So what exactly is new in the New Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate
This question is strictly about Hebrews 8 talking about a new covenant where we have a change inside in our hearts and mind. This question is not talking about the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and doing away with the sacrificial system.

Heb 8 refers to Jer 31 where God promises this to his Covenant people. We are given a new heart; our heart of stone is taken away and we have a heart of flesh when we are born again/regenerated/saved. This promise as you know is also in Ezek 11 and 36 with a promise of this new heart and new spirit.

We got into a conversation with a staunch Calvinist who grew up Dispensational. He said that growing up they would say the Holy Spirit was with OT saints but they were not exactly sure how, but it wasn't like the new covenant and what we have with the Holy Spirit now. I can see how reading Hebrews a person can conclude that the new heart and new spirit is for the New Covenant, and the Dispensationalists make sense.

However, every Reformed person I know (including me) and the commentaries I looked at say the OT saints were truly regenerated as we understand the term. They were born again. So they had a new heart and new spirit under the Old Covenant. Salvation for them was by grace through faith, and that faith included a real holy spirit new heart and mind. They were indwelt by the HS just as much as we are. They didn't believe just because the HS was sort of hanging around and influencing them in the Dispensational way of understanding. They were truly born again.

My husband said that one of his systematic theology professors at Westminster (TS- PA) used to say that one of the most difficult questions to answer in theology is “What’s new about the new covenant?” And hub didn't think the prof ever really answered the question, except to say that (in his opinion) you can’t explain the difference between old and new in terms of the subjective experience of the individual believer. Their subjective experience could be just as wonderful as ours.

So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old? I know it did in terms of the vast numbers of people saved world wide, but I am referring to the actual change in what happens to the Covenant people of God. If they were saved by grace through faith and regenerated before Christ, what's new? Why is that part called new?

Thanks for any insight!! I find myself missing Patrick as I write and feeling sad he is gone.
 
The Spirit was active in O.T., but not in the same way as N.T. Jesus must be glorified before the Holy Spirit could be poured out at Pentecost so that the Spirit could come as the “Spirit of a glorified Savior.” In the course of redemptive history, the Spirit has always been active and working. In the Old Testament economy, the Father was plainly shown while the Spirit was promised and hinted at being “poured out.” During the Incarnation/Gospel period, He was present with and in Jesus. However, after Christ’s ascension, the Spirit of Christ was sent to continue the presence, the work, and the instruction of Christ with His people during the Apostolic and Church age. The Spirit continues the presence of Christ with us in a way that the Incarnate Christ could not, i.e. in resurrection power (Ephesians 1:17-20); and in revelation of the Father and the Son.
 
lynnie said:
So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old?
Click to expand...

I for one, hold to the NC and C of G being an interchangeable term. in my opinion, this interchangeability seems to ease the tension you're experiencing. Hence, the NC started in Gen 3; consummated at Christ's ascension.


Chad Hutson said:
The Spirit was active in O.T., but not in the same way as N.T. Jesus must be glorified before the Holy Spirit could be poured out at Pentecost so that the Spirit could come as the “Spirit of a glorified Savior.”
Click to expand...

This is no more than an amplification of the HS in the NT age for kingdom business. Similar to theocratic anointings in the OT.


Chad Hutson said:
During the Incarnation/Gospel period, He was present with and in Jesus. However, after Christ’s ascension, the Spirit of Christ was sent to continue the presence, the work, and the instruction of Christ with His people during the Apostolic and Church age.
Click to expand...

Make the distinction between the paraklete and pneuma hagion (which all believers have if in Christ).

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

No different in either epoch. The paraklete, promised of Christ, i.e. I must go away so the helper (amplification) can come.....
 
Last edited:
In simple terms--and I realize that one can quite easily get a whole lot more in-depth and all that--but just as a matter of context, note that Heb.8 is deeply embedded in a much longer passage not *about* new hearts and Holy Spirit ministry; but *about* the new, superior High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The passage that the writer appeals to, Jer.31, in support of his larger argument, mentions both new hearts and the Spirit within. But that passage is drawn upon for support of the Hebrews author's purpose in the passage. The New Covenant is better because it gives in Christ everything that the Old Covenant (Moses/Aaron) only hinted at, only offered in reference to what was yet to come.

What's new about the New Covenant (as Jer. says) is in comparison with the Old Covenant, or in other words (as the writer amplifies his own point) "the one I made with the people when they came out of Egypt." That was a covenant with an inferior priesthood. It was inferior on account of the natural weakness of men, a weakness illustrated in the fact that nothing outward (and the Mosaic Covenant had massive outward typological exhibits) can repair the inward damage of the heart.

There is nothing in Jer. or in Heb. that says OT saints were not affected inwardly by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and given the heart to believe the promises of God. It is speaking of the quality of the ministry that the people had in virtue of the actual covenant arrangement under which they operated.

The saints under Moses and the Old Covenant (together with all OT saints) were being saved by the virtue of the Covenant of Grace, operative since Gen.3 and the protoevangelium, inaugurated formally in history with Abraham. They were regenerated by the Holy Spirit--the only possible Agent of such change.

It is the case that the New Covenant is marked by a massive and "popular" outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which largess was previously restricted to Messianic types--prophets, priests, and kings--all whom pointed to the One on whom the Spirit was poured out "without measure." So also, this general dispensation of the Spirit is something "new" for this penultimate age (before the consummate, eternal age). But that is somewhat of an effect of what makes this time truly New.

Again, the newness has everything to do with flowering of the covenant of grace, and the setting aside of the Old Mosaic Covenant types. We have the reality in Christ as High Priest, and no longer are reliant on sub-perfect mediators ministering under an externals-heavy, shadowy portrayal of a coming kingdom and a once-for-all final sacrifice.

There is still a not-yet aspect to be observed in the New Covenant, relative to the promise found in Jer. There is still a need for teachers and witnessing: "Know the Lord!"; but there will not be in the eschaton, when there will be no one present who is not a full-fledged member of the Kingdom. In the age to come, there will be no sin or other obstacle to knowing God. In principle this is a reality; but in terms of the time-between the Advents, it is something we have yet to encounter.
 
What is the purpose of Hebrews? The main doctrine of point is that Christ is Superior to what they have lived under concerning Moses. The Messiah is a Better Testator, Mediator, and above all the focal point of Fulfillment. The Gospel was proclaimed in the Old as well as the New Testament. That is plainly proclaimed by the Gospels and the book of Hebrews.


Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

I thank Matthew Winzer for helping me see this in old discussions on the Puritanboard.


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/

The more I read Hebrews 8 the more I think I understand about how the shadows have passed away (v. 5) and how a lot of the modern Church is not reading this text or Jeremiah 31 correctly. There is a Priesthood that is being extinguished here and one that is being exalted. We no longer need the shadows or Levitical Priesthood to mediate or teach Covenant Members as mediators since Christ (the substance) has become the High Priest and removed the shadows. The Substance is here and we can approach God directly through Christ by His Holy Spirit. The veil was torn from top to bottom. As the text repeated from Jeremiah 31 states, we all shall know God from the least to the greatest. His Law will be placed in all of our hearts without the need for a Levitical Priest to mediate His word to us. That is the part that is being missed. This is about the transference of priesthood from the shadows and types to Christ our High Priest and antitype. The Old Covenant was given a Priesthood as a type that would show us the way to the real thing. We have a better Covenant with a better Priest who is in heaven now. Christ is the minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. We no longer will tell our neighbor to go seek out the local Priest to mediate God’s word for us. For it has now been fulfilled as it was written and is mediated differently since Christ our High Priest has come..

(1 Timothy 2:5,6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

My point about this is that I read the text saying that the New Covenant is about a regenerate Church membership when the text isn’t about that but about how the Word of God is mediated and about how we have a better High Priest and Covenant now that the shadows are done away with. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Most people read Jeremiah without reading Jeremiah 32. I believe it was Paul Manata that use to challenge me with that over a decade ago.
 
BTW, I did a study on the Holy Spirit a few decades ago and found that he did indwell believers in the Old Testament. In fact I believe that 1 Corinthians 2 proves that no one who knew God in the Old Covenant as well as the New could discern anything apart from the Spirit of God. That passage is about how we know and live and believe.


1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God.
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
1Co 2:14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.

That is true for everyone from the beginning of time.
 
Thank you for the thoughtful replies. Much appreciated and I'm thinking about it all.

So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?

I agree that salvation was always the same before and after the incarnation. The heart always had to changed by grace through faith. But it still doesn't make sense that scripture seems to speak of it as a new Covenant regarding the gift of a new heart and spirit...unless Scott is correct that the new covenant started in Gen 3? But Jer and Ezek make it sound future.

Do you guys agree with Scott that the NC started with Gen 3?

It's late and I'm really tired so will read this over again tomorrow. Thanks again.
 
lynnie said:
So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?
Click to expand...
Wasn't that a concern, need, and desire for the Saints before Christ fulfilled the law and reconciled us to Himself and His will?
 
lynnie said:
So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?
Click to expand...
You're speaking roughly here, but I think it has to do with the way the gears of our respective thinking are not meshing smoothly. Doesn't the Priesthood of Christ have everything to do with the change of heart of everyone? Here is the most essential question: The new covenant is NEW in relation to what, exactly?

For all the importance it holds to the history of redemption, the OLD covenant had great weaknesses. "For finding fault with THEM..." Heb.8:8. THEM refers to whom? In the larger sense it can encompass the nation (houses Judah and Israel mentioned later in this v) bound with promises they made through their fathers that they could not keep. But in the narrower pre-contextual reference, v4 has just spoken of the category of Levitical priests. The people's fault on the whole could conceivably have been handled if they had a faultless priest.

A superior priest is necessary, one who will not exhibit the faults of the other order, faults they shared with the people they represented. Sinful people need a faultless (sinless) Priest. Now, it should be evident that if the same judgment were passed on NT Christians, we too would be found faulty. Furthermore, it cannot be said that having been bound in covenant we are faultless in ourselves. Therefore, that which makes us holy must proceed from the benefit of the perfect Mediator.

The new covenant isn't new because the members have the law written in their hearts. The members have the law written in their hearts as a consequence of their being in a new covenant (relative to the old imperfect one), which they have because of their faultless Mediator. Saints under the old covenant would not have had the law in their hearts strictly consequent to the old covenant. They would have that law in their hearts as consequent to the covenant of grace that had Abraham for its principal; and the Seed of Promise as its surety. Those of faith (and they alone) have always had Abraham for their father.

The promise of Jer.31 is that the Mosaic covenant will eventually be disregarded as "old," and a better "new" covenant will replace it; which we know from the NT is the Abrahamic covenant fully realized. Unlike Sinai's covenant, with its weak elements and struggling priesthood--that could not write a law on men's hearts--the new covenant promise of heart-writing pointed to this conclusion: that it would deliver to the people an ideal Priest. He would be able to write his/Jehovah's law in their hearts.

lynnie said:
Do you guys agree with Scott that the NC started with Gen 3?
Click to expand...
It is a bit of an anachronism to speak of the new covenant before Jesus' own inauguration of it, or prior to the pages of the Gospels. We should try to use the nomenclature of Scripture in accordance with its own presentation, as far as possible. However...

We should not misunderstand that the good news promise (first proclaimed in Gen.3) has any ultimate reference beside Christ. The death hinted at in Gen.3:15 is the same death that produces the shed blood which Jesus announces as "the new covenant in my blood" Lk.22:20. The new covenant is the Christ covenant fulfilled.

I think it is better generally to use the stock phrase "covenant of grace" to unite all the covenant exhibits and advancements, culminating in the Christ-covenant or new covenant. I understand the intent behind saying, "the NC started with Gen 3," is to emphasize that the effects of the finished work historically realized in the new covenant reach all the way back to its inception, to the germination of the seed. But sometimes applying names outside of their context only muddies the water, rather than clarifying.
 
Not that I disagree w/ Bruce:


“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.

V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234

In essence, the C of G and NC are interchangeable

More here: http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/
 
Rev BB- That was really beautiful. New in relation to a faultless priest. That's a perspective I've never heard before. Must go to church now, but thanks.
 
lynnie said:
This question is strictly about Hebrews 8 talking about a new covenant where we have a change inside in our hearts and mind. This question is not talking about the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and doing away with the sacrificial system.

Heb 8 refers to Jer 31 where God promises this to his Covenant people. We are given a new heart; our heart of stone is taken away and we have a heart of flesh when we are born again/regenerated/saved. This promise as you know is also in Ezek 11 and 36 with a promise of this new heart and new spirit.

We got into a conversation with a staunch Calvinist who grew up Dispensational. He said that growing up they would say the Holy Spirit was with OT saints but they were not exactly sure how, but it wasn't like the new covenant and what we have with the Holy Spirit now. I can see how reading Hebrews a person can conclude that the new heart and new spirit is for the New Covenant, and the Dispensationalists make sense.

However, every Reformed person I know (including me) and the commentaries I looked at say the OT saints were truly regenerated as we understand the term. They were born again. So they had a new heart and new spirit under the Old Covenant. Salvation for them was by grace through faith, and that faith included a real holy spirit new heart and mind. They were indwelt by the HS just as much as we are. They didn't believe just because the HS was sort of hanging around and influencing them in the Dispensational way of understanding. They were truly born again.

My husband said that one of his systematic theology professors at Westminster (TS- PA) used to say that one of the most difficult questions to answer in theology is “What’s new about the new covenant?” And hub didn't think the prof ever really answered the question, except to say that (in his opinion) you can’t explain the difference between old and new in terms of the subjective experience of the individual believer. Their subjective experience could be just as wonderful as ours.

So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old? I know it did in terms of the vast numbers of people saved world wide, but I am referring to the actual change in what happens to the Covenant people of God. If they were saved by grace through faith and regenerated before Christ, what's new? Why is that part called new?

Thanks for any insight!! I find myself missing Patrick as I write and feeling sad he is gone.
Click to expand...
We now have in the NC the fullness of the promised Holy Spirit, as now all have Him indwellng them, not just coming upon certain ones in the OC. We also have now direct access to throne of God, and now have the very power of Him to enable us to live for Lord as we ought to now.All spiritual blessings ours in Christ, things only spoken to inThe OC, and giving in partial form until Messiah came to do His work at the cross and in Hus resurrection and ascension.
 
Last edited:
Is this not true for those who were justified by faith in the Old as in the New Covenant.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

How can anyone discern and obey spiritual things correctly if the Spirit doesn't indwell them.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

How could Job know the following things and have a heart for God if the Spirit didn't regenerate and indwell him?

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
 
I appreciate Dr. McMahon's response here concerning the indwelling and work of the Spirit of God.
"Everyone born of the Spirit" in the NT or OT is accomplished in the same manner. Christ is exceedingly clear with Nicodemus in John 3 that "everyone" is "everyone". Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart/Indwelling is the same in the OT as it is in the NT. It's extent is different, not His operation on believers and those entering the kingdom of heaven.

Names of people in the OT don't amass to theological doctrine, nor should they. In the OT or the NT we don't have anyone amassing all the names coming up with some theological idea as a result.
Reading into Scripture that way will get you into all kinds of theological trouble. If I amass a number of Old Testament names of the children of believers, there are all sort of weird and strange theological ideas I could come up with if I rested on those names. Choosing a few and making theological doctrine from them in any way is BAD hermeneutics. Shall we start with Ichabod and say something about the departure of God? Or how about Isaac to prove the doctrine of laughing in the Spirit? Really? No.

THE WCF in chapter 7:
“WCF Chapter 7


5. This covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: 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; 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, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament."

Essentially, the operation of the Spirit in the Old and New is the same. His extent is not limited to the sprinkling he did in the OT with the Jews. It extends further. Which is Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus in John 3:10.

If you started with the Gospel of John 14:7, and you listen to Jesus, then listen to him all through that one Gospel. John 3 (Jesus' time) and John 14 (Jesus' time) is not only the same time, but Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding this in OT times. Same operation.
Click to expand...

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-nt-pentecost-and-beyond.89723/#post-1106305
 
Puritan Covenanter-

I am not questioning that or disagreeing, nor could I find anything Reformed that would question that. Salvation under the OC was by grace through faith and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. They were new creations with new hearts, same as post Pentecost. The quantity and number went global after Pentecost, but the actual regeneration didn't change for an individual. That is the Covenantal Theology position, right?

(By the way the sermon today was on Jeremiah 32 and they read the entire thing. So 31, which got this discussion started for me, did get followed by 32, lol. It wasn't about this but it was a great sermon.)

But my question was, what's new with the New Cov, looking at Hebrews 8, which is quoting Jer 31. If the salvation is the same, what is new? :

"He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
.......
“I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."

If the new Covenant is about an inside change of heart, what's new? That was my question.

Now Rev BB takes Hebrews 8 in the bigger context of the new Priesthood. I have to tell you Rev that my husband loved your post, and he said he hasn't understood this since his Westminster prof mid 1970s expressed not really understanding it either, but he said your response makes sense in context.

So if you don't mind, I want to make sure I am articulating and understanding this properly in your opinion. Is the following accurate? :

Jeremiah and Ezekiel fit this verse in Peter: "Concerning this salvation, the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories."

Prophecy can be veiled and figurative and so when they spoke these prophecies about a new heart and new spirit and things written on our mind, it was not intended to mean anything about a change in the salvation experience itself, but the Holy Spirit within them was pointing to a perfect priesthood and perfect sacrifice that would save perfectly, unlike the OT system?

It was to be a double fulfillment in part, both God turning a remnant back to him in the OC before the incarnation, plus others in the NC? But the Hebrews chapter in context is to be understood as not being about what happens to us, but about the perfection of the new priesthood?

Would part of what's new involve the mind, I mean, we know about the perfect sacrifice of Jesus now and the work of redemption in a way that they didn't understand. Or since babies with no mental understanding can be elect, would you have to say that the renewed mind isn't part of what's new in the NC? Its just about the new priest and new sacrifice?

Again, I really appreciate all the imput from everybody.
 
lynnie said:
If the new Covenant is about an inside change of heart, what's new? That was my question.

Now Rev BB takes Hebrews 8 in the bigger context of the new Priesthood. I have to tell you Rev that my husband loved your post, and he said he hasn't understood this since his Westminster prof mid 1970s expressed not really understanding it either, but he said your response makes sense in context.
Click to expand...
Did I not do that above also. I am sorry. I didn't see Bruce's response. I was sharing what I learned from Rev. Winzer in the context of Hebrews over all. The fulfillment of Christ working, fulfilling, and being the Propitiation completed Adam, Abraham, Moses. and the Law and Prophets.
 
lynnie said:
Would part of what's new involve the mind, I mean, we know about the perfect sacrifice of Jesus now and the work of redemption in a way that they didn't understand.
Click to expand...

I guess I have to address this in a daily situation. I am not sure that many in our Churches understand this. As I have noted there are some who want to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works also. I have said that for many years. It is the corrupting of the word that Paul speaks about in Corinthians when he says it is an administration of death. I posted on this years ago.


In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand in what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant.

(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb 4:2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because the corrupters of the word of God do what St. Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it. That is one of the purposes of the Law. That purpose is to reveal sin and death. .As Paul noted earlier in the letter to the Romans death came upon all men by sin and Adam.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Note James Durham here on the Mosaic Covenant and how God intended the reception to be in light of how it was turned into something God didn’t intend. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/taken-frompract/

“3. [We would] distinguish between God’s intention in giving and the believers in Israel, their making use of this law; and the carnal multitude among that people, their way of receiving it, and corrupt abusing it contrary to the Lord’s mind. In the first sense, it was a covenant of grace. In the second it turned to be a covenant of works to them. And therefore it is that the Lord rejects (as we may see, Isa. 1:13; 66:2-3; Jer. 7:22) their sacrifices and services as not commanded, because rested on by them, to the prejudice of grace, and contrary to the strain and scope of this law complexly considered.”
James Durham Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments p. 55

Most of this has been taken from this blog I wrote in Sept of 2012.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

As far as the Deuteronomy 27:26 passage I leave you with these examples. The man in 1 Cor 5 who was delivered to Satan and the removal of the Candlestick in Revelation 2. There are various New Testament passages also that contain strong warnings such as in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.
 
I hope I am not confusing Lynnie. We have been around a long time. If I am please help me know what I am not understanding. I am a bear of very little brain like Pooh sometimes.
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
I am a bear of very little brain like Pooh sometimes.
Click to expand...

104747222-winnie-the-pooh-bear-cartoon-walking-happy-illustration.jpg
 
Lynnie, we have also noted this many times on the PB for many years. Bruce use to tell me this when I was a Reformed Baptist. Scott says this in his blog i posted a link to above.


Another important thing to keep in mind is that the word “new” as in “new covenant” does not mean brand-spanking new, but renewed. The Greek term “neos” means new in time, just arrived, like “I have a new job”. The Greek term “kai-nay” generally means something that has been renewed, as in “I’ve got a new attitude”.

2537 kainós – properly, new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because “not found exactly like this before.”

So when Jesus says, ‘This is the New Covenant in my blood”, He is not implying that this is a brand new thing you have never seen before, but it is renewed. It is the consummation of what was started in Genesis 3.

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
 
PuritanCovenanter said:
Lynnie, we have also noted this many times on the PB for many years. Bruce use to tell me this when I was a Reformed Baptist. Scott says this in his blog i posted a link to above.


Another important thing to keep in mind is that the word “new” as in “new covenant” does not mean brand-spanking new, but renewed. The Greek term “neos” means new in time, just arrived, like “I have a new job”. The Greek term “kai-nay” generally means something that has been renewed, as in “I’ve got a new attitude”.

2537 kainós – properly, new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because “not found exactly like this before.”

So when Jesus says, ‘This is the New Covenant in my blood”, He is not implying that this is a brand new thing you have never seen before, but it is renewed. It is the consummation of what was started in Genesis 3.

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
Click to expand...
Helpful, thank you. If I sound confused, it isn't your fault : )
 
I agree with what Bruce said. I also see the NC as a time when the Gentiles from all nations (a promise to Abraham) were brought into God's covenant. Also, Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was poured out) happened to establish the legitimacy and authority of the church as God's church. Remember that Jesus told John (when he was in prison and asked if Jesus was the One to come) of the miracles he was performing (Luke 7:18-23) which were a fulfillment of the prophecy of him being the Messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6 Isaiah 61). This was an outward sign of fulfilled prophecy about the Christ. Now that Christ was gone the Holy Spirit needed to come in order to fulfill prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) in order to establish the church as a legitimate church of Christ through the continuation of miracles, writing of Scripture, speaking in tongues etc. The Holy Spirit's work in salvation was the same in OT and NT times, but Pentecost saw a time of visual expression of God's power to establish his church.
 
In Jeremiah 31:31 when God says he will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and Judah, does the Hebrew also have words for brand new and renewed that are both translated into English as new? If so, is that Hebrew word there the one for renew?

I'm not Dispensational, but I talk to them. Thanks.
 
Henry:

"III. That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, 9, etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob."

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1291.
*my emphasis added

 
If I may...The OC was administered in shadows - promises, prophecies, sacrifices etc., all which pointed to the Christ who was to come. Although the outward administration was efficacious for the elect, it fell short both of the fullness and spiritual efficacy found in the simplicity of the means of grace under the newer economy.

We may add to this that under the NC, which like the OC also was established only with the elect in Christ, that with (i) the priesthood of all believers, (ii) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, (iii) a closed canon, and (iv) the incarnate Son sitting at the right hand of God interceding for his people, we can expect greater fidelity and knowledge of the Lord in the church.
 
Dear hub started telling me this and I asked him to write it down. The main thing is that the word for new in Hebrews 8 is the Greek for renewed, as opposed to brand new.

*************
"Hebrews 8:8 is not exactly a verbatim quotation of Jeremiah 31:31 from the Septuagint, but it is very close, and the Greek for “new covenant” is exactly the same. The Greek word for “new” is καινην, which your buddy on Puritan Board says means “renewed” as opposed to absolutely new. As to the meaning of καινην, we have this from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

kainós.

1. Linguistic Data. As distinct from néos, “new in time,” kainós means “new in nature” (with an implication of “better”). Both words suggest “unfamiliar,” “unexpected,” “wonderful,” and the distinction fades with time. The NT has kainós for “not yet used” in Mt. 9:17, “unusual” in Acts 17:21, and “new in kind” in Mt. 13:52; Eph. 2:15; 2 Jn. 5; Heb. 8:13 (though an aspect of time is also present in 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 8:13,etc.).

The Hebrew word for “new” in Jeremiah 31:31 is חדש, which according to the various lexical aids I have, can mean new but can also mean fresh."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Herald
  • Locked
Is the New Covenant new?
Replies
12
Views
4K
panta dokimazete
panta dokimazete
Sydnorphyn
  • Locked
Jeremiah's New Covenant and the New Testament
Replies
2
Views
4K
Sydnorphyn
Sydnorphyn
A
  • Locked
A new hermeneutic?
Replies
25
Views
7K
MW
M
ChristopherPaul
  • Locked
Old Testament Passages in the New Testament
Replies
8
Views
6K
ChristopherPaul
ChristopherPaul
brendanchatt
  • Locked
Sing THIS new song?
Replies
14
Views
3K
TylerRay
TylerRay
Back
Top