Master's conclusion is this: "In my judgment, to argue that Hebrews 8:6
presents the New covenant as now functioning is based on a weak translation
and the misappropriation and misapplication of this translation."
I can't go there. If I went there, I'd be a full-blown covenantalist. He
makes a big deal about the grammar used here, but very little of the entire
argument... which is, the reason that Jeremiah 31 is being quoted in Hebrews
8 is precisely this: the future (spoken of in Jeremiah 31) is now (Hebrews
8). The "future is now" is THE running theme through Hebrews, esp. given
the prologue: God long ago spoke to our fathers through the prophets (the
future), but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son (is now).
Hebrews 8 is more of the same and should not be disconnected from the whole
of the argument.
Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph R. Terrell" <pastor@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 8:46 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
> Dear Chad,
>
> Just a thought regarding the quote below:
>
> A couple of weeks ago I read a paper on Dispensationalism written by the
one
> of my early theology professors, Dr. John Master, now a professor at PBU.
> At any rate, he was trying to predict the next step in the developement of
> dispensational theology. Part of his argument concerned what I would call
a
> pan-hermeneutic, i.e and over-riding principle or telos of Scripures and
> history, to wit, redmeption. (I cannot recall if he out it in so many
> words, I just recall that I thought he was setting that forth. I also
> remember my history professor (You likely remember Dr. McGoldrick) saying
> that history was redemptive.
>
> However, as I considered that, it occured to me that redemption is not the
> over-arching hermeneutical principle of scripture and history. Rather,
all
> things are to be interpreted in the light of the God's glorification of
> Himself in His Son the Lord Jesus. Redemption is subservient to that
goal,
> as are all other things.
>
> This serves to enhance your point that eschatolgy precedes soteriology,
for
> it does preced soteriology as a motivating principle in the decrees of
God.
> The fulfillment of that goal (God self-glorification) IS eschatology, in
> fact, it would be good if all eschatological statements were tested and
> framed teleologically: that is, how does my view of things to come conform
> to the ultimate glorification of God in Jesus Christ.
>
> Sadly, most eschatological systems have little to do with Christ and his
> glory. They have more to do with setting dates or ordering events or
> describing future creation.
>
> At any rate, I think we will understand history and Scriptures better if
we
> keep that telos in mind.
>
> BTW, one way in which this telos has been acheived in the fullness of the
> gospel is the way in which Jesus fulfills all the mediatorial offices of
> messiah: He is more than just the prohet, priest and king of his people:
He
> is prophet, AND the message; Priest AND the sacrifice, King AND law. All
> things, indeed, have joined in him. He is the perfection of God;s
purpose.
>
> I know this is a bit rambling, but I'm writing fast!
>
> Joe T
>
> BTW, if you want to read the papaer by Master, it can be found at:
>
> http://www.etsjets.org/meetings/2002/future-of.PDF
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] inferred deeper meanings
>
>
>
> > Redemption is the central thought/reason for revelation.
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>