# In what way is the New Covenant New?



## Doulos McKenzie (Jun 9, 2016)

Is the New Covenant truly new? And if so in what way? Is it actually a new covenant or just a new administration of a previous one?


----------



## Mikey (Jun 9, 2016)

_"For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And [Jesus] took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to [this disciples], saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the *new covenant* in my blood". _(Luke 22:18-20, ESV)​
The new covenant is "truly new".


----------



## KeithW (Jun 9, 2016)

First, the "new covenant" is given in Jer. 31:31-34; Ezek. 11:17-20; Ezek. 36:22-28; Ezek. 37:23-28; Jer. 32:37-41.



> (Jer. 31:31 KJV) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a *new covenant*...



This "new covenant" is quoted in the New Testament in Heb. 8:7-12.

If you want to know what the Bible says about the "old covenant" and the "new covenant", here are some verses to think about.

*Names of the First Covenant*

When God gave the law at Sinai, Moses calls it a covenant.



> (Exod. 24:8 KJV) And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the *covenant*, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.



FIRST COVENANT

The book of Hebrews calls the covenant given to Moses the first covenant.



> (Heb. 8:7 KJV) For if that *first [covenant]* had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
> 
> (Heb. 8:13 KJV) In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the* first *old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.
> 
> ...



OLD COVENANT

Paul calls it the old covenant.



> (2 Cor. 3:14 NIV) But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the *old covenant *is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away.



*Names of the Second Covenant*

NEW COVENANT



> (Matt. 26:28 NIV) This is my blood of the *[new] covenant*, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
> 
> (Mark 14:24 NIV) “This is my blood of the *[new] covenant*, which is poured out for many,” he said to them.
> 
> ...



SECOND COVENANT



> (Heb. 8:7 KJV) For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the *second*.
> 
> (Heb. 10:8,9 KJV) Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and [offering] for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure [therein]; which are offered by the law; Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the *second*.



BETTER COVENANT



> (Heb. 7:22 NIV) Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantee of a *better covenant*.
> 
> (Heb 8:6 KJV) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a *better covenant*, which was established upon better promises.


----------



## MW (Jun 9, 2016)

Luke 22:20, AV, "Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new *testament* in my blood, which is shed for you."

What do you mean by "covenant?" It admits of many different senses depending on the context.


----------



## Alex the Less (Jun 10, 2016)

The New Covenant is new because the Old is abrogated. The Old set this standard: "do this and you will live." As folks tried to follow the standard perfectly, they came up short so that was one reason why the "law of the sacrifice (temple)" operated on behalf of the worshiper.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees: "who convicts me of sin?" So Jesus fulfilled God's holy, righteous Law and earned eternal life as the Last Adam. Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that every Jewish sacrifice was fulfilled by Jesus.


----------



## zsmcd (Jun 10, 2016)

WCF Chapter VII


> Under the Gospel, when Christ, the *substance*, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth *in more fullness*, evidence, *and spiritual efficacy*, *to all nations*, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

The Old Covenant had a multitude of rudiments and requirements, The New Covenant is based solely upon the work that Christ accomplished-the rudiments and ceremonies have been fulfilled by the work of Christ.

In the old, we have the ‘blood of bulls and goats, etc. In the New, it is the blood of Christ that was shed. The real lamb that takes away the sin of the world, realized.

In the old, we have the passover meal and it’s rudiments. In the New, we have the Lord’s supper.

In the old, we have circumcision. In the New, we have water baptism.

In the old, we have the sabbath day on the last day of the week. In the New, we have the sabbath day on the first day of the week.

In the old, we have shadows. In the new, we have consummation and revelation.

In the old, we have glimpses of Messiah, in the new, we have the actual reality.

In the old, we have the Holy Spirit is in measure. In the new, we have the Holy Spirit’s fullness. (The Holy Spirit is not a New Testament phenomenon)

In the old, we have the church as a dispersed organism. In the new, it is organized.

In the old, we have a shadowy gospel. In the new, a clear understanding.

In the old, we have bits and pieces of documentation-information and truth were more progressive. In the new, we have the canon.

That which the OT saint had in shadows were in no way a disadvantage in relation to salvation. There is only one gospel and one truth. The ‘Old’ is speaking of works and the New, by grace through faith, in Christ alone.


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 10, 2016)

You guys missed your search of "everlasting covenant" in the Bible.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 10, 2016)

Romans922 said:


> You guys missed your search of "everlasting covenant" in the Bible.



When I was a Baptist many years ago, and I read of the everlasting covenant in the OT, I thought that meant "everlasting only until the NT started." Yeah, missed that search for a while. Then, which I think was a paradigm shift for me, I believed what God actually said. "Everlasting..."


----------



## Romans922 (Jun 10, 2016)

Yes, I never put it together until recently that the "everlasting covenant" in Jeremiah and Ezekiel (specifically 37) outlines the new covenant - 

Eze 37:21 then say to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their own land. [Abrahamic Covenant]
Eze 37:22 And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms. [Davidic Covenant]
Eze 37:23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God. [Mosaic Covenant]
Eze 37:24 "My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. [Davidic Covenant]
Eze 37:25 They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. [Abrahamic/Davidic Covenant]
Eze 37:26 I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. [Abrahamic/Mosaic Covenant]
Eze 37:27 My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 
Eze 37:28 Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore." 

What's in the brackets are mine.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 10, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> The Old Covenant was a works based salvation. The New Covenant is based solely upon the work that Christ accomplished. Believers are saved by grace alone, in Christ alone.



Brother Scott,

With respect (and with appreciation for the rest of your post) this is wrong. The Old Covenant was never a works based salvation. Indeed there has never been a works based salvation, not even in the Garden of Eden. I believe the OC was an administration of the Covenant of Grace first revealed in Gen. 3:15,16, but even those who disagree with that position (such as Horton etc. and John Owen) still do not believe that in any sense the OC was related to achieving salvation by the merit of one's own works. 

Please consider WCF 7:5 again and the related texts which it references:

WCF 7.5 This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel;(1) under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices,2 circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people ofthe Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come,(2) which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,(3) by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation;
and is called the Old Testament.(4)

Note:

1) The phrase 'this covenant' is referring to the previous paragraphs which described the Covenant of Grace.
2) That while the OC was indeed administered using sacrifices etc. all of these means 'foresignified Christ to come' and were sufficient through the operation of the Spirit to instruct and build up the elect 'in faith in the promised Messiah by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation'. That is they were saved not by works, but through faith in Jesus Christ,exactly the same as everyone else who ever has been, is or ever will be saved. 

Too many people interpret the Old Covenant through the heretical lens of the Pharisees who most definitely did view it as a works covenant, but they were fatally wrong, all Scripture, all the Law held forth Christ as the object of saving faith, for by the works of the Law no flesh can be saved, not ever has been, nor ever will.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 10, 2016)

Does new covenant mean, in some sense, renewed covenant?


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 10, 2016)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Does new covenant mean, in some sense, renewed covenant?



Yes it does, as an honest consideration of Jer. 31 for example will show. The characteristics of the New Covenant that are highlighted there, are in the main characteristics that have been found in believers through all the ages. Did not Moses know the Lord? Did not David have the Spirit poured on him? had he not had his iniquities forgiven? (if not then he lies in Psalm 32!). It always seems to me that those who emphasis Jeremiah 31 as being the passage that sets out the radical difference between former covenants and the New Covenant must of necessity acknowledge that all who have lived prior to the instituion of the New Covenant have been lost.

So yes the new covenant is a renewed covenant, but not merely renewed - it is enlarged, magnified - mainly in that it will not spread across the nations, and that there will be a greater more efficacious outpouring of the Spirit.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 10, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> > The Old Covenant was a works based salvation. The New Covenant is based solely upon the work that Christ accomplished. Believers are saved by grace alone, in Christ alone.
> ...



Lets see if we agree on this: Outside of the Covenant of Redemption, would u agree that there are two actual covenants in time; the C of W's and the C of G. Do u agree with this?

I would agree with the WCF in the chapter you cite without reservation. I will quote the same chapter in which what I refer to in my statement in question:



> II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.



The portion you cite of the WCF, in my opinion, is speaking directly in regard to the C of G, to which, both of us agree are gracious administrations that are described.

The portion I site, I see as the C of W's in an absolute sense. 

As well, All men outside of Christ remain under the curse of the fall and are rightfully under the same covenant of works; however, it being laid waste by Adams failure to keep it. It is this which I speak of. Having said this, I disagree w/ you on a few point. Specifically:



> 1) The Old Covenant was never a works based salvation. Indeed there has never been a works based salvation, not even in the Garden of Eden.
> 
> 2) I believe the OC was an administration of the Covenant of Grace



This may come down to you define the 'Old Covenant'. When I say I see it in it's absolute sense, I mean that this covenant originated in the garden under the C of W's; what the Mosaic is, in my opinion, is not a republication but the actual identity or epicenter of the C of W's; so when scripture states, 'the old covenant' it does not refer absolutely to the Mosaic on every instance. Sometimes it refers to the garden and the actual C of W's.

Also, if the NC started @ Gen 3:15, to which I totally agree, how can a reference to 'the old covenant' refer to something within the NC? How can it be new and old at the same time?


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

Scott 

I'm not sure that I agree that the Old Covenant sometimes encapsulates the Edenic covenant, though I agree it encapsulates sometimes everything between Gen 3:15 and the New Covenant.

The citation relating to the Covenant of Works is indeed the Covenant of Works, but that is never in my knowledge specifically referred to in the Bible or Theology as the Old Covenant. Regardless the Covenant of Works itself is not a works salvation covenant - as a) there was no sin to saved from, b) it was a covenant unto life (and by implication to avoid death), but even this offer of life was conditioned foundationally on the condescension of God (see the WCF 7:1,2)

The Confession is rather clear in separating time into two periods: Covenant of Works (ends at the Fall WCF 7:3 "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace ) - Covenant of Grace - The Covenant of Grace it then separates into two subsets the Old Covenant (administered by sacrifices etc. cf. WCF 7:5) and the New Covenant (where Christ the substance of the Old is revealed) - thus the Old Covenant is an adminsitration of the Covenant of Grace and those saved in it are saved by grace and not works. And again properly speaking the Covenant of Works is not even a salvation Covenant at all, but a Covenant of Life.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

BTW Scott here is a good article by Clark in Heidelblog on Covenant Theology, it says many good things, here's one that is saying pretty much the same as I have said above,

'For these reasons the covenant of works is not contrary to grace, which, strictly defined, is for sinners. We might say that God graciously promised life to Adam, before the fall, on the basis of perfect and personal obedience to the covenant of works, the covenant of law, or the covenant of nature. The Westminster Divines, however, quite wisely avoided injecting grace into the covenant of works by speaking of God’s “voluntary condescension” in making a covenant of works with Adam (and with us in him). The effect of this expression is to focus attention on God’s freedom but without introducing his favor to sinners which, properly, was not yet in view inasmuch as Adam was not a sinner when God made the covenant of works.'


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2016)

Part of the problem seems to be where u and I believe the NC began. I will address that below.



JP Wallace said:


> Scott
> I'm not sure that I agree that the Old Covenant sometimes encapsulates the Edenic covenant, though I agree it encapsulates sometimes everything between Gen 3:15 and the New Covenant.



I asked, how can the Old be called the old if it is in the new covenant? I see one issue as to why you may think this: 'between Gen 3:15 and the New Covenant'.

This may help:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/10/the-westminster-standards-use-covenant-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/



> The citation relating to the Covenant of Works is indeed the Covenant of Works, but that is never in my knowledge specifically referred to in the Bible or Theology as the Old Covenant.



If u say so...when I read the scriptures, given my particular understanding, I see the reference to that which came before the C of G, i.e. the garden (many times).




> Regardless the Covenant of Works itself is not a works salvation covenant - as a) there was no sin to saved from, b) it was a covenant unto life (and by implication to avoid death), but even this offer of life was conditioned foundationally on the condescension of God (see the WCF 7:1,2)



Well, yea, technically u are correct. However, Adam and Eve were kept in their 'blessedness' upon keeping this works based command. The result of not keeping it was, death. It was based on what they did. 'Do this and live'.
You make it sound as if I am the originator of said understanding.




> The Confession is rather clear in separating time into two periods: Covenant of Works (ends at the Fall WCF 7:3 "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace ) - Covenant of Grace - The Covenant of Grace it then separates into two subsets the Old Covenant (administered by sacrifices etc. cf. WCF 7:5) and the New Covenant (where Christ the substance of the Old is revealed) - thus the Old Covenant is an adminsitration of the Covenant of Grace and those saved in it are saved by grace and not works. And again properly speaking the Covenant of Works is not even a salvation Covenant at all, but a Covenant of Life.



Where is that distinction made in the WCF? I do not see that wording? In fact, I believe the actual wording supports what I am positing:



> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him, as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> II. *The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.



*THE FIRST COVENANT



> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a *second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.



*THE SECOND COVENANT

Would u agree that when the term, 'the law' is used in scripture, that it does not refer absolutely to the decalogue that was given to Israel, but at times, intends to show that that law was actually in the garden as well?

For example:


2 Kings 17:13 
13*Yet the LORD testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments and my statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which I sent to you by my servants the prophets. 


2 Kings 17:37 
37*And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods. 


2 Chronicles 14:4 
4*And commanded Judah to seek the LORD God of their fathers, and to do the law and the commandment. 



Ezra 7:10 
10*For Ezra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the LORD, and to do it, and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments. 



Ezra 7:26 
26*And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.



Ezra 10:3 
3*Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those that tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law. 



Psalm 1:2 
2* But his delight is in the law of the LORD;
And in his law doth he meditate day and night.

Psalm 19:7 
7* The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul:
The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Psalm 37:31 
31* The law of his God is in his heart;
None of his steps shall slide.


I am sure you agree that Adam had the law.


Romans 2:12 
12*For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; 



Romans 2:18 
18*And knowest his will, and kapprovest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 



Romans 5:13 
13*(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 


M. Henry:
'The design of what follows is plain. It is to exalt our views respecting the blessings Christ has procured for us, by comparing them with the evil which followed upon the fall of our first father; and by showing that these blessings not only extend to the removal of these evils, but far beyond. Adam sinning, his nature became guilty and corrupted, and so came to his children. Thus in him all have sinned.'

JFB:
'13, 14. For until the law sin was in the world—that is during all the period from Adam "until the law" of Moses was given, God continued to treat men as sinners.
but sin is not imputed where there is no law—"There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed"; as is now to be shown.'

Poole:
'It appears that all have sinned, because sin was always in the world, not only after the law was given by Moses, but also before, even from the beginning of the world till that time.'


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> Would u agree that when the term, 'the law' is used in scripture, that it does not refer absolutely to the decalogue that was given to Israel, but at times, intends to show that that law was actually in the garden as well?



Absolutely agree and would say that the 10 commandments is a summary of that law as well, and would also say that when Paul refers in Romans to the law written on the heart that it is the Edenic situation and indeed the heart of all men from Adam down that he is referring to.

Actually as I read your first post I think you and I are agreed by the time you get to your last couple of sentences, its just that first sentence that troubles me, because in fact no one has ever been saved from sin by works, nor has God ever actually held out such a possibility to mankind, though many men have mistakenly thought he has. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ (either promised or revealed).



Scott Bushey said:


> Where is that distinction made in the WCF? I do not see that wording?



I'll try and show you this, but I rather sit down with a marker and paper! It would be easier. *BOLD AND RED* are my comments.

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, *THIS IS EASY - HERE THEY ARE REFERRING TO THE COVENANT OF WORKS*[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant *I.E THE COVENANT THUS FAR REFERRED TO - THE COVENANT OF WORKS*, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace;*HERE THEY INTRODUCE THE SECOND COVENANT WHICH IS THE COVENANT OF GRACE - THUS BRINGING TO AN END THE COVENANT OF WORKS* wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.[8]

V. This covenant *THIS IS THE COVENANT OF GRACE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 AND IS THE COVENANT OF GRACE* was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel *HERE ARE THE TWO MAJOR DIVISIONS OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE CALLED HERE THE TIME OF THE LAW AND THE TIME OF THE GOSPEL*:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament *HERE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE TIME OF THE LAW IS CALLED THE OLD TESTAMENT/LAW (REMEMBER LAW AND TESTAMENT IN THIS CHAPTER ARE ESSENTIALLY INTERCHANGEABLE*..[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament. *HERE THE ADMINSTRATION OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE TIME OF THE GOSPEL IS NOW CALLED THE NEW TESTAMENT/COVENANT*[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.*HERE WE SEE THEM UNDERLINING THAT WHICH OLD AND NEW COVENANTS WERE ADMINISTERED DIFFERENTLY THEY BOTH WORKED ON THE BASIS OF GRACE*[18]


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

Jonathan

You could do worse that listen to this excellent sermon by Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones,


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2016)

> V. This covenant *THIS IS THE COVENANT OF GRACE REFERRED TO IN PARAGRAPHS 3 AND 4 AND IS THE COVENANT OF GRACE* was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel *HERE ARE THE TWO MAJOR DIVISIONS OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE CALLED HERE THE TIME OF THE LAW AND THE TIME OF THE GOSPEL*:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament *HERE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE PREVIOUSLY CALLED THE TIME OF THE LAW IS CALLED THE OLD TESTAMENT/LAW (REMEMBER LAW AND TESTAMENT IN THIS CHAPTER ARE ESSENTIALLY INTERCHANGEABLE*..[12]



I don't see it the way you do. 'The time of the law' is not the time of the gospel. As Fisher points out:

“Q. 23. If both covenants, of grace and works, were exhibited on Mount Sinai, were not the Israelites, in that case, under both these covenants at one and the same time?

A. They could not be under both covenants in the same respects, at the same time; and therefore they must be considered either as believers or unbelievers, both as to their outward church state and inward soul frame.

Q. 24. In what respects were the believing Israelites, in the Sinaitic transaction, under both covenants?

A. They were internally and really under the covenant of grace, as all believers are, Rom. 6:14, and only externally, under the above awful display of the covenant of works, as it was subordinate and subservient to that of grace, in pointing out the necessity of the Surety-righteousness, Gal. 3:24.

Q. 25. In what respects were unbelievers among them, under these two covenants of works and grace?

A. They were only externally, and by profession, in respect of their visible church state, under the covenant of grace, Rom. 9:4; but internally, and really, in respect of the state of their souls, before the Lord, they were under the covenant of works, chap. 4:14, 15.”

I don't agree that Adam did not have these same requirements in the garden.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

Scott Bushey said:


> Well, yea, technically u are correct. However, Adam and Eve were kept in their 'blessedness' upon keeping this works based command. The result of not keeping it was, death. It was based on what they did. 'Do this and live'.
> You make it sound as if I am the originator of said understanding.



Sorry Scott forgot to respond to this.

I think it's a typo but I assume you mean they would have been kept in their blessedness upon keeping this works based command. I think we can even go further, they would have had an enhanced relationship and existence upon obedience.

However, what I am emphasizing is that this was not a saving covenant, since they were not sinners until they broke it, and it was only after they broke it that grace was needed. I have no objection with the do this and live phrase being applied to Adam and Eve and that in a real sense, but it must not be applied in the same sense when you get into the Abrahamic and Mosaic era. Why would God have offered salvation by works to a fallen sinful people, when Adam and Eve in innocency were unable to ever keep themselves in blessedness!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2016)

> Actually as I read your first post I think you and I are agreed by the time you get to your last couple of sentences, its just that first sentence that troubles me, because in fact no one has ever been saved from sin by works, nor has God ever actually held out such a possibility to mankind, though many men have mistakenly thought he has. Salvation has always been by grace through faith in Christ (either promised or revealed).



WELL, yea. In the absolute sense because there had not been sin up until the fall. However, Adam, if he kept the law, he & us would have lived forever. In this way, this is why it is called a C of W's and people would have been 'saved'(for lack of a better term) if the law was kept. Saved from what? Death. The same can be said in the C of G by faith in Christ alone.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> I think it's a typo but I assume you mean they would have been kept in their blessedness upon keeping this works based command.



yes.


JP Wallace said:


> I think we can even go further, they would have had an enhanced relationship and existence upon obedience.



yes.

See my last post.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 11, 2016)

Scott

I don't think we're going to get anywhere, I have explained as best I can, I suggest to you that you listen to the linked Lloyd-Jones sermon as well. Thanks for the discussion I hope it was of some benefit to others as well.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 11, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> I have no objection with the do this and live phrase being applied to Adam and Eve and that in a real sense, but it must not be applied in the same sense when you get into the Abrahamic and Mosaic era.



Agreed.


----------



## MW (Jun 12, 2016)

The confusion might be avoided by speaking of the covenant of grace as consisting of the old and new "testaments." The older translations were correct to discern a conceptual difference in the way "diatheke" is used, and the Christian tradition in general has astutely recognised the differences as being testamental rather than covenantal.

WCF 7.4. "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed."


----------



## KeithW (Jun 13, 2016)

A resource in support of what Rev. Winzer said.

Calvin, John. Commentaries On The Epistle Of Paul The Apostle To The Hebrews.
Verse 16. "Hebrews Chapter 9:13-17."
Translated And Edited By The Rev. John Owen.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Nov 19, 2011.
<http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xv.iii.html>

Additional resources on the Greek word _diatheke _and its meaning as used in the Bible.

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Verse 15. Verse 16.
StudyLight.Org. August 1, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009> 

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 26". The Adam Clarke Commentary. 1832.
Verse 27. Verse 28.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=026>

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". The Adam Clarke Commentary. 1832.
Verse 15. Verse 16. Verse 18.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009> 

Estes, David Foster. "COVENANT, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT", The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
StudyLight.Org. August 2, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/> 

Gardiner, Frederic. "On diatheke in Heb. ix. 16, 17". Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Vol. 5, No. 1/2 (Jun. - Dec., 1885), pp. 8-19.
JSTOR. July 26, 2011.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268624> 

Rendall, Frederic. Theology of the Hebrew Christians. 1886. pp.159,160.
Google Books. August 5, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=Ot4OAAAAIAAJ> 

Rendall, Frederic. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1883. pp.82-84
Google Books. August 2, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=tDMNAAAAYAAJ> 

Vincent, Marvin R. "Hebrews Chapter 9". Vincent's Word Studies. 1887.
Hebrews 9:16. Hebrews 9:17. Hebrews 9:18.
Internet Sacred Text Archive. Accessed August 2, 2011.
<http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/vws/heb009.htm> 

Vine, W. E. "Testament". Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
"Covenant". "Testator".
Tim Greenwood Ministries. August 1, 2011.
<http://www.tgm.org/bible.htm> 

Williams, A. Lukyn. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians.
Galatians III. 15.
Cambridge University Press, 1914, pp.51,52.
Google Books. March 28, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=uwA9AAAAIAAJ> 
Also available at <http://www.archive.org/details/epistleofpaulapo00willuoft> 

Young, Robert. "Book of Hebrews, Chapter 9". Young's Literal Translation. 1862.
StudyLight.Org. August 2, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=heb+9§ion=0&translation=ylt&oq=&sr=1> 

Young, Robert. Twofold concordance to the New Testament. Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Together with a concordance and dictionary of Bible words and synonyms. 1884.
"Testator".
Google Books. August 2, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=f60GAAAAQAAJ>


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2016)

MW said:


> The confusion might be avoided by speaking of the covenant of grace as consisting of the old and new "testaments." The older translations were correct to discern a conceptual difference in the way "diatheke" is used, and the Christian tradition in general has astutely recognised the differences as being testamental rather than covenantal.
> 
> WCF 7.4. "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed."



When I was a Baptist, I confused this exceedingly. I had the Mosaic administration squarely set against the "new" covenant that started in Matthew 1:1, in my mind at the time. My confusing testament with covenant was a huge issue. There was a lot of unwinding that needed to be done.


----------



## zsmcd (Jun 13, 2016)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > The confusion might be avoided by speaking of the covenant of grace as consisting of the old and new "testaments." The older translations were correct to discern a conceptual difference in the way "diatheke" is used, and the Christian tradition in general has astutely recognised the differences as being testamental rather than covenantal.
> ...



Gentlemen, what would you say was of the greatest help in showing you this distinction?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 13, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> > MW said:
> ...




For me, it was giving the due to how covenant works and also when the Covenant of Grace/New covenant began.

I believe Westminster as well as the OPC uses the terms NC and C of G, interchangeably. I still believer however, that the terms are abused; sometimes a writer uses it exclusively to denote the Old Testament and other times, covenant. This is confusing, depending on who you are reading or speaking with. Consider how the word 'regeneration' is used. Many people use it to denote 'regeneration and conversion'. Others, the initial stage of the ordo...sadly, you have to break it down and read between the lines.

Another example is found in the WCF:



> II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> 
> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.



The divines call the C of W's, 'the first covenant'. In my conversation earlier, the term 'old covenant' was used. 
You will not find this term in scripture; hence when someone tells me 'Old covenant', I right away understand that as them speaking of the C of W's. I agree with Matthew W. that it helps a lot is one uses the term 'testament' when referring to either the old or new.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2016)

I would have to say it was twofold for me. 1) I really had to come to the text of Scripture without any preconceived bias and start my study of Scripture "over again" so to speak. As I made mention in another thread, I saw "everlasting" as "everlasting only until Jesus came." So things like that really triggered a radical reintroduction to basic concepts I was taking for granted. Then I had to see where I ended up. That study took me to Covenant Theology. After studying Scripture from the standpoint of covenant theology, which it pressed me to do, I next wanted to see who in church history believed or didn't believe what I learned. So 2) it was a study of historical theology from the time of the early church through the Reformation and puritan theology, as well as the Princeton divines and a few others, like Edwards, that solidified my thinking after I had basic concepts in order. 

I'll be honest and say I wish I had Harrison's work at the time. It would have saved me a lot of extra-biblical reading. All you really need in him is to read the chapter on covenant, and then his forst two arguments, and its about done at that point. After having covenant concepts down, (i.e. what is the Old Covenant, what is the New Covenant, what is a testament, what is the point of the book of Hebrews, how does Jeremiah 31-33 work in this scheme, etc.) I read Witsius a_ few times _with the WCF, and thought the Sum of Saving Knowledge was very clear and helpful. Then I really studied Turretin. Turretin was a great help. Then I read John Owen, Thomas Blake and Samuel Rutherford a couple of times through on their positions. Then a number of other works were supportive (Brinsley, Hooker, Willard, Calamy, many of the Westminster puritans, and such.)

I think a third thing which may of been of help was all the discussion on the Puritanboard at the time. Lots of interaction and refining.

The spark that started my study overall what the role of the warning passages in Scripture and how they directly apply to Christians, not unbelievers. That might seem like a strange place, but it was all birth by being honest with my hermeneutics.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jun 13, 2016)

MW said:


> The confusion might be avoided by speaking of the covenant of grace as consisting of the old and new "testaments." The older translations were correct to discern a conceptual difference in the way "diatheke" is used, and the Christian tradition in general has astutely recognised the differences as being testamental rather than covenantal.
> 
> WCF 7.4. "This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed."



Reading a fair amount of covenant theology lately, this post was exceedingly helpful and a succinct summary of what presbyterian covenant theology is.


----------



## MW (Jun 13, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> Gentlemen, what would you say was of the greatest help in showing you this distinction?



Thomas Boston's View of the Covenant of Grace has a section on Christ the Testator which I have found to be very profitable.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 13, 2016)

I. I shall shew what is meant by the Old and New Testament. It is the covenant of grace which is called a testament and it is properly a testamentary covenant, without any proper conditions as to us, Heb. viii. 10. ” This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. ” Christ is the testator; He made the testament, and confirmed it with his death. The spirit of Christ drew the testament, dictating it to the holy penman. This testament of Christ’s is one and the same as to substance, though sometimes more clearly revealed than at other times. The Old Testament is the more obscure draught of Christ’s will, and the New Testament is the more clear one. Thus they only differ in circumstances, while the substantials of both are one and the same; one Mediator and testator, one legacy or promise of remission of sin and eternal life, and one faith as the way of obtaining it”.

Thomas Boston on the Divine Scriptures.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jun 14, 2016)

David Dickson helps in his description:



> Quest. II. "Was the administration of the covenant under the Old Testament, sufficient for the time, and efficacious through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect, in the faith of the promised Messiah; by whom they had a full remission of sins, and eternal salvation?"
> 
> Yes; 1 Cor. 10.1,3,4. Heb. 11.13. John 8.56.
> 
> ...


----------



## RAR (Jun 14, 2016)

JP Wallace said:


> Jeri Tanner said:
> 
> 
> > Does new covenant mean, in some sense, renewed covenant?
> ...



Mr. Wallace,

I've considered this before, but it doesn't make sense, if you interpret the word new as renew:
31“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will *renew* the covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
32 *Not like* the covenant that I made with their fathers....
The idea that the covenant is not really new, only renewed with the difference being that it is enlarged, or magnified seems rather forced here, at least to me.

Regards,


----------



## KeithW (Jun 14, 2016)

RAR said:


> I've considered this before, but it doesn't make sense, if you interpret the word new as renew:
> 31“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will *renew* the covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah,
> 32 *Not like* the covenant that I made with their fathers....
> The idea that the covenant is not really new, only renewed with the difference being that it is enlarged, or magnified seems rather forced here, at least to me.


Ralph, I agree with you. There is a little more to your quotation.



> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: (Jer. 31:32)



Jeremiah is here contrasting the "new" one with the one made through Moses, the one Paul calls the "old" covenant. (2 Cor. 3:14 NIV) Hebrews 7-10 does a lot of contrasting between the first and the second, the old and the new. Post #3 above has several verses quoted about this. For example, the new covenant has better promises, not the same promises as the old covenant. (Heb. 8:6 KJV)

"Renewal" or "reminding of the "old" covenant is found in places like Deut. chapters 4, 5, 34, etc..


----------



## MW (Jun 14, 2016)

Jeremiah was speaking in the context of a broken covenant (which was germane at the time after Josiah's reformation in which he ministered), and he confined his statements to external things like prophets, priests, and people (who are the subject of his oracles throughout the book). We have to ask, though, what about those ones (like Jeremiah) who did not break the covenant? What of the internal blessings of repentance, forgiveness, and renewal, which were enjoyed under this "old covenant," as was recently seen in the reformation under Josiah? They are not altogether new. We are drawn by an historical analysis to see that what is "old" is not the whole of the covenant, and what is "new" was always a part of the covenant. Some difference must be made between the external and internal aspects of the covenant. So again, it is better to speak of the old and new testaments than the old and new covenants. There is a deliberate interchange of the ideas of testament and covenant in the New Testament so as to bring out the reality of covenant fulfilment with the death of the Testator.


----------



## KeithW (Jun 19, 2016)

Dr. Art Azurdia has a 2 part sermon on the new covenant. It addresses old vs. new, and in what way is the new covenant new. On this site,

http://www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com/sermons.htm

search down for "The New Covenant" part 1 and part 2.


----------



## RAR (Jul 3, 2016)

KeithW said:


> Dr. Art Azurdia has a 2 part sermon on the new covenant. It addresses old vs. new, and in what way is the new covenant new. On this site,
> 
> http://www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com/sermons.htm
> 
> search down for "The New Covenant" part 1 and part 2.



Thank you Keith, looking forward to hearing this. It's a fascinating topic for me. 
I'm in the middle of a job relocation to another state, but hopefully I will be able to go through it soon.

Regards,


----------

