The Three Covenants

It's ok, but we will continue to disagree concerning these doctrines.

Psalm 37:11
But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

This talk of 3 covenants is not biblical. There is no covenant for the Church/Gentiles and another waiting for Israel.

Paul gives the illustration of the olive tree in Rom. 11. The olive tree is the New Covenant with Israel, the remnant of Israel in Christ that has always existed.

He tells us that we, the Church, have been grafted in being a wild olive branch. We the Church are not the natural branches of the olive tree, that would be Israel. God made a new Covenant with Israel/the natural branches, and we the Church have been grafted in that covenant. 

This 3 covenant thing is springing from pride! The Church needs a slice of humble pie. We need to remember we the Church are the 2nd choice of God, the wild olive branches, that have been grafted in with Israel in the New Covenant.

God chose Israel and gave them the Law, no one else, God chose Israel as the womb of the Messiah, no one else. It was when Israel failed in their calling to introduce Christ to the world that God made His second choice, the Church, to take Christ to the world!

Paul also tells us that the natural branches that have been broken off will be grafted back in, this is referring to Israel. Paul tells us that "all of Israel will be saved." These are the natural branches being grafted back into covenant.

We had better get it together realizing the original promises of God are to Israel, and we the Church have been grafted in! 

 

Hi, and appreciate your reply, comments and inquires! I don't follow the man but the man's teachings. I go by how one's doctrine parallels the Word of God to determine acceptance of their teachings; and have been following Plymouth Brethren teachings for about 25 years and have found their teachings to be the most useful in the category of "spiritual growth." 

The Three Covenants are mentioned in the article:


a) “The Law (with its covenant) made nothing perfect” (Heb 7:19), and was “disannulled,” “because of its weakness and unprofitableness” (v 18). (OT covenant)


b) The “new covenant” to be made with Israel and Judah at our Lord’s return to earth, we have seen is all grace—God’s operation instead of their response (Jer 31:31-24; Ezek 36:24-27; 37:12-14, 21, 23, 25-28). Therefore the “new covenant” which the Hebrew believers to whom Paul was writing had explained to them, was not yet on, nor will be until Christ’s return to earth; and then it will apply to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” as God says, in the land of Palestine, with the peculiar earthly blessings described in Scripture. (Israel's new covenant)


But—there is yet an eternal covenant, detailed in Hebrews 13:20, in which and according to which Paul knows that all believers may be made perfect in “every good work.” This eternal covenant, in which the God of peace and our Lord Jesus are the Benefactors, and the sheep are the beneficiaries—this covenant is the only covenant which believers should keep in mind as already and eternally fulfilled in its conditions (sacrifice has been made—NC), and available to all. (Christians New Covenant)

The OT is Christological only in the sense of it's sin sacrifices which "shadowed" Christ's expiation for sin; as they were credited forward! (Act 2:25; Rom 3:25; Heb 9:15-22: also Col 2:17;Heb 8:5

Heb 10:1).


God's blessings to your Family!

Are you aware the Plymouth Brethren were part of the 19th century "restoration movement" and as such they taught so problematic views? During the 1800s there was an explosion of sectarian diversity in which various groups claimed the Church was corrupt and in need of restoration..... and they were the ones with the correct way to do things. Each sect, working completely apart from one another, believed the Church must return to the New Testament era way of doing things and they each had their own interpretation of how that should look. Each selected various examples from the New Testament so what resulted was a huge diversity of ways to "restore" the Church. Sects such as the Brethren movement were among the Millerites/SDAs, the Campbellites/Disciples of Christ, Church of Christ, Jws, and the LDS. All of these sects had another thing in common: they were all apocalyptic. They all believed the Church needed restoration because Jesus was coming back imminently (in the 19th century). 

Clearly, they were all wrong. 

Some of those groups managed to stay within the mainstream of orthodox Christianity, but others were cults. Aside from the bad ecclesiology (the Church was no more corrupt than it was in the first century when Paul wrestled with the Corinthians and Ephesians), and the prideful hubris of claiming to be the true Church, they ALL failed in their eschatology. Jesus did NOT come back in the 1800s, and as a consequence they had to invent new timeframes for Jesus' return (and over the last 200 years not a single one of them have ever been correct). 

So' I urge caution and discernment ANY time you read from the Brethren, especially folks like John Darby (who eventually called his Plymouth Brethren brothers corrupt, too). 


I'm not sure why you're repeating content already posted but 1) repetition is not an argument for or against anything, and argumentum ad nauseam is fallacious, and 2) none of that repeated content answers or addresses my questions. I was just thanked for the questions, but they were then ignored! Was that intentional? 

• What do you know about these sources cited in the op?
• Have you been following these guys, Snell and Stanford long?
• Why should we consider their views valid and veracious?
• Are you aware this opening post doesn't actually list three covenants?
• Are you aware the Old Testament never once speaks of God's covenant in the plurals?
• Do you agree the Old Testament covenant is said in the New Testament to be Christological in the sense it foreshadowed Christ and him as the mediator of a new covenant?

I asked these questions because I didn't want to assume a lack of familiarity in any of these areas. When you read these sources are you reading them critically because any article that speaks of three covenants should 1) actually list three covenants and 2) note the OT speaks only of ONE covenant. It speaks of one covenant in diverse ways, the covenant of the patriarchs AND, as I previously stated, the New Testament tells us they are Christological. Certainly, an article on the "three covenants" should also include that truth. Yes? 

So while I am encouraged you don't follow the men, following their teachings is problematic as well and the articles quoted prove it. Just as Darby literally invented his views, his hermeneutic and his theology focused on a new (invented) ecclesiology and new (invented) eschatology, Stanford invented his "Pauline Dispensationalism." If you've investigated these men and their teachings, then you're aware of some of the problems and perhaps we can discuss them. If not, I can recommend some reading (some of which will include the Dispensationalists) to better inform the reality of this theology. 

If there's no interest in the history of Stanford's views (or those of other Dispensationalists) I'll keep my posts more specific to this op because some of it is commendable, but some of it is not. There are not three covenants. There are many covenants, all initiated by God, but they are all varying aspects of one covenant. Give the second paragraph a re-read ("The Lord has come....."). Think about what it actually says (as opposed to what you intended for the readers to garner), because there are a lot of words there but there's nothing of substance in it. That paragraph could have been said in a single sentence.

I'm particularly curious about the phrase, "Many I’m sure are not familiar with the fact that God has saved the Israelites who believe in Him....," because the overwhelming majority of New Testament writers were Jewish converts! How is it many would not be aware of that? 

Then there's the statement, "The only time that remains for the return to fellowship of believing Israel (to fellowship, not union which has never been broken) is during the Millennium." It's a particularly odd statement because 1) the Brethren eschatology was completely new to Christianity, and 2) the "millennium" is mentioned only in one chapter of one book in the New Testament (Rev. 20) and Israel is nowhere found in that chapter. In point of fact, "Israel is mentioned only three times in the entire book of Revelation and none of those mentions have anything to do with the geo-political nation-state of bloodline Israel. Of the five main eschatological views in Christianity (Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, Idealism, and Dispensational Premillennialism) only Dispensational Premillennial holds Israel to be relevant to Christian Eschatology. ALL of the others hold the exact opposite view: completely irrelevant. In other words, the Dispensational views part ways with TWENTY centuries of Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. It's the newcomer on the block and it departs from long-held, mainstream, orthodox historical Christianity in many ways. 

So I encourage and exhort you to be read those source with a much of a critical eye as you may now be reading my post . 


Even though I have more comments and inquiries I'll end with this one because my post is getting long. Did you actually mean to say, "Thus Christians are not in a covenant with God..., but are recipients... of the 'Covenant of Redemption'!" If that is actually what you meant to post, then how can someone be a recipient of a covenant and not in that covenant? How is this to be reconciled with Pauls' statement God, "...made us adequate as servants of a new covenant...," (2 Cor. 3:6) or how the author of Hebrews could state, "Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever," (Heb. 13:20-21)? Christians are not in a covenant with God? Paul and Peter both quoted the prophet Hosea, "I will sow her for Myself in the land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, And I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are my God!’” to make the very point being denied. Paul, writing to the saints in Rome, quoted the prophet to prove, 

Romans 9:30-32 
...That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works...

 and Peter, writing to those obeying Christ by the sanctifying of the Holy Spirit, used a pile of prophets (including Hosea), to say, 

1 Peter 2:9-10 ESV
But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

Where is the scripture stating a a people can be God's people outside of a covenant?

Luke 22:14-20

When the hour had come, he reclined at the table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, "I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God." And when he had taken a cup and given thanks, he said, "Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes." And when he had taken some bread and given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me." And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.

 
1 Corinthians 11:23-26

For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way he took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.


What Jesus said to the twelve was applied by Paul to the saints. Christ's blood is the new covenant poured out for the saints in Rome! 

Romans 5:8-9

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 

The "us" in Romans 5:8 is the saints in Rome, those converted to Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek. 

Ephesians 1:7-8

In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us...

Ephesians 2:13-19

But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God...

Hebrews 9:15-18

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 the eternal inheritance. 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 in force while the one who made it lives. Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 

So, it is the Jew who has no covenant! The covenant is not valid only when the one making the covenant is dead, never in force while the one making it lives. Are you familiar with the suzerain covenant? If not, then look it up. Abraham's vision is that of a suzerain covenant, but it was the imagery of God who walked between the sundered carcasses in pledge of fealty to the Covenant Maker. 

Galatians 3:8-9

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham....

The gospel was preached to Abraham. Foreseeing He would justify the Gentiles, God preached the gospel to Abraham. 

Hebrews 11:39-40

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.


So please, if that sentence was in fact what you intended to say, show me the scripture by which the position, "Christians are not in a covenant with God...," might be proved.

Appreciate your time and patience.[/quote]

The op stated, "Christians are not in a covenant with God," NOT our not having a covenant with man. 

As far as there being no scripture claiming Christians don't have a covenant with God, I just provided a pile of scripture implicitly saying we do. We are, in fact, the covenant people God promised, a nation of priests, members of God's holy nation. How many times is the word "Christian" occurs in the Bible? Would it be surprising to find the word is used only three times in the entire Bible? Why then would anyone expect the Bible to explicitly stated, "Christians are in a covenant with God"? The Bible uses diverse terms for Christians, such as saints, or bondservants, or describing their relationship with God through Christ or the Holy Spirit. Then there is the matter of argumentum ex silentio, or the argument from silence. Just because something is not explicitly stated does not mean it is not so. The word, "Trinity" is nowhere to be found in the Bible but that doctrine is core to Christianity. Are you a Trinitarian? If so, then there's an inconsistency in the appeal to scripture's silence on Christians in a covenant with God. It's not what scripture does not say that's important; it's what scripture does say. Only in examination of affirmative claims can silence be measured. 


And yes, we do disagree, and yes, it is okay for now but that simply means the op should be discussed so as to explore the differences and reach a shared, collaborative understanding of scripture. I hope the things I've posted will be addressed with some modicum of substance and scripture. If not, then perhaps you might illuminate the readers and be forthcoming about the purpose, intent, and/or objective in posting this op. 

Historically speaking, there are many godly teachers within the Brethren movement, but doctrinally speaking, there have always been some problem in their larger theology. The shift in basing theology on ecclesiology and eschatology, instead of Christology and soteriology was a huge shift in Christian thought, doctrine, and practice. The dispensationalist theologies broke with what was at that time 18 centuries of long-held and well-established Christianity. If the dispensationalists are correct, then the vast majority of Christians that came before them were incorrect! Some of the ways this is evidence is in the role Israel plays in Christian eschatology, the identity, nature and character of the Church, and the nature and identity of Christ. 

Is the op going to be discussed? If you like I'll take any one point and examine it, one point at a time. 


I'd prefer you start with this claim Christians are not in a covenant with God. How was that position reached (other than by way of an appeal to silence)?