Subject: What is God's covenant with believers |
Bible Note: John, Thanks for your kind words. I must tell you right up front that I am ignorant of what both Reformed or New Covenant Theology are. This doesn't mean that I may not hold to some of the beliefs found in these views but I have not studied either one of these "theologies" per se. Therefore my understanding of the New Covenant is based mainly upon self-study and letting the scriptures interpret scripture. Therefore, John, it is VERY important that you look at the following verses. (I could be lying to you, check me against the scripture, okay?) I do not believe that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same. The book of Hebrews draws many distinctions between them, it is a book of contrasting the covenants. They went into effect at different times, they have different mediators, different priesthoods, different high priests, different sacrifices, different ministries, and different benefits to those under the respective covenants. An indepth analysis would be better served by private email but I will share with you, in brief, why I don't think that they are the same. Different time periods - the Old Covenant went into effect when Moses spoke the commandments to the Israelites and shed blood - Heb 9:18-21. The New Covenant went into effect as Christ's death (His shedding of blood) - Heb 9:16,17. Different mediators - Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant - Heb 9:19. Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant - Heb 9:15; Heb 8:6. Different Priesthoods - The priesthood actually changed, therefore the law changed too - Heb 7:11,12. Different High Priest - The Old Covenant had priest who were sinners, they had to offer up sacrifices first for themselves, then for the people. They were weak - Heb 7:27,28. But the High Priest under the New Covenant, Jesus Christ, is holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners, exalted, made perfect forever - Heb 7:26-28. Notice that Christ's appointment as High Priest came AFTER the Law - verse 28. Also, unlike the OC priests, He holds His priesthood appointment forever - Heb 7:23,24. Different sacrifices - The OC sacrifices could never take away sins, they could only atone (cover) them. They couldn't cleanse the conscience either - Heb 10:1-5. Christ's NC sacrifice, however, did take away sins and cleanse us. And unlike the OC sacrifices which were endless, his sacrifice is once-for-all. For all sins, for all men, for all time - Heb 9:23-28. Christ's sacrifice of Himself in final - Heb 10:11-14. And under the NC, there is no sacrifice for sins left to be done - Heb 10:17,18. Different benefits - The OC offered forgiveness but it did not permanently cleanse the worshippers. The NC does. The OC did not give the worshippers a new heart or new spirit, the NC does. The NC did not allow men to come into the Holy of Holies. Under the NC, we are the Holy of Holies. Under the OC, God dwelt among His people (the Jews). Under the NC, God dwells in His people. The OC was faulty, not because it was bad, but because the people couldn't keep it - Heb 8:7,8. The NC is unilateral and enacted on better promises - Heb 8:6. The OC could make no one perfect in God's sight. The NC does - Heb 7:19. Besides all these reasons, Heb 8:13 says that the NC makes the OC obsolete. Although the NC went into effect at Christ's death, the OC was still observed by Jews until Jerusalum was burned in AD 70. The NC effectively took away the OC (not modified or integrated it) - Heb 10:9; Heb 7:18,19; Heb 8:13. With all of these differences and contrast, I see no way on God's green earth that these covenants are the same, do you? For them to be the same covenant under different administrations hardly seems to fit the picture drawn for us by the writer of Hebrews, does it? That would be like saying that an Volkswagen Bettle and a Jaguar are the same car, they are just sold by different companies. What do you think? ChristLifer2001 |