# Old & New Covenants



## grace2U (Jun 16, 2004)

This post is a reply to Ian Terrell's post on the 'Did baptism really replace circumcision....' thread. By the time I'd prepared it, the thread was closed. Perhaps it may still be of interest:-

Hi Ian,
Again, sorry to be so long in replying. Life is busy just at present. Thank you for your post. I was pleased to see it because it highlights very clearly the differences between our respective hermeneutics.

You asked:-

'When was the Old Covenant started and when does the New Covenant begin? The Old covenant begins obviously before the [New] or it wouldn't need be called Old at all. The Old Covenant begins in the Garden.'

With respect, that's not what the Bible says. The OC is the Mosaic Covenant. '.....Not according to the covenant that I made with your fathers [b:781ca2f25a]in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt....'[/b:781ca2f25a] (Jer 31:32. cf. Heb 9:1ff etc.). The New Covenant is that inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20; Heb 8:6 etc.), though of course it is revealed to be the [i:781ca2f25a]Everlasting Covenant[/i:781ca2f25a] (Heb 13:20) or Covenant of Grace which was made before time began (Titus 1:2; Rev 13:8). It is foreshadowed by the covenants of promise, but only fully revealed in Christ (Eph 3:4-7; Col 1:26-7).

The so-called Covenant of Works was made as a test of obedience for Adam, which he failed (Gen 2:16-17; Hos 6:7?). The Old Covenant was given to the Israelites for entirely different reasons. These were:-
1. To restrain sin until Christ should come (Gal 3:19).
2. To be a tutor to lead sinners to Christ by convicting them of their sin (Gal 3:23-25).

Therefore the CoW and the OC should not be confused. The Bible never does so.

The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants (and also the gracious parts of the Mosaic) are called the [i:781ca2f25a]Covenants of Promise[/i:781ca2f25a] (Eph 2:12. cf. Rom 9:4, 15:8). These are adumbrations of the New Covenant, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah. You are quite right that Abel, Enoch and Noah were saved by their faith in the Seed that was promised in Gen 3:15 and in the covering or atonement foreshadowed in Gen 3:21 and Gen 6:14. None of these was circumcised, and it is significant that Melchizedek, who is 'beyond all contradiction' greater than Abraham (Heb 7:7) was a priest of God before circumcision was introduced.

You wrote:-

'[God] speaks of a &quot;re-newed&quot; (sic) covenant, check the Hebrew.' I take it that you are suggesting that the NC is just the OC refreshed or renewed.

OK, let's check the Hebrew. The Hebrew word is [i:781ca2f25a]Chadash[/i:781ca2f25a] or [i:781ca2f25a]Hadas[/i:781ca2f25a] (Strongs 2319). As an adjective it occurs 53 times in the OT and in almost all of these it means 'new' as in 'brand, shiny new' (Lam 3:23 is the possible exception). If anyone wants to check this out, just look in a [i:781ca2f25a]Young's Analytical Concordance[/i:781ca2f25a]. Here are just two examples:-

Exod 1:8. 'Now there arose a new king over Egypt...'. OK, is it a new king or the old king renewed? It sounds a bit like the Curse of the Mummy's Tomb to me!

Deut 24:5. 'When a man has taken a new wife...'. A new wife or the old one with a face-lift?

There's plenty more where that came from! Check it out in [i:781ca2f25a]Young's[/i:781ca2f25a]. Add to this, the fact that not one translation, old or new, translates Jer 31:31 as a 'renewed covenant' and I think the evidence is getting a bit heavy

The writer to the Hebrews makes it quite clear that the NC is very different to the OC:-

1. The OC was not faultless in God's eyes (Heb 7:18, 8:7-8).
2. In about AD 65, the OC was ready to disappear (8:13).
3. The NC is 'a better covenant' (7:22, 8:6).
4. It brings in 'a better hope' (7:19).
5. It is established on 'better promises' (8:6).
6. It has a better priesthood (eg. 7:25-6).
7. It has a 'greater and more perfect tabernacle' (9:11).
8. It offers a more complete cleansing from sin (9:14)
9. It has a better sacrifice (9:23).
10. [b:781ca2f25a]Everyone[/b:781ca2f25a] in the NC knows the Lord (8:11). That, of course, is the reason why people cannot be brought into the NC as infants, whether by circumcision or baptism.

It will be seen that our basic assumptions are very different, which makes agreement difficult. I have deliberately refrained from quoting any human authors (except for the cioncordance). I have also tried to proof-text every assertion that I've made. I invite whoever wishes to reply to do likewise.

Blessings to all,
Steve

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by grace2U]

[Edited on 6-16-2004 by grace2U]


----------



## JonathonHunt (Jun 16, 2004)

Steve

A thoughtful piece of work that I found very helpful. Thank you.

Jonathan


----------



## Saiph (Jun 16, 2004)

Steve, with all due respect, you should read John Owen's commentary on Hebrews.


----------



## grace2U (Jun 16, 2004)

Mark,
Your appeal to 'dead men's brains' is precisely what I didn't want. What do[b:a666d75ef0]you[/b:a666d75ef0] think about it with your own sanctified mind? What is the Holy Spirit saying to [b:a666d75ef0]you[/b:a666d75ef0]?

However, I think you'll find that if you read Owen on Heb 7 and 8, he is in substantial agreement with my position on most points.

Blessings,
Steve


----------



## kceaster (Jun 16, 2004)

*Steve....*

I would remind you that your sanctified mind contains much from dead men's brains. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true.

What do you have that you have not received? The Holy Spirit has brought much to you from the minds of others, even the dead ones.

In Christ,

KC


----------

