When did the Old Covenant truly "disappear" and end?

[JAL]

Baptism was never a ceremony.

Now we're actually getting somewhere.

 

[HatGuy]

Funny you said earlier I was missing the point. Actually you're missing the point. You're reading superficially. Once you understand the REAL REASON that law-covenants expire (changes in circumstances) - once you see that it really has nothing to do with the concept of covenant itself - you're less likely to repeat the historically frequent mistake of persisting outmoded ceremonies. Two thousand years after the apostles, the church is still performing water-baptism! And she has no clue that it's a stench and an offense in God's nostrils! She doesn't know the real reason it was instituted, nor why it would expire due to changing circumstances. But hey, like you said, I'm the one missing the point. Fine.

We still have water, so how have circumstances changed for water baptism?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Now we're actually getting somewhere.

I doubt it. When did the gospel expire?

Baptism is how remission is achieved and how one contacts the blood of Jesus (Romans 6) how did that get abolished and when?

 

[Oldmantook]

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

In another thread - these specific questions were asked:

When did the old covenant end?
When did the new covenant begin?
When did "the last days" begin?
When will "the last days" finish?
When is the "end of the age"?
When is the day of redemption?
When did "this age" arrive?
When does "this age" end?
When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?
When did the kingdom of God begin?
When does "the age to come" arrive?
When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Hebrews states:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

The problem begins with the fact that the word "covenant" in Heb 8:13 is not even present in the Greek so one cannot automatically assume that covenant is being referred to in this verse.

 

[JAL]

I doubt it. When did the gospel expire?

When did it begin? Those of us who believe in Covenant Theology certainly don't begin the gospel with John the Baptist (Gal 3:8, Heb 4:2), nor even with the cross(Mat 4:23, 9:35, etc).

[Baptism]...put those who were baptized into Christ.

Baptism is how remission is achieved

Really? No remission of sins without baptism? In that case, I need to have a chat with the Son of God regarding John 3:16. Apparently He got it wrong. He should have learned from you that the gospel doesn't function without water baptism.

 

[JAL]

We still have water, so how have circumstances changed for water baptism?

Do we still have calves and goats?

 

[HatGuy]

Do we still have calves and goats?

Yes we do. But we have nothing in the Bible saying baptism is a stench to God. Post temple Judaism has certainly changed the meaning of the sacrifice (now seen as studying the Torah) but that is because they have no temple. We still, however, have water everywhere.

I'm not sure I see your validation for saying baptism is a stench to God - I certainly can't see anything authoritative making such a statement, nor can I see anything validating such a change in rational terms. Perhaps if we were Fremen living in a waterless desert, I could understand the reason for non full immersion, but even then water becomes a sacred thing.

I think the fact that water is mostly everywhere, is completely necessary for life, is so precious, and will always be needed, is part of what makes baptism such a powerful image and a clue as to the eternal and universal, life giving nature of the New Covenant. I can't see a Biblical, rational nor philosophical reason behind saying it is a stench to God.

 

[JAL]

Yes we do. But we have nothing in the Bible saying baptism is a stench to God. Post temple Judaism has certainly changed the meaning of the sacrifice (now seen as studying the Torah) but that is because they have no temple. We still, however, have water everywhere.

I'm not sure I see your validation for saying baptism is a stench to God - I certainly can't see anything authoritative making such a statement, nor can I see anything validating such a change in rational terms. Perhaps if we were Fremen living in a waterless desert, I could understand the reason for non full immersion, but even then water becomes a sacred thing.

I think the fact that water is mostly everywhere, is completely necessary for life, is so precious, and will always be needed, is part of what makes baptism such a powerful image and a clue as to the eternal and universal, life giving nature of the New Covenant. I can't see a Biblical, rational nor philosophical reason behind saying it is a stench to God.

Given that people rarely change their views on this forum, I'm not sure how much time I want to invest on this thread. Can't guarantee I'll be back to finish this discussion.

For now, I'll leave you with this. What would it say about God if He actually LIKED ritualistic practices? Then ask yourself, when is a ritual actually NOT a ritual? The other poster thinks he knows the answer to that question. I'm pretty sure he does not, based on his posts so far.

 

[HatGuy]

For now, I'll leave you with this. What would it say about God if He actually LIKED ritualistic practices? Then ask yourself, when is a ritual actually NOT a ritual? The other poster thinks he knows the answer to that question. I'm pretty sure he does not, based on his posts so far.

"Ritual" is a very loaded word. For some it can be an empty thing, for others a ritual carries with it deep meaning.

I'd say a ritual is not a ritual if done in faith.

 

[HTacianas]

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

In another thread - these specific questions were asked:

When did the old covenant end?
When did the new covenant begin?
When did "the last days" begin?
When will "the last days" finish?
When is the "end of the age"?
When is the day of redemption?
When did "this age" arrive?
When does "this age" end?
When do the new heavens and new earth arrive?
When did the kingdom of God begin?
When does "the age to come" arrive?
When is "the last day" of "the last days"?
What occurs on "the last day" of "the last days"?

Hebrews states:

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

The new covenant was initiated at the last supper, i.e., the first Eucharist. As you mentioned above, the old covenant was passing away.

Some have it, and I hold to it, that the generation of Jews alive at the time were still under the old covenant until that generation passed away. A biblical generation equals forty years. The old covenant required sacrifices to atone for sins of ignorance, and Paul also said that those sacrifices were still being offered during his time, and were offered for forty years after the crucifixion until the temple was destroyed and no animal sacrifices have been offered since.

So, the old covenant lasted until that generation passed, and was superceded by the new covenant at the destruction of the temple.

 

[mkgal1]

The problem begins with the fact that the word "covenant" in Heb 8:13 is not even present in the Greek so one cannot automatically assume that covenant is being referred to in this verse.

Hebrews 8:8 Lexicon: For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

διαθήκην ( testament, will, covenant)
is used in v. 8, 9, 10. It's one continual statement.

 

[Oldmantook]

Hebrews 8:8 Lexicon: For finding fault with them, He says, "BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH;

διαθήκην ( testament, will, covenant)
is used in v. 8, 9, 10. It's one continual statement.

Indeed, but not in v.13 which is the verse that you cited which is why I pointed out that omission. Given that we can assume it refers to covenant because of the context of the surrounding verses. I'll attempt to explain what this passage means in my next reply.

 

[Ken Rank]

In spite of the fact that Paul wrote it did?

Especially in light of Paul's writings. I have not had time to make my case, so try not to judge to harshly before I do.

 

[Al Touthentop]

When did it begin? Those of us who believe in Covenant Theology certainly don't begin the gospel with John the Baptist (Gal 3:8, Heb 4:2), nor even with the cross(Mat 4:23, 9:35, etc).

Well then I guess you think Mark was in error when he said explicitly that John's arrival was the 'beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ'

Mark 1:1-4

Really? No remission of sins without baptism? In that case, I need to have a chat with the Son of God regarding John 3:16. Apparently He got it wrong. He should have learned from you that the gospel doesn't function without water baptism.

Perhaps you just want to dismiss the words he said you didn't like and you think that Jesus is just a silly person who is always contradicting himself. You may want to pay attention to the subjunctive mood in John 3:16

John 3:5
Mark 16:16
Matthew 28:19
Romans 6
Ephesians 2:1-6
1 Peter 3:18-21

 

[Oldmantook]

This topic comes up often - and there seems to be a lot of controversy (and even lack of teaching in the churches I've attended over the span of many decades) over the question.

Hebrews 8:13 ~ By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
​

Has the Old Covenant disappeared? If so......when?

The Old Covenant has not yet disappeared and is not yet obsolete. Keep in mind that the book of Hebrews was written to an audience of Hebrew Christians who understood the Old Covenant. It is particularly instructive to pay attention to the Greek verb tenses in this verse as some English translations render the verb tenses incorrectly which greatly affects the meaning of this verse/passage. Note the difference between the NIV & NASB:
By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear. NIV
When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. NASB

In both translations, the word obsolete is correctly rendered in the perfect tense meaning that the obsolescence of the O.C. is a completed action with ongoing results/application to this present time/age. However in the 2nd half of this verse, the two translations differ as the NIV states "is obsolete" vs. the NASB "becoming obsolete." The former conveys the sense of a completed action versus a yet to be completed action in the latter. The NASB has it correct as the word for "obsolete" is palaioumenon which is a present tense participle so "becoming obsolete" is the preferred translation.

Also, the NIV uses "outdated" versus the NASB "growing old." So again, the former conveys the sense of a completed action versus a yet to be completed action in the latter. The NASB has it correct as the word for "outdated" is gēraskon which is an active, present tense participle so "becoming old/growing old" is the preferred translation.

So what does this all mean? On one hand the O.C. is obsolete, the results of which still continue to this day. And on the other hand, the O.C. is growing old and is still in process of becoming obsolete. How can that be?

We know that for all believers, the O.C. is fulfilled and made complete in Christ. It has been made old, obsolete for the regenerated believer. But on the other hand, this passage addresses the Hebrew Christians as a reminder that God always remains faithful to his promises for them. The preceding vs. 8-12 refer to Jeremiah 31:31-34 where God promises that one day He will establish a new covenant with Israel and Judah when he will write the law upon their hearts.

That is why the O.C. for the Jewish people is "becoming obsolete" and "growing old" because God has not yet established the new covenant that he promised them in v.8. This new covenant that he will write upon their hearts does not take place until He reigns during the Millennium.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Given that people rarely change their views on this forum, I'm not sure how much time I want to invest on this thread. Can't guarantee I'll be back to finish this discussion.

For now, I'll leave you with this. What would it say about God if He actually LIKED ritualistic practices?

Baptism is not ritualistic.

It's a one time event. And as Jesus explained, it is the washing of the inside of the cup, not the outside.

 

[Al Touthentop]

So what does this all mean? On one hand the O.C. is obsolete, the results of which still continue to this day. And on the other hand, the O.C. is growing old and is still in process of becoming obsolete. How can that be?

Because it was dead and like a dead body was decaying at the time Paul wrote that. It was about to pass away completely when the body was destroyed finally by the Romans.

And in Hebrews he does not promise them that they are still under that covenant. By the time he's gotten to this passage and later he says that the new covenant is much better than the old for many different reasons, the most important being the sacrifice and the priesthood.

Had he been trying to make them feel safe in their old ways, he would not have spent so many words convincing them they were wasting their time. He even says specifically that the sacrifices the priests were currently making in the temple could never take away sin. At one time they could. But no longer.

The old law no longer brought remission of sin. The covenant was dead as a door nail and couldn't provide them salvation.

Furthermore, Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling them that the prophecy was fulfilled, not that it was yet to be fulfilled. Why would anyone claim that it was yet to be fulfilled? This is denying the plain words of Paul's letter, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

Israel is the church and all of the promises were fulfilled in Christ "and thus all Israel shall be saved."

 

[Oldmantook]

Because it was dead and like a dead body was decaying at the time Paul wrote that. It was about to pass away completely when the body was destroyed finally by the Romans.

And in Hebrews he does not promise them that they are still under that covenant. By the time he's gotten to this passage and later he says that the new covenant is much better than the old for many different reasons, the most important being the sacrifice and the priesthood.

Had he been trying to make them feel safe in their old ways, he would not have spent so many words convincing them they were wasting their time. He even says specifically that the sacrifices the priests were them making in the temple could never take away sin. At one time they could. But no longer.

The old law no longer brought remission of sin. The covenant was dead as a door nail and couldn't provide them salvation.

Furthermore, Paul, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit is telling them that the prophecy was fulfilled, not that it was yet to be fulfilled. Why would anyone claim that it was yet to be fulfilled? This is denying the plain words of Paul's letter, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

Israel is the church and all of the promises were fulfilled in Christ "and thus all Israel shall be saved."

You have a dispensational theology which I certainly disagree with. Moreover, you failed to account for the verb tenses in v.13 which I described in detail which for some reason you have not even addressed. You may try again if you wish.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The problem begins with the fact that the word "covenant" in Heb 8:13 is not even present in the Greek so one cannot automatically assume that covenant is being referred to in this verse.

That would be pretty poor exegesis since when he gets to verse thirteen he is explaining the meaning of the prophecy, which itself used the word covenant and he quotes the word 'new' in the prophecy which clearly refers to the new covenant that God had promised. Otherwise, how would you understand his quote of the word 'new' in verse 13? Is he saying God promised a new pair of shoes?

This isn't even controversial. It's explicit and plain. The only problem is with the reading.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You have a dispensational theology which I certainly disagree with. Moreover, you failed to account for the verb tenses in v.13 which I described in detail which for some reason you have not even addressed. You may try again if you wish.

I thought your verb tenses were spot on. I do not have a dispensational theology, I just accept the words as written. In fact, I haven't mentioned such a theology. I reject that sort of thing because you won't find that word (dispensation) in the scriptures in relation to any global theology. That's man made stuff. Paul uses it once - or at least it is translated that way once - referring to the stewardship of the gospel that he was given. Applying that to a broader context doesn't work.

The problem with your "problem" is that it doesn't exist. He declares the covenant dead twice in the passage you analyze. Once when he says it has died and again when he says it's about to pass away (vanish). So his first words definitively call it dead in the perfective aspect of the Greek word and then he explains that this dead covenant will completely be eliminated as a possibility.

He tells us that the new Covenant is the fulfillment of scripture, not a view towards the future.