When did the new covenant "start" biblically

[ReformedWretch]

I have been asked this question.

If I asked you when the covenant with Abraham was enacted, you could show me. You could do so with the covenants with Moses and David as well. Can you do this with the new covenant?

 

[wsw201]

I would say that the administration of the New Covenant began at Pentecost (Acts 2).

 

[luvroftheWord]

I would be more apt to say that you can't really nail down an exact time, or at least I can't. I'm more comfortable saying that Christ's death and resurrection, the institution of baptism, the Lord's supper, and the great commission, and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost are all beginning elements of the New Covenant. It is also helpful to remember that this period of time is a time of transition, so perhaps the better question to ask is when did the transition begin to take place. Could it have been Christ's baptism? (just a thought)

 

[Saiph]

When God took animal skins and clothed Adam and Eve.

 

[ReformedWretch]

Well, I told him that it started at Pentecost (as this was my original thought) and here was the response.

Lk. 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

But I didn't ask the question to debate the timing of enactment. I was just curious as how you saw it based on your comments that the covenant confirmed in Dan. 9:27 was this covenant.

How can a covenant that has not been enacted yet, get confirmed? To strengthen or verify a covenant, doesn't there have to be more than a prediction of a covenant?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Saiph
When God took animal skins and clothed Adam and Eve.

Calling all covenant theologians.....????

[Edited on 10-25-2004 by webmaster]

 

[Scott Bushey]

I also agree that it was much earlier than the NT. It just became a fuller reality in the NT.

Is the new covenant really 'new' and if it is, what is it's name?

We have the covenant of redemption, works, grace and then what?



[Edited on 10-25-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[RamistThomist]

Has anybody read the Federal Vision yet? I am reading James Jordan's essay at the moment, "Merit or Maturity?" From what I can gather, he is arguing that there was no covenant of works with Adam; rather, Adam was to mature to a point where he would then rightly eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in order to banish the Serpent from the world. Again, there is much more to his argumentation than this.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Saiph
When God took animal skins and clothed Adam and Eve.

If the Covenant of Grace was being referenced, I would totally agree. However, I took the topic of this thread to be referring rather to the New Covenant, which is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, just as the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants were. In reference to the New Covenant in particular, I'm basically with Craig.

 

[pastorway]

Were not all Biblical covenants initiated with a sacrifice?

Then the New Covenant was initiated at the crucifixion of Christ, hence the tearing of the veil.

Phillip

 

[ReformedWretch]

Good point Phillip!

 

[andreas]

" For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood".Hebrews 9:16,17,18

It started at the cross.
andreas.

 

[wsw201]

Jacob,

Unfortunately, I am very familiar with the Federal Vision. In my humble opinion, James Jordan is a nut. He argues that Joesph not Moses wrote Genesis. Jordan has all kinds of wacky ideas. I am not surprised he denies the Covenant of Works.

 

[RamistThomist]

I still don't know what to think about Jordan, as of yet. I was at Auburn Avenue this morning and expressed my doubts about his article and they told me, "We understand if you don't accept his arguments; most people don't."

 

[Ianterrell]

Originally posted by Saiph
When God took animal skins and clothed Adam and Eve.

Interesting. Could some one expound on this view?

 

[Scott Bushey]

The New Covenant is a fuller expression of the C.O.G (Gen 3:15), fulfilled in Christ. The New covenant is not new in the way one might understand new. This erred understanding is at best dispensational.

[Edited on 10-27-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Ianterrell]

Ah.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If the blood of bulls and goats do not save - then what made the sacrifices of the OT efficacious for imputation of sin?

Answer: the Cross of Christ.

If that is the case - and it is is - then how can we say the "cross began with the tearing of the veil??"

If we do say it began at that time, then we will have to come up with a brand new way of interpreting the OT sacrificial system and discard everything the church thought (and the book of Hebrews teaches) concerning Christ's sacrifice.

Animals skins don't save. Only animal skins recieved with a foresight to Genesis 4:1 "behold I have brought forth the man." and ultiamte to Genesis 3:15 save. That emans Christ's cross is not restricted by the half dimension of time, but is regarded as effectual through infinite application to various stages of time in general. The corss is not one dimensional, it is multi faceted in this respect (a designation I call "the continuum of God").

 

[Areopagus]

Phillip said:

Were not all Biblical covenants initiated with a sacrifice?

and...

Then the New Covenant was initiated at the crucifixion of Christ, hence the tearing of the veil.

For the most part, this seems to have been overlooked. Wonder why?

Also, can someone show exegetically that Adam and Eve were covered with the skins of animals that God sacrificed and made?

Dustin...

 

[pastorway]

Genesis 3:21

But the making of animal skin clothing did not initiate the New Covenant. The making of animal skins covered the nakedness and shame of Adanm and Eve and pointed to Christ's sacrifice on the cross. It also established the principle of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins.

But the New Covenant is the New Covenant in Christ's blood, and therefore could not have been initiated until His blood was shed. Luke 22:20; Hebrews 10:11-18.

Confusing the covenants and failing to see the New Covenant as a covenant in its own right leads to all sorts of answers other that the answer Scripture provides. Every covenant in the Bible between God and men was initiated with a sacrifice. What blood was shed to initiate the New Covenant? Christ's. Let's not get ahead of ourselves in an attempt to defend a systematic against simple truth.

Read through Hebrews 8-10 and watch the steps that take place from the Old to the New Covenant - and it is all centered around the cross. There Christ etsablished the New and made the Old obsolete.

(see especially Heb 9:15-16)

Phillip

 

[Scott Bushey]

When did the covenant of grace begin?

 

[sastark]

Originally posted by houseparent
I have been asked this question.

If I asked you when the covenant with Abraham was enacted, you could show me. You could do so with the covenants with Moses and David as well. Can you do this with the new covenant?

Adam,

Has anyone recommended "The Christ of the Covenants" by O. Palmer Robertson to you yet? If not, allow me to be the first. I think it will answer many of the questions you just asked.

As for me, I believe the New Covenant began at the cross. However, the Covenant of Grace began at the Fall. I do believe the New Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Seth,
Please tell me what is new about the new covenant? Is the effectiveness of the cross different for the old testament saint?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Perhaps what some people are trying to get at is that the New Covenant was fully revealed at the Cross, even though it was enacted at the same time as the Covenant of Grace. In this respect, it is different from the other administrations of the Covenant of Grace, since all of them (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) were enacted and fully revealed simultaneously, whereas since it was the final and complete revelation and administration of the Covenant of Grace, it was not fully revealed until long after it was initially enacted.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Perhaps what some people are trying to get at is that the New Covenant was fully revealed at the Cross, even though it was enacted at the same time as the Covenant of Grace.

The C.O.G. is the new covenant..........At least, thats the historic orthodox belief. All of the devines who penned the WCF embraced this.

 

[Saiph]

It has been a while since I read the Bible, but I think it mentions the lamb being slain "before the foundation of the world" if you want to get really picky about it.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Perhaps what some people are trying to get at is that the New Covenant was fully revealed at the Cross, even though it was enacted at the same time as the Covenant of Grace.

The C.O.G. is the new covenant..........At least, thats the historic orthodox belief. All of the devines who penned the WCF embraced this.

I'm basically thinking along the lines of Matt's chart, which shows the Covenant of Grace as being the covenant made after the Fall, with various administrations, the last and most fully revealed of which is the New Covenant. Furthermore, in WCF.VII, the Covenant of Grace is spoken of as being differently administered in the time of law, called the Old Testament, and the time of gospel, called the New Testament. I guess I've always mentally associated the former of these with the various covenantal administrations of the Old Covenant (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic), and the latter of these with the covenantal administration of the New Covenant. Let me know if and where I'm misinterpreting something.

 

[sastark]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Seth,
Please tell me what is new about the new covenant? Is the effectiveness of the cross different for the old testament saint?

What is new about the New covenant is the ending of blood sacrifices. The end of circumcision (because it is replaced by baptism). The fact that this is an everlasting covenant.

No, the effectiveness of the cross is not different for the OT saint. That's why I say the New Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace. What I mean by that is: In the New Covenant we are saved by grace, just like the OT saints. However, the New Covenant is in fact a new administration of the Covenant of Grace. It is different from the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. However, it is also similar to them (still saved by grace).

I'm not arguing any kind of "dispensational" type of brand-new-covenant-that-never-existed-before. But I am saying that there is in fact a New Administration of the Covenant of Grace that began at the cross.

 

[Scott Bushey]

What is new about the New covenant is the ending of blood sacrifices. The end of circumcision (because it is replaced by baptism). The fact that this is an everlasting covenant.

The elect of God have always been saved by grace, whether old or new testament. The blood sacrifices of bulls and goats were always insufficient alone. In fact, Matt has already dealt with this idea earlier in the thread:

"If the blood of bulls and goats do not save - then what made the sacrifices of the OT efficacious for imputation of sin?

Answer: the Cross of Christ. "

Mark Kodak (Saiph) made mention laso that Christ was the "Lamb slain prior to the foundation of the world".

The reason the Abrahamic covenant is an everlasting covenant is because God decreed it as such. The sign, whether it be circumcission or baptism, is that which points toward that promise. The sign, in this regard, is irrelevent. So, the sign is not new; just the way the sign is placed.

No, the effectiveness of the cross is not different for the OT saint. That's why I say the New Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace.

The new covenant is something then that the OT saint never experienced...........This is not true. The consistant answer which reconciles this contradiction is the fact that the NC is noit new, it is an extension of the C.O.G, more fully revealed. It is NOT part of the C.O.G., it is the C.O.G.

What I mean by that is: In the New Covenant we are saved by grace, just like the OT saints. However, the New Covenant is in fact a new administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Please expound upon this statement. How is it administered? By grace? Through faith? Don't go down that road and say the sign changed as you will drive yourself into a semi Pelagian corner.....

It is different from the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. However, it is also similar to them (still saved by grace).

I agree.

I'm not arguing any kind of "dispensational" type of brand-new-covenant-that-never-existed-before. But I am saying that there is in fact a New Administration of the Covenant of Grace that began at the cross.

Please expound........

[Edited on 10-28-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[sastark]

I have this funny feeling that we agree more than we disagree.

I'm not trying to avoid any of the questions you asked, but maybe if I just explain a little more, it will clear some things up. If you don't think it does, let me know and I'll go back and answer your questions as directly as I can.

First, the New Covenant (NC) is the final administration of the Covenant of Grace (COG). I think we agree on that.

The Adamic, Abrahamic, Noahic, Mosaic and Davidic Covenants were all administrations of the COG. I think we agree on that.

I, however, believe there are things that distinguish the NC from all previous administrations of the COG. For one, blood sacrifices are no longer required. Although the blood sacrifices never saved anyone in the OT (salvation has always been of grace) they were required by the Law. Another distinction is that circumcision is no longer required under the NC. And although circumcision never saved any one in the OT (again, all of grace), it was required for the people of God.

So, there are things that are different about the NC. It is a different administration of the COG.

Does that clear things up?