# Old and new covenant



## timfost (May 4, 2015)

I've been continuing my studies on the covenant. This may be a basic one.

In Heb. 8:6-7, is it proper to understand the two covenants as one covenant of grace under two administrations? The first covenant couldn't be referring to the covenant of works, correct? The second or "new covenant" is better because no longer was Christ only typified but He actually accomplished what was only promised prior to the incarnation.

Am I on the right track?


----------



## MW (May 4, 2015)

timfost said:


> Am I on the right track?



Yes, definitely. If the idea of "testament" was still in use, as in WCF 7.4, the administrative change would be much easier to see.


----------



## KeithW (May 4, 2015)

I personally think it is better to make sure you know which covenants in the Old Testament the book of Hebrews is referring to. To be certain of this, do not stop with Heb. 8:6-7 but continue reading through verse 13, the end of the chapter. The book of Hebrews specifically mentions only two covenants: the _old covenant_ given to Moses, and the _new covenant_ given in Jer. 31. The _old covenant_ and the _new covenant_ are then contrasted in Hebrews chapters 8-10.

The _covenant of works_ and the _covenant of grace_ are theological terms not found in the Bible. And it depends on who you read as to which covenants in the Bible are put into the category of the _covenant of works_. Theologians and authors contradict each other on this.


----------



## Cymro (May 5, 2015)

Oliver Cromwell on his death bed as he expired cried out in moment of illumination,
"The two covenants are one."


----------



## timfost (May 5, 2015)

Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.

Thanks again.


----------



## Peairtach (May 5, 2015)

timfost said:


> Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.
> 
> Thanks again.



They sometimes do, although the administration of law is full of gospel, and the administration of gospel is full of law, if you know what I mean.


----------



## mvdm (May 5, 2015)

timfost said:


> Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.



No, the Old and New Covenants are not properly divided as law/gospel. Both Old and New Covenants are different administrations of the one covenant of grace, both of which contain both law and gospel.


----------



## MW (May 5, 2015)

timfost said:


> Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.



The Westminster Confession uses law and gospel for two distinct "administrations," and this is vital for understanding the liberty which is enjoyed now that Christ has come. The law as an administration has passed away. The ceremonial law is abrogated; the judicial law is expired; the moral law is fulfilled for righteousness and is to be taken from the hand of Christ as the rule of life. This understanding is necessary for holding fast the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.


----------



## mvdm (May 6, 2015)

Westminster Larger Catechism is helpful here:



> Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
> 
> A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.[125]
> 
> ...


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.


----------



## timfost (May 8, 2015)

Sounds like you got it to me!


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

The Geneva Bible used the word Testament rather then covenant. In regards to Matthews comment. Of course the KJV used both terms not sure why I suppose there is a reasonable explanation for it.


----------



## KeithW (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> The Geneva Bible used the word Testament rather then covenant. In regards to Matthews comment. Of course the KJV used both terms not sure why I suppose there is a reasonable explanation for it.



I have done a lot of research on this one. In his _Commentary on Hebrews_, John Calvin gives this explanation.



Hebrews Chapter 9:13-17. Commentary On Hebrews said:


> 16. For where a testament is, etc. Even this one passage is a sufficient proof, that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew; for ברית means in Hebrew a covenant, but not a testament; but in Greek, διαθήκη, includes both ideas; and the Apostle, alluding to its secondary meaning, holds that the promises should not have been otherwise ratified and valid, had they not been sealed by the death of Christ. And this he proves by referring to what is usually the case as to wills or testaments, the effect of which is suspended until the death of those whose wills they are.



As near as I can figure out what Calvin is saying, when the Bible takes a Hebrew word which has only one meaning, and that word is translated into a Greek word which has two meanings, you now have new revelation. 

But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word _diatheke _in New Testament usage is supposed to mean _covenant_, not _testament_.


----------



## mvdm (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.



More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.


----------



## mvdm (May 9, 2015)

On the unity of the one covenant of grace, under both the O.T. time when the "law" was prominent and under the N.T. when the gospel is more fully displayed:



> "The people of God in those [Old Testament] days did not live and die under an unworkable, unredemptive system of religion, that could not give real access to and spiritual contact with God. Nor was this gospel-element contained exclusively in the revelation that preceded, accompanied, and followed the law; it is found in the law itself. That which we call 'the legal system' is shot through with strands of gospel and grace and faith."


Geerhardus Vos, BT, p. 129


----------



## Nicholas Perella (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.






mvdm said:


> More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.
> Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.



mvdm says it well here. The administrations broadly are not law and gospel. Though sometimes by the word 'law' what is meant is the covenant of works and sometimes by using the word 'law' it is understood as a rule of faith which is not of the covenant of works but of the covenant of grace. mvdm mentions the OT administrations of that covenant of grace.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 9, 2015)

mvdm said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.
> ...



Good point Sir. Would administration be similar to the word dispensation/stewardship? If so, I understand why they are not used because of dispensationalism I'm guessing?


----------



## Captain Picard (May 14, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...



The word "dispensation" predates Darby/Schofield dispensationalism as a system or hermaneutic, and prior to their day, was used to mean much the same as what the Westminster Standards call an "administration". However, even the "toned-down" language of Ryrie et. all regarding their system makes their "dispensations" different from a Westminster administration. On page 23 of the latest edition of his work simply called "Dispensationalism", Ryrie defines a dispensation as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose". Weighted on that word "economy", all traditional dispensationalists, despite varying degrees of reticence to have out with it, will tell you that the "tests" and "expectations" by which man is measured differ in different economies. As mvdm's Vos quote has aptly demonstrated, the Standards will have none of it, as "law" is shot through with grace (the corollary being the reverse) in a way that is foreign to the spirit of the dispensational system.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

Thanks guy. So one covenant of grace with different administrations in the Old and New testament. In the Old Testament the covenant of grace was administrated by prophecies, signs, wonders, dreams, visions, ect That typified the coming Messiah. But in the New Testament unto this very day, The covenant of grace is basically "fully realized in Christ" correct? and the administrations are the preaching of the gospel, reading of scripture, and the sacraments. am I more on the money there? any clarifications?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

Sorry another question so when I read in the Bible the "dispensation/ or stewardship depending on the translation i Use, that is similar to the reformers term "administration"? for instance Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: 
"dispensation of the fulness of times" here meaning since Christ has come and finished his redemptive work-the fulness of times ? The dispensation here referring to the "having made known the mystery of his will" in verse 1:9? 
i APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S CONFUSING i WILL CLARIFY IF NEED BE! Thank you very much Brothers, I earnestly appreciate your guidance through God's most holy truths!


----------



## Captain Picard (May 14, 2015)

Well the administration of the covenant in the New Testament would include not only the Scripture itself and the sacraments, but also things like the full realization of the Trinity, which was speculated on in the intertestamental period and was revealed in some degree to the great saints of the OT (David's Lord, et. all), but you have the basic idea. 

Fundamentally, Westminsterian protestantism has affirmed that the New Covenant is greater and better in "numerical scope, degree, glory, and power" (I'm paraphrasing Greg Bahnsen here, while Reformed Baptists, especially now, would call it "greater and better in specie and kind". This is part of the reason for administration of the covenant entrance sign only to the presumably redeemed (credobaptism).


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

Okay wait a second ESV might be a little clearer here Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. 
The plan for the fullness of times was Christ's redemptive work on the cross?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 14, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Okay wait a second ESV might be a little clearer here Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
> Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
> The plan for the fullness of times was Christ's redemptive work on the cross?



Wow the TR and Ct are quite different just noticed that?


----------



## Captain Picard (May 14, 2015)

The Cross and Person of Jesus Christ are themselves "the plan for the fullness of time" in the Ephesians sense, but a fundamental disagreement between Dispensationalists, reformed credobaptists and reformed paedobaptists is how much of that plan was revealed or 'applied' to the redeemed in the OT. 

A few minutes of web searching gave "oikonomian', the noun variously translated "administration' or "dispensation". The NKJV renders the sense of the noun far better than the ESV in this case, and 'oikonomos' is the word from which English ultimately derived "economy" in the administrative sense. E.g., "in the oikonomos of our house, my Father 'dispenses' the allowance". Oikonomos/oikonomian would rarely bear the sense that the English "plan" does. 

This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.



The term "dispensation" is used in a way which speaks directly contrary to the dispensationalist's separation of Israel and the church, since the intent of the dispensation is "to gather together in one all things." The same applies to Eph. 3.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

Ok I gotcha, but there is definitely a difference in the underlying manuscripts here. ESV "he set forth in Christ or KJV "which he hath purposed in himself" unless the ESV is doing some big time paraphrasing. And then in verse 14 we got a kinda big difference either translation technique or manuscript ESV "Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." or KJV Eph 1:14 " Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. "
I know they are kinda similar but ESV is us requiring possession rather the KJV has being fully redeemed as the purchased possession?
am I just being too picky, or is there a difference there?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

MW said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.
> ...



Good point but I think he means they just like it becuase the word itself is there and they can then twist to their liking. Not the KJV's fault more so Darby/scofield


----------



## Captain Picard (May 15, 2015)

MW said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.
> ...



I hadn't thought of that before. 

@GES: you'd have to look at the manuscripts themselves, or rather the greek thereof.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Picard said:
> ...



Yeah because there seems to be some differences. I think I stick with the KJV for now in studying Ephesians, lest I confuse myself.


----------



## chuckd (May 15, 2015)

KeithW said:


> But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word _diatheke _in New Testament usage is supposed to mean _covenant_, not _testament_.



From my understanding (take it with a grain of salt until a minister verifies what I say), in the Hebrew language "berith" is the term we translate to "covenant". It was used when a promise was made by God and sealed with a sacrament: tree of life, rainbow, circumcision, etc. When those who translated this text into Greek (Septuagint), there was no good Greek term to communicate this transaction. The two choices were diatheke and syntheke. Diatheke in Roman usage meant will or testament - something promised upon the death of a person. Syntheke meant an agreement made between two equal parties. Both not good terms since God can't die and God is not an equal party with man. Nevertheless, they chose diatheke.

Fast forward to the writing of the New Testament where the majority of the text is in Greek, we come across the word diatheke multiple times. Now translating into English, where we have both covenant and will/testament words, the question becomes, does the writer mean berith-translated diatheke (covenant) or Roman-used diatheke (will/testament). The translator must use the context in order to choose. The KJV translators obviously thought testament should be used much more often than other modern versions. In fact, most modern versions only use it once because it is impossible not to (Heb. 9:16). Take, for example, the ESV
Heb. 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a *will* is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

"Will" _must_ be used because the death of the person establishes it. There's no other explanation. Of course, in the previous verse, they translate the same word as "covenant" (twice!) which makes the whole argument somewhat confusing. The "For" in v. 16 makes no sense unless all three words are translated "will/testament." Moreover, it says "since a death has occurred". That only makes sense if we're talking about a will or testament.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

chuckd said:


> KeithW said:
> 
> 
> > But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word _diatheke _in New Testament usage is supposed to mean _covenant_, not _testament_.
> ...



So is the Authorized Version correct in it's usage of testament?


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> chuckd said:
> 
> 
> > KeithW said:
> ...



Just checked on e-sword the KJV uses the word testament 14 times but never in the OT. They use covenant 292 times in the whole bible but only 20 times in the NT.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2015)

The basic question is: what do inspired NT writers _intend_ by using "diatheke?"

By the time the NT is written, there are two significant current ideas tied to this term. The one is a "secular" use, the other "theological." The basic idea within the word is a unilateral (one sided) disposition; which notion leads naturally enough to the ordinary secular meaning of "will," a one-sided disposition from the recently departed.

The same term had been used by Greek-speaking, religious Jews for hundreds of years (by the time the NT was written) where the Septuagint used it every time "berit" (covenant) was given a Greek rendering. Obviously, the word does not mean "last-will-and-testament" for an OT reader. The word was thus employed for a specific purpose; and overall its recognized semantic range was widened commensurately.

So, there's a choice to be made in every NT use of this word, "diatheke." In each its own context: does it have a "secular" sense; or does it bear the religious or theological freight of the OT usage?

Since the ASV-1901, modern translations have generally deferred to the Greek-OT background in almost all cases. George Milligan (of Moulton & Milligan fame) at one time argued for a complete reliance on the OT idea of "covenant," even in Heb.9:16-17; but I understand he later backed off.

Rev. Winzer's point is that the WCF, being of the same historic era and representing much the same basic translational mindset as reflected in the KJV, both make explicit hermeneutical and theological use of the "testamental" (secular) sense of the term "diatheke" by what they affirm for truth (the former after the latter). "Covenant" is the BIG-PICTURE term; "testamtent" is the FOCUSED term.

Depending on the breadth of one's "covenant" concept, it is possible to find both "death" and "succession" or "inheritance" tied closely to the OT biblical covenant. But since such testamental emphasis is the particular aspect in view on several occasions in the NT, it is reasonable to commend the KJV translators for drawing out and making plain what they understood as the major intent of the inspired writer here or there; if you will: the covenant-element (narrowed) that was most important to his teaching moment.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The basic question is: what do inspired NT writers _intend_ by using "diatheke?"
> 
> By the time the NT is written, there are two significant current ideas tied to this term. The one is a "secular" use, the other "theological." The basic idea within the word is a unilateral (one sided) disposition; which notion leads naturally enough to the ordinary secular meaning of "will," a one-sided disposition from the recently departed.
> 
> ...



Thank you Rev. Buchanan. That clarifies things quite a bit for me. I see now the KJV translators reason for differentiating covenant/testament like they did. I notice as you said with the ASV that the NKJV translators retained Testament/testator in Heb 9:16,17 but only there. I am glad you posted this because a few lexicons/commentaries on e-sword I was reading was really bashing the KJV for using testament. For instance Vincent Word Studies says “The English Version has involved this passage in* hopeless obscurity* by introducing the idea of a testament and a testator.” I am not a KJV only/ or even necessarily "KJV Priority" as Steve says but I have come to trust in it as a reliable translation to study from. I admit some of the critiques of the Authorized Version's use of "testament/testator" were a little startling but I always look for a second opinion and I thank you for yours. If may ask Rev. Buchanan do you think the KJV's use of "testament" is also justifiable in other verses besides Heb 9:16,17 obviously context is the major factor. Here's an example of their use of it somewhere else "Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple* the ark of his testament*: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail." It seems out of place here but I am no expert. Did you think they may have overused it in the Authorized Version?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 15, 2015)

Edward,
A good bit of my mind is simply to advise you to defer to the judgment of your teachers (and to translators), until such time as you feel competent (and others wisely judge you ready) to assess the merits of this or that case in particular. Can you appreciate the translator's choice in Rev.11:19? If you cannot articulate a justification for their choice, you also cannot reasonably criticize it. And it might not be fair to ask me or someone else to judge it either. "No reason I can think of," is apt only for a equivalent Doctor to render.

If you appreciate the KJV, don't go looking for reasons to criticize it; but look to appreciate why those translators might have made the decisions they did, and respect them for it; even if (in due time) you think you might have made a different decision in their shoes, or they would have chosen differently in a different era.

Many years ago, I read Rev. Milligan's own defense of "covenant" _everywhere_ in the NT for diatheke (even in Heb.9:16-17, which involves other decisions on how to construe the other words of the context); and he persuaded me of that wisdom. So, I am myself simply a man taught of his teacher. Personally, I _prefer_ the "big-picture" term as a consistent rendering.

HOWEVER, other teachers (*Rev.Winzer* among them) have also taught me the wisdom of translational _precision_ in a Version prepared for the general public; to which we might add the benefits of correlation of Scripture and confessional statements. Single-word correspondence is NOT the way language actually functions across cultures and time. Therefore, what I might gain via consistency (combined with my linguistic training) would likely impoverish the majority of readers, who typically communicate verbally entirely in one language. Hence, the intended nuance of the Greek term (if it be known) should be clearly and precisely expressed. There is always a trade-off, and a word's semantic "penumbra" cannot be equally rendered into the target language.

So, to the text you asked of, Rev.11:19. The ark of the "covenant" corresponds _*conceptually*_ very nicely with the OT ark in the Holy of Holies, and the temple/altar motif in that chapter are prominent. However, the NT text is not quite perfectly correspondent to any OT description of the cultic ark. No place in the OT have I found "*his* covenant" directly connected with the ark; but respecting a variant reading (of Rev.11:19) I have found numerous instances of: "the ark of the covenant of the Lord."

With regard to "his covenant." Frequently in the OT it is the Lord's remembrance, the Lord's "seeing" _his covenant_, bringing it to mind that is the source of blessing for his people--even those who often deserve his curse. At Rev.11:19, the immediate context is judgment and ruin on the ungodly, while blessings abound to the saints. Why is this so? It is because of the atonement symbolized by the ark. The blood sprinkled on the mercy seat of the heavenly throne is none else' than the Mediator's. The saints are saved to life everlasting, because of the one given unto death for their sake.

So, I think one can argue that the testamentary aspect of the covenant is that angle on the whole which the KJV translators believed was most significant even in this place. It is, in a sense, THE principal NT covenant-angle. You can make a decent case for having the term "covenant" here; but with "testament" is the connection actually lost to the OT scene? I don't think so; and the translators apparently thought "testament" conveyed the inspired intent with the greatest vigor.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Edward,
> A good bit of my mind is simply to advise you to defer to the judgment of your teachers (and to translators), until such time as you feel competent (and others wisely judge you ready) to assess the merits of this or that case in particular. Can you appreciate the translator's choice in Rev.11:19? If you cannot articulate a justification for their choice, you also cannot reasonably criticize it. And it might not be fair to ask me or someone else to judge it either. "No reason I can think of," is apt only for a equivalent Doctor to render.
> 
> If you appreciate the KJV, don't go looking for reasons to criticize it; but look to appreciate why those translators might have made the decisions they did, and respect them for it; even if (in due time) you think you might have made a different decision in their shoes, or they would have chosen differently in a different era.
> ...



Thank Rev. Buchanan I will take your advice on the matter and just trust that the AV translators where obviously better equipped to make translation choices than I am. I don't have a working knowledge of Greek yet, I will be starting classes next fall but until I get a good grasp on the language I'll rest in the the judgments of those wiser and better qualified than I. Nevertheless, I appreciate you taking time out of your day to assist me. God Bless.


----------



## MW (May 15, 2015)

To piggy-back on Rev. Buchanan's comments, we have a redemptive-historical state of affairs which changes the meaning of "covenant." We move from promise to fulfilment. The Old Testament "covenant" has the nature of a type with its natural imperfections. The death of the testator fulfils this type. With the death of the testator the "covenant" is seen to have a testamentary force. What belonged to type and shadow is now seen as "old," and what has been realised is "new." So in one sense there is an old and a new covenant, but it is in fact the testamentary force of the covenant which has brought about this state of affairs.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 15, 2015)

MW said:


> To piggy-back on Rev. Buchanan's comments, we have a redemptive-historical state of affairs which changes the meaning of "covenant." We move from promise to fulfilment. The Old Testament "covenant" has the nature of a type with its natural imperfections. The death of the testator fulfils this type. With the death of the testator the "covenant" is seen to have a testamentary force. What belonged to type and shadow is now seen as "old," and what has been realised is "new." So in one sense there is an old and a new covenant, but it is in fact the testamentary force of the covenant which has brought about this state of affairs.



Thanks Matthew! I can see why the KJV chose to use testament in some places, it helps bring out the nuance of the greek word "diatheke" in a particular context.


----------

