Were OT Jews indwelt by the Spirit?

This is a hard question to answer. Different theological traditions give different answers. It raises trickily questions of theological method. Why is it hard to answer? 

1. There's the issue of how the jargon of systematic theology maps back onto biblical usage. In systematic theology, the designations are technical terms with a uniform meaning whereas biblical usage isn't standardized.

2. Scripture often uses metaphors to depict the work of the Spirit, viz. filling, indwelling, falling upon, new birth, new creation. In order to know what that means, we must be able to translate the metaphor into a literal concept. 

3. There's also the question of whether the Bible sometimes uses different picturesque metaphors to describe the same experience. 

4. Regeneration is an essentially Johannine category. 1 Pet 1:23 and James 1:18 are apparently exceptions, but not really. In those passages, the word of God is instrumental to rebirth whereas in Johannine usage, the Spirit is instrumental in rebirth. Likewise, in Titus 3:5, rebirth is connected with the metaphor of water. 

John speaks of "purification" (1:9; cf. 3:3), but in context, that seems to be about the remission of sin rather than spiritual renewal. 

5. Conversely, sanctification is more of a Pauline category (in NT theology). In addition, Paul uses related metaphors (new creation, new man/Adam) for spiritual renewal (2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:5,10; 4:24; Col 2:13).

Although John uses "sanctification" terminology (Jn 17:17, 19), in context it denotes something like consecration rather than sanctification in the sense of spiritual renewal. 

So this raises the question of how to collate Johannine regeneration with Pauline sanctification.  If they were both Johannine categories or Pauline categories, they might represent distinct stages, so that we could arrange them sequentially, where regeneration precedes sanctification, but since regeneration is John's preferred category for spiritual renewal while sanctification is Paul's preferred category, they may be overlapping categories. Two different metaphors that coincide or cover much of the same ground. 

6. In OT usage, "sanctity" typically denotes cultic holiness or ritual purity rather than spiritual renewal. And that carries over into the usage of Hebrews. 

7. However, the OT also refers to circumcision of the heart (Deut 30:6; Jer 6:10), which seems to be a metaphor for spiritual renewal, equivalent to Johannine regeneration and Pauline sanctification. 

8. We need to distinguish between OT Jews generally and the remnant in particular.

9. In the OT, the action of the Spirit in relation to human agents usually concerns supernatural enablement. Conferring supernatural foresight, insight, skill, or even physical strength–rather than spiritual rebirth. 

And that's paralleled in Acts, where the agency of the Spirit has reference to the charismata (e.g. revelatory dreams and visions, xenoglossy, exorcism, miraculous healing or hexing) rather than spiritual rebirth. The main difference between that kind of empowerment and OT counterparts is that it's more widely experienced among Christians than OT Jews. 

10 Finally, there's the argument from analogy. If, in the NT, certain virtues are the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23), and OT saints exhibit the same virtues, then by parity of argument, the same effect implies the same cause. The Spirit is the source or agent of both. That seems to be equivalent to "circumcision of the heart". 

Dual-covenant theology

Culture warrior and Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro recently interviewed Bishop Barron:

Barron is the Fulton Sheen of his generation, although they have different skill sets. Barron is a smooth, smart, articulate, winsome evangelist and apologist for mainstream Catholic theology. Protestant apologists ignore him at their peril.

Barron is a teamplayer, a member of the hierarchy, so he refuses to criticize Pope Francis-either because he's onboard with Francis or because he'd be sacked if he became a public critic of Francis. As a result, he ducked some of Ben's questions when the answer would be impolitic. In that regard he sometimes sounds like a member of the cabinet on a Sunday morning talk show who deflects questions critical of the president. In general, though, it was a very impressive performance-especially for listeners unaware of the historical revisionism reflected in many of his theological answers.

1. Between about 45-56 min. he discusses the relationship between Judaism and modern Catholicism. And some of what he said between 16-20 min. feeds into that as well. In response to Ben's question about replacement theology/supersessionism, Barron says Catholic worship is unintelligible apart from the temple or Jewish worship. When Barron celebrates Mass, he dons the robs of a temple priest, with a mitre. There's an altar, incense, and sacrifice. So that, according to him, reflects the Jewish roots of Catholicism. However, that comparison raises some questions:

i) The heathen world had its own temples, priests, and sacrificial offerings. So does the Mass have its antecedents in Mosaic sacerdotalism-or is this a syncretistic version of pagan sacerdotalism?

ii) Even assuming it has Jewish antecedents, wouldn't most Jews regard the Catholic appropriation as an expropriation of Judaism? A usurpation of Judaism by putting a Catholic stamp on Jewish practice? Rebranding Judaism. Isn't that supersessionism through the backdoor? It still replaces Judaism with Catholicism.

iii) In addition, Barron equivocates over the meaning of "fulfillment". But that can mean either of two different things:

a) To abrogate

For instance, if I'm on a one-way road trip and I cross a bridge, I put the bridge behind me. I don't look back. It served its purpose. It has now outlived its usefulness to me. The bridge was just a temporary means to an end. It has no continuing value.

b) To perfect

For instance, some musical pieces build to a crescendo or climax. But this doesn't mean that once you reach the climax, you can dispense with the lead-up to the climax. It's not like after you hear the entire composition for the first time, you only listen to the final bar on repeated hearings. The climax only works in the context of the entire composition. Each time you need to listen to the music from start to finish. Likewise, the objective in reading a story isn't get to the end. If it's a good story, the entire story is enjoyable.

iv) Modern Catholicism has adopted dual-covenant theology, where the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant run on parallel tracks leading to the same destination. But even if the Mosaic covenant is essential for understanding the new covenant, that doesn't entail the permanence of the Mosaic covenant. That confounds the epistemological role of the Mosaic covenant with its ontological role. Like confounding the purpose of a bridge with the purpose of a roadmap.

2. Baron said that in many parts of Protestantism there's a desire to de-Judaize Christianity. We've overcome that and left that behind.

i) But as I noted, his Catholic alternative is a bait-n-switch.

ii) Protestant positions on the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant range along a continuum. For instance, Lutheranism and Anabaptism are closer to the discontinuity end of the spectrum while Anglicanism and Presbyterianism are closer to the continuity end of the spectrum. Dispensationalism reflects both ends of the spectrum.

Within modern Judaism itself, there's a spectrum of views, due in part to the question of Judaic identity in a post-temple world. Priesthood and sacrifice were central to OT Judaism and Second Temple Judaism. But the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD abolished that in practice, precipitating a Jewish identity crisis. To some degree that had a counterpart in the Babylonian exile, when priesthood and sacrifice were in abeyance. So Jews after 70 AD must also take the Mosaic covenant apart and isolate the essential elements. Different Jewish schools of thought give different answers.

iii) Speaking for myself, ancient Israel was two-sided: a political state as well as a religious state. On the one hand, many Mosaic laws are necessary for a political state. A political state requires a penal code. And I think some of its civil and criminal laws exemplify enduring moral principles.

On the other hand, the purity codes, priesthood and sacrificial system are keyed to Israel as a religious state. That side of Israel had a symbolic role that's abrogated under the new covenant.

3. Barron appealed to the Incarnation as the fusion of Israel with the church. The God of Israel meeting with his people. But that confuses metaphysical union and spiritual communion. The alienation between sinners and their God isn't metaphysical but moral. The question is how to restore fellowship between a holy God and sinners. That requires the cross, not the Incarnation-although the Incarnation is a necessary underpinning to the Cross.

4. Barron said the Logos made flesh is the divine mind/reason made flesh, and when I follow my conscience I'm following Christ. That builds on one false premise after another. It's quite dubious to construe the Logos in Jn 1 in Philonic categories. Rather, the narrator identifies the Son as the Creator God in Genesis. To deify conscience as the voice of Christ ("aboriginal vicar of Christ") in the soul is diabolical.

5. Ben asked him about the common distinction between Christianity as faith-based and Judaism as act-based. However, I think that's more of a dichotomy between OT Judaism and rabbinic Judaism. OT Judaism had a vertical dimension as well as a horizontal dimension. But rabbinic Judaism shears off the vertical dimension, reducing piety to law and social ethics. The role of God is primarily a presupposition for morality-in contrast to fellowship with God as the goal of life. In both OT and NT theism, life with the life-giving God lies at the center.

The Old Covenant Is Over. The Old Testament Is Authoritative.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/old-covenant-response-andy-stanley/

Rainbows

i) Why is the rainbow the sign of Noah's covenant? An obvious reason is that rainbows signal the end of a rainstorm. Some rainstorms produce flash flooding. So there's a natural symbolic association. 

ii) Another reason may be the universality of rainbows, comported to regional phenomena like the Northern lights. The universality of rainbows match the universality of Noah's covenant. A covenant with creation. A covenant that signifies ordinary providence. 

iii) Because rainbows are generated by sunlight and rain water, they evoke the Creator God of Gen 1–the Maker of the sun and rainclouds. That points to the divinity of the Son of Man in Ezk 1:25-28, whose nimbic aura resembles a rainbow. 

iv) In a dry climate like the Middle East, rainbows have a beneficent connotation. They signify life-giving rain. A sign of divine favor and blessing. An emblem of divine benevolence. 

No, Jesus didn't refute OT laws

http://www.therecapitulator.com/no-jesus-did-not-refute-old-testament-laws/

Should sodomites be executed?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say to the people of Israel…13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Lev 20:1-2,13).

i) The death penalty for sodomy is controversial. Unbelievers often use this as a wedge tactic. But just because a Bible verse is "offensive" doesn't mean we should discount it. 

ii) Notice, though, how the section is introduced. On the one hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically addressed to the "people of Israel" doesn't ipso facto rule out a wider application. Ancient Israel had a penal code because it was a nation state. Every nation state requires a penal code. And that will include laws covering sex crime, violent crime, and property crime. There's a "general equity" principle in the Mosaic law. 

iii) On the other hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically directed at Israelites removes any presumption that these laws apply to gentiles or Christians. It's unwarranted to automatically extrapolate these laws to a completely different socioreligious context.

iv) There's also a distinction between sins and crimes. Not every sin is a crime. There are many sins the Mosaic code doesn't criminalize. Conversely, the purity codes aren't about intrinsically right or wrong conduct, but symbolic holiness.

v) Apropos (iv), it may well be that some death penalties are due to the need to keep Eretz Israel sacrosanct. In the Mosaic code, you have a category for defiling the land. There were sacred places. And there were concentric degrees of cultic holiness. The tabernacle was holier than Eretz Israel, while the inner sanctum was holier than the sanctuary.

However, even in the OT context, it wouldn't be possible to profane the land outside Eretz Israel, because the land outside of Eretz Israel was already profane. Even though sodomy was and remains a grave sin, it cannot desecrate the land, and hence, it isn't necessary to execute offenders to reconsecrate the land (e.g. pagan Egypt, Assyria, Babylon). Moreover, the purity codes and the notion of holy places doesn't carry over into the new covenant. 

vi) That doesn't rule out the death penalty in some cases (e.g. murder). That antedates the Mosaic covenant, and its grounded in the imago Dei. 

Why circumcision?

Why was circumcision a covenant sign? Because the Bible doesn't actually explain the symbolism, readers are left to speculate. 

On the face of it, this seems like an odd sign. Given that Jews normally frowned on public nudity, what's the purpose of an invisible sign? Isn't that paradoxical? 

i) That depends in part on who it's designed to signal. Although it can't function as a public witness, it might be a reminder to Jewish males or Jewish couples. It would be visible to them, if not to the general public. 

Even if that's the case, it doesn't explain what it's meant to remind people of. 

ii) One traditional explanation is that it symbolizes the excision of guilt and pollution (Louis Berkhof). The only thing that explanation has going for it is the possible symbolism of cutting. But to connect that to cutting away guilt and pollution is arbitrary. I'd say that's a makeshift explanation. 

On a related note, O. Palmer Robertson thinks is represents purification, based on the hygienic value of circumcision. However, he offers no evidence that Jews practice circumcision for hygienic reasons. And that seems to be anachronistic. 

iii) As far as that goes, there might still be a play on words, where you have an association between cutting the flesh and the idiom of cutting a covenant. But by itself, that's a pretty thin connection.

iv) On a related note, it might be a play on words, where you have an association between cutting the flesh and those who are "cut off" from the covenant community (Gen 17:14). That potentially makes it signify a curse sanction. To be circumcised cuts you into the covenant while to be uncircumcised cuts you out of the covenant. That explanation has rather more going for it than (ii-iii).

iv) Another explanation trades on the reproductive function of the penis. On this view, circumcision signifies the consecration of Jewish posterity to God. They are set apart for God. In addition, God's promise extends from one generation to the next. Moreover, Jewish posterity will become a source of blessing for Gentiles.

That explanation has a lot going for it. It certainly dovetails with the context of Gen 17:1-8. 

v) The permanence of the mark may signify the perpetuity of the covenant. 

It's possible that God's choice of circumcision was intended to trigger multiple associations. The symbolism is multifaceted. 

vi) Here's another explanation I haven't seen discussed. The effect of circumcision is to reduce the sensitivity of the penis. Removing the foreskin removes many nerves that would otherwise be stimulated by sexual intercourse. Indeed, I've read that premature ejaculation is sometimes treated by circumcision, because reducing the sensitivity of the penis means it takes longer to achieve sexual climax. 

For normal men, sexual intercourse is a regular highpoint of life. Yet circumcision diminishes the physical sensation, which diminishes the physical pleasure. 

So that may indicate God's claim on our total devotion. A sacrifice to God of something that means the most to people (in this case, men). 

(I think circumcision is defunct under the new covenant. It makes sense for Christians to discontinue the custom.)

Stoning

I don't know much about Steven Anderson, and I don't care to know much about Steven Anderson. He seems to be the successor to the Westboro cult. The media loves to showcase him to taint all Christians. 

However, this does raise a question: he says homosexuals should be executed because homosexual activity was a capital offense in the Mosaic law. That can make it tricky for Bible-believing Christians to distance themselves from Anderson–or from Muslims to kill homosexuals. So what should we say about that?

i) This position is most often associated with theonomy. It's a legitimate hermeneutical issue. 

ii) When Christians point out that Muslims execute homosexuals, that can be a tu quoque argument. It's responding to liberals on their own grounds. Liberals want to fine or boycott Christian businesses that refuse to cater to homosexuals weddings, boycott states that refuse to knuckle under to transgender demands regarding public restrooms, locker rooms, and intramural sports–yet they are silent on the execution of homosexuals in Muslim countries, or even do business with such countries. So it's a way of highlighting liberal duplicity. 

iii) Since homosexual activity was a capital offense in the Mosaic law, Bible-believing Christians can't say that's intrinsically wrong. But what about Christian ethics? What about the new covenant?

Because ancient Israel was a nation-state, it had to have a civil and criminal law code. That would be true even if there was nothing special about Israel. As a nation-state, it had to have laws concerning violent crimes, sex crimes, and property crimes.

But over and above that, Israel had an emblematic significance. To some degree it symbolized the holiness of Yahweh. And to some degree, it prefigured the work of Christ. In addition, the purity codes made some activities sinful that are not intrinsically sinful. In the Mosaic law code, we need to distinguish between ceremonial impurity and ethical impurity. 

As a result, more sins were criminalized than would be the case if Israel didn't have that emblematic significance. Indeed, in the case of the purity codes, some activities were sinful because they were criminal, rather than criminal because they were sinful. 

iv) In addition, the physical presence of covenant-breakers defiled the land. The death penalty was a way of cleansing the land by eliminating offenders whose physical presence was a profanation to the cultic holiness of Eretz Israel.

Assuming that analysis is correct, under the new covenant, not as many sins are crimes. In addition, not as many crimes should carry the death penalty inasmuch as there is no longer a holy land to defile. 

Although the Bible undoubtedly regards homosexual activity as intrinsically wrong, this doesn't imply that homosexual activity ought to be a felony, much less a capital offense. For the fact that it had that legal status in the Mosaic covenant may be owing to the cultic holiness of Israel. Likewise, the fact that it was a capital offense in the Mosaic law may be because execution was a way of maintaining the ritual purity of the land. In other words, a number of sins and crimes in the Mosaic law may have carried the death penalty because the physical presence of the offender desecrated the holy land. In the purity codes, ritual defilement is spread by contact. If, by contrast, the offender is executed, and his body is ritually disposed of, that action reconsecrates the land. 

But the new covenant doesn't operate within that framework. That's not a part of Christian ethics.

v) If every sin was a capital offense, then everyone would be liable to summary execution. But that would have the ironic consequence of decriminalizing murder. Yet that's clearly not what Scripture intends. It's not open season on every sinner. There'd be no one left in that event. 

Christian tatts

23 “When you come into the land and plant any kind of tree for food, then you shall regard its fruit as forbidden. Three years it shall be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten. 24 And in the fourth year all its fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. 25 But in the fifth year you may eat of its fruit, to increase its yield for you: I am the Lord your God.26 “You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it. You shall not interpret omens or tell fortunes. 27 You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard. 28 You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord (Lev 19:23-28).

Based on Lev 19:28, some Christians are opposed to tattoos and body-piercing. 

However, as you can see from the larger context, Lev 19 contains a number of commands and prohibitions which Christians ignore. This goes to the perennial issue of how much OT law carries over into the new covenant. 

One facile solution is to say that all this is mooted by the new covenant. But that's too simple and radical. Take the prohibition against divination in v26b. 

Because Leviticus is a part of the Mosaic covenant, and has a particular emphasis on cultic holiness, there's no presumption that Levitical commands and prohibitions extend into the new covenant. But that doesn't mean we're free to dismiss any and all Levitical injunctions without due consideration. 

It isn't necessary inconsistent to obey some Levitical injunctions and disregard others. For it depends on whether there are different principles connecting various injunctions, and whether some of those principles were temporary while other principles are permanent. Consistency would be measured, not by consistently obeying or ignoring all the injunctions, but consistency with the principle that some share in common. 

Why are some of these activities forbidden in the first place? In the case of body-piercing, it's not a general prohibition. Rather, it specifies the motivation: body-piercing as a mourning ceremony for the dead (cf. Deut 14:16). That's also the principle which underlies the prohibition about cutting hair and beards (cf. Deut 14:1).  

Strictly speaking, the prohibition against body-piercing contradicts the prohibition against Exod 21:6 & Deut 15:17. So the prohibition is not absolute, even according to the Mosaic covenant. 

At the same time, because God made the body (Gen 1:26-28), OT ethics would be opposed to mutilation. That would violate the integrity of the body. We should avoid disfiguring the body through dramatic body-modification. It is, in part, a question of degree. 

The fact that some of these forbidden activities are associated with pagan rites suggests that that's why tattooing (or body-painting) is forbidden in v28. Indeed, one commentator says:

Porter reports that in pagan societies in the ANE worshippers bore marks on their bodies as a sign of being devotees of a particular deity. J. Currid, Leviticus, 260-61. 

If so, the prohibition is not general or absolute, but in reference to tattooing your body as a sign that you belong to the cult of a pagan deity. He (or she) is your patron god (or goddess). It is not tattooing, per se, but the intent, that's forbidden.

In addition, some of these activities are forbidden, not merely because they are adventitiously associated with pagan practice. Rather, due to syncretism among ancient Israelites, these activities indicate conscious participation in heathen rites. They are deliberately imitating their pagan neighbors. The action is meant to be an act of religious devotion to a heathen deity. Apart from that illicit motivation, it might be innocent.

Finally, there can be the danger of emulating unbelievers just to fit in. To be with it. To be accepted. 

But with these caveats in mind, I don't think Lev 19:18 represents a timeless prohibition against tattoos. Indeed, tattoos can sometimes be countercultural, rather than a mark of cultural assimilation. Christian tattoos can be both a witness and a statement of separation from the prevailing social mores.  

A Tale of Two Intercessions

While there are many covenants in Scripture, I think there are three main ones that deal with the totality of Israel. Others may be covenants with more than Israel, such as the covenant with Noah (made between God and the whole Earth), or less than the whole of Israel, like the Davidic covenant which is limited to David's lineage in particular.

Two of the remaining covenants are definitely dealing with Israel as a whole: the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic Covenant. I think that we can add the New Covenant in to that as well, although for that one we are dealing with "spiritual Israel" and not "national Israel". The main figures of these covenants all share in an aspect of intercession. The most obvious being Christ interceding for His people at the throne of God. But for this post, I want to look at the intercessions of Abraham and Moses.

In the case of Abraham, God establishes His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15. Then, in Genesis 17 it's reaffirmed with circumcision given as the sign. Immediately after, in chapter 18, we read:

The Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? For I have chosen him, that he may command his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing righteousness and justice, so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised him.” Then the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know” (Genesis 18:17-21, ESV).

Thus, because of the covenant promises God made to Abraham, God reveals that He is about to destroy the wicked towns. Abraham intercedes by appealing to God's sense of righteousness: "Then Abraham drew near and said, 'Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?'" (Genesis 18:23, ESV). And we know the story. God says He would not destroy the towns if ten righteous people could be found.

In one sense, Abraham's intercession worked. God agreed to his request. But in another sense, it failed because the towns were destroyed anyway. The people in the towns could not meet the requirements of the intercession.

Turning to Exodus, we see a similar setup. God first establishes the covenant in Exodus 24:

Then he [Moses] took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words” (Exodus 24:7-8).

Moses then goes up Mount Sinai for forty days and nights, and the Israelites immediately make a golden calf and worship the idol. Thus we read:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’” And the Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them, in order that I may make a great nation of you” (Exodus 32:7-10, ESV).

Just as with Abraham, God informs Moses that He is about to destroy a people. And just like Abraham, Moses intercedes:

But Moses implored the Lord his God and said, “O Lord, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you have brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand? Why should the Egyptians say, ‘With evil intent did he bring them out, to kill them in the mountains and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your own self, and said to them, ‘I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring, and they shall inherit it forever.’” And the Lord relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people (Exodus 32:11-14, ESV).

The sins of Israel were, in some ways, far worse than the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah here. After all, the Cities on the Plain had never had a covenant with God; they had never agreed to be obedient to Him. Israel had agreed to that, and they had within days turned from the LORD. They had literally just seen the gods of Egypt crushed by the might of Yahweh, and fashioned their idol out of the jewelry they had looted from the broken Egyptians who begged them to leave.

But also notice here how Moses’s intercession differs from Abraham’s intercession before Sodom. Abraham appealed to the righteous, and God agreed He would not destroy the righteous along with the wicked. Moses appealed to God’s Name, which He had given to His people, before the country of Egypt. After having saved Israel with His might, would the Egyptians get the last laugh as God destroyed the people He had just "saved"? Not only that, Moses also appealed to the very covenant God had made with Abraham, and reaffirmed with Isaac and Jacob (called here by the name of Israel, which does refer to the person and not the nation). It was God’s promises that Moses presented as the basis for mercy.

Abraham’s appeal did not ultimately work because there were not even ten righteous people in the town of Sodom. Moses, by not relying upon the goodness of the people involved, actually succeeded in having God not destroy the nation of Israel because he relied not on the inherent goodness of the people of Israel (who had already proven themselves to be evil), but instead upon the promises that God had made, that He would bless the nation of Israel.

"A simple argument for credobaptism"

I'm going to comment on this post:

http://bnonn.com/who-is-baptism-for/

Among other things, Bnonn has some interesting things to say about Acts 2:38-39, which is a staple paedobaptist prooftext. However, I prefer to focus on his central argument, which he states thusly:

There are people who have wanted me to write a series on this issue. I’m afraid I am going to disappoint them; I believe the matter of who we should baptize is fundamentally a very simple one; far too many words have been wasted complicating it; thus I am going to focus quite relentlessly on the key question which decides the outcome of all the others. 

Here it is: 

Who is a member of the new covenant? 

This is what it all boils down to, because there is one overriding axiom with which all Christians—or all that I’ve spoken with and read on this matter—agree: 

The sign of a covenant should only be given to members of that covenant. 

If you disagree with this axiom there is little I can say to you; but if you agree with it, then there is little else we need to worry about. The question of what continuities and discontinuities exist between the various old covenants and the new one, between circumcision and baptism, and so on, are all very interesting, but completely beside the point. The question is as simple as determining the qualifications for membership in the new covenant, and giving the sign of that covenant—baptism—to only those people who qualify. 

Is that believers only? Or do infants qualify too? 

[Quotes] Jeremiah 31:31-34

Seems to me that there are two basic problems with his "simple" argument:

1. What kind of membership does baptism signify? He fails to register the following distinction:

i) membership in the new covenant

ii) membership in the new covenant community

His argument requires baptism to signify the (i) former kind of membership. But that, in turn, requires him to either exclude the (ii) second kind of membership from his definition, or show that (i) and (ii) are conterminous. So he needs to resolve that crucial equivocation. 

Even if he could do one of those two things, that goes beyond his original argument. That necessitates a subsidiary argument. 

2. Apropos (1), if baptism is a sign, then to whom or for whom is it a sign? Presumably, it's not a sign for God's benefit. God knows the status of the individual apart from the sign. 

So it's either a sign to/for the baptized Christian, and/or the religious community to which he belongs. It marks him out as a member of the religious community. One of their own. 

If so, that suggests baptism is a sign of membership in the covenant community (i.e. the church). 

3. Apropos (2), this is reinforced by the nature of the sign. Unlike circumcision, which is a permanent physical sign that's verifiable by visual inspection (if need be), baptism leaves no enduring trace evidence. The sign is the baptismal ceremony, and not the result of a ritual action (unlike circumcision). The only evidence would be the recollection of witnesses to the ceremony. And that, once again, singles out the communal nature of the sign. 

4. On the face of it, membership in the covenant community needn't necessarily be equivalent to membership in the covenant itself. Just in general, there are differing degrees and conditions of social affiliation, depending on the type of society or community under review. In principle, the conditions for membership in the covenant community might be looser than the conditions for membership in the covenant itself. Bnonn has a very strict criterion for new covenant membership: regeneration.

However, God made humans social creatures. It's generally families that attend church. At the very least, church attendance and family religion typically overlap. Although some family members may skip church, a person who attends church is usually related to one or more other people who attend the same church. Even in the case of widows or widowers, they used to attend that church with their spouse. Likewise, they used to take their kids to church, until their kids grew up and moved elsewhere. 

Now, I've said "attendance" rather than membership to avoid prejudicial terminology. But given the familial structure of core human relationships and human behavior, it seems artificial to insist that membership in the covenant community is restricted to membership in the covenant itself. And, in any case, if that's what Bnonn's position requires, then the onus is on him to supply a supporting argument.  

I don't think a paedobaptist has to prove that baptism is not a sign of membership in the covenant. Rather, unless Bnonn can prove that baptism is not a sign of membership in the covenant community (or else prove that membership in the covenant and the covenant community are coextensive), his argument fails.

5. In addition, isn't the relationship between the sign and the significate somewhat loose? On the one hand, some people possess what the sign signifies without possessing the sign; on the other hand, some people possess the sign without possessing what the sign signifies. So it's hard to see why one requires the other–not to mention that membership in the covenant (as Bnonn defines it) is, in any event, an unverifiable condition. 

6. A second basic problem with his argument is that it generates a dilemma. Presumably, Bnonn admits that some children below the age of reason already meet the condition of membership in the covenant. Some of them are elect/regenerate. That means whichever position you take carries tradeoffs:

i) On the one hand, paedobaptists will confer the sign on some individuals who aren't members of the covenant. 

ii) On the other hand, credobaptists will fail to confer the sign on some individuals who are members of the covenant.

Put another way, if you baptize every baby, regenerate and unregenerate (or elect and reprobate) alike, then this ensures that you confer the sign on the subset of babies who are, indeed, members of the covenant. Doing more than's necessary is a way of ensuring that you don't miss those who definitely qualify. 

Conversely, if you decline to baptize anyone under the age of reason, then you miss all those who do qualify. 

Now, it might be argued that that's a case of postponing baptism until they reach the age at which they can give a credible profession of faith.

However, in NT times, as well as most of church history, not to mention parts of the Third World today, where infant mortality is high, baptism delayed is tantamount to baptism denied. In many cases it's now or never.  

I'm not suggesting that's a catastrophic loss to the child. I don't think baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. I don't even think it confers special graces. I'm just considering the logic of Bnonn's position. 

Evaluating the Arab–Israeli conflict

One reason professing Christians disagree on the Arab-Israeli conflict is because they approach the issue with different criteria. Instead of debating the particulars of the Arab-Israeli conflict, it would be more productive to analyze the criteria by which they evaluate this conflict. To some extent I think there's a failure to recognize or make explicit their criteria.

I. Theological

Dispensationalists side with Israel because they think the modern state of Israel represents the ongoing fulfillment of promise and prophecy. God gave the Jews this land. That's an irrevocable divine promise. 

Conversely, you have Reformed Baptist and Reformed Presbyterians who either side with the "Palestinians" or at least try to be even-handed (as they see it) in opposition to dispensationalism. The position they take on the Arab-Israeli conflict is an indirect result of the direct position they take in opposition to dispensational theology.

Nowadays, some Christians have a Calvinist soteriology, but a dispensational eschatology. But I'm referring to Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians who espouse traditional covenant theology.

II. Social justice

i) Many people who side with the "Palestinians" frame the issue as a social justice issue. This includes many secular liberals, and "progressive Christians," as well as some conservative evangelicals. 

The liberals view Hamas and the PLO as freedom fighters rather than terrorists. They distinguish between the just cause (as they define it) and the means. Even if Hamas or the PLO resorts terrorist tactics, that's in the service of a just cause. And they view that as counterterrorism in response to Israeli terrorism. 

The just cause is the axiom that Palestine is "occupied" territory. The Israelis expelled the Palestinians from their homes during the war of independence. Therefore, "Palestinians" are simply fighting back to reclaim what was theirs all along. 

Conservative evangelicals don't go that far. But they try to be equitable. They deplore the "cycle of violence" on both sides. They want to be fair to the "Palestinians." They think the "Palestinians" suffered a genuine and grave injustice during the war of independence. "Palestinians" have legitimate historical grievances with their Israeli overlords. 

ii) One problem with the social justice angle is that it's premised on a historical narrative that's hotly contested. Jewish sources present a very different version of events:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/refugees.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MF1948.html

iii) Apropos (ii), someone might object that I just cited a biased source. And I don't dispute that. But that's a problem with the premise. Most of us aren't qualified to assess the historical claims and counter-claims. Most of us are in no position to sift through the competing narratives and decide which account is more accurate. 

iv) However, some proponents of this criterion also cite pro-Palestinian Jewish sources. Supposedly, that's objective and unbiased. After all, these are Israelis or Jews criticizing their own people. Speaking for myself, the mere fact that you can find Jews who take the Palestinian side leaves me unimpressed. 

a) Judaism isn't monolithic. It ranges all along a political and theological spectrum, from far left to far right. 

b) To my knowledge, Israel has nearly universal conscription (with few exemptions). The IDF isn't composed of rightwing patriots who volunteer to defend their country. Rather, every political viewpoint will be represented in the IDF, due to the demographically sweeping scope of the draft. As such, it isn't hard to quote dissenters within the ranks.

Likewise, you have Jewish-American professors who, from the safety of their American campus, can afford to pander to the jihadists. So what? 

v) There is also the underlying assumption that social problems in the present have their "root cause" in the past. To solve the problem, we must discover the source of the problem by tracing the effect back to some past miscarriage of justice–be it real, imagined, or exaggerated. It's like Freudian psychology transposed to a sociological key. Like something went wrong in childhood. So we're always treated to a history lesson. 

But aside from the question of whether the historical reconstruction is accurate, another weakness with this analysis is that the same types of problems recur in different settings, where the background conditions are very different. 

vi) Yet another problem with the social justice angle is the assumption that Israel should treat Muslims better than Muslims treat each other. But why do Muslims expect strangers to treat Muslims better than Muslims treat their own kind? Muslims routinely brutalize fellow Muslims. 

vii) Apropos (vi), by what standard are we judging Israelis? Are we holding them to Christian standards? But since most Israelis aren't Christian, why would we expect them to defend themselves according to Christian ethics? In a sense, we can judge all parties to that standard, but we can't very well hold them to that standard. 

viii) There's also the question of how Christians could or should defend themselves in similar circumstances. If you're up against a ruthless, fanatical opponent who sacrifices his own women and children for the cause, who will never make peace with you, what realistic choice does he leave you? Frankly, I think Israel exhibits excessive restraint.  

ix) Thankfully I don't live in Israel. I can only imagine what a tremendous cumulative psychological toll it takes to live in a place where you never feel safe. Where you're in constant danger.

The predictability of the general threat (something bad is bound to happen every so often), yet unpredictability of the specific threats (not knowing when and where the terrorists will strike next). The tunnels exemplify that. The enemy can pop out of nowhere. I think that would generate a claustrophobic cultural mindset. 

That's exacerbated by the fact that Israel is so small: the size of NJ. So there's no buffer zone. It can hit you before you know it. The enemy can be right on top of you before you know it, much less have time to react. 

How can you live in a state of fear 24/7? Do Israelis just become inured to the omnipresent sense of danger? Do they become fatalistic? 

III. Risk Assessment

Then you have folks who pick a side based on who's a natural ally or adversary. Who poses a threat to you, your family, you're livelihood? It isn't based on history or eschatology, the past or the future, but on the present. Jews and Israelis aren't dangerous to Americans–although some Jews espouse secular ideologies that are dangerous to Christian freedom of expression. By contrast, Muslims have proven themselves to be dangerous to everyone. 

This is not the same thing as Realpolitik. We have a Christian duty to protect our dependents and practice our faith.  

"This land is mine"

Debates over the Arab/Israeli conflict (which the politically correct dub "Palestinians") often center on the question of whether the Jews have a claim to the land. Richard Tucker, the late great opera tenor and observant Jew, performed a stirring rendition of "The Exodus Song":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iVMzRRx2PI

Yet it's misleading to say "this land is mine." According to Scripture:

The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me (Lev 25:23).

God is the landlord, while Israelites are tenants and caretakers. 

Although the debate often swirls around the identity of the land (e.g. the borders), the larger theological issue concerns the identity of the people. Ironically, the terms of the Abrahamic covenant are deliberately ambiguous in this regard:

17 When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, 2 that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” 3 Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, 4 “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. 5 No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. 6 I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8 And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.”

vv2 & 6 allude to Gen 1:28 and 9:1,7. Just as Adam was the progenitor of the human race, Noah is the new Adam, and Abraham is the progenitor of a new race. 

In this passage, is Abraham the father of the Jews, or the father of the gentiles? His national or international descendants? The promise encompasses both referents. 

i) It would obviously be cynical for secular Jews to claim God gave them the land.

ii) The Mosaic covenant is defunct. However, the land promises go back to the Abrahamic covenant, which is not defunct.

iii) Observant Jews who reject the Messiahship of Christ are covenant-breakers. Also, many modern-day Jews aren't ethnic Jews. So that's a complicating factor.

iv) Messianic Jews are arguably in a position to claim the land promises. But I think the ultimate fulfillment lies in the world to come.

v) One can be pro-Israel for geopolitical rather than theological reasons. Muslims are dangerous to themselves and to everyone else. It's foolhardy to support Muslims. 

vi) Some Arab Christians complain that they were dispossessed when the modern state of Israel was established (1948). For all I know, they may have a legitimate grievance. But that's complicated. Palestine has been invaded and conquered for millennia. Successive inhabitants have dispossessed the previous inhabitants. Who are the squatters? 

Arab Christians fare far better under Jewish rule than Muslim rule. It's not as if Arab Christians would be better off absent Jewish "occupation." If they didn't live in Jewish "occupied" territories, they'd live under Muslim occupied territories. See how well that works for Christians in the Mideast. 

Is Yahweh the Christian God?

There are professing Christians who essentially reject OT theism. They treat OT Judaism as a different religion. What are the differences between the OT and the NT?

i) In a broad sense, the OT represents promise while the NT represents fulfillment. Mind you, even that contrast presumes underlying continuity. The NT can only fulfill the OT if the OT is true. 

ii) In addition, this contrast is somewhat overstated. Both the OT and the NT contain eschatological promises whose fulfillment remains future. Some OT prophecies are fulfilled in the NT, but others remain outstanding. 

iii) The NT contains far less military and political history than the OT. The OT contains extensive historical narratives of palace intrigue, civil war, siege-warfare, and war with Israel's neighbors. It also narrates conditions of cyclical national apostasy. So there's a lot of violence and unsavory material in these pages. 

The four Gospels and Acts are the main historical books in the NT. The Gospels are tightly focussed on the public ministry of Christ while Acts is tightly focused on church-planting. If the NT devoted as much attention to narrating life in the Roman Empire that the OT does to life in the ANE, the NT would be just as violent and unsavory. 

The difference has to do with selection-criteria. The OT has more occasion to narrate brutality and depravity. It narrates the history of a nation. 

iv) Because Israel was a nation-state, the OT includes a law code. The law code includes a penal code as well as laws of war. 

This doesn't make for pleasant reading. However, it's not as if the new covenant obviates the need for a penal code or national defense. Most Christians aren't pacifists or anarchists. So Christian social life will require a counterpart to the OT law code. A penal code and military. 

I daresay that many Christian pacifists are only pacifists on paper. If an armed assailant broke into their home, threatened to rape their wife and slit the throats of their children, their theoretical pacifism would fly out the window. This is just a radical chic pose. 

v) The OT also contains purity codes, the violation of which can result in capital punishment or direct divine execution. The NT lacks the same purity codes. However, there's a principle which carries over. If anything, it's heightened: 

29 How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb 10:29-31). 

vi) The fatal judgment exacted on Ananias, Sapphira (Acts 5), and Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), is very reminiscent of divine violence in the OT. Although it's not on the same scale as some OT judgments, that's a difference in degree rather than kind. 

vii) Likewise, the sack of Jerusalem, which Jesus threatens against apostate Jerusalem, is an example of large-scale divine violence, comparable to many OT judgments. 

viii) The NT contains a certain amount of martial imagery in describing the final judgment. I don't think Jesus literally swoops down from heaven on a war horse and puts his enemies to the sword (Rev 19). However, Revelation  does involve the forcible subjugation of God's enemies. And we can't rule out the possibility that this involves physical violence. 

Paul and the law

http://www.reformation21.org/shelf-life/paul-and-the-law.php

Are children of believers presumptively elect?

http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_51.html

http://www.westminsterconfession.org/the-doctrines-of-grace/historic-calvinism-and-neo-calvinism.php

The true Israel

1) It’s common for some Reformed amils to make the following two claims:

i) The church is the new Israel

ii) Christ is the true Israel

But if you combine both claims, that will yield a third claim:

iii) Christ is the true church

Clearly, though, that shows the need to qualify our usage. It doesn’t make much sense to say that Jesus takes the place of the church.

1) There’s a serious exegetical argument to be made for (i). However, that’s somewhat ambiguous, depending on how we define the key terms.

2) Concerning (ii), this only makes sense if we use it as a shorthand expression for corporate solidarity or federal headship. Christ is the true Israel in the sense that Christ represents Israel, not that Christ is identical with Israel.

By the same token, Christ acts on behalf of his people (“the church”). To some degree he acts in their stead, as their redeemer (i.e. vicarious atonement, penal substitution).

However, it’s not an antithetical relationship, as if Jesus supplants the church.

Progressive covenantalism

I already did a little post on Kingdom through Covenant:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/kingdom-through-covenant.html

But this book has proven to be unexpectedly controversial, so I’m going to spend more time interacting with some of the arguments.

The book has even been boycotted in some quarters. I think that’s unnecessary. The position of the authors is a respectable position. And they make a case for their position. So even if you disagree with them (as I do), their argument ought to be taken seriously.

The authors label the old covenant as the “covenant with Israel” (635). The implication of this designation is that the new covenant is not a covenant with Israel. Yet their OT prooftexts for the new covenant consist of passages in which God is speaking to Israel. Where God is making promises to Israel. For instance, Ezk 36:22-36 is explicitly and specifically addressed to Israel. In terms of the historic setting, moreover, God is addressing the Jewish exiles in Babylon. God is evidently referring to their postexilic restoration.

As noted above, the old covenant has a built-in tension. God demands obedience from Israel, yet they disobey. The law holds out life, but due to sin it cannot ultimately save. There is nothing in the law-covenant that changes the human heart, which is what the people desperately need (639).

But don’t we see the same tension in the NT church? Don’t many NT epistles bear witness to a similar tension?

Isn’t this tension inevitable in a fallen world? In inaugurated eschatology, we have a foot in both the fallen world order and the new world order.

In the New Testament, it is clear that the new covenant texts are applied to Christ and the church (cf. Lk 22:20; 2 Cor 3; Hebrews 8, 10). Even though the new covenant is made with the “house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Jer 31:31)…the NT applies it to the church through the mediatorial work of Jesus Christ (645-46).

i) The authors spend a lot of time exegeting the OT. But they need to show how their application arises from their OT prooftexts.

ii) It’s one thing to say their OT prooftexts apply to the church, quite another to say their OT prooftexts include the church to the exclusion of Israel, even when their OT prooftexts have specific reference to Israel. How can they use their OT passages to erect an antithetical contrast between Israel and the church despite the setting and the wording of the very passages they adduce? Even if you say Israel typifies the church, those are not polar opposites. And from a Presbyterian standpoint, “the church” is another phase in the history of the God’s people.

Their OT prooftexts don’t single out the church to the exclusion of Israel. It wasn’t given as a promise to the church rather than Israel. At least, that’s not something you can derive from the OT passages on their own terms.

iii) The mediatorial work of Christ can apply to Israel as well as the church. That’s not a differential factor that uniquely selects for the church. Jesus is Israel’s Messiah, as well as the Savior of the nations.

iv) They appeal to Heb 8-10, but that’s arguably a Jewish church. A messianic congregation. That’s how many scholars and commentators classify the audience. Because the members of that church were messianic Jews, they were tempted to revert to Judaism (i.e. the Mosaic covenant) in the face of persecution. Unlike Christianity, Judaism was a religio licita.

It’s counterintuitive to invoke Heb 8-10 as a way of contrasting Israel to the church when that very letter was addressed to Jewish Christians.

[The new covenant] will indeed have a (human) covenant mediator, namely Jesus Christ, who is prophet, priest, and king in one person. In the old covenant community, these covenant mediators sinned and the community suffered because of faulty mediators. In the new covenant, however, our covenant mediator is without sin and as a result, the community will never suffer because of a faulty mediator (510).

i) But this fails to distinguish the Baptist position from the Presbyterian position (e.g. WCF).  Presbyterians can draw the same distinction.

ii) In addition, this distinction can stand on its own. It doesn’t need to be grounded in a theory of immediate revelation.

Under the new covenant all will know the Lord, not in a mediate but in an immediate fashion, and all will have the law written on their hearts and will experience the full forgiveness of sin (649).

It’s unclear what the authors mean by this:

i) Christians don’t enjoy innate knowledge of the gospel. Knowledge of the Gospel is mediated by the written word (i.e. the NT). And that’s something the new covenant shares in common with the old covenant.

Indeed, why to the authors spend so much time prooftexting their position from Scripture if the Holy Spirit gives Christians direct knowledge of the gospel? Their methodology contradicts their argument.

ii) Inscribing the law on the heart is a picturesque metaphor. They seem to think it denotes regeneration (649). Does that mean they think regeneration was mediate under the old covenant, but immediate under the new covenant? Surely they don’t believe Levitical priests mediated regeneration.

Therefore in the new covenant community there will no longer be a situation where some members urge other members to know the Lord (510).

Really? Christian parents shouldn’t urge their kids to know the Lord? A pastor shouldn’t urge his parishioners to know the Lord? We can just take that for granted?

The newness of the new covenant, at its heart, is found in the promise of complete forgiveness of sin (650).

That’s unclear. Weren’t OT saints completely forgiven? Are the authors suggesting the old covenant only offered partial forgiveness whereas the new covenant offers full forgiveness? If OT saints weren’t completely forgiven, did they go to hell when they died?

Fact is, the sacrificial system didn’t actually confer forgiveness–not even partial forgiveness. Rather, it symbolized forgiveness, and prefigured forgiveness. It’s not a difference of degree. OT saints were fully forgiven through the retroactive merits of Christ.

The church, unlike Israel, is new because she is comprised of a regenerate, believing people rather than a “mixed” group. The true members of the new covenant community are only those who have professed that they have entered into union with Christ by repentance and faith… (685).

i) Profession, regeneration, and faith are not mutually inclusive. It’s possible to be regenerate, yet lack conscious faith. It’s possible to have conscious faith, yet lack profession. Consider infants, the retarded, or the senile.

ii) How does their claim operate at a concrete level? As a rule, families form the core constituency of churches. Nuclear families or extended families. “Tribal groupings.” This is no less true in Baptist churches than in Presbyterian churches. And it’s often the case that some family members are pious while other members are impious. This gives rise to a distinction between the invisible church and the visible church.

There are ways of finessing this distinction in practice. A church can reserve communicant membership for those who make a credible profession of faith.

iii) It’s unclear how our authors define membership. Do they mean formal church membership? A public rite of initiation (e.g. baptism)? Or do they mean what God does to constitute members of the covenant community, irrespective of what we do by way of membership ceremonies?

Under the new covenant, what was true of the remnant (elect) within Israel will now be true of the entire covenant community and in greater ways (688).

Remnant themes aren’t confined to the OT. The same themes are sounded in the NT. Cf. G. Hasel, “Remnant,” ISBE 4:134; M. Elliot, “Remnant,” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, 725.

First, the “mixed” community interpretation of the warning passages assumes that the nature of Israel and the church is basically the same, but this begs the question (692).

i) It doesn’t require that assumption. For passages like Heb 6:4-6 & 10:26-39 have reference to the church. That doesn’t necessitate comparing the church to Israel. Rather, that stands on its own two feet.

ii) But as a matter of fact, the author of Hebrews does compare NT apostates to OT apostates. He begins with OT apostates (Heb 3-4), then draws a parallel with NT apostates. So the old covenant community and new covenant community are analogous in that respect. It supplies an ominous precedent.

To the extent that they differ, it’s a difference of degree, not of kind. NT apostates are even more culpable than OT apostates.

Second, this interpretation contradicts biblical teaching regarding the nature of the new covenant church (692).

That rejoinder begs the question. The nature of the new covenant church is the very issue under review. And the apostasy passages are part of the evidence we use in defining the nature of the new covenant community.

No one disputes the fact that apostasy takes place in the new covenant age. What is at dispute is the status of those apostates. Should they be viewed as “new covenant breakers” (assuming they were once full covenant members) or, as those who professed faith, who identified with the church, but who, by their rejection of the gospel, demonstrated that they were never one with us? (692-93).

i) That’s a false dichotomy.

ii) Doesn’t the author of Hebrews describe the would-be apostates as covenant members on the brink of becoming covenant-breakers (e.g. Heb 6:1-5; 10:26,29)? If that’s not the language of covenant incorporation, what terminology would he use to describe covenant incorporation?

When apostasy takes place, we reevaluate the person’s former profession and thus their covenant status (693).

Why bundle those together? Certainly we reevaluate their former profession, but must we also reevaluate their covenant status? The authors assume what they need to prove.