Eric: This naration contradicts your statement; “OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.”

What I meant was that only Enoch and Elijah were raptured into heaven. All other OT saints probably didn’t go to heaven. God can do whatever He wants, whenever He wants.

Eric: They only way to obey is to have a change of heart and only God (Holy Spirit) can do that. (Deut. 30:6,8) Only the Holy Spirit can soften the Heart. (Ezek. 36:26)
The exegesis of this passage requires that one looks into the O.T. allusions and echoes of “uncircumcised hearts” and “stiff-necked”. (Example: Deut. 10:12-22 – N.C. experience and it requires the Holy Spirit – Deut. 30:6,8)

Your interpretation is popular in Arminian circles. I would distinguish between regeneration and indwelling. I believe that the Spirit regenerated all OT saints, but indwelt only some leaders.

Hope you had a good holiday. I don’t want to get into too much theological jostling here as we are off track, but I love the discussion and I thank you for that.

“Yes, and Enoch was also raptured. So, why do some theologians claim all OT saints went to heaven, but weren’t raptured?”

This naration contradicts your statement; “OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.” and moves towards my statements that God’s grace and justification looking toward the cross were the same as His grace and justification looking back to the cross.

As to the declaration about where the rest of the saints are is a much longer discussion and one I do not wish to get into here. However, you are correct in your observation that the naration is different than the declaration in this case.

“The context of that verse is the Jews resisting the Spirit’s prophecy, not His call to salvation. Because the Jews were hard-hearted and stiff-necked like their fathers, they always resist the Spirit’s prophecy by persecuting the Prophets.”

The context is all about the Israelites refusal to allow God into their lives. That is a refusal to allow the Holy Spirit to do His work. They “refused to obey” and their “hearts turned back to Egypt”. (Acts 7:39) They only way to obey is to have a change of heart and only God (Holy Spirit) can do that. (Deut. 30:6,8) Only the Holy Spirit can soften the Heart. (Ezek. 36:26)

The exegesis of this passage requires that one looks into the O.T. allusions and echoes of “uncircumcised hearts” and “stiff-necked”. (Example: Deut. 10:12-22 – N.C. experience and it requires the Holy Spirit – Deut. 30:6,8) Only God can cure the conditions of an uncircumcised heart and a “stiff-neck” and throughout the Bible we learn that the Holy Spirit does this for us. Yes, the N.T. makes it much clearer for us in the N.C., but the O.T. saints also had that opportunity or they could never find God or follow Him. There is more to this passage then just hearing the Spirit’s prophecy. One must be more than a listener. (James 1:22-25) and that is Stephen’s point.

Blessings,

Eric: If I am way off base I would appreciate your comments. I know for a fact I don’t have a perfect theology. I’m only walking with Christ and may He show me the way.

Believe it or not, to me, your heart is more important than your agreement on doctrinal distinctives. A man who who is teachable and loves Christ enough to follow Him at any cost is more mature than a man with better theology who is unteachable.

Eric: It seems clear to me that Enoch went to Heaven. (Heb. 11:5)

Yes, and Enoch was also raptured. So, why do some theologians claim all OT saints went to heaven, but weren’t raptured? (Same argument with the Spirit indwelling OT saints.)

A helpful herm. here is narration vs. declaration. Should we interpret the examples of Enoch/Elijah going to heaven, and the Spirit indwelling some OC leaders as declarations of what happened to all or narrations of what happened to only some?

Eric: I’m not sure how Stephen could accuse the Jews of being stiff-necked and resisting the Holy Spirit just like their fathers if most did not have an opportunity to recieve Him. (Acts 7:51)

The context of that verse is the Jews resisting the Spirit’s prophecy, not His call to salvation. Because the Jews were hard-hearted and stiff-necked like their fathers, they always resist the Spirit’s prophecy by persecuting the Prophets.

Nathan: Next, it would be contradictory for some laws to be fully abolished, and yet be quoted authoritatively by the apostles in other passages of scripture.

Not if they were cancelled from the OC, then transferred to the NC, so that we obey them from the NC, not the OC. Even Barcellos says the whole OC was “cancelled” (but then reinstated).

Sorry, I just wanted to leave you with a few more thoughts. Regarding your comment; “The intent of Jer. 31 is to contrast 2 peoples, not new experiences.”. The idea of recieving God completely is the whole idea of this text. It is all about the experience and not about the historical era or people. Note this quote from Dr. Brueggemann.

“The best-known promise in Jeremiah – at least in Christian interpretation – is Jeremiah 31:31-34 concerning the “new covenant.” Christian interpretation, with particular appeal to Hebrew 8:8-13, has frequently read this text in the most vigorously supercessionist way possible, as though the “new covenant” pertains only to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with Israel rejected for its broken covenant. Of course, nothing could more distort the text than such a reading. The text is rather a divine declaration that YHWH will begin again with Israel and restore a covenantal relationship that has been lost in the debacle of disobedience and destruction. Two parts of the promise are of particular interest. First, the shape of the new covenant relationship is according to the Torah: Jer. 31:33…The purpose of the new covenant, like the purpose of the old covenant, is to shape a people in obedience to the commands of Sinai. Given the tone of the Book of Jeremiah, it is likely that the “Torah” here is purview is the tradition of Deuteronomy. Second, the grounds of the new covenant is divine forgiveness: Jer. 31:34b…Unlike elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah, here there is no call for repentance. The newness is all on the side of YHWH’s fresh inclination, the God who is incapable of not having a relationship with Israel. Thus the future for Israel depends on the sure resolve of YHWH to begin again, here even without preconditions.” (Walter Brueggemann, Old Testament Theology:The Theology of the Book of Jeremiah, Cambridge University Press; 2007:126-127)

One can not get from the text of Jeremiah the idea that the whole basis of the first covenant was to be replace by a “new” basis. The “renewed” covenant was to be confirmed and completed by YHWH Himself, because as a whole the people were rejecting God and trying to keep the covenant on their own merits. As I have stated before, the only people in the O.T. that truely kept the covenant with YHWH allowed God to keep it for them. So, anyone that was saved prior to the N.T. had this N.C. experience as spoken of by Jeremiah.

I do believe the reason so many insert this “supercessionist” idea into Jeremiah is not because of the context of Jeremiah, because that it seemly impossible, but because they infer a misunderstanding of Paul’s writings back into Jeremiah (See Reisinger’s writings of Jer. 31). Now this interferes with the Compatibility Priniciple of Scripture, and is not sound exegesis. Paul’s writings can not completely contradict the O.T., and thankfully they do not. In many of Paul’s writings he is dealing with an improper response to God’s covenant proposal. (Gal. 3-4, Eph. 2, 2 Cor. 3) A close examination of these texts will show that one can not be saved by the descriptions of the Old Covenant that Paul is using. Paul is describing a legalistic, self-righteous, nationlistic attitude toward God and His Law, not the N.C. relationship so many in the O.T. had. Again, the changes in application of the law were addressed in the N.T., but the Law itself is still in the N.C., it is in our hearts.

Anyhow, sorry for rambling. If I am way off base I would appreciate your comments. I know for a fact I don’t have a perfect theology. I’m only walking with Christ and may He show me the way. God bless with your ministries.

Blessings,

How can we harmonize the law as NOT abolished (kataluo in Mt. 5:17-18, and katargeo in Rom. 3:31) with the law IS abolished (katargeo in both Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3:7)?

Well, one way we don’t do it is to automatically assume the exact same meaning of ‘abolish’ across different texts, in different contexts. One could point out the same error in the use of the word ‘fulfilled’.

Also, as is clear from both the OT and NT, there are laws that are particular to a specific covenant, and there are laws that transcend all covenants. It can be easily shown that the Decalogue, for example, is a set of laws that transcend all covenants.

Next, it would be contradictory for some laws to be fully abolished, and yet be quoted authoritatively by the apostles in other passages of scripture. Thus, since the Decalogue and other aspects of the OT Law are commanded/reiterated by the Apostles as pertaining to NC Christian obedience, we must examine closely what ‘abolish’ actually means, and consider that it might not mean what our English, 21st century reading of it might imply.

You said:

just as Luke 24:44 refers to fulfilling prophecy instead of confirming the Decalogue for obedience, so does Matthew 5:17-18.

Again, it is a fallacy to automatically assume the same meaning of ‘fulfilled’ across two different contexts. Here, even a child can see that Jesus’ main point in Matthew is *completely* different than His point in Luke. In Matthew, He is instructing the crowds on the true depths of God’s righteousness, as well as pointing out the righteousness needed to enter heaven. In Luke, He is referencing His death/resurrection, and that all that was prophesied about Him came to pass. How one could join these two words together, in different contexts, and apply the same meaning, is a very fundamental exegetical blunder. I could say more, but I’ll leave it at this.

You said:

Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and types as revelation, not to confirm the Old Covenant Decalogue alone for regulation

Nobody is arguing for the OC Decalogue ‘alone’. It is the foundation; not exhaustively the law.

You said:

Christ did not come to destroy ‘Genesis – Deuteronomy or the Prophets.’ In other words, He did not come to destroy the law as Old Testament revelation.

This fails to deal adequately with the context of Matthew 5. See this post for a clear demonstration of your errors: http://shepherdtheflock.com/2008/10/15/must-christians-obey-the-old-testament-law/
Furthermore, the issue of eschatological fulfillment has nothing to do with obedience. Of course He fulfilled the law. Of course He didn’t do away with the OT Revelation. Of course He is our righteousness in this fulfillment, to the point where we are not damned for our breaking of the law. But, of COURSE we have been given instructions on how to live/obey, and per the apostles themselves, the Decalogue and other aspects of the OT law are included in this.

I guess we are getting a little off topic, sorry Nathan. My major point is that Paul in Galatians was contrasting experiences not historical covenants as so many assert. Your six points stated above are well taken and I’m sure you are aware of the arguments. I will just make a few brief points and then I will be off for the 4th.

“1. OC saints went to the upper part of Sheol/Hades. But we go directly to God’s presence in heaven. (See “hades” in Vines, and Jn. 3:13). OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.”

I have never liked the idea of protestant pergatory. I believe Jesus is stating that no one has gone to Heaven and come back to witness about it except Him. No one knows the things of Heaven except Him. It seems clear to me that Enoch went to Heaven. (Heb. 11:5) God’s plan of salvation was in place before the foundation of the World. (Eph. 1:4, 1 Pet. 1:20)

“4. The Holy Spirit indwelt only some OC leaders, but indwells all NC saints.”

I’m not sure how Stephen could accuse the Jews of being stiff-necked and resisting the Holy Spirit just like their fathers if most did not have an opportunity to recieve Him. (Acts 7:51)

Anyhow, good discussion Greg and have a good 4th.

Blessings,

Eric: The way I see it the “New” Covenant experience has not changed and is thus the “everlasting” covenant… I guess to get to the crux of the issue, I just do see Paul in anyway contrasting two historical eras of salvation history in Galatians. Paul is contrasting a legalistic experience (Old Covenant) verses a love relationship (New Covenant). This understand may have huge ramifications as we apply it to God’s Law.

Nathan: “Eric, Based on your comments, I assume that you take the position that the CT of Grace and the New Covenant are the same thing? That is, there really isn’t anything ‘new’ about the New Covenant, other than its full revelation. And this is referred to as the ‘everlasting’ covenant in Hebrews?”

James: While I think Greg is on the right track, I do not believe his points are faithful to NCT. They seem to be closer to a more consistent CT to me, but that is just based on what I have seen here and his site. I could be wrong.

James, I understand your concern. Eric has taken my ideas too far. All I was trying to say was that there are 7 blessings in Jer. 31: Perseverance, obedience, God’s faithfulness, our faithfulness, no need of evangelism, salvation, and forgiveness. Regardless of whether anyone is CT or NCT, we should be able to agree that the OC saints probably already possessed all 7 of those blessings. The intent of Jer. 31 is to contrast 2 peoples, not new experiences.

But, that doesn’t mean that other passages don’t reveal the new experiences, as Eric is suggesting. What do we possess today that OC believers lacked? Here are 6 NC blessings that started in the 1st century…

1. OC saints went to the upper part of Sheol/Hades. But we go directly to God’s presence in heaven. (See “hades” in Vines, and Jn. 3:13). OC saints could not go into God’s presence until Christ atoned for their sins and removed God’s wrath.

2. Only one OC leader had access to God’s shekinah glory presence once a year. But NC saints can enter His presence 24/7.

3. Spirit baptism into the Church.

4. The Holy Spirit indwelt only some OC leaders, but indwells all NC saints.

5. Union with Christ in His death, burial, resurrection, and reign.

6. OC members and saints were adopted as physical sons. But we are adopted as spiritual sons.

I’m familiar with CT arguments against these red.-hist. interpretations, but I disagree with their herm.

Nathan: Well, NCT is arguing that ‘fulfilled’ abolishes the Law right after Jesus said that He wasn’t abolishing it.

How can we harmonize the law as NOT abolished (kataluo in Mt. 5:17-18, and katargeo in Rom. 3:31) with the law IS abolished (katargeo in both Eph. 2:15 and 2 Cor. 3:7)? In Lk. 24:44, we see 3 parallels to Mt. 5:17-18…

1. The Law and Prophets
2. All/everything
3. Fulfill/accomplished

“So, just as Luke 24:44 refers to fulfilling prophecy instead of confirming the Decalogue for obedience, so does Matthew 5:17-18.”

“Matthew’s normal meaning for ‘pleroo’ is eschatolgical fulfillment (not obedience) as shown in 12 prophecies (1:22, 2:15, 2:17, 2:23, 4:14, 8:17, 12:17, 13:35, 21:4, 26:54, 26:56, 27:9). Notice that all those uses of ‘pleroo’ refer to revelation (Old Testament), not regulation (Old Covenant). And, it’s the same in the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus came to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies and types as revelation, not to confirm the Old Covenant Decalogue alone for regulation…So, Christ did not come to destroy ‘Genesis – Deuteronomy or the Prophets.’ In other words, He did not come to destroy the law as Old Testament revelation. (The error that the Old Testament was abolished as Scripture was popularized later in church history by the heretic Marcion.)”

Of course, I think its obvious anyway that in Matt 5 Jesus is dealing with popular interpretations of the law (you have heard it said), rather than actual OT law (it is written), something that I’m sure we disagree on. This question will also lead us in one way or another when interpreting ‘fulfilled’.

CTers rightly see NCT as having Jesus contradict Himself in Matthew 5 if their view of ‘fulfilled’ is true.

Try to deal with this some when you get to Moo. I don’t quite know what you mean by this.