The Covenant With Israel (1)
That God has a covenant with Israel is clear from Scripture. How that covenant is to be understood, however, is a matter of much dispute.
The central question is whether the covenant with Israel is a different covenant altogether from that which God establishes with His people in the New Testament, or how the Old Testament and the New Testament are related to each other. Are they old and new in the sense that they are different kinds of covenants concerning two different groups of people? or are they earlier and later revelations of one covenant?
Dispensationalism answers these questions by teaching that the old and new covenants are completely distinct, that they concern different groups of people, and that they have different promises and different fulfilments. In its more extreme forms, it even teaches different ways of salvation for Israel and for the church under the two covenants (cf. the Scofield Bible notes on Matt. 16:18, John 1:17, Acts 1:6-7, Rom. 11 and Eph. 3:1-10).
There are also those who reject dispensationalism, but still hesitate to identify the two covenants completely. Some find a difference between the promises of the old and new covenants and their fulfilments (premillennialism and postmillennialism), maintaining that at least some old covenant promises have a primarily earthly fulfilment, in distinction from the spiritual and heavenly promises of the new covenant.
Others make a distinction between Israel and the church, especially with respect to the covenant and its sign (e.g., Baptists). They maintain, for example, that Israel is only a type of the church and therefore refuse to identify circumcision and baptism as the signs of the old and new covenants.
Others again distinguish between law and grace, teaching in one way or another that the law has no place in the life of a new covenant believer (i.e., antinomianism).
In contrast to all of this, the Reformed faith maintains that there is one covenant, one covenant people (Israel is the church of the Old Testament—Acts 7:38), one sign of the covenant (circumcision and baptism are essentially the same—Col. 2:11-12), one Saviour and one way of salvation (Acts 4:12), one promise of eternal life (Acts 2:38-39) and one spiritual fulfilment of all that belongs to the covenant promise (Heb. 11:9-10, 13-16). It also maintains that there is unity between law and grace under both covenants, although we stand in a somewhat different relation to the law under the first revelation of the covenant (Rom. 7:12).
The Reformed faith therefore insists upon the complete unity of the two testaments as a reflection of the unity of God Himself. Rev. Ron Hanko
The Authority of Key Power (2)
“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).
A reader who submitted this verse for consideration is particularly interested in how the correct interpretation of it differs from the view of the Romish Church. In the previous article, we considered the nature of the keys of the kingdom and their importance for the church of Christ. We now address this question more directly.
It must be remembered that the exercise of the key power of the church has both a negative and a positive purpose. Negatively, the keys exclude from the kingdom those who do not walk according to its principles. Positively, they are exercised to save those who are truly citizens of the kingdom.
This positive aspect must be maintained. Christian discipline is often understood as merely excluding people from the church. That is not the case. While discipline does exclude, it also saves. Both aspects belong to the keys. The preaching of the gospel saves and also hardens those who refuse to believe. Likewise, discipline excludes from the church, but is also the “last remedy,” which, if God is pleased to use it, brings the sinner to repentance.
The positive result of the exercise of the keys is always repentance and faith in Christ. These same keys, in those who are wicked and unbelieving, work hardening and greater impenitence. There is, therefore, only one sin for which a person is disciplined: the sin of impenitence.
A person may commit adultery, murder, blasphemy, theft, Sabbath desecration or slander. It makes no difference. There is forgiveness for every sin, no matter how great, in the way of repentance and faith in Christ. But there is one sin for which there is no forgiveness, namely, impenitence. For that sin alone discipline is exercised.
The difference between the biblical view of the keys and that of the Roman Catholic Church lies in the meaning of the word “thee” in the text. To whom does it refer? Who is given the keys?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the keys are given to the pope. It holds that Christ gave them to Peter and that Peter transmitted them to his successors. This interpretation is based on Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God and on the words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). According to this view, the church is built upon Peter and upon all subsequent popes, and therefore the keys belong to them.
This argument cannot stand. Christ does not say that He will build His church upon Peter, but upon the rock of Peter’s confession. That confession—that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God—is the fundamental truth of Scripture. He who denies it is of Antichrist (I John 4:1-3). As long as the church maintains this truth, the gates of hell shall not prevail against her.
Peter spoke this truth not because of any superiority in himself, but because it was revealed to him by the Father (Matt. 16:17). He spoke as the mouth of the apostles. The Lord’s words therefore refer, in the first instance, to the apostles, through whom the revelation of Christ came to the church, and who by inspiration recorded the doctrine of Christ (Eph. 2:20-22).
The church built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets is the church to which the keys are given. This is the institutional church, in which the office of all believers functions through the special offices of minister, elder, and deacon.
In particular, the elders are entrusted with the exercise of the keys, for they are given the authority to rule. The keys may be said to hang, as it were, in the consistory room. The elders exercise discipline in the name of Christ. Not the pope, nor the Roman clergy, nor the hierarchy of Rome. They cannot and do not exercise the keys rightly. Their preaching corrupts the word of Christ, and their discipline usurps authority that belongs to Christ alone. In this they reveal themselves to be of Antichrist.
The keys are given to the church, that is, to the office of all believers. This office functions through the special offices. The church preaches Christ through the ordained ministry, distributes His mercies through the deacons and rules and exercises discipline through the elders.
Reformed churches, in matters of discipline, seek the approbation of the whole congregation, since the office of believers must function. They also seek the advice of other churches in the federation, since discipline is a serious matter and wisdom is found in the multitude of counsellors. Nevertheless, the work itself is carried out by the elders. Not by the pope, nor by the clergy, nor by a synod or a classis, but by the elders, who rule in Christ’s name.
Much more could be said on this subject, but this will suffice for now. May the church of Christ be faithful in preaching and in the exercise of Christian discipline, and may believers everywhere so understand the importance of these things that they join themselves to that church which is faithful. Prof. Herman Hanko
Why Ashes and Fasting at Lent?
Someone has asked, “Why do Roman Catholics put ash on their foreheads and give up things for Lent?”
The practice of marking the forehead with ashes takes place on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent, the period of forty weekdays before Easter. The ashes, taken from the burned palm branches of the previous year’s Palm Sunday and blessed by a priest, are used to mark a cross on the foreheads of the people, while the words are spoken: “Remember man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return” (cf. Gen. 3:19).
This ceremony is said to be connected with the Old Testament practice of sprinkling oneself with ashes as a sign of mourning or repentance (e.g., II Sam. 13:19; Esth. 4:1; Job 42:6; Dan. 9:3; Jonah 3:6). Among Roman Catholics today, it is regarded as a sign of penance for sin.
Closely connected with this is the practice of fasting and giving up things during Lent. This too is intended as a sign of penance and is also thought to gain merit for those who observe it.
In both cases we have examples of practices that are purely arbitrary and without biblical authority. Marking the forehead with ashes is not the same as the Old Testament practice of sprinkling oneself with dust and ashes, nor is it commanded in the New Testament. The fasting required during Lent is likewise not the fasting of which Scripture speaks (cf. I Cor. 8:8).
In Roman Catholic practice, therefore, these ceremonies are mere outward forms. This is evident especially in the wild celebrations, drunkenness and revelry that precede Lent in many countries. The Mardi Gras (or “Fat Tuesday”) festivals held in New Orleans and elsewhere are a clear example.
The Word of God condemns all vain show of religion (cf. Isa. 66:2-3; Jer. 14:10, 11; Matt. 6:16) and every attempt to obtain merit with God (Luke 17:10). It also condemns all religious ceremony that is not according to His Word (Lev. 10:1-2; Jer. 7:21-23; Gal. 4:3-7, 10).
God requires two things in all religious practice: first, that it be done “in spirit,” that is, from the heart in the fear of God; and second, that it be done “in truth,” that is, in harmony with His word (John 4:24). As He says, “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word” (Isa. 66:2). Rev. Ron Hanko
