Covenant-Law/Law-Covenant/Old-New?

annie1speed

Senior Member
Mar 16, 2007
778
38
Alabama
✟16,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hey Y'all,

I asked this question in another thread, but maybe it belongs in a new thread. So here you go....

It has been pointed out to me that when we in the CoC talk about the new covenant and the new law and the old covenant and the old law, we use the words covenant and law interchangeably. And I have noticed - sometimes we do!

Question is, can the terms law and covenant be used interchangeably when we are comparing the old and the new? When? and Why or why not?

Travis - feel free to comment - ;)

Annie
 

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hey Y'all,

I asked this question in another thread, but maybe it belongs in a new thread. So here you go....

It has been pointed out to me that when we in the CoC talk about the new covenant and the new law and the old covenant and the old law, we use the words covenant and law interchangeably. And I have noticed - sometimes we do!

Question is, can the terms law and covenant be used interchangeably when we are comparing the old and the new? When? and Why or why not?

Travis - feel free to comment - ;)

Annie

Consider how the Koine Greek word "diatheke" is used in the book of Hebrews (KJV) ...

Heb 7:22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 9:4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Heb 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

"Diatheke" comes from "diatithemai," which appears in ...

Heb 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Heb 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

Thus, we can see that covenant and testament can be used synonomously, and are linked to our word "will," which is what goes into effect when a "testator" dies.

And, consider this passage from Hebrews 7 ...

"For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law [nomos] (verse 12).

Now, let's see what the Jewish Christians were presented with in the book of Hebrews ... a new covenant, a new testament, and a new law. All are synonymous, but looking at the gospel of Christ from three different perspectives i.e. a covenant (agreement/contract) with the Lord, a testament (an inheritance from the Lord (the testator), and His law (which we must obey to please Him - Heb. 5:9). I think of it like the words "disciple," "saint," and "Christian." All are synonymous, but offer different perspectives of a believer in Christ.

So, to answer your question, I believe the words can be used interchangeably.
 
Upvote 0

Loveaboveall

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2007
678
10
✟8,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you read Exodus 24 you will find some interesting things about this "Covenant".

vs 3,4 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here is Moses writing down all the instructions given to Him by God.

vs 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put [it] in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

Blood was required to bind the covenant..

Vs 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Here is the people agreeing to their part of the covenant

vs 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Sprinkling of the blood binds the people to this covenant

This is what we can learn from these verses:

1) The covenant was an agreement between God and His people
2) Blood was necessary to ratify it and it was called the "blood of the covenant"
3) There was also a "book of the covenant"

#3 is the problem. The book was NOT the covenant. It was the basis of the covenant but it was NOT the covenant. The covenant was the agreement b/w God and His people. The people agreed to do "all that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient."

So, you see, the term "law" or "book of the covenant" cannot be interchangeable because they at there very core are not the same thing. The people agreed to do all contained in the book of the covenant. The covenant was the agreement, the book was what the people agreed to be obedient to.

Also... Think of these other covenants God has made..

Gen 9:9,11,13 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;... And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.... I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Was the bow THE covenant? No, it was a token of the covenant. What was the covenant? God makes a pledge to not destroy the earth by water ever again. It was an pledge God made with man and he gave us a rainbow to be a sign of this covenant.

Genesis 17:2,4,7,9-11 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly....As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations...And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee...And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Here the covenant is: An agreement between God and Abraham and His descendants that God will bless them and multiply them. Abraham's part of the covenant was the circumcision. Note that the circumcison was NOT the covenant it was a sign of the covenant. Just as obedience to the book of the covenant was a sign that the children of Israel were keeping their part of the agreement.

If the writer of Hebrews intended for "the law" to be synonomous with "the old covenant" he would have said so. Why would he have not used the word "diatheke" in hebrews 7:12 instead of "nomos"?

Even without these points one must still ask the question, What law is spoken of in Hebrews 7:12 that was changed?
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If you read Exodus 24 you will find some interesting things about this "Covenant".

vs 3,4 And Moses came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here is Moses writing down all the instructions given to Him by God.

vs 6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put [it] in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.

Blood was required to bind the covenant..

Vs 7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient.

Here is the people agreeing to their part of the covenant

vs 8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Sprinkling of the blood binds the people to this covenant

This is what we can learn from these verses:

1) The covenant was an agreement between God and His people
2) Blood was necessary to ratify it and it was called the "blood of the covenant"
3) There was also a "book of the covenant"

#3 is the problem. The book was NOT the covenant. It was the basis of the covenant but it was NOT the covenant. The covenant was the agreement b/w God and His people. The people agreed to do "all that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient."

So, you see, the term "law" or "book of the covenant" cannot be interchangeable because they at there very core are not the same thing. The people agreed to do all contained in the book of the covenant. The covenant was the agreement, the book was what the people agreed to be obedient to.


Also... Think of these other covenants God has made..

Gen 9:9,11,13 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;... And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.... I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

Was the bow THE covenant? No, it was a token of the covenant. What was the covenant? God makes a pledge to not destroy the earth by water ever again. It was an pledge God made with man and he gave us a rainbow to be a sign of this covenant.

Genesis 17:2,4,7,9-11 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly....As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations...And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee...And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.This [is] my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

Here the covenant is: An agreement between God and Abraham and His descendants that God will bless them and multiply them. Abraham's part of the covenant was the circumcision. Note that the circumcison was NOT the covenant it was a sign of the covenant. Just as obedience to the book of the covenant was a sign that the children of Israel were keeping their part of the agreement.

If the writer of Hebrews intended for "the law" to be synonomous with "the old covenant" he would have said so. Why would he have not used the word "diatheke" in hebrews 7:12 instead of "nomos"?

Even without these points one must still ask the question, What law is spoken of in Hebrews 7:12 that was changed?

I follow your reasoning, but suggest that more thought be given to the two paragraphs in bolded-blue font.

I agree that the first covenant was the agreement between God and the Israelite people. And, that the book of the covenant (the law of Moses) was the basis of the covenant. However, since the old covenant has been replaced with a new one, wouldn't that imply/infer that the basis for the old covenant was replaced with the basis for the new covenant?

Note Deuteronomy 18:15-19 (NKJV),

15 "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear,
16 according to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.'
17 And the Lord said to me: 'What they have spoken is good.
18 I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.
19 And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him.

Comments: The law given through Moses to the Israelites was the basis for the old covenant. Therefore, when this "Prophet" spoken of in Deut. 18 came along, He would likewise speak what God told Him to. The words of this "Prophet" would be the basis of the new covenant. According to Acts 3:22-23 and Acts 7:37, Jesus is identified as being the Prophet that Moses spoke of in Deut. 18. Therefore, His law (i.e. James 1:25) is the basis for the new covenant.

Simply stated: it is clear that the covenant changed in Hebrews 8:6-13, and the law changed in Hebrews 7:12. Therefore, both bases are covered, a new agreement exists between God and His people, and it is based on a new law.

As for the other covenants you mention, God was not referring to any of them in passages such as Hebrews 8:6-13 where He is contrasting the old and new covenants. Note the first part of the 8:9 - "Not according to the [first] covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ..."

BTW, are the Greek words for disciple, saint, and Christian the same words or different words? They are different, but still are used to describe the people of God under the gospel of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Loveaboveall

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2007
678
10
✟8,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I asked the question "What law is referred to in Hebrews 7:12 because I believe this is very important to understanding what theses covenants are all about.

Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

One must discern which "law" this is speaking of so that one can rightly understand which "law" was changed and what still remains. Does that sound fair enough?

In the context of this chapter, really all of Hebrews, it is clear what law that is spoken of and I do not believe it is the "law and the prophets" or what most consider the OT. For if this were true, the new covenant spoken of in Hebrews 8 would be invalid because it is a direct quote from Jeremiah 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It is not even a paraphrase in Heb 8 it is a direct quote. If the intention of the author was to convince the readers that the OT had "vanished away" why would he quote directly from the covenant that waxed old to prove what the new covenant was?

A much better interpretation would be to look at Hebrews in context and realize that what the theme of the book is: The old covenant of ceremonies versus the new covenant of Jesus. The "law" in Hebrews 7 is the ceremonial law of the Jews which contains the law of the priesthood. This clearly was nailed to the cross as Paul illustrates in Colossians 2. First off, Jesus proves that it is no longer valid because He has become a priest, and He was from the tribe of Judah. The writer then goes on to explain how all the ceremonies and objects of the sanctuary pointed to Jesus. Now that the perfect sacrifice had come there was no further need for this on the earth.

John 12:32 says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me."

The sacrificial system was intended to draw people back to faith in God. Now that we have the gospel of Jesus the inferior has succombed to the perfect in Jesus.

But, it ALL, refers back to the ceremonial laws of the
Torah. NOT the whole OT. So a change in law was the change in what was needed to draw all men to Jesus. And it is much better because this covenant has no man-made promises.

Note that this is all about how God is helping us with our sin problem. We now have the perfect answer in Jesus, instead of looking forward with faith, we can now see the cross and look backwards with faith.
 
Upvote 0

- DRA -

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2004
3,560
96
Texas
✟4,218.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I asked the question "What law is referred to in Hebrews 7:12 because I believe this is very important to understanding what theses covenants are all about.

Hebrews 7:12 says, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law."

One must discern which "law" this is speaking of so that one can rightly understand which "law" was changed and what still remains. Does that sound fair enough?

In the context of this chapter, really all of Hebrews, it is clear what law that is spoken of and I do not believe it is the "law and the prophets" or what most consider the OT. For if this were true, the new covenant spoken of in Hebrews 8 would be invalid because it is a direct quote from Jeremiah 31:31-33

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It is not even a paraphrase in Heb 8 it is a direct quote. If the intention of the author was to convince the readers that the OT had "vanished away" why would he quote directly from the covenant that waxed old to prove what the new covenant was?

A much better interpretation would be to look at Hebrews in context and realize that what the theme of the book is: The old covenant of ceremonies versus the new covenant of Jesus. The "law" in Hebrews 7 is the ceremonial law of the Jews which contains the law of the priesthood. This clearly was nailed to the cross as Paul illustrates in Colossians 2. First off, Jesus proves that it is no longer valid because He has become a priest, and He was from the tribe of Judah. The writer then goes on to explain how all the ceremonies and objects of the sanctuary pointed to Jesus. Now that the perfect sacrifice had come there was no further need for this on the earth.

John 12:32 says, "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me."

The sacrificial system was intended to draw people back to faith in God. Now that we have the gospel of Jesus the inferior has succombed to the perfect in Jesus.

But, it ALL, refers back to the ceremonial laws of the
Torah. NOT the whole OT. So a change in law was the change in what was needed to draw all men to Jesus. And it is much better because this covenant has no man-made promises.

Note that this is all about how God is helping us with our sin problem. We now have the perfect answer in Jesus, instead of looking forward with faith, we can now see the cross and look backwards with faith.

According to the reasoning in Hebrews 7, the "law" that changed was coupled with the Levitical priesthood. Thus, when Jesus was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, not only did the Levitical priesthood change, but the law coupled with the Levitical priesthood (the law of Moses) also changed.

It is my understanding that the whole of the O.T. law ended at the cross of our Lord when His covenant/will/testament/law was established. I suspect you are misunderstanding the intent of Hebrews 8:13 - "Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (KJV)." Why not let the Bible speak tell us itself in what way the O.T. was to decay, become old, and vanish away? Considering a passage that I have used several times before, the O.T. writings have many lessons that we can learn from (Romans 15:4). These lessons are intended to increase our patience and comfort as we see numerous examples of God doing exactly what He said He was going to do (e.g. keeping His promises, punishing the wicked, etc.), which in turns helps strengthen our hope in the promises that are before us in Christ. To me, I can't learn from those lessons if the stories have vanished away in the sense that they are totally gone and we no longer have them. Rather, focusing on just what Romans 15:4 says, the inference/implication is that the stories are there, and folks such as you and I can learn from them today. However, what the passage doesn't say is that the O.T. writings are for our law today. There's a difference. The stories are there. We can and should learn from them. But, they are not our law today. In that sense, they decayeth and waxeth old and were ready to vanish away (borrowing from the Elizabethan language of the KJV).

For sure, the N.T. references the O.T. in different ways as it goes about portraying Jesus as the Messiah promised in the old writings. And, there is no indication that God intended that we just throw out the O.T. and treat it as if it has no value in our lives today. It does. The Corinthians were admonished to consider the example of the Israelites that came out of Egyptian bondage and perished in the wilderness in 1 Corinthians 10:1-12. And, in Acts 17:11, the Bereans were commended for their willingness to diligently study God's word (the O.T. Scriptures) to see if Jesus was really the fulfillment of the O.T. passages. It makes sense that they had copies of the O.T. to do that.

Now, thinking back to the O.T. writings, I sincerely believe that the whole of the those writings ceased to be law upon Jesus' death upon the cross. Given some thought, the old/first covenant was made between God and Israel, and was an agreement that the law of Moses would be observed by Israel and that God would bless them as His people. However, as a part of that law, He also warned them of His wrath if they were disobedient (Deuteronomy chapters 28-30). Generally speaking, the prophets sounded off to try to get the Israelites back in line when they were disobedient. So, overall, in a broad sense, the covenant, law, and the prophets were all linked. Thus, when the law of Moses ended (i.e. Col. 2:14, Heb. 7:12), the covenant Israel made at Sinai ended, and the pleas of the prophets for Israel to return to God in obedience to the old law were no longer directly applicable. However, looking back and appying what we can learn from the O.T. (i.e. Rom. 15:4), there are indeed things we can apply about honoring the covenant we have made with God today (for those that have accepted the good news of salvation through Christ and become His disciples - in principle agreeing to obey His will and honor Him), and heeding the admonitions of the N.T. writers that encourage us to be faithful to God and do His will.

BTW, I am still trying to get a grasp on exactly it is from the O.T. that you want to cling to or justify today under the gospel of Christ. I really don't think it is just the idea about loving God with all your heart and loving your neighbor - because both of those points are addressed and a part of the new covenant based upon the teachings of our Lord. Therefore, what is the real agenda? Is it instrumental music? That seems to be a big issue for some folks. Talk to us. What's really on your mind.

:help:
 
Upvote 0

Loveaboveall

Senior Member
Mar 14, 2007
678
10
✟8,379.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without a true understanding of the "Old" we cannot fully understand the "New".

God wants our love, He made us with the ability to choose, for without choice there is no love. This is what God desires. When God loved us while we were yet sinners it demonstrated His unconditional love. This love draws us to Him, it is what brings about faith. Faith is what we must have to be saved. This is what God requires of us. It is what the whole bible is about--How much God loves us and because of that why we should have faith/trust in Him that He will do as He promises.

Hebrews 11 is filled with people who demonstrated this faith, They understood God's love and thus had faith in Him that He would send a savior to save them. The were living under the new covenant.

The old covenant was added because God's people lost site of how much God loves them. They needed something to demonstrate to them how MUCH God loves them. This was demonstrated in the Ceremonial/sacrifical system. It was to point the sinner back to God and illustrate to them how awful sin was and how much God loved them because He was going to send the Messiah to be the sacrifice that would save them. It was to bring them back under the new covenant.

Today, many people say they are under the new covenant but are really still stuck in that old covenant that waxed old.

The old covenant is a covenant of works. It is a covenant that requires the people to do something--Keep the law. The new covenant does not require anything from the people accept....FAITH. Now you may say "faith without works is dead" and I fully agree with you. But the works are not required under the covenant to be saved. Many today speak so much of We can't do this or do that, or you must do this all because the early church did it this way. Or the bible does not speak of this so you can't do that, or vice-versa. This is not what God is looking for. He is looking for FAITH.

I even read on here people describe the New covnenat and they add in "obedience to the covenant" which I interpret them to mean obedience to what the NT says. This is nothing more then the old covenant veiled as a better covenant because you are obeying the law contained in the new testament. There is no "obedience" involved in the new covenant... It is all about faith!

An active faith is the only true faith. But it is not a requirement for Salvation, it is a byproduct of saving grace through faith. That is what is meant by God saying "I will write my law on their hearts". You see it isn't that God's law has changed it is the hearts that have changed. They have changed from a heart of stone to a fleshly heart that is presented broken before God to allow Him to clean it and renew the spirit within.

What I hope I have stirred within those who read this is:

Now that we have seen Jesus lifted up, He is drawing us to Him by His awesome love for us! We can't help but love Him when He loved us so much. And when we realize that it was MY sin that put Him on the cross, WOW! How humbling is that! God can use a humble heart, because He can make it into something beautiful, and the best thing is... I don't have to worry about keeping the law anymore, it is written in my heart and I delight in the law of the Lord, I want to keep it, it is not a burden. The sin that put Jesus on the cross that I loved so dearly, is now sickening to me. I love to delight myself in serving my savior instead of doing things for myself.

This is the attitude that brings about worship acceptable to God. You can argue all day about whether IM is okay, whether women should teach, whether an elder should resign when his wife dies, etc. but it does not matter if you are not under the new covenant.

One must understand this to be saved. I know the 5 steps but I have one problem with them, the 5th one.
"Walk in newness of life" How can this be a requirement for salvation? God does not require ANYTHING but faith from us under the new covenant! This last step is a natural byproduct of salvation but it is not a step TOWARDS salvation!

But if one does not understand that the old covenant was a covenant of works they will never understand the better covenant. The people said, "we will do all that you command" and failed. That was what was wrong with the old, it was based on the people's bad promises. God says in the new, "I will". Isn't that just what you would expect from a completely loving God. He knows we are carnal, sold under sin and without His power we could not do any good thing. He makes a covenant with us that is not based on any promises from us to do anything. It is all God! He writes the law on our hearts, He puts it in our minds. All we have to have is Faith, which comes with a broken and contrite heart that can be written on.

So, why don't we come out from under the old covenant of works and quit TRYING to be obedient on our own power. We must strive to not to sin, but not because we want to be saved, for that would be selfish; but because we would rather die then dishonor our Lord knowing that my sin put Him on that cross.
 
Upvote 0

RefrusRevlis

Regular Member
May 25, 2007
378
13
55
Western Australia
✟8,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
2 Kings 22:8
Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.”


In the next chapter the book is referred to in different terms:


2 Kings 23:2
The king went up to the house of the Lord with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord.


It is clear the terms "law" and "covenant" are equivalent terms in the previous verses. 

refrus


 
  • Like
Reactions: JDIBe
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's quite a leap Refrus.

There's a pasage in the NT that's often referred to as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" though some call it "The Parable of the Loving Father". I'd argue that they're both appropriate titles for it. By your reasoning though, that would mean the Prodigal Son IS the Loving Father. Hmmmm...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RefrusRevlis

Regular Member
May 25, 2007
378
13
55
Western Australia
✟8,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's quite a leap Refrus.

There's a pasage in the NT that's often referred to as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" though some call it "The Parable of the Loving Father". I'd argue that they're both appropriate titles for it. By your reasoning though, that would mean the Prodigal Son IS the Loving Father. Hmmmm...
Not Really. Your illustration is self-contradictory and not analogous. It is quite clear the Father is not the Son as can be seen by reading the passage. Anyhow, neither of these titles are inspired. However, what is said of the Law is said of the covenant in the rest of the scriptures.

Refrus
 
Upvote 0

Splayd

Just some guy
Apr 19, 2006
2,547
1,033
52
✟8,071.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Not Really. Your illustration is self-contradictory and not analogous. It is quite clear the Father is not the Son as can be seen by reading the passage.
Exactly! That was my point. It's not a fair or logical assumption to make that if "Book of x" = "Book of y" then x = y. More information is required.

However, what is said of the Law is said of the covenant in the rest of the scriptures.
That's fine, but you haven't demonstrated as much. That's all I'm saying. Your illustration was supposed to be doing that but it can't on it's own.

Peace
 
Upvote 0

RefrusRevlis

Regular Member
May 25, 2007
378
13
55
Western Australia
✟8,084.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's fine, but you haven't demonstrated as much. That's all I'm saying. Your illustration was supposed to be doing that but it can't on it's own.
My post was part of a thread I started in Non Denominational Forum (which in itself was abbreviated from another study I did)- I probably should have copied and pasted the whole post to start off with. I had just intended it to augment arguments already forwarded. In my initial study (handwritten) I had the 2 Kings passages at the end as a part of the conclusion, which on balance was probably a better place for them. Here iis the post from the Non-Denom forum (except for the opening few paragraphs):


From the start it is necessary to point out that in the contexts we are considering, the terms law and covenant are different terms but apply to the same thing, consider the usages of the words in the following verses:
2 Kings 22:8
Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the Lord.”​


In the next chapter the book is referred to in different terms:​


2 Kings 23:2
The king went up to the house of the Lord with all the men of Judah, and with him all the inhabitants of Jerusalem—the priests and the prophets and all the people, both small and great. And he read in their hearing all the words of the Book of the Covenant which had been found in the house of the Lord.​


It is clear the terms "law" and "covenant" are equivalent terms. ​



Now regarding the Old Covenant, the scriptures are quite clear. Consider the following passages:
2nd Corinthians 3:1-7
2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart. 4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious?​



The New Covenant is that which gives life and by necessary inference the Old covenant is the ministry of death written and engraved on stones - an obvious reference to the ten commandments. The New Covenant is more glorious than the old one.​



Galatians 3 (some verses left out so this will fit in one post)
 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”)...
19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.​



The law was "until Christ", he then redeemed it from its curse, which was that it could not justify us. It confined all under sin, thus showing our need for a saviour. The law was to be until the seed (Jesus) came.​



Galatians 3 goes on to say:
But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​


The law was a temporary measure until Christ came, the law was the tutor (the household servant who took care of the children and made sure they got to their teacher). Once at the teacher there is no need for the tutor, because there is no going back, we stay with the teacher (Jesus).​




Hebrews 8
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 13 In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.​



Not only is the first Covenant a curse, but it is obsolete and faulty. Now some might jump up and down and say "How can anything from God be faulty?". It was faulty in so far as it could not secure salvation for people, it was weak through the flesh (Romans 8:3).​



Matthew 5:17-18
"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."​


The passage has been quoted many times in an attempt to show the continuity of the law until the end of the physical universe (heavens and earth). It does not however say that the law would continue until then. It is recognised by many that the phrase " till heaven and earth pass away" is a proverbial saying indicating the certainty of a statement, however, even given the literal sense of this phrase, we can understand what Jesus was saying. He was saying, to paraphrase, "until (unless) it is fulfilled it will be in force until the end of the age".​




In regard to the law, Romans has these things to say:
4:14-15
For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​


5:20
Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more,​


Colossians 2:14


having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. 15 Having disarmed principalities and powers, He made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.​



The handwriting of requirements is the law, which was a shadow of what was to some in Christ. The idea of the Old Covenant (law) being a shadow is found most prominently in Hebrews:
Hebrews 10:1
For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
It is quite clear that the law has passed away. It has passed away as a whole system. A covenant is not added to as some contend (see Galatians 3:15). The new Covenant replaces the old one, it does NOT add to it. Those seeking to retain the law, usually only want to keep parts of it. This is not possible. It's all or nothing, consider Galatians 5:3-4:​



And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.​


Refrus​
 
Upvote 0