The New Covenant

[Darrell C]

But why then does the writer to the Hebrews call the Mosaic Covenant, the 'First' Covenant,

This is a great topic of discussion.

I will simply give my belief: it is called the "First" for one primary reason...because as a Nation, it was the "first" one given directly to Israel.

But we cannot forget that this "First" Covenant had its beginnings in the Abrahamic Covenant. And while for Israel, we see in Hebrews that this "First" must be forsake for the "New," this does not preclude Gentile inclusion and participation, though nationally, it yet remains to be enjoined by Israel nationally.

when he knew perfectly well that the Abrahamic came before it? Because the Abrahamic Covenant is a Covenant of Promise, and therefore of a different nature to the Mosaic Covenant.

That God did not reveal the Covenant of Law in the covenant He made with Abraham, does not mean that the Covenant of Law has to be viewed as "out of character" with the promise of God to Abraham.

Just as the Gospel cannot be divorced from Genesis 3:15, but threads it's way through all of scripture, even so, the Covenant of Law exresses a ministry to man that is still characteristic of God's work in the New: it convicts of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

The difference being, for those that come into relationship with God, it is His ministry which differs, though we can see a similar result in the lives of men under the Old.

Consider these covenants:-

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.”


‘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, and the First Covenant is renered obsolete by the New Covenant.

Steve

The covenants of promise are fulfilled in Christ, and the First Covenant is rendered obsolete by the New Covenant.

Amen.

Even though the Covenant of Law was an IF/THEN covenant, I look toward the ministry it was meant to fulfill in the lives of those which sought to keep it: to bring a total reliance in God. In all aspects of his life.

Rather than viewing the Covenant of Law as completely inneffectual as some might argue (and not saying anyone has said this in this thread, just a view to other discussions I have had), I view it as having a purpose to fulfill as God ministered to man. While there are those that are found to be righteous under the First (and even pre-law), the intent of the Covenant of Law was meant to bring man to a condition of awareness concerning his sin, and drive them to God, Who is throughout scripture the Savior. Rather than establishing a rote ritual schedule of works, we see the internal ministry of the law combined with internal knowledge of man which should have brought one conclusion to their hearts: "Lord...I cannot do this, forgive me."

The Holy Spirit performs this in the lives of men today, yet under the New Covenant we see that this ministry goes beyond that which the First Covenant could accomplish, in which man is forgiven in completion, receives not only a positional standing of righteousness (before men) but is declared by God based upon the work of Christ to be righteous in his standing, and delivered from the penalty of sin.


Okay, sorry if this has jumped around a bit, Steve, I have had several interruptions in the midst of this response, so I hope at least some of this makes sense.

God bless.

Note...had to edit a few things to maintain length.

 

[DaChaser1]

Hello Steve, I appreciate very much the contribution you are making in this thread. I always long for discussion of this nature, which takes a serious look at the issue at hand, so, thanks much.

As far as the quote provided, this was given in another thread as representing the doctrinal belief of NCTers, so, being one that spends very little time studying or analyzing beyond the specific beliefs of indivuals, as well as my own personal study in scripture, I cannot say how much this represents the beliefs of NCTers, their doctrinal statement as a whole, or the individual beliefs of those associated with NCT.

You are going a little outside of my historical knowledge as well, lol, I am afraid that I spend little time looking at the beliefs of those who have gone before us.

What I amost interested in is where those that are members of the body today stand on these issues, and the basis of their belief. While I do not dismiss the contributions of Church "fathers," I am one that believes that we must be able for ourselves to present scriptural basis for what we believe, and it is on this that we can rely upon God to lead us to an understanding which He gives us.

For the most part, I am unfamiliar with some of the ones referenced, though, like the post that quoted John Owen, always glad to look at quotes, and it gladdens my heart to see that I am not a nut, but that even long ago there were those that had beliefs similar to my own, so, I think that in that sense, the quotes are beneficial.




I just may do that, though for quite some time I have tried to limit the amount of extrabiblical resources, and I would like to explain why: in the time that I have spent discussing doctrine, I have found that a resource other than direct biblical presentation can lead to a circular argument.

I have heard of A.W. Pink, I believe, but have not read anything by him, so, it may be I may try to find this. If you could provide a link I would be grateful.



Probably, though I would say I am in agreement with what you have said concerning it.



And I would agree with this. However, when we discuss scripture with our legalistic brothers, we can see where covenants, rather than general truths concerning God's expectation based upon His righteousness, get blended.

One argument presented by some surrounds the use of kainos, new. They try to mold the New Covenant into a refurbished First Covenant, in an attempt to blend the two, rather than seeing one ending, another beginning (in the life of the Church). Some deny the New Covenant as meant (much less enjoined by) for the Church, but for Israel only. These are just a few issues discussed in the debate, but notable ones, I think.

When Christ taught Israel, in His role of Prophet, He expounded the Law to them, showing the meaning of the Law in it's complete intent, such as prohibition of adultery to be a matter of the heart, rather than the physical completion of this sin.

All in all...agreed.



I hope you did not think I was suggesting you had, that was not my intention. The reference was more to those that view the New Covenant as a refurbished Mosaic Covenant in which adherence to law is not just a necessity, but a priority for the accomplishment of salvation.



I would agree, though I would clarify that the righteous nature of God is the heart of all scripture, second only to man's fallen condition.

And I think that the impression given that one group believes entirely toward one side and the other group to the other is just a result of defending one position or the other. Many that come across as legalistic, because they think that what you have stated above is not understood by those that belive in sole fide, would, if they were honest, admit that they themselves cannot live in perfect accordance to God's righteousness, thereby disqualifying themselves even as they seek to "teach others," and this usually by rude behavior...lol.



For the most part agreed, though, I think if I am reading your posts correct, we may hold different views concerning the law of God written upon man's heart. I believe that all men have this knowledge, yet, one thing is lacking in him that is not present until salvation, that being the indwelling of God, so that now, not only is this general knowledge made clear to him, he has the added benefit of having the ability to do the things which fall in line with the nature of God.

While we see the work of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament throughout the covenants, we focus on the distinctions of the promises within the New Covenant, and see that God is indeed doing a new work in the lives of men.

If that work were as it were under the previous ministry... neither would there be a need for a new covenant, nor would it be called new.




Enjoyed the read. There are a few things I would probably take issue with, but, for the most part, I think we are near in our understanding, and, I look forward to looking at where we might differ, because I do not claim to be expert in knowledge on this subject, and am glad to have the input of one that is obviously well studied on this issue.




Again, I am unfamiliar with the teachings of "paedobaptist CT," and while it is very interesting I am sure, I am more interested in how you understand the New Covenant at this point.

I believe that sometimes we are directed to a better understanding of doctrine through the errors of others, and can see how their understanding has influenced your current beliefs. But, it your belief and the basis for that belief, primarily the scriptural basis, that interests me.

Concerning the statmenet above, I would not take the view that they succeed one another in the sense that they incorporate specifics, but that they do not anull each other...that I believe.

For instance, if we try to make the promised land speak of only Canaan, or, if we deny that this promise has fulfillment in three way: 1-Canaan; 2-Millennial Kingdom; 3-the eternal state...we limit the fulfillment of God's promise and how we might view this one covenant in regards to all others.

Take the "rest" which is promised: where do we see this fulfilled? Would we deny fulfillment in Canaan? In the MK? In Christ?

I would consider all to be true, yet, we can see it fulfilled in a number of ways, each in no way nullifying the other.

And sorry, got too longwinded here, will have to continue...

I reject Covenant theology proper, as I do tend to see that God still has promised to be fulfilled in a literal sense to the jewish peoples, that go beyong being saved in this Church age of grace!

Also, tend to see the scripture, especially prophetic, as best viewed through a literal sense.sense meaning, not as symbolic/metaphorical/spiritualized etc

Also, see the Second Coming of jesus as securing glorification for the saints, but also when the fulness of the Kingdom of God established over earth, as jesus is NOT ruling as he will directly now, despite what Covenant believers say that he rules in heaven now!

Finally, still not sold as the reformed bethren are that the Law still continues into new Covenant as they see it!

think that this is very interesting, as do think that both of the Camps here in Dispy/Covenant theology circles would profit by learning what each side actually teaches/believes in this area of theology!

 

[Darrell C]

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old:

When one is made obsolete that another may be enjoined, we understand that it is not only new in practice, but as Hebrews teaches, it is new in quality.

Such as the Priesthood of Christ.

The picture of this Priesthood is seen in both Melchisadec and the Levitical Priesthood...yet, until Christ came, His Priesthood was not that which was in place.

In this sense, becase while there was an example, a picture, yet it was not in effect and could not be until ratifed by His own blood...it is indeed new.

There's nothing 'new' about any of the spiritual tenets of the 'new' covenant, it's new only because the first has been made old:

We see a point in time where God said He would make a New Covenant, and a point in time when He established that New Covenant, showing that it is qualitatively new.

In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old.......Heb 13:13

We see in Hebrews 13 a very direct statement:


Hebrews 13

10We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.


Throughout Hebrews one point is repeatedly made, which is the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant. Here, we see that those that remain under the First Covenant "have no right" in regards to the true...the New, which the First was but a shadow, a picture of.

God doesn't change, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and to-day, yea and for ever.

Not sure why the immutability of God would deny that He has ministered to men differently at different times.

The verse quoted here does not preclude the difference of ministration, nor that the New Covenant to embrace, forsaking the shadow of the Law.


Hebrews 13

7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.


We are given from the beginning of Hebrews a direct statement to this effect:




Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


We do not view this as "God changing," but we do recognize His ministry toward men as well as direct revelation of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the specific command of God to receive Him.

The Spirit has always blown where He wills, God has never been a respecter of persons, and in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, has been acceptable to him.

Does not change the fact that while men were led by the Spirit of God in times past, they were not given a "guarantee" that God would finish the work which He began in them.

An example of this would be King Saul.

To ascribe the New Birth to men like Cornelous overlooks that his conversion, though he was a man who feared God, was not made complete until he received the Spirit of God. At that point, the man was born of God, and not before, I believe.

Even the disciples themselves illustrate this, particularly in th Gospel of John.

The first covenant was ADDED (casting a shadow of the good things of the Everlasting Covenant behind it):

...because of transgressions.

Until the "seed" should come.

But we do not have to seclude the promise of the Seed to the shadow of the Law, but see Him throughout scripture. The teaching in Galatians refers to pre-law example as well.

What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise hath been made.....Gal 3:19,

And one of Hebrews' primary thrusts is that it was not meant to bring man to completion in regards to salvation. This is one of the single-greatest points to be extracted from Hebrews.

By this one point it is made clear to us just how new the New Covenant is.

The promise of God has it's beginnings in the Garden, and the fulfillment threads through the entirety of scripture, including the period in which the First was in place.

But...it is under the New in which we see fulfillment have its beginning in the eternal sense, whereby we can indeed call the New Covenant an Eternal Covenant in regards to salvation.

The Gospel message is an Eternal Gospel, and it will eternally be the knowledge which man must embrace, for in this respect Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. THis is why the writer warns against embracing doctrine that does not align with that which has been spoken.

And then it was removed:

And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that have been made, that those things which are not shaken may remain. Heb 12:7

And we see a turning from the First to the New. As well as, again, a warning not to return to the Old.

These 'new' things of the New Covenant are 'new' only because they were mysteries that had not hitherto before been revealed. The 'new' is actually not 'new', it is revealed mystery.

Not just new because it had not been revealed, but along with that, because it had not been revealed was the impossibility that it had been heard, embraced, and enjoined.

The New Covenant is New in practice. Those under the Old did not "practice the New" in shadow, they practice3d that which had been commanded, which was shadow itself.

God bless.

 

[DaChaser1]

When one is made obsolete that another may be enjoined, we understand that it is not only new in practice, but as Hebrews teaches, it is new in quality.

Such as the Priesthood of Christ.

The picture of this Priesthood is seen in both Melchisadec and the Levitical Priesthood...yet, until Christ came, His Priesthood was not that which was in place.

In this sense, becase while there was an example, a picture, yet it was not in effect and could not be until ratifed by His own blood...it is indeed new.





We see a point in time where God said He would make a New Covenant, and a point in time when He established that New Covenant, showing that it is qualitatively new.



We see in Hebrews 13 a very direct statement:


Hebrews 13

10We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.

11For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp.

12Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.


Throughout Hebrews one point is repeatedly made, which is the superiority of Christ and the New Covenant. Here, we see that those that remain under the First Covenant "have no right" in regards to the true...the New, which the First was but a shadow, a picture of.



Not sure why the immutability of God would deny that He has ministered to men differently at different times.

The verse quoted here does not preclude the difference of ministration, nor that the New Covenant to embrace, forsaking the shadow of the Law.


Hebrews 13

7Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

8Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

9Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. For it is a good thing that the heart be established with grace; not with meats, which have not profited them that have been occupied therein.


We are given from the beginning of Hebrews a direct statement to this effect:




Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


We do not view this as "God changing," but we do recognize His ministry toward men as well as direct revelation of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the specific command of God to receive Him.




Does not change the fact that while men were led by the Spirit of God in times past, they were not given a "guarantee" that God would finish the work which He began in them.

An example of this would be King Saul.

To ascribe the New Birth to men like Cornelous overlooks that his conversion, though he was a man who feared God, was not made complete until he received the Spirit of God. At that point, the man was born of God, and not before, I believe.

Even the disciples themselves illustrate this, particularly in th Gospel of John.



...because of transgressions.

Until the "seed" should come.

But we do not have to seclude the promise of the Seed to the shadow of the Law, but see Him throughout scripture. The teaching in Galatians refers to pre-law example as well.



And one of Hebrews' primary thrusts is that it was not meant to bring man to completion in regards to salvation. This is one of the single-greatest points to be extracted from Hebrews.

By this one point it is made clear to us just how new the New Covenant is.

The promise of God has it's beginnings in the Garden, and the fulfillment threads through the entirety of scripture, including the period in which the First was in place.

But...it is under the New in which we see fulfillment have its beginning in the eternal sense, whereby we can indeed call the New Covenant an Eternal Covenant in regards to salvation.

The Gospel message is an Eternal Gospel, and it will eternally be the knowledge which man must embrace, for in this respect Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. THis is why the writer warns against embracing doctrine that does not align with that which has been spoken.



And we see a turning from the First to the New. As well as, again, a warning not to return to the Old.



Not just new because it had not been revealed, but along with that, because it had not been revealed was the impossibility that it had been heard, embraced, and enjoined.

The New Covenant is New in practice. Those under the Old did not "practice the New" in shadow, they practice3d that which had been commanded, which was shadow itself.

God bless.

Think its the case of trying to keep the "continuatity" between Covenants so much, that Church is read into the OT!

 

[Darrell C]

Ok, folks,

I'm a bit confused again on this thread.

As I am reading, I think I am seeing some who are making statements about the difference between the old and new covenants, and using the term new covenant.

But, I also see the term "NTC" which is New Covenant Theology.

And at times it seems stuff is getting overlapped - kind of like my belly overlaps the keys on my laptop.

According to what I have gather so far, the NTC is an attempt (though still in the formative steps) of blending the OCT and the Dispensational views.

Perhaps I need a label indicator to tell me from what position the post is being made?

Do you all think it would help to put something in the title. Or, somebody post me a list of Who is on first base, and What is on second base, because I-Don't-know would like to step up to the plate and at least try for a strike out..????

lol...I think the best thing to do is just forget about "NCT" and instead try to determine what it is that those expressing their views mean concerning the New Covenant as it is found in scripture.

If we dispense (no pun intended) with the titles ascribed to groups and concentrate on the doctrine of scripture itself, we will then have a platform to address the assertions made by any individual concerning the New Covenant. It is a topic little discussed, though I am pleasantly surprised by some that have come forward to discuss it.

Perspective from our brothers and sisters within the work whihc God is doing within them helps us to perhaps consider that which has not before come up. I absolutely love these kinds of discussions, and have them to help tremendously when I am trying to wrap my limited brain around an issue that I have not before considered.

Very funny post, by the way...humor is, I believe, one of the best ways to keep conversations civil. And when I seriously consider myself...I am convinced the Lord has a great sense of humor...lol.

God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

Not sure why the immutability of God would deny that He has ministered to men differently at different times.

The verse quoted here does not preclude the difference of ministration, nor that the New Covenant to embrace, forsaking the shadow of the Law....

Not sure why you think that man after Pentecost would require the new nature given through the Spiritual birth from above, and those prior to Pentecost did not require it.

The picture story given in Rev 12 shows that all Saints, old & new, are born of the Woman, the heavenly Zion, which is our mother.

According to your theology, who changed, God or man?

It is consistent throughout scripture, men are going to be judged by their DEEDS. Man in his fallen state has no capacity within him to PRACTICE good. Old & new, they required the nature given from above for stedfastness in well-doing.

 

[Darrell C]

I though that we were discussing the new Covenant, not new Covenant theology of the "new reformed?"

Apparently not.

So, I'm not the only one confused!

Lonely, no more.

There is no reason I see that the beliefs of this group should not be considered in this discussion, though I would prefer myself to stick to that which scripture teaches. I would say that there is already a thread dealing with NCTers (and I still suggest that the Pastor mentioned be invited to bring balance to that thread) and that thread would be a better place to specifically examine their beliefs and doctrinal positions.

In this thread, we discuss our understanding of what scripture teaches rather than what other men teach. We all have probably been exposed to biblical doctrine long enough for the question of "why this is so little discussed" to enter our minds.

I would also say that just like many doctrines, we cannot expect to avoid discussion of several biblical doctrines in the course of discussion, such as, concerning the New Covenant, we will not be able to avoid the things associated with it, such as (I believe) the new birth, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, completion (or a the KJV translates...perfection), and a variety of associated topics.

So if anyone has an associated aspect that formulates questioning in regards to the New Covenant, it is only natural that ist should come out in the course of this discussion.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Zactly.

I believe there may well be a revival amongst the Jews and a general incoming of them into the Church, but as for the old law system, it's gone forever:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

And I would look at this from an opposite view. While we can assuredly say that the First Covenant has been made obsolete in practice concerning the New, we ould, I think, be forced to overlook a view that incorporates a belief that in the Tribulation, there iwll be a Temple and Levitical Practice which will be ended and made desolate, even as our Lord taught the disciples.

Will they be beneficial to those that practice them? No. But that is the reason for which Israel on a national basis will be in need of restoration, which will come specifically in the form of judgment...because they have not obeyed the Gospel.

The writer of Hebrews goes to much trouble to convince his countrymen the folly of returning to the First Covenant and the practices prescribed in the law.

He centers around the superiority of Christ, and this is the truth which Israel is in need of receiving. They will not receive Christ until the appointed time, which I believe to be the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks of judgment found in Daniel. The Lord's reference to the abomination of desolation (or...which makes desolate) showed a future fulfillment which some view as having been fulfilled in AD70, though most would probably see this as still future.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

think that this is very interesting, as do think that both of the Camps here in Dispy/Covenant theology circles would profit by learning what each side actually teaches/believes in this area of theology!

And that...is where we make a definite step in our own understanding.

When we lay aside preconceived notions about others and go directly to the individual, rather than a professed "label" or "title" they go by, we might be surprised as to what they believe...lol.

While I would not dismiss the need for those who minister to particular groups that we might consider to be outside of traditional belief (a title in itself...lol), I do believe that until we talk to the individuals that go by that title we fall into the trap of arguing presumption and assumption, rather than actually discussing the particular beliefs held.

It gets worse...because of the presumption, such as "legalists do not believe in salvation through the work of Christ," discussions tend to go to extremes to emphasize a point, rather than the antagonists being willing to admit that tenets of the other's beliefs are themselves held, such as my position for instance, an unshakable belief that salvation is wholly the work of God, man contributes nothing, but...that does not mean that we have license to sin or are free to disobey instruction that we are to put away sin.

Concerning dispensational views as opposed to covenantal views, I believe one member has shown that the two do not exclude each other from themselves, nor are they "new" in origin, only in recent history being held by believers. But it is the label itself which brings contradiction into the fray, I believe.

And the same principle applies: some feel they have to deny one to hold to remain "faithful to the other, rather than considering how aspects of both have application to that which scripture teaches.

Okay, all of that to say...agreed...lol.

God bless.

 

[DaChaser1]

And I would look at this from an opposite view. While we can assuredly say that the First Covenant has been made obsolete in practice concerning the New, we ould, I think, be forced to overlook a view that incorporates a belief that in the Tribulation, there iwll be a Temple and Levitical Practice which will be ended and made desolate, even as our Lord taught the disciples.

Will they be beneficial to those that practice them? No. But that is the reason for which Israel on a national basis will be in need of restoration, which will come specifically in the form of judgment...because they have not obeyed the Gospel.

The writer of Hebrews goes to much trouble to convince his countrymen the folly of returning to the First Covenant and the practices prescribed in the law.

He centers around the superiority of Christ, and this is the truth which Israel is in need of receiving. They will not receive Christ until the appointed time, which I believe to be the fulfillment of the Seventy Weeks of judgment found in Daniel. The Lord's reference to the abomination of desolation (or...which makes desolate) showed a future fulfillment which some view as having been fulfilled in AD70, though most would probably see this as still future.

God bless.

We are now under the New Covenat established by the Cross of Christ, so ALL saved today would be into Body of Christ, the Church...

So THAT would be brand new thing, as messiah has a spiritually bride of peoples connected to him by New Covenant, and NOT thru Old one under the Law...

God has a spiritual relationship NOT through a call out nation, isreal, but called out peoples in the Church...

Think 2 biggest objections from those holding to more of a reformed view is :

Why would we have people saved, as like national isreal at coming of Christ, and have temples/sacrificing again etc IF under new Covenant?

Why have the Law "abolished" if now under new Covenant, as to them appear to teach"No law/lawlessness?"

 

[Darrell C]

Think its the case of trying to keep the "continuatity" between Covenants so much, that Church is read into the OT!

It is presented based upon this:


Acts 7

35This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

36He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

39To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

And we see another reference to a pre-Pentecost "Church:"



Matthew 18:17

King James Version (KJV)

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.




Making the children of Israel "the Church" does not deny the Lord's word concerning the Church:




Matthew 16:18

King James Version (KJV)

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



We look to what it is that this particular Church would be built upon, and though we can understand that there is a correlation between the "people of God" under the Old Covenant, and the "people of God" in the New, we cannot fail to see that revelation concerning Christ, though definitely found in shadow under the Old (as well as before), was not revealed until the coming of Christ.

I view this particular point like this: there is and always has been one "people of God," and those are found throughout scripture regardless of the covenants made and in operation during their lives, and they are those who have had faith in God according to the word which He had spoken unto them...and nothing else.

Hebrews 11, I think, illustrates this very point, yet, the conclusion of the writer is that they, meaning those that came before the Cross...were not made perfect, or...complete.

There is a distinct difference between the revelation afforded in the Old Testament and the revelation given in the New, and, there is a distinct difference in understanding.

For example, if I ask for one man to shown in the Gospels to have understood Who Christ was and what He came to do on behalf of man...who would be presented as an example?

And I will stop there concerning this point, for this is a good question, I think.

God bless.

 

[DaChaser1]

It is presented based upon this:


Acts 7

35This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.

36He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.

37This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

38This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

39To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,

And we see another reference to a pre-Pentecost "Church:"



Matthew 18:17

King James Version (KJV)

17And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.




Making the children of Israel "the Church" does not deny the Lord's word concerning the Church:




Matthew 16:18

King James Version (KJV)

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.



We look to what it is that this particular Church would be built upon, and though we can understand that there is a correlation between the "people of God" under the Old Covenant, and the "people of God" in the New, we cannot fail to see that revelation concerning Christ, though definitely found in shadow under the Old (as well as before), was not revealed until the coming of Christ.

I view this particular point like this: there is and always has been one "people of God," and those are found throughout scripture regardless of the covenants made and in operation during their lives, and they are those who have had faith in God according to the word which He had spoken unto them...and nothing else.

Hebrews 11, I think, illustrates this very point, yet, the conclusion of the writer is that they, meaning those that came before the Cross...were not made perfect, or...complete.

There is a distinct difference between the revelation afforded in the Old Testament and the revelation given in the New, and, there is a distinct difference in understanding.

For example, if I ask for one man to shown in the Gospels to have understood Who Christ was and what He came to do on behalf of man...who would be presented as an example?

And I will stop there concerning this point, for this is a good question, I think.

God bless.

Think thatthe part of there being just one peoples unto the Lord is correct, in the sense that we have ALWAYS been saved by his grace alone/faith alone, but do see that the Church as first coing into existence after mesiah actually came/died/rose again, and declared/established at pentacost!

 

[convicted1]

Zactly.

I believe there may well be a revival amongst the Jews and a general incoming of them into the Church, but as for the old law system, it's gone forever:

.... Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever....Mt 21:19

21 And a strong angel took up a stone as it were a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with a mighty fall shall Babylon, the great city, be cast down, and shall be found no more at all.
22 And the voice of harpers and minstrels and flute-players and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft, shall be found any more at all in thee; and the voice of a mill shall be heard no more at all in thee;
23 and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the princes of the earth; for with thy sorcery were all the nations deceived.
24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that have been slain upon the earth. Rev 18

Amen. If this is not true, we'd better be stockpiling the sheep and oxen...

FTR, I am in no hurry to buy....

 

[Darrell C]

Not sure why you think that man after Pentecost would require the new nature given through the Spiritual birth from above, and those prior to Pentecost did not require it.

This is an interesting point in this discussion.

Lets say that man was born again before the New Covenant. What do we do with this:


John 1

King James Version (KJV)

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Do we suppose that the coming of Christ is not, as is implied here, closely associated with the new birth?

Would we conclude that men received Christ before this, when we can look at the disciples and see that understanding was not present in them...until after Pentecost?

But we see that receiving Christ and the new birth are closely associated, and it is my view that it is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the particular ministry to man which did not begin until after the ascension of Christ...which allows men to actually receive Christ.

While the "hall of faith" records those that indeed had faith, and we see in several places that the Prophets of Old through whom God spoke to man had an idea about Christ, we do not see full revelation concerning the Cross of Christ until after Pentecost. Only at that point can we sayt that the disciples had a faith in which they would not be scattered according to scripture, but would faithfully preach this Gospel, because at this point their understanding of Christ was by the Holy Spirit revealed in full.


But understand: I have friends and even highly respected teachers that I am in disagreement with on this point. Some believe that the new birth as well as entrance to heaven upon death has been the standard since man was created, and I do not see the difference of view to be a point which would require the breaking of fellowship, though it does bring about some great discussion of scripture.

And, when we get to Heaven, I will do my best not to say "I told you so."


Just kidding. We can look at this together, as it is a great discussion and one that I think is tied to our understanding of the New Covenant.

The picture story given in Rev 12 shows that all Saints, old & new, are born of the Woman, the heavenly Zion, which is our mother.

I just do not see that in Revelation 12.

The "woman" is Israel, and the events described lead up to the Millennial Kingdom, not, in my view, the eternal state in which there will be a new heaven and a new earth, where, the people of God will be one fold.

Until that time, I see a clearly distinguished difference between Israel and the Church.

When the Church is in view in Revelation, they are clearly spoken of. When the events of the Tribulation begin...the Church does not come into view with the clear distinction as she is addressed in the beginning of Revelation, and as she is mentioned at the end.

Why? Because, in my view, the Tribulation shows the Seventieth Week and this seven year period has to do with national Israel. This is the time of restoration for her through judgment. This is why Revelation 12...speaks of her.

We see the same picture drawn here:



Genesis 37:9-10

King James Version (KJV)

9And he dreamed yet another dream, and told it his brethren, and said, Behold, I have dreamed a dream more; and, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars made obeisance to me.

10And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?



Revelation 12

1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:


Very similar, both of which I believe to refer to Israel, the nation.

According to your theology, who changed, God or man?

I believe that the Ministry of God, not God Himself...changed.

The changing of His ministry toward man led to man becoming a new creature.

If man was made a new creature before Pentecost, I just ask for scriptural basis. The closest we come to is David's plea, I believe, but...I am glad to look at any scriptural presentation that would show the new birth in scripture, and would deny the teaching of the New Testament concerning man's need for a "change in the law" which "could not take away sins."

We ascribe to Old Testament saints that which they could not have until Christ died for them.

As I said, I believe firmly that God worked in the Hearts of men in the Old Testament, however, we have to decide if the "New Covenant" is not in fact "New," in regards to man and the ministry of God towards him.

If the Old did that which the New accomplishes...what need was there for a new?



Hebrews 7:11

King James Version (KJV)

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?


The First Covenant was not inneffectual in and of itself...it was inneffectual because of man.

Man is created in Christ Jesus a new creature...not just cleaned up...but a new creature, capable of that which I believe man was incapable of under the First Covenant.

And I believe when we consider all of these aspects concerning redemption, we are forced to consider that there is indeed a huge distinction between what God is doing in the lives of men today under the New Covenant, and how He ministered to him previously.

Hebrews is probably the clearest book concerning salvation and the difference between both the ministry and the results which are found under the two Covenants.

It is a shame that few invest time in this book, which is called by some, "The Holy of Holies of the New Testament."

Several passages are eisegetically expounded to teach loss of salvation, when the book itself is the clearest presentation of any New Testament writer that salvation is a one time event in the life of a believer bringing him into a permanent position of relationship with God.

It is consistent throughout scripture, men are going to be judged by their DEEDS.

While that is true, what has to be kept in mind is that those that obey the Gospel have, eternally speaking, already been judged concerning thier redemption.

The sin that I would have given my "life" for in due payment was placed upon the Son of God, He taking upon Himself my due reward.

When I stand before Him, to be judged of the words and deeds which I have spoken and performed, it will not be to determine whether I will "live" or "die," for I have received already life in Christ. It will be to determine my reward, or loss thereof.

Two entirely different matters.

Man's sin will be judged, to be sure, and the penalty will either be placed upon them, or it will be placed upon Christ.

God bless.

Man in his fallen state has no capacity within him to PRACTICE good. Old & new, they required the nature given from above for stedfastness in well-doing.

 

[Darrell C]

Think thatthe part of there being just one peoples unto the Lord is correct, in the sense that we have ALWAYS been saved by his grace alone/faith alone, but do see that the Church as first coing into existence after mesiah actually came/died/rose again, and declared/established at pentacost!

And that is the view I take as well.

As we see that Gentiles were not excluded from God's provision (Ruth being not only a good example but listed in the geneaology of Christ Himself), even so I believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith, and that...not of ourselves.

However, when we look at scripture we can see a point in time, the Cross, when something that had never happened before occurs, namely, that not only was forgiveness made complete through the work of Christ, but that a promise of sending "Another Comforter" is made, which we see accomplished at Pentecost.

We know that the Spirit of God has always been in the world, but Christ Himself pointed to a ministry that not only could not, but would not happen...except that He die and return hence from where He came.

God bless.

 

[kyredneck]

FWIW, FYI, your posts are waaaaaay too windy and wordy for my attention span, I lose interest real fast. I'll hit some high points:

This is an interesting point in this discussion.

Lets say that man was born again before the New Covenant. What do we do with this:


John 1

King James Version (KJV)

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Do we suppose that the coming of Christ is not, as is implied here, closely associated with the new birth?

If one 'accepts Christ', well, that's indication that one has been born from above.

Would we conclude that men received Christ before this, when we can look at the disciples and see that understanding was not present in them...until after Pentecost?

You do err greatly if you suppose the coming of the Comforter of Jn 16 and subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit [clothing with power] of Acts 2 to be synonymous with the birth from above of Jn 3. These two are not the same.

Those Jews from every nation under heaven dwelling at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost were described as devout men. These men were devout for one reason, the law had been written upon their hearts. They had been born from the heavenly Jerusalem above.

I just do not see that in Revelation 12.

Well, you need to.

The "woman" is Israel,...

At the time of the writing 'The Woman', beforetimes, had been manifested as Israel, but now She is manifested as the Church today:

And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus: Rev 12:17

 

[Darrell C]

FWIW, FYI, your posts are waaaaaay too windy and wordy for my attention span, I lose interest real fast. I'll hit some high points:

Very sorry for the length of your attention span...lol...but if you are not interested in in depth discussion, I have no problem with that.

I can try (though I make no promises) to keep replies to a minimum, but I can see no real benefit of quick replies in a discussion that involves so many aspects to consider.

You do err greatly if you suppose the coming of the Comforter of Jn 16 and subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit [clothing with power] of Acts 2 to be synonymous with the birth from above of Jn 3. These two are not the same.

So show me why I am in error.

I can read the promise of Christ in the Gospel of John concerning the Comforter and see it's fulfillment here:



Acts 1

1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


I do not see how one can view this as "the filling of the Holy Spirit" which we can distinguish from that which takes place upon salvation.



6When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?


Note that the disciples ask the very thing they inquire in Matthew 24...though an expectation of fulfillment of the promises of God to Israel seems more probable to them at this point.

We cannot miss the importance of this question. No understanding of that which Christ foretold seems to be in view. Do they ask, Lord, wilt thou at this time establish the Kingdom of God?"

No, they inquire whether the Kingdom of Israel will at this time be restored.


7And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.


Two things to note: 1-that the Kingdom of Israel will indeed be restored (and which of the Apostles speak of the current ministry of God a the kingdom of Israel?); 2-the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel is a future event at this time...and not that which Christ will tell them will happen "not many days hence."



8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.


What will happen "not many days hence" will be:1-they will receive power; 2-(because) the Holy Ghost will come upon them (and carefully remember that the Comforter could not come, according to Christ...if He did not depart); 3-they would because of this be witnesses to all people in all the world.

Who did Christ say He had come to specifically? To Israel. We can understand that there were other sheep which were not "of this fold," but there is an aspect of the ministry of Christ specifically toward Israel distinctly different than that which would expand to all men. If this were not true, the prophecy concerning Messiah could be said not to have been fulfilled in Christ, justifying Jews in their rejection of Him.



9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Just as the Lord taught them, though they did not understand this at the time:



John 15

26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.


We can see that the Comforter is instrumental in their ability to be witnesses.


John 16

7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.


And when did Christ..."go away?"


I say we are told here:




Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:


I view this as the day He was taken up.


9And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


And we see that all things according to the word of the Lord is done decently and in order.

I think that seeing the coming of the Comforter before this as putting things out of the order in which the Lord Himself spoke.

It is true, I believe, that men are "filled with the Holy Spirit" both before and after salvation, but, we can see a clear distinction, I believe, between the two. We would not view the filling of the Holy Spirit in regards to born again believers to be a subsequent "baptism," as some do, but neither would I voew the filling, when the Spirit of God came upon men prior to Pentecost to be the permanent indwelling of God spoken of by the Lord and His Apostles.

Those Jews from every nation under heaven dwelling at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost were described as devout men. These men were devout for one reason, the law had been written upon their hearts. They had been born from the heavenly Jerusalem above.

Were thy saved according to New Testament revelation? I do not see that they were.

Well, you need to.

Okay, if you are convinced that Revelation 12 speaks of the Church...convince me.

I have a very long attention span and am willing to examine each statement on a point by point basis.

I just need the scriptural basis to examine...in order to examine it...lol.

At the time of the writing 'The Woman', beforetimes, had been manifested as Israel, but now She is manifested as the Church today:

Okay, here is just one objection to this view: did the Church "give birth to Christ?"

We cannot both view this as Israel and the Church for this reason.

Revelation Twelve does not evolve mid-text, but can refer only to one or the other.

And the dragon waxed wroth with the woman, and went away to make war with the rest of her seed, that keep the commandments of God, and hold the testimony of Jesus: Rev 12:17

Again, we see Israel in the midst of her restoration, when Israel will embrace Messiah, and at this point, have the ability to "keep the commandments of God" which in these last days refers to the next characteristic...holding the testimony of Christ.

A spiritualized view of this text breaks the teaching found in Revelation and only a view which sees the woman as Israel keeps the integrity of that which is taught in Revelation.

Hope that was short enough, though I will say that my personal commentary is not that much, as the scriptures presented speak volumes...and for themselves.

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You do err greatly if you suppose the coming of the Comforter of Jn 16 and subsequent filling of the Holy Spirit [clothing with power] of Acts 2 to be synonymous with the birth from above of Jn 3. These two are not the same.

I would just like to clarify that while I do consider the coming of the Comforter as necessary for the New Birth to become available for men, I do not consider the indwelling of God in the believer to encompass the entire event of the new birth.

I do not view the Spirit of God to simply indwell "old wineskins," but believe that there are a number of changes made to man when he is reborn.

Those Jews from every nation under heaven dwelling at Jerusalem during the feast of Pentecost were described as devout men. These men were devout for one reason, the law had been written upon their hearts. They had been born from the heavenly Jerusalem above.

And these devout men are in need of hearing what Peter has to say:


Acts 2

15For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.

16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:

18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:


We see fulfillment of prophecy, though in part only, perhaps, but fulfillment of that which was spoken by Joel.

Let's look at what else Peter says to these devout men:


22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:


The question is...what were they devoted to?

Consider why they were in Jerusalem, and we will have the answer to that.


Now consider:


36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Clearly showing that these devout men had not received that which the disciples had.

Note-sorry but I cannot enlarge the scriptures in edit.


God bless.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Hello Darrell,
I'm a bit snowed under with work just now and unable to contribute much to this thread, but you asked

I have heard of A.W. Pink, I believe, but have not read anything by him, so, it may be I may try to find this. If you could provide a link I would be grateful.

Go to http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/index.htm and scroll down until you find The Divine Covenants. It's a moderately big book, and a deep one, so I recommend getting the printed version. My eyes go funny if I read too much on a computer screen.

Steve

 

[Darrell C]

Hello Darrell,
I'm a bit snowed under with work just now and unable to contribute much to this thread, but you asked

Go to http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/index.htm and scroll down until you find The Divine Covenants. It's a moderately big book, and a deep one, so I recommend getting the printed version. My eyes go funny if I read too much on a computer screen.

Steve

Thanks, Steve, I will look into it, though only have time to check in and say thanks, and hope you and all here have a blessed day.

God bless.