How does Hebrews 2:5-9 develop themes found in Genesis 1:26-28, Psalm 8 and Galatians 3:19?

No more than 2000 words.

You may find it helpful to consult O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants; Peter J. Leithart, A House For My Name: A survey of the Old Testament; good commentaries on Genesis and Hebrews; and the chapter on angels in J. B. Jordan’s Through New Eyes.

But most of all, you’ll need to think hard about how the themes found in Hebrews 2:5-9 are developed throughout the Bible. Other biblical texts besides those mentioned in the title will be significant in helping you piece together the various strands of biblical material.

[The Arminians] attribute a certain causality to faith, so that God is moved by its foresight to choose this rather than that one … Moreover, they make a twofold decree of election: the first general, of saving believers; the second special, of saving individuals by name whom God foresaw would believe. (Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357)

Here’s a clip to give you a flavour:

We are not better theologians than God. We must learn from Scripture … how to address God’s people … and call our congregations ‘God’s chosen people’ and assure them, as Peter and Paul and all the rest do, that Jesus died for them, that they are God’s temple, the temple of the Holy Spirit.” (John Barach, “Covenant and Election,” p. 34)

1. What echoes of Calvin’s approach to the doctrine of election do you find in Barach’s introduction to the subject (pp. 15-17; cf. also pp. 25, 37)?

2. What does Barach believe about the doctrine of predestination? On what bases does he argue his case? (pp. 17-19)

3. Why, according to Barach, do “perhaps twenty out of seven hundred” people receive the Lord’s Supper in some Reformed churches (p. 19)? What erroneous logic leads to this practice?

4. What, according to Barach, is the Arminian position on election (pp. 19-20)? Would you be inclined to nuance this claim in any way (cf. Turretin, Institutes, IV.xi.7; 1:356-357)?

5. What is the “[other] view more popular in our circles” (p. 20)? What pastoral problems does this view tend to produce (pp. 20-21)?

6. What point does Barach seek to make from Hebrews 10 and John 15? Why is this important to his argument (p. 22-23)?

7. What historic pedigree does Barach claim for his view (p. 23; cf. pp. 39-41)? What does this tell us about “Reformed theology”?

8. In what ways is the language of God’s “chosen ones” and “elect ones” used in Scripture (pp. 24-25)? What texts does Barach mention in this context?

9. How would Barach respond to the claim that NT talks about an entirely different kind of election from the OT (p. 27)? Are you persuaded? What other texts might helpfully be cited in this context?

10. What “three things” must be held “together as we think about the relationship between covenant and election” (p. 31; cf. pp. 31-32)? How do the texts discussed in the preceding pages (pp. 27-31) support these conclusions?

11. What happens if we ignore or marginalise the significance of God’s covenant in our reading and application of Scripture (pp. 32-33)?

12. How does Barach flesh out the relationship between salvation-history and God’s decree (p. 36)?

13. Are you uncomfortable with any of the terminology Barach discusses on p. 37?

14. “If apostasy is a real danger, can we ever have assurance?” (p. 39; cf. 35-36)?

15. Does Calvin think we can be sure of our election? If so, how? (III.xxiv.1-5) Do you find any problems with Calvin’s argument here?

16. What biblical texts come to the forefront in Calvin’s discussion of the perseverance of the elect (III.xxiv.6-11)? Could any others have been mentioned?

17. Why does Calvin take such trouble to distinguish two different senses of “election” in his discussion of Judas (III.xxiv.9)?

18. What differences exist between God’s dealings with the elect and his dealings with the reprobate (III.xxiv.12-14)?

Here are most of the questions; the rest will follow soon.

1. How does the doctrine of predestination lead to “the three benefits” (p. 922) discussed in section III.xxi.1?

2. What “two kinds of men” (p. 922) does Calvin mention? What are their mistakes? (sections III.xxi.2-4)

3. How does Calvin define foreknowledge and predestination (III.xxi.5)?

4. What two “degrees” of election does Calvin discuss? How do they relate to each other? (III.xxi.5-7)

5. What misunderstanding does Calvin tackle in sections III.xxii.1-6? Why do you think people might be attracted to the view Calvin rejects?

6. What texts does Calvin cite in support of his position (III.xxii.1-6)? What do you think of his argument here?

7. Calvin notes that the apostle Paul does not use a certain argument in Rom 9 (section III.xxii.8; cf. III.xxii.11). What is this argument, and what conclusion does Calvin draw from its omission?

8. What is “the subtlety of Thomas” (III.xxii.9)? How does Calvin respond?

9. How does the logic of Romans 9 support Calvin’s argument in section III.xxiii.1?

10. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.2-5? How does he respond?

11. “If God has predestined my sin, he can’t blame me for it.” How would Calvin not respond (III.xxiii.6-8)? What would he say (III.xxiii.9)? Do you think this is adequate?

12. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.10-11? How does he respond?

3. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.12? How does he respond?

14. What objection does Calvin address in sections III.xxiii.13? How does he respond?

And a cracking one-liner from Augustine:

“God’s grace does not find but makes us fit to be chosen” (Augustine, quoted in Calvin, Institutes, III.xxii.8)

1. Bearing in mind the distinctions outlined on pp. 229-230, and remembering the importance of both corporate and individual aspects, is covenant of grace conditional or unconditional? (cf. pp. 229-234; Gen 22)

2. How does Johannes Cocceius’ understanding of the covenant of redemption reflect the unity and plurality within the Godhead (p. 235)?

3. How do Thomas Boston’s and Herman Bavinck’s understandings of the covenant of redemption support their view of the unconditionality of the covenant of grace (pp. 237-238)? Do you find this reasoning compelling?

4. What considerations led some Reformed theologians to distinguish “between the internal essence and the external administration” of the covenant (pp. 238-239)? What do you make of Murray’s treatment of this subject?

5. “As signs and seals they [the sacraments] possessed no virtue in themselves but derived all their efficacy from the spiritual realities signified by them” (p. 239). Discuss.

6. How does Murray’s case for paedobaptism derive from his theology of the covenants (pp. 239-240)?

Ch 11. Excursus: Which structures Scripture – Covenants or Dispensations?

1. Why, according to Robertson’s brief comments on p. 201, is “covenant” a significant framework through which to understand biblical revelation?

2. What alternative system of structuring biblical revelation does Robertson interact with? What caveats does he note?

3. How do the later dispensational treatments of Gen 1-3 differ from the later developments (pp. 204-206)?

4. What crucial passage does dispensationalism misunderstand in its elaboration of “the dispensation of conscience”? With what effects? (pp. 206-208)

5. “The treatment of the ‘covenant’ with Noah ['the dispensation of human government'] in dispensational thinking may be characterized as secularistic rather than redemptive-historical” (p. 210). What exegetical factors lead dispensationalism towards this way of thinking?

6. What “basic dualism” (p. 212) in dispensational thinking is manifested in their treatment of the covenant with Abraham? How does it arise? What “basic distinction” is “involved in God’s treatment of his elect people” (p. 214)?

7. What misunderstanding leads dispensationalists to postulate a “Palestinian covenant” (pp. 217-218)?

8. What is Robertson’s “focal point of disagreement with dispensationalism” (p. 220) concerning the Davidic covenant? What evidence does he adduce to establish his view (pp. 220-221)?

9. How do dispensationalists believe Jesus responded to the Jewish rejection of his kingship? How did Jesus actually respond (p. 224)?

10. What implications does Robertson believe that dispensationalist thinking has for understanding Jesus’ resurrection (pp. 225-227)?

11. “The present age is not a ‘parenthesis’ unforeseen by the prophets of old” (p. 227). Why do dispensationalists disagree?

Ch 12. David: The covenant of the kingdom

12. Bearing in mind Gen 3:15, Ex 3:17 and Josh 15:63, why might it be significant that “David took Jerusalem from the Jebusites” (p. 230)?

13. Explain the “interconnection between dynasty and dwelling-place” (p. 232).

14. What does “son of God” mean in the context of the Davidic covenant (pp. 233-234)?

15. Was the Davidic covenant conditional or unconditional (pp. 243-249)?

16. How does Robertson resolve the difficulty that (in apparent contradiction of 2 Sam 7) “the descendants of David ceased to occupy the throne of Israel” (p. 249)?

Ch 13. Christ: The covenant of consummation

17. What aspects of the New Covenant does Robertson identify on pp. 274-277? Do you have any reflections on these?

18. Why does Jeremiah emphasise the forgiveness of sins available under the New Covenant (p. 283)?

19. What is wrong with R. K. Harrison’s claim that the New Covenant manifested “personal, as opposed to corporate, spirituality” (p. 286)?

20. How does Robertson relieve “the tension between individuality and corporateness in the new covenant” (pp. 287-288, cf. 289-290)?

21. How does Robertson explain Jeremiah’s apparent insistence that under the New Covenant there will be no need for teachers (p. 293)? Do you agree?

1. “From the very outset, God intends by the covenant of redemption to realise for man those blessings originally defaulted under the covenant of redemption” (p. 91). What evidence does Robertson adduce in this chapter to support this conclusion? Why is this claim important?

2. Who, according to Robertson, is Satan’s “seed” (p. 98)? What biblical data does Robertson adduce to support his conclusion (pp. 99-103)? Can you think of any other relevant biblical texts?

3. What light does Genesis 3:15 shed on “the cherem-warfare of Joshua’s day”? (p. 102; cf. pp. 93-101)

4. What six characteristics of the covenant with Noah does Robertson identify (pp. 110-125)?

5. How does Robertson defend his contention that the Noahic covenant is a “bond-in-blood” (p. 124)? What implications might follow if he is mistaken at this point (recall our previous discussion of Robertson’s definition of a covenant; session 25, questions 1-3)?

6. What does Jeremiah 34 tell us about the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the events of Jeremiah’s day (pp. 131-137)?

7. How is the imagery of “birds of the air / heavens” employed in Mark 4:32 (cf. Ezek 17:23; 31:6, 13)? What light does this shed on the discussion on p. 135-137?

8. How are “death” and “covenant” related (p. 139)? How does this illuminate Hebrews 9:15-20 (pp. 139-141, 144)?

9. “This absolute openness to the incorporation of Gentiles into the community of Israel has far-reaching significance affecting the interpretation of massive portions of Old and New Testaments” (p. 154). Why?

10. “The circumcision symbol of the old covenant has no value whatsoever unless it be joined with the true righteousness which it represents … The symbol of circumcision under the old covenant is not the thing which makes a man acceptable to God. Only the true circumcision of the heart by the Spirit accomplishes the cleansing which is sufficient to make a man acceptable to God” (pp. 160-161). Does this make you a little uneasy? If so, why?

11. According to Robertson, what bearing do the ancient Hittite treaties have on the dating of Deuteronomy (pp. 168-169)? What do you think of this argument?

12. “Whatever concept of law may be advanced [concerning the Mosaic era], it must at all times remain subservient to the broader concept of covenant” (p. 171). What does this mean? Do you agree? Why does it matter?

13. Robertson believes that Dt 9:9, 11 emphasize “the externalized character of the Mosaic law-administration,” whose “stone-engraven character” can be described as “stark” and “cold” (p. 173). Do you agree? Why or why not?

This is a great book. It’s terse, easy to read, thoroughly biblical, and full of sane, nuanced judgments about issues that have become strangely controversial in more recent times. This is one of the benefits of reading older stuff – it enables us to look at contemporary issues from a perspective removed from the heat (and confusion) of controversy.

I have one or two quibbbles; for example, I’m not sure I accept Robertson’s objection to the idea of an eternal covenant between the Father and the Son. But you can make up your own mind about those. All in all, this is a very good book indeed.

1. What do you make of Robertson’s definition of a covenant as “a bond in blood sovereignly administered” (p. 4; cf. pp. 4-15)?

2. How does Robertson deploy his definition of a covenant is his discussion of the “pre-creation covenantal bond between the persons of the Trinity” (p. 53; cf. p. 54)?

3. Could our previous reading on the doctrines of God and creation provide any support for the idea of an eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity?

4. Why might someone reject the idea that God established a covenant with Adam? How does Robertson reply? (ch. 2) What do you think? Why does this matter?

5. How, according to Robertson, are the creation, Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants related? In what sorts of ways does Robertson make his case here? (ch. 3) What do you think of this argument? Why is Robertson’s conclusion important?

6. What is significant about Ezekiel 37:24-26 (p. 42)? And Revelation 21:3 (p. 50)?

7. What is meant by “covenant of works” and “covenant of grace”? Why, in Robertson’s view, is this terminology problematic? (pp. 54-57)

8. How does Paul contrast what Robertson calls the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” in the letter to the Galatians (pp. 58-61)?

9. What is the “covenant of creation”? What does Robertson mean by its “general” and “focal” aspects (cf. pp. 68-86)?

10. What could be the consequences of an exclusive emphasis on the “focal” aspects of the covenant of creation? (pp. 67-68, 81-83)