Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is the Coven with Abraham/David/Moses et all still ineffect in any way within te New Covenant,
The classic Reformed view is that we were initially given the covenant of works (obedience in Eden) then the covenant of grace which is first seen within the fall when a promise is given: He (Jesus) will bruise the serpent's head.
You can see an expansion of what God has revealed regarding His covenant from this beginning point through Noah, Abraham, et al, to its full fruition in Jesus.
While it is a continuation of the redemptive history given over a series revelations (I'd argue you can't understand Jesus' work apart from deep reflection on Abraham, Moses, etc.) it is new in that Jesus' work was once and for all rather than a continuous stream of sacrifices. The Word, and all God chose to specially reveal to us, was revealed and may be accessed through the scriptures. A promise that was once largely limited to a scruffy, obscure band of exiles is now triumphantly come to all nations.
"All the promises of God are "Yes" in him," that is in Christ, 2Cor.1:20.
Think of Jesus as the last Israelite, there are none others. He is Israel reduced to a single individual. God cut off lots of people out of his chosen nation, generation after generation, like a vine-dresser pruning. In the end, he cut them off to the last man... and left the Vine, the Branch.
There aren't any "leftover" promises from back-when. Jesus has inherited, or fulfilled, every last thing that was promised. Everlasting promises to Abraham, or Israel? Jesus has got them. All others who might have "shared" in the inheritance were, like so many, disinherited.
Understand: what God declares through Peter on Pentecost to Israel, Act.2:36, is so unutterably terrifying to the hearers because they believe they are surely about to be swept away, "What shall we do?" Later in ch.3 he tells them, "You killed the Prince of Life, and asked for a murderer to be spared--but God raised the one you denied from the dead." These are utterly chilling condemnations, promising deserved damnation
(If, along with conviction there had not followed an incredible offer of mercy, many would have probably despaired of life.)
The way to participation in the blessings of all the covenants, to which Christ is the sole Heir, is to be grafted into him, Jn.15. "He who establishes us in Christ is God," 2Cor.1:21; we are his forever people to the glory of God, v20.
When we see the New Covenant is simply the final administration of the Covenant of Grace, previously administered under the whole raft of older forms, it clears away much confusion about how the OT--and all its covenants and signs--relates to the NT.
"Superseding," if we use a strict dictionary definition: "2. To cause to be set aside, esp. to displace as inferior or antiquated," (American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997); and compare with Heb.8:13, "In that he says, 'A new covenant," he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," then yes; in particular form and in certain old respects (like old wineskins) the older covenant expressions are of no effect any more.
But in other respects, the old covenant hopes are effectual in Christ. They aren't (and never were) tied to things and geography for the sake of such things and places; but only and always to persons of faith, and ultimate meaning (Heb.11).
Along these lines, here are some more New Testament verses about the distinction between the old/first/Mosaic covenant and the new/second/better covenant."Superseding," if we use a strict dictionary definition: "2. To cause to be set aside, esp. to displace as inferior or antiquated," (American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997); and compare with Heb.8:13, "In that he says, 'A new covenant," he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," then yes; in particular form and in certain old respects (like old wineskins) the older covenant expressions are of no effect any more.
What follows are the original notes which were printed with the 1611 AV:The book of Hebrews calls the covenant given to Moses the first covenant.
Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. (KJV)
Heb 8:13 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. (KJV)
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (KJV)
Christians in this age (since Christ's earthly mission) are all in/under the New Covenant administration of the Covenant of Grace. Not in/under any covenant-specific item or regulation or aspect of a previous administration.
If otherwise, it would be like alleging that you, David, are in/under something pertaining to the administration of the Articles of Confederation, because that administration predated the present Constitution of these United States. That idea is far-fetched, false, preposterous.
But you don't get the USConstitution we have now, without the historic precedent of the administration before it. They are related. Certain aspects of the second constitution are present as legacy of the former. And certain aspects are deliberately changed--hopefully for the better, but not infallibly.
As to the Faith, the New Covenant is infallibly better particularly because it is the covenant administration where the promises of the past are all met in our Savior.
"All the promises of God are "Yes" in him," that is in Christ, 2Cor.1:20.
Think of Jesus as the last Israelite, there are none others. He is Israel reduced to a single individual. God cut off lots of people out of his chosen nation, generation after generation, like a vine-dresser pruning. In the end, he cut them off to the last man... and left the Vine, the Branch.
There aren't any "leftover" promises from back-when. Jesus has inherited, or fulfilled, every last thing that was promised. Everlasting promises to Abraham, or Israel? Jesus has got them. All others who might have "shared" in the inheritance were, like so many, disinherited.
Understand: what God declares through Peter on Pentecost to Israel, Act.2:36, is so unutterably terrifying to the hearers because they believe they are surely about to be swept away, "What shall we do?" Later in ch.3 he tells them, "You killed the Prince of Life, and asked for a murderer to be spared--but God raised the one you denied from the dead." These are utterly chilling condemnations, promising deserved damnation
(If, along with conviction there had not followed an incredible offer of mercy, many would have probably despaired of life.)
The way to participation in the blessings of all the covenants, to which Christ is the sole Heir, is to be grafted into him, Jn.15. "He who establishes us in Christ is God," 2Cor.1:21; we are his forever people to the glory of God, v20.
When we see the New Covenant is simply the final administration of the Covenant of Grace, previously administered under the whole raft of older forms, it clears away much confusion about how the OT--and all its covenants and signs--relates to the NT.
"Superseding," if we use a strict dictionary definition: "2. To cause to be set aside, esp. to displace as inferior or antiquated," (American Heritage College Dictionary, 1997); and compare with Heb.8:13, "In that he says, 'A new covenant," he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away," then yes; in particular form and in certain old respects (like old wineskins) the older covenant expressions are of no effect any more.
But in other respects, the old covenant hopes are effectual in Christ. They aren't (and never were) tied to things and geography for the sake of such things and places; but only and always to persons of faith, and ultimate meaning (Heb.11).
Thank you for your notes. My choice of translations was not an attempt to force a position. I had hoped that in following the Old Testament terminology used in the original post by using the NIV 1984 in a few places (the same terminology is used by the NASB and ESV) that it would be clearer that the verses I posted also talked about the same thing as what you said about the verse you posted.The AV translators well understood that the original Greek word can mean "covenant" (agreement) and/or "testament" (arrangement).