did the new Covenant Start in Gospels or Acts?

[DaChaser1]

were the 4 gospels and events recorded there still under/in Old Covenant, or were they recording for us New Covenant history/events/doctrines?

 

[Amy.G]

The New Covenant began (IMO) when the veil was torn in two.

 

[convicted1]

The New Covenant began (IMO) when the veil was torn in two.

and give the little lady a cee-gar.....make it a King Edwards, she doesn't deserve a Cuban.....:laugh:

 

[Mark_13]

The New Covenant began (IMO) when the veil was torn in two.

Well considering that Christ hadn't even risen from the dead yet when that happened nor had the Holy Spirit been given, I would say that's probably not correct.

 

[convicted1]

Well considering that Christ hadn't even risen from the dead yet when that happened nor had the Holy Spirit been given, I would say that's probably not correct.

Right before Jesus died on the cross, He uttered these words, "It is finished." So when He died, the Law was fulfilled/finished, and the New Grace Covenant came into being.

 

[Mark_13]

Right before Jesus died on the cross, He uttered these words, "It is finished." So when He died, the Law was fulfilled/finished, and the New Grace Covenant came into being.

So, Jesus didn't say, "It [The age of Grace] is started", from the cross. I know pastors always tell us that the veil being torn in two was God making himself accessible to everyone, so that's sort of the agreed upon consensus there. Never gave much thought about it till just now after Amy's comment. And, I cannnot think of a commentary in scripture itself that says that's what the veil being torn meant.

So, did the darkness descending at the same time also signify the age of Grace starting? It also happened when Christ was crucified.

I can see the veil being torn as a cathartic lament as it were - almost as if when Christ actually died, his spirit left the Holy of Holies and that sanctuary was somehow tainted, signified by the veil setting it apart being torn. All I'm saying is, that interpretation is as valid, apart from some specific comment in the New Testament to the contrary.

I know I said that Christ's spirit was in the Holy of Holies and left when he died. I know most assume its God the father who was in there, but what if the God of the Old Testament is Christ - don't know if that's true - hypothesizing it.

 

[Mark_13]

OK, it says it got dark earlier, not at the same time as the veil was wrent, so I don't know. Also many came out of their graves when the veil was torn, so that probably says something.

---------------
Wait they didn't come out of their tombs until AFTER the resurrection. (Mat 27:53)

 

[convicted1]

OK, it says it got dark earlier, not at the same time as the veil was wrent, so I don't know. Also many came out of their graves when the veil was torn, so that probably says something.

The graves burst open when the earth shook. However, no one came out of those tombs until AFTER Jesus was resurrected.


Matthew 27

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


You edited your post while I was posting this. Sorry if this confused you.

 

[Mark_13]

This gets more and more interesting:

Luke says that it got dark at the same time as the veil being torn:

(Luke 23:44-45) It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

So, the question remains - does it getting dark in the daytime also signify the beginning of the age of grace?

I stand by me original comment - the veil being torn DID NOT signify the start of the Church age.

 

[convicted1]

This gets more and more interesting:

Luke says that it got dark at the same time as the veil being torn:

(Luke 23:44-45) It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

So, the question remains - does it getting dark in the daytime also signify the beginning of the age of grace?

I stand by me original comment - the veil being torn DID NOT signify the start of the Church age.

Wasn't the darkness there while Jesus was still alive, hanging on the cross?

 

[Mark_13]

I guess someone could say the Old Covenant ended with the veil being torn, but did the new one start at the same time? I would say no, so I guess there was an interim there with no covenant.

Might as well beat this subject to death for a while.

 

[convicted1]

I guess someone could say the Old Covenant ended with the veil being torn, but did the new one start at the same time? I would say no, so I guess there was an interim there with no covenant.

Might as well beat this subject to death for a while.

I think that Jesus accomplished both, fulfilling the Law and ushering in Grace, at the same time with His death on the cross.

 

[Mark_13]

Wasn't the darkness there while Jesus was still alive, hanging on the cross?

Even though from Matthew it seems that the darkness falling happened earlier than the veil being torn, Luke indicates they happened at the same time. Or rather he refers to just those two events in one verse. This means we are meant to see them as connected. So the veil being torn is correlated with darkness.

 

[convicted1]

Even though from Matthew it seems that the darkness falling happened earlier, Luke indicates they happened at the same time. Or rather he refers to just those two events in one verse. This means we are meant to see them as connected.

This is purely conjecture on my behalf, so if I am wrong please forgive me. Couldn't the darkness be symbolic in that death reigned over Jesus(His flesh, I mean) during this time, and where death is, there can be no light? Please show me if I have this wrong. Jesus submitted Himself to death, seeing that He made Himself a little lower than the angels in that He tasted death for every man?(Hebrews 2:9)

 

[Mark_13]

This is purely conjecture on my behalf, so if I am wrong please forgive me. Couldn't the darkness be symbolic in that death reigned over Jesus(His flesh, I mean) during this time, and where death is, there can be no light? Please show me if I have this wrong. Jesus submitted Himself to death, seeing that He made Himself a little lower than the angels in that He tasted death for every man?(Hebrews 2:9)

Why would I disagree with that? Sounds good to me. My only point is the darkness is associated with the veil being torn.

 

[convicted1]

Why would I disagree with that? Sounds good to me. My only point is the darkness is associated with the veil being torn.

Precisely!! It took Jesus death to accomplish this feat.

 

[mont974x4]

I would suggest that trying to determine the exact moment the Old was made obsolete (Heb 8:13) and the New was instituted would come under the heading of vain arguments that do not really profit anyone. Would it be when Christ instituted Communion and he passed the cup and mentioned the new covenant in His blood (Luke 22:20)? Was it when He first bled from His torture? Was it when He said "It is finished"? When the veil was torn? Was it when He breathed His last and gave up the ghost?

I am sure you see my point.

What is important, as it is hotly debated in some circles and has a lasting impact on key doctrines, is that the Old did become fulfilled and made obsolete as the New was instituted. To see my point here we need look no further than any thread on any Christian message board about the Law and its role in our lives today. This centers squarely on what we understand Christ accomplished through the Cross.

 

[freeatlast]

The graves burst open when the earth shook. However, no one came out of those tombs until AFTER Jesus was resurrected.


Matthew 27

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


You edited your post while I was posting this. Sorry if this confused you.

So was the church age started at His death or His resurrection. Keep in mind that just the death of bulls and goats was not enough to cover sin. Their bloodalso had to be sprinkled on the mercy seat. When did that happen in the case of the Lord? Could it have been sometime between the resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost? Also did the church start without the giving of the Spirit which came at Pentecost?

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I'm surprised no one has quoted Hebrews. Hebrews is the definitive book on all things New Covenant.


And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (Heb 9:15-18)

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: (Heb 9:22-24)


Whatdoyouknow, the New Covenant began after Christ's death & the application of His blood in the true holy of holies. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Mark_13]

I'm surprised no one has quoted Hebrews. Hebrews is the definitive book on all things New Covenant.


And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. (Heb 9:15-18)

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: (Heb 9:22-24)

Whatdoyouknow, the New Covenant began after Christ's death & the application of His blood in the true holy of holies. :smilewinkgrin:

Good answer - you've almost convinced me: the New covenant began the instant that Christ physically died.

Someone above said such discussions to pinpoint the exact moment are vain, and though I understand their point, the fact remains there is one best answer to the question posed in the OP, discernable somewhere in scripture, and the mere search for that answer often leads to broader edification.

And what I mean is, in just researching this myself, I was reminded that the New Covenant actually began and was ratified by God with Abraham (Galatians 3:15-17). So in a sense the New Covenant began in the Old Testament. All it was waiting for was it to be validated by Christ's blood, and in the meantime you had the other interim covenant based on Law.

But my only remaining question is, was Christ's physical death the actual inception, or rather was it when the holy places in heaven were sprinkled with his blood. After all the Levitical covenant didn't began the instant the sacrificial animal expired - its blood still had to be sprinkled on numerous temple items for that covenant to commence.

(Heb 9:23-24) Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;

So, did the New Covenant commence when Christ entered into heaven some 40 days after his resurrection. It could even be later however. Acts begins with Jesus telling everyone to wait:

(Acts 1:4-5) Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, "Which," "you heard of from Me; for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

So with all the allusions in Hebrews of sprinkling the tabernacle with blood, its seems very possible that "baptize" above evokes that sprinkling process as well, on human hearts.

(Heb 10:22) let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

So just as the earthly tabernacle had to be sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice before the Levetical covenant commenced, maybe Christ had to appear in the temple in heaven and also the temple of men's hearts in the form of the Holy Spirit.

(And evidently, after the resurrection, before Christ appeared in heaven, he had to go preach to the spirits in prison, so just one more thing that had to be done before the New Covenant commenced. I Peter 3:18-19)