# New vs. Old



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 9, 2009)

I have a question about the Old vs. New Covenant. The term Old Covenant seems to be thrown around by various pastors to refer to any OT Covenant, but when I read Grudem's Systematics he points out that the Mosaic Covenant is the only covenant specificially referred to as "Old." 

So would you agree that the OC refers to the Mosaic, and the NC was foreshadowed by the Abrahamic and fulfilled with Christ?

in my opinion the answer to what exactly is the OC and what is the NC has vast implications and needs to be hashed out.

Thanks in advance


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 9, 2009)

No, I believe the Old Covenant refers to the time of immaturity before Christ came. Christ, in His substance, was held forth but in shadowy ways even for Abraham.

Calvin:



> *Section 1.*_ Five points of difference between the Old and the New Testaments. These belong to the mode of administration rather than the substance. First difference. In the Old Testament the heavenly inheritance is exhibited under temporal blessings; in the New, aids of this description are not employed._ What, then? you will say, Is there no difference between the Old and the New Testaments? What is to become of the many passages of Scripture in which they are contrasted as things differing most widely from each other? I readily admit the differences which are pointed out in Scripture, but still hold that they derogate in no respect from their established unity, as will be seen after we have considered them in their order. These differences (so far as I have been able to observe them and can remember) seem to be chiefly four, or, if you choose to add a fifth, I have no objections. I hold and think I will be able to show, that they all belong to the mode of administration rather than to the substance. In this way, there is nothing in them to prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, Christ being the foundation of both. The first difference then is, that though, in old time, the Lord was pleased to direct the thoughts of his people, and raise their minds to the heavenly inheritance, yet, that their hope of it might be the better maintained, he held it forth, and, in a manner, gave a foretaste of it under earthly blessings, whereas the gift of future life, now more clearly and lucidly revealed by the Gospel, leads our minds directly to meditate upon it, the inferior mode of exercise formerly employed in regard to the Jews being now laid aside. Those who attend not to the divine purpose in this respect, suppose that God's ancient people ascended no higher than the blessings which were promised to the body. They hear the land of Canaan so often named as the special, and as it were the only, reward of the Divine Law to its worshipers; they hear that the severest punishment which the Lord denounces against the transgressors of the Law is expulsion from the possession of that land and dispersion into other countries; they see that this forms almost the sum of the blessings and curses declared by Moses; and from these things they confidently conclude that the Jews were separated from other nations not on their own account, but for another reason, viz., that the Christian Church might have an emblem in whose outward shape might be seen an evidence of spiritual things. But since the Scripture sometimes demonstrates that the earthly blessings thus bestowed were intended by God himself to guide them to a heavenly hope, it shows great unskilfulness, not to say dullness, not to attend to this mode of dispensation. The ground of controversy is this: our opponents hold that the land of Canaan was considered by the Israelites as supreme and final happiness, and now, since Christ was manifested, typifies to us the heavenly inheritance; whereas we maintain that, in the earthly possession which the Israelites enjoyed, they beheld, as in a mirror, the future inheritance which they believed to be reserved for them in heaven.
> 
> *Section 2.*_ Proof of this first difference from the simile of an heir in pupillarity, as in Gal. 4:1._
> This will better appear from the similitude which Paul uses in Galatians, (Gal 4: 1). He compares the Jewish nation to an heir in pupillarity, who, as yet unfit to govern himself, follows the direction of a tutor or guide to whose charge he has been committed. Though this simile refers especially to ceremonies, there is nothing to prevent us from applying it most appropriately here also. The same inheritance was destined to them as to us, but from nonage they were incapable of entering to it, and managing it. They had the same Church, though it was still in puerility. The Lord, therefore kept them under this tutelage, giving them spiritual promises, not clear and simple, but typified by earthly objects. Hence, when he chose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity, to the hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan for an inheritance, not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance, which, as yet, appeared not. And, to guard against delusion, they received a better promise, which attested that this earth was not the highest measure of the divine kindness. Thus, Abraham is not allowed to keep down his thoughts to the promised land: by a greater promise his views are carried upward to the Lord. He is thus addressed, "Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward," (Gen 15: l). Here we see that the Lord is the final reward promised to Abraham that he might not seek a fleeting and evanescent reward in the elements of this world, but look to one which was incorruptible. A promise of the land is afterwards added for no other reason than that it might be a symbol of the divine benevolence, and a type of the heavenly inheritance, as the saints declare their understanding to have been. Thus David rises from temporal blessings to the last and highest of all, "My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever." "My heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God," (Psa 73: 26; 84: 2). Again, "The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot," (Psa 16: 5). Again "I cried unto thee O Lord: I said Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living," (Psa 142: 5). Those who can venture to speak thus, assuredly declare that their hope rises beyond the world and worldly blessings. This future blessedness, however, the prophets often describe under a type which the Lord had taught them. In this way are to be understood the many passages in Job (Job 18: 17) and Isaiah, to the effect, That the righteous shall inherit the earth, that the wicked shall be driven out of it, that Jerusalem will abound in all kinds of riches, and Sion overflow with every species at abundance. In strict propriety, all these things obviously apply not to the land of our pilgrimage, nor to the earthly Jerusalem, but to the true country, the heavenly city of believers, in which the Lord has commanded blessing and life for evermore, (Psa 133: 3).
> ...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 9, 2009)

It seems to me that the meaning of the term has to be context-specific.

Paul might use it in a narrower sense in a certain place to describe the Sinai Covenant specifically, and contrast that to the Covenant of Grace, and show that what is "New" is actually "older" because it shares the essence of the Abrahamic, without the temporary "extras" of the Mosaic.

But in another place, broadly considered it could refer to the whole era, post-fall and pre-Christ.

It's just too easy (facile) to decide on a short-cut to laborious exegesis. For us to establish any "technical term" in NT parlance, takes more than the average commitment to exegetical pains. Someone, in any case, has to do the "longhand" or "long-division" (and show their work) before others can jump aboard and trumpet the "settled conclusions" of the expert.

Calvin's treatment above is certainly worthy of reflection. I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.


----------

