# Old & New Covenants: Any Difference of Substance?



## Casey (Apr 24, 2006)

I would have asked this in the Dispensationalism section of the forum, but I don't believe the question is limited to dealing with their over-emphasis of the differences between these two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.

Last night, I talked with some from my church after the service basically about the question above. My position is that the only difference between the Old and New Covenants is one of degree (accidents) and not of substance.

One of those I was talking with (who had recently been reading Vos' _Biblical Theology_, and books similar) brought up an interesting point. If Christ was the first-fruits to God, the firstborn of the new creation, isn't that a difference of substance and not of degree? Did OT saints partake of the new creation? (To be sure, he didn't explicitly say he was arguing for a difference of substance, but it sounded that way.)

We did discuss the idea that maybe we've been looking at this too much from a dogmatic point of view (instead of a biblical theological point of view). That's possible. (Of course, we all have no desire of jeopardizing the dogmatic enterprise.)

Anyway, my response to him was of this sort: OT saints partook of the benefits of Christ's life & death even _before_ he had come in the flesh. Is it not too much of a stretch then to say they also partook of the new creation? Perhaps this line of thinking leads to some incorrect conclusions?

My friend's main argument was one of focusing on the objective nature of Christ's coming and truly becoming the firstborn of the new creation in his resurrection. We have to admit that Christ partaking of the new creation was an "in time" thing. If that's so, could OT saints partake of it? Would they not be those who were "firstborn" instead of Christ if they truly partook of the new creation? I suppose a more basic question would be: If they didn't partake of the new creation, does that give credence to (at this point) a difference of substance?

(Actually, I've casted this post in such a manner as to suggest we were really "arguing" last night after the service . . when, in actuality, we were merely all discussing out loud and thinking about this topic! So, I'm continuing this "thinking out loud" here on the forum!  )

Well, I don't claim to have an answer to this conundrum . . . so, thoughts?


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 24, 2006)

Hey Casey - This sounds somewhat familiar. It almost seems like I had a somewhat similar conversation with a group of people yesterday (which left me scratching my head)..... It's like de ja vu all over again....

All,
Here is my layman level question from which I came away from the above conversation scratching my head...

If Christ brought in the age to come at His resurrection from the dead, then what is the practicle difference between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints in relation to the New Testament saints' participation in the age to come? Phrased another way: If we already are living in the age to come and are partaking of the benefits of the new creation, then how would the Old Testament saint's experience be different? Can the Old Testament saint have been regenerate and yet not participate in the new creation/age to come in his earthly pilgrimage? 

Also, how does Hebrews 11:40 relate to this?

Sorry if I am being redundant. Quite probably Casey is asking the same question, but he's smarter than me. So I thought I'd ask it on a more basic level.


Thanks.

[Edited on 4-24-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2006)

V. This covenant was *differently administered* in the time of the law, and in 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.[12]

9. II Cor. 3:6-9
10. Heb. 8-10; Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12; I Cor. 5:7
11. I Cor. 10:1-4; Heb. 11:13; John 8:56
12. Gal. 3:7-9, 14; Psa. 32:1-2, 5

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.[17] *There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.*[18]

13. Col 2:17

14. I Cor. 1:21; 11:23-25; Matt. 28:19-20
15. Heb. 12:22-24; II Cor. 3:9-11; Jer. 31:33-34
16. Luke 2:32; Acts 10:34; Eph. 2:15-19
17. Luke 22:20
18. Gal. 3:8-9, 14, 16; Rom. 3:21-22, 30; 4:3, 6-8, 16-17, 23-24; 10:6-10; Heb. 4:2; Gen. 15:6; Psa. 32:1-2; I Cor. 10:3-4


----------



## Casey (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> ... *There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.* ...


I completely agree with the above. But, the question remains -- did OT saints partake of the new creation? I would like to say yes . . is that wrong?


----------



## Robin (Apr 24, 2006)

Casey,

Each time YHWH "broke-into" human history to display His mercy and/or judgment (covering Adam/Eve's nakedness; saving Noah; curses on Egypt; Moses' numerous exploits, Etc.) are moments of the coming "new creation" - the "age to come" if you will - where, once again, creation will be in harmony with the great Creator-King -- for until then, all creation "groans" under the weight of sin and death.

Most importantly, though, is not to view such miracles in the OT as disconnected from the progressive, sequential, linear direction of Redemptive history - via God's eschatological unfolding of His covenant work.

A superb book to get onboard with these ideas is "The Unfolding Mystery" by Edmond Clowney. It explains the OT depictions of God's "coming Kingdom" already at work.

The answer lies in getting the Covenants correct. There is NO division in the ONE people of God, btw. It's better to back-burner "experiences" with first getting a grasp of what God is doing to save His people via covenants.

Robin


----------



## Robin (Apr 24, 2006)

Also...here is a relevant article by Dr. Scott Clark on the "Israel of God."

http://www.oceansideurc.org/sections/articles/israelofgod.htm



r.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2006)

Can anyone be saved other than by the blood (work) of Christ?


----------



## Casey (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Can anyone be saved other than by the blood (work) of Christ?


Of course not. Have I suggested otherwise?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2006)

No, no. Don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to convery that about you at all.

What I mean to say is that only through Christ and his work will any OT or NT beleiver enter into heaven.

That being said, the substance of the covenant of grace always remains the same. The smae Spirit that "indwells" me, "indwelt" Abraham. The same blood that covers me, covered Noah. The same power to covert souls int he Gospel that regenerated me, regenerated Jacob.

That was all I meant to convey in that statement.


----------



## Casey (Apr 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> No, no. Don't misunderstand. I didn't mean to convery that about you at all.
> 
> What I mean to say is that only through Christ and his work will any OT or NT beleiver enter into heaven.
> ...


 I get what you're saying and am in complete agreement. 

What's your take on the question of the "new creation" and how that applies to the differences between the two administrations?


----------



## Robin (Apr 26, 2006)

Are we saved by works? Yes, indeed! God yet requires perfect obedience to the Law.

We are saved by Christ's works.

The Holy Spirit links us to Christ via trust (faith) in His righteous acts; sacrificial death and justifying resurrection.

The Father elects; the Son redeems; the Spirit calls to faith.

r.


----------



## larryjf (Apr 27, 2006)

> My friend's main argument was one of focusing on the objective nature of Christ's coming and truly becoming the firstborn of the new creation in his resurrection. We have to admit that Christ partaking of the new creation was an "in time" thing. If that's so, could OT saints partake of it? Would they not be those who were "firstborn" instead of Christ if they truly partook of the new creation?


Please correct me if i'm wrong, but my take on this is that this is referring to the resurrection - which none of us (OT or NT saints) have actually taken part of yet.

Christ is firstborn from the dead in His resurrection, and the OT and NT saints will take part of that when we are resurrected.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 27, 2006)

Casey,

What do you "particularly" mean when you say "new creation?"

Do you mean that "we are a new creation" in Christ?

I might have missed it....


----------



## Dan.... (Apr 27, 2006)

Maybe if I could ask the question in a different form it might be less confusion.

1. Would you agree that one can say that those who are truly converted, in this inter-advental age, do partake of the the age to come in an "already-not-yet" manner?

2. If you agree with #1, then the question is: did Old Testament saints, during their lifetimes, partake of the age to come in an "already-not-yet" way?

3. When did/does the age to come begin? (Specifically, when did/does the "already" aspect of the age to come begin?)

It seems that, if one were to answer #3, with "at the resurrection of Christ" (which I believe that the person to whom Casey was refering would answer), then it seems to me that one would then necessarily answer #1 with, "No".

I hope that made sense.



[Edited on 4-27-2006 by Dan....]


----------



## Casey (Apr 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Maybe if I could ask the question in a different form it might be less confusion.


Thanks, Dan -- and sorry all . . I'm busy in my writing-papers-like-a-mad-man-mode!


----------



## Robin (May 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> What's your take on the question of the "new creation" and how that applies to the differences between the two administrations?



Casey,

The word "new" indicates the new inaugurated administration of God's Covanent with Abraham - different from the covenant of works/Moses. The Ten Commandments was a "republication" of the covenant of works God had with Adam in the Garden. Christ is the "Mediator of a new and better covenant." (Moses was a mediator of the cov/W and type of Christ. The people swore the oath at that covenant ritual.) But YHWH swears the oath (Gen. 15) to Abraham and his See*d*

The "new" creation (Covenant with Abraham/Christ) declares that already, God is reversing the curse (Christ's resurrection) and restoring the marred imago Dei in man. Already, but not yet fully realized - sin being so powerful, the body will eventually die. (Plus, the "whole creation groans...")

However, at the Second Advent what Christ has inaugurated will be consummated: God will judge His enemies; raise the dead; make all things new!

See Galations 3.

r.

[Edited on 5-6-2006 by Robin]


----------



## Casey (May 6, 2006)

Friends, I am not in any way denying the continuity of the Old and New Covenants. And, as such, this discussion (in my opinion) does not relate to the Covenant of Works -- but only with these two administrations of the one Covenant of Grace. I personally take what I consider the more traditional view: namely, that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and not a "re-publication" of the Covenant of Works (though, of course, the Law itself was "re-published," if you will). As Matt pointed out in the _Westminster Confession_, there is no difference in substance between the Old and the New. In subscribing to this _Confession_, I confess this to be the case! 

But, this discussion was a few weeks ago now -- it's not something that I've had a lot of time to think about or clarify on this thread. So, please forgive me for starting a thread I didn't have the time to "maintain." I think Dan (who participated in this conversation that took place after our evening service) better clarified what I was trying to ask. In fact, you can ignore everything I've said and just reply to his post . . .


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 6, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> Maybe if I could ask the question in a different form it might be less confusion.
> 
> 1. Would you agree that one can say that those who are truly converted, in this inter-advental age, do partake of the the age to come in an "already-not-yet" manner?
> ...



1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Genesis 3

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 


[Edited on 5-6-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Dan.... (May 7, 2006)

> For some reason, I have been taking it as a given that the "age to come" was inaugurated at the resurrection of Christ. I am now questioning this presupposition.





[Edited on 5-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 7, 2006)

Scott is a knucklehead for editing Dans post when responding, hence destroying any cohesiveness left to the discussion!

[Edited on 5-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 7, 2006)

My response Dan simply said that I prefer the term consumated or fulfilled instead of inaugerated.

I am such a knucklehead........

[Edited on 5-7-2006 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Dan.... (May 7, 2006)

Scott,

It's a good thing that I remember what I wrote (Don't monkey with this one  )

Before Scott improved upon my post above, it read something like this:
************************************************




As I have been pondering this question over the past couple of weeks, I am becoming more inclined to agree with you, that the "age to come" was experienced as well by Old Testament Saints as it is by us. Only for us, we have a greater fulness, because Jesus Christ has come in the flesh and has given us a more glorious revelation of the covenant of grace. 

For some reason, I have been taking it as a given that the "age to come" was inaugurated at the resurrection of Christ. I am now questioning this presupposition.

As for my question about Hebrews 11:40, John Owen answered it very well:




> Ver. 40. "” "œGod having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."
> 
> Having declared the victorious faith of believers under the old testament, with what it enabled them to do and suffer, and given an account of their state as unto the actual accomplishment of that promise which they lived on and trusted unto, in this last verse of this chapter he compares that state of theirs with that of believers under the gospel, giving the preeminence unto the latter, with the reason whence so it was. And there is in the words, "” 1. The reason of the difference that was between the two states of the church; and this was God´s disposal of things in this order: "œGod having provided." 1 The difference itself, namely, "œsome better thing" that was so provided for us. 3. A declaration of that better thing, in a negation of it unto them: "œThat they without us should not be made perfect."
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 7, 2006)

SCOTT for being painful

Sorry bout that Dan


----------



## Dan.... (May 7, 2006)

Why is it, that whenever I think that I've stumbled accross what I consider a "really tough question", that eventually I find out that John Owen has already "been-there-done-that" and has given a more than apt answer to whatever it is I'm scratching my head about.


----------



## Dan.... (May 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> SCOTT for being painful
> 
> Sorry bout that Dan



No problem.



When you say that the age to come is "fulfilled, consumated", are you applying that to the resurrection of Christ, or Genesis 3:15?

I think you are saying:
Age to come - inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, fulfilled at the resurrection of Christ... correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 7, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> ...



Almost hit the edit button again! 

Correct. :bigsmile:


----------

