The Difference between the Old, New and Everlasting Covenants

[The Biblicist]

All three covenants are mentioned in the book of Hebrews (Heb. 8-9; 13:20). In a nutshell the difference is that the "old" and "new" covenants are divine in origin but human in administration and the human administration is declarative in nature but the human administrative aspect actually saves no one. The human administrative aspect is clearly stated in Hebrews 9:1.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. - Heb. 9:1

Whereas, the "everlasting" covenant is divine in origin WITHOUT human administration but is directly administered by God to His elect in all ages from Genesis to Revelation and is always effectual to salvation. Actual individual salvation has always been by direct administration of the Triune God in all ages. No salvation has occurred by any human administration or time restricted covenants.


A. The "Old" covenant

There can be no argument that the "old" is divine in origin but human in administration. There are ordinances, house of worship, a qualified human ministry (Heb. 9:1).

Neither can there be any argument that its design was never to actually justify anyone, or save anyone but only designed to instruct them in the nature of sin (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:21-22) and declare God's eternal purpose of salvation in TYPES and SHADOWS. Actual salvation from Genesis to Christ was through the preaching of the gospel of the anticipated Christ (Acts 10:43; Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2).

This is primarily a Jewish covenant although there is a limited gentile inclusion.


B. The "New" covenant. - Heb. 9:1

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. - Heb. 9:1

It is called "new" in reference to the "old" as the former preceded it in time. However, it too had a point in time for its existence and it too has a human administration, ordinances, a public house of worship, and a qualified ministry. The difference between the "old" and "new" is that of anticipation versus fulfillment of the promised Christ. However, the human administration of the "new" does not save anyone any more than the "old" but instead is declarative of the fulfilled gospel of Christ wherein the power of God unto salvation has existed and has been applied since Genesis before either the "old" or "new" existed.

This is not merely a Jewish covenant but the work of the Holy Spirit exceeds the boundaries of Judaism and primarily is Gentile in its redemptive extent. Hence, the Holy Spirit's work of salvation under this covenant is more extensive "all flesh" instead of merely Jewish.


C. The Everlasting Covenant

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, - Heb. 13:20

This covenant is not time restricted. It is the "eternal council" of God that has existed as long as God has existed. There is no point in time when it came into existence. There is no human administration of this covenant but this covenant is between the three Persons of the Godhead and they each administer aspects of this covenant directly to the elect in all ages.

The "old" covenant declared it in types and anticipated the cross in time. The "new" Covenant declares it directly and clearly based upon the fulfillment of the cross but still anticipates its completeness yet in the future.The "new" covenant is not the fulfillment of the everlasting covenant - that still awaits beyond this present time and earth.

Application of the "everlasting covenant" is not time restricted but its application is based upon the eternal purpose of God before the world began and God views events in time as an everlasting present "I AM" that treats things not yet accomplished in time as already completed (Rom. 4:17) and therefore God acts as though they are completed because from his point of view there is no past, present or future but just one eternal present based entirely upon his eternal purpose. When the events occur in time they simply justify God's application in time prior to that fulfilled event (Rom. 3:24-25). God's application is based on the promise according to His eternal purpose (Rom. 8:28-37) rather than the actual time of the fulfillment of that promise. God sees "the blood" slain from the "foundation of the world" and acts upon it the very same way because what he has purposed before the world does come to pass as predicted. Hence, God's word is sufficient to apply his redemptive purpose any time within time.

 

[postman pat]

Read the new book Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective. It answered the questions I had about the covenants.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The writer to the Hebrews describes the new covenant as a ‘better hope’ (7:19) and a ‘better covenant’ (7:22; 8:6. cf. 9:11) compared with the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant. The great Puritan John Owen, in his vast commentary on Hebrews, listed seventeen ways in which the two covenants differ, and in each, the new is superior. I think I can do no better than to list these differences, trying to put them very briefly in my own words. [I shall refer to the Sinaitic covenant as the ‘first’ covenant because that is how the writer to the Hebrews speaks of it]

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Galatians 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Hebrews 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1 John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Hebrews 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Galatians 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Romans 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2 Corinthians 3:7-9); the New gives liberty (2Corinthians 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It is apparent that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wider and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Hebrews 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, ‘says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Hebrews 10:8-9).

The New Covenant, in my view, is in fact the outworking and consummation of the Everlasting Covenant.
Wouldn't you love to be a Puritan preacher, and be able to say in your sermons, "......and seventeenthly......."

 

[The Biblicist]

The writer to the Hebrews describes the new covenant as a ‘better hope’ (7:19) and a ‘better covenant’ (7:22; 8:6. cf. 9:11) compared with the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant. The great Puritan John Owen, in his vast commentary on Hebrews, listed seventeen ways in which the two covenants differ, and in each, the new is superior. I think I can do no better than to list these differences, trying to put them very briefly in my own words. [I shall refer to the Sinaitic covenant as the ‘first’ covenant because that is how the writer to the Hebrews speaks of it]

1. They differ in the time of their establishment. The first was established in the third month after the coming out from Egypt of the Israelites (Exod 19:1). The second, ‘At just the right time’ (Rom 5:6, NIV); ‘In the dispensation of the fullness of time’ (Eph 1:10). ‘When the fullness of the time was come’ (Gal 4:4). ‘When the Day of Pentecost had fully come….’ (Acts 2:1).
2. They differ in the place of their establishment. The first covenant, in Sinai; the new covenant, in Jerusalem; but in this connection it is worth reading Galatians 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Hebrews 12:18-26). The first came with fire and the sound of a trumpet (Exod 19:18f); the New came with a voice from heaven (Psalm 110:4; Matt 3:17).
4. They differ in their mediators. In the first covenant , it was Moses, who was faithful as a servant (Heb 3:5); in the New, it was Christ, a Son over His own house (Heb 3:6; 2Tim 2:5).
5. They differ in their subject matter. The first covenant revived the demands of the covenant of works with Moses saying, “Cursed is the one who does not confirm all the words of this law” (Deut 27:26). In the new covenant, God’s law is written on our hearts with Christ saying, “My yoke is easy and My burden is light” (Matt 11:30), and we find ourselves saying, ‘His commandments are not grievous’ (1 John 5:3, A.V.).
6. They differ in the manner of their dedication. In the first covenant, it was by the sacrifice of beasts and the blood sprinkled around the altar (Lev 8, 9). The New was confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ Himself (Hebrews 10:19-23; 12:24).
7. They differ in respect of the Priesthood. In the first covenant, the Priesthood was limited to Aaron and his posterity; in the New, Christ has an unchangeable priesthood in the power of an endless life (Heb 7:11-28).
8. They differ in the matter of their sacrifices and their access to God. The Aaronic high priest could enter in to the Holist Place only once a year having sacrificed for his own sins as well as those of the people; our Great High Priest had no sins of His own to atone for, but, ‘Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb 9:12).
9. They differ in the matter of their writing down. The first covenant was written on ‘tablets of stone,’ the New on ‘tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart’ (2Cor 3:3).
10. They differ as to their purposes. ‘The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin, to condemn it and to set bounds to it’ (John Owen; cf. Galatians 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Romans 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2 Corinthians 3:7-9); the New gives liberty (2Corinthians 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It is apparent that during the period of the first covenant, the Holy Spirit was indeed active, but there was so much a wider and greater effusion of His power at Pentecost, that John speaks sometimes as if He had not come before (John 7:39; 15:26 etc.).
13. They differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. The term ‘kingdom of heaven’ or ‘kingdom of God’ does not appear in the O.T. Israel under the first covenant had the appearance of a kingdom of the world (physical borders, an army, a physical temple). The kingdom of God has none of these things. The Lord Jesus declared, “My kingdom is not of this world’ (John 18:26). His subjects are spread throughout the earth, and have their citizenship in heaven.
14. They differ in their substance and end. The first covenant was typical, shadowy and removable. The new covenant is substantial and permanent as containing the Body, which is Christ.
15. They differ in the extent of their ministration. The first covenant was largely confined to Israel after the flesh, with darkness reigning all around. In the new covenant, we read, ‘The people walking in darkness have seen a great light’ (Isaiah 9:2).
16. They differ in efficacy. The first covenant ‘made nothing perfect’ (Hebrews 7:19; cf. 8:7). It gave outward commands without giving the power to perform them (cf. Acts 15:10). In the new covenant, ‘says the Lord, “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts”’ (Heb 8:10).
17. They differ in their duration. One was to be removed; one to abide forever (Hebrews 10:8-9).

The New Covenant, in my view, is in fact the outworking and consummation of the Everlasting Covenant.
Wouldn't you love to be a Puritan preacher, and be able to say in your sermons, "......and seventeenthly......."

I agree that the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. I agree with much of what Owen says. However, it is where they are similar that is also very important.

1. Both originate from God
2. Both are declarative in human administration
3. Both are characterized by a similar earthly origin
a. Both have a chosen prophet (Moses, Christ - Deut. 18:18)
b. Both have a chosen house of God (tabernacle/temple)
c. Both have a chosen public ministry
d. Both have a limited mission (Jewish unto Christ versus all the world until end of age)
e. Both houses of God were immersed in God's presence (Ex.40:35; Acts 2:1)
f. Both have the same gospel (gospel that anticipates Christ versus gospel fulfilled by Christ)

I do not believe that the everlasting covenant was worked out any better under the new covenant than under the old covenant or worked out any differently under either or before either. God has equally worked out the everlasting covenant directly and equally to his elect before either covenant existed as well as during the existence of both.

Where the new excels or is better with regard to the everlasting covenant is in its human administration or manifestation of it and in its declaration of it based upon the fulfilled gospel. The human administration of the new covenant excels over the old covenant with regard to the better declaration of the everlasting covenant through its house of God ministry, ordinances and ministry.

However, salvation application to the elect has been direct by God under the everlasting covenant in all ages equally because the everlasting covenant has NEVER been applied by human agencies although human agencies have been used since Genesis to declare it.

 

[HankD]

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

HankD

 

[postman pat]

I agree that the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. I agree with much of what Owen says. However, it is where they are similar that is also very important.

1. Both originate from God
2. Both are declarative in human administration
3. Both are characterized by a similar earthly origin
a. Both have a chosen prophet (Moses, Christ - Deut. 18:18)
b. Both have a chosen house of God (tabernacle/temple)
c. Both have a chosen public ministry
d. Both have a limited mission (Jewish unto Christ versus all the world until end of age)
e. Both houses of God were immersed in God's presence (Ex.40:35; Acts 2:1)
f. Both have the same gospel (gospel that anticipates Christ versus gospel fulfilled by Christ)

I do not believe that the everlasting covenant was worked out any better under the new covenant than under the old covenant or worked out any differently under either or before either. God has equally worked out the everlasting covenant directly and equally to his elect before either covenant existed as well as during the existence of both.

Where the new excels or is better with regard to the everlasting covenant is in its human administration or manifestation of it and in its declaration of it based upon the fulfilled gospel. The human administration of the new covenant excels over the old covenant with regard to the better declaration of the everlasting covenant through its house of God ministry, ordinances and ministry.

However, salvation application to the elect has been direct by God under the everlasting covenant in all ages equally because the everlasting covenant has NEVER been applied by human agencies although human agencies have been used since Genesis to declare it.

 

[postman pat]

I agree. Have you read Griffiths' new book?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Whereas, the "everlasting" covenant is divine in origin WITHOUT human administration but is directly administered by God to His elect in all ages from Genesis to Revelation and is always effectual to salvation. Actual individual salvation has always been by direct administration of the Triune God in all ages. No salvation has occurred by any human administration or time restricted covenants.

Absolutely right! Some people doubt the existence of the Everlasting Covenant but references to it can be found in various parts of the Bible if one is prepared to look for them as the following examples will show:-

Luke 22:22. “And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined……” Determined where and by whom if not in the Everlasting Covenant?

John 6:38-39. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.” Christ has been given a people and the task by the Father which He is determined to fulfil. What can this refer to if not the Everlasting Covenant?

John 10:16. “And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.” Not, “I will bring,” but, “I must bring.” Our Lord had been given a commission to fulfil.

John 10:17-18. “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Where did Christ receive this command, the doing of which merited so well the Father’s love? In the Everlating Covenant, of course.

Phil 2:6-8. ‘Who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be held onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.’ In the Everlasting Covenant, our Lord gave up temporarily that equality with the Father that had existed from all eternity, and became the willing servant of Exodus 21:5-6 and Psalm 40:6-8 in order to rescue those who had been given to Him (John 17:2, 6 ).

Heb 2:13. ‘Here am I and the children whom God has given to Me.’ Given by the Father to the Son in the Everlasting Covenant to be redeemed from sin and brought to heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree. Have you read Griffiths' new book?

No, I haven't. What is his full name and title of the book. Thanks in advance

 

[Iconoclast]

I agree that the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. I agree with much of what Owen says. However, it is where they are similar that is also very important.

1. Both originate from God
2. Both are declarative in human administration
3. Both are characterized by a similar earthly origin
a. Both have a chosen prophet (Moses, Christ - Deut. 18:18)
b. Both have a chosen house of God (tabernacle/temple)
c. Both have a chosen public ministry
d. Both have a limited mission (Jewish unto Christ versus all the world until end of age)
e. Both houses of God were immersed in God's presence (Ex.40:35; Acts 2:1)
f. Both have the same gospel (gospel that anticipates Christ versus gospel fulfilled by Christ)

I do not believe that the everlasting covenant was worked out any better under the new covenant than under the old covenant or worked out any differently under either or before either. God has equally worked out the everlasting covenant directly and equally to his elect before either covenant existed as well as during the existence of both.

Where the new excels or is better with regard to the everlasting covenant is in its human administration or manifestation of it and in its declaration of it based upon the fulfilled gospel. The human administration of the new covenant excels over the old covenant with regard to the better declaration of the everlasting covenant through its house of God ministry, ordinances and ministry.

However, salvation application to the elect has been direct by God under the everlasting covenant in all ages equally because the everlasting covenant has NEVER been applied by human agencies although human agencies have been used since Genesis to declare it.

Heb3:1-6 Christ over the whole house

 

[Iconoclast]

Heb3:1-6 Christ over the whole house

BUTCHRIST WAS FAITHFUL AS A SON OVER HIS HOUSE WHOSE HOUSE WE ARE: Christos de hos huios epi ton oikon autou hou oikos esmen (1PPAI) hêmeis: (Heb 4:14; Ps 2:6,7,12; Isaiah 9:6,7; John 3:35,36; Revelation 2:18) (He 3:2,3; Matthew 16:18; 1Cor 3:16; 6:19; 2Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21,22; 1Ti 3:15)

Remember that in the NASB, words in italics have been added by the translators (e.g., "was faithful" is not found in the original Greek text) usually to help the grammatical flow of the sentence.

Christ as a Son over His house is a truth that would have been revolutionary to most first century Jews. The writer of Hebrews seeks to lift his readers to views of themselves which they had heretofore only dimly grasped, if they had even grasped at all. And so this is the first time he uses "Christ", the Greek term for the Hebrew Messiah.

But (term of contrast) contrasts Jesus with Moses' faithfulness as a servant. Jesus always perfectly carried out His Father’s will. He was the epitome of faithfulness. Furthermore, the contrast is between Moses a servant IN God’s house, with Christ a Son OVER God’s house, which echoes the writer's opening description of Jesus, in which he says that God "in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." (Heb 1:2- note)

In psalm 2 God explained"But as for Me, I have installed My King (the Messiah) upon Zion, My holy mountain...and I will surely give the nations as Thine inheritance, and the very ends of the earth as Thy possession." (Ps 2:6,8)

John the Baptist explained that "The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand." (John 3:35)

Spurgeon - You see, then, that the apostle had first made a distinction between Christ and Moses on the ground of the Builder being greater than the house he builds; now, in the second place, he shows Christ’s superiority to Moses on the ground that a son in his own house is greater than a servant in the house of his master. How sweetly he introduces the truth that we are the house of Christ! Do we realize that the Lord Jesus Christ dwells in the midst of us? How clean we ought to be, how holy, how heavenly! How we should seek to rise above earth, and keep ourselves reserved for the Crucified! In this house, no rival should be permitted ever to dwell; but the great Lord should have every chamber of it entirely to himself. Oh, that he may take his rest within our hearts as his holy habitation; and may there be nothing in our church life that shall grieve the Son of God, and cause him even for a moment to be withdrawn from us. We are the house in which He dwells with delight—in which He finds comfort and rest. We are the household over which He rules, and in which He is the delight and the joy of us all. May our church ever be such a house, so well ordered, that when the Lord comes into it—no, when He ever dwells in it—He may not be grieved in His own house. Whatever trouble a man has, he hopes to find solace at home. And so let the house of God be the house of Jesus—the place where there is peace, obedience, love, holiness.

House is a metaphorfrequently used in the NT to describe the redeemed of the Lord. For example, Peter describes believers "as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1Pe 2:5-note)

Wuest - Whereas Moses was a servant (en) in God’s house, Messiah was Son (epi) over that house. Both were faithful in their respective positions and capacities. But Messiah’s exalted position and more important work enhanced the quality of His fidelity over that of Moses, since both His position as Son and work as High Priest involved peculiar difficulties and temptations to which Moses never was subject. Thus, Messiah is better than Moses, and the Testament which He inaugurated is better and takes the place of the one Moses was instrumental in founding. The word “house” in Heb 3:5, 6 must be defined by the context in which it is found. The general application in all instances of its use in these verses is to the house of God. In the case of Moses, it was the house of God as related to Israel. In the case of Messiah, it was the house of God as related to the family of God in all ages. In the case of the “we” of verse 6, it is the house of God as related to the saints of this dispensation. Now, the writer, keeping in mind the fact that only part of his readers were really saved, and the other part were merely making a profession of salvation, and the latter under stress of persecution were in danger of relapsing back to apostate Judaism, proposes to these readers a test whereby they can tell whether they really belong to the house of God or not, that is, whether they are really saved or not.

http://preceptaustin.org/hebrews_35-6.htm

 

[Iconoclast]

Christ is the Son over God's house (Heb. 3:5-6)
"Now Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken later; but Christ was faithful as a Son over His house—whose house we are, if we hold fast our confidence and the boast of our hope firm until the end" (Hebrews 3:5-6).

"Moses was faithful in all His house as a servant" is a quotation from Numbers 12:6, 7. The Jewish people could not imagine of anyone standing closer to God than Moses. The author of Hebrews does not disparage the faithfulness of Moses by quoting Numbers 12:7 in the Septuagint.

Moses was a servant "in" God's house; Christ is a Son "over" God's house. Moses was servant, but Christ is the absolute sovereign over the house.

Moses' standing as a servant corresponds to the angels who are servants to the heirs of salvation (Heb. 1:14).

The word used to describe Moses as a "servant" is therapon which connotes a willingness to serve, personal service freely rendered out of love and is an honorable position. This word is in contrast to the word "servant" (doulos) signifying one who must serve as a slave. Moses served with dignity. In the New Testament the word therapon is used only of Moses.

As a servant Moses prophesied of the coming of Christ (Deut 18:15-18). Moses was faith in God's house as a servant who communicated faithfully God's words to Israel, but Christ is faithful as a Son who is the Apostle and High Priest. Therefore, Christ is greater than Moses. Moses was only a part of the house, but Christ was the creator of the house. Moses was a spokesman of the law, but Christ is the living Word of God. Moses pointed to the coming of one who was greater than himself, but Christ is the one of whom Moses wrote. Moses knew something about God, but Christ was God.

The author of Hebrews makes it very clear that Christian believers are involved in this house of God. There is one house in view throughout this passage. All true believers are represented by this house of God or household of faith. When we consider the Old Testament as well as the New it is thrilling to observe that the preexistent Son was also the builder in the Old.
http://www.abideinchrist.com/messages/heb3v1christsuperiormoses.html

 

[Iconoclast]

From Louis Berkof

1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity, so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact, it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word, the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.

2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head, that is, as the head of a covenant.

3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.

4. There are two Old Testament passages which connect up the idea of the covenant immediately with the Messiah, namely, Ps. 89:3, which is based on II Sam. 7:12-14, and is proved to be a Messianic passage by Heb. 1:5; and Isa. 42:6, where the person referred to is the Servant of the Lord. The connection clearly shows that this Servant is not merely Israel. Moreover, there are passages in which the Messiah speaks of God as His God, thus using covenant language, namely, Ps. 22:1, 2, and Ps. 40:8.

 

[The Biblicist]

From Louis Berkof

1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity, so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact, it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word, the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.

2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head, that is, as the head of a covenant.

3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.

4. There are two Old Testament passages which connect up the idea of the covenant immediately with the Messiah, namely, Ps. 89:3, which is based on II Sam. 7:12-14, and is proved to be a Messianic passage by Heb. 1:5; and Isa. 42:6, where the person referred to is the Servant of the Lord. The connection clearly shows that this Servant is not merely Israel. Moreover, there are passages in which the Messiah speaks of God as His God, thus using covenant language, namely, Ps. 22:1, 2, and Ps. 40:8.

The term "house" is used metaphorically in two different ways in scripture, just as the metaphor "temple" is used two different ways in Scripture. I think you are confusing one with the other. The "house" or household of faith refers to the family of God not to the church of God, although the church as a congregation of baptized believers is described as a "house" as well (1 Cor. 3:8-9). Contextually, the local visible congregation at Corinth is the identity of this contextual "house."

The term "temple" as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit is used in two senses as well. It is used to describe the local visible congregation at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:16 "ye" not "we") and it is used for the individual physical body of the believer (1 Cor. 6:19). Significantly, the metaphorical "body" of Christ or the church at Corinth is composed of such PHYSICAL bodies (1 Cor. 6:15).

This is an important distinction or else one confuses salvation with the church and whereas salvation, the same salvation, has existed since Genesis 3:16, the church has not existed since Genesis 3:15 but has its "foundation" constituted 4000 years later composed of "apostles" and New Testament "prophets" (Eph.2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Confusing salvation with the church was fostered by Rome with Constantine, and continues to be the major error of the Reformed Roman Catholics.

It is obvious to me that hebrews 3-4 refers to the household of faith rather than to the church. 1 Peter 2:5 also refers to the institutional church. The problem with many interpreters is their failure to understand that the local visible congregation is a spiritual entity that assembles to conduct spiritual business and conduct spiritual worship. Just because it has physical visiblness does not deny its spiritual character. The Old Testament temple was a literal assembly of actual stones, whereas the New Testament congregation is a metaphorical assembly of spiritual stones for the purpose to conduct spiritual business and worship (offering up "acceptable" spiritual sacrifices). Those spiritual sacrifices consist of prayer, giving, exercise of spiritual gifts, preaching and teaching, etc.

But with regard to this OP and the context of Hebrews 3-4, yes, there has been only one household of faith from Genesis 3:15 until the present and that household is composed of those who believe the same gospel preached then as now (Heb. 4:2).

 

[Iconoclast]

The term "house" is used metaphorically in two different ways in scripture, just as the metaphor "temple" is used two different ways in Scripture. I think you are confusing one with the other. The "house" or household of faith refers to the family of God not to the church of God, although the church as a congregation of baptized believers is described as a "house" as well (1 Cor. 3:8-9). Contextually, the local visible congregation at Corinth is the identity of this contextual "house."

The term "temple" as the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit is used in two senses as well. It is used to describe the local visible congregation at Corinth (1 Cor. 3:16 "ye" not "we") and it is used for the individual physical body of the believer (1 Cor. 6:19). Significantly, the metaphorical "body" of Christ or the church at Corinth is composed of such PHYSICAL bodies (1 Cor. 6:15).

This is an important distinction or else one confuses salvation with the church and whereas salvation, the same salvation, has existed since Genesis 3:16, the church has not existed since Genesis 3:15 but has its "foundation" constituted 4000 years later composed of "apostles" and New Testament "prophets" (Eph.2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Confusing salvation with the church was fostered by Rome with Constantine, and continues to be the major error of the Reformed Roman Catholics.

It is obvious to me that hebrews 3-4 refers to the household of faith rather than to the church. 1 Peter 2:5 also refers to the institutional church. The problem with many interpreters is their failure to understand that the local visible congregation is a spiritual entity that assembles to conduct spiritual business and conduct spiritual worship. Just because it has physical visiblness does not deny its spiritual character. The Old Testament temple was a literal assembly of actual stones, whereas the New Testament congregation is a metaphorical assembly of spiritual stones for the purpose to conduct spiritual business and worship (offering up "acceptable" spiritual sacrifices). Those spiritual sacrifices consist of prayer, giving, exercise of spiritual gifts, preaching and teaching, etc.

I am still working through this....at this point I am still gathering all the ingredients....

I agree with much of your thoughts and posting.....I still have some unsettled thought on some of these issues....so I cannot speak with as much confidence as I like to.
1 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Because of the Covenant of Redemption we are linked to all saints of all time. At the Last Day......we will all assemble as a Local assembly.

As Baptists we seek to maintain our identity as different from padeobaptists in our ecclesiology.

Yet it is many of the padeobaptists that we have on our book shelves.

I have to do double work to see where is agreement and what remains divided.

This is an important distinction or else one confuses salvation with the church and whereas salvation, the same salvation, has existed since Genesis 3:16, the church has not existed since Genesis 3:15 but has its "foundation" constituted 4000 years later composed of "apostles" and New Testament "prophets" (Eph.2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

Confusing salvation with the church was fostered by Rome with Constantine, and continues to be the major error of the Reformed Roman Catholics.

This is what you speak of here, correct....

 

[The Biblicist]

I am still working through this....at this point I am still gathering all the ingredients....

I agree with much of your thoughts and posting.....I still have some unsettled thought on some of these issues....so I cannot speak with as much confidence as I like to.
1 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
]
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

At Ephesians 2:10 we have a transition from salvation "unto good works". Ephesians 2:11-3:5 demonstrate how Gentiles now under the new covenant administration have an equal standing both in salvation and in the house of God. This is the "mystery" revealed to Paul that the all Jewish church at Jerusalem struggled with in Acts 2-11. In the previous house of God even Jewish proselytes who professed faith in gospel of anticipating Christ by faith (Acts 10:43) were separated from believing Jews in the public house of worship. That border line was the "middle wall of partition. However, under the new covenant public administration, no such middle wall exists between believing Jews and Gentiles in the public house of worship - the church. Under the new covenant public administration Gentiles are recognized and treated equally as both children of God and worshippers in God's house.

Take a few minutes and read my very short booklet on this passage and subject which can be found online at:

https://static.secure.website/wscfus/3107401/2706492/the-middle-wall2.pdf

 

[Iconoclast]

At Ephesians 2:10 we have a transition from salvation "unto good works". Ephesians 2:11-3:5 demonstrate how Gentiles now under the new covenant administration have an equal standing both in salvation and in the house of God. This is the "mystery" revealed to Paul that the all Jewish church at Jerusalem struggled with in Acts 2-11. In the previous house of God even Jewish proselytes who professed faith in gospel of anticipating Christ by faith (Acts 10:43) were separated from believing Jews in the public house of worship. That border line was the "middle wall of partition. However, under the new covenant public administration, no such middle wall exists between believing Jews and Gentiles in the public house of worship - the church. Under the new covenant public administration Gentiles are recognized and treated equally as both children of God and worshippers in God's house.

Take a few minutes and read my very short booklet on this passage and subject which can be found online at:

https://static.secure.website/wscfus/3107401/2706492/the-middle-wall2.pdf

Thank you for the Link, and the help!

I am liking your thought about the parallel between the middle wall, and the current separation advocated......I understood the middle wall being broken down, but it does not have but half the meaning unless traced back...good thought!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I do not believe that the everlasting covenant was worked out any better under the new covenant than under the old covenant or worked out any differently under either or before either. God has equally worked out the everlasting covenant directly and equally to his elect before either covenant existed as well as during the existence of both.

I think it may be helpful to look in a bit more depth at the 'Old Covenant'.
The Sinaitic covenant is the first of two covenants made with a people through a mediator. It was made with the Israelites at Sinai through Moses, so it is not quite accurate to call it the Mosaic covenant because it was not made with Moses. It is commonly referred to as the ‘Old Covenant,’ though in fact it is only called that once in the Bible, in 2 Corinthians 3:14. The writer to the Hebrews refers to it repeatedly as the First Covenant, which is most significant because it suggests that God views it as something different to those covenants that went before it.

The most prominent feature of the Sinaitic covenant is the law. It is interesting to observe its conditional nature in contrast to the 'covenants of promise' (Ephesians 2:12).

Gen 9:11(Noahic). Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ..

To understand the purposes of the Sinaitic covenant, we need to go back to the covenant with Abraham. In that covenant there was the promise of a Seed (Gen 12:3b; 13:14-15; Gal 3:16). But when we looked at the Abrahamic covenant we saw that there were promises to Abraham’s physical descendants (physical land, great nation, twelve princes- Gen 17:20) pictured by Ishmael. But the covenant is to the children of promise (Gen 17:21; Gal 4:21-31. cf. 3:7) pictured by Isaac. To them there are spiritual promises, obtained by grace through faith, through the true Seed, Christ (Rom 4:13-14; Gal 3:16; Heb 11:13-16). But the Seed, Christ, was to be born, according to the flesh, of the physical seed of Abraham. For this to happen, it was necessary that Abraham’s descendants should be preserved as a separate entity and kept from merging into the surrounding nations until Christ should come. Therefore, when Abraham’s progeny began to multiply, God brought them into Egypt, but still kept them separate in the land of Goshen (Genesis 46:34).

These people were then taken out of Egypt, and at Sinai they were bonded into a nation and separated from the surrounding tribes by circumcision and the Mosaic Law until the coming of Christ. One was brought into Israel by physical birth and this was ratified by circumcision; faith was not a requirement. By contrast, one is brought into the Church of God by a second birth, exemplified by faith (John 3:5; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 John 1:6; 1 Peter 1:3) which is then ratified by baptism (eg. Acts 8:12; 18:8). Problems arise when the old and new covenants are confused and Mosaic practices are imposed upon the churches of Christ.

The Sinaitic covenant did not replace or improve the covenant with Abraham. It was added (Gal 3:17) until the coming of Christ and the New Covenant, when it became obsolete and passed away (Heb 8:13). Those Israelites who had the faith of Abraham had it credited to them as righteousness as they looked forward by faith to the coming Seed (cf. John 8:56; Luke 2:25-6). To those Israelites who lacked the faith of Abraham, the law had other purposes:-

Firstly, it restrained sin (Galatians 3:19). This is the purpose of all law, secular as well as Divine. People are less disposed to commit murder, theft or traffic offenses if they know that they are likely to suffer a judicial penalty for their acts.

Secondly, it proclaimed the majesty and righteousness of God. ‘For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us…..and what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgements as are in all this law that I set before you this day?’ (Deut 4:7f).

Thirdly, it was, and still is, a schoolmaster or tutor to lead sinners to Christ (Galatians 3:24; Hebrews 10:1-4). Not all sins were expiable under the law (Numbers 15:27-31; Acts 13:39). A man like David, who had committed sins for which Moses’ law gave no way of atonement was locked up to the mercy of God ( Psalm 32:1-2; Psalm 51 esp. vs 16-17). It also reveals sin to those who were unconscious of it. Paul writes, “…..I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom 7:7). It provoked sinners under the old covenant to look to the coming Christ. Consider Psalm 24: ‘Who shall ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in His holy place? He who has pure hands and a clean heart, who has not lifted up His soul to an idol, nor sworn deceitfully.’ Who among us is going to say that his hands are perfectly clean, and his heart perfectly pure? That there has never ever been a rival to God in his heart and that he has been perfectly truthful all his days? There is only One who can truthfully claim that sort of perfect righteousness- the Lord Jesus Christ, our King, the Lord of glory (James 2:1). ‘Lift up your heads, O you gates, and be lifted up you everlasting doors! And the King of glory shall come in.’ As they offered the sacrifices required by law, the Israelites could look forward with the eyes of faith to the Messiah, the Son of David who would conquer sin and death, establish a perfect righteousness, and sit down at God’s right hand (cf. Jeremiah 23:5-6).

 

[percho]

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In reality isn't that also, "he will"? And a reference to the new?

Also when you look at the new as given in Heb 8 The fault that was found in them was the, "if you will," which they did not do and from there it returns to, "I will".

What does he do? Doesn't God the Father through Jesus the Son, birth them again as new creations, incorruptible, with the, "if you will," created in them?

That is in the image of the firstborn from the dead? Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In reality isn't that also, "he will"? And a reference to the new?

Yes indeed. Many look upon Genesis 3:15 as an 'Adamic Covenant.' The only problem with that is that it makes a confusion with the 'Covenant of Works' of Genesis 2:16-17.

Also when you look at the new as given in Heb 8 The fault that was found in them was the, "if you will," which they did not do and from there it returns to, "I will".

What does he do? Doesn't God the Father through Jesus the Son, birth them again as new creations, incorruptible, with the, "if you will," created in them?

That is why the New Covenant is a 'better covenant , which was established on better promises' (Hebrews 8:6). See Post #3.

That is in the image of the firstborn from the dead? Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

And here you have the Everlasting Covenant (or 'Covenant of Grace').