_________________
Jeff Marshalek

I found it a little bit interesting that the book of Romans and the book of Hebrews have not yet entered into this discussion. One very good question to ask is, "What was the purpose of the old covenant and what is the purpose of the new covenant?" Paul is very clear about the purpose of the old covenant. Romans 7:1-14. The old covenant, the law if you will, sold us under sin. It actually made sin come alive in us. It showed us that what we were doing was sin. But it did not offer a resolution to that condition. 2 Cor. 3:6-8 actually calls the ten commandments specifically (they were the only portion of the law engraved in stone)a ministration of death. This is Paul simply repeating his message of Romans 7 in other words. The law was not God's perfect standard. It was only a shadow of God's standard. See Hebrews 10 and Matthew 5. The purpose of the law was not righteousness, but rather revelation of sinfulness and the need for something greater than the law. Galatians 3:19-29 tells us this. Paul goes on in Romans 8 to say that the law was weak through the flesh. It was up to us in our flesh to keep the law and that was totally impossible.

Hebrews 10 shows us how Christ fulfilled the law and ended the old covenant. Once the savior had come, the purpose of the old covenant was fulfilled. If I am born again in my spirit and His laws are in my heart through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, if He says go and I go, stop and I stop, if I am being led by the Spirit of God, a written law is superfluous at very best. Why would I need written commandments and prescribed punishments for breaking them if I have been made righteous before God through the blood of Jesus and if He now directs me by His Holy Spirit? Why serve God from fear of punishment and wrath when now I can serve Him in newness of life. This is the exact thing that Hebrews 2:15 is talking about. Gal. 5:1 makes the point that the living under the law is returning to bondage. We are free of that old and inferior covenant. It has not been extended in some new form. According to scripture it has been abolished, done away with. Eph. 2:15, 2 Cor. 3:11. When Jesus spoke in Matt. 5 of not destroying the law and prophets, but rather fulfilling, look at the context of the scriptures. He goes on to show how the standard of God's holiness is so much higher than the standard written in the law (recall Heb. 10:1). He begins with the statement that unless the people's righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees they would not enter the kingdom. But the Pharisees kept the law better than anyone. The people would say, this is impossible. Jesus ends the discussion by saying that you must be perfect like God is perfect. Well, that is obviously beyond our reach, unless we have a savior who is the fulfillment of all the law and prophets pointed toward. Luke 24:44, John 1:45, Acts 28:23 etc..

So I don't believe in a "new" old covenant or a simple modification of the old law. I believe in the total abolition of the old so that the new might come. What did Paul say? Cast out the bondwoman. Was he not speaking of the two covenants?

_________________
Travis

"The New Covenant is not introduced in scripture until Jer 31 although there are references in Isaiah that plainly have that new covenant in mind."

Ron, the two covenants have been in place since the begining - the law of sin and death and the law of life. The benefit of the death of Christ is applied through all times. So we have holy prophets of old like Abraham who counted God for his righteousness and was not walking in the old covenant. Other men were also said to be holy and did not sin (although we have recorded incidences when they fell from this and were then restored). They could not keep the law themselves but by faith they were enabled. So the men could choose right from the start whether to serve in the flesh or outwardly or to serve Him in spirit and in truth. Only those who are under the law of life - the life of the Son of God are in union with Him and are in the kingdom.

As you seem to be in agreement with Keswick teaching, have you read Jesse Penn-Lewis on this matter?

_________________
Ron Bailey

_________________
Ron Bailey

Brenda

_________________
Ron Bailey

Ron:

There are several references to covenants being 'renewed' in the OT but this is not one of them. This is quite clearly, IMHO, a New Covenant. This is made even more explicit in the statement that this covenant is not going to be like the Sinaitic Covenent.

Do you have some biblical basis for redefining this as a 'renewed' covenant?
------------------------------------------------------------

No. This 'renewal' is in reference to the ratification of the Sinai Covenant, and there is still a struugle here to come up with an appropriate definition and synonym better than "New". What is meant is that the Old Covenant is not yet obsolete, except the sacrficial and priestly applications. Yahshuvah made the Sinai Covenant complete.

Currently what we posess through relationship is the seal of the Holy Spirit, and all aspects of the New Covenant must be appropriated through grace by faith. When the fulness of this New covenant is complete, when death is destroyed, we shall see the full manifestation of this. It is then the words through Jerimiah will also come into full play. Currently this is not the case, or there would be no need for any fruits of the Spirit, be they gifts or other inward and outward expressions through love.

What was spoken of Abraham our father, it is in relation to the New Covenant, of which we too are still looking for that city not made with hands, the New Jerusalem.

i miight have confused some in what was stated as i was not clear myself in reference to what was ratified and what is yet to be made complete. While writing, thoughts were jumping back and forth between the two, considering your words regarding form -vs- substance, i was questioning if it is understood that the Sinai Covenant was the Law of Moses and not God's commandments (on which this Covenant had it's basis).

As well as jumping back and forth, what the Sinai covenant entails actually had not been clarified.


i'm probably raising eyebrows even in this post, so it's requested that before the next post from here, just consider 2 verses:

Matt. 5:17, 18

Agapeo,
gregg
Acts 20:32

Gregg

"In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Heb 8:13

From the moment that Jeremiah designated God's new work as a New Covenant it automatically designated the earlier covenant as 'old'. It was not 'old' until God began to speak about the 'new' from that time on the obvious way to distinguish it from the earlier covenant is to call the earlier one 'old' and the coming one 'new'.

The prophets referred to this coming event as
Isaiah - a new thing
Ezekiel - a new heart and a new spirit
Jeremiah - a new covenant

they are all in their different ways bearing the same testimony. Something was going to happen which would change the parameters conclusively.

_________________
Ron Bailey

seeing the thread headline,
"The New Covenant", i said to myself, "Ron Bailey's at it again"......and without prejudice, believing that maybe God gave you a new revelation of His Word, i read on, and my heart just dropped when i read what you wrote:

"I would repeat, whenever the NT speaks of the New Covenant it is in CONTRAST to the Old Covenant. These covenants cannot co-exist. He takes away the first in order to establish the second. Wherever we stand on the destiny of national Israel, the New Covenant is a replacement covenant. To take away one and put another in its place is a definition of the word 'replacement'."

the KEY word being "replacement" as in "replacement theology"...or as some have taken this hellish theo-babble and call it "British-Israelism", though i am not accusing you of being a "British-Israelite", or wishing to engage in any vituperative dialogue with you, i just know you still hew to your......views, which are "replacement theology", what else is new under the sun? it rises in the east and Ron Bailey is a replacement theologian. Don't worry, there are a few newer posters here that will agree with your views.

nothing new.

2Co 3:7 But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:
2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.
2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:
2Co 3:13 And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:
2Co 3:14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
2Co 3:16 Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.