The New Covenant, Part 2 – Hebrews 8:6-7

Hebrews chapter eight, and we're gonna read beginning at verse six, we're gonna read verses six and seven. Hebrews chapter eight, verse six.

But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry by as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. Let's bow our heads.

Oh Father, we pray that you'd grant us understanding and insight into your word and your purposes this morning. Pray that everything that is said here would be clear and concise and precise, and that you would help us to assess theology with a heart of love and unity, and that you would be glorified through all that is said here, through the meditation of our hearts and our minds.

Grant your Holy Spirit that would come and minister to us and help us to understand and help us to see with spiritual eyes what your word means and the significance of your eternal and redemptive purposes, we pray in Christ's name, amen.

Last week we started to look at some of the issues that surround the New Testament teaching on the new covenant, because we're here in Hebrews chapter eight, and there's a lot of doctrinal issues that are tied into our understanding of the covenants, and particularly the new covenant, which is our focus here, and I imagine that probably prior to last week, many of you didn't realize just how much hinges on our understanding of the covenants, because this subject of the covenants goes to the heart of the differences between reformed people and dispensationalists, though I would call myself reformed in many respects, but I am a dispensationalist, so it'd be better, more accurate to say the difference between covenant theologians and dispensational theologians, and last week we just started to lay a bit of groundwork,

I'm finishing that up today, so we're kind of continuing to lay that groundwork before we jump into the covenants and see how that they are all tied together.

So today what I wanna do is we're gonna talk about what constitutes a covenant, what is a covenant, and what is not a covenant, and what does it mean to have a mediator of the covenant, what is a mediator, and how does that work, and then we're gonna start to look at some key differences between those who are in the covenant theology camp and those who are in the dispensational camp.

So as we continue that, I wanna give a couple more sort of introductory or preparatory remarks regarding this whole issue, just some overview of some things to keep in mind.

First, I wanna encourage you not to be scared off by some of the language and the words that I've been using. If this describes you and you're new here today, please understand that this is not how we normally do things.

We're doing something that's a little bit different than what we normally do, and as we talk about some of these higher theological issues,

I don't want you to be scared off by the terms dispensational or dispensationalism or dispensation or covenant and covenant theology, et cetera.

I will define those terms as we go through here in due course. These are important issues, and I think I will be able to lay all of this out in due course in a way that's understandable and graspable by everybody.

At least that's my goal. My goal here is never to say things in such a way that everybody walks away thinking, man, that must've been good because I didn't understand a word he said.

That's never my goal. My goal is always to make you, even if you walk out here and say, that was horrible, but at least I understood everything he said.

I would rather err on that side of it. So that's my goal in assessing the covenant theology and dispensational issue.

A second introductory remark is in order to address this as I'm going to, we're gonna have to deal with broad issues.

So I'm going to be talking about theological perspectives writ large in the broadest sense. I'm gonna be speaking in broad strokes.

There's no possible way because there's such a variety of various positions on both sides of this theological fence. There's such a variety of theological positions that it would be impossible for me within the scope of this to begin to address every little niche of every little nuance and every little argument of every little theological subset of every theological position on one side of the theological fence.

This is true on both sides of this divide because on the dispensational side of our understanding of scripture, there is on the dispensational side, your classic dispensationalists, that go back to the early 1900s.

Then you have sort of a modified or revised dispensationalism camp. And then you have a progressive dispensational camp, those three different dispensational camps.

And within all of those, you're gonna have people who vary and differ on the timing of the tribulation. You've got pre -trib modified dispensationalists.

You've got post -trib modified dispensationalists, mid -trib modified dispensationalists. And then you got pre -wrath modified dispensationalists within that group.

And then you have the same thing is true for the classical dispensationalists. And for the progressive dispensationalists. And then also on that side of the divine, you have a difference or a division between whether you're a cessationist or a charismatic, or whether you're a conservative, or whether you're a liberal, or whether you are a

Calvinist, or whether you are an Arminian. And those theological differences are reflected in all sides of that theological side called dispensationalism.

Again, all the various camps over there. So there's a lot of diversity there. So if you come up and you say, look,

I am a four and a half point Calvinist, partial cessationist, mid -trib, maybe mid -wrath, modified dispensationalist, and you didn't deal with any of my arguments or issues.

True. True, I'm not dealing with some of your arguments or issues. And true, you have issues.

So just keep in mind that if you don't think that I'm addressing where you are specifically at, I just have to address this in broad issues, right?

Because the minute I begin to address you, you four and a half point Calvinist, moderate cessationist, mid -trib, whatever you think you are, the minute

I address you, I'm leaving out 99 other people who have other little niches on that side. If you're on the covenant side of it and you're looking over at the dispensationalist and you're thinking, man, you guys are all messed up.

Look at all the variety of the positions on your side of the fence. I just want you to understand something, my covenant friend. You've got post -millennialists and you've got amillennialists, and you've got partial preterists and you've got full preterists, and you've got liberals and you've got conservatives and you've got charismatics and you've got cessationists on your side of the camp as well.

So if you're looking over here thinking, this is a dog's breakfast, I assure you, those of us over here in this dog's breakfast are looking at you thinking that your theology is a dog's breakfast.

So let's not take pot shots at each other across the fence, as it were, by criticizing some of the little niche positions within these broad strokes.

I'm just dealing with the broad stroke issues between these two theologies. Now, with all of that said, oh, also, you covenant theologians, you have your credo -baptists and your pedo -baptists, right?

Baptizing babies and not baptizing babies, both of those perspectives are welcome in your theological camp as well.

So there's plenty of diversity on both sides of that. All right, now let's jump into the issue of what is a covenant? What is a covenant and what is a mediator of a covenant?

And then we'll see where these camps divide. What is a covenant? We speak with covenants, so we speak about covenants quite frequently.

We refer to marriage as a covenant, and it is. Marriage is a covenant. We also refer to the new covenant when we partake of the

Lord's Supper, which we're gonna do next Sunday as we begin to look at some of the new covenant details. We speak of the Lord's Supper when we repeat after the

Lord and say this is the new covenant in my blood. We recognize that there is a new covenant that has been written or initiated.

And where we disagree between dispensationalists and covenant theologians is on the nature and the terms of that new covenant and how it's going to be fulfilled or when it's going to be fulfilled.

So we're all familiar with the idea of covenant. Sometimes we might even use the language of covenant without even realizing what it is.

So what is a covenant? I'm gonna give you two definitions of a covenant. One, from a prominent covenantal perspective, probably the most prominent covenantal theologian of modern history, and that would be

Luis Burckhoff in his Systematic Theology. He says this, and I'll give you one from a dispensationalist. So here's a covenant definition of a covenant.

This is gonna be confusing. It's a covenant definition of a covenant, all right? A covenant, quote, a covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties.

It may be, and among men, most generally is, an agreement to which parties, which can meet on the footing of equality, voluntarily come after a careful stipulation of their mutual duties and privileges.

But it may also be of the nature of a disposition or arrangement imposed by a superior party on one that is inferior and accepted by the latter.

It is generally confirmed by a solemn ceremony in the presence of God, and thereby obtains an inviolable character.

Each one of the parties binds himself to the fulfillment of certain promises on the basis of stipulated concerns, close quote.

I will explain that. Here's what he's saying. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two parties.

Right, two people enter into an agreement. Think of it in terms of a contract. Two parties enter into this agreement.

Now, in covenant theology, this can happen in one of two different ways. Either you have two equals entering into a covenant, two men who agree to something, and to fulfill certain obligations and stipulations as part of this contract or covenant, or in ancient times, it was common for a king, when he would conquer a land, he would make a covenant with the people that he conquered, a superior offering terms of peace or terms of settlement to inferiors whom he had conquered.

So he had one superior making a covenant with the inferior, and in that case, those who were inferior, or the subjects, had very little to say as to the terms of the covenant.

They would just agree to it, or they would suffer the penalty that was imposed by the covenant that the king made. For most of our terms, we're talking about, in terms of the covenants of Scripture, we're talking about a superior making terms to an inferior,

God making a covenant with men. So according to the covenant definition, it is a compact or a treaty or a pact or an arrangement agreement between two parties, and then there are promises and conditions that each party agrees to fulfill for the other as part of the covenant.

If two parties entering into agreement, each one has terms or conditions, and they agree to this. Roles and responsibilities within the covenant.

This is the way in which marriage is a covenant, and the stipulation that he gives about it's done solemnly in the presence of God, that's what we do with a marriage.

We have two people entering into a covenant with one another. They're vowing to fulfill certain obligations to one another as part of this covenant, and agreeing to keep their side of the deal in this covenant.

They're doing it before God and before witnesses, and it is consummated in sexual union, and this constitutes the cutting of a marriage covenant.

Okay, now, a definition by probably the most prominent dispensational theologian of our age, and who do you think that that would be?

John MacArthur. Somebody didn't know, like who, what, who? Seriously, John MacArthur. Okay, quote, covenants are central to God's plans and constitute vehicles through which

God's kingdom purposes unfold. A covenant is a formal agreement or treaty between two parties with obligations and regulations, close quote.

Simpler, easier, it wasn't written in 1905, so it's a little bit easier for us to understand, but basically,

I love the conciseness of that. MacArthur says a covenant is two people entering into an agreement with one another.

There are, as he says, obligations and regulations imposed upon that covenant. It's the same thing that Louis Burkhoff said.

So according to the dispensational side, it is a formal agreement between two parties. There are promises and conditions, and it can be either conditional or unconditional.

Now, that's all common ground. We don't disagree on the nature of a covenant or what a covenant is. Does that surprise you?

Dispensationalists do not disagree with covenant theologians on the nature of a covenant or what constitutes a covenant. We agree, it's an agreement between two parties.

There are rules and responsibilities, regulations that dictate the terms of these two sides agreeing together with something. It can be conditional, it can be unconditional.

It can be between two equals. It can be a superior or sovereign over inferior people. We don't disagree over the nature of a covenant.

There's common ground there. Now, not every promise is a covenant. Here's a couple of clarifications. Not every promise in Scripture constitutes a covenant.

For instance, God promised Elijah that he would provide for him if he went to the home of the widow in Zarephath. God made a promise to Elijah.

Do we call that the Elijahic covenant? Do you know how we refer to that? No, God didn't make a covenant with Elijah.

He made Elijah certain promises. Likewise, in the Garden of Eden in Genesis chapter three, and I bring this up as a good example because somebody asked about this last week.

God made a promise to Adam and Eve in the garden, and that promise had to do with the gospel. Do you remember the promise to the woman?

Well, actually, this was the statement to the serpent. God didn't make a promise to the serpent, but he predicted something to the serpent.

Genesis chapter three, verse 15. I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel.

To the woman, he said, I will greatly multiply your pain and childbirth. In pain, you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you.

So there were promises made to Adam and to Eve and statements made concerning the future promise of a gospel redeemer.

So do we say that God in the garden of Eden made a covenant just because he made a promise? No, not all promises constitute covenants.

God promised in the garden of Eden that a savior would come and that a savior would crush the serpent, but that was not a covenant, though it was a promise.

God is free to make promises outside of his covenants concerning things that he does that are not associated with the fulfillment of individual covenants.

He is free to do that. A second qualification or clarification on the nature of covenants, some promises end up fulfilling covenants.

And this is important to remember. Just because a promise is not necessarily a covenant doesn't mean that a promise given is not necessarily connected to a covenant.

For instance, God promised Moses that he would not destroy the children of Israel. And why did

God promise Moses that he would not destroy the children of Israel? It was because of a promise he made to Abraham that Moses claimed.

Because Abraham was made a promise, Moses looked back at that and said, "'Remember the promise, "'the covenant that you made with Abraham?

"'You can't wipe out this nation "'or you would be violating that covenant.'" So God made a promise to Moses concerning that, which covenant actually ends up fulfilling an earlier, or sorry, which promise ends up fulfilling an earlier covenant.

God did the same thing to Jeremiah. When he promised Jeremiah, "'You're gonna go into exile, "'but you and the children of Israel "'will come out of the exile after 70 years, "'and

I will resettle you in the land.'" That was a promise that God made to Jeremiah. That promise is not unrelated in any way to the

Abrahamic covenant, it's actually part of fulfilling the Abrahamic covenant. Because God promised to Abraham that he would give his descendants a land, he was able to promise to Jeremiah, "'Look,

I'm going to fulfill this promise "'because I promised this to Abraham.'" So these individual promises that come later on are tied to the covenant, though they're not necessarily a covenant in and of themselves.

Make sense? Everybody tracking with me so far? All right, what is a mediator of the covenant then?

We don't disagree on the nature of a covenant, what is a covenant? We don't disagree on the nature of that, but what is a mediator of the covenant?

And this brings us to Hebrews 8, verse six, where the author says, "'Now he,' that is Jesus, "'has obtained a more excellent ministry, "'as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, "'which has been enacted on better promises.'"

And notice that Jesus is there called the mediator of this covenant. In fact, the other two times that the term mediator, as the noun form is used in the book of Hebrews, it is also used of Jesus.

Hebrews 9, verse 15. "'For this reason, he,' that is Jesus, "'is the mediator of a new covenant, "'so that since a death has taken place "'for the redemption of the transgressions "'that were committed under the first covenant, "'those who have been called may receive the promise "'of an eternal inheritance.'"

And then Hebrews 12, verse 24. "'And to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, "'and to the sprinkled blood, "'which speaks better than the blood of Abel.'"

So what is the definition of a mediator? A mediator is a go -between or a stand -between. The noun word is mesites, and it is used to describe one who stood between the parties and helped them come to an agreement.

So what is a covenant? A covenant is two people, two parties, entering into an agreement together. A mediator was the one who stood between those two parties and, as it were, put his hand on both parties so as to bring them together in this agreement.

And the mediator had the role of negotiating the peace between these two parties and mediating the terms of the contract as one stood between the both of them to bring them together into this agreement.

So it refers to one who guarantees the certainty of the arrangement and to one who provides the surety of the agreement.

He is a go -between. The verb form of mediator or to mediate is actually used earlier in Hebrews.

You may remember this back in Hebrews 6, verse 17 and 18, in speaking of the Abrahamic covenant.

The author says in verse 17, "'In the same way, God, desiring even more "'to show to the heirs of the promise "'the unchangeableness of his purpose, interposed.'"

It's the verb form, mediated it with an oath. So in the Abrahamic covenant, what was it that mediated that covenant?

It was God's oath. That's what stood between God and Abraham to mediate the terms of that covenant.

It was the fact that God swore to it. Well, we also have a mediator, one who stands between us and a heavenly father, a heavenly

God with whom we are alienated, who mediates the terms of the new covenant. Examples of mediators in the

Old Testament include high priests who stood between God and men and mediated the terms of that covenant, offering a sacrifice and interceding for people.

Moses is called the mediator of the Old Covenant. Jesus is called the mediator of the New Covenant because he is the one who stands between us and God, and the means of his mediation is his blood, which is why every time in Hebrews that the word mediator occurs in connection with Jesus, it is in the context of discussing his sacrifice because it is his blood that mediates this agreement between God and us in the

New Covenant. So his blood is the means by which this New Covenant is initiated and by means by which we are brought near, and all the mentions of mediation in the book of Hebrews concerning Jesus are mentioned in the context of his sacrifice.

Look at chapter nine, if you will, verse 16. Hebrews chapter nine, verse 16. I want you to see how the

Old Testament required blood for the mediation of the Old Covenant. Chapter nine, let's begin with verse 15.

For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant so that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of an internal inheritance.

Now he's gonna describe the Old Covenant, verse 16. For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it.

For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never enforced while the one who makes it lives. Therefore, even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood.

For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people saying, this is the blood of the covenant which

God commanded you. And in the same way, he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with blood.

And according to the law, one may almost say all things are cleansed with blood and without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. So the

Old Covenant was mediated by blood. It was initiated by blood. Blood was at the center of that. It wasn't the blood of men. It wasn't the blood of the priest.

It was the blood of sacrifices that mediated that covenant. Well, the same can be said of the new covenant that is also initiated by blood.

Look at chapter nine, verse 23. Therefore, it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.

Nor was it that he would offer himself often as the high priest sent to the holy place, year by year with blood that is not his own.

Otherwise, he would not have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world. But now, once, at the consummation of the ages, he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Notice the context of blood. Old Testament, initiated and mediated by blood, the blood of calves and bulls and goats.

New covenant, the New Testament, new covenant, initiated and mediated by the blood, but not of bulls and goats, of the

Lord Jesus Christ. So it is his blood that for us seals the covenant, it initiates the covenant, and it secures and purchases all the blessings of the covenant for all for whom that blood was offered.

His blood secures all of the grace and all of the blessing for the fulfillment of the covenant on behalf of all those for whom he made that sacrifice.

And that is how his blood is the mediation of it. So that all of the blessings come to us in and only through Jesus Christ for their salvation in no other name.

And if you are not in Jesus Christ, that blood of the covenant does not mediate for you. You must be in that covenant, you must be his by virtue of repentance and faith, which are gifts from God, and you have to have turned to him and be born again by the

Holy Spirit for the blood of the covenant to have any effect for you whatsoever. So salvation is only through Jesus Christ.

Now up to this point, I have said nothing controversial between dispensationalists and covenant theologians, nothing.

We agree on the nature of the covenant, we agree on the nature of mediation, and what it is that mediates both of these covenants.

But here is where we have some divergence on the question of what are the covenants?

How many are there? Last week we listed, I listed the covenants that are revealed in Scripture. I gave you six of them.

I'm gonna state them again. Here are the six covenants revealed in Scripture. The Noahic covenant in Genesis chapter six verse 18, and eight verse 20 through nine verse 17, which we're at the beginning of our service.

Then there's the Abrahamic covenant given in Genesis chapter 12 and restated again in Genesis 15 and Genesis 17, and later on in the book of Genesis as well.

Then there is the Mosaic covenant mentioned in Exodus 19 verses one to six. There is a priestly covenant given in numbers 25, 10 through 13.

There is a Davidic covenant mentioned in 2 Samuel 7 verse 12 through 16, and then the new covenant described in Jeremiah 31.

Those are the six covenants. The Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the priestly covenant, the

Davidic covenant, and the new covenant. Now I recognize those six covenants and only those six covenants because only those six covenants, only in the giving of those six covenants is the word covenant used to describe the agreement between these two parties.

In other words, you can turn to each one of those passages and find God initiating a covenant and making a covenant with a certain person or group of people, or even descendants of a certain group of people, and God makes that covenant and he calls it a covenant, and the terms and the responsibilities of the regulations of that covenant are clearly explained.

The parties are clearly visible and the terms of that condition are clearly given, and the punishment or the blessing based upon or part of that covenant are all explained in those passages, those six covenants, and the word covenant, they're called covenants in Scripture.

Now my covenant brethren would add three more covenants to that. They would look at those six, the

Noahic, the Abrahamic, et cetera, and they would add three more covenants to that. Now here is where I'm speaking generally because there are some covenant theologians who might add two.

Some of them would say that there's only one that they would add to this, but these are the three, and I'm taking this from Luis Burkhoff, so this would come out of his systematic theology.

Here are the three covenants that Luis Burkhoff and most covenant theologians would add to that. They would be the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace.

Now I've just listed for you six that I've pointed to in Scripture. I'm saying that covenant theology would add the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace to my list of six.

Let me deal with these three covenants. I'll do it in reverse order. First, the covenant of grace.

They would say that God's covenant of grace was a promise that he made to his elect, a promise that he makes to redeem any and all who turn to him in repentance and faith, any and all who turn to him in repentance and faith from all of human history, the broad scope of all of human history.

They're all included in that covenant of grace. Then they would say that those six covenants that I listed to you, the

Noahic, the Abrahamic, the Mosaic, et cetera, those six covenants are all expressions of, reiterations of, clarifications of, or restatements of that one covenant of grace.

There is one covenant of grace that covers all of human history, God's covenant to save those who come to him in repentance and faith, and that as part of that one covenant, you have included in there restatements and clarifications of all six of those covenants.

They would fit as expressions of that one covenant. They don't see them as six separate and distinct covenants.

They would see them as six separate and distinct expressions of one covenant, the covenant of grace.

Second, they would point to the covenant of works. This would be a covenant that God made with Adam in the garden. Adam was the head of his race, and his disobedience plunged us all into ruin and destruction.

There are obligations given there that Adam should obey God, and because he didn't, he suffered the consequences of disobeying that covenant, those promises and those provisions.

Then covenant theologians would add the covenant of redemption. I'm gonna camp on each one of these in a little bit more detail in just a second.

I'm gonna show you how all this ties together. They would add into that the covenant of redemption. The covenant of redemption, they would say, is a covenant made in eternity past between the

Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This covenant that is made in eternity past between the

Father and the Son of the Holy Spirit put upon the members of the Trinity as they agreed with one another certain obligations and responsibilities, so that we read in Scripture, for instance, that the

Father is going to elect and then forgive a people of their sin, and he will punish rebellion and wrongdoers and the impenitent, and the

Son agrees to the terms of this condition, agreeing to, or the terms of this covenant, agreeing to be incarnated, to come here, to live a perfect life, to do all of the

Father's will, to live in submission to the Father, to obey the law perfectly, to give his life on a cross for the redemption of many, to rise again, and then to take his seat at the right hand of the

Father and to rule and to reign in heaven and to establish God's kingdom in heaven, which would eventually come onto earth.

That's what they would say. That's the obligation of the Son, the incarnation, and to pay the penalty, and then the

Spirit, he agrees to apply the work that the Son does to the people whom the

Father has chosen, so that there's harmony between the persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They're all acting together, the

Trinity in unity, but each person has his own distinct roles to play in this covenant of redemption, which was done in eternity past before the foundation of the world.

They would say that the language of eternity past is an indication of this. They would say that the economic Trinity, that's the way that we describe the different functions of the different persons of the

Trinity, that indicates that there was a covenant of redemption that was made, and that these different persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they commit to perform different roles in the redemption of God's people, and in the accomplishment of this plan or this covenant of redemption, each one agrees to different terms and conditions.

Jesus acts as the representative for his people, doing all of this on our behalf so that we get the benefits of what he has done, and that this constitutes a covenant.

They say, look, it looks a lot like a covenant. It has many features of an actual covenant. You have three different people who act as representatives for others who are all functioning in this way as a covenant.

They're agreeing to certain rules and stipulations, and all of this was done in eternity past, so it is an unconditional covenant.

It has all the features of a covenant, a covenant theologian would say, this covenant of redemption. It has all the features of a covenant, and I would almost agree with them up to that point, but then

I would say it is missing one essential feature of a covenant, and that is that it is not called a covenant.

It's not called a covenant. Nowhere in scripture are these roles and these distinctions referred to as a covenant.

This is what we refer to as a theologically derived covenant. We look at a body of theology, which if you've been here for more than two weeks, you know

I agree to almost all of what I just stipulated. The sovereignty of God and salvation, the harmony of the, just three weeks ago,

I preached on the harmony of the Trinity and how that applies to the atonement, the role of the Father in choosing, the role of the

Son in dying and purchasing, the role of the Spirit in applying the death to the Son, and the harmony of the Trinitarian members in accomplishing that redemption.

I agree with that. I agree that all of this was done and predestined in eternity past. I agree with that. I agree with the scope of who is saved and the purposes of the

Trinitarian members in saving them. I agree with all of that. One thing I cannot agree with is that these actions, that these roles and functions within the

Trinity are a covenant, because it is nowhere called in Scripture a covenant. Now, I can go to Genesis chapter 12 and I can see the

Abrahamic covenant clearly spelled out, and the word covenant is there. I can go to Genesis chapter eight and I can see the

Noahic covenant, and the word covenant is clearly there. I can go to any of those passages that I gave you where God makes a covenant, the word covenant is clearly there, but you will not find any passage that describes the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, or the covenant of grace, because those are not mentioned anywhere in Scripture.

Those are, that is a theological paradigm that is derived from right theology, but it is a theological paradigm that is then,

I believe, imposed upon all of the rest of Scripture so that the rest of Scripture then ends up being interpreted in light of that.

So this, I think, is the first error from my perspective. My covenant brethren, I love you. This is the first error that I think you make in this whole discussion, is that you go beyond what is written in calling something a covenant that Scripture does not call a covenant.

The second error that is then made is that that is then used as the paradigm, the lens through which everything else is read, so that then you go to the

Abrahamic covenant, the Noahic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the priestly covenant, the Davidic covenant, and the new covenant, and those are all read in a way that harmonizes with the covenant of grace, as you have stipulated it, even though there is no place where the covenant of grace and the terms of it are clearly laid out, as the other covenants of Scripture are.

So it becomes the paradigm through which all of this other stuff, these other things, and these other covenants are interpreted.

I hope that's making sense. Going beyond what is written in calling something a covenant that Scripture doesn't call a covenant, and then reading everything else in terms of that, which we have basically fabricated, out of what other things that are taught, but is nowhere explicitly stated, and making everything conform to that, so that those six covenants are then read, the six real and genuine covenants are read in light of a predetermined theological gridwork, or framework.

So I will show you how this works out. In the covenant of grace, for instance, this is, remember, this is the overarching covenant to redeem people by grace, this covenant of grace that covenant theologians think that God made in Trinity Past, this covenant of grace stipulates that God is saving one people group.

He does this on the basis of repentance and faith, that the elect humanity can have, and does have, no ethnic distinctions, because the people of God is not

Jews, and Ethiopians, and Americans, and et cetera. There's no, the people of God contains people from every tribe, and tongue, and kindred, and nation on the face of the planet, so they cannot have any national promises in this covenant of grace.

So then, you get to Genesis chapter 12, and you read of promises that God made to Abraham's seed, a national

Israel. It can't be national Israel, because my theology of a covenant of grace requires that I interpret those promises in light of the covenant of grace that God only has one people, not

Jews and Gentiles, that there's no ethnic distinctions, and if there's no ethnic distinctions in the covenant of grace, then

I can't have any national promises to Israel. You understand that? Then I read of David, and God's setting one of David's descendants on his throne, and ruling and reigning in an earthly kingdom, and that his throne,

David's throne, will last forever. The covenant, our covenant brethren look at that, and they say that can't be a promise to national

Israel, and to David specifically, because the covenant of grace requires that it just be one people group, and therefore there's no distinction between the

Jewish believers and the New Testament church. They're all one people, so that the New Testament church is the

New Testament Israel, and Israel is the Old Testament church. It's one whole people group, and if that is your governing methodology for interpreting scripture, then you have to read all of those other covenants in light of that, and do away then with all of the national distinctives, and all of the national promises that are made to the people of Israel.

So then the fundamental difference between covenant theologians and dispensationalists is not what we think a covenant is, and it's not what we think a mediator is, and it's not even necessarily what we think the terms of various covenants is.

It really boils down to an interpretive perspective. I don't believe that we take, go beyond what is written, and take these principles and these covenants, which are nowhere mentioned in scripture, and impose them over scripture, and then read everything, the clear and explicit statements in light of that, making them conform then to the theological grid work that I put over top of it.

So our covenant theologian friends would say that there are no promises to national Israel. They can't be fulfilled literally.

There can be no kingdom. And the promises to David cannot be fulfilled literally as they're given, because there can be no ethnic, racial, kingdom.

God can have no plans just for a specific Jewish nation. It has to be for all people, the people of God.

And then they would say that the new covenant cannot have a fulfillment specific to the nation of Israel, because again, there can be no promises specifically to national

Israel. And so all of those promises that we as dispensationalists would read in scripture and say national

Israel, literal Israel, literal kingdom, et cetera, they would read those same things and say those, that can't be referring to those, because God only has one people, and it's

Jew and Gentile, all people, all the saved, without any national distinctives, and therefore there can be no national promises that God has yet to fulfill to his people.

And this is the point of departure. It is a hermeneutical difference. We disagree, not on the nature of the covenant, not on who mediates the covenant.

What we disagree with is how the covenants will be fulfilled because of the nature of the promises that are made. So here's my issue, my covenant friends, if I have any left by this point.

Here's my issue. And I say this, and I hope that you take this, if you're in the covenant camp, I hope you take this in the spirit and with the love with which

I intend this. I think that covenant theology makes these two foundational errors. Number one, you go beyond what is written in calling something a covenant that scripture does not explicitly call a covenant.

And then you put that over top of the framework of scripture and read all the scripture through that. And force in some of the most unnatural of ways an interpretation upon very clear texts of scripture, which just taken on face value would not support your position.

But you force an interpretation onto that because it has to match this idea of a covenant of grace.

This I think is a method of interpreting scripture using a principle and a covenant that is not explicitly stated in scripture.

That's the fundamental error, I believe, of covenant theology. And why, as a dispensationalist, though I believe with covenant perspective on election, and I believe with the covenant perspective,

I agree with the covenant perspective on the atonement and the nature of Christ and God's fulfilling his promises and a whole bunch of other things.

I'd agree with all of those sovereign grace doctrines of scripture. And you know that I don't take a backseat in preaching those things, and I don't back down from teaching those doctrines in any venue.

I would agree with my reformed brethren in all of those issues, but I cannot go beyond what is written in scripture and say that therefore this constitutes a covenant that is not explicitly mentioned in scripture, and then read all of scripture through that grid.

I can't go there. That is what causes the distinction or the difference between us. Now to be fair,

I'm gonna present to you the covenant side real quick. To be fair, our covenant brethren see us as dispensationalists doing the exact same thing.

Because they would say you read scripture through a dispensational framework. You read scripture through a dispensational grid.

And if you weren't already a dispensationalist, you would never believe that Revelation chapter 20 describes a 1 ,000 year reign of Christ in a political kingdom on earth from Jerusalem with glorified saints.

If you didn't already believe the dispensational grid work, it's only because of your dispensationalism that you take the promises of Abraham literally.

Your dispensationalism requires you to take those promises literally. And your dispensationalism requires you to believe in a 1 ,000 year reign of Christ.

And my answer to that would be no, my dispensationalism does not require that. My reading of Revelation 20 requires me to be a dispensationalist.

It's the other way around. You know why I believe that there will be a political kingdom ruled over by the son of David, Jesus, for 1 ,000 years from Jerusalem in this earth prior to the new heavens and new earth?

You know why I believe that? Not because dispensationalism demands it. I believe it because Revelation 20 says that Jesus Christ will rule and reign for 1 ,000 years with glorified saints in Jerusalem prior to the new heavens and the new earth.

That's why I believe it. It's in Revelation 20. It's right there. It's 1 ,000 years. It says it not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five times.

It says it six times, 1 ,000 years. Now, I can't just take 1 ,000 years and say, well, it doesn't really mean 1 ,000 years.

Why? Because my covenant of grace and my absence of national distinctions, all of that requires that I not believe in 1 ,000 years.

I can't believe it's a literal kingdom. Why? Well, because my covenant of grace and my removal of national distinctions means that it can't be an actual political kingdom.

Because I read Revelation 20 and I see that it's there. I believe what is written there. And there's nothing in the text and there's nothing in any of the explicitly described covenants that would require me to believe that Revelation 20 describes anything other than what it's describing.

Because as it turns out, my view of the millennium, 1 ,000 year reign of Jesus Christ on this earth from Jerusalem with glorified saints, as it turns out, my belief in that comports perfectly.

It fits perfectly with a straightforward understanding of the promises given to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12.

It fits perfectly with the priestly covenant that is given to Phinehas in Numbers chapter 25.

It fits perfectly with the terms of the Davidic covenant and all of the promises given to David and his offspring.

And it fits perfectly with all of the terms of the new covenant described in Jeremiah chapter 31.

My understanding of the millennial reign of Christ fits perfectly with all of those covenants as they are explicitly described in Scripture.

So there is nothing about my understanding of any of the covenants that requires me to take Revelation chapter 20 and that perspective in any way other than a straightforward, literal, actual, plain description of exactly the events as they will unfold.

That make sense? So our covenant brethren would say that you could never arrive at a literal, physical kingdom for national

Israel described in Revelation 20 without coming to the text with your presuppositional, or your premillennial presuppositions.

And I would disagree. I would say that me coming to the text and reading what it is demands that I be a premillennial dispensationalist.

It's not that the one doesn't cause the other. As covenant theologians would say, it's the other that causes the one.

It's the other way around. So, if there's anybody who would still call themselves my friend, who's also a covenant theologian, let me conclude with these last few statements.

Number one, I hope that my critique has been fair, honest, and accurate. I have not,

I promise you, I have not in any way intended to misrepresent the covenant side. I don't think you need to do that.

You don't need to strawman somebody's opponents. I listened to a series of lectures on a critique of the dispensational perspective by a covenant theologian.

And as I went through this, I thought, you're critiquing something that we don't believe. You don't believe, this is not what we believe.

You're strawmanning our position. And I don't think that we need to do that. I think we can be honest and say, I've tried the best that I can to present your perspective and explain it exactly.

And I've done this, I've explained this in such a way that as if Greg Bonson or Louis Burkoff were sitting in the audience, he would say, yes, he has fairly represented our position.

That has been my driving ambition in presenting this the way that I have. Second, next week we're gonna look at these six covenants and we're going to see how they all tie together, how one lays the foundation for the other and how they all work together in the accomplishment of God's purposes.

And that's what we're gonna do next week. And I understand that we're still laying a little bit of foundation and groundwork for the understanding of the new covenant.

I also understand this has not been the most engaging preaching that you've ever heard from me. Admittedly, that is a low bar.

But it is necessary to cover these issues in connection with the new covenant so that we have some idea of what it is that separates us.

And as we get into the discussion of the new covenant in Hebrews chapter eight and in Jeremiah chapter 31, what

I wanna do is highlight for you how a covenant person would approach this having laid this groundwork and then how a dispensationalist would approach this and how they would understand the various promises and the fulfillments of those covenants from their respective positions.

All right, that's enough snoozing and sleeping for one day. So let's bow our heads and close in prayer. Father, we again thank you that you are a merciful and good

God. We do know that you have purposed and intended our redemption from eternity past and that you have done all of this for your glory.

We don't doubt any of that. And we agree with our covenant brethren on that perspective. We know that your purposes stand, that your promises will be fulfilled, that every purpose of yours will be accomplished just as you intended.

And that is why we can rest in your sovereignty and your grace, your goodness, and your mercy. We thank you in the name of Christ our

Lord, in whose name we pray and by whose blood we are saved. Amen.