Vol. 2, No. 14
If God's covenant is everlasting, and Scripture says often that it is, then there can only be one covenant. A temporary covenant can be annulled or replaced. God's covenant is not temporary.
Also, if the covenant is unbreakable, there can only be one. That it is unbreakable, Scripture testifies in Judges 2:1; Ps. 89:34; Jer. 33:20, 21, etc.
If the covenant is first of all God's covenant and if God's covenant is the relationship between the Three Persons of the Trinity, then, too, the covenant must be One, because God is One.
We hold to one covenant over against: (1) dispensationalism, with its many covenants; (2) the Baptist position, which distinguishes between the Old Covenant and the New, at least as far as the sign of the covenant is concerned; and (3) the older teaching that there is a separate and distinct covenant of works with Adam.
We believe that the many Scripture passages that speak of a covenant (singular), which is everlasting, prove this. We would refer our readers to such passages as Gen. 17:7; II Sam. 23:5; Ps. 105:8-10; Is. 55:3; Ezek. 16:60-62; and Heb. 13:20.
But what about all the passages that speak of covenants (plural) (Gal. 4:24; Rom. 9:4; etc.)? And, what about the passages that speak of an old and a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-33; Heb. 8:6-13)?
Unless we are willing to accept the idea that the Bible can contradict itself (and that God can contradict Himself) we must reconcile these two kinds of passages. Scripture helps us do that by some of the language it uses.
Scripture speaks of God remembering His covenant (Lev. 26:42; Lk. 1:72), giving His covenant (Num. 25:12; Acts 7:8), declaring it (Deut. 4:13), and keeping it (I Kings 8:23). These expressions help us see that when He establishes His covenant with someone or makes a covenant with someone, He is not discarding the old and bringing in an entirely new covenant, but only giving a new revelation of His one covenant of grace. In that sense only are there old and new covenants, or more than one covenant.
Nor can His covenant ever be anything but a covenant of grace. There is no other basis on which we can live in a relationship with God, but undeserved favor. Even Adam, though he by his obedience could continue to enjoy a covenant relationship with God, was not in that relationship by merit.
We reject, therefore, the teaching that the covenant with Adam was a distinct covenant based on merit, not on grace. Especially we reject the idea that in that covenant Adam could have merited eternal life by his obedience.
Luke 17:10 destroys every possibility of merit when it says, "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things that are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable (unmeriting) servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." The everlasting covenant of God is all grace.
Rev. Ron Hanko
One of our readers has asked: Is a man bi- or tri-partite being? Are soul and spirit synonyms?"
We trust that those who read this will not be frightened away by the strange words. Bi-partite simply means "two-part" and tri-partite, "three-part." The question, therefore, is whether we are created with two parts, body and soul, or with three parts, body, soul and spirit. Thus, too, we have the question whether soul and spirit are the same thing or two different things. (Note: the words, dichotomy and trichotomy, are sometimes used - dichotomy having the same significance as by-partite and trichotomy as tri-partite).
To some all of this may seem very unimportant. In the history of the church, however, it has not been unimportant. The view that man has "three parts" has been used both in the early church and by some modern theologians in defense of various heresies, and for that reason Christian theology has always leaned to the view that man is only "two parts" and that soul and spirit are more or less the same.
For example: the teaching that man is a tri-partite being has been used (by the earlier Semi-Pelagians and by some more recent German theologians) to defend the idea that there is something in man that is not affected by the fall or by original sin. In other words, though soul and body are corrupted, man's spirit, including his reason, his will, and his moral sense were not affected. So, they said, fallen man is able to respond to and cooperate with grace.
Earlier in the history of the church the same teaching was used to deny the full humanity of Christ. He had, so it was said, a human body and soul, but not a human spirit or mind. That was replaced by the divine Word or Mind.
There are many Scripture passages that teach that our spirits are essentially the same as our souls (Eccl. 12:7; I Cor. 5:5; 7:34; II Cor. 7:1) and that we are bi-partite. Man's creation, however, is the clearest proof. There is no indication in the creation story (Gen. 2:7) that man is a tri-partite being.
The only passages in Scripture that could possibly be brought forward as proof of "three parts" are Hebrews 4:12 and I Thessalonians 5:23. The fact, though, that body, soul, and spirit are all mentioned does not necessarily mean that they are three separate things, and in light of Genesis 2:7 they cannot be.
Why does Scripture speak of both soul and spirit? The answer seems to be that these two words look at the same thing from two different viewpoints. The word "soul" emphasizes the truth that man is a rational, moral being, a thinking and willing creature who knows the difference between good and evil, while the word "spirit" emphasizes the truth that these things once made it possible for him to stand in a relationship with God, to know God and to love Him, and do again make it possible through grace.
Rev. R. Hanko
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Rom. 11:26, 27.
Several of our readers have written asking for an interpretation of the statement: "And all Israel shall be saved." One correspondent from the United States writes: "We wondered if you could tell us whether or not Paul meant that ALL the Jews were going to be saved. It seems to us that Paul is saying here that God's plan includes the eventual salvation of all the Jews because God made a covenant with the Jews and does not go back on His own word. If there is another interpretation to this passage, perhaps by one of the reformers, please let us know."
This is not such an easy question to answer and interpretations have varied greatly. As far as I have been able to tell, all the differences finally come down to just two: 1) Some make this passage refer to a period, still in the future and coming after "the fullness of the Gentiles is come in," when God will deal separately and specially with the Jews and bring them to conversion. This seems to me the idea imbedded in the question asked above. 2) Others refer this passage to God's work throughout all history so that all Israel is saved at the same time the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in.
So the difference lies in the time when this happens, either in the still-to-come future, or throughout the entire New Dispensation.
Interestingly enough, the first group of which I spoke can be divided into two groups. There are those who hold that the salvation of all Israel is still a future event are themselves divided into some who say that the word "all" means exactly all. Every single Jew shall in this future time be saved -- every one head for head. Others, however, realize that this is indeed an unlikely interpretation and so hold that the word "all" must not be taken literally, but must be made to refer to the Jews as a nation. These teach that though not every Jew shall be saved at this future time, the nation shall be saved.
Those who hold that all Israel is being saved throughout the New Dispensation also hold to two different positions. One claims that the words "all Israel" refer to the whole church of Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. Thus the reference is to the whole church of Christ, composed of Jews and Gentiles, but called here in the text by the name "Israel."
This view is the one adopted. e.g., by John Calvin. "I extend the word Israel to all the people of God . . ." (See his commentary on Romans).
Others hold to the position that the words "all Israel" refer to Jews only, but to the gathering of the Jews along with the Gentiles throughout the entire new dispensation.
It is the last view which I believe is the correct one. And this view is the view also explained in detail in Herman Hoeksema's book: God's Eternal Good Pleasure, a book which you can obtain by writing to the address found in this Bulletin.
Although we do not have space in this Bulletin to give the reasons why this view is the correct one, and although we shall wait, therefore, with a further explanation of this view until our next issue of the Bulletin, I want to emphasize for the moment that it is important to understand the whole question in the light of the entire context. And that context is not only the 11th chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans, but is also the whole context of chapters 9 - 11 of this epistle.
And so we have to be reminded that Paul, in these three chapters is talking about the so-called "Jewish Question"; i.e., how is it to be explained that the Jews, who throughout the entire Old Dispensation were the people of God are no longer the people of God. That is clearly the question in the first part of Romans 9.
Now that Israel has rejected the Messiah and has, as a nation been cast away by God, what can be said about God's promises to Israel? Has the Word of God been of none effect? (9:6).
The answer is emphatically No! Never in all the Old Dispensation were all the Jews saved. Only the children of the promise were saved, and that according to God's eternal decree of election and reprobation. This means that only the elect of Israel were ever saved, and the greater part of the nation perished for "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (9:6).
That is the general truth which is being developed throughout these three chapters. But the rest must wait until next time.
Prof. Herman Hanko
Return
to the sermon, article, and pamphlet listings.