Old & New Covenants: Any Difference of Substance?

[Casey]

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....]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Casey]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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....]

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]

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]

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 Seed

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]

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]

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?

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....]

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....]

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]

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]

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....]

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."

In the exposition of these words, Schlichtingius proceeds on sundry principles, some whereof are embraced by his followers, as others of them are rejected by them: 1. That the promise intended, verse 39, is the promise of eternal life. 2. That under the old testament believers had no such promise, whatever hopes or conjectures they might have of it. 3. That both they and we at death do cease to be, in soul and body, until the resurrection, none entering before into eternal life. 4. He inquires hereon how God did provide some better thing for us than for them; which he pursues with such intricate curiosities as savor more of the wit of Crellius than his own.

But the whole of it is senseless and foolish. For if when any one dies he is nothing, or as nothing, so as that unto him it is but as one moment between death and the resurrection, as he contends, the state of all as unto eternal life and an entrance thereinto is absolutely the same, nor is the one in any thing better than the other, although they should die thousands of years one before another. But as all these things are openly false, and contrary to the chief principles of Christian religion, so they are utterly remote from the mind of the apostle, as we shall see in the exposition of the words.

Those of the church of Rome do hence fancy a limbus, a subterraneous receptacle of souls, wherein they say the spirits of believers under the old testament were detained until after the resurrection of Christ, so as that they without us were not made perfect. But that the saints departed from the beginning of the world were excluded from rest and refreshment in the presence of God, is false and contrary unto the Scripture. However, the apostle treats not here at all about the difference between one sort of men and another after death, but of that which was between them who lived under the old testament church-state whilst they lived, and those that live under and enjoy the privileges of the new; as is evident in the very reading of the epistle, especially of the seventh chapter, and is expressly declared by himself in the next chapter to this, verses 18-24, as, God willing, we shall see on the place.

These open corruptions of the sense of the words being rejected, we may be the more brief in the exposition of them. 1. The first thing in them is the reason of the difference asserted. And that is, God´s providing things in this order. The word properly signifies "œforeseeing." But God´s prevision is his provision, as being always accompanied with his preordination: his foresight with his decree. For "œknown unto him are all his works from the foundation of the world," Acts 15:18. Now this provision of God is the oijkonomi>a tou~ plhrw>matov tw~n kairw~n , Ephesians 1:10, "” the dispensation or ordering of the state, times, and seasons of the church, and the revelation of himself unto it; which we have opened at large on the first verse of the epistle, whereunto the reader is referred. And, "” Obs. I. The disposal of the states and times of the church, as unto the communication of light, grace, and privileges, depends merely on the sovereign pleasure and will of God, and not on any merit or preparation in man. "” The coming of Christ at that time when he came was as little deserved by the men of the age wherein he came as of any age from the foundation of the world.

Obs. II. Though God gives more light and grace unto the church in one season than in another, yet in every season he gives that which is sufficient to guide believers in their faith and obedience unto eternal life.

Obs. III. It is the duty of believers, in every state of the church, to make use of and improve the spiritual provision that God hath made for them; always remembering, that unto whom much is given, of them much is required. 2. That which God hath thus provided for us, "” that is, those who in all ages do believe in Christ as exhibited in the flesh, according to the revelation made of him in the gospel, "” is called "œsomething better;" that is, more excellent, a state above theirs, or all that was granted unto them.

And we may inquire, (1.) What these "œbetter things," or this "œbetter thing" is; (2.) How with respect thereunto "œthey were not made perfect without us." (1.) For the first, I suppose it ought to be out of question with all Christians, that it is the actual exhibition of the Son of God in the flesh, the coming of the promised Seed, with his accomplishment of the work of the redemption of the church, and all the privileges of the church, in light, grace, liberty, spiritual worship, with boldness in an access unto God, that ensued thereon, which are intended. For were not these the things which they received not under the old testament? were not these the things which were promised from the beginning; which were expected, longed for, and desired by all believers of old, who yet saw them only afar off, though through faith they were saved by virtue of them? and are not these the things whereby the church-state of the gospel was perfected and consummated, the things alone wherein our state is better than theirs? For as unto outward appearances of things, they had more glory, and costly, ceremonious splendor in their worship, than is appointed in the Christian church; and their worldly prosperity was for a long season very great, much exceeding any thing that the Christian church doth enjoy. To deny, therefore, these to be the "œbetter things" that God provided for us, is to overthrow the faith of the old testament and the new. (2.) We may inquire how, with respect hereunto, it is said that "œthey without us were not made perfect." And I say, "” [1.] "œWithout us," is as much as without the things which are actually exhibited unto us, the things provided for us, and our participation of them. [2.] They and we, though distributed by divine provision into distinct states, yet with respect unto the first promise and the renovation of it unto Abraham, are but one church, built on the stone foundation, and enlivened by the same Spirit of grace. Wherefore, until we came in unto this church-state, they could not be made perfect, seeing the church-state itself was not so. [3.] All the advantages of grace and mercy which they received and enjoyed, it was by virtue of those better things which were actually exhibited unto us, applied by faith, and not by virtue of any thing committed unto them and enjoyed by them. Wherefore, "” [4.] That which the apostle affirms is, that they were never brought unto, they never attained, that perfect, consummated spiritual state which God had designed and prepared for his church in the fullness of times, and which they foresaw should be granted unto others, and not unto themselves, 1 Peter 1:11,12. [5.] What this perfect, consummated state of the church is, I have so fully declared in the exposition of the seventh chapter, where the apostle doth designedly treat of it, that it must not be here repeated; and thereunto I refer the reader.

I cannot but marvel that so many have stumbled, as most have done, in the exposition of these words, and involved themselves in difficulties of their own devising. For they are a plain epitome of the whole doctrinal part of the epistle; so as that no intelligent, judicious persons can avoid the sense which they tender, unless they divert their minds from the whole scope and design of the apostle, fortified with all circumstances and ends; which is not a way or means to assist any one in the right interpretation of the Scripture. And to close this chapter, we may observe, "” Obs. IV. God measures out unto all his people their portion in service, sufferings, privileges, and rewards, according to his own good pleasure. "” And therefore the apostle shuts up this discourse of the faith, obedience, sufferings, and successes of the saints under the old testament, with a declaration that God had yet provided more excellent things for his church than any they were made partakers of. All he doth in this way is of mere grace and bounty; and therefore he may distribute all these things as he pleaseth.

Obs. V. It was Christ alone who was to give, and who alone could give, perfection or consummation unto the church. "” He was in all things to have the pre-eminence.

Obs. VI. All the outward glorious worship of the old testament had no perfection in it; and so no glory comparatively unto that which is brought in by the gospel, 2 Corinthians 3: 10.

Obs. VII. All perfection, all consummation, is in Christ alone. For "œin him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and we are complete in him, who is the head of all principality and power."

 

[Scott Bushey]

SCOTT for being painful

Sorry bout that Dan

 

[Dan....]

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....]

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]

Originally posted by Dan....

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?

Almost hit the edit button again!

Correct. :bigsmile: