Add/remove tags to this thread

Topic: 8) Suspension

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Status: Offline
Posts: 939

8) Suspension


David Hill (27 Sep 2003) "The Theocratic Covenant (10)"

Being a critique of George Peters' Book The Theocratic Kingdom

S U S P E N S I O N :

"So that, in the very nature of the case, the Mosaic Covenant being also a legitimate, but yet inferior, resultant of the previous covenant, it must itself, when the original covenant is to be fulfilled, give place to its superior." (Vol 1, pg 312)

We have previously shown that the Mos. Cov., as the Ab. and Dav., is a perpetual oath-bound covenant that initiated the Theocracy. Thus, in these particulars, the Mosaic Covenant is equal to the latter two. So, we must understand how Peters equates this covenant as being "inferior" to these others, or that it will "give place" to its superior (which statement is unsupported by Scripture, being pure inference).

"God's purpose to establish a Theocratic Kingdom will not fail because of its being conditionally set up at Mt. Sinai; that if the Jews rebel against their King and He gives them up to punishment, yet His promise to Abraham - which we see here already takes the form of an outward, external, real Theocratic Kingdom - will ultimately be carried into successful accomplishment." (Vol 1, pg 312)

The only inferiority presented by the author is that this Mos. Cov. is not currently being fulfilled and thus implies that it never will be, but that the Ab. and Dav. will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. This argument can be overturned by two points; that neither the Ab. or Dav. covenants are currently being fulfilled EITHER, and that non-fulfillment is no proof of dis-annulment of a covenant (his own proof - Vol 1, pg 303 etc).

"The fact of his [Abraham's] not inheriting is plainly stated in the Scriptures, and that we are directed to the future, to the resurrection period, for its say that all this was fulfilled in the occupation of Palestine by the preparatory or initiatory possession of it by the descendants of Abraham, is not only contradicted by Scripture, but is a virtual limiting of the promise. Kurtz...observes, what History attests, that the descendants never possessed the land promised to Abraham from the Nile to the Euphrates...It is only by a perversion of facts that a fulfillment can be made out, although it is attempted under the reigns of David and Solomon." (Vol 1, pgs 297-8)

Here we note that the Ab. Cov. is not currently being fulfilled, nor was it fulfilled in the time of Abraham, and it was not fulfilled under the Mosaic Economy (which is his point for the inferiority of the Mosaic Covenant), nor was it fulfilled under the Davidic Economy. This, by his reasoning, implies the inferiority of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants and their dis-annulment similarly to his view of the Mosaic. Taken altogether, however, it shows us that they will all be fulfilled in God's time - not that one is inferior to the other, for they all failed by unbelief, which failure required the advent of One who would not fail and thus would fulfill all the covenants.

It would be well to point out that the arguments in the New Testament concerning the Mosaic Covenant and the Church's relation to the same, were designed to show that the Church was not subject to the ordinances and not to prove that it had been "abrogated" (to abolish by authoritative action). To try and prove the latter design, using the arguments from the former is to take liberties with the Word that he (and all others) doesn't have the Scriptural Authority to do, as he himself admits (Vol 1, pg 634) stating that there was no "direct verbal abrogation of the Mosaic institutions" which is conclusive, for, if the Mos. Cov. was confirmed forever by the oath of God Himself, then it would require (Gal 3:15) a direct command from God Himself to abolish it, which the author states elsewhere as "the most precise and determinate instructions should be presented, affirming the same. Now the lack of these is evidence of the correctness of our position." (Vol 1, pg 230), in reference to the abrogation of the Ab. Cov. that some teach.

Since this command was never given, then it is folly to suggest that the Mosaic Covenant has been repealed or abolished, just as it would be of the Abrahamic or Davidic or even of the New. Thus, as far as Israel goes (Judah), they are "estranged" from God (Ez 14:5, Jer 19:4), and all three covenants are held in suspension or abeyance, as the alloted curses run their course. But none of the covenants have been voided, nor can they ever be.


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Members Login

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard