The Covenant With Israel (3)
Is there proof in Scripture that God’s covenant with Israel is one and the same covenant as His covenant with the church of the New Testament? There is.
One important proof is that several specific prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the restoration of Israel, the rebuilding of the temple, and Israel’s possession of the land—all promises of the old covenant—are shown in the New Testament to be fulfilled in the gathering of the Gentiles into the church. Two such prophecies are Hosea 1:10-11 and Amos 9:11-15.
Hosea 1:10-11 is a clear prophecy of God’s mercy to Israel, both Judah and the ten tribes. It speaks of their gathering, of their number being immeasurable and of their being called again “the sons of the living God.”
Many take this as referring to a future gathering of the Jewish people. Scripture, however, makes plain that this prophecy is fulfilled in the gathering of the Gentiles. Hosea 1:10-11 is quoted in Romans 9:25-26, where it serves as proof that God’s purpose is to reveal the riches of His glory upon the vessels of mercy, who are “not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Rom. 9:24).
It may be objected that verse 24 mentions the Jews, and that is true. Yet the reference to the Jews must be understood in light of Romans 9:6, “They are not all Israel, which are of Israel.” Moreover, Romans 9:25-26 shows that Jews and Gentiles together are the one people of God, and that the promises belong to both together. As vessels of mercy, they are called “my people” and “beloved.”
Since these promises of the old covenant belong also to the people of the new covenant, the conclusion is unavoidable: there is only one covenant.
Amos 9:11-15 leads to the same conclusion. It is a specific prophecy of the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of Israel.
This prophecy is quoted in Acts 15:16-17 with reference to the gathering of the Gentiles, without any mention of a future restoration of the Jews as such. The old covenant promise to rebuild the temple and to restore Israel to the land is thus fulfilled in the ingathering of the Gentiles in the New Testament.
The conclusion is clear: the old and new covenants, the covenant with Israel and the covenant revealed in the New Testament, are not different covenants, but two revelations of the one covenant of God. Rev. Ron Hanko
Christ, Every Man’s Light? (1)
“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9).
It is helpful to begin by quoting the question submitted by a reader of the News: “Bearing in mind that all unregenerate are spiritually dead or ‘without light,’ how is it that the Holy Bible states that the true light lights every man? It does not say every man that God has predestinated to salvation before the foundation of the world.”
This is an important question and raises a doctrine that is not always clearly understood. It is certainly true that every unregenerate man is spiritually dead and without light. This must be maintained, for it is often denied—even in circles that confess total depravity—through the theory of “common grace,” which teaches that all men possess some light by which they are not wholly depraved and are able to accept or reject the gospel.
At the same time, the reader is correct in observing that the text says “every man,” not “every man who is predestinated to salvation.” The expression “every man” must be taken in its full sense, and this is strengthened by the words, “every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9).
To understand this, a distinction must be made between what may be called “natural light” and “spiritual light.”
Natural light refers to that with which man was endowed at creation, namely, his rational and moral nature. Man was created a rational and moral creature, capable of knowing God and of discerning good and evil.
Spiritual light, however, consists in the image of God in its fuller sense, namely, true knowledge, righteousness, and holiness.
When man fell, he lost all spiritual light. At the same time, his natural light was so corrupted that only a few remnants remain. Yet man did not cease to be man. Though totally depraved, he remains a rational and moral creature, and therefore responsible before God.
It is this natural light of which John 1 speaks. The same chapter makes this clear: “And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not” (5). Again: “He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not” (10).
The same truth is taught in another way in Romans 1:18 and following. There the apostle speaks of the wrath of God revealed from heaven against all ungodliness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. If they “suppress” the truth, they must know it in some sense. They know it because they remain rational and moral creatures.
God makes this knowledge known to them in creation: “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shown it unto them” (19). This knowledge comes through the things that are made: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (20). Without this natural light, man could not perceive God in creation.
The purpose of this revelation is clear: “so that they are without excuse” (20). Yet what do men do with this light? “When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image …” (21-25). Prof. Herman Hanko
Should the Lord’s Supper Be Supervised?
Two questions concerning the Lord’s Supper remain from those introduced in the previous issue of the News: “Does the church need to examine people before they partake to see if they are ‘in Christ’?” and “How often should the Lord’s Supper be celebrated?” The first question is addressed here.
The church, through her elders, has the obligation to ascertain, as far as possible, that those who come to the Lord’s table are in Christ. This is implied in the requirement that those who partake must be able by faith to “discern the Lord’s body” (I Cor. 11:29). In the case of children and new converts who cannot yet do so, the church must instruct and prepare them before admitting them to the Supper. Those who show no evidence of being in Christ must be barred from the table.
This responsibility extends not only to those seeking admission for the first time, but to all members of the church. If a member falls into sin and persists in it without repentance, the church must conclude that he shows no evidence of being in Christ. As long as he remains unrepentant, he does not discern the Lord’s body. The elders must therefore bar him from the Supper by excommunication.
That Scripture commands the excommunication of unrepentant members is clear (I Cor. 5:1-5; II Thess. 3:14-15). That this includes exclusion from the Lord’s Supper is implied in the very nature of excommunication and is evident from I Corinthians 5:11, where the reference is not to ordinary meals but to fellowship at the Lord’s table.
Since the church is called to excommunicate, it follows that she must also regulate admission to the Supper. In this way she seeks, as far as possible, to keep away those who are unfit, lest the Supper be polluted and God’s judgment come upon the congregation (I Cor. 11:34). For neglect of this duty, the church at Corinth was judged.
For this reason, communion must be carefully supervised. Admission to the Lord’s Supper is ordinarily limited to those who are members in good standing in the congregation. A church cannot excommunicate one who is not under its authority. Nor can excommunication have any meaning if those excluded are free to partake elsewhere merely on the basis of a profession.
Admission to communion therefore implies church membership. The objection that such supervision denies the unity of believers misses the point. Those who are refused often say, “You will not accept me as a fellow Christian.” The issue, however, is not a judgment on their profession, but the fact that they are not under the oversight of the elders, who alone have authority in these matters.
Only when a person submits to the oversight of the elders by becoming a member of the church can he be admitted to the Supper and, if necessary, be subject to discipline. Would that churches would recognise this and guard the Supper of the Lord from profanation! Rev. Ron Hanko
