Who are the 24 elders in Revelation?

Lord willing, I will be presenting the information in this paper (and probably some additional arguments) at the Grace Evangelical Society Conference in April in Dallas, Texas. Comments and questions are welcome. Thanks for reading and/or caring. Much grace to you.

Identifying the Twenty-Four Elders

I. Overview and Introduction

The book of Revelation has stood the test of time and yet, has garnered a long list of questions in regards to imagery, signs, similes, and metaphors for the layman and scholar alike. In talking to some Christians, the book of Revelation is something to be avoided and even brings a cringe to one’s face, while others are delighted to peruse the text over and over again due to its amazing unfolding of the promised, soon-coming kingdom of Christ. The cause of such diverse reactions that are received from the very mention of Revelation can easily be found swinging from the hinge of interpretation. It is the goal of this author to bring about clarity as to the identification of the twenty-four elders as first encountered in Revelation 4:4 and determining the elders’ function within the scope of eternity, while addressing some of the various scholarly conclusions, opinions, and interpretive methods. It is the hope of this author to provoke a study of the Scriptures in the reader and a sound contemplation that yields a better understanding to the book of Revelation as a whole.

II. Understanding πρεσβύτερος

In 1998, contemporary Christian music artist Chris Tomlin wrote and recorded a now-famous song called “We Fall Down.” The first line of the song says, “We fall down, we lay our crowns at the feet of Jesus.” Tomlin is no doubt pulling this line from Revelation 4:10, and in doing so, makes the theological assumption that those casting their crowns are believers in Jesus Christ. While this is a common understanding of the text, it may not be a correct understanding of the text.

The use of the word “elders” in Revelation is πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros) which is defined as “a person of responsibility and authority in matters of socio-religious concerns, both in Jewish and Christian societies.” (Such usage of the term would be found in 1 Peter 5:1.) What is most interesting to note is that Louw and Nida continue in defining “presbyteros” by stating,

In some languages πρεσβύτεροςb is best rendered as ‘older leaders,’ but in other languages the more appropriate term would be the equivalent of ‘counselor,’ since it would be assumed that counselors would be older than the average person in a group as well as having authority to lead and direct activities. (emphasis mine)

It is, therefore, plausible to understand πρεσβύτερος as one who “has authority” or “directs activities” in certain situations. The question naturally follows as to what “activities” these elders may be directing, and what is the scope of their “authority?”

III. Observing the Text

Of the five mentions of the “twenty-four elders” in the book of Revelation (4:4, 10; 5:8; 11:16; 19:4) there is only one instance (11:16) where the four living creatures are not found in direct association. Other uses of “elders” (5:6, 11, 14; 7:11; 14:3) show the presence of the four living creatures, but regardless of their presence or absence, every instance shows the elders worshiping collectively in the surrounding context (4:9-11; 5:9-14; 11:16-18; 19:4). Combined with the accompaniment of angels in 5:11, a great cry of the worthy nature of the Lamb of God is demonstrated by “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea” (5:13) which garner an “Amen” from the four living creatures, and meets a response from the elders who fall down and worship (5:14). It seems obvious that the “activity” that the elders are directing is the worship of the Christ of God.

Other instances of the use of πρεσβύτερος find instructions and encouragement (5:5) or asking questions and providing explanations (7:13-14), with only one elder participating in the dialogue. This seems to demonstrate some sense of authority.

The first mention of the elders found in Rev. 4:4 says, “Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads.” Immediately grabbing the reader’s attention is the fact that thrones (θρόνος, thronos) are seen, which can be understood as “a relatively large and elaborate seat upon which a ruler sits on official occasions.” A ruling, authoritative aspect is in view, which is suitably complemented by the description of the elders wearing white garments and golden crowns. The understanding of the white garments has been seen as being worn by angels (Mark 16:5; Acts 1:10; Rev. 15:6), and also by redeemed people (Rev. 3:5, 18; 6:11; 7:9, 13) which (for the redeemed) signifies a reward for “overcoming” or “conquering” in regards to faithfulness and endurance in a time of persecution or tribulation. A matter of great importance is the fact that crowns of gold are being worn by these twenty-four elders and are cast before the throne of God in Rev. 4:10.

Crowns are seen throughout the Scriptures as signifying the right to rule (2 Samuel 12:30; Zech. 6:11). “Crowns” in 4:4 is στέφανος (stephanos), which has been commonly understood as a “victor’s crown” (1 Cor. 9:25; 2 Tim. 2:5) when compared to a διάδημα (diadema, Rev. 19:12). Stephanos is also seen as worn by the rider of the white horse (6:2), locusts (9:7), the woman clothed with the sun (12:1, where the crown is composed of twelve stars), and the one like the son of man holding the sharp sickle (14:14), all of which seem to demonstrate a type of “temporary authority” granted to them at the time of their mention in Revelation. This is a perfectly credible consideration regarding the use of stephanos. Greek grammarian A.T. Robertson writes,

John uses διαδημα [diadēma] (diadem) for the kingly crown in 12:3; 13:1; 19:12, but it is not certain that the old distinction between διαδεμ [diadem] as the kingly crown and στεφανος [stephanos] as the victor’s wreath is always observed in late Greek.

While the “most common word for ‘crown’ means a laurel wreath worn at banquets or a prize given as a civic or military honor,” the composition of the crowns (gold, not leaves) conveys divinity (1 Kings 7:48-50) while also conveying victory and rulership, but not to the royal extent of διάδημα (diadema).

With all of these details gathered, one can determine that the characteristics of the twenty-four elders consists of ones who are vibrant in worship, with a type of victorious, ruling authority, and yet are completely subservient to the throne of God.

IV. The Dominate Interpretations Versus the “Angelic” View

In the scope of interpretation regarding the identity of the elders, the understanding that they are a representation of the Church that has been raptured prior to the Tribulation, or possibly the twelve apostles and the twelve sons of Israel has stood out to be the most common understandings. Both views hold credible points and are championed by extraordinary scholars, both past and present. The view held by this author (which will be progressively defended in detail) is that the elders are twenty-four angels of a different rank that are before the throne of God. Tom Constable writes regarding the elders:

All that John wrote about them fits angels, and some of what he wrote could fit some men. Their song of praise seems to set them apart from those purchased by Christ’s blood (5:9–10). However, “elder” is a term used nowhere else in the Bible to describe angels. Their number may relate to the 24 priestly orders in Israel that worshipped and served the Lord (1 Chron. 23:6; 24:7–18). They evidently serve God by executing His will in the universe, but they do so in rank under the four living beings of verse 6.

In dealing with the text itself one can see why such diverse conclusions have been made. The following contains excerpts from various views that will be interacted with for the sake of clarifying the “angelic” interpretation.

In his timeless classic Things To Come, notable scholar J. Dwight Pentecost writes,

What is said of the twenty-four elders could not be true of angelic beings, for angels are not crowned with victors’ crowns (stephanos) received as rewards, nor are they seated on thrones (thronos), which throne speaks of royal dignity and prerogative, nor are angels robed in white as a result of judgment. The impossibility of this view argues for the second view that which sees them as resurrected redeemed men, who are clothed, crowned, and seated on thrones in connection with royalty in heaven.

There is apparent difficulty throughout this explanation against the angelic view. Most noticeable is the lack of Scriptural references in reinforcing the claims made by Pentecost. Seeing that this designation of twenty-four elders is special, it is plausible to argue that they particularly are, in fact, crowned with a victor’s crown that is not seen in other instances where angels appear in Scripture (there will be more explanation on this later). Angels are not seen throughout Scripture as having access to a “golden censer” except in Revelation 8:3,5, but because there is only one instance does not make it any less true. Pentecost also states that angels are not seated on thrones, yet in Isaiah 14:13, it can clearly be seen that Lucifer’s desire was to “set my throne on high,” which signifies that before his act of rebellion against God Most High, he had a throne. This can be understood as some “high-ranking” angels indeed having thrones which would constitute the idea of some sphere of rulership or authority taking place.

Dr. Pentecost goes on to explain that angels do not wear white garments as a result of judgment, but the fact that there was a judgment that resulted in the white garment is implied by Dr. Pentecost’s interpretation and not by the text. Instances of angels wearing white are seen throughout the Scriptures (Mark 16:5; John 20:12; Acts 1:10; Rev. 15:6. Luke 24:4 uses “dazzling”- ἀστράπτω, astrapto meaning “to reflect a very bright light—‘to glisten, to dazzle, to gleam, to flash.”) Pentecost defends his understanding against the angelic view by stating that the elders are “resurrected redeemed men, who are clothed, crowned, and seated on thrones in connection with royalty in heaven.” Yet his previous logic against the elders being angels (because of the crowns and the thrones) was quick to point out the stephanos nature of the word for “crown” used as opposed to the diadem which commonly signifies a royal capacity. This would be a solid argument except that the same text (Rev. 4:4) is being dealt with in both explanations offered. Therefore, regardless of the elders being angels or redeemed men, the fact is that the crowns and the thrones are the same, regardless of their identity.

In his brief commentary on Revelation, Dr. Charles Ryrie writes,

In the New Testament, elders, as the highest officials in the church, do represent the whole of the church (cf. Acts 15:6; 20:28), and in the Old Testament, twenty-four elders were appointed by King David to represent the entire Levitical Priesthood (1 Chron. 24). When those twenty-four elders met together in the temple precincts in Jerusalem, the entire priestly house was represented. Thus it seems more likely that the elders represent redeemed human beings, not angels.

While there is no debate regarding the understanding of the elders being representative in nature whether one believes that to be of the church as mentioned in the New Testament, or even that they are “chief men” (1 Chron. 24:4) or the “heads of the father’s house of the priests” (24:6) in the Old Testament that represented the Levitical Priesthood, there is a contention in asking if these designations originated on earth with man or in heaven with God?

The representative nature of the elders can be seen in their collective assembly of twenty-four (Rev. 4:4), while not negating the fact that they are individuals at the same time (5:5; 7:13-14). What is most extraordinary about Revelation as a whole is the resemblance of the things documented by the apostle John that were instrumental aspects of the Temple here on earth. Randall Price explains:

In the book of Revelation the Heavenly Temple appears frequently as the place where John receives revelation about the future. In these texts it is clearly defined as the Temple that is in heaven (Revelation 7:15; 14:17; 15:5; 16:17). When the apostle John was transported to this Heavenly Temple in a vision (Revelation 4:1), he beheld a scene similar to that previously described by Isaiah and Ezekiel (verses 2-3). From the various scenes in the Heavenly Temple it is revealed that it contains the same ascending degrees of sanctity as the earthly Temple (Revelation 4:1-10), and the same essential furniture and sacred vessels. In Revelation we find that these include the sacrificial altar (Revelation 6:9; 8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7), God’s throne (Revelation 16:17), the menoret or seven-branched lampstands (Revelation 1:12), trumpets (Revelation 8:2,6), the incense bowls (Revelation 5:8), priestly vestments (Revelation 4:4; 6:11; 15:6), and the heavenly Ark of the Covenant (Revelation 11:19).

With such resemblances seen in heaven and those things being depicted on earth (Hebrews 8:4-5, 9:1-10, 24), and even the law being declared as a “shadow” of the good things that would be coming (10:1), could one not conclude that the elders in the New Testament church and/or the “chief men” of the Old Testament Levitical system are simply an earthly depiction of the things which are already a reality in heaven? After all, those things mentioned by Dr. Price are all occurring in heaven during the Tribulation on earth, before the heavens and the earth pass away and the new heavens and the new earth are established in their place (Rev. 21:1). This understanding carries some significant weight:

The tabernacle was a “pattern” of the heavenly antitype; the holy place, a figure of HEAVEN ITSELF. Thus Jehovah’s throne is represented by the mercy seat in the holiest, the Shekinah-cloud over it. “The seven lamps of fire before the throne” (Rev 4:5) are antitypical to the seven-branched candlestick also in the holiest, emblem of the manifold Spirit of God: “the sea of glass” (Rev 4:6) corresponds to the molten sea before the sanctuary, wherein the priests washed themselves before entering on their holy service; so introduced here in connection with the redeemed “priests unto God” (compare Note, see on Rev 15:2). The “four living creatures” (Rev 4:6, 7) answer to the cherubim over the mercy seat. So the twenty-four throned and crowned elders are typified by the twenty-four chiefs of the twenty-four courses of priests, “Governors of the sanctuary, and governors of God” (1Ch 24:5; 25:1–31).

It would seem that an order of the things of earth being a reflection of the things that originated in heaven would be the correct understanding of how God has decreed these things that are in regard to His worship and glory.

Within the description of the twenty-four elders, one will find certain qualities that resemble that of the saints after being found faithful and approved for reward at the Judgment Seat of Christ (1 Cor. 3:11-15; 2 Tim. 4:8; Rev. 3:5,21). But, a premillenial understanding of the events of Revelation will demonstrate that the sequence for the saints being “properly clothed” for the marriage supper of the Lamb (Matt. 22:1-14; Rev. 19:8) does not occur until much later in the book.

While it may refer to elders who represent the church, it must be noted that the seventieth week of Daniel is about to begin and God is once again dealing with Israel while the church in heaven is for a time out of view. It is also unlikely (logically and sequentially) that the church as the bride would be enthroned before their Lord and husband is recognized as being worthy to rule (5:8, 9). In fact, the church is to share His throne which has yet to be established (3:21). These elders function as ruling priests in the present age. Michael, an angel, is identified as one of these chief princes (Dan. 10:13; Col. 1:16). In contrast, the church is not prepared to rule until 19:7, 8. The white robes and crowns of gold point to those who are confirmed in righteousness and who possess ruling authority. The wearing of the crowns indicates that the elders had already been judged and rewarded.

Such an early introduction (Rev. 4:4) that defines the elders as representative of the church is often used to strengthen the argument for a pretribulational rapture. This argument need not rest on the “church” interpretation of the elders’ identity, but rather on the understanding that the seals, trumpets, and bowls are the outpouring of God’s wrath (Rev. 6:15-17, 11:18) upon an unregenerate, rebellious, idolatrous, unrepentant people on earth (Rev. 9:20-21, 11:9-10, 16:9, 17:13). Those who have believed in Jesus Christ for eternal life have not been appointed to wrath, but salvation (1 Thess. 5:9-10).

A Replacement Theology interpretation of the elders identity states,

They are not angels, for they have white robes and crowns of victory, implying a conflict and endurance, “Thou hast redeemed us”: they represent the Heads of the Old and New Testament churches respectively, the Twelve Patriarchs (compare Rev 7:5–8, not in their personal, but in their representative character), and Twelve Apostles. So in Rev 15:3, “the song of Moses, and of the Lamb,” the double constituents of the Church are implied, the Old Testament and the New Testament.

The reference above referring to “Thou hast redeemed us” speaks to Rev. 5:8-10 and will be dealt with in the following section. Regarding Rev. 15:3, the surrounding context makes no mention of the presence of the twenty-four elders, even though the location is “beside the sea of glass” (15:2b, which is seen in the description of God’s throne room in 4:6), and those singing are listed as those who “conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name (15:2). The only other subjects listed are the seven angels with seven plagues (15:1,6). The question may follow as to why there is a mention of the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb. This understanding can be found because the focal point of the passage is ascribing glory to the Name of God (15:3b-4; Deut. 32:3) and the response is found in the opening of the “sanctuary of the tent of witness in heaven” (15:5) from which the seven angels with the seven plagues emerge (15:6). The Old Testament imagery seems obvious. With all of this encompassing the scene in Revelation 15, the idea that the twenty-four elders are “implied” by the mentioning of the song of Moses and the song of the Lamb is only that; implied.

V. The Passage That Determines the Identity

As shown above, there are many scholarly arguments against the understanding that the elders are angels, seated on thrones, initially wearing crowns of gold and garments of white, who are participating and directing worship unto the Lamb of God. Up unto this point, this interpretation has only been defended, but not explained thoroughly. The turning point in the understanding of these elders’ identity can be found in the telling “new song” of Revelation 5:8-10. A scholarly interpretation of the opposing view is needed in order to demonstrate a convincing argument for the understanding that the elders are, in fact, angels.

In his commentary on Revelation, Donald Grey Barnhouse writes,

All commentators have united in seeing here the representatives of Israel and the Church. That this is true and that they are not angels is certain from the fact that their song in chapter five is a swelling confession of praise and worship. “Thou hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation (5:9).”

Barnhouse’s observation may well be the crux of the argument for the “Church/Israel” view. MacArthur’s understanding of the elder’s identity is drawn from the same passage. He writes, “Here elders represent the church, which sings the song of redemption (5:8–10). They are the overcomers who have their crowns and live in the place prepared for them, where they have gone with Jesus (cf. John 14:1–4).” (emphasis mine)

The difficulty lies in the King James rendering of Revelation 5:8-10, which states:

And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having everyone of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new song, saying Thou are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. (emphasis mine)

The questionable portion in translation lies in the pronouns “us” and “we” as italicized in the quoted portion of Scripture. Dr. John Walvoord makes mention of this difficulty when he writes,

A textual problem exists in these verses. The Greek text used by the KJV indicates that the new song is sung by those who themselves have been redeemed: “Thou … has redeemed us to God … and hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth.” The NIV, however, reads, “You purchased men for God… . You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.” If the KJV is correct, the 24 elders must represent the church or saints in general. If their song is impersonal as in the NIV and they simply are singing that Christ is the Redeemeer of all men, it opens the possibility that the 24 elders could be angels, though it does not expressly affirm it.

Henry Thiessen also acknowledges this interpretive mishap, and yet opts for a Church/ Israel view in spite of it:

It seems clear that they represent the two great companies of God’s people, those who lived before the death of Christ and those who lived since that time. This we gather in the first place from the song that they sing (5:9, 10). Even granting that we should omit the word “us” in this reference and supply some such word as “men,” with the A.S.V., we still believe that they sing of themselves and the companies they represent.

While recognizing this predicament, Walvoord opts for the more commonly held interpretation as well:

While scholars differ on this point, it would seem that since the elders are on thrones and are crowned as victors, they represent the church rather than angels. Angels have not been judged and rewarded at this point in the program of God. But angels soon join the creatures and the elders in praising the Lamb (5:11-12). The two different interpretations here should not mar the beauty of the picture and the wonder of this song of praise.

While the beauty of the song of praise may not be marred, the direction and successful interpretation of the elders’ identity is! Walvoord’s understanding of the elders as being separate from the angels mentioned in Rev. 5:11-12 does not take into account that the four living creatures, who can also be seen in Ezekiel 1:4-24 and 10:1-3, are named as cherubim, which are a high rank of angel, decreed with a special purpose.

The imagery of Revelation 4:6–9 seems to be inspired, at least in part, by the prophecies of Ezekiel. The “four living creatures” described here, as well as the cherubim of Ezekiel, served the purpose of magnifying the holiness and power of God. This is one of their main responsibilities throughout the Bible. In addition to singing God’s praises, they also served as a visible reminder of the majesty and glory of God and His abiding presence with His people.

A consideration of the four living creatures as being a type of rank within the sphere of angels is one that can be biblically established. With the elders serving out related functions in the immediate proximity of the four living creatures, could one not conclude that there is a possibility that the elders are angels serving in a different rank? It seems that this one defining difference found in Revelation 5:8-10 between the translations of the Majority Text and the Masoretic Text could have some extended theological repercussions, as well as redefining the redemptive structure and eschatological position of man. In reading Rev. 5:8-10 from the ESV translation, a proper understanding comes clearly into view.

And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (emphasis mine)

Consider the italicized segments. A good question to ask would be, “If the twenty-four elders are representative of the church, why does the text make a distinguishing remark that the bowls are full of incense and that this incense is the prayers of the saints? Why doesn’t the text ascribe the bowl to being ‘their’ prayers, if indeed they are saints?” The word “saints (ἅγιος- hagios) speaks to God’s holy ones and is used by Paul to describe believers in Christ (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2). This may be considered differently because John does not use this word in his gospel or his epistles. It isn’t until Revelation that John uses the word, but in each instance the context dictates that he is speaking about believers in Christ (Rev. 8:3-4, 11:18, 13:7,10, 14:12, 16:6, 17:6, 18:20,24, 19:8, 20:9). When comparing the concept of the “prayers of the saints” in 5:8 with 8:3-4, there is an angel who is presiding over the offering of the prayers on the altar, which demonstrates that these prayers could have been passed from the elders to the angels, possibly “down the ranks.”

Referring back to the italicized portions of Rev. 5:9-10, the pronouns in question are translated in the ESV as “people,” “them,” and “they.” This shows a contrast from the idea that the elders are representatives of the church to the elders being angels who are proclaiming the future glory of the saints who will reign with Christ. One can not help but to see that this is future tense. The song the elders sing in verse 9 is careful to exalt Jesus Christ first, and then flows into His redemptive work ransoming His partners who will be glorified and rule alongside Him. This understanding bridges any confusion that the “church” interpretation may have caused.

Another point of observation within this passage involves the instruments that the twenty-four elders are holding. They are instruments of worship (harps and bowls containing the prayers of the saints). Missing from this description are the crowns. Why? Because they have already been cast before the Lord, relinquished for those who will reign with Christ (Rev. 5:10, 20:4).

VI. The Eternal Scope of the “Angelic” View Explained

To clarify, the original responsibility of man in creation as purposed by God was to multiply and fill the earth and to have dominion over the earth and over everything that lives on the earth (Gen. 1:26-28). Man’s initial calling was to have dominion (רָדָה, radah- rule, dominate). This rule over the creation seems interesting when one is introduced to a chaotic mess (formless and void) in Genesis 1:2. It is obvious that God, who is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33) allowed creation to be subjected to the effects of Lucifer, who was cast out of heaven (Is. 14:12,15; Luke 10:18) due to his rebellion, even though he held a high position on the mountain of God (Ezekiel 28:14-17). Whatever ruling position that Satan held as a “guardian cherub” before God was forfeited because of his pride and unrighteousness (28:14-16).

With the introduction of man, a new vessel had been designated for the purpose of dominion over the creation (Gen. 1:28). Considering the Adversary had been removed from his position of privilege before God, the idea of tempting these new “rulers” was set into motion in Genesis 3:1-6. Eve, being tempted, disobeyed the command of God and ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (3:6), thus ushering in the fall of man and the forfeiture of the right to rule upon the earth. While the command to “be fruitful and multiply” is reiterated after the fall of man (8:17; 9:1,7; 35:11), the command to subdue the earth and have dominion over it is noticeably missing because of the inability of the command being accomplished due to the forfeiture of the right to rule due to man’s sin.

With the curse of God upon the whole of creation (Gen. 3:14-19), the ruling authority of this present age has been granted to Satan. Scripture records him as “the prince of the power of the air” (Eph. 2:2), “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), and “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11). The apostle John states clearly that “the reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8), which demonstrates that the Adversary has some sort of authority upon the earth (See also Luke 4:6). In fact, Scripture contains instances of disqualified angels (those who rebelled with Lucifer) as ruling from the heavens (Dan. 10:13-21; Eph. 3:10; 6:12).

With this wicked authority comes a cosmic conflict in the unseen realm. The struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the “cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places” (Eph. 6:12). While such episodes as Matt. 17:14-19 and Mark 5:1-13 demonstrate the Lord Jesus’ authority over such powers, the cosmic struggle is one that is aligned between angels and demons (Dan. 10:13; Rev. 12:7). With the struggle being of such, a conclusion can be drawn that heavenly angels who did not rebel with Lucifer (Rev. 12:4) are also in authoritative positions in heaven and carrying out God’s will on the earth (2 Samuel 24:16; Is. 37:36; Dan. 8:16-27, 9:20-23; 10:10-21; Matt. 1:20, 2:19-20, 4:11; Luke 1:26-38; Jude 9; Rev. 1:1, 8:5, 10:1, 16:2-21). This could explain the stephanos nature of the elders wearing a “victor’s crown” because of their refusal to be swayed in Lucifer’s rebellion.

The culmination of history will be with the coming of Christ and His metachoi (partners) as He establishes His righteous rule upon the earth. Upon arrival, the fulfillment of God’s command for man to “have dominion” will be accomplished alongside the promised rule of Jesus Christ (2 Samuel 7:13,16; Zech. 14:9; Luke 1:32-33). The casting of the crowns in Rev. 4:10 can be understood as only happening that one time (and does not occur anywhere else in Scripture) due to the future, active indicative (meaning that this actually happens) nature of the verb βάλλω (ballo). Nothing about the verb suggests that this is a continuous or repetitive action that should be grouped with ὅταν (hotan- whenever) in verse 9. Arlen Chitwood writes,

The scene returns to the twenty-four elders, who arise from their thrones, fall down before God, worship Him, relinquish their crowns to the One Who originally placed them in regal positions, and express adoration to the One worthy “to receive glory and honor and power” (vv. 4, 10, 11)… The action of these angels in Revelation chapter four is significant beyond degree in relation to the central message of this book.

Chitwood further explains,

Angels have ruled over the earth since time immemorial — since that time when God established the government of the earth in the beginning. Angels will still be exercising rulership over the earth at this point in the book, following the judgment of Christians. And angels will continue ruling until Christ and His co-heirs (forming His bride) take the kingdom, following Christ’s return to the earth.

Accordingly, neither Christ nor Christians will receive the crowns which they are to wear during the Messianic Era until af¬ter Christ returns to the earth at the end of the Tribulation. The crown which Christ will wear during the Messianic Era is presently being worn by Satan, as he continues to exercise power over the earth. And the crowns which Christians will wear in that day are presently being worn by two segments of angels — the angels presently ruling with Satan, and the angels who refused to follow Satan when he sought to exalt his throne.

At first glance, this statement may seem controversial, but the Coming of Christ with His metachoi to establish the promised Kingdom on the Earth accomplishes this exact purpose in dealing with earthly opposition (Rev. 19:15, 20) and dethroning the ruling presence of Satan on Earth (Rev. 20:2-3). This understanding of the eternal scope of God’s plan comes more into focus when Revelation 20:4 speaks of thrones that are now occupied by Christ’s metachoi, Tribulation Saints, and those who did not worship the beast or receive the mark. “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years” (Rev. 20:4): Man, having dominion under the authority of his Creator and Sustainer, just as God had commanded in the beginning (Gen. 1:28).

VII. Conclusion

While not a dogmatic issue, an understanding of the identity of the twenty-four elders in Revelation is helpful in affirming God’s full scope of redemptive history in eternity and the sequence of events that surround it. Figuring the elders to represent the church seems plausible, but the evidence affirming their identity as a rank of angels who have been given temporary authority within the cosmic struggle until the crowning of Christ and His partners allows for a consistent understanding of God’s redemptive plan in full, as well as the Scriptures as a whole. This seems evident in the joyous “new song” that is sung in Revelation 5:9-10 where the elders and the four living creatures exalt Christ for His redemptive work and praise His grace in making the saints a “kingdom and priests” unto God. They gloriously declare that those saints will reign alongside Christ! These high ranking angels understand and affirm in their singing the future destiny of faithful believers. When believers take them at their word and understand the fulfillment of the literal Kingdom of Christ on Earth, they should be filled with joy and a deep desire to strive to enter into His rest (Heb. 4:11); to sit alongside Christ, as a partaker with Him, in the Millennium.

Bibliography

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. Revelation: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1971.

Chitwood, Arlen L., The Time of the End. [book online] Accessed 5 January 2012; available from http://lampbroadcast.org/Books/TOE.pdf.

Constable, Tom. Tom Constable's Expository Notes on the Bible. Galaxie Software, 2003.

Elwell, Walter A. and Philip Wesley Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary, Tyndale reference library. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.

Jamieson, Robert., A. R. Fausset, A. R. Fausset et al., A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997.

Louw, Johannes P. and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. New York: United Bible Societies, 1996.

MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible, electronic ed. Nashville: Word Pub., 1997.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things To Come: A Study in Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1964.

Price, Randall. The Temple and Bible Prophecy. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2005.

Radmacher, Earl D. Ronald Barclay Allen and H. Wayne House, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Commentary. Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1999.

Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997.

Ryrie, Charles C. Everyman’s Bible Commentary: Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Bibliotheca Sacra Volume 92, 367. Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1935.

Walvoord, John F. Roy B. Zuck and Dallas Theological Seminary, The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.

Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison and Thomas Nelson Publishers. Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995.

Is the majority wrong?

In studying the Bible, it has been commonly pointed out that 1 Corinthians 15:1-6 is Paul's description of the Gospel. Does anyone else find it odd that belief is not mentioned until verse 11 and eternal life is not to be found? Also, why does Paul use the present tense in v. 2 with the condition of IF they hold fast. This seems to imply that IF they do NOT hold fast, they are not presently being saved. While I completely affirm and believe in the preservation of the saints (OSAS-meaning that it is theologically inconsistent for Paul to be saying this), I can not help but to have some questions about these particular things in this text. Any thoughts?

Book Review of Share Jesus Without Fear by Willliam Fay

The following is a book review that I have done for seminary and I thought it may be helpful to anyone who is interested in reading this book.

Bibliographical Entry

Fay, William and Linda Evans Shepherd. Share Jesus Without Fear. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 1999.

Author Information

William Fay is a former member of the Mafia, with an obsessive-compulsive streak that led him to riches, owning a prostitution house, four wives, and the top of the corporate ladder (p. 185-192). Fay came to faith in Christ after many mishaps with the law and the fear of prison and lack of inner peace looming over him (p.188-190). He now is a believer in Jesus Christ who avidly shares his faith wherever he goes (p. 192).

Content Summary

Share Jesus Without Fear demonstrates an encouraging series of accounts of people won to faith in Christ, while also sharing the method, and answers the objections, that William Fay has employed in almost twenty years of sharing his faith. While kicking off the book with a brief account of his successful beginnings into the corporate world, Fay recounts the beginning seeds that led to a born-again experience (p. 2). Fay’s reiteration of the Christian not being responsible for one’s conversion, but only in being a faithful messenger of the good news is unfolded as what Fay calls “the sin of silence” (p. 6). Fay asserts that an unbelieving person must hear the Gospel 7.6 times before they receive it (p. 11). The encouragement for a believer’s obedience in sharing the Gospel and the vital role that this obedience plays is interwoven throughout Fay’s work.

In addressing the issue of fear, Fay counteracts the many objections that fear arouses in the believer. Using both Scripture and personal experience, Fay is challenging in his pursuit of obedient Christians who share their faith (p. 15-27). Fay displays his method of relational interaction by instituting five thought provoking questions that allow for a transition into spiritual matters. Such questions as “Do you have any spiritual beliefs,” or “What do you think about Jesus,” are just a couple of his “conversation joggers” that begin the transition (p.30-33).

Fay exemplifies the crucial nature of Scripture in the witnessing experience and exalts the Savior through them. Fay demonstrates seven Scripture passages that he uses for evangelism (p. 44) and elaborates on each by showing that he has the lost person read them aloud while repeating back to him what they say (p.45-52). Asking the crucial questions that call a lost person to a decision about Jesus is advocated by Fay and he supplies five “decision” questions that are to lead a person to faith (p. 62-63), all while peppering the text with narrative accounts of situations that he has experienced. Fay is adamant about questioning new believers and provides ten questions that will help cultivate understanding and discipleship for the new believer (p.72-77).

Having many accounts of evangelistic experiences, Fay has had his share of objections and chooses to share the 36 most common objections with the readers and his responses (p.81-112). Such replies as “The church only wants my money,” (p. 106) and “I don’t believe the resurrection took place” (p. 92) are answered by Fay in a way that keeps the focus on the conversion of the individual without being deterred. Fay also allows for helpful pointers in keeping non-Christian friends with an emphasis on the importance of relationships and being sensitive to when the doors are not open for the sharing of the Gospel (p. 124). Helpful content regarding prayer for the unbelievers in one’s life is offered, and sample prayers accompanying a seven day prayer guide are made available (p.135-137).

The book concludes with a final encouragement for all who have read to get moving in sharing their faith, while emphasizing the importance of the task at hand and the eternal nature of the calling to evangelize (p. 141- 144). The five appendixes at the end cover a quick review of the methods and answers from the bulk of the book as well as William Fay’s extended testimony.

Evaluation

While I believe that the author has achieved his intended purpose for this work, I do not believe that his methods and experiences are consistent with a Scriptural nature. Fay is obviously highly motivated, and while this book is filled with good examples of success stories and does an exceptional job of considering the lost person’s perspective, there are many hermeneutical issues and soteriological abuses of Scripture that are troubling. In evaluating this work, I will begin with some of the negative observations.

What seems most lacking in Fay’s work is the foundational principle that salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone. Fay’s approach would be considered one that would resonate with the Lordship Salvationist. This is evident by the use of such passages as John 10:37-38 as a means of leading one to salvation (p. 24). I believe that it can be clearly seen that if an unbeliever has to forsake their father and mother in order to be saved, they are under a gross misrepresentation of grace alone through faith alone and the light burden of Jesus Christ is made into an unbearable weight. What is even more troubling is that I could not find one mention of John 3:16 throughout the entire work. This Scripture is foundational in Jesus’ offer of salvation and I believe that it should be in every evangelistic work as a guideline.

In recounting a story involving “Donna and George,” their daughter wants to share her faith with her parents. The book states that “Donna and George acknowledged they believed. Yet Sherry (the daughter) wasn’t sure that their faith was rooted, because she found no evidence of it in their lives” (p.26). Have works become a part of the equation of justification by faith? If works are to be seen as a result of saving faith, it has become a necessary factor in the equation of saving faith. Fay clearly demands that a “change is required” (p. 90). This is not what Paul clearly teaches in Romans 3:24 and Ephesians 2:8-9. Another example of this mishap can be seen amongst the seven questions.

Instead of belief (faith) in Christ being the requirement for eternal life, Fay’s seven Scriptures perform a rabbit trail that even misuses some passages. For instance, Romans 10:9-10 is used by Fay in his evangelism process. Without regard to context, Fay has the unbeliever read this verse aloud and recites back what it says to them (p.49). Would an unbeliever not be under the impression that confession is necessary for justification? Wouldn’t this conclusion deny faith alone in Christ alone? I believe that it would. The context of this verse deals with Israel as a nation who needs national repentance and not justification by faith for use with the unbeliever. Another problem passage that Fay employs is found in Revelation 3:20 (p. 51). Again, context is disregarded and the verse is abused to speak of justification when it does not. Revelation 3:20 is written to a church (3:14). Fay makes the comment “The lost person must understand that salvation- promised through Jesus’ death- comes to all who surrender their lives to him in faith” (p. 51). “Surrender” and “faith” are most certainly two different concepts that are not intertwined within the pages of Scripture. Again, this leads to a false Gospel presentation. Similar demands are seen in the use of 2 Corinthians 5:15 (p.50), but again, obedience is not a requirement of the biblical Gospel.

The concept of “surrender” as being equated with faith is found again in chapter 6 involving the five questions listed on page 61. The logical problem with one surrendering their life to be saved falls in the category of assurance. When the new believer sins again, post-conversion, assurance of salvation is now distorted because surrender was made, and yet surrender did not solve the problem. This places the focus on the individual and not on th finished and all-sufficient work of Christ. Also troubling in chapter 6 is the question “do you want forgiveness of sins?” (p. 62). This neglects the wonderful statements made in John 1:29 and 1 John 2:2 where Jesus has already dealt with the sin problem. Further on in chapter 6, Fay writes, “We must not lead our friends into an easy faith that does not change their hearts or their lives” (p.63). I would like to ask Fay “How difficult should coming to Jesus in faith be?” While the content of this book certainly makes it cumbersome for one to come to faith in Christ, the Bible does not. An individual is either convinced or not convinced by the facts of the Gospel. In that regard, it is not even a choice, but rather a conviction, much like the definition of faith stated in Hebrews 11:1. Fay continues by saying “We need to invite, to receive, to accept Jesus into our hearts” (p. 63). Which one is it? Or is it all three? If we take this sentence at face value, Fay is asking for three different things. Another question I would have is “Where does the Bible ever talk about inviting Jesus into our hearts?” Again, this is unbiblical terminology that makes salvation confusing. It is not until page 65 that Fay seems to hit the nail on the head by stating “it’s the moment she places her faith and trust in the work and person of Jesus Christ” (p. 65). This would not have seemed so odd except that it was a variation from the other language and terms employed in the book.

Chapter 7 deals with the follow up process for one who has believed. Fay begins this section by asking a great deal of diagnostic questions (p.72-77). I can not find this commanded in Scripture where a believer is called upon to diagnose the validity of one’s faith. This is probably derived from such terms as “spurious faith” or “false faith;” terms that the Bible is unfamiliar with. Fay also employs guilt in having the new believer call a friend and share their faith (p. 74). Luke 9:26 is misused in order to push for evangelism when this verse is concerning the believer’s life in view of the Kingdom and not as a validation of one’s faith. If this were the case, a loss of assurance takes place.

Discipleship is extremely important in the life of a believer, but it is also a separate issue not to be confused with faith. On page 75, Fay is dealing with a couple named Carlton and Gail. Fay speaks of a pastor discipling Carlton, so it is obvious that Fay acknowledges that discipleship is a separate issue, he just does not communicate that in this work. In fact, a misunderstanding of the issue is seen when Fay writes, “What is a disciple? First a disciple is a born-again believer. And second, a disciple needs to grow in his relationship with Christ” (p.78). This issue between disciple and believer are obviously conflicted when such passages as John 12:42-43 are taken into consideration, and faith alone is disregarded. Finally, a failure to document the statistic that it takes 7.6 interactions with the Gospel for one to come to faith in Christ is disheartening (p. 11). This would be a good statistic to use for preaching purposes, if it could be cited as credible.

Concerning the positive aspects of Fay’s book, there is a great regard for relational interaction and allowing for the issues that the unbeliever speaks of to manifest themselves. This can be seen most clearly in the “Hmmm” response that Fay gives after asking the conversation joggers (p. 33). Fay is courteous in asking for “permission” to share his faith (p. 33). While these conversation joggers may seem abrupt, they do get to the heart of the matter to being the dialogue about eternal things (p.30-31). Fay encourages listening (p. 33) and understands that simple things like a “Big Boomer” (a large Bible) would be intimidating to a lost person (p.42). While objections will come, Fay is a master at staying the course and not being derailed (p.43 & 49). He easily eliminates objections (p. 45) and diffuses problems , such as the various translations of the Bible (p. 44). Relationally, Fay encourages the believer to be flexible with the unbeliever. If the opportunity for faith presents itself, do not demand a stop in order to complete a process, but rather cut to the chase (p.48 & 68).

Fay is encouraging in that Christians need to reject the “win them” mentality (p. 17) and simply be obedient in sharing their faith (p. 37). He offers helpful suggestions in getting a new believer involved by suggesting a local church, finding a pastor, and following through with that pastor, and beginning daily Bible reading, starting with the Gospel of John (p. 76-77).

In dealing with the objections that may come from sharing one’s faith, Fay is instructional in using firsthand accounts. He demonstrates that arguments will not accomplish anything (p. 82), questions should be asked to work through problems (p. 83), an understanding of simple apologetics never hurt anyone (p. 84), and finding a creative way to share the Gospel will reap healthy conversation (p.87 & 90).

The addressing of lost friends and praying for them (p. 113-138) is of vital importance due to the tendency for Christians to become comfortable in the confines of the church and neglecting the call to win the lost. Far too many Christians suffer from only having Christian friends. The concluding appendixes (p. 145-192) are helpful in summarizing the main points of the book in an easy to manage format while also providing more information on William Fay and his conversion to Christianity.

Conclusion

Share Jesus Without Fear is inspirational and motivational, but hardly sound in biblical soteriology. Great stories coupled with confusing Gospel presentations and requirements leaves this book lacking in instruction for sharing one’s faith. For the more mature believer, I would encourage them to “chew up the meat and spit out the bones.” However, I would not recommend this work to any new Christian with the fear that I would need to biblically correct a great deal of damage.

THE NEW COVENANT IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

Introduction

The concept of the New Covenant has been referenced and defined many times over by scholars and theologians. Its contents have been expounded upon by pastors and hoped on by Christians around the world. However, there have been some who have misconstrued the meaning of the New Covenant and have taken it out of its proper context. This author seeks to unfold a biblical view and understanding of the New Covenant, its development in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as addressing some of the critical issues surrounding its fulfillment. It is with these goals in mind that one should have a better understanding of the New Covenant and how it applies to life today.

What is the New Covenant?

The “New Covenant” can be found in the book of Jeremiah 31:31-34. The New Covenant is given as a breath of fresh air to the constant prophecies of Israel’s destruction due to their habitual disobedience and unfaithfulness (Jer. 7:30-34; 11:1-23). In defining the “New Covenant,” it seems that there have been various things implied, or added to that are not a part of Jer. 31:31-34. One definition is stated as:

The new agreement God has made with mankind, based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The concept of a new covenant originated with the promise of the prophet Jeremiah that God would accomplish for His people what the old covenant had failed to do (Jer. 31:31–34). Under this new covenant, God would write His Law on human hearts. This promised action suggested a new level of obedience, a new knowledge of the Lord, and a new forgiveness of sin.^[1]

In order to accept this definition, one would have to understand the Mosaic Covenant (Jer. 31:32) as being applied to all of human existence and not to Israel only (Ex. 20:2, 22; 24:1, 7, 9, 11, 17; 25:2). This definition seems to present problems in that all of mankind is not listed as one of the parties of which this covenant was made, neither is there a “new level of obedience” that would need to be in place on the part of mankind because of the unconditional nature of the covenant, and the specific recipients of which the New Covenant is addressed. While the “new covenant” as defined in the New Testament will be addressed, the references are made to the Jeremiah passage as a basis, and must be dealt with accordingly.

Wayne Grudem defines the new covenant as,

The administration of the covenant of grace established after the death and resurrection of Christ, a covenant in which Christ’s atoning death covers all of the believer’s sins and the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to fulfill the righteous demands of the law.[2]

Grudem equates the new covenant with the covenant of grace. Even though there is no mention concerning the Holy Spirit, or “believers” in Jer. 31:31-34, the author applies the covenant to them. In describing this covenant, Grudem states that the parties involved are “God and the people whom he will redeem.”[3] The condition for “participation in the covenant is faith in the work of Christ as redeemer (Rom. 1:17; 5:1; et al.).”[4] This becomes a confusing statement considering that Abraham “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; also Gal. 3:7-9) and this occurred years before the institution of the law (Ex. 20). Also, Grudem’s assertion that the Holy Spirit empowers a believer to fulfill the righteous demands of the law seems to be a very unbiblical statement when verses like Rom. 3:20, 10:4, and Gal. 3:18 (to name a few) are considered. If the law is fulfilled by the death of Christ, how can a believer be expected to do anything more? Would this not nullify faith alone in Christ alone?

Another definition has been stated as:

The term given by Jeremiah to a new arrangement between God and human beings in which the law would be written in their hearts rather than on tablets of stone (Jer. 31:31-33). It is also an alternate translation of the Greek words (kainē diathēkē) that are normally translated ‘New Testament.’ Christians see in Christ the beginning of the new covenant between God and human beings of which Jeremiah spoke.^[5]

Again, the “house of Judah” and the “house of Israel” are specific phrases that have been glazed over in favor of the assumption that the New Covenant is all-inclusive regarding mankind. This seems to be a hermeneutical error that has been allowed and even accepted on a scholarly level. In addressing this problem, Olander writes,

When any theological system denies or is not consistent with God’s biblical covenants as to their literal meaning and outworking, then they also will confuse God’s biblically covenanted program for the destiny of men and Israel, especially relating to the kingdom. If God did not really mean what He said in the biblical covenants, that is if He used types or allegories, how is anyone to understand anything in the Word of God?[6]

It seems that a general belief and acceptance that the New Testament Christian is a part of the nation of Israel has allowed for such an understanding of this covenant. However, the contents of Jer. 31:31-34 do not seem to allow for such a conclusion. By examining the specific contents of the text, one may be able to come to a better and biblically honest conclusion regarding the nature of the New Covenant.

Walking Through the Contents

In examining the contents of the covenant itself, one will find that at a future time, the Lord will make a covenant “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”[7] (Jer. 31:31). The Lord makes a great distinction between this “new covenant” and the covenant that was made with the children of Israel during the Exodus (31:32). The Lord makes mention that this old covenant (known as the Mosaic Covenant) was broken by the children of Israel, even though God had been like a “husband” to Israel, signifying that it was conditional in nature (31:32). This is important due to the continuing description of the new covenant as stating that God will be the one who brings all of the new promises to pass, signifying the unconditional nature of this new covenant (31:33-34). God speaks of writing His law on the hearts of the house of Israel, being their God and they being His people, no longer having a need to teach others to “know the Lord” because all will know Him, and He will “forgive their iniquity” and “remember their sin no more” (31:33-34).

Before proceeding, some important, defining observations must be made regarding this covenant. First, the covenant has a specific audience of whom it is tailored to. Not only is God speaking to Judah (31:1; 23-24; 27) and Israel (31:1; 27), but He names the “house of Israel” twice (31:31, 33) and the “house of Judah” once (31:31) within the prophecy itself. Second, there is a clear distinction made in this new covenant that it will not be upon the people of Israel to uphold it, as seen in the contrast given with the previous (Mosaic) covenant (31:32). Instead, this new covenant would be the responsibility of God alone. This is blatantly obvious from the seven “I will” statements made in 31:31-34. Lastly, there is something eternal about the fulfillment of this covenant. In verse 34, it is stated that there will be no need for someone to teach others about God because “they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” God goes on to state that He will “forgive their (Israel’s) iniquity” and “remember their (Israel’s) sin no more.” For there to be no need of teaching, and no need of exhortation for people to come to the knowledge of God, must surely signify an eternal fulfillment, rather than a present day reality. Each of these sections has become a great point of contention within evangelicalism and will be dealt with later in this paper.

The “New Covenant” in the New Testament

In the definitions of the “New Covenant” that have been considered, there has been a redemptive understanding that has caused some to conclude that Jesus’ atoning work for sins is the work that has instituted the “New Covenant” into present being and therefore the new covenant is presently in effect. While frequent mention is made regarding the death and resurrection of Christ being a “new covenant,” and even Jesus’ mentioning during the Last Supper that the wine is a symbol of the “covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28), there is not a mention of the fulfillment of the specifics that are laid out in Jer. 31:31-34. In order to attribute the new covenant to having fulfillment in the death of Christ, one would need to disregard the specifics of the covenant (law written on hearts, no need to teach others, all will know the Lord), the recipients of the covenant (Israel and Judah), and allegorize the teachings of the New Testament (personal fulfillment of the law despite Christ’s work- Rom. 10:4). In fact, in doing a study upon the phrase “new covenant” in the New Testament, there are seven mentions that are given: one of them in Luke 22:20 (referring to the shedding of Christ’s blood and of which some manuscripts have omitted this verse all together), 1 Cor. 11:25 (which uses the phrase specifically referring to the blood that was shed without regard to Jer. 31:31-34), 2 Cor. 3:6 (where Paul speaks of being a minister of a new covenant without mentioning Jer. 31:31-34), and four mentions in Hebrews (all of which speak of Jer. 31:31-34 or are within the context of this passage, as it is stated again in Heb. 8:8-12). This may seem to make for a confusing conclusion regarding the use of the phrase “new covenant” in the New Testament, but looking to the book of Hebrews will provide for a greater understanding.

The “New Covenant” in the Epistle to the Hebrews

The book of Hebrews is written to Judaic Christians who were under pressure to revert back to Judaism. The writer of Hebrews brings constant exhortation to the recipients in proclaiming that Christ is better than any symbol or tradition that Judaism would have to offer because He is all sufficient. After proclaiming the superiority of the heavenly priesthood of which Christ belongs to (Heb. 7:1-8:4), the writer of Hebrews speaks of Christ being the mediator of a better covenant compared to the Mosaic covenant (8:5-7). The writer makes it clear that the former (Mosaic) covenant was not faultless and a new covenant was needed (8:7). It is important to understand that the reason for the “faulty” nature of the Mosaic Covenant was not due to the covenant itself, but to the inability for humans to keep it due to the sinful nature of the flesh (Rom. 3:20). In finding fault with “them,” the author of Hebrews quotes Jer. 31:31-34 in Heb. 8:8-12. The summary statement in 8:13 says, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” The new covenant described here will supersede the Mosaic covenant.

Moving forward in the book of Hebrews, the writer is speaking of the death of Christ as “securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12) and being the “mediator of a new covenant” (9:15, also in Heb. 12:24). It becomes obvious from this section that the new covenant was “ratified through the Messiah’s sacrifice.”[8] Ger explains:

The Mosaic covenant, called here “the first covenant,” was not designed to provide apolutrosin, “redemption,” as was the new covenant. Whereas the new covenant’s raison d’itre was the definitive removal of sin (Jer. 31:34, Heb. 8:12), the Mosaic covenant’s limitations only allowed for the covering of sin.[9]

In concluding that the death of Christ has ratified the new covenant, by no means should one rush forward and see this as a fulfillment. The specifics of the new covenant still raise issue as not having a literal fulfillment. Walvoord explains:

Though Hebrews 8:7–12 refers to Jeremiah’s covenant (Jer. 31:31–34), the Book of Hebrews does not claim that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today in its entirety, as amillenarians suggest. The facts are that many details of the covenant are not being fulfilled today: everyone does not know the Lord today; there is no widespread spiritual revival; Israel has not reclaimed all the land God promised her; and God’s laws are not in the hearts of Israel. The writer of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31–34 simply to show that the Mosaic Covenant had been abolished, and something better will come.^[10]

It does not seem like a difficult matter to grasp regarding the outworking of this new covenant. The promises of God are either literal and should be taken at face value, or they are up in the air and any “reasonable” guess will suffice. This latter method allows for violence to be done to the text and disregards the specifics in hopes of a general placement.

How Should Believers Interpret the New Covenant?

So, where does this leave the believer who is working through these passages and scratching his or her head? A good rule of thumb has always been that if the text makes sense, why would one seek another sense? One who would hold to a Covenant position would understand the church to be the eventual fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, while the Dispensationalist would disagree, choosing to keep the church and Israel separate. In order to understand the church as being the means of fulfillment for promises made to Israel, one would have to resort to the very allegorical method that has caused such confusion in the definitions that have been observed. This seems to be the case when any author (Covenant or Dispensational) has a theological axe to grind. By taking the text in a plain reading, it seems that the Dispensational hermeneutic will suffice in providing a reasonable conclusion. Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes that,

In Dispensationalism it is possible to believe in only one New Covenant, already ratified by the blood of the Messiah with the spiritual blessings available to Jewish and Gentile believers today, but with the national, material, and spiritual blessings for Israel still awaiting a future fulfillment. As with the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, not all provisions of each covenant go immediately into effect upon ratification.[11]

This seems to be a plausible argument when one takes into consideration passages like Romans 11:25-27 which shows that Israel is presently in a state of “partial hardening.” However, “all Israel will be saved,” and this is demonstrated from a quotation from Isaiah which explains that “the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27, emphasis mine). It seems evident from the language implied that the “covenant” and the taking “away their sins” are the same as the promises mentioned in Jer. 31:34. By removing the ungodliness from Jacob (Israel), the Deliverer (Christ) will ensure that all of Israel will be saved. Again, by taking the Scriptures for what they say and working accordingly, there is much less confusion and more of a complete understanding regarding the meaning of the text.

The Points of Contention

The points of contention that may be found in Jer. 31:31-34 are as follows: the recipients of the prophecy (v.31), the contrast between the Mosaic and the New covenants (v.32), and the specifics mentioned in verse 34 regarding the writing of the law on the hearts of the people, there being no need to teach others to know the Lord, and the removal of sin. Each point must be dealt with in order to show a sufficient harmony between the understanding of the Scriptures as a unit and how one should interpret them in light of this understanding. It is only with this type of understanding that one will be able to have a confident argument in interpreting Jer. 31:31-34.

The Church and Israel

The difference between the church and Israel is most notable in the Scriptures and the distinctions become quite clear the longer one reads. It can be seen during the ministry of Jesus when He commanded His disciples to “go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). It is obvious here that the Gentiles and the Samaritans (half-breeds) are seen as separate in Jesus’ plan and that a special call was being issued to the Jews: that of the “kingdom of heaven being at hand” (v.7). In Acts 2, there is a blatant beginning of a new entity that is seen as separate from Israel because of its mention of converts on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:36-41). It would seem absurd for such a call to repentance to land these converts right back into the midst of Judaism. Again, a distinction can be seen by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10:32 is saying, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” It is obvious here that the distinction between the Greeks (Gentiles), Jews (Israel), and the church are necessary. By taking these distinctions at face value, one aligns themselves with Dispensational hermeneutics. Ryrie writes,

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.^[12]

While labels may throw the average bible student, the plain reading of the text, or the “historical-grammatical” means of interpretation is what is employed by the Dispensationalist in reading the Scriptures. This allows for consistency in keeping the church and Israel separate.

Conditional vs. Unconditional

The nature of the unconditional covenant in Scripture is one that is resting upon God for its accomplishment. This unconditional nature can be seen most notably in the covenant that is made with Abram in Genesis 15 with God passing through the sacrifices laid out by Abram (Gen. 15:17) and the promise of the land being laid contingent on the Lord’s faithfulness alone (v. 18-21). (This land promise (v.18) is still awaiting fulfillment, seeing that the boundary markers mentioned have never been accomplished in Israel’s lifetime.) The unconditional nature of this covenant is similar to that made in Jer. 31:33-34 where it can been seen that God repeats “I will” five time signifying that the result rest upon His faithfulness and not upon the performance of Israel.

The essence of the conditional covenant is seen as an agreement between God and the children of Israel as found in the giving of the Law (Ex. 20:1-23:33). In Exodus 24:3, 7, the children of Israel agree to uphold their end of the covenant that they had received by acts of obedience. In their failure (Jer. 11:10; Ezek. 44:7), God was no longer obligated to protect Israel and ensure her safety. This demonstrates the contrast mentioned in Jer. 31:32 regarding the conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant as opposed to this new covenant being made.

The Specifics of Jeremiah 31:34

The natural sense of interpreting Jer. 31:31-34 would be to take into account the recipients, the contrasts, and the specifics as noted earlier. This would allow for the reader to understand how and where the new covenant fits within the grand scheme of God’s plan. This plain and literal approach seems to yield the greatest benefits in one’s Bible study. For instance, in looking at Jer. 31:31-34, Dr. Joseph C. Dillow remarks that,

It is obvious that v.34 is in no way fulfilled at the present time. Certainly it is not true that all know the Lord and that there is no longer a need for personal evangelism. The New Covenant was certainly inaugurated at the cross, and we enter in to some of its benefits at the time we believe. But its final fulfillment has not yet taken place and indeed will not until the coming kingdom and the eternal state. Similarly, the ultimate writing of His law upon our hearts and minds will be characteristic of the believer when he has achieved the goal of his justification, glorification. Complete sanctification comes when we receive our resurrection body and not before.[13]

It is precisely this issue that is at the forefront of the new covenant. While Christ’s death and resurrection may ratify the covenant, it in no way merits automatic fulfillment. This allows for the contention found in dealing with the specifics (Jer. 31:34) to be resolved without committing biblical fraud. To understand this passage as written is to conclude something of a national revival on the part of the house of Israel. Without a need to teach or evangelize, because “they shall all know me” (v.34), this seems to have an eternal fulfillment due to the all-enlightening nature of these specifics. While it would be easy to disregard these as non-essentials, the text deals with great issues, particularly that of forgiveness of sin and a national (Israel) understanding of God.

Conclusion

While the New Covenant as mentioned in Jer. 31:31-34 has suffered from much scholarly spiritualization, it should not be seen as more than what it is. Theological systems will not allow for the flexibility that one would reach on purely hermeneutical conclusions. This is why allowing the Bible to dictate one’s theology is crucial to the understanding of the Scriptures as a unit and not only in part. While there can be an agreement that the new covenant is ratified by the death and resurrection of Christ, in no way should one take the liberty to assume an automatic fulfillment. In doing so, the miraculous nature and the accomplishment of the prophecy when it comes to fruition, is covered up by rationalizations and the desire to cram the church into the wedding gown of Israel. This prophecy will be breathtaking when it is fulfilled, so why not allow for its fulfillment, just as the text says.

---

^[1] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).

[2] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2004), 1249.

[3] Ibid. 519.

[4] Ibid.

^[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 698.

[6] David E. Olander. Vol. 9, The Conservative Theological Journal Volume 97, 327 Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Theological Seminary, 2005.

[7] This distinction is made due to the dividing of the nation of Israel that occurred after the death of Solomon and the unwise decision of his successor Rehoboam in looking to enforce greater stipulations on the people of Israel (1 Kings 12:1-15). Israel revolted and was divided in to “Israel” in the north and “Judah” in the south (1 Kings 12:16-24).

[8] Steven Ger. The Book of Hebrews: Christ Is Greater ed. Mal Couch & Ed Hindson (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2009), 154.

[9] Ibid. 155.

^[10] John F. Walvoord., Understanding Christian Theology ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1300.

[11] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001), 363.

^[12] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 48.

[13] Joseph C. Dillow. The Reign of the Servant Kings:A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1992), 149-150.

For years, there has been a struggle within the church regarding the role of works in the Christians life. Sadly, many people subscribe to works as part of one’s salvation by adding stipulations to the Gospel of grace in stating that one must “turn from sin” (which is never used of the Greek word metanoeo in the New Testament or in the LXX), “commit one’s life,” or “act like a Christian” in order for their salvation to be valid. These common “calls” are not only unscriptural, but they are also a work that the preacher has added to salvation. (For an opinion on how Paul feels about that see Galatians 1:8-9, a book in which Paul never even uses the word “repentance”).

Many times, the role of works has been qualified in a summary commonly known as “perseverance.” The two major schools of theology both believe in perseverance, but both draw different, and unbiblical conclusions that have a common ground: leaving the struggling believer in Hell! In viewing the Christian life through the eyes of a Calvinist, they would say that as long as the Christian “endures” or perseveres to the end, they are “truly” saved but that no one can really have assurance until their death. This is found to be lacking in biblical evidence (without violating foundational doctrines) and leaves the Christian in a constant state of paranoia. Regarding the many passages that are listed in the New Testament like Galatians 5:16-21, Dr. Robert Wilkin remarks that, “Reformed theology… suggests that all true Christians persevere in faith and good works. Thus no genuine believer could die as an immoral man, an alcoholic, or even as a jealous or angry man, since those character traits are on the vice lists as well. The problem with this view is that it still makes good works a condition of getting into the kingdom and fails to harmonize the passages. If you got into the kingdom because you persevered in good works, and another person didn’t because he failed to, you would have grounds for boasting and God would be your debtor.”^[1]

The Arminian view does not fair any better in that the conclusion made is that one has lost their salvation. Being saved at one time, the “believer” is now lost once more, either by their own choice, or by repeated sin in their life. The belief of the Remonstrants states: “True believers can through their own fault fall into horrible sins and blasphemies, persevere and die in the same: and accordingly they can finally fall away and go lost.’ The Remonstrants thus taught the possibility of a loss of justification.”^[2] This makes a mockery of John 10:28 where Jesus states plainly “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.” Dr. Charles Ryrie used to tell his students that if eternal life does not mean forever, then it’s got the wrong name!

So how should we look at good works and their purpose in the Christian life? A response that is often given is that of the fact that good works are done because of our love for Christ in what He has done for us in saving us. While this is true, it is often left as the only explanation given. In looking at 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, the Christian will read of his or her future judgment at the Bema (Judgment) Seat of Christ. It is important for the Christian to understand that this Judgment is not one concerning eternal salvation, but rather the works done by the Christian on earth, whether good or bad. Eternal salvation was an issue that was settled the moment one comes to place their faith in Christ alone as the object of salvation. When this happens, they are granted eternal life as a gift from God. In looking at 1 Corinthians 3:10-15:

“According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” ^[3](emphasis mine)

When we read this carefully, we see that all believers have the same foundation, Jesus Christ. This is the believer’s justification. How we build upon this foundation is involving our sanctification. Our works will be tested before the Lord and all will be saved (because they are all believer’s in Jesus Christ), but some will receive a reward (those who persevere), and some will suffer loss. In looking at 2 Corinthians 5:10:

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.”^[4]

It is a common misconception that all believers will inherit everything simply on the basis that they are believers. This is an idea that is usually derived from a lack of complete Biblical teaching in their church concerning the 2^nd greatest day of the believer’s life. One needs only to look at Luke 19:11-27 to see that there is a great distinction between those who are faithful and obedient (“Well done, good servant!” v.17- rules over 10 cities), those who are “pretty faithful” and obedient (v.18- 5 cities), and the servant who is not faithful (v. 24-26- what he has is taken away). Some things that we must observe here is that:

1. All of these are servants with the exception of the “citizens” mentioned in v. 14,

2. The citizens are dealt with in verse 27 (the context and qualifiers leave no room for error in this)

3. That the servants receive a reward for faithfulness, and loss for lack of faithfulness, regarding all that God has entrusted to them.

A Christian may come to the conclusion that this view provides an indifferent way in serving the Lord that just doesn’t seem right because there is a part of “self” in the equation. Let’s look at this from the perspective that:

1. We are not in competition with one another as believers, so there is no jealousy that needs to be aroused or ill-will against other Christians. The only thing that will matter is our deeds before the Lord.

2. The motivation in doing good works is much like the motivation of coming to know Christ as our Savior. Yes, it is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone, but at the same time, I am sure that we understood that we did not want to go to Hell and that it was not a place that we ever wanted to be. Therefore, the decision to accept the free gift of eternal life was something that held our best interest in mind. So it is with doing good works.

Let me say in closing that when God first opened my eyes to this clear teaching of Scripture, I was appalled and offended and wanted nothing to do with it. However, through prayer, study, people praying for me, and trying to look at the Scriptures apart from a view that was twisting my interpretation, I have found that being commended by the Lord for good works done in His Name is a genuine motivator for living out the commands of Scripture and has caused me to be more diligent in my study of the Word in order to know how to please Him! I pray that it will do the same for you.

---

^[1] Robert Wilkin, The Road to Reward: Living Today in the Light of Tomorrow (Irving, TX.: Grace Evangelical Society, 2003), 127–128.

^[2] Jeremy D. Myers, “The Gospel Under Siege,” vol. 16, Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society Volume 16, 2 (Irving, TX: The Grace Evangelical Society, 2003), 46.

^[3] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 1 Co 3:10–15.

^[4] The Holy Bible : English Standard Version. (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001), 2 Co 5:10.