http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdef.htm.
On page 216, Hills wrote: "As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy reproduction of God's holy Word, and as such they commended it to their Christian readers."
On page 217, Hills wrote: "Two editions of the King James Version were published in 1611. The first is distinguished from the second by a unique misprint, namely, Judas instead of Jesus in Matthew 26:36. The second edition corrected this mistake and also in other respects was more carefully done. Other editions followed in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617, and frequently thereafter. In 1629 and 1638 the text was subjected to two minor revisions. In the 18th century the spelling and punctuation of the King James Version were modernized, and many obsolte words were changed to their modern equivalents. The two scholars responsible for these alterations were Dr. Thoams Paris (1762), of Cambridge, and Dr. Benjamin Blayney (1769), of Oxford, and it is to their efforts that the generally current form of the King James Version is due."
On page 220, after giving the textual sources of the King James Version's New Testament, Hills wrote: "Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "Sometimes the translators forsook the printed Greek text and united with the earlier Englsih versions in following the Latin Vulgate."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "Similarly, at 1 John 2:23, the King James translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishop's Bible in adding the clause, he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, and in placing the the clause in italics, thus indicating that it was not found in the majority of Greek manuscripts or in the earlier editions of the Textus Receptus."
On page 221, Hills wrote: "The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been carefully lissted by Scrivener (1884) and Hoskier (1885)."
On page 224, Hills wrote: "Also, as we have seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate Versions. Also, there has been a controvery concerning the headings of the Psalms. In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In Biblical textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain."
Thursday, June 20, 2013
The New Covenant Applies To The Nation Israel And To Church-Age Christians
By Pastor Bruce K. Oyen
The purpose of this posting
Some Christians believe the New Covenant applies only to the nation Israel, and, therefore, does not apply to church-age Christians. The purpose of this posting is to give evidence from the Bible and from Bible study helps that the New Covenant does, in fact, apply to church-age Christians. But we first must consider some practical information about the New Covenant.
Who predicted the New Covenant?
The New Covenant was predicted by the prophet Jeremiah, long before Jesus Christ walked throughout the land of Israel. The Zondervan KJV Study Bible (that is its exact name, and not to be confused with other study Bibles with similar names) says this: "Jeremiah's prophetic ministry began in 626 B. C. and ended sometime after 586." The one-volume MacArthur Bible Commentary has a helpful chart called "The Progress of Revelation," in which are given the approximate dates when the Bible's books and epistles (letters) were written. It It gives this date for the book of Jeremiah: 586 - 570 B. C. Jeremiah wrote about the New Covenant in chapter 31, verses 31 - 34, of his book. Here ( in red) are these verses, quoted from the King James Version:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
(All further quotes from the Bible are from the King James Version, unless otherwise indicated. They are taken from this website: www.biblegateway,com)
With whom was the New Covenant made?
It is clear from verse 31 that God said this: "I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:" And verse 33 says God said this: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;" So, we cannot debate this point. What is debated is whether or not this covenant applies to Christians, whether they are Jews or Gentiles, in this church age. As stated in my first paragraph, the purpose of this posting is to give evidence from the Bible and Bible study helps that the New Covenant does, in fact, apply to church-age Christians. This evidence will be given later.
When was the New Covenant instituted, and by whom?
It was instituted in the first century A. D. by Jesus Christ. It was done symbolically shortly before his death when he instituted the Lord's supper. And it was done literally when his blood was shed on the cross.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke give us the details of the institution of the New Covenant, as does Paul's first letter to the Corinthians. Here is a quote from Matthew 26: 26 - 28:
26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Verse 28 makes it very clear that his shed blood was/is the basis for the New Covenant/Testament. When he said those words to those men, they understood that he was referring to Jeremiah 31, quoted above. What Jeremiah had predicted some hundreds of years before was being brought to pass in their lifetime.
Is there Biblcal evidence that the New Covenant applies to anyone but the nation of Israel?
My answer to this question is short and simple: YES! While its primary application is to Israel, that is not its only application. Consider some Biblical evidence for this claim.
Evidence from 1 Corinthians 11:23 - 26. In his letters to the Corinthian, the apostle Paul wrote to a church composed of Jews and Gentiles who had become Christians. From the subjects Paul addressed in these letters, it seems that the majority of those converts to Christ were Gentiles. And the historical background, found in Acts 18, concerning the founding of the Corinthian church also indicates the majority were Gentile converts. But even if the majority were Jews, it still was a church made up of Jews and Gentiles. And it was to such a church that Paul wrote the following things in chapter 11, verses 23 - 26:
"23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."
Now, a careful reading of these verses reveals that Paul applied to a church composed of Jews and Gentiles what both Jeremiah and Jesus called the New Covenant/Testament. It was to this mixed church that Paul made this comment: 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." The cup to which Paul referred was the cup of the New Covenant. If the New Covenant had no application to Gentiles, Paul would have not have made such a statement.
Evidence from 2 Corinthians 3:4 - 6. One of the subjects Paul brought to the attention of the Corinthians was some differences between the Old and New Covenants. He also defended himself because of criticisms from his opponents who sought to undermine his apostolic ministry. One of his defenses is found in 2 Cor. 3:1 - 6, which says this: Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you?
2 Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men:
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
4 And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward:
5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.
It is very important to note what Paul said in verse 6: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." If the New Testament/Covenant had no application to anyone but the nation of Israel, Paul would not have said God had made him and others who ministered to Gentiles and Jews who had become Christians, able ministers of it. They had been made able minsiters of the New Covenant in order to build up the church, not the kingdom of Israel.
Do any commentaries or study Bibles say that the New Covenant applies to the church?
The answer is an enthusiastic "Yes!" Consider a few of many that could be cited. Bible scholar, Gleason L. Archer, wrote a book called "Encyclopedia Of Bible Difficulties. What follows is part of Archer's first paragraph of his lengthy answer to a question on Jeremiah 31:31. The question was this: "Does this prophecy refer only to the New Testament church, or does it await fulfillment in the days when Israel will be converted to faith in Christ on a national level?" Archer said this: "This remarkable prediction very clearly found its first fulfillment in the raising up of the New Testament church in the days of the apostles, beginning with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the 120 believers at the Feast of Pentecost, after the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ." Here is the complete concluding paragraph of his answer to the foregoing question: "Here, then, we have a clear case of two-stage fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy: Jeremiah 31:31 - 33 has been fulfilled in the New Testament church; and it will be consummated in the last days when there shall be a major national awakening among the Jewish people, and they turn to the Lord Jesus as their true Messiah and Savior (Zech. 12:10)."
Here is some of what "The Believer's Bible Commentary," by William MacDonald and Art Farstad, says on Jeremiah 31: "God made the new covenant primarily with Israel and Judah (v. 31).......It will not become effective for Israel as a nation until Christ's Second Coming. In the meantime, however, individual believers enjoy some of its benefits........"
Here is some of what The New Scofield Bible says on the Jeremiah passage: "Although certain features of this covenant have been fulfilled for believers in the present Church Age.....the covenant remains to be realized for Israel according to the explicit statement of v. 31."
Here is some of what The King James Study Bible, by Thomas Nelson Publishers, says on the Jeremiah passage: "Although the New Covenant is now operative.........and is attended by the ministry of the Holy Spirit who is resident in believers' lives........, the full realization of the new covenant, as the capstone of all the covenants, awaits the second coming of Christ. He will give to Israel the promises distinctive to that nation, and will rule over the earth in an unprecedented period of universal peace......, prosperity......, and the full knowledge (v. 34) of the abiding presence of God....."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)