-
- Thread starter Joshua
- Start date
- Status
Here is BDAG on kaino,j :
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Some exerpts from Lous Berkhof's Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-0549-3 ), pages 68-70.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
In other words, you need to do an internet word search on Chadash or look it up in Young's Analytical Concordance and see what each occurrence of the word signifies. When you do this, you will find that its almost invariable meaning is NEW, in the sense of replacing something old (Heb 8:13 ), not RENEW in the sense of taking something old and repairing it.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hey Josh,
Something Matt pointed out to me helped a lot concerning "Chadash" as a verb Vs. adjective. Not being a language expert it finally clicked with me. Because if you look up the word in its verb form which is its root from which the adjective derives it is refreshed, renewed and so forth. But if you look up the adjective form (the more frequent use) it says new. So, what gives?
Here's where some basic parts of speech re-studying help out. What you have to remember is that adjectives are not only modifiers but more correctly restrictive modifiers. So, if I move from "car" to "blue car" I've restricted by modification what I mean, yet the category of car remains the same. That's one thing to kind of hold on to. Now, when the adjective form of Chadash derives from the verb form of Chadash what does that mean. The verb, an action, is the root word. And it is always refreshed or renewed. So that when the verb action is taken on a thing it is a refreshing or renewing action. AFTER the fact of the action taken by the verb form we can now say with a limiting adjective it is new. Yet the action bringing it to "newness" if you will, was a renewing action.
Thus every day can be spoken of as new, but in reality it is renewed or refreshed for the logical class or category of day previously existed it was just refreshed.
That may or may not help and some of the other guys here who are gifted with languages can help much more than I.
Larry
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Larry Hughes]
Something Matt pointed out to me helped a lot concerning "Chadash" as a verb Vs. adjective. Not being a language expert it finally clicked with me. Because if you look up the word in its verb form which is its root from which the adjective derives it is refreshed, renewed and so forth. But if you look up the adjective form (the more frequent use) it says new. So, what gives?
Here's where some basic parts of speech re-studying help out. What you have to remember is that adjectives are not only modifiers but more correctly restrictive modifiers. So, if I move from "car" to "blue car" I've restricted by modification what I mean, yet the category of car remains the same. That's one thing to kind of hold on to. Now, when the adjective form of Chadash derives from the verb form of Chadash what does that mean. The verb, an action, is the root word. And it is always refreshed or renewed. So that when the verb action is taken on a thing it is a refreshing or renewing action. AFTER the fact of the action taken by the verb form we can now say with a limiting adjective it is new. Yet the action bringing it to "newness" if you will, was a renewing action.
Thus every day can be spoken of as new, but in reality it is renewed or refreshed for the logical class or category of day previously existed it was just refreshed.
That may or may not help and some of the other guys here who are gifted with languages can help much more than I.
Larry
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Larry Hughes]
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
...
I go for 'brand new' but as fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham centuries before the Law, anybody else see the Abram to Abraham change? h = 'Life'...breath of...
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by just_grace]
I go for 'brand new' but as fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham centuries before the Law, anybody else see the Abram to Abraham change? h = 'Life'...breath of...
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by just_grace]
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Let me set up this thought you can use for target practice.
When I think of the word new, especially as its used in Hebrews, I don't think of either brand new or renewed. I think more along the lines of a synonym that's given for new - fresh. Here's how Webster defines it:
Fresh
1 a : having its original qualities unimpaired: as (1) : full of or renewed in vigor : REFRESHED <rose fresh from a good night's sleep> (2) : not stale, sour, or decayed <fresh bread> (3) : not faded <the lessons remain fresh in her memory> (4) : not worn or rumpled <a fresh white shirt> b : not altered by processing <fresh vegetables>
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.
The first covenant decayed and waxed old and was ready to vanish away. In contrast, the new covenant is ever fresh, having its original qualities unimpaired, full of vigor, not stale, sour, decayed, faded, worn, or crumpled.
<Ducking as you open fire>
Bob
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
I had written "Let me set up this thought you can use for target practice." Generally, when half the people think one thing (new=brand new) and the other half think another (new=renewed), and I think something different, I entertain the possibility that I may be wrong, and that the thought would be shot down by some sound reasoning.
WrittenFromUtopia
Puritan Board Graduate
The Abrahamic Covenant is made new in Christ.
I'm curious what is meant by "new" the following verse:
Deut 24:5 -
When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
(Per Strong, the word "New" in Deut 24:5 is the same word as "new" in Jer 31:31)
What exactly is a "renewed" wife????
Anyway, I fell to see why it is of necessity to determine whether "new" in Jer 31:31 must be understood as "brand new" renewed" "fill-in-the-blank new", etc...
Deut 24:5 -
When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
(Per Strong, the word "New" in Deut 24:5 is the same word as "new" in Jer 31:31)
What exactly is a "renewed" wife????
Anyway, I fell to see why it is of necessity to determine whether "new" in Jer 31:31 must be understood as "brand new" renewed" "fill-in-the-blank new", etc...
I am now looking at saying that the promise concerning Abraham's Seed is fulfilled in the NEW Covenant. I am just wondering if the Covenant of Grace finds it's fulfilment in the New Covenant or in the Eternal State. Same question to the Covenant of Redemption.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
If I say that I've bought a new car, I don't mean that I've had the old one re-sprayed and put a sun-roof in. I mean a new car. They both have four wheels and an engine, but they are different vehicles with different wheels and different engines. The old one was a Ford; the new one is a Toyota. The old one had a petrol motor; the new one is a diesel. The old one was an estate; the new one is a saloon. The old one had a manual gear box; the new one is automatic etc., etc.
Keep that thought in mind as we look at some texts.
Exod 1:8. 'Now there arose a new king over Egypt.' The old king and the new king both shared certain 'kingly' qualities. They were both men and they ruled. But the new king is a different person. He is not the old king resuscitated or necromanced in some way! The old king was good; the new king was bad.
Lev 23:16. 'Then you shall offer a new grain offering to the Lord.' Not the old grain offering with added vitamins and the mould scraped off, but a brand new offering with completely different grain.
Deut 22:8. 'When you build a new house.' Not the old house with PVC windows and air-conditioning, but a brand new house.
Deut 24:8. 'When a man has taken a new wife.' Not the old wife with a face lift, liposuction and breast implants, but a different woman.
Isaiah 62:2. 'You shall be called by a new name.' Not 'Salem' instead of Jerusalem', but 'Married' and 'My delight is in her' instead of 'Forsaken' and 'Desolate.' Not 'Marty baby' instead of 'Martin' but an utterly different name. 'Archibald', maybe :bigsmile:
Jeremiah 31:31.'....That I will make a new covenant.' Not therefore the Old (Mosaic) covenant titivated slightly, but a covenant that is, 'Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers....'. The Old and New Covenants have this in common- they are both covenants; but there the similarities end. The Old Covenant was made with Israel after the flesh; the New Covenant is made with Israel after the Spirit (vs 32-33 ).
The covenant with Abraham should be seen as an adumbration of the New Covenant, not as the NC in miniature (Col 1:26 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Keep that thought in mind as we look at some texts.
Exod 1:8. 'Now there arose a new king over Egypt.' The old king and the new king both shared certain 'kingly' qualities. They were both men and they ruled. But the new king is a different person. He is not the old king resuscitated or necromanced in some way! The old king was good; the new king was bad.
Lev 23:16. 'Then you shall offer a new grain offering to the Lord.' Not the old grain offering with added vitamins and the mould scraped off, but a brand new offering with completely different grain.
Deut 22:8. 'When you build a new house.' Not the old house with PVC windows and air-conditioning, but a brand new house.
Deut 24:8. 'When a man has taken a new wife.' Not the old wife with a face lift, liposuction and breast implants, but a different woman.
Isaiah 62:2. 'You shall be called by a new name.' Not 'Salem' instead of Jerusalem', but 'Married' and 'My delight is in her' instead of 'Forsaken' and 'Desolate.' Not 'Marty baby' instead of 'Martin' but an utterly different name. 'Archibald', maybe :bigsmile:
Jeremiah 31:31.'....That I will make a new covenant.' Not therefore the Old (Mosaic) covenant titivated slightly, but a covenant that is, 'Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers....'. The Old and New Covenants have this in common- they are both covenants; but there the similarities end. The Old Covenant was made with Israel after the flesh; the New Covenant is made with Israel after the Spirit (vs 32-33 ).
The covenant with Abraham should be seen as an adumbration of the New Covenant, not as the NC in miniature (Col 1:26 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
These thoughts about the contrast between the words old and new seem very applicable when comparing the new covenant and the old (Mosaic) covenant. Do you think these thoughts are just as applicable when comparing the new covenant and the covenant God made with Abraham? (I'm guessing you wouldn't)
blhowes
Puritan Board Professor
Thinking about your car analogy, I'm wondering if this car analogy rightly describes the connection between God's covenant with Abraham and the new covenant.
A father promised his son that he would buy him a new car, but the only problem was that the boy was only 15 years old and the driving age in his state was 17. So the father bought the car and put the car in the garage without the boy seeing it. In the morning, the father handed the keys to the boy, telling him these were the keys to the new car he had promised. "You can't look at or drive the car until you're 17th birthday, but here are the keys that you'll use when you turn 17"
When the boy was 15 1/2, the father told the boy that the car had shag carpetting inside. At 16, the father told him it had four seats, two in the front and two in the back. When the boy was 16 1/2, the father told the boy that the car had air conditioning, with separate controls in the front and back.
When the boy turned 17, the father brought the boy, keys in hand, into the garage to take possession of his new car. The car was better than the father had described, with its nice mag wheels, convertible top, awesome stereo, racing flames on the sides, and the biggest, most powerful engine that model of car came with.
God promised Abraham that in His seed all nations would be blessed (the keys). The new covenant (the car) is the fulfilment of that promise.
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by blhowes]
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello Bob,
You are correct. The New covenant is called 'New' in respect of the 'First' (Heb 8:7, 13 ) or 'Old' Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is something quite different; it is a covenant of promise (Eph 2:12 ). The analogies you make about the promised car are very good and illustrate the developement of the Promise of the Seed through Adam (Gen 3:15 ), Noah, Abraham and David until it reaches its realization in Christ.
Some of the promises apply only to Abraham and his physical offspring. God has not promised to make a great nation out of me, nor that my descendants will occupy the land of Canaan. These promises were made to the physical seed of Abraham, who carried a physical sign, and they have been fulfilled in every particular (Josh 21:43-45; 23:14 ).
But it is we who are the spiritual seed of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:9 ) who inherit the eternal promises (Heb 11:16 ), who are the children of promise by the free woman (Isaiah 54:1ff; Gal 4:21-31 ), who carry the inward, spiritual sign (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11 ) and are part of that true Israel where neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation (Gal 6:15 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
I posted this on another thread a while ago. Perhaps it may be helpful here. I had previously asked why the writer to the Hebrews refers to the 'Old' Covenant as the 'First':-
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
JonathanHunt
Puritan Board Senior
Okayyyyy
So a credo just voted 'renewed', and a paedo voted 'new'.
This board is freaking me out. Too much wierdness going on people. Will you please get back in your pigeonholes and tow your respective party lines for goodness sakes?
So a credo just voted 'renewed', and a paedo voted 'new'.
This board is freaking me out. Too much wierdness going on people. Will you please get back in your pigeonholes and tow your respective party lines for goodness sakes?
Larry Hughes
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dan,
I see your point. Hounds loosing the scent and after fish on this one. That happens sometimes.
Thanks,
Larry
I see your point. Hounds loosing the scent and after fish on this one. That happens sometimes.
Thanks,
Larry
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.
Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.
Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Jer 31 does actually tell you in what way the New Covenant is 'new':-
cf. also: Isaiah 54; John 1:13, 3:1-15, 6:45; Rom 2:28-29; 2Cor 3; Gal 3:7 etc; Phil 3:2-8; 1John 2:20, 27 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-4-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
cf. also: Isaiah 54; John 1:13, 3:1-15, 6:45; Rom 2:28-29; 2Cor 3; Gal 3:7 etc; Phil 3:2-8; 1John 2:20, 27 ).
Grace & Peace,
Martin
[Edited on 9-4-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
Dan wrote:-
If you could work Gen 4:4; Jer 9:24-26, and Gal 3:7 into your reply, that would be great.
Thanks,
Martin
I'd be interested to know just what you think the position is of the offspring in every covenant between God and man.
If you could work Gen 4:4; Jer 9:24-26, and Gal 3:7 into your reply, that would be great.
Thanks,
Martin
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
First of all, what is the "Old Covenant"? It is the Mosaic Covenant. And compared to it, the "New Covenant" looks pretty new. However, the New Covenant does not look brand new in comparison to the Abrahamic Covenant.
Galatians makes it clear that we should not conflate the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. They are distinct, even though the Abrahamic administration continued running concurrently during the Mosaic administration.
The Old (Mosaic) Covenant has passed away, and we are now under a "New Covenant" that is not the Mosaic Covenant.
But what happened to the Abrahamic covenant? It was never abrogated, and Scripture never says that it passes away. It continues to this day. Once the Old (Mosaic) Covenant faded away, the Abrahamic Covenant was refreshed and renewed. It had never ceased even during the Mosaic administration. And once the Mosaic administration was gone, the fulfilled Abrahamic Covenant shined (and continues to shine) with greater glory.
Brief outline:
1) The Abrahamic Covenant is cut
2) 400 years later, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) is cut, and does not nullify the already-existing Abrahamic Covenant.
3) A number of years later, the Old Covenant passes away, and the Abrahamic Covenant continues in a refreshed, renewed state.
The Abrahamic Covenant was not a "smaller" New Covenant, nor was it an "adumbration" of the New Covenant.
The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
Galatians makes it clear that we should not conflate the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. They are distinct, even though the Abrahamic administration continued running concurrently during the Mosaic administration.
The Old (Mosaic) Covenant has passed away, and we are now under a "New Covenant" that is not the Mosaic Covenant.
But what happened to the Abrahamic covenant? It was never abrogated, and Scripture never says that it passes away. It continues to this day. Once the Old (Mosaic) Covenant faded away, the Abrahamic Covenant was refreshed and renewed. It had never ceased even during the Mosaic administration. And once the Mosaic administration was gone, the fulfilled Abrahamic Covenant shined (and continues to shine) with greater glory.
Brief outline:
1) The Abrahamic Covenant is cut
2) 400 years later, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) is cut, and does not nullify the already-existing Abrahamic Covenant.
3) A number of years later, the Old Covenant passes away, and the Abrahamic Covenant continues in a refreshed, renewed state.
The Abrahamic Covenant was not a "smaller" New Covenant, nor was it an "adumbration" of the New Covenant.
The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
biblelighthouse
Puritan Board Junior
By the way, if my above post is correct, then I think the entire "brand new" versus "renewed" debate is rather academic. Why? Because:
1) If the comparison is between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "brand new" may not be such a bad thought. It IS radically different from the Mosaic administration.
2) If the comparison is between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "renewed" is definitely the sense we should accept. The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
3) Personally, I don't even think Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 fit neatly into one or the other of the above categories. From what I can see, there may actually be a sort of double entendre going on. Hebrews certainly seems to be comparing the new administration with the Mosaic administration. But even though the New Covenant may be considered rather "brand new" in comparison with the Mosaic administration, the fact still remains that it is NOT brand new . . . after all, the Abrahamic Covenant has been around for thousands of years. So, I think the word "New" looks a little fuzzy here for a reason. It IS brand new in comparison with the Old Covenant, but at the end of the day, it is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Thus the word choices in these texts are excellent. We don't have to pin down the authors as if they were using strict definitions from a systematic theology textbook.
1) If the comparison is between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "brand new" may not be such a bad thought. It IS radically different from the Mosaic administration.
2) If the comparison is between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "renewed" is definitely the sense we should accept. The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
3) Personally, I don't even think Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 fit neatly into one or the other of the above categories. From what I can see, there may actually be a sort of double entendre going on. Hebrews certainly seems to be comparing the new administration with the Mosaic administration. But even though the New Covenant may be considered rather "brand new" in comparison with the Mosaic administration, the fact still remains that it is NOT brand new . . . after all, the Abrahamic Covenant has been around for thousands of years. So, I think the word "New" looks a little fuzzy here for a reason. It IS brand new in comparison with the Old Covenant, but at the end of the day, it is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Thus the word choices in these texts are excellent. We don't have to pin down the authors as if they were using strict definitions from a systematic theology textbook.
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
This seems to be the stumbling block that I see most anti-paedobaptists tripping over:
Niell writes:
Internal religion has been a precious reality throughout redemptive history. To assert that what is new about the New Covenant is that now matters of religion and faith are internal rather than external is simply not true. Once again, the influence of dispensationalism has infected proper Biblical interpretation. The Shema[2] is clear: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart" (Deuteronomy 6:4-6). Internal, "heart" religion is not new in the New Covenant era, yet MacArthur comments upon the text of Hebrews 8 as if the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the internal. He wrote,
The New Covenant will have a different sort of law-an internal not an external law. Everything under the old economy was primarily external. Under the Old Covenant obedience was primarily out of fear of punishment"¦. Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people's hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write it on their hearts like they could write it on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, the only changer of hearts, was not yet given to believers"¦. In the New Covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual.[3]
[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Niell writes:
Internal religion has been a precious reality throughout redemptive history. To assert that what is new about the New Covenant is that now matters of religion and faith are internal rather than external is simply not true. Once again, the influence of dispensationalism has infected proper Biblical interpretation. The Shema[2] is clear: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart" (Deuteronomy 6:4-6). Internal, "heart" religion is not new in the New Covenant era, yet MacArthur comments upon the text of Hebrews 8 as if the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the internal. He wrote,
The New Covenant will have a different sort of law-an internal not an external law. Everything under the old economy was primarily external. Under the Old Covenant obedience was primarily out of fear of punishment"¦. Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people's hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write it on their hearts like they could write it on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, the only changer of hearts, was not yet given to believers"¦. In the New Covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual.[3]
[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Excellent paper. Very simple to understand. Direct and to the point.
Steve Owen
Puritan Board Sophomore
I admire John MacArthur greatly in many respects, but I wouldn't want him to argue my corner for me on this matter. He walks a fine line between 'Reformed' and 'Dispensational', and sometimes he falls off on the wrong side!
For a Reformed Baptist critique of Niell's arguments, I recommend James White's articles in 'Reformed Baptist Theological Review' (July 2004 & Jan 2005 ).
www.rbtr.org
Martin
For a Reformed Baptist critique of Niell's arguments, I recommend James White's articles in 'Reformed Baptist Theological Review' (July 2004 & Jan 2005 ).
www.rbtr.org
Martin
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Martin,
Apparently, there are no links to these issues.
Here is a portion to the first part.The Newness of the New Covenant.
It doesn't appear that Rich is keeping up on the Web site. I can't get to the other Journals.
- Status