Old and new covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

timfost

Puritan Board Senior
I've been continuing my studies on the covenant. This may be a basic one.

In Heb. 8:6-7, is it proper to understand the two covenants as one covenant of grace under two administrations? The first covenant couldn't be referring to the covenant of works, correct? The second or "new covenant" is better because no longer was Christ only typified but He actually accomplished what was only promised prior to the incarnation.

Am I on the right track?
 
I personally think it is better to make sure you know which covenants in the Old Testament the book of Hebrews is referring to. To be certain of this, do not stop with Heb. 8:6-7 but continue reading through verse 13, the end of the chapter. The book of Hebrews specifically mentions only two covenants: the old covenant given to Moses, and the new covenant given in Jer. 31. The old covenant and the new covenant are then contrasted in Hebrews chapters 8-10.

The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are theological terms not found in the Bible. And it depends on who you read as to which covenants in the Bible are put into the category of the covenant of works. Theologians and authors contradict each other on this.
 
Oliver Cromwell on his death bed as he expired cried out in moment of illumination,
"The two covenants are one."
 
Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.

Thanks again.
 
Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.

Thanks again.

They sometimes do, although the administration of law is full of gospel, and the administration of gospel is full of law, if you know what I mean.
 
Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.

No, the Old and New Covenants are not properly divided as law/gospel. Both Old and New Covenants are different administrations of the one covenant of grace, both of which contain both law and gospel.
 
Thanks! Theologians refer to the first administration as "law," the second as "gospel," correct? I'm just trying to be sure that I'm reading it all correctly.

The Westminster Confession uses law and gospel for two distinct "administrations," and this is vital for understanding the liberty which is enjoyed now that Christ has come. The law as an administration has passed away. The ceremonial law is abrogated; the judicial law is expired; the moral law is fulfilled for righteousness and is to be taken from the hand of Christ as the rule of life. This understanding is necessary for holding fast the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free.
 
Westminster Larger Catechism is helpful here:

Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?

A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.[125]

Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?

A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[126] prophecies,[127] sacrifices,[128] circumcision,[129] the passover,[130] and other types and ordinances, which did all fore-signify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[131] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[132]

Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?

A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word,[133] and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism[134] and the Lord's Supper;[135] in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.[136]
 
So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.
 
The Geneva Bible used the word Testament rather then covenant. In regards to Matthews comment. Of course the KJV used both terms not sure why I suppose there is a reasonable explanation for it.
 
The Geneva Bible used the word Testament rather then covenant. In regards to Matthews comment. Of course the KJV used both terms not sure why I suppose there is a reasonable explanation for it.

I have done a lot of research on this one. In his Commentary on Hebrews, John Calvin gives this explanation.

Hebrews Chapter 9:13-17. Commentary On Hebrews said:
16. For where a testament is, etc. Even this one passage is a sufficient proof, that this Epistle was not written in Hebrew; for ברית means in Hebrew a covenant, but not a testament; but in Greek, διαθήκη, includes both ideas; and the Apostle, alluding to its secondary meaning, holds that the promises should not have been otherwise ratified and valid, had they not been sealed by the death of Christ. And this he proves by referring to what is usually the case as to wills or testaments, the effect of which is suspended until the death of those whose wills they are.

As near as I can figure out what Calvin is saying, when the Bible takes a Hebrew word which has only one meaning, and that word is translated into a Greek word which has two meanings, you now have new revelation. :confused:

But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word diatheke in New Testament usage is supposed to mean covenant, not testament.
 
So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.

More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.
 
On the unity of the one covenant of grace, under both the O.T. time when the "law" was prominent and under the N.T. when the gospel is more fully displayed:

"The people of God in those [Old Testament] days did not live and die under an unworkable, unredemptive system of religion, that could not give real access to and spiritual contact with God. Nor was this gospel-element contained exclusively in the revelation that preceded, accompanied, and followed the law; it is found in the law itself. That which we call 'the legal system' is shot through with strands of gospel and grace and faith."
Geerhardus Vos, BT, p. 129
 
So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.


More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.
Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.

mvdm says it well here. The administrations broadly are not law and gospel. Though sometimes by the word 'law' what is meant is the covenant of works and sometimes by using the word 'law' it is understood as a rule of faith which is not of the covenant of works but of the covenant of grace. mvdm mentions the OT administrations of that covenant of grace.
 
So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.

More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.

Good point Sir. Would administration be similar to the word dispensation/stewardship? If so, I understand why they are not used because of dispensationalism I'm guessing?
 
So my understanding from this is Two administrations and One Covenant ? The administrations of Law and Gospel under the covenant of grace, would that be a proper way to put it? I have a Dispensational backround so I'm still learning these areas of reformed theology.

More than 2 administrations of the one covenant of grace in the Old Testament, i.e., Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.

Differing administrative features, but the same gracious substance/essence is found in each.

Good point Sir. Would administration be similar to the word dispensation/stewardship? If so, I understand why they are not used because of dispensationalism I'm guessing?

The word "dispensation" predates Darby/Schofield dispensationalism as a system or hermaneutic, and prior to their day, was used to mean much the same as what the Westminster Standards call an "administration". However, even the "toned-down" language of Ryrie et. all regarding their system makes their "dispensations" different from a Westminster administration. On page 23 of the latest edition of his work simply called "Dispensationalism", Ryrie defines a dispensation as "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's purpose". Weighted on that word "economy", all traditional dispensationalists, despite varying degrees of reticence to have out with it, will tell you that the "tests" and "expectations" by which man is measured differ in different economies. As mvdm's Vos quote has aptly demonstrated, the Standards will have none of it, as "law" is shot through with grace (the corollary being the reverse) in a way that is foreign to the spirit of the dispensational system.
 
Thanks guy. So one covenant of grace with different administrations in the Old and New testament. In the Old Testament the covenant of grace was administrated by prophecies, signs, wonders, dreams, visions, ect That typified the coming Messiah. But in the New Testament unto this very day, The covenant of grace is basically "fully realized in Christ" correct? and the administrations are the preaching of the gospel, reading of scripture, and the sacraments. am I more on the money there? any clarifications?
 
Sorry another question so when I read in the Bible the "dispensation/ or stewardship depending on the translation i Use, that is similar to the reformers term "administration"? for instance Eph 1:10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
"dispensation of the fulness of times" here meaning since Christ has come and finished his redemptive work-the fulness of times ? The dispensation here referring to the "having made known the mystery of his will" in verse 1:9?
i APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S CONFUSING i WILL CLARIFY IF NEED BE! Thank you very much Brothers, I earnestly appreciate your guidance through God's most holy truths!
 
Well the administration of the covenant in the New Testament would include not only the Scripture itself and the sacraments, but also things like the full realization of the Trinity, which was speculated on in the intertestamental period and was revealed in some degree to the great saints of the OT (David's Lord, et. all), but you have the basic idea.

Fundamentally, Westminsterian protestantism has affirmed that the New Covenant is greater and better in "numerical scope, degree, glory, and power" (I'm paraphrasing Greg Bahnsen here, while Reformed Baptists, especially now, would call it "greater and better in specie and kind". This is part of the reason for administration of the covenant entrance sign only to the presumably redeemed (credobaptism).
 
Okay wait a second ESV might be a little clearer here Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
The plan for the fullness of times was Christ's redemptive work on the cross?
 
Okay wait a second ESV might be a little clearer here Eph 1:9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ
Eph 1:10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
The plan for the fullness of times was Christ's redemptive work on the cross?

Wow the TR and Ct are quite different just noticed that?
 
The Cross and Person of Jesus Christ are themselves "the plan for the fullness of time" in the Ephesians sense, but a fundamental disagreement between Dispensationalists, reformed credobaptists and reformed paedobaptists is how much of that plan was revealed or 'applied' to the redeemed in the OT.

A few minutes of web searching gave "oikonomian', the noun variously translated "administration' or "dispensation". The NKJV renders the sense of the noun far better than the ESV in this case, and 'oikonomos' is the word from which English ultimately derived "economy" in the administrative sense. E.g., "in the oikonomos of our house, my Father 'dispenses' the allowance". Oikonomos/oikonomian would rarely bear the sense that the English "plan" does.

This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.
 
This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.

The term "dispensation" is used in a way which speaks directly contrary to the dispensationalist's separation of Israel and the church, since the intent of the dispensation is "to gather together in one all things." The same applies to Eph. 3.
 
Ok I gotcha, but there is definitely a difference in the underlying manuscripts here. ESV "he set forth in Christ or KJV "which he hath purposed in himself" unless the ESV is doing some big time paraphrasing. And then in verse 14 we got a kinda big difference either translation technique or manuscript ESV "Eph 1:14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory." or KJV Eph 1:14 " Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. "
I know they are kinda similar but ESV is us requiring possession rather the KJV has being fully redeemed as the purchased possession?
am I just being too picky, or is there a difference there?
 
This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.

The term "dispensation" is used in a way which speaks directly contrary to the dispensationalist's separation of Israel and the church, since the intent of the dispensation is "to gather together in one all things." The same applies to Eph. 3.

Good point but I think he means they just like it becuase the word itself is there and they can then twist to their liking. Not the KJV's fault more so Darby/scofield
 
This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.

The term "dispensation" is used in a way which speaks directly contrary to the dispensationalist's separation of Israel and the church, since the intent of the dispensation is "to gather together in one all things." The same applies to Eph. 3.

I hadn't thought of that before. :up:

@GES: you'd have to look at the manuscripts themselves, or rather the greek thereof.
 
This is part of the reason btw that Traditional dispensationalists like the KJV. It preserves "their" word.

The term "dispensation" is used in a way which speaks directly contrary to the dispensationalist's separation of Israel and the church, since the intent of the dispensation is "to gather together in one all things." The same applies to Eph. 3.

I hadn't thought of that before. :up:

@GES: you'd have to look at the manuscripts themselves, or rather the greek thereof.

Yeah because there seems to be some differences. I think I stick with the KJV for now in studying Ephesians, lest I confuse myself.
 
But I also have a list of various commentaries and reference materials which show that the Greek word diatheke in New Testament usage is supposed to mean covenant, not testament.

From my understanding (take it with a grain of salt until a minister verifies what I say), in the Hebrew language "berith" is the term we translate to "covenant". It was used when a promise was made by God and sealed with a sacrament: tree of life, rainbow, circumcision, etc. When those who translated this text into Greek (Septuagint), there was no good Greek term to communicate this transaction. The two choices were diatheke and syntheke. Diatheke in Roman usage meant will or testament - something promised upon the death of a person. Syntheke meant an agreement made between two equal parties. Both not good terms since God can't die and God is not an equal party with man. Nevertheless, they chose diatheke.

Fast forward to the writing of the New Testament where the majority of the text is in Greek, we come across the word diatheke multiple times. Now translating into English, where we have both covenant and will/testament words, the question becomes, does the writer mean berith-translated diatheke (covenant) or Roman-used diatheke (will/testament). The translator must use the context in order to choose. The KJV translators obviously thought testament should be used much more often than other modern versions. In fact, most modern versions only use it once because it is impossible not to (Heb. 9:16). Take, for example, the ESV
Heb. 9:15 Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.

"Will" must be used because the death of the person establishes it. There's no other explanation. Of course, in the previous verse, they translate the same word as "covenant" (twice!) which makes the whole argument somewhat confusing. The "For" in v. 16 makes no sense unless all three words are translated "will/testament." Moreover, it says "since a death has occurred". That only makes sense if we're talking about a will or testament.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top