Scripture never states that covenants are "administered," they are "mediated."
There is a big difference.
In mediation, the mediator represents the people, as Moses did to God.
In administration, the administrator is over the people and governs the people, as the High Priest
did in administering the sacrifices and cleansings, declaring who was clean and unclean, etc.
The old covenant was only "mediated" by Moses, its mediator.
The law was only "administered" by the priesthood, its administrator.
I'll not respond to the above; the horse is dead. If you want to keep dragging it around, that is certainly your choice. We've both stated our positions.
That said, the issue of what Christ did/does and on what basis is worth pursuing:
And Christ did both.
An entire New Covenant had to be put in place, as Christ Jesus was made High Priest by an oath from God, and Christ is not of the Tribe of Levi, but of the Tribe of Judah.
What does that mean? Jesus cannot legally administer the Old Covenant.
The NT actually presents it differently.
1) "An entire New Covenant had to be put in place" due to God's
promise of a
New Covenant
(Jer 1:31-34),
Hebrews 7:20-22
20 And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, 21 but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him:
“The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
‘You are a priest forever.’”
22 This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.
Yes, an entire New Covenant, one of Grace, the fulfillment of the Promise made to Abraham was put in place.
because the people broke the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant (Jer 11:10),
No. Was the Old Covenant broken? Yes - but that was not the only reason for the New - the New was to bring Life - something the Old could not do.
not because Jesus was made High Priest of a new order and could not administer the Old Covenant.
The NT does not present Jesus as unable to administer the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant.
Okay, this is where the confusion lies.
As High Priest, Christ administered his lawful sacrifice.
That was a function of the law, which was administered by the office of High Priest.
Elin, consider this carefully:
- The priesthood of the Old Covenant was of the line of Levi.
- Jesus was of the Tribe of Judah.
This is by design, so that Christ was not connected to the Mediation OR Administration of the Old Covenant IN ANY WAY.
Christ was the final Sacrifice of the Old Covenant - but
He was not the priest who offered it - He had not yet BECOME a High Priest. He was of the Tribe of Judah. He would NEVER become a high priest of the OLD Covenant. The New Covenant was RATIFIED or 'cut' by the Blood of THE Lamb. One could surmise about the moment that Christ became the Perfect High Priest (whether it was at the actual shedding of His Blood, the Resurrection, or the Ascension), but the Scriptural fact is that the New Priesthood brought about the New Law (Covenant):
Hebrews 7:12-13
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. 13 For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar.
So you see, Christ could not have officiated (oh boy, we can add that one to 'administrate' and 'mediate') over His own sacrifice.
The sacrifice of Christ satisfied the Old Covenant, administered by the Levites, and ushered in the New Covenant, which would be administered/mediated/officiated over by Christ, our Perfect High Priest.
As the Perfect High Priest of the Tribe of Judah, Christ mediates the New Covenant, cut in His own Blood. He did not present Himself to the altar; the priesthood of the Old Covenant which was in place did that. He offered His LIFE, and gave it freely, and prophesied at the Last Supper the New Covenant that would be ratified with His own Blood.
I contend that the Levitical Priesthood of that time DID make Christ the Sacrifice (unwittingly), using the Roman Government as their method of execution of the Lamb of God. They
administered the Law's requirements.
Christ could not have legally administered His own Sacrifice; He was of the Tribe of Judah.
Why is this important?
It goes to prove the obsolescence of the Old Covenant. New Priesthood; New Law.
As Mediator, Christ mediated the New Covenant.
That is a function of his office of Mediator.
Christ holds several offices- Mediator, Prophet, Priest, King and Lawgiver.
Each office has different functions.
Mediator - to represent the people before God.
Prophet - to proclaim the word of God.
Priest - to administer the law and sacrifice.
King - to rule over the kingdom
Lawgiver - to give the laws of the kingdom.
You are confusing the functions of Christ's different offices.
High Priest - administer the law
Mediator - mediate the Covenent
He does not "mediate" the law, nor "administer" the covenant.
Go back over your list with the above in mind.
- Christ is our Prophet, Priest, and King.
- The Law (Old Covenant) is rendered obsolete by the Work of Christ; it does not have an administrator
- He does not administer law and sacrifice; He administers Grace
- He is not our Judge (those in Christ), but our Brother (Heb 2:11)
The more I read what you write, it becomes clear that I'm not the one who is confused here. You are assigning the duties of the Levitical priesthood to Christ, Who is of the Tribe of Judah.
This is a key issue in the Law and Grace debate. Because if Christ could administer the Old Covenant as a priest, then you have to throw out the entire letter to the Hebrews. Are you prepared to do that?
-JGIG