Hudsonville Protestant Reformed Church
5101 Beechtree
Hudsonville, Michigan 49426
Services: 9:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
Homepage on Internet: http://www.prca.org
Vol. 8, No. 26
Content:
The
New Covenant (1)
The
Mysteries of the Kingdom (3)
Is
Universal Atonement True? (5)
The New
Testament is called the new covenant in Hebrews 8:6-13 (indeed the word
"testament" is the same word as "covenant"). According to Hebrews 8 the new covenant replaces
the old.
From this many conclude that there is some essential difference between the old and
new - that they are different covenants. The
Baptists come to this conclusion in their defense of believer's baptism (the covenant
sealed by circumcision is not the same as the covenant sealed by baptism). The futurists come to the same conclusion in
defense of their belief that there is still a special earthly future for Israel (one
covenant promise for them, another for us).
We believe that the new covenant replaces the old only as a newer and fuller
revelation of the one everlasting covenant of God. The
differences are only differences of administration. Hebrew
8 itself makes this clear. Notice:
(1) Verse 10 uses the ordinary covenant formula (thy God, my people) to show that
the new covenant is not essentially different from the old.
At that most important point they are the same.
(2) The reference to the law confirms this. In
the new covenant the law is not removed, but rewritten on different tables - the
fleshly tables of the heart (II Cor. 3:3). Law
and covenant still go together. In fact, the
giving of the law (though differently written) is the "giving" of the
covenant, both in Deut. 4:13 and here in verse 10.
(3) Also, in both, according to verse 11, the essential thing is knowing the Lord,
though there is a difference in how we do know Him.
Verse 11, we believe, speaks of the NT as a time of realization and fulfillment. It is a time, therefore, in which God's people
know Him directly and not anymore through the "teaching" of priests and Levites
(cf. Mal. 2:5-7).
The new covenant, then, is not something completely different, but new in the same
way that the heavens and earth shall be new when Christ comes again. The heavens and earth are not annihilated,
but renewed.
The passing of the old covenant does not, therefore, bring in an entirely new
covenant, but the last revelation of that one covenant in which God is the God of His
people and takes them to be His own. It is
the last and fullest revelation of the covenant through the coming of the things promised,
rather than through pictures and types.
That new covenant is "better" and more glorious because it brings us
Christ instead of the types of Christ. Only
the final consummation of the covenant shall be more glorious.
Rev. Ronald Hanko
The Mysteries of
the Kingdom (3)
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear (Luke 8:10).
The questioner asks, "Is this election and reprobation, or just acknowledging that some just will not turn and believe (as some commentaries maintain)?”
In an earlier issue I quoted the parallel passages to Luke 8:10 in Matthew and Mark. I also pointed out that Jesus explains in these passages that His purpose in His use of parables as a method of instruction is to make the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven so clear that everyone can understand them. We must now turn to the reader's question and consider whether election and reprobation are taught in this passage.
The text teaches that God Himself makes a sovereign distinction between men. Jesus said, "It is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given" (Matt. 13:11). Clearly a distinction is made between the disciples on the one hand, and "them" on the other hand.
The distinction that Jesus makes is not based on anything which the disciples did and which others failed to do. Nor does the distinction arise out of any superior qualities that the disciples possessed which others did not possess. The text makes no mention of anything like that. The distinction rests solely in God's choice to give faith to some and not to give it to others. The use of the passive voice very clearly emphasizes that the Giver is God, and that some receive the ability to know the mysteries of the kingdom while others do not receive this ability.
The point is that no man can hear or see or understand the mysteries of the kingdom unless God gives him this ability. All men are totally depraved, and the words of our Lord to Nicodemus remain forever true: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
This sovereign distinction is once again emphasized by Jesus: "But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear" (Matt. 13:16). This sovereign distinction God makes between men is election and reprobation.
The quotation from Isaiah 6 is crucially important. Isaiah 6 records for us the call of Isaiah as God's prophet to Judah. It is a marvelous and instructive passage. God explains the purpose of Isaiah's ministry: "Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and made their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (9-10).
You will notice that the language is in the form of a command. Isaiah must command the people to whom he preaches. God does not say that Isaiah must tell the people: "Now you hear, and it is my desire that you understand; now you see, and it is my desire that you perceive." God does not even tell Isaiah to predict what will happen: "You will hear the gospel from my servant Isaiah, but I am sure you will not understand; you will see what Isaiah speaks, but you will not perceive." The word that Isaiah is to bring to the people is God's sovereign command. God says: "I command you to hear, but also not to understand. I command you to see, and not to perceive.” This is strong language, but very clearly this is the text.
That this is indeed the meaning is evident from God's command to Isaiah, a command which Isaiah will obey by his preaching: "Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes." And God explains that He wants it this way because He does not want them to be converted and healed.
Now we must apply this to the passage in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Notice, first of all, that Jesus explains His reason for teaching in parables by saying that the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled in them. That is, the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in Judah under Isaiah's ministry, but that prophecy must still be fulfilled in Israel until the nation is destroyed. And, we might add, this prophecy of Isaiah is still being fulfilled whenever and wherever the gospel is preached. That this is true is evident from Paul's quotation of this same prophecy while in Rome during his imprisonment (Acts 28:25-27).
The truth of this is strengthened by the parallel passage in Mark 4:11-12: "All these things are done in parables: that seeing they may see and not perceive ..." The word "that," in the Greek, is the word used to introduce a purpose clause. The meaning is therefore: Jesus spoke in parables in order that the people would not believe (and thus the prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled). Or, to put it as clearly as possible: Jesus' (and God's) purpose in the use of parables is to bring about the unbelief of those who are not given eyes to see the mysteries of the kingdom. This is sovereign reprobation. It is the effecting of God's decree to send some to hell because of their sins--and that in distinction from the elect, who receive the spiritual ability to see the kingdom of heaven.
How different this is from making the
gospel a well-meant offer in which God expresses a longing, born out of love, to save all
men. Such a god isn't worthy to be God. The God of Scripture is sovereign; He does all His
pleasure (Ps. 115:3). Prof. Herman Hanko
Is Universal Atonement True? (5)
Let us consider two more arguments against a death of Christ for all, head for head.
(13) Ephesians 1:3 teaches that we have been blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ." These blessings come to us "according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" (4). That is, we receive all these blessings according to our eternal election (4) and predestination (5). Ephesians 1 enumerates some of our spiritual blessings: holiness (4), adoption (5), acceptance (6), redemption (7), the forgiveness of sins (7), the knowledge of God's will (9), the sealing of the Holy Spirit (13) and an eternal inheritance (11,14). Not only are we blessed according to our election (4, 5) but all the elect have "all spiritual blessings" (3). On the other hand, the fact that the reprobates are not blessed with any of these spiritual blessings is also according to the eternal "purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will" (11).
Now remember, one of the spiritual blessings is "redemption through his blood" (7). Thus Christ's redemption and blood shedding are instances of those spiritual blessings, which come to us “according as he has chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" (4). Therefore Christ redeemed, shed His blood and died for the elect and not for the reprobate. Thus the elect are forgiven (7), adopted (5), accepted (6), made holy (4) and sealed with the Spirit (13) for their eternal inheritance (11, 14) on the basis of Christ's atoning death. The reprobate do not receive any of the spiritual blessings of Christ's death, for He did not die for them.
(14) Another point not often considered in this connection involves the OT sacrifices which were types of Christ's death. If Christ died for the sins of everybody then one would expect this to be reflected in the sacrificial system. Leviticus 1-7, the central passage on the Mosaic sacrifices, speaks of the burnt offering, the meal offering, the peace offering, the sin offering and the trespass offering. Always these sacrifices are particular, for Israel, the church (Lev. 1:2; 4:13; 7:36, 38), and nowhere do we read of a universal atonement, an offering for every individual Jew and Gentile.
Similarly, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest made atonement for the Israelites not the Moabites or the Jebusites (Lev. 16:16, 17, 19, 21, 34). Moreover, the high priest bore "the names of [the twelve tribes of] the children of Israel" --and not the names of the children of Esau--on the breastplate "upon his heart, when he [went] in unto the holy place," speaking of His representative and intercessory work for them (Ex. 28:29).
Lest it be said that the OT sacrifices speak of an atonement for every member of the nation of Israel, we recall that fact that "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6) and that the true Israelite is not one circumcised in the flesh but one circumcised in the spirit (Rum. 2:28-29). Christ died for the true Israel and the OT types point to His redemption of the spiritual "Israel of God (Gal. 6:16). Rev. Angus Stewart