David_McQueen Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 What are the biblical premises for the old and new covenant? What are the key elements? Can the new be understood without appreciating the old? What do we mean when we say "the old covenant has been done anway with"? Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Indeed. The terms of the old covenant are stated in Ex. 19:3 - 8. There, you have the classic elements of a contract: an offer, an acceptance, valuable consideration, time for performance (perhaps implied) parties identified, and subject matter. God's offer to Israel, is to give the nation special status as His people, a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. Note that this is not an offer of personal salvation, but of special status for the literal nation of Israel (regardless of whether or not individuals within that nation experienced personal salvation.) His offer was conditioned upon Israel's acceptance of the terms BY PERFORMANCE. Not merely an exchange of promises, but performance of what God commanded. The leaders of the people accepted the offer, stating, "All that the Lord hath spoken, we will do." (V. 8) Under modern contract law, we might see a question arise in regard to vagueness. The people 'bought' a pig in a poke. They promised to do something not yet specified, yet the vagueness could well be cured by their sweeping acceptance: 'ALL that the Lord hath spoken, we will do.' This old covenant was an object lesson, as indeed the entire sanctuary system and, I submit, even the literal nation of Israel was an object lesson. At no time did mere birth as an Israelite ensure salvation or citizenship in God's heavenly kingdom. However, the entire system illustrated great principles of the plan of salvation. Well, enough for now. Dave Quote
David_McQueen Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 [:"brown"]Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." 7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. 8 The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD. Ex 19:3-8 [/] What is the covenant God is referring to there? Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
David_McQueen Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 Sorry I know it refers to the old covenant. Let me rephrase my question. God says "if you obey me fully and keep my covenant". What are the terms/conditions of this covenant that they must keep as well as obeying God? It would seem Israel agreed to something before the details were even given. If we are to accept that Exodus was written chronologically then the book of the covenant wasnt even complete until Exodus 24 Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted February 14, 2006 Posted February 14, 2006 Firstly, I understand the "and" there, generally to connect grammatically coordinate words and concepts, but not necessarily to state an added condition. Obeying God and keeping His covenant are, I believe, coordinate concepts. Secondly, I agree with your observation that they agreed to something before the details were given. Interesting, indeed. To me, an evidence of their self-confidence--like Gen'l McClellan, they were saying, "I can do it all." Ha! The upshot of that for Israel, was quite similar to the experience of Little Mac and the Army of the Potomac! Regards, Dave Quote
David_McQueen Posted February 14, 2006 Author Posted February 14, 2006 I did a bit of background reading today (on holiday at home with the kids) and I found this amonst other articles. Your thoughts http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/covenants/cov-redemp.htm Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
jasd Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 >>This old covenant was an object lesson, as indeed the entire sanctuary system and,<< Was? But, what of the latter chapters of Ezekiel that point to and detail a sanctuary system? >>I submit, even the literal nation of Israel was an object lesson.<< Indeed! it was/is an object lesson testifying to the everlasting integrity of Gd’s word, His promises, His unconditional covenants – with the fathers, the wives, and mothers… of the literal Israel. I might add that there could never be a grafting-in of the so-called wild olive branch – unless there was that to which it might be engrafted; that is, the literal COI, the metaphoric olive tree. >>At no time did mere birth as an Israelite ensure salvation or citizenship in God's heavenly kingdom.<< Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: v27 For this [is] my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. Again, we have what I have questioned before of this list… what is the intended meaning of --all? and where in the following is there the connotation that non-salvific sins are left to them? “I shall take away their sins.” >>However, the entire system illustrated great principles of the plan of salvation.<< That it might; however, are they properly interpreted? >>Firstly, I understand the "and" there, generally to connect grammatically coordinate words and concepts, but not necessarily to state an added condition. Obeying God and keeping His covenant are, I believe, coordinate concepts.<< Well stated, and more so does Gd keep His covenants He swore unconditionally. >>Secondly, I agree with your observation that they agreed to something before the details were given. Interesting, indeed.<< No more so than one assumes a given (though not set forth previously) in the incidence of the man picking up sticks… Quote
archierieus Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 Quote: David_McQueen said: Your thoughts Having read the article, I was left with the perception that first, he said it wasn't, but then he said it was. What I mean is, first he said that the 'old covenant' was actually the everlasting covenant, but then he said that it was different. Hmmm. He seems to make the distinction based on what the PEOPLE responded, rather than what God asked for. At the same time, God's offer could reasonably be understood to call for the kind of acceptance which the people gave: "If you will obey My commandments and keep My covenant . . ." How would a primitive people be expected to respond? I see a distinction based on the terms of God's offer. He did not offer salvation. He offered special status to the literal nation of Israel. I am not a little puzzled as to why this distinction is not brought out in articles such as the one you mentioned. On its face, the covenant states the consideration for the covenant, the subject matter, the covenant duties and obligations. As for 'berith,' my understanding is that it partakes of the nature of a treaty entered into by a sovereign, in this application. As Heppenstall points out, there is not an opportunity to negotiate, but there still is reality of consent, and a bargain is struck. Regards, Dave Quote
jasd Posted February 15, 2006 Posted February 15, 2006 QR Frame: I took a look at the link provided… “The Bible describes two covenants: one everlasting, the other temporal; one new, the other old; one perfect, the other faulty.” and noticed the immediate introduction of a faulty premise (above quoted). Much later the following statement, whether ameliorating or contradictory (one questions) --is made. “God chooses individuals or a nation to be His people. To these people of His choice God commands His covenant.” Ahh, and later, “In God’s first covenant with Adam,…” Herein, a direct statement is added that a covenant other than the “two” in the initial premise --existed. The various covenants cannot be all labeled “THE everlasting covenant”, as they differ, among other things, in their conditionalities. […] The Bible describes more than two covenants. They are precisely delineated in Writ. The uncertainty regards the covenants must severely impede one attempting to proselytize and is shared my many in that they also fail to recognize the distinctions between the kingdoms of the COI – instead, calling all the posterity of Jacob/Israel -- Jews. The Jews have the inheritance of the ‘lawgiver’ and the ‘sceptre’; Ephraim, as ‘firstborn’, is bequeathed the rest, as well the double portion (that later changes in profane law to 'primogeniture' of Europe). Start counting those promises held by Ephraim and one soon realizes that it is rash to not apprise oneself of that which is Ephraim(‘s). What I forward in the above is Biblical, and where Jewish historians have written volumes recognizing this, it might do the Protesting .Orgs well to emulate their studies. Quote
David_McQueen Posted February 16, 2006 Author Posted February 16, 2006 So coming back to the original questions 1. What are the biblical premises a. The Old Covenant (Exodus 19:3-8) b. The New Covenant (?) 2. What are the key elements Old Covenant - Offer: Obey Me - Acceptance: We will obey New Covenant? 3. Can the new be understood without appreciating the old? 4. What do we mean when we say "the old covenant has been done anway with"? Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted February 17, 2006 Posted February 17, 2006 Interesting questions, indeed, David. The New Covenant? Stated in Heb. 10:15 - 17. However, that passage only states God's promissory obligations. Where are the obligations of God's people stated? One might say that they are implied in earlier verses in the chapter, and in the book. However, I would want to point to John 3:14 - 16 as stating terms of the New Covenant. Thus, God promises to write His laws in our hearts. Our obligation? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. There is similar descriptive language of God's New Covenant people, in 2? Peter: a kingdom of priests and an holy nation, who once were not a people, but now are the people of the living God. Old Covenant done away? I understand Paul to be referring to the failure of the ceremonies under the OC to truly purify believers. One goal of the covenants would therefore seem to be the purification of believers, which may be accomplished under the New Covenant. The result of the New Covenant, is the very thing pledged by the Jews under the OC--that is, obedience to God. It is accomplished through union with Christ, as He both imputes His righteousness to us, and changes us, writing His laws in our hearts. Regards, Dave Quote
David_McQueen Posted February 18, 2006 Author Posted February 18, 2006 Dave Was it the ceremonies of the old covenant that made it void, or Israel not holding on to the we shall do part? Also when Jeremiah and the writer of Hebrews quoting him, mention that the law would be written on hearts and minds, does this suggest it wasn't there before? (Please note I am not being contentious. Rather I love to see the different flavours we place on understanding these concepts) Quote Firstborn Ministries: Spoken and written word, without apology
archierieus Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 It seems to me that Paul the apostle uses terminology interchangeably. Sometimes it is hard to figure out exactly what he is referring to. (One would expect that, being practically blind and in custody, he did not have opportunity to do serious editing!) When I read the chapters in Hebrews, it appears to me that Paul is focusing on the ceremonial features of the OC, and their inability to truly purify believers. However, interwoven in that discussion is the idea that the entire Hebrew economy was typical, foreshadowing the ministry of Christ. And, of course, as you mentioned, the Jews' not performing what they had promised to do in Ex. 19:8. As for the law being written on hearts and minds in the future, indeed that is my understanding. The Jews had kept God at a distance, and developed their own religion, which focused on externals. Contentious? Not in the slightest. This kind of disucssion is interesting and enjoyable. Regards, Dave Quote
Clio Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 It's also worth noting that Peter, and the other disciples, found Paul's writings to confuse what was essentially, to them, a clear and simple subject. Clio Quote A heart where He alone has first place.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.