Source: https://nightlightblogdotcom.wordpress.com/tag/covenant-theology/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:25:43+00:00

Document:
As Peter begins to come to the end of his explanation to the people, he gives four reasons why they should repent and be converted. The first one, which we looked at in our last post, is the return of Christ, about which Peter will have some more to say. The other three reasons form the basis for this post.
1. Certain Retribution, vs. 22, 23.
Though later prophesies expand on this idea, this verse contains the whole of prophetic revelation about the Coming One: enmity and conflict.
Jacob’s descendants, having been more or less forced to move to Egypt, at first found themselves respected and honored. This did not last and they eventually found themselves persecuted and enslaved. At the appointed time, God raised up Moses to deliver the people. At Sinai, where Israel was transformed from a motley rabble into an organized nation, the people were terrified at the manifestation of God, and wanted someone as a go-between. Moses was the one God chose, through whom He gave the Law, the Mosaic Covenant. At the giving of that Law, God said, “What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him,” Deuteronomy 18:18, 19.
The clear implication is that Jesus Christ is this Prophet and to reject Him is to bring down certain judgment, v. 23.
2. Covenant Promises, v. 24.
Do “these days” refer to what is known as “the church age,” and is Peter telling his audience that all the OT promises are “fulfilled in the church” and, as a consequence, there is no further or future blessing for Israel?
If you’ve ready very many of my posts, you know that I don’t believe that to be true.
In the first place, vs. 25, 26 indicate that these unsaved Jews did indeed have an interest in the OT covenants. Granted, repentance was required of them, but even in the OT, relationship with God hinged on a satisfactory answer to the sin question, as seen in all the offerings and in the Tabernacle and later the Temple. Relationship to God, as we understand that term, in any time in human history since the Fall, has never been and never will be apart from redemption from sin.
Second, Peter preached just a few weeks or so after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Early believers had no inkling of such a long period of time until the Second Coming as we ourselves have seen, nor of a body called “the church,” in which people would come to God through the Lord Jesus and not through the offerings and ceremonies of the Old Testament. This is the whole thrust of the book of Hebrews, explaining to believing Jews the place, the purpose and, yes, the putting aside, of their beloved Mosaic heritage, or perhaps rather, the flowering and fulfillment of what that heritage foreshadowed.
The early disciples were vitally interested in the “time” element. Cf. the disciple’s question and our Lord’s response in Acts 1:6, 7, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons, which the Father has put in His own authority.” According to Peter, the time element was also of surpassing interest to the OT prophets, 1 Peter 1:10, 11. This was partly because of such seemingly contradictory things as the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. But when did it follow?
Further, OT prophecy is filled with “time” references: the 400 year servitude in Egypt, the 70 year captivity, Daniel’s 70 weeks, as well as Daniel 12:5-12 and Hosea 3:4, 5.
At this time, all Peter knew for certain was that Jesus had been crucified, raised again, ascended into heaven, and that He was coming again. Perhaps the early church, as seen in its communal attitude, believed that that Return would be very soon.
Therefore, we believe that “these days” refers not the church age, but rather to Peter’s own time and the early believers’ anticipation of and preparation for the return of the Lord Jesus. Only as Paul came onto the scene and it became evident that the nation of Israel in general would continue to reject Jesus as their Messiah, was further revelation given to the churches and it became apparent that more time might elapse before the Second Coming than was first thought, although that Coming is always viewed as “imminent” in the New Testament.
3. Covenant relationship, v. 25.
“You are the sons…of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed’.” Peter also mentioned “the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” in v. 13. In this way, he reminded them that they were the beneficiaries and successors of the promises made “to the fathers” through “the prophets.” At the same time, he cautions them that these blessings do not simply automatically flow from parent or ancestor, but that the ultimate intent of God’s dealings with them, and with us, is that people might be turned from their iniquities. This can only be done on a personal, individual basis: every one of you.
[9:15]And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may received the promise of the eternal inheritance.
For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And according to the law almost all things are purified by blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.
Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another – He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once in the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed unto men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
[10:1]For the law, having a shadow of the the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, could never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
We’re used to thinking of “The New Testament” as those books from Matthew to Revelation, and of “The Old Testament” as being from Genesis to Malachi. While this is a valid and understandable use of the terms, Hebrews tells us that we can’t limit the phrases to those meanings.
Hebrews teaches us that the terms “Old Testament” or “Covenant” or “First Covenant,” and “New Testament” or “Covenant” in its usage describe two mutually–exclusive, mutually contradictory and mutually incompatible ways of approach to God. The Old Testament speaks of our coming to God on the basis of our works. Both the sacrificial system and Israel’s subsequent history show that this is impossible. The New Testament teaches that we come to God on the basis of Christ’s work.
The Bible teaches with regard to our salvation that we have nothing to boast about. It is God Who “makes us to differ,” 1 Corinthians 4:7. We believe “according to the working of His mighty power,” Ephesians 1:19. We believe “through [or, by means of] grace,” Acts 18:22.
1. Mediation of the New Covenant, 9:15-17.
2. Dedication of the New Covenant, 9:18-26.
3. Expectation of the New Covenant, 9:27-28.
4. Intimation of the New Covenant, 10:1-4.
5. Preparation for the New Covenant, 10:5-8.
6. Implementation of the New Covenant, 10:9.
“He is the Mediator” – not the OT priesthood, not the Romish or Anglican priesthood or any other priesthood, nor any other individual, not the Virgin Mary, not the saints, not the preacher, not some “prophet,” not some “personality;” Jesus Christ is the only way into the presence of God, and He is the only One with authority to intervene on behalf of His people. That is why we must come in His name into the presence of God; no other name is recognized in heaven, Acts 4:12.
Basis of the Mediation, “by means of death,” also vs. 16, 17. It was His death that released “the inheritance” for the enjoyment of His people. It was His death that cancelled sin on their behalf and that satisfied divine justice for them.
1. “redemption.” In the OT, God didn’t just “overlook” the sin of His people. The animal sacrifices could not take away sin, but they foreshadowed the coming of the One Who could. The sins of the OT saints were as assuredly paid for by the death of Christ as the sins of the NT saints.
2. “eternal inheritance.” In the OT, under the Old Covenant, “inheritance” was temporary, based on obedience. This is why Israel was so often in misery and was finally cast out of the land, even after the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah. Even though they’re in the land once again, Scripture teaches that this, too, will come to an end. It won’t until the Second Coming of the Lord that things will finally be straightened out. The blessings of the New Covenant are dependent on the obedience of Christ.
Beneficiaries of the Mediation, “those who are called.” Even in the OT, though Israel as a nation enjoyed covenant blessing, not every Israelite knew the Lord; perhaps most in Israel’s history did not know the Lord. But the New Covenant is not “national” in that sense, but individual: “they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest,” Jeremiah 31:34. Hence, it is a great mistake to try to pattern the New Covenant church after the Old Covenant nation.
Foreshadowed in the First Covenant, vs. 18-22. Although blood was shed, redemption under the First Covenant was neither complete nor comprehensive, v. 22.
Fulfilled by Christ, vs. 23-26. His sacrifice purified the originals of the things duplicated in the Mosaic tabernacle, though we don’t understand all that is involved or implied in these verses. And it was a “once” sacrifice; the “Day of Atonement” accomplished by the Lord Jesus will never have to be repeated, either by Himself or by those who would do it ceremonially. Indeed, such a thought is blasphemy.
These verses weren’t just inserted to fill up space, but to point out that the expectation and fulfillment of the New Covenant were not to be accomplished at the First Coming, but at the Second. Considered on the whole, no OT prophecy has been fully realized. Even those prophecies which do speak of things pertaining to the First Coming have ramifications which impinge on the Second Coming, for example, Micah 5:1-3; Daniel 9:24-27.
In several places, Hebrews mentions “the promise(s)”. A careful and objective reading indicates that complete fulfillment of these promises is yet future, for example, Hebrews 11:39, 40. They are dependent on the return of Christ and are not going to be fulfilled before then, as in “the church,” as many believe. Romans 11 and Ephesians 2 and 3 shed further light on this controversial subject.
The continual offerings for sin showed that something more was needed. The OT sacrifices were shadows of the Coming Sacrifice, shadows of “good things to come,” not the things themselves.
5. Preparation for the New Covenant,10:5-8.
“A body”. From Adam to Mary, God was preparing the physical body of the Lord Jesus, that “body” which was to be offered “once for all,” Hebrews 10:10. When Adam and Eve heard the pronouncement of their judgment and the promise of a coming Redeemer, Adam already bore in his body the genetic structure of that Redeemer. The Cross was not a make-shift attempt to patch up an unforeseen disaster, but a carefully-planned, carefully-prepared revelation of the fullness of the divine attributes, wisdom and power.
Approach to God by our own efforts, merit or deserving will never be possible. The OT showed the impossibility of that, and the Lord Jesus has made all such attempts unnecessary. He came to forever rid men of the idea that salvation is a matter of reward.
By grace, you have been saved.
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: we have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man.
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law, who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, “See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, “Behold the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah – not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.
In our last post, we talked about the two priests in Hebrews 7. Briefly mentioned were the covenants which underlay their ministries. Chapter 8 continues the writer’s thought that the Levitical priesthood was temporary because it was unable to complete redemption. As the writer develops later on, animal sacrifices could not take away sin. The Levitical priesthood was “introductory” in that it was a primer, a basic revelation of the holiness, righteousness and justice of God, and the exacting and inflexible nature of what is required to stand in His presence uncondemned, cf. 2:2.
Chapter 8 deals with the fundamental difference between the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood of Christ. This difference is not simply found in the fact that the Lord Jesus is God. If, as some claim, Jesus was only a creature, exalted though He may have been, He would have been able only to bring Himself to heaven. If only a creature, Jesus would have been under the same obligation as all other creatures to serve and obey God and His life would have had merit only for Himself. But since He is God, His life and death have infinite merit and value – enough to have saved multiple worlds had God so chosen.
The fundamental difference between the priesthoods of Aaron and Christ lies in the covenants underlying their respective ministries, cf. 8:6. The First, or Mosaic Covenant, could not take away sin or do anything about the condition of the sinner. The New Covenant, underlying Christ’s priesthood, can and does both.
It’s essential to understand that there are two covenants involved in this matter. And, though we won’t go further into the subject, Scripture lists several other covenants.
2. There is no distinction between the nation of Israel and the church. The church began with Abraham (Small, ibid., p. 161), or with Adam (Kuiper, R.B., The Glorious Body of Christ, p. 22), and is not specifically of the New Testament. Israel and the church are merely different forms of the same thing.
3. There is no future fulfillment of Old Testament verses with reference to the nation of Israel, which has been supplanted by the church (cf. note on bottom of p. 7, Weston, Charles Gilbert, The Weston Study Bible). Nor is there to be a “grossly carnal” future Millennium, in which the Lord Jesus sits on an actual throne in Jerusalem (Clement, George H., The ABC’s of the Prophetical Scriptures, p. 40). Covenant theologians are, therefore, amillennial, although not all who are amillennial hold to covenant theology.
1. Infant baptism. According to this view, infant baptism replaces circumcision as the “sign” of the covenant. Elaborate arguments are brought forth to justify this view. I found it interesting that Dabney, a noted Reformed scholar, in discussing believers’ and infant baptism, refers to eight verses teaching believer’s baptism. In the next paragraph, when he turns to infant baptism, he says this, “We add that baptism is also to be administered to ‘the infants of one or both believing parents’.” (Conf. 28, par. 4). (Sorry, I have no further reference for this quote.) Why doesn’t he simply mention those Scriptures which teach infant baptism, or clearly show that the apostles baptized infants? He can’t. There aren’t any. That’s why there’s a need for “elaborate arguments.” The whole doctrine of infant baptism rests on the effort to equate Israel with the church. Indeed, covenant theology was introduced during the early years of the Reformation to defend the practice in argument against the Anabaptists, who rightly rejected it – and paid for it with their lives.
Just let me say that even if baptism does replace circumcision, even in the OT infants weren’t circumcised either to be born or to become members of the nation of Israel. They were circumcised because they already had been born and were members of that nation. So, baptism is for those who have already been born-again and, by virtue of that second birth, are members of the body of Christ. Besides, circumcision wasn’t replaced by another symbol, but by the reality it symbolized – namely, regeneration (the new birth, salvation). Believer’s baptism looks back to that, not to an Old Testament ritual.
2. An established state-religion, based on the OT theocracy, in which every member of a nation is a member of “the church” by virtue of their baptism as infants. In such a system, there is no liberty of conscience, no liberty of dissent. In fact, the original Westminster Confession had a very strong section on the duty of the church to suppress all “blasphemies and heresies,” with the church defining what those were. It was only after the War for American Independence that the Reformers, dealing with reality, substituted that section with one allowing religious liberty.
1. The “shadow” of the “first” covenant, 8:1-5, cf. 10:1.
2. The “substance” of the “final” covenant, 8:6-13.
1. He is “seated,” v. 1. The OT priests never sat while on duty because their work was never done.
2. He is in heaven, v. 1. Aaronic priests functioned on the earth.
2. The Substance of the “Final” Covenant, 8:6-13.
1. The time of the New Covenant, v. 8, “the days come;” v. 10, “after those days.” This is a quote from Jeremiah 31:31-34, but note the rest of that chapter! (to v. 40), also Jeremiah 32:36-44. Both of these references show that something more than the Law is required if even Israel is to come to God.
2. The beneficiaries of the New Covenant, vs. 8, 10: “house of Israel,” “house of Judah.” While I have no desire to get into the interpretive jungles which entwine themselves around these verses, it seems obvious to me to whom and of whom these verses speak. And if they don’t refer to the actual nation of Israel, or Judah, and God didn’t mean what He said, then why didn’t He say what He meant?
The point is that Israel will never be reconciled to God through their adherence to the Mosaic Law. Neither will anyone else.
3. The substitution of the New Covenant, v. 9, also v. 11. “Teaching” was an essential part of the Mosaic Law, Deuteronomy 6:7. The historical reference of v. 9 establishes that “Israel” cannot be “the church,” as many teach. It is a gravely dangerous thing to play semantic games with the word of God, to teach that we have to “look below the surface” to find out what it’s really saying. While I don’t think we’ll ever get to the bottom of its teaching in this life, and maybe not in the next one, either, what it teaches about God and sin and salvation is plain enough that there is no excuse for mistaking its meaning.
4. The substance of the New Covenant, vs. 10-12. These verses may be summarized in one word: redemption. The restoration of Israel does not come apart from redemption. The crucifixion of Christ did not invalidate the promises of God, like this one, to Israel, so that her place in God’s redemptive purpose has been taken over by someone else and she is shut out. Nay, it is through that very rejection and crucifixion that Israel will one day be redeemed as a nation.
a. internal righteousness, v. 10a. Contrast Deuteronomy 29:1-4. What God did not do at Sinai, He will do because of Calvary. The Mosaic Law is an external code, powerless to do anything to change the internal character of a person. The New Covenant deals with that very thing, Jeremiah 31:33.
b. immediate relationship, vs 10b-11a. This is as opposed to “mediate.” The OT Jew could never go into the Holy of Holies. He could only do this through the annual observance of the Day of Atonement, in which the High Priest, and he alone and only on that day, could enter that place, where God dwelt. But now, through Christ, the saved Jew, or Gentile, can come directly into the presence of God. He or she needs no other priest; they don’t need Mary or “the saints,” don’t need “the church” or some religious organization. Indeed, to say that one does need any of them is terrible blasphemy.
Since the whole section of Romans 9-11 deals with “Israel after the flesh” (Romans 9:3), Romans 11:26 can’t be said to refer to some sort of “spiritual Israel” which really has nothing to do with Israel. Rather it refers to a time when Israel herself will be made “spiritual,” that is, she will be redeemed. This doesn’t mean that every Jew who ever lived will be saved, but rather that every Jew alive at that time will be saved.
Even though the church enjoys the blessings of the new covenant by the grace of God, we can’t say that it’s really been fulfilled. After all, “teaching” is a major part of the Great Commission, Matthew 28:19, 20, and of the “gifts” to the church in Ephesians 4:11-16. The time is coming when it and they will no longer be necessary.
d. incomprehensible redemption, v. 12.
Sin will be forgiven, but more than that, it will be banished. God’s people will have nothing to repent of, to be sorrowful over, to wish had never happened. We have such superficial views of sin and salvation that I don’t think we really have any idea what that will be like.
5. The succession of the New Covenant, v. 13. By this, we mean that the New Covenant will supercede and take the place of the Old, Mosaic, Covenant. It is, after all, a “new” covenant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.