The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Fred Malone a dispensationalist?

Hello again J.E.,
Holiday and then business have prevented me from coming back to you in any sort of depth. My apologies.

You asked,
'How does a dispensationalist interpret the term "everlasting?"'

I suggest you go and ask one. That there is an Everlasting Covenant is common ground between us. It is clearly shown in Eph 1:3-14 and elsewhere. It is my case that the outworking of this covenant is actually the New Covenant:-

Luke 22:20. "This cup is the New Covenant in My blood."

Heb 13:20. 'Through the blood of the Everlasting Covenant (cf. Rev 13:8 ).'

The question is, does the Old Covenant form part of the Everlasting Covenant? I suggest that it does not. As it is written:-

'Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- NOT ACCORDING to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Israel.'

Now if words have any meaning, the NC is 'not according' to the OC, and the OC was made not in eternity, but on Mt. Sinai. That the 'Moral Law' is eternal, I absolutely agree, but as it came to the Israelites on Mt. Sinai it was, 'The ministry of death, written and engraved on stones (2Cor 3:7 ) because the OC gave no power to obey it, and no effective remedy for sin (Heb 10:4 ) save by promise.

Thus it was that when God threatened to destroy the Israelites after the episode of the Golden Calf, Moses did not plead the covenant that had just been made, but rather the covenant of promise made with the Patriarchs (Exod 32:13 ).

There are certainly promisary elements in the OC; the animal sacrifices introduced in Gen 3:21 are regulated and the promised Seed is shown to be of the Children of Israel rather than of Ishmael or Esau, but the whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to introduce the New (Heb 7:18 ). By continuing to impose the Old upon the New you are putting the new wine in old bottles. The whole witness of the NT is against you:-

Rom 2:28f. 'For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that in the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.'

2Cor 3:9ff. 'For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.......For if WHAT IS PASSING AWAY was glorious, what remains is much more glorious,'

Gal 3:17f. 'And this I say, that the law, which was 430 years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make it of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no more of promise; BUT GOD GAVE IT TO ABRAHAM BY PROMISE.'

Heb 7:18. 'For on the one hand THERE IS AN ANNULLING OF THE FORMER COMMANDMENT because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.'

Heb 8:13. 'In that He says, "a new covenant", He has made the first obsolete.'

Your problem is, if I may say so, that having decided to endorse infant baptism you are forced into an unnatural interpretation of the Scriptures. If you set aside your pre-suppositions, as I was forced to do some years ago, you will find that 'All the promises in [Christ] are Yes, and in Him, Amen', and you can read the Old Testament in the greater light of the New, rather than imposing the Old upon the New.

Every blessing,

Steve