#STRask - How Is Access to God in the New Covenant Different from the Old Covenant?

Episode Date: August 29, 2024

Questions about how access to God through Jesus in the New Covenant differs from access in the Old Covenant, whether the salvation of Gentiles is just a means to the end of making Israel jealous, and the idea that theology is only personal and contextual, not objective. How is access to God through Jesus in the New Covenant different from the access Jews had to God in the Old Covenant? Is the salvation of Gentiles just a means to the end of making Israel jealous (see Romans 11:11–16)? How is this supposed to make us Gentiles feel? How would you respond to someone who said, “Theology is personal and interpersonal work, so don’t believe claims that any theology is objective; it’s all personal and interpersonal and contextual”?

Hello, friends. Welcome to another episode of Stand to Reason's Hashtag STR Ask podcast with Amy Hall and Greg Kokel. I'm Amy Hall. I'm Greg Kokel. This is Greg Kokel. I thought that was my cue. Okay, here's a question from Max W. It is often said that because of Jesus, we now have direct access to God, unlike the Jews of the Old Testament. When I ask Christians to explain this, they say we can pray to God anytime, anywhere.

But the Jews also did this because God is omnipresent. So how is access to God now different from the Old Testament? Well, that's a good question, and it's a hard one to answer, I think, because he's right. Any Jew could pray to God, you know. But there was a—most of the active religious life of Jews was through the cult of Judaism, and I use the word in a more technical sense, being all of the trappings that go along with the religious behavior, okay? So you have the sacrificial system, you have all these offerings, you have synagogue and teaching and readings and all kinds of things. These are all part of that. And that was the kind of mediator, in a certain sense, that stood between the average Jewish person and God.

Of course, any Jewish person could pray at any time. It doesn't have to do with God's omnipresence so much. I mean, we don't have to argue from that point. It's just that God is available to anyone, to hear anybody, okay? But there was a religious system that was meant to communicate a lot of things about God and human beings in visual ways, and also was a means by which they could engage. And so the law had to be taught to—all of this stuff had to be taught to people. Now, when the new covenant comes, it's a different situation entirely.

We have—and in fact, where the new covenant is declared for the first time is Jeremiah 31, verse 31 and following, and you have a number of verses that describe, this is going to be different. This is not like the one you broke, the Mosaic. This is one where nobody's going to have to be taught the law. And I don't have the exact wording in front of me, but everyone's going to know. So there's a long-term application or development of this new covenant that comes out that is a different quality than the old covenant and a different kind of access, because now it's not the priests and the sacrificial system that is, in a certain sense, the intermediary between the worshiper and God. Now it's Jesus who

is the intermediary, and we read about that in 1 Timothy 2. There's one God and one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus. Then we go to the book of Hebrews where it actually contrasts the two, and especially in chapter 10, we have this comparison. Here's the blood of bulls and goats, which served a purpose, but it wasn't adequate. It was a constant reminder of sins from year to year, for example, and it never cleansed, ultimately. And now we have the perfect sacrifice that completely forgives sin, so we don't have to have this reminder year after year after year of our sins, So we don't have to have this reminder year after year after year of our sins, and we don't have to keep going through these procedures.

This one always lives to making intercession, we have complete access to the Holy of Holies. Okay, that's the picturing. We go right into the very presence of God. There's not that veil that's the picturing. We go right into the very presence of God. There's not that veil that's in the way. It's not one person once a year with the blood and all of that. No, we have immediate access because we have been washed. Our bodies have been washed with clean water. Our minds are washed of an evil conscience. And then it says, for he who promised is faithful.

It's a very powerful passage, and I know it because I've read it many times as an encouragement to me about God's faithfulness. But there you see this distinction. So, it's a little bit of a difficult question because we don't want to deny that there was access to God in the Old Testament, but something changed. It went from the trappings of the Old Covenant, which was the main way that people interacted, and we moved to the New Covenant, where Jesus is the high priest who's the intermediary, and then that gives us immediate and direct access to the Father. Now, this is why it's frustrating for me when you have some liturgical religions,

let's say Roman Catholicism, for example, that seems to have constructed this entire system, once again, that was meant to be done away with. I mean, the sacrifice of the Mass, and the priests getting confession, and there are all these intermediaries, Mary and the saints, that are in between us and God, the Father. And it's Jesus who has given us that access. That whole system has been done away with, but it just shows the tendency. And by the way, it's not just the Catholic Church, but a lot of the liturgical churches, they've done the same thing. And now they become the thing that stands in between and operates as the final authority, you know, for what God says

and wants, and then they rebuild the whole system again. And that's what's happened over the last 2,000 years. So the teaching of Romans 10, I think, has been really had an impact on my own life in helping me understand my access to the Father. And that is a different kind of access than they had under the Mosaic Law. Yeah, that's a great reminder about all of the things they had to do to maintain their holiness, all of the rituals and the sacrifices and all those things, which of course were pointing ahead to when Christ would fulfill them.

It was a different sort of thing. And I think about when Jesus died on the cross, what happened? The curtain tore in two. That's right. Very significant. Revealing the Holy of Holies. Because now we are adopted by God and given the Spirit. And of course, this is the point Paul makes, that the nature of the new covenant, we all have the Holy Spirit dwelling in us.

And now we are children. And so our access is, it looks different now, now that we're joined to Christ. It looks different now, now that we're joined to Christ. And I think about Ephesians talks about when it talks about the gospel in chapter 3, this was in accordance with the eternal purpose which he carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and confident access through faith in him. And of course, chapter two talks about how we both, Jews and Gentiles, have access to God through Christ in the spirit. And so, something has changed in that all the things that all those rules and laws were pointing towards now has been made, now it's made clear to everyone it's happened. And now we can look at that and we are brought close to God through Christ's death on the cross. And now we have access that's different now. So it isn't just that we can pray. It's that our whole, the whole nature of the

covenant is different now. And this is what it was always pointing to. And how lucky are we to live now when we know the fullness of that? You know, Peter talks about how the prophets looked ahead to this time wanting to see, you know, who would be this Christ that was being foretold. And of course, Greg, we wouldn't say that they weren't saved because anyone saved in the Old Testament because of faith in God was saved through Jesus. But they didn't know the details of that yet. All they knew were the shadows of him that were pointing ahead to that. So we are fortunate enough to live in a time now where we see the fullness of that. Okay, let's go to a question from Katie from Montana.

Are Gentiles just a means to an end to make Israel jealous per Romans? How is this supposed to make us as Gentiles feel? It feels like a petty junior high love triangle. I don't mean this to sound irreverent as it comes across, but that's how that passage reads to me. Okay, the passage is Romans 11. And actually, it's a passage that I have not passage reads to me. Okay, the passage is Romans 11. And actually, it's a passage that I have not ever really quite understood in this issue of making jealous. Let me say, first of all, that this kind of reductionist approach that I think is being presumed based by Katie here, based on this verse, is just a mistake. If you go back to arguably the most important verse in all the Bible, it's not John 3.16.

It's one in the early stages of the book of Genesis, which establishes God's rescue plan for the world, of which John 3.16 is a characterization. And that is Genesis 12, verses 1-3. And there, that's the call of Abraham and the promise of building a great nation for a purpose. And the purpose of calling Abraham is so that all the goyim, all the nations of the world, would be blessed. Okay? So, from the outset, you see that God's purpose has been all the nations. And in fact, you actually see this many times in the New Testament, and even in the life of Jesus. You know, when he spoke there early on, I think the book of Matthew records this or possibly Luke, Matthew or Luke 4. There he is at Capernaum and he's reading from the scroll and he says, today this prophecy has been fulfilled in your hearing.

OK, now when you watch movies about this, everybody freaks out. This is the way they characterize it. The film. This is Hollywood, everybody freaks out. This is the way they characterize it in the film. This is Hollywood. Everybody freaks out. You read the text, and the text says everyone was speaking highly of him and well of him. But Jesus keeps going. And then he talks about prophets not being honored in their own home,

and he talks about Gentiles in the Old Testament that God had preferred or helped or encouraged in some way. Naaman, is it Naaman? The one who bathed in... Yeah, I think Naaman the Syrian. Yeah, yeah. And so he mentions that and the widow at Zarephath. And then the text says, when he said these things, emphasizing Gentiles, then they went berserk and they tried to kill him because he acknowledged God's, and she says, even the dogs eat the bread underneath the table. I mean, here's another case where he's meeting the needs of this Gentile woman.

Her daughter is possessed or something like that. So, this is just two examples of the Gospels where Jesus makes it clear that the goal is always beyond Israel, and that's based on the Abrahamic covenant. Okay, the Jews didn't get it, the disciples didn't get it. It takes even the middle of the book of Acts before, you know, Acts 15, when Peter then finally is compelled to go to Cornelius, you know, and bring the gospel to that Gentile. But nevertheless, that's God's plan throughout. And there it is, resident as the ultimate objective of the Abrahamic covenant, okay? Now, we read this thing in Romans, and it's clear that even though the first century believers,

the way, were almost all Jews, okay, even so, in terms of demographics as time went on, it was more and more Gentile-like. And so, in the book of Acts, Paul preaches first to the Jews in the Diaspora, those who are scattered around the Mediterranean region, and he says, okay, I'm going to the Gentiles now. And then he takes the message to the Gentiles, because now the Gentiles are included, okay? That was his habit. And we read here in Romans 11, as he's talking about it,

there is this reference to the Gentiles being included in such a way that it would make the Jews jealous. Now, of course, that wasn't the reason that the Gentiles were included. That would be a consequence of it, Now, of course, that wasn't the reason that the Gentiles were included. That would be a consequence of it, a benefit of it, to wake up the Jewish nation, which had, as a whole, rejected their Messiah. Okay, that doesn't mean the whole purpose of the Gentiles coming in was to make the Jews jealous. Now, as for me, I don't know what he's talking about there,

because I don't really have a sense, and I haven't studied enough, maybe somebody's got some insight. I don't have a sense about how, since all these Gentiles believe in the Jewish Messiah as their Messiah, and this is Christianity, how that somehow bugs the Jews. I don't get that. Well, that somehow bugs the Jews. I don't get that. So all that shows is my lack of understanding. But for certain, going to the Gentiles wasn't just to bug the Jews. It was a fulfillment of the original plan going all the way back to Genesis chapter 12.

What he says here in chapter 11, that their transgression is— well, let me start back a little earlier. Salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them jealous. Which verse do you start again? In verse 11. Okay, of chapter 11. Yes. So, I'll just start at the beginning of verse 11. I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Speaking of Israel. May it never be, but by their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make them jealous. Now, if their transgression is riches for the world and their failure is riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be? So maybe all he's referring to here is the idea that their transgression is riches for the Gentiles. So the Gentiles have received this new covenant of all of the riches of Christ. You know, he talks about in Colossians, all the treasures of wisdom and beauty and goodness and truth, all in Christ, that now they have these riches.

And I think he's just talking about, he wants them to see that. He wants them to see that the Gentiles have received this by grace and completely undeserved as a result of God's mercy. And if they see that, then they'll be drawn to God. And later on in the chapter, he actually, he talks more a little bit about this. He says, for just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience. He's talking to Gentiles now. So these also now have been disobedient that because of the mercy shown to you, they also may now be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that he may show mercy to all.

So I think the riches of God's grace is what he wants the Jewish people to see, because that's what they were missing. And even in Jesus' time, so many of them were missing the idea that this was by grace. It wasn't by works. It wasn't by being self-righteous. You needed the righteousness of Christ. So if he can reveal the riches of grace to them, then they will then be shown mercy. And I guess this goes back to the beginning of Romans when he talks about everyone being under sin and everyone, the law condemning everyone and the conscience is condemning everyone. And I think maybe it's Galatians where everyone is shut up, the scripture shuts people up under sin. So now he's, God is revealing his grace through the Gentiles so that then the Jews will come to him for his grace. That's, I think, kind of what's going on here. Okay, Greg, let's go to another question. This one comes from Chris, and it's, here we go. Please respond to, quote, theology is personal and interpersonal work. Don't believe claims that any theology is objective.

It's all personal and interpersonal and contextual. I saw this posted in, quote, rules for doing theology. Seems to indicate theology is subjective. Am I off base? It's interesting that such a relativistic statement would be in an article or whatever called Rules for Interpreting Theology. Notice how here is the objective standard by which you assess these kinds of things. And of course, it's not really a contradiction if the person holds that there are some objective standards. But when you're dealing with certain kinds of things, you only can come up with subjective kinds of conclusions. I guess you could say here are the standards for assessing different people's tastes in dessert or something like that, you know, not insulin but ice cream sort of thing. When I see statements like this, again, it sounds like a broken record, but I want to find out what exactly do they mean.

I want them to cash that out. Now, that is a relatively clear statement, okay? But getting more information about it would be helpful to get, first of all, buys you time, like I said. But it's the second tactical question that's going to be key here. Why should anybody believe that's the case? Why should anybody believe that statement? How did you come to that conclusion? All right. Now, what's interesting about this claim about theology

is the word theology means knowledge of God. That is, God is an external element about which we are learning. It's like entomology. Entomology is about insects, you know, and so it's an analogy about insects. It's a collection of facts, presumably, about insects, and there may be debate about what those facts are, and if one view prevails over another, then they change the content of their entomological beliefs. The point I'm making here is ologies are about objects of knowledge, okay? So theology is about God. If there is a God, So theology is about God. If there is a God, then he is one way and not another.

He's not all kinds of different ways that contradict with each other. He's an individual. Now, if there is no God, then there's no theology at all. There's no basis for theology. That would be like, what is theology for unicorns? Oh, they got a horn on their head. You know, and they look like horses with horns, and that's about it, you know. But they're fictitious characters, obviously. And so,

you don't have an analogy about that. But if you have a theology, that's about truths about God, facts about God. So, what are those facts? Now, if somebody says, oh, the facts about God are utterly personal, that means that one of two things. There is no God, and that's why there's no way that he is. There's no body of knowledge about a nonexistent being, and you can make up whatever you want. It's just a game you play, and, you know, it makes you feel better. it's just a game you play and, you know, makes you feel better. You know, Mark said, and this would be Carl, not Groucho, not that many people know who either one is anymore, but that religion is the opiate of the people. It's what you take, you do that because it makes you feel good. Okay. And that's one option here. But of course, to say that there is no God, and you could make up whatever your own so-called theology, however you want,

that's a pretty strong statement that needs to be defended, seems to me. Or you could make up your own so-called theology however you want. That's a pretty strong statement that needs to be defended, it seems to me. Or you could say that there is a God, but no one can know what he's like. So everybody's take on what God is like is utterly personal. It's just your view, and your view is as good as anybody else's. Your view could be that God is good. Somebody else's view could be that God is evil. Okay, and it's all on par. But that also is a pretty strong statement and needs to be defended, it seems to me. So this is why, you know, when I'm asking for clarification on this point, I'm listening closely, that the biggest thing is I want to know why would anybody think that all statements about theology, alleged knowledge of God, are completely personal? They're just up to you, or they have no relevance to other people,

because that could only be the case if you're only speaking subjectively and are not making, in principle, any—either you're not making any statements about God himself, or you're making statements that can never be verified, and therefore you're stuck with your subjective views. Once again, those are strong claims that—gosh, I'm curious why people would think that. views. Once again, those are strong claims that, gosh, I'm curious why people would think that. Do you have any reason to think that God is good or that God is love? I mean, most people think about God or talk about God, at least include that. Where'd you get that idea? Is that just purely subjective? Maybe God is evil and hateful, and I should be like God, evil and hateful. I mean,

it sounds corny. You just kind of chuckle at it. But it just shows that people make statements all the time for which they have no legitimate justification. These are statements that comport with the way the wind is blowing at the time. like this in another show, you know, about, I can't remember exactly how it was worded, but it was, you know, that's your religious rules. That's not my religious rules, you know. And these are just ways to relativize the claims being made about God and therefore about the nature of reality and to relativize the moral claims that are attached to that. And by the way, that's the biggie. It isn't just that you believe that God is real, and that's an objective truth. That's not controversial. It's what about God you believe is the case. And generally, a belief in God comes with a package of morality that is offensive to people. I get it. And they don't want to do that, so they're going to try to relativize everything. They're going to essentially try to silence you. And this is another example of trying

to silence. You keep your views to yourself, or at least if you're going to tell other people about it, just make sure you're letting them know that it has nothing to do with the way the world actually is. What's interesting, I looked this up and I found a T-shirt that had these list of rules, and it doesn't appear to be created by somebody who is a naturalist. So it's not just written for Christians to be against Christians. So it's so odd to me. And I think you hit the nail on the head perfectly, Greg. I think it's helpful to make this clear to people and just sum up and say, look, if God is objective, then statements about him will either be objectively true or objectively false. So are you saying God doesn't really exist or are you saying that we just can't know about him? Because you're right.

Those are the two options. And then you can go from there. But the reality is true theology, true statements about God are objective. They could be objectively wrong, but they're objective. They're not subjective and personal. Well, they wouldn't be true then either. Right. They wouldn't be true.

But it's an objective claim. Yes. Yeah. It could be objectively true. It could be objectively false. It could be objectively false. What it can't be is personal. In a sense, by definition, and that's what they're doing here. Now, of course, there is a personal element.

All of these truths, I mean, it could be, look, it could be true or false that my wife loves me. Okay. And both of them have personal ramifications for me. But we're not talking about the ramifications for me. But when I'm talking about the ramifications, we are talking about the claims themselves. All right. Well, thank you so much, Katie and Chris and Max. We really appreciate hearing from you. And we'd love to hear from you. Send us your question on X with the hashtag STRask or go to our website at str.org. Thank you for listening. This is Amy Hall and Greg Koukl for Stand to Reason.