Hebrews 8-- no 'old covenant'

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

The old covenant which is mentioned in Heb 8:8-13. The one that was fulfilled by Jesus Who inaugurated a new and living way, a new covenant. The new covenant is the one that few seem to find...


"You search the scripture because you think that in them you have eternal life, yet it is these which speak of Me but you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have eternal life." And also, "The one who comes to Me, I will certainly not cast out."

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/are-christians-in-trouble-spiritually.104487/page-8#post-2309051#153

<<The old covenant which is mentioned in Heb 8:8-13.>> There is NO <<old covenant>>, <<mentioned in Heb 8:8-13>>. The Covenant that Jesus fulfilled and by which He inaugurated a new and living way, was, The New Covenant God in his Eternal Council covenanted. The one that was fulfilled by Jesus Who inaugurated a new and living Way ("I-AM --Christ-- The Way.") ... the New Covenant that few seem to find...


Yes... The New Covenant that few seem to find. "You search the Scripture because you think that in them you have eternal life, yet it is these which speak of Me but you are unwilling to come to Me that you may have eternal life."


But you're speaking of <<The old covenant which is mentioned in Heb 8:8-13>> Now there never was an 'OLD covenant' which GOD, spoke of or concerning Christ, mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13 or anywhere else in Scripture.


In Hebrews 8:5-13 there is mention of "a Covenant He (Christ) is the Mediator of, a better Covenant"; "a New Covenant I (God) will make"; "the covenant I (God) made with their fathers"; "My (God's) Covenant they continued not in"; "this the Covenant I (God) will make".


This in all is the one and same Eternal Covenant of Grace of GOD, which in the OLD Testament was called the NEW Covenant because it at that time "shadowed" forth, "promised" and prophesied the coming Christ; and which in the NEW Testament is called the "Better Covenant" which "Christ is the Mediator" of, which Christ "hath obtained a more excellent ministry" for, and which Christ "established upon better promises".


"For if that first (place) tabernacle (skehneh) which Moses made ... had been faultless, then no place, no true Tabernacle or Sanctuary which the Lord pitched, which the Majesty in the heavens (Christ) is Minister and Mediator of, should have been sought."


An <<old covenant>> that GOD covenanted? Never! That CHRIST is or had been the Minister and Mediator of? God forbid!

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Now there never was an 'OLD covenant' which GOD, spoke of or concerning Christ, mentioned in Hebrews 8:8-13 or anywhere else in Scripture.

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Perhaps you will help me out.

Hebrews 8:8-9. '"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand.......etc."'

So there is a new covenant, and a covenant made previously. Surely that might reasonably be called the 'old covenant'? V.13. 'In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. No what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.' The only actual mention of an 'Old Covenant' is in 2 Corinthians 3:14, but the principle seems very firmly there in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Perhaps you will help me out.

Hebrews 8:8-9. '"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand.......etc."'

So there is a new covenant, and a covenant made previously. Surely that might reasonably be called the 'old covenant'? V.13. 'In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. No what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.' The only actual mention of an 'Old Covenant' is in 2 Corinthians 3:14, but the principle seems very firmly there in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.

It is unfortunate that you say that you are quoting <<Hebrews 8:8-9>>, but actually only quoted verse 9.
In verse 8 God says "the days come that I will make New Covenant with ... Israel ... Judah, not according to the Covenant which I made WHEN I took them by the hand..." The same "Covenant" is spoken of, the "NEW Covenant" God in the past spoke of that He in the future would make with Israel Judah ---through Jesus Christ as the whole trend of the chapter indicates.

1) The same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation One, "with their fathers" verse 9.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "with the children".

2) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Two, "with the house of Israel" verse 9,10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah".

3) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Three, "the days come when I will" verse 9,10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "in the day (in the past) when I took them by the hand".

4) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Four, "THIS, Covenant I will make after those days in their mind and in their hearts" verse 10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "finding fault with them".

Thus the contrast is completed, not between different covenants, but between different ministrations and or different aspects of "THIS Covenant".

So there is one everlasting "New Covenant", the Covenant everlastingly made previously, made everlastingly New in Christ, through Christ, in the day of Christ and for ever after the day of Christ "on the right hand of the Throne of The Majesty On High", vs.1.
Surely that reasonably is being called "THIS Covenant" and "a New Covenant"?

Now verse 12 of chapter 8 undeniably provides a fine ending to it, so that V.13 properly belongs to, and with chapter 9, which speaks of the "first tabernacle" or "worldly sanctuary". So therefore,

"With saying, 'rendered new', the first tabernacle is made old."

(('en tohi legein kainehn' Accusative, "the first tabernacle ['skehneh' 9:2], is made old." ['pepalaiohken tehn prohtehn']))

Therefore,
"8:13With saying, 'rendered new', the first tabernacle is made old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to disappear. 9:1So then ['eiche men oun'] the first tabernacle / sanctuary / holy place ['heh prohteh' ('skehneh') vs.2 (old) place of worship, 'topos' vs.7], had both a sanctuary / holy place for the people ... and behind the second veil, the holiest place".

The only actual mention of "the reading of the Old Testament" SCRIPTURES, is in 2 Corinthians 3:14, but the only commonality with the New Covenant was that "the Word read did not profit them, not being mixed with Faith in them that heard" its reading. It seems to be the same problematic <principle> here.

 

[Christine Baker]

It is unfortunate that you say that you are quoting <<Hebrews 8:8-9>>, but actually only quoted verse 9.
In verse 8 God says "the days come that I will make New Covenant with ... Israel ... Judah, not according to the Covenant which I made WHEN I took them by the hand..." The same "Covenant" is spoken of, the "NEW Covenant" God in the past spoke of that He in the future would make with Israel Judah ---through Jesus Christ as the whole trend of the chapter indicates.

1) The same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation One, "with their fathers" verse 9.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "with the children".

2) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Two, "with the house of Israel" verse 9,10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah".

3) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Three, "the days come when I will" verse 9,10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "in the day (in the past) when I took them by the hand".

4) Still the same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :
Stipulation Four, "THIS, Covenant I will make after those days in their mind and in their hearts" verse 10.
The correlating stipulation in verse 8 is, "finding fault with them".

Thus the contrast is completed, not between different covenants, but between different ministrations and or different aspects of "THIS Covenant".

So there is one everlasting "New Covenant", the Covenant everlastingly made previously, made everlastingly New in Christ, through Christ, in the day of Christ and for ever after the day of Christ "on the right hand of the Throne of The Majesty On High", vs.1.
Surely that reasonably is being called "THIS Covenant" and "a New Covenant"?

Now verse 12 of chapter 8 undeniably provides a fine ending to it, so that V.13 properly belongs to, and with chapter 9, which speaks of the "first tabernacle" or "worldly sanctuary". So therefore,

"With saying, 'rendered new', the first tabernacle is made old."

(('en tohi legein kainehn' Accusative, "the first tabernacle ['skehneh' 9:2], is made old." ['pepalaiohken tehn prohtehn']))

Therefore,
"8:13With saying, 'rendered new', the first tabernacle is made old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to disappear. 9:1So then ['eiche men oun'] the first tabernacle / sanctuary / holy place ['heh prohteh' ('skehneh') vs.2 (old) place of worship, 'topos' vs.7], had both a sanctuary / holy place for the people ... and behind the second veil, the holiest place".

The only actual mention of "the reading of the Old Testament" SCRIPTURES, is in 2 Corinthians 3:14, but the only commonality with the New Covenant was that "the Word read did not profit them, not being mixed with Faith in them that heard" its reading. It seems to be the same problematic <principle> here.

Hi Gerhard,

Sorry but you're totally confusing! lol

Heb 8:7 specifically says "If there was nothing WRONG with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for ANOTHER..."

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hi Gerhard,

Sorry but you're totally confusing! lol

Heb 8:7 specifically says "If there was nothing WRONG with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for ANOTHER..."

Your emphasis is meaningless. It's your choice of words and concepts much is wrong and confused with. Go back and read what I quoted from the text. Will you? Now give me a nice surprize and read again?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Hi Gerhard,

Sorry but you're totally confusing! lol

Heb 8:7 specifically says "If there was nothing WRONG with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for ANOTHER..."

Hi Gerhard, Sorry but you're totally confusing! lol

Heb 8:7 specifically says "If there was nothing WRONG with the first covenant, no place would have been sought for ANOTHER..."

Your emphasis is meaningless. It's your choice of words and concepts much is wrong and <confused> with. Go back and read what I quoted from the text. Will you? Now give me a nice surprize and read again?


And by the buy, ‘place’-‘topos’ is Subject, Nominative, of the Passive, ‘edzehteíto'- "was sought", which translates, “Because if that first TABERNACLE had been faultless (a place), no whatsoever second PLACE (second tabernacle) was sought.”

[[“Because if [ei gár] THAT [ekeíneh] the FIRST [heh próhteh (skehnéh) v.1,2] (tabernacle made according to the pattern shewed in the mount v.5) had been [ehn] faultless [ámemptos] a place, no whatsoever [ouk án] second [deutéras] PLACE [tópo-S] was sought [edzehteíto].”]]

 

[Christine Baker]

Your emphasis is meaningless. It's your choice of words and concepts much is wrong and <confused> with. Go back and read what I quoted from the text. Will you? Now give me a nice surprize and read again?


And by the buy, ‘place’-‘topos’ is Subject, Nominative, of the Passive, ‘edzehteíto'- "was sought", which translates, “Because if that first TABERNACLE had been faultless (a place), no whatsoever second PLACE (second tabernacle) was sought.”

[[“Because if [ei gár] THAT [ekeíneh] the FIRST [heh próhteh (skehnéh) v.1,2] (tabernacle made according to the pattern shewed in the mount v.5) had been [ehn] faultless [ámemptos] a place, no whatsoever [ouk án] second [deutéras] PLACE [tópo-S] was sought [edzehteíto].”]]

Lol. Whatever, Gerhard. I don't know what you're talking about.

Psalm 131:1 is my final word on the whole matter.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Lol. Whatever, Gerhard. I don't know what you're talking about.

Psalm 131:1 is my final word on the whole matter.

I catch your drift, madam; God also... if He cared as I don't.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

"God blessed the Seventh Day"..."There the LORD commanded the blessing, even life for evermore" ..."On the day the Seventh Day the LORD rested and was revived"

 

[Christine Baker]

I catch your drift, madam; God also... if He cared as I don't.

Gerhard,

The first thing I was taught by God is that He cares. He cares very much. So much so, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 1 John 3:11 reads, "And this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another." These words written in 1 John, I heard whilst in the glory with God. Long before I ever picked up a bible. He said nothing about keeping commandments, etc. He said nothing about studying. He made no reference to sin at all. What He did say was this, "They do not understand; the only important thing is that they love one another." Love, is the fulfilment of the law. If you have not love, you have not God. All you have is intellectual bigotry. It makes you sound like the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisee's, as spoken of in Acts 15.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Gerhard,

The first thing I was taught by God is that He cares. He cares very much. So much so, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 1 John 3:11 reads, "And this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another." These words written in 1 John, I heard whilst in the glory with God. Long before I ever picked up a bible. He said nothing about keeping commandments, etc. He said nothing about studying. He made no reference to sin at all. What He did say was this, "They do not understand; the only important thing is that they love one another." Love, is the fulfilment of the law. If you have not love, you have not God. All you have is intellectual bigotry. It makes you sound like the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisee's, as spoken of in Acts 15.

Love, is the fulfilment of the law, not contempt hidden in Holy Scripture.

Don't preach to me, lady, the way I use the word lady, with a split tongue.

 

[Christine Baker]

Love, is the fulfilment of the law, not contempt hidden in Holy Scripture.

Don't preach to me, lady, the way I use the word lady, with a split tongue.

Contempt is something you have demonstrated from the first, Gerhard. You even confess to using a forked tongue. It appears you have more in common with satan than Christ...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Gerhard,
Your post is one of the strangest that I have seen on the Baptist Board, and I've seen a few strange ones in my time. First of all you accuse me of not quoting Hebrews 8:8 when I did, and then you say

1) The same "NEW Covenant" is spoken of, which "God made according to the Covenant" :

Actually the Holy Spirit wrote 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.........' (v.9). The New Covenant, which was in the future when Jeremiah wrote of it, but had been implemented when the writer to the Hebrews was writing: '....As He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises' (v,6).

I take it that you are a paedobaptist, and therefore your understanding of the covenants is that they are all one and that the New Covenant is really the 'renewed' covenant. I don't think this works. The Hebrew word translated 'new' in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is chadash, and almost invariably it refers to something new and different:

Exodus 1:8. 'And there arose up a new king over Egypt.....' This was not the old king come back to life, but a new one. The old one was good; this one was bad. The old one was old; this one was young. It's a different king.
Deuteronomy 24:5. 'When a man has taken a new wife......' This is not the old one with a facelift! It's a different woman.

So the New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant changed just a little; it is 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.' The New Covenant is the outworking in time of the Covenant of Grace made among the Persons of the Trinity before time began (eg. John 5:38-40; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

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 Mosaic or 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; 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’ (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).
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. 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’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 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 wide 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).

 

[Darrell C]

And by the buy, ‘place’-‘topos’ is Subject, Nominative, of the Passive, ‘edzehteíto'- "was sought", which translates, “Because if that first TABERNACLE had been faultless (a place), no whatsoever second PLACE (second tabernacle) was sought.”

[[“Because if [ei gár] THAT [ekeíneh] the FIRST [heh próhteh (skehnéh) v.1,2] (tabernacle made according to the pattern shewed in the mount v.5) had been [ehn] faultless [ámemptos] a place, no whatsoever [ouk án] second [deutéras] PLACE [tópo-S] was sought [edzehteíto].”]]

There is simply no way you can make the Tabernacle the subject, Gerhard:


Hebrews 8:6-9
King James Version (KJV)

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


The context will not bear it out.

The latter part is a little confusing, but it seems you are saying "The first Tabernacle was not faultless, so no second Tabernacle was sought whatsoever," which conflicts with the reality of Salvation in Christ through the New Covenant as opposed to the Old (implied) Covenant, because the Writer often repeats one theme...the Law could not do what Christ cam to accomplish (i.e., take away sins, make one complete in regards to Remission of sins, etc.).

The "Tabernacle" of the New Covenant in relation to the believer is the Believers themselves.

And the Writer starts this passage making a very relevant point to your proposal:


Hebrews 8
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.


The conclusion, therefore, is that the Law contained that which was earthly, and temporal, and not the Reality of Heaven itself. When men went into the earthly Tabernacle, and performed earthly duties, which had earthly consequence, they did not go where we have been given access to today...into the true presence of God (which the earthly Tabernacle represented):


Hebrews 9:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:


Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Israel herself did not even have access through the Veil (of the Tabernacle) into the presence of GOd, except vicariously through the High Priest.

We have Access into the Holiest, Heaven, through the VEIL, Jesus Christ, His Flesh (which refers to His Incarnation and ultimately His death in our place) being the means of access into the presence of God, both in regards to intimate relationship with Him while we are alive, but more importantly our going into His presence when we die.


God bless.

 

[Christine Baker]

Gerhard,
Your post is one of the strangest that I have seen on the Baptist Board, and I've seen a few strange ones in my time. First of all you accuse me of not quoting Hebrews 8:8 when I did, and then you say

Actually the Holy Spirit wrote 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.........' (v.9). The New Covenant, which was in the future when Jeremiah wrote of it, but had been implemented when the writer to the Hebrews was writing: '....As He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises' (v,6).

I take it that you are a paedobaptist, and therefore your understanding of the covenants is that they are all one and that the New Covenant is really the 'renewed' covenant. I don't think this works. The Hebrew word translated 'new' in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is chadash, and almost invariably it refers to something new and different:

Exodus 1:8. 'And there arose up a new king over Egypt.....' This was not the old king come back to life, but a new one. The old one was good; this one was bad. The old one was old; this one was young. It's a different king.
Deuteronomy 24:5. 'When a man has taken a new wife......' This is not the old one with a facelift! It's a different woman.

So the New Covenant is not the Mosaic covenant changed just a little; it is 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.' The New Covenant is the outworking in time of the Covenant of Grace made among the Persons of the Trinity before time began (eg. John 5:38-40; Ephesians 1:3-14; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14).

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 Mosaic or 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; 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’ (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).
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. 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’ (2Cor 3:7, 9); the New gives liberty (2Cor 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 wide 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).

Well said, Martin! The fact that both you and Darryl have said the same thing within minutes of each other - witness of God!

 

[Christine Baker]

There is simply no way you can make the Tabernacle the subject, Gerhard:


Hebrews 8:6-9
King James Version (KJV)

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.


The context will not bear it out.

The latter part is a little confusing, but it seems you are saying "The first Tabernacle was not faultless, so no second Tabernacle was sought whatsoever," which conflicts with the reality of Salvation in Christ through the New Covenant as opposed to the Old (implied) Covenant, because the Writer often repeats one theme...the Law could not do what Christ cam to accomplish (i.e., take away sins, make one complete in regards to Remission of sins, etc.).

The "Tabernacle" of the New Covenant in relation to the believer is the Believers themselves.

And the Writer starts this passage making a very relevant point to your proposal:


Hebrews 8
King James Version (KJV)

1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.


The conclusion, therefore, is that the Law contained that which was earthly, and temporal, and not the Reality of Heaven itself. When men went into the earthly Tabernacle, and performed earthly duties, which had earthly consequence, they did not go where we have been given access to today...into the true presence of God (which the earthly Tabernacle represented):


Hebrews 9:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:


Hebrews 10:19-20
King James Version (KJV)

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;


Israel herself did not even have access through the Veil (of the Tabernacle) into the presence of GOd, except vicariously through the High Priest.

We have Access into the Holiest, Heaven, through the VEIL, Jesus Christ, His Flesh (which refers to His Incarnation and ultimately His death in our place) being the means of access into the presence of God, both in regards to intimate relationship with Him while we are alive, but more importantly our going into His presence when we die.


God bless.

Well said, Darrel. You and Martin both answering the same thing within minutes of each other - witness of God!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Contempt is something you have demonstrated from the first, Gerhard. You even confess to using a forked tongue. It appears you have more in common with satan than Christ...

One of the first things I was taught from the Scriptures, is that God cares with gifts of his love. "God so LOVED that He GAVE his only begotten Son."
And one of the latest things I was taught from the Scriptures, is that God gave his only begotten Son from the dead through his Resurrection by the Glory of the Father.

And, "THERE", "in the Son" and "by the Son", "the LORD commanded The Blessing, even LIFE for evermore", and "by The Blessing, the LORD commanded, even LIFE for evermore."

"LIFE for evermore"-WHERE? Matthew 28:1, "On the Sabbath...."

God's Command is God's Gift is God's Care is God's Love is God's Blessing is God's Rest:
"And God...in these last days...BY THE SON...thus spake, God on the Seventh Day from all his works RESTED...and was REVIVED."

The solution simply for your dilemma, Christine Baker, is, shred the Scriptures!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

you accuse me of not quoting Hebrews 8:8 when I did

Post #2…

I'm a bit puzzled by this. Perhaps you will help me out.


Hebrews 8:8-9. '"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand.......etc."'

So there is a new covenant

You quoted nothing of relevance in verse 8. Only <<'"Behold, the days are coming," says the Lord, >> is from verse 8. The rest is verse 9.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Actually the Holy Spirit wrote 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.........' (v.9).

Show me where I deny or contradict. You can’t. So don’t waste our time to find where I allegedly did.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

the Holy Spirit wrote 'not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers.........' (v.9). The New Covenant, which was in the future when Jeremiah wrote of it, but had been implemented when the writer to the Hebrews was writing: '....As He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises' (v,6).

Yes, <<The New Covenant, which was in the future when Jeremiah wrote of it, but had been implemented when the writer to the Hebrews was writing>>, was the same New Covenant which had in the past been implemented by God until and after Jeremiah wrote of it, that also was implemented when the writer to the Hebrews was writing.


God ever has had ONE Covenant: The Covenant of Grace: the New Covenant: the Eternal Covenant of the Eternal Council of God. If there were other Covenants there had to be other Gods who were able to “save to the UTTERMOST”. But God is One and God’s Council is One. The Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit FOR ETERNITY WITH HOLY OATH ONCE MADE COVENANT unto Salvation by the Good News of Jesus Christ which Gospel “IS THE POWER OF GOD unto Salvation to EVERYONE Jew (in Jeremiah’s day) and Greek (in Jesus’ day).”