# Was the Old separate and being brought to an end?



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2005)

2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, 
2Co 3:6 who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 
2Co 3:7 Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory,*, which was being brought to an end, *2Co 3:8 will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 
2Co 3:9 For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. 
2Co 3:10 Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. 
*2Co 3:11 For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, *much more will what is permanent have glory. 


I light of this text their is a difference of glory between the Old and New. One was being bought to and end and the other surpassing it even though I believe the New was initiated long before the old. Still the Covenant of Redemption was using the old and surpassed it and brought it to an end? Any thoughts?

What sayeth the Scripture?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jan 27, 2005)

It is better to look at it more as the New consumating the Old. The OT looks forward to the reign of the Messiah, which was fulfilled when Christ came. The Shadows had glory because they reflected the ultimate glory of Christ.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> It is better to look at it more as the New consumating the Old. The OT looks forward to the reign of the Messiah, which was fulfilled when Christ came. The Shadows had glory because they reflected the ultimate glory of Christ.



All I can say to this is  and  Very well put!!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2005)

But the text says being brought to an end. I understand it was fulfilled by the real thing.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> But the text says being brought to an end. I understand it was fulfilled by the real thing.



Of course it says "being brought to an end" .. With Christ's death and resurrection, we now have an intimate relationship with God through a Mediator (no longer do we relate to God through rituals and signs/shadows, but through Christ). This is why Hebrews says so much about the "consummation of the ages" and the NC being a better covnenant with better promises - we finally KNOW the Lord through Christ and not cold rituals that simply _point_ to Christ. We see Christ. This is why Paul speaks of the "end of the age" (along with Christ), because the Old Covenant age with types and shadows of Christ is passing away and this new age has brought us a personal Mediator that is better than a man (Moses) and we can now pray directly to our God through Him.

The Spiritual value of the NC is no different than the OC, from a salvific standpoint, _unless you're a dispensationalist_.

Salvation in the Covenant of Grace has always been by grace through faith for the elect (those redeemed by Christ's blood through the Covenant of Redemption in eternity, where election also occurred), it did not change in the NC - only the outward expression of the CoG changed (i.e. the rituals and ordinances).

The NC is better because we have Christ as our Mediator and can relate to God personally with a deep relationship, not through human priests and rituals.



[Edited on 27-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## doulosChristou (Jan 27, 2005)

Gabriel,

Are you suggesting that the believer under the Old Covenant did not have Christ as his Mediator and could not relate to God personally with a deep relationship? That seems to be what you are saying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



No, I believe salvation is the same. The Covenant of Redemption /Everlasting Covenant of Grace has always been effectual. Justifiation by Faith alone. I even believe the decalogue has been in effect before the Law, during the Mosaic, and is written in every New Covenant Members heart.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> Gabriel,
> 
> Are you suggesting that the believer under the Old Covenant did not have Christ as his Mediator and could not relate to God personally with a deep relationship? That seems to be what you are saying.



I am saying that believers in the Old Covenant could not "know" Christ in the way we know Him under the New Covenant. They were of course justified by His blood and He mediates all of the Covenant of Grace, but He was not "seen or known" completely by Old Covenant and previous believers in the way we can see and know Him as New Covenant believers.

Old Covenant believers did not have direct access to God. They went through earthly priests as a "visual" mediator here on earth (of course Christ has always been the one Mediator, but they did not know or see this until the fulfillment of the CoG in the NC) for their petitions and through sacrifices made through the priests here on earth. They could not simply bow their heads and ask God through Jesus to forgive them of their sins. Correct me if I'm wrong? 

That is why the New Covenant is better, as we can see the work, life, death, and resurrection of Christ and put faith in that, whereas in the Old Covenant and before, believers had faith in shadows and images of Christ, but could not "see" Him fully revealed or in a personal way as in the New Covenant. I hope that makes it clear as to what I was trying to say in my previous post.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> No, I believe salvation is the same. The Covenant of Redemption /Everlasting Covenant of Grace has always been effectual. Justifiation by Faith alone. I even believe the decalogue has been in effect before the Law, during the Mosaic, and is written in every New Covenant Members heart.



 Excellent! Then, to answer your original question more succinctly:

Yes, the Old Covenant was separate in its expression and outward appearance/ordinances. No, it was not separate in its spiritual benefits or substance.

Yes, the Old Covenant's rituals/ordinances were brought to an end and replaced with the coming of the New. No, the Old Covenant's spiritual substance was not brought to an end, as it carried over into the New Covenant, seeing as how they are both expressions of one, single Covenant of Grace (wherein the elect are guaranteed unconditional salvation through the Covenant of Redemption).



[Edited on 27-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 27, 2005)




----------



## VanVos (Feb 1, 2005)

Even though I agree with the above comments I would add that the New Covenant is different in kind as well as in administration Heb 8:9. The Old Covenant was a re-administration of the Covenant of Works to Israel , as a Nation, Gal 4:21-26 and was a further adminstration of the Cov of Grace Gal 3:19 that served the purpose of the Covenant of redemption Heb 10:5-10. The Old Covenant in and of it self was conditional with the Nation of Israel Heb 8:7-10, the New Covenant is unconditional Heb 8:10-12 with the Israel of God (the church) Gal 6:16 which includes all the elect from the beginning of time Heb 11:39-40, Heb 12:22-24. The Old Covenant has passed away inorder to established the New Covenant Heb 8:13, Heb 10:9-10.

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2005)

The Old Covenant was a re-administration of the Covenant of Works?

Sorry, I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with that dispensational fallacy.


----------



## VanVos (Feb 2, 2005)

Thanks Paul. I would hold to Kline position on this, that is the Mosaic Covenant is a readministration of the Cov of Works. Not that it was administrated to individual Israelites but rather given to the Nation of Israel in a corporate sense. I think Michael Horton of the White Horse Inn also hold to this view. I know John Owen held to this position, as did many of the Continental Reformers. This article might be worth the read http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/works_in_mosaic_cov.html

VanVos


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 2, 2005)

Thanks for clarifying what you were talking about, I got a little worried/confused there for a second.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 2, 2005)

> I know John Owen held to this position, as did many of the Continental Reformers.



Jonathan, don't go too far off the map here. Kline's views are not the views of Owen or the Reformers. Kline, as you said, thought the Mosaic insitution was solely a reinstitution of the CoW. Owen, and the Reformers, as well as the puritans overall, though Owen emphaisized the CoW more than most, saw the simultaneous system of the CoG and the Cow working in conjunction together under the Mosiac period. Kline rejects that. Its was not that the Mosaic law was the CoW reinsituted, but that the Cog and the Cow sat side by side next to each other working to a particular redemptive end. (See my chart on Covenant Theology and how I place the "law covenant" next to the Cor and CoG and how they coexist together and work).


----------



## VanVos (Feb 2, 2005)

Thanks for that clarification. I would say that Mosiac Covenant does as a constitution contain the principles of the Cov of works. But that does not mean that I do not see the Mosiac Cov as a further administration of the Cov of grace. But I do believe that the Mosiac Covenant bore the marks of working Covenant rather than a unconditional Covenant. It is this regard that I would agree with Kline, but I do not necessarily agree with everything he has wrote on this subject.

VanVos


----------



## VanVos (Feb 2, 2005)

I came across an interesting excerpt of Kline's work on the Covenants. I think this best explains what I was attempting to say in my above post.



> Once we are satisfied that we have arrived at a proper concept of covenant and have in mind employing the succession of divine covenants as a general scheme for a biblical theology, the question arises whether we should classify as covenants various arrangements that are not specifically labelled berith or diatheke in the Bible. This problem takes a couple of different forms. One involves the traditional procedure of covenant theology whereby the individual berith-diatheke transactions of redemptive history are combined into ever more comprehensive "covenant" entities, culminating in what is usually called the Covenant of Grace, which encompasses all the redemptive administrations from the Fall to the Consummation. If it is recognized that there is a fundamental unity among all the individual covenants brought under the overarching Covenant of Grace, the process of identifying higher levels of covenantal unity is surely proper, for the biblical authors themselves already did that kind of systematizing of the covenants. For example, in Psalm 105:9,10 (cf. 2 Kgs 13:23; 1 Chr 16:16,17) there is a virtual identifying of God's separate covenantal transactions with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the separate covenants enacted by Moses at Sinai and in Moab and the later renewals of this arrangement in Joshua 24 and elsewhere in the Old Testament are repeatedly spoken of by later Old Testament authors and by New Testament authors as one covenant of the Lord with Israel, which the Book of Hebrews refers to as the "first" over against the "new" or "second" covenant (Heb 8:6-8). In principle then there is biblical precedent for the systematic organizer of the covenants to identify the over-all unity of the redemptive covenants by some such term as the Covenant of Grace.



VanVos


----------

