# New Covenant's relation to the Abrahamic



## Doulos McKenzie (Jun 30, 2016)

What is the relation between the New and Abrahamic covenants? Are the essentially the same?


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> What is the relation between the New and Abrahamic covenants? Are the essentially the same?



They are different administrations of the one covenant of grace. The same for substance. Gal. 3:6-9, "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham."


----------



## Christusregnat (Jun 30, 2016)

Essentials are all the same. Accidentals are various.

Essentials: the way of salvation, the Mediator, the means of justification, the promises, the God of the covenant, the nature of the covenant.

Accidentals: the stage of fulfillment of the promises, the outward and ordinary means to confirm the covenant (sacraments and rites), the amount of content of revelation concerning the Messiah, etc.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Jun 30, 2016)

so then what makes the New Covenant new? If it is only just another administration of the Abrahamic Covenant? BTW I am working my way through CT under the bounds of the 1689 LBCF which in itself says very little


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> so then what makes the New Covenant new? If it is only just another administration of the Abrahamic Covenant? BTW I am working my way through CT under the bounds of the 1689 LBCF which in itself says very little



It is important to clarify that the "new covenant" is not an administration of the Abrahamic covenant. Both "covenants" are an administration of the covenant of grace. As a matter of historical progression, the "new covenant" is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic covenant. The fulfilment issued in a new administration of the blessings promised to Abraham, which is often called the "new covenant," but is better translated as the "new testament" when it is directly contrasted with the "old testament."

The Greek word, "diatheke," conveys different meanings in different contexts. It can mean covenant or testament. What is new is the testament, or will, or dispensation. Under the old testament the blessings of the covenant were conveyed through men who typically and temporarily served as mediators until the fulness of the time. These promised blessings are now conveyed personally and fully by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and men.

The 1677/1689 Confession was an antipaedoabaptist revision of the Independent's 1658 Savoy Declaration, which was a revision of the 1646 Westminster Confession as passed by the Long Parliament. To gain a fuller appreciation of covenant theology as a system it would be best to go back to the Westminster Confession as a source document, and then look at the revisions to see what has changed.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Jun 30, 2016)

Thank you for the response. I know the history of the 1677/1689 LBCF and I have read the Westminster's section on CT many times and have been studying Ct for the past few months. the reason I am asking the question of the "newness" of the NEW Covenant is because i don't see how the new Covenant is truly new in Paedobaptistic CT. If the New Cov is just another administration of the CoG the how is it truly NEW? And what covenant was Abraham saved by? or Moses? or David? I know we would both say the CoG but what distinguishes the CoG from the New Cov? I'm not trying to get into a debate or anything I am just trying to workout my view on CT.


----------



## MW (Jun 30, 2016)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> If the New Cov is just another administration of the CoG the how is it truly NEW?



The "testament" is new. As noted, the Greek word "diatheke" means "covenant" or "testament" depending on the context. In Hebrews 9-10 it is simply and expressly stated that the "will" has been changed as a result of the death of the testator. The sacrifices and offerings of the old testament were continually repeated, which indicated a remembrance of sins. Now we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, which means that the sins are remembered no more.

If they were not one and the same covenant with different "wills" or "dispensations," the old testament sacrifices could not have served as "shadows" of Christ's one only sacrifice. The unity of the covenant establishes the resemblance between them. If they were different covenants there would be no resemblance.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 30, 2016)

MW said:


> The Greek word, "diatheke," conveys different meanings in different contexts. It can mean covenant or testament.



Interesting. I don't think I've ever been presented with the difference between a covenant and testament. Why am I not being taught this in seminary?

Would you mind 1) further explaining the precise differences between the two and/or 2) pointing to some literature that does?

This is very helpful. Thank you; I love it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Why am I not being taught this in seminary?



Regrettably evangelical scholarship has increasingly moved in the direction of seeing diatheke as univocal in meaning, and as always meaning "covenant" in the Old Testament sense of the term; which is apparent in the fact that modern versions tend to only translate diatheke as "covenant," and meaninglessly use the word "testament" in the uninspired title pages of the Old and New Testaments. This has gone hand in hand with a stronger emphasis on topical studies as the meat of biblical theology, which inclines word-studies to seek univocal meanings across both testaments, and obscures important insights which the New Testament perspective of fulfilment might bring to the study of the Old Testament. Those who carefully examine the testamentary teaching of chapters 9-10 are likely to see this kind of methodology as lacking in quality. So perhaps the best resource to recommend is an exegetical study of Hebrews 8-10 itself, with specific emphasis on the exposition of the new diatheke in chapters 9-10.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Jul 1, 2016)

So basically you are saying there is one Covenant but two Testaments of that one Covenant?


----------



## MW (Jul 1, 2016)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> So basically you are saying there is one Covenant but two Testaments of that one Covenant?



In a basic sense, yes, if it helps to simplify; although it is more complicated than that because the testamentary aspect only comes to light because of the testamentary fulfilment in Christ's death. Because Christ fulfils all the types of the Old Testament he gathers and unites the various covenant arrangements in Himself, and so "covenant" comes to include a number of things which were not strictly one under the old economy.


----------



## Taylor (Jul 1, 2016)

In my perusing of the internet for help with my understanding of the difference between "covenant" and "testament," it was brought to my remembrance the very helpful lecture series put forth by John Gerstner through Ligonier Ministries on the Westminster Confession of Faith. In it, he does give a brief overview of the difference between the two terms, primarily because of the fact that the WCF itself utilizes the two terms. Here is the URL:

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/serie...ion-of-faith/chapter-6-sec-5-chapter-8-sec4/?

The lecture on Ch. VII of the WCF is found within 3:58-20:55 of the video.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 1, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Why am I not being taught this in seminary?



Brother, after seminary, there will a mountain of doctrines and practical situations you will find that they never even alluded to much less taught in seminary.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 1, 2016)

This may be of help - it is a short summary I have of Witsius at APM, which has the difference and similarity between covenant and testament. He explains that a few times in various ways. At the very least, there you will find in summary what sections in his work is more exhaustively taught.


----------

