Old Covenant vs New Covenant

[Spock]

15 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

We are in 100% agreement on this.

 

I've enjoyed reading my Two powerful sisters in the Lord (Q and Shar) having a great discussion here....God's WAY!  It's obvious you both put God first in your lives. Nice job ladies. See what happens when you don't have testosterone getting in the way?  Lol

[thereselittleflower]

22 minutes ago, Shar said:

Thanks.  I understand your logic.  I personally don't like that Easter was substituted for anti-Semitic reasons, but I would never condemn a brother and sister in the Lord who wishes to keep it today.  I just ask they do the same for those who wish not to acknowledge it as our Lord's death, burial and resurrection.

I'm glad to see that this won't be construed as christians engaging in a pagan practice then.

 

 

[Ezra]

1 hour ago, Reinitin said:

Depends on how you look at the old covenant and the New Covenat. The Promise to Abraham is an older covenant then the covenant with Moses. Our covenant with Christ is the grafting in to the promises to Abraham. So which is truely the old covenant? Christ was promised before the foundations of the earth were made. PI am pretty sure that is older then Moses.

When Scripture contrasts the Old Covenant ("the first covenant") with the New Covenant, it is never with reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Noahic Covenant, or any other covenant. It is always a reference to the covenant made with Israel through Moses, and pertains to the sacrificial system under Moses vs the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. (Heb 9:1-2).

[Ezra]

23 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

I think the point being made here.....is that much of what we take as the old covenant including Genesis 3:15 occurred outside (or before) of the realm of the Mosaic covenant.  Every promise and restriction God gave to Adam, Seth, On through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and to the Israelite's in Egypt was Pre-Mosaic covenant. Including a great many of the Jehovah names

It is not necessary to bring in all these other matters beginning with Genesis 3:15.  The epistle to the Hebrews makes it very clear as to what we are discussing and what was posted in the OP. 

[Reinitin]

4 hours ago, Ezra said:

When Scripture contrasts the Old Covenant ("the first covenant") with the New Covenant, it is never with reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Noahic Covenant, or any other covenant. It is always a reference to the covenant made with Israel through Moses, and pertains to the sacrificial system under Moses vs the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. (Heb 9:1-2).

 

Correct in hebrews and in 2 cor "old covenant" (only 3 verses in the whole bible) is pertaining to moses covenant being a shadow in witness to Christs work on the cross and the condition of Israels heart. But, not ever being under Moses covenant (it had disappeared before my birth. 70 ad ) I see Gods plan and promise to us was always Christ. So its a very  "old "argument to people in a different time with veils over their heart wanting to keep the scepter instead of handing it off (like they were told they would have to do in genesis 49:10). So even in genesis, before moses Christ was the promise and the eternal covenant with God.

[Qnts2]

6 hours ago, Ezra said:

When Scripture contrasts the Old Covenant ("the first covenant") with the New Covenant, it is never with reference to the Abrahamic Covenant, or the Noahic Covenant, or any other covenant. It is always a reference to the covenant made with Israel through Moses, and pertains to the sacrificial system under Moses vs the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross.

Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. (Heb 9:1-2).

 

When speaking about the first covenant, or the preeminent covenant, it was the first covenant with the children of Israel, and the pre-eminent covenant as far as Israel was concerned. It is not the first covenant mentioned in scripture. The Oldest Covenant was actually the one between God and Adam in the garden which is no longer in effect. 

The term Old Covenant seems off, but the term first covenant to Israel/Hebrews is accurate.

So, I do believe that a discussion about the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant, it is valid to explore the term Old Covenant.

While the Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel, the Noachide Covenant was given to all descendents of Noah, so for Gentiles, can it be said that when a Gentile accepts the New Covenant, their Old Covenant is the Noachide covenant?

[Ezra]

49 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

The Oldest Covenant was actually the one between God and Adam in the garden which is no longer in effect. 

I don't believe you will find any reference to a "covenant" between God and Adam in Scripture.  That is an invention of Covenant Theology.  What you will find is a gift of the garden of Eden and a COMMAND to be obeyed upon penalty of death.

[Ezra]

58 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

The term Old Covenant seems off, but the term first covenant to Israel/Hebrews is accurate.

Not at all.  Actually "Old Covenant" (Testament) is the designation in Scripture for the Mosaic Covenant. "Testament" and "Covenant" are used interchangeably in Hebrews.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13)

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (2 Cor 3:14,15).

[Qnts2]

15 hours ago, Ezra said:

Not at all.  Actually "Old Covenant" (Testament) is the designation in Scripture for the Mosaic Covenant. "Testament" and "Covenant" are used interchangeably in Hebrews.

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13)

But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. (2 Cor 3:14,15).

Old Covenant is not the designation in scripture for the Mosaic covenant. The term old covenant in all mentions is a relative term.

In 2 Cor 3, the words are written to Gentiles. The differences are compared, and an emphasis is on Jesus, the Messiah, and how different the New Covenant is from the Mosaic covenant. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, but were brought into the New Covenant. 

In Hebrews, the words are addressed to Jewish people, who had the 'first' covenant, and now had the second/New Covenant.

Throughout the gospels and into the epistles, what is now called the Old Testament was not referred to using that terminology. What is called the OT today, was actually three books, the books of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim) and the Ketuvim (writings such as Psalms).

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  

So, there is no real division of scripture. The NT could not exist without the OT, but the OT stood alone until the time of Jesus. Jesus is spoken of in prophesy throughout the OT. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The term Old Testament has given the message that it is old and less usefull, but scripture itself disagrees. 

Old Covenant is used in a doctrinal way to explain the New Covenant or an explanation to Gentiles concerning the differences, not a label. Old Testament is a designation not used in reference to the books of Moses, Prophets and Writings, which is inaccurate and caused a lower view of scripture inspired by God.  

[thereselittleflower]

9 minutes ago, Qnts2 said:

Old Covenant is not the designation in scripture for the Mosaic covenant. The term old covenant in all mentions is a relative term.

In 2 Cor 3, the words are written to Gentiles. The differences are compared, and an emphasis is on Jesus, the Messiah, and how different the New Covenant is from the Mosaic covenant. Gentiles were never under the Mosaic covenant, but were brought into the New Covenant. 

In Hebrews, the words are addressed to Jewish people, who had the 'first' covenant, and now had the second/New Covenant.

Throughout the gospels and into the epistles, what is now called the Old Testament was not referred to using that terminology. What is called the OT today, was actually three books, the books of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (Neviim) and the Ketuvim (writings such as Psalms).

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  

So, there is no real division of scripture. The NT could not exist without the OT, but the OT stood alone until the time of Jesus. Jesus is spoken of in prophesy throughout the OT. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable. The term Old Testament has given the message that it is old and less usefull, but scripture itself disagrees. 

Old Covenant is used in a doctrinal way to explain the New Covenant or an explanation to Gentiles concerning the differences, not a label. Old Testament is a designation not used in reference to the books of Moses, Prophets and Writings, which is inaccurate and caused a lower view of scripture inspired by God.  

Qnts2  I have to disagree.  The context in which it is used points to what is meant in that scripture passage, the covenant given through Moses.

This entire chapter of Hebrews 8 is contrasting the Old, Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant in Christ.

• 4Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; 5who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “SEE,” He says, “THAT YOU MAKE all things ACCORDING TO THE PATTERN WHICH WAS SHOWN YOU ON THE MOUNTAIN.” 
• 6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

 

This is all contrasting the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant.   So when the writer says  "Old Covenant" he is pointing back to Moses.

 

We can't strip this out of its context and say it doesn't apply to what the context obviously makes it about -  what is old here, decaying and waxed old, and passing away, ready to disappear is the Old Mosaic covenant.