Jesus didn't come to separate the old and new covenants.
- Thread starter just-me
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
The quote from Luke has been on my mind a lot of late. Your mention of God and His perfection is understood well by most I believe. It falls in line with not needing qualifying words for adjectives describing our Maker. A good example is that God is good. One may begin to say God is very good, but why, when He epitomizes everything He is. I see this throughout the Word, when statements are quite simple saying volumes. Just as your have stated, God is perfect. How may any improve on this declaration? Why should anyone attempt to, impossible. God bless you always in Jesus Christ, amen.
I believe so. He made the Word, that is the Gospel of Christ, the New Testament alive, Hebrews 4:12, 1 peter 1:23, it is the sword of the spirit Ephesians 6:17. It goes into your heart, according to the parable of the soils, hence the saying I will write My laws upon their hearts and upon their minds I will place them.
Override? They are in agreement.
All NT Scripture is God-breathed and is the statement of Jesus Christ.
And keeping in mind that Jesus' revelation in the gospels was given before his death, under the old covenant and its laws,
and is not as full as the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers, while the epistles were given after his death and inauguration in his blood of the new covenant ministry.
All Scripture must be understod in the light of the new covenant inaugurated after his death.
All NT Scripture is God-breathed and is the statement of Jesus Christ.
And keeping in mind that Jesus' revelation in the gospels was given before his death, under the old covenant and its laws,
and is not as full as the words spoken by the Son in these last days (Heb 1:1-2) through the NT writers, while the epistles were given after his death and inauguration in his blood of the new covenant ministry.
All Scripture must be understod in the light of the new covenant inaugurated after his death.
The covenant of the rainbow benefits all mankind, not just those in Christ.
The covenant with David is to David only, and is fulfilled.
The Mosaic covenant with Israel is available to no one today, it is obsolete (Heb 8:13).
That leaves only the Abrahamic covenant's unconditional promise of the heavenly city of God
(Heb 11:14-16), received through faith, to which all those in Jesus Christ are heirs.
The covenant with David is to David only, and is fulfilled.
The Mosaic covenant with Israel is available to no one today, it is obsolete (Heb 8:13).
That leaves only the Abrahamic covenant's unconditional promise of the heavenly city of God
(Heb 11:14-16), received through faith, to which all those in Jesus Christ are heirs.
remember that the old testament is before JESUS came to earth and no man was able to fulfill the law even though the same GOD in the old testament is the same GOD in the new testament.
JESUS fulfilled the law and before he left he graced right standing to all those that believe in the WORD of GOD.
So then it's all GOD or its all you.
JESUS fulfilled the law and before he left he graced right standing to all those that believe in the WORD of GOD.
So then it's all GOD or its all you.
Last edited:
The old (Mosaic) covenant is conditioned on obedience to the law, with condemnation attached
for imperfect obedience.
The new covenant is unconditional, no performance required, and accessed only through
the gift of faith (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27), with no condemnation attached for imperfect obedience.
Those aren't "improvements," those are a whole "nuther animal."
It really shocks me to hear someone say that Jesus' words in the gospel are more important than Jesus' words in the epistles!
God wrote them both! God also wrote the Old Testament, inspiring the words of the writers! There is no dichotomy!
What there is, is textual considerations. We are not Israel, we are not living under the Mosiac covenant. That was written to the Hebrews, and the books of the prophets tell the stories of what happened when those people did not obey God. For that matter, so do the narratives, from Genesis through to Malachi.
The epistles were written to churches, and individuals. They are pastoral, with less emphasis on miracles and parables. The life of Jesus is instructional for us. The epistles round out the story of how the Holy Spirit was leading and guiding the early church. Acts is also a good narrative to see how the church grew, and is instructive in so many things, especially evangelism.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, and as we walk with him and serve him, we see how the New Covenant impacts our lives in so many ways. That means the Holy Spirit, as promised in Old Testament books like Joel, and fulfilled in Acts, becomes an integral part of Christ leading and guiding us.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26
"14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" Romans 8:14-17
God wrote them both! God also wrote the Old Testament, inspiring the words of the writers! There is no dichotomy!
What there is, is textual considerations. We are not Israel, we are not living under the Mosiac covenant. That was written to the Hebrews, and the books of the prophets tell the stories of what happened when those people did not obey God. For that matter, so do the narratives, from Genesis through to Malachi.
The epistles were written to churches, and individuals. They are pastoral, with less emphasis on miracles and parables. The life of Jesus is instructional for us. The epistles round out the story of how the Holy Spirit was leading and guiding the early church. Acts is also a good narrative to see how the church grew, and is instructive in so many things, especially evangelism.
Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, and as we walk with him and serve him, we see how the New Covenant impacts our lives in so many ways. That means the Holy Spirit, as promised in Old Testament books like Joel, and fulfilled in Acts, becomes an integral part of Christ leading and guiding us.
"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." John 14:26
"14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”16 The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,17 and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" Romans 8:14-17
Yes, that was God's Mosaic law in force at that time.
Jesus was not in a position, prior to his atoning death, to reveal that no one could meet
that condition for eternal life because of the Law's condemnation of imperfect obedience.
So in the new covenant, eternal life is by one's law-keeping?
Selective quoting. . .omitting Mt 22:37-40.
Jesus was not in a position, prior to his atoning death, to reveal that no one could meet
that condition for eternal life because of the Law's condemnation of imperfect obedience.
So in the new covenant, eternal life is by one's law-keeping?
Selective quoting. . .omitting Mt 22:37-40.
Elin,
How can the Davidic covenant be fulfilled if God said he would establish Davids throne forever?
In the first passage the emphasis is on Solomon:
2 Sam 7.11-16
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
The second passage places emphasis ON Messiah/Jesus
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I tell thee that the Lord will build thee an house.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
David was promised 4 eternal things in this covenant:
Eternal Dynasty/House
Eternal Throne
Eternal Kingdom
Eternal Descendant-Jesus Christ
The Davidic covenant is unconditional and also eternal is it not?
How can the Davidic covenant be fulfilled if God said he would establish Davids throne forever?
In the first passage the emphasis is on Solomon:
2 Sam 7.11-16
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
[SUP]15 [/SUP]But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
The second passage places emphasis ON Messiah/Jesus
[SUP]10 [/SUP]And since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel. Moreover I will subdue all thine enemies. Furthermore I tell thee that the Lord will build thee an house.
[SUP]11 [/SUP]And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom.
[SUP]12 [/SUP]He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.
[SUP]13 [/SUP]I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:
[SUP]14 [/SUP]But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
David was promised 4 eternal things in this covenant:
Eternal Dynasty/House
Eternal Throne
Eternal Kingdom
Eternal Descendant-Jesus Christ
The Davidic covenant is unconditional and also eternal is it not?
So true!
And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness. [Deut. 6:25 NIV]
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made know to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. [Romans 3:19-22 NIV]
And if we are careful to obey all this law before the LORD our God as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness. [Deut. 6:25 NIV]
Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made know to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. [Romans 3:19-22 NIV]
Hebrews 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.
...but you knew that.
Nevertheless, this chronology of God's covenants are perfect because our Almighty God is perfect. Therefore, because our God is currently present today so is His chronology.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. (2 Peter 3:8)
S
So many posts, so little time!
To be clear, I never said I didn't believe in progressive revelation nor did I say that it is not linear. I said, "I don't think the progression is as linear as one might try to posit." Of course, God reveals more over time and this is added to our body of knowledge about a particular subject. EDIT: When I first wrote this post, I went into a long description of what "linear" means, using examples of linear equations in mathematics and talking about a constant rate of change over time, how some prophets expand our knowledge greatly and others only provide a smaller bit of new information, how some statements are clearer and others less clear, etc. But I realized that this has almost nothing to do with our discussion, so I deleted it.
The main point I was getting at is this: Progressive revelation over time does not mean that the earlier revealed knowledge is inferior, of less quality or of less authority. It's an ever-increasing body of knowledge which makes up the whole truth of the matter. You give a great example of an ever-increasing understanding revealed about the Messiah. But notice, the later knowledge doesn't make any of the earlier knowledge false. E.g., Gabriel telling Joseph to name his son Jesus doesn't change what God revealed to Eve about her offspring crushing the head of that old serpent.
I will also make a claim (not a statement of fact) that while later information is more clear in many cases, that doesn't universally mean that all earlier knowledge is less clear (or at least not in terms of presentation) or that clear statements or lessons can't be drawn from earlier knowledge. E.g., sometimes God speaks very clearly early in the OT, and at other times a certain epistle can contain a puzzling allegory. This gets to what john832 was saying about some of the "plain" teachings of Jesus. Personally, I believe that the Messiah is the ultimate revelation of God to mankind. In Him was fully abundant Spirit, perfect love, perfect obedience, and so forth. The Son is the radiant glory of the Father made manifest and the perfect expression of His being. This, if anything else, should lead us to take His words very seriously.
Yes, the Holy Spirit revealed "deep truths" to the disciples/apostles, that which the Messiah could not share at the time of His earthly ministry. And the revelations of the Holy Spirit to them, as is all the Word contained in the Scriptures, are the words of the Messiah. Here's the problem I see with how some people apply progressive revelation: They start with the NT epistles and make it their foundation. I believe one should start with the basics, so to speak. Learn what God has said and established as truth through His direct voice, through His early prophets, through the Messiah, and then the NT epistles. If it was given in a progression, follow the progression. Start with the algebra before jumping to the calculus. Isn't this the method that God set up? I thought early on He said trust My words and test the message of any future prophet against them, and if the prophet speaks against My words, then He is a false prophet (Deut. 13, et al.). This includes testing our own interpretations. Personally, I also believe in the concept of multiple witnesses establishing truth, which requires a wider lens when looking at the Scriptures.
To be clear, I never said I didn't believe in progressive revelation nor did I say that it is not linear. I said, "I don't think the progression is as linear as one might try to posit." Of course, God reveals more over time and this is added to our body of knowledge about a particular subject. EDIT: When I first wrote this post, I went into a long description of what "linear" means, using examples of linear equations in mathematics and talking about a constant rate of change over time, how some prophets expand our knowledge greatly and others only provide a smaller bit of new information, how some statements are clearer and others less clear, etc. But I realized that this has almost nothing to do with our discussion, so I deleted it.
The main point I was getting at is this: Progressive revelation over time does not mean that the earlier revealed knowledge is inferior, of less quality or of less authority. It's an ever-increasing body of knowledge which makes up the whole truth of the matter. You give a great example of an ever-increasing understanding revealed about the Messiah. But notice, the later knowledge doesn't make any of the earlier knowledge false. E.g., Gabriel telling Joseph to name his son Jesus doesn't change what God revealed to Eve about her offspring crushing the head of that old serpent.
I will also make a claim (not a statement of fact) that while later information is more clear in many cases, that doesn't universally mean that all earlier knowledge is less clear (or at least not in terms of presentation) or that clear statements or lessons can't be drawn from earlier knowledge. E.g., sometimes God speaks very clearly early in the OT, and at other times a certain epistle can contain a puzzling allegory. This gets to what john832 was saying about some of the "plain" teachings of Jesus. Personally, I believe that the Messiah is the ultimate revelation of God to mankind. In Him was fully abundant Spirit, perfect love, perfect obedience, and so forth. The Son is the radiant glory of the Father made manifest and the perfect expression of His being. This, if anything else, should lead us to take His words very seriously.
Yes, the Holy Spirit revealed "deep truths" to the disciples/apostles, that which the Messiah could not share at the time of His earthly ministry. And the revelations of the Holy Spirit to them, as is all the Word contained in the Scriptures, are the words of the Messiah. Here's the problem I see with how some people apply progressive revelation: They start with the NT epistles and make it their foundation. I believe one should start with the basics, so to speak. Learn what God has said and established as truth through His direct voice, through His early prophets, through the Messiah, and then the NT epistles. If it was given in a progression, follow the progression. Start with the algebra before jumping to the calculus. Isn't this the method that God set up? I thought early on He said trust My words and test the message of any future prophet against them, and if the prophet speaks against My words, then He is a false prophet (Deut. 13, et al.). This includes testing our own interpretations. Personally, I also believe in the concept of multiple witnesses establishing truth, which requires a wider lens when looking at the Scriptures.
S
I'm going to repost this again since I don't think I saw a response.
Originally Posted by john832
What Law was changed?
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
The Law that stated that Aaron and his sons would be Priests. The Law that excluded a Jew (one from the tribe of Judah) from being a Priest.
And even this may only apply in the spiritual/heavenly sense of Him being our personal high priest. I often think about what this means and would love feedback. Consider the following:
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. -- Heb. 8:1-6 (NIV)
And when Paul is confronted in Acts:
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!” Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’” -- Acts 23:1-5 (NIV)
It seems Paul is still respecting the position of the earthly high priest. He also seems to be recognizing that he was out of line by his comment unknowingly directed at a group including the earthly high priest. He even quotes a Torah-Law command (Ex. 22:28), seemingly as evidence of his wrongdoing.
What gives? If the Messiah is the high priest and the earthly high priest has no legitimate position being of an old order in an old covenant now obsolete, then why does Paul address him as the high priest? Why doesn't he speak the truth, "There is no high priest but the Messiah!" instead of backing down once he realized the high priest was present? If the earthly priest is illegitimate, as would be any command connected to the high priest, why does Paul bring a Torah-Law command in a seeming attempt to admit his wrongdoing and how he had transgressed the command? The whole ordeal seems apologetic in tone and an admission of guilt.
These are honest questions.
What Law was changed?
Heb 7:13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
The Law that stated that Aaron and his sons would be Priests. The Law that excluded a Jew (one from the tribe of Judah) from being a Priest.
And even this may only apply in the spiritual/heavenly sense of Him being our personal high priest. I often think about what this means and would love feedback. Consider the following:
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being. Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already priests who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: “See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises. -- Heb. 8:1-6 (NIV)
And when Paul is confronted in Acts:
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day.” At this the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!” Those who were standing near Paul said, “How dare you insult God’s high priest!” Paul replied, “Brothers, I did not realize that he was the high priest; for it is written: ‘Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people.’” -- Acts 23:1-5 (NIV)
It seems Paul is still respecting the position of the earthly high priest. He also seems to be recognizing that he was out of line by his comment unknowingly directed at a group including the earthly high priest. He even quotes a Torah-Law command (Ex. 22:28), seemingly as evidence of his wrongdoing.
What gives? If the Messiah is the high priest and the earthly high priest has no legitimate position being of an old order in an old covenant now obsolete, then why does Paul address him as the high priest? Why doesn't he speak the truth, "There is no high priest but the Messiah!" instead of backing down once he realized the high priest was present? If the earthly priest is illegitimate, as would be any command connected to the high priest, why does Paul bring a Torah-Law command in a seeming attempt to admit his wrongdoing and how he had transgressed the command? The whole ordeal seems apologetic in tone and an admission of guilt.
These are honest questions.