In what way is the New Covenant New?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Quest. III. "Are the two covenants of grace, differing in substance, or but one and the same, under various dispensations?"

One only: Gal. 3.14,16. Acts 15.11. Rom. 3.21,22,23,30. Rom. 4.3,6,16,17,23,24, Heb. 13.8.
 
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.

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,
 
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..
 
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.
 
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,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top