Old Covenant?

[JonC]

The first covenant was NOT flawed based on the members,

So God messed up and fixed His mistake?

The flaw was the first covenant did not make the flawed members perfect, but the second one did.

Yes...that is exactly what I said. The Old Covenant was not designed to perfect man. It showed man his sin.

But you are saying what I was saying, just differently.

Take away man with his imperfection. The Old Covenant would work. Add man, it will not.

Hey! Paul was right. Go figure.

 

[Charlie24]

No, the fault in the first covenant was that it did not make those covered perfect. That is why we now have the Everlasting New Covenant providing eternal security.

I think that has already been brought out.

Whose fault was it that the Old was not sufficient? Certainly not God being that man has now placed himself at the mercy and grace of God for his very survival.

It took time for God to provide a Redeemer for man to be totally redeemed.

Man is at fault every step of the way, in that the Old was not sufficient to undo what he had done.

But in God's mercy and grace the Old was sufficient to forgive sin based on the promise of God to provide a future way to be totally redeemed.

 

[Charlie24]

I think that has already been brought out.

Whose fault was it that the Old was not sufficient? Certainly not God being that man has now placed himself at the mercy and grace of God for his very survival.

It took time for God to provide a Redeemer for man to be totally redeemed.

Man is at fault every step of the way, in that the Old was not sufficient to undo what he had done.

But in God's mercy and grace the Old was sufficient to forgive sin based on the promise of God to provide a future way to be totally redeemed.

Not trying to argue in the negative but only taking the insufficiency of the Old to its logical conclusion.

 

[percho]

Every born anew believer has, past tense, entered His rest, and thus is continually "keeping the Sabbath."

Is there a verse in the bible that states anyone has entered his rest? Please point it or them out.

 

[Ascetic X]

Is there a verse in the bible that states anyone has entered his rest? Please point it or them out.

Hebrews 4:3,10

For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

 

[kyredneck]

"The New is in the old concealed, the Old is in the New revealed."

 

[Van]

So God messed up and fixed His mistake?


Yes...that is exactly what I said. The Old Covenant was not designed to perfect man. It showed man his sin.

But you are saying what I was saying, just differently.

Take away man with his imperfection. The Old Covenant would work. Add man, it will not.

Hey! Paul was right. Go figure.

Hopefully we have reached a consensus. The fiction that God made a mistake, is your take, not mine.

 

[Van]

I think that has already been brought out.

Whose fault was it that the Old was not sufficient? Certainly not God being that man has now placed himself at the mercy and grace of God for his very survival.

It took time for God to provide a Redeemer for man to be totally redeemed.

Man is at fault every step of the way, in that the Old was not sufficient to undo what he had done.

But in God's mercy and grace the Old was sufficient to forgive sin based on the promise of God to provide a future way to be totally redeemed.

Again, you say the first covenant was not sufficient, when it was sufficient for its purpose, to provide a stepping stone to the New Covenant.

It did not "take time," God took time, He established the "fullness of time." See Galatians 4:4

 

[Van]

Is there a verse in the bible that states anyone has entered his rest? Please point it or them out.

Yes, of course scripture says every born anew believer has entered, past tense, His rest. See post 25.

Ask yourself why you could not find it. Perhaps you need to learn how to study scripture.

A simple word search of your Exhaustive Concordance for "rest" would have turned up Hebrews 3:18, 4:1, 3, 10.

It would have taken less than 15 minutes.

 

[JonC]

Hopefully we have reached a consensus. The fiction that God made a mistake, is your take, not mine.

??

I never said that God made a mistake.

I agreed with your conclusion- that the Old Covenant could not provide what was necessary ("make flawed people perfect").

 

[percho]

??

I never said that God made a mistake.

I agreed with your conclusion- that the Old Covenant could not provide what was necessary ("make flawed people perfect").

Amen

The covenant is the same but the old man, is made the new man, in Christ.

 

[JonC]

Amen

The covenant is the same but the old man, is made the new man, in Christ.

That is what many miss.

Both Covenants are manifestations of God's righteousness - one through the law and the other through faith.

The Old Covenant showed us God's righteousness manifested through law. Through obedience the Old Covenant testified to one's righteousness. Through disobedience it testified to one's unrighteousness.

To the disobedient (man in the image of Adam) it was a certificate of debt. It showed our delinquency.

But the New Covenant is a better covenant. We are recreated.

 

[Van]

The Old Covenant is NOT the same as the New Covenant in His Blood. The New and Everlasting Covenant promises to make our dead souls alive through the blood of the Lamb.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The difference between the old and new covenants is that the old was conditional and the new is unconditional. Compare Heb. 8:9 with 8:11. 'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 'The most prominent feature of the Sinaitic ('first,' 'old') covenant is the law. It is interesting to observe its conditional nature in contrast to the 'covenants of promise' (Eph. 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.

 

[JonC]

The difference between the old and new covenants is that the old was conditional and the new is unconditional.

I am not sure "conditional" is the right word. The Old Covenant contained a blessing and a curse. So being declared righteous was conditional.

But most theologians recognize that the New Covenant is conditional in the same way (rejection of the Light results in a curse).

 

[Van]

The difference between the old and new covenants is that the old was conditional and the new is unconditional. Compare Heb. 8:9 with 8:11. 'For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 'The most prominent feature of the Sinaitic ('first,' 'old') covenant is the law. It is interesting to observe its conditional nature in contrast to the 'covenants of promise' (Eph. 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.

Superb post, thanks!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am not sure "conditional" is the right word. The Old Covenant contained a blessing and a curse. So being declared righteous was conditional.

But most theologians recognize that the New Covenant is conditional in the same way (rejection of the Light results in a curse).

I don't see how these "most theologians" can recognize that. Hebrews 8:10-12. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.'
Everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord, and has His law written on his heart. So I don't see how it can possibly be conditional. Anyone who doesn't believe is not in the new covenant.

 

[Ben1445]

I don't see how these "most theologians" can recognize that. Hebrews 8:10-12. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.'
Everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord, and has His law written on his heart. So I don't see how it can possibly be conditional. Anyone who doesn't believe is not in the new covenant.

Semantically, belief is the condition. If you are in the condition of belief you are in the new covenant. If you’re unbelieving, you are not in the new covenant.
Just because you omitted the word if, doesn’t make it unconditional. Believe is what we are told to do. If you believe (see Hebrews 3) you may have rest.

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The new covenant with Israel is not a new thought. It is new in that it replaces the law.

Galatians 3:17
And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.

That was before the first covenant. That was before the “new covenant.” But it is the new covenant.

 

[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). 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 Gal 4:24-26. Sinai represents bondage; the new Jerusalem represents freedom.
3. They differ in the manner of their promulgation (Heb 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; 2 Tim 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’ (1John 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 (Heb 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) and all believers are 'a royal priesthood' (1 Peter 2:9).
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’ (2 Cor 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. Gal 3:19). The purpose of the new covenant is to show forth God’s justice and mercy (Rom 3:26).
11. They differ in their effects. The first covenant was a ‘ministry of death’ and ‘of condemnation’ (2 Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2 Cor 3:17-18).
12. They differ in the grant of the Holy Spirit. It appears 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’ (Heb 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 (Heb 10:8-9).

[From my blog post The New Covenant ]

 

[JonC]

I don't see how these "most theologians" can recognize that. Hebrews 8:10-12. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.'
Everyone in the new covenant knows the Lord, and has His law written on his heart. So I don't see how it can possibly be conditional. Anyone who doesn't believe is not in the new covenant.

Probably for several reasons, like Hebrews 8 does not present the New Covenant as unconditional, people are not "in" covenants, they recognize the conditional aspect of being "in Christ", etc. But you would have to read each of their reasons as they may differ.
Basically the gist, from what I have noticed, is that the conditional part of this Covenant is faith. It is by faith that one is made the new creation described in Heb 8. It is also by this same standard that men are excluded (rejecting the Light).