ages and covenants

[Amie]

I'm thinking that the completion of the old covenant meant:

"..an end on the house of Israel and on the house of Judah; a new covenant shall be, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord. Because this is the covenant which I will covenant with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord, giving My Laws into their mind, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be My people." "And they shall no more teach each one their neighbor, and each one his brother, saying, Know the Lord; because all shall know Me, from the least of them to their great ones. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousnesses, and I will not at all remember their sins and their lawless deeds." MT-Jer. 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:9-12

Because the completion of the old equalled the deliverance of the new. They couldn't be separated.

Jesus ushered in the new via the cross, which brought that awareness. Was the old covenant complete though, before the transgression was made in full? And, was the new covenant complete in your view, until the old covenant was finished?

Was there really two covenant ages, or was that an illusion?

Amie

[~Katherine]

Hmmm... sure seems that the so called new covenant might have always been the one God intended. While the first covenant was the old college try for the sake of those who (in my opinion) wanted something tangible of God to make him recognizable to themselves and peers as a god. Hence that dark cloud not just because of the idol they were worshiping when Moses descended from the mountain but because of how very far the people were from the idea of relating to God himself.

Even my fundie dad says that grace was always the plan from the very beginning (Christ being slain from the foundation) albeit his view still means eternal conscious torment for some.


a new covenant shall be, not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers

[Amie]

Katherine,

You give me lots to think about! I have thought before about every word coming out of God's mouth being the truth. So would "Let us make humankind" be like a promise? Unmaking humanity in any form would seem counter to that.

Maybe, thinking over what you shared some more too, the revelation of the (eternal?) new covenant was the completion of the old.

Amie

[~Katherine]

Katherine,

You give me lots to think about! I have thought before about every word coming out of God's mouth being the truth. So would "Let us make humankind" be like a promise? Unmaking humanity in any form would seem counter to that.

Maybe, thinking over what you shared some more too, the revelation of the (eternal?) new covenant was the completion of the old.

Amie

Completion as in fulfillment? I think so. :cool:

[adhitthana]

Because the completion of the old equalled the deliverance of the new. They couldn't be separated.

Separated in what way?


Jesus ushered in the new via the cross, which brought that awareness. Was the old covenant complete though, before the transgression was made in full? And, was the new covenant complete in your view, until the old covenant was finished?


Not that important as it was only a shadow. It was useless in that of itself it had no power.
It seems howver that there was a 40 year transition period. 30AD -70AD


Was there really two covenant ages, or was that an illusion?

Amie

Well there was a change in psychological posture one might say. For example, in the old age jews worshipped in Jerusalem, Babylonians somewhere else etc..etc..etc...
It was almost impossible for most of mankind to worship the living god together in the ancient world.
Where you were born, what your kinfolk did, who they worshipped decided for you who and where you worshipped, Im not sure about shamaistic societies but definitely in ANE societies such as Israel. If one was not part of Israel then naturally one did not worship Israels god. The same could be said WRT other ANE societies.
One was part of a society where priests served as officers between you and the deity.
In the new age this was to be superceded.

[Amie]

Separated in what way?

Hard to explain. I think it's like if I promised my daugher an ice cream some day, but the delivery truck was broken down at the time. Fixing the delivery truck was the same as keeping that promise. I hope that makes some sense!


Well there was a change in psychological posture one might say.

True. When do you think the old covenant began?

Amie

[adhitthana]

Hard to explain. I think it's like if I promised my daugher an ice cream some day, but the delivery truck was broken down at the time. Fixing the delivery truck was the same as keeping that promise. I hope that makes some sense!

OK :)




True. When do you think the old covenant began?

Amie

Hmm...tough question. I have not found it necessary to accept that the hebrew bible is historically accurate, so from that perspective pinpointing a date or even an incident is tricky.
What I would accept is that somehow as a society Israel came to understand themselves as having a special relationship with yahweh and they saw this relationship covenentally, the structure of which was similar to other covenants, treaties and societies in that region. Suzerain treaties, for example, come to mind. The structure of the temple also comes to mind. One can find something very similar in the ANE or even in Tutankhamen's tomb IIRC.
Thus this type of thing is found outside the nation of Israel. Thses things speak of very deep things. The temple of course as we know was never the real "house of God", our bodies are the real house.

So..although the hebrew bible directs itself to the ancient nation of Israel God's concern is really with all mankind.
Anyway the upshot is , for me, that there may not have even been a beginning in the way the bible describes the old covenant as such (and there may have been) but it tells us of the point that mankind was at up until 2000 years ago.
When Christ appeared, the time was ready, the time had been fulfilled. man was now raedy to take the next step on the anthropological stage. mankind was ready to leave behind the walls of separation that had been it's lot.
And so god demonstrated His love, through His son, and called man forward into a new age. The resurrected son of god passed into the heavens and called men forward into the power of the spirit of truth, to leave the old world behind. To leave the shadows behind, the realise ouselves as the temple of god in a way not previously seen.

All this was communicated using the language of the hebrews which was really the language, more or less, of the ANE.

Hope that makes some sense.

[Lou]

When did the Old Covenant begin and what was it?

[adhitthana]

When did the Old Covenant begin and what was it?

Interesting question isn't it?
One would think there would be a clear answer, but is there?

With Abraham..or Moses...or someone else?
I think the lack of a clear answer may tend to support the idea that it is just a case that ..." somehow as a society Israel came to understand themselves as having a special relationship with yahweh and they saw this relationship covenentally, the structure of which was similar to other covenants, treaties and societies in that region."

[davo]

As I basically understand it, "the covenant" as initiated with Abram/aham and then further codified under Moses. Although there are clear distinctions in the NT to be made between "old" and "new" covenants, I tend to see it more in terms of "covenant renewal" – thus there was an overarching covenantal mandate for Israel that in the transitional period came into "regeneration" and "rebirth" and the like. It was this overlapping of the ages/covenants that was outworked to fullness in restitution/restoration of all things.

[Barry]

When did the Old Covenant begin and what was it?

Just some thoughts:
The old covenant of "promise" is fully initiated in Adam who was a type of Him to come. First the "natural" as Paul says. Promises where held in the format of types and shadows.
Adam played out his part in human history as simply a "living soul". Not however a "life giving spirit" like the Christ. Nevertheless the natural foreshadowed the spiritual.

The "natural order" of things, like the "first covenant" did not contain a revelation of the unconditional love of God. This is where then we see the limits of an independent human potential at work.

The "living soul" then makes "idols" as it tries to [B]define both itself or one's self and also "god" in the attempt to define God through the natural order of things. None of these attempts to define image or identity contain the atribute of love without condition. Rather they focus on disunity and inequality.

Hence:
Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,

Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

This has now changed. Everything is new. God's love without condition has been historically manifested. The essence of God's possibility because he loves is now present with us.

This is why the "end" of the "old" was such a definitive point. The end of the old made the new completed thus active or "here". It made everything new. Everything still is new, when set over-against the "old".

This is why there was no, "hold fast firm beyond the end", but only a hold fast until the end. Because the "Bible" covers the point of making everything new.
This is why they were told to overcome that world. Overcoming is thus fulfilled. That world is overcome and gone. It is gone because everything has been made new. The love of our God (who is love) has been revealed. The independent human potential has been historically displaced because there is no actual independence in love without condition.

Since the love of God is manifested in human history, ongoing human history is no more bound to the sphere of what was described as the "natural" order.

Barry

[Paige]

Yeah, I also tend to see it as beginning with Adam, and just further developed through later Patriarchs and such.

[davo]

Yep it all sounds good to me too.

[Lou]

The word “new” used both in Jer.31:31 and Heb.8:8 can mean rebuild or refresh.
With what Paul says in Galatians it makes me think that the OC was restored to what in the beginning before Adam



Gal 3:13

13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law,
NKJV

Gal 3:19

What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions,
NKJV

[davo]

For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;

Notice the plural as to "covenants" and "promises" -- I don't see it so much as a return to that which was but rather a developing or refining to completion and fullness – that fullness has come and needs no more tweaking.

[adhitthana]

As I basically understand it, "the covenant" as initiated with Abram/aham and then further codified under Moses. Although there are clear distinctions in the NT to be made between "old" and "new" covenants, I tend to see it more in terms of "covenant renewal" – thus there was an overarching covenantal mandate for Israel that in the transitional period came into "regeneration" and "rebirth" and the like.

Ok :)
So, how do you see galatians 3?

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.




It was this overlapping of the ages/covenants that was outworked to fullness in restitution/restoration of all things.

Im not sure I understand this sentence, can you expand or reword it? Thanks. :)

[Lou]

Paul said that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law not of the OC.

Also Christ’s physical body was renewed into a spiritual body not destroyed and replaced.

[davo]

So, how do you see galatians 3?

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. "The law" which followed was simply given as a means of "guiding" the people until or up till the promised fulfillment etc. The problem came in that Israel interpreted their obedience to the law as their means of righteousness, i.e., self righteousness:

Deut 6:24-25 And the LORD commanded us to observe all these statutes, to fear the LORD our God, for our good always, that He might preserve us alive, as it is this day. Then it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to observe all these commandments before the LORD our God, as He has commanded us.’



It was this overlapping of the ages/covenants that was outworked to fullness in restitution/restoration of all things.
Im not sure I understand this sentence, can you expand or reword it?Sure… the NT speaks about the "restoration" or "restitution" or "times of refreshing" etc, all of which I see in terms of "covenant renewal" – this renewal was initiated in Christ's Ministry and ratified through Christ's Cross and then consummated at Christ's Parousia. Thus specifically the old covenant nature began to be in decay with the bringing in of the new covenant nature – like Israel coming out of bondage into blessing there was a forty year transitional period wherein this all outworked; somewhat a type or shadow of the NT "Cross to Coming" AD30-70 transitional period of forty years, where covenant promise translates into covenant fulfillment.


Paul said that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law not of the OC.True, however, "the law" and in particular its "observance" came to be all that the OC stood for – hence the "covenant renewal" that came via Christ's NC.


Also Christ’s physical body was renewed into a spiritual body not destroyed and replaced.Assuming you're talking about Christ's resurrection… as I understand it, Jesus had the selfsame body post resurrection as he had pre resurrection – there are gospel accounts of Jesus' physical "body" appearing as supra-natural well BEFORE his death and subsequent resurrection. I'd say "the Church" would more readily qualify as Christ's "spiritual body" etc.

[adhitthana]

"The law" which followed was simply given as a means of "guiding" the people until or up till the promised fulfillment etc. The problem came in that Israel interpreted their obedience to the law as their means of righteousness, i.e., self righteousness:

So do you see the promises (or covenant) as being with Israel or Christ or both?
Is the seed of Abraham the descendents of Abraham and his fighting men or just Christ?

I suppose what I am getting at (and I am just working through this myself) is that if the covenant is with the seed (singular) then what does that mean for any promises to the people of ancient Israel?

[Barry]

So do you see the promises (or covenant) as being with Israel or Christ or both?
Is the seed of Abraham the descendents of Abraham and his fighting men or just Christ?

I suppose what I am getting at (and I am just working through this myself) is that if the covenant is with the seed (singular) then what does that mean for any promises to the people of ancient Israel?

Just guessing but is this what you are getting at?
Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hbr 11:2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Hbr 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hbr 11:14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

Hbr 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Hbr 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

Barry

[Amie]

"The law" which followed was simply given as a means of "guiding" the people until or up till the promised fulfillment etc. The problem came in that Israel interpreted their obedience to the law as their means of righteousness, i.e., self righteousness:

Well said imo. Death reigned until Moses.


2Co 3:14 But their thoughts were hardened, for until the present time the same veil remains on the reading of the Old Covenant, not being unveiled, that it is being done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lies on their heart.
2Co 3:16 But whenever it turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Ex. 34:34

The above seems to equate Moses being read with the Old Covenant being read. Yet:


Hos 6:7 But, like Adam, they have broken the covenant; they have acted like traitors against Me there.

I'm thinking along the lines that some of you are - that there were many promises/covenants. Once they were kept (having been fulfilled), the consequence of that happening was new stuff.. if that makes sense :).

Amie

[davo]

So do you see the promises (or covenant) as being with Israel or Christ or both?With regards to covenant "fulfilment" it is with Christ – but it was so ON BEHALF OF Israel. Jesus was the first of the first-fruits ON BEHALF OF the whole harvest, i.e., all Israel.

Jesus was "true Israel", that is, all that historic Israel was to be in the world was found in Jesus – the world's light.


I suppose what I am getting at (and I am just working through this myself) is that if the covenant is with the seed (singular) then what does that mean for any promises to the people of ancient Israel?Again it means that the promises made to the fathers found fulfilment in Christ on their behalf. Even though in disobedience Israel had become "partially" hardened and thus "enemies" of the gospel and cross they remained "loved of God". It was Israel's redemption in Christ that secured the reconciliation of the rest of the world.


2Co 3:14 But their thoughts were hardened, for until the present time the same veil remains on the reading of the Old Covenant, not being unveiled, that it is being done away in Christ.
2Co 3:15 But until today, when Moses is being read, a veil lies on their heart.
2Co 3:16 But whenever it turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Ex. 34:34Isn't that interesting Amie… we know from Hebrews that God "finding fault with them" – not the OC as such, but "with them". IOW, the "fault" as it were of the old covenant actually lay with the people, or more importantly their approach to it, that is, they made IT their righteousness and thus their observance of it their derived righteousness – thus it became a "works" based performance they were unable to keep.

[adhitthana]

Again it means that the promises made to the fathers found fulfilment in Christ on their behalf.

Hmm..I am just now seeing that according to Paul (and I dont remember him contradicting this, just offhand) the promises were not made to Israel (the people) at all.
This was all a misundertanding.

I was involved in an interesting discussion a short while ago about pauls use of "seed". One person had asked whether this was a deliberate misuse of the term trying to "shoehorn" it to justify his messainic ideas about Jesus.

I discovered that early on in the OT we have the promise made to Abraham and his seed. As seed in hebrew means descendents it seem to refer to the people of Israel.
Later on it (typologically at the very least) refers to Solomon IIRC (I'll have to check this).
By the time of the dead sead scrolls, the promises of the prophets had seemingly not been fulfilled and so the identity of the seed has transformed itself yet again (to some living at that time) to the coming messiah.

Did it ever trully refer to Israel (the nation) or was that all just the misinterpretation of of jews not fully informed?
Do you see what I am getting at?

[davo]

Did it ever trully refer to Israel (the nation) or was that all just the misinterpretation of of jews not fully informed?
Do you see what I am getting at?What the Jews had come to misrepresent because they in their closed mindedness failed to understand was the purpose of 'the call' to be a blessing to all the families of the earth. Remember, "the promise" was relative to "the inheritance" – the promised inheritance was in regards to being "the heir of the world" – Jesus we know because of his obedience was declared by God to be not only "Christ" [Israel's Messiah] but also "Lord" [the world's Lord]; again something obtained via demonstratable faith and not law observance.

What Paul speaks to is the all important underlying prophetic nature inherent in the promise, i.e., it was something that would come to be fulfilled within Israel by Christ as the true Israel [vine], and yet salvation was of the Jews. IOW, without Israel there would be no Christ for the world, and yet Israel would only ever truly realise her place in God's priestly plan "in Christ". Mostly however they were bound and blind to their mission, BUT God did not allow such to derail His goodness [Rom 3:3-4a].