Hi GC: Here is a revamp of our conversation:





This is the only text you used and then you say to me:



If I understand your point you are saying that because the Bible uses the term “My Covenant” in both the covenant to Noah and to Abraham that they are the same covenant. What you are not taking into consideration are the differences such as the content of the covenants. I think content has a lot more to do with similarity than does who gave the covenant or whether or not the covenants were an expression of God’s grace.



I asked you for text supporting your claim that Noah’s and Abraham’s covenants were the same and you gave me one text that I had already quoted and three Ellen White quotes. None of which verified your claim or gave me any of the evidence that I requested.

scott

Scott,

To be honest, this last post of yours confuses me. I'm obviously missing something here, because when I just quoted dozens of texts in the last post, you still are contending I only used one. You have mingled my statement in the above post from at least two separate posts of mine, and then seemed to have used your assessment of the first as carry-over on the second. Anyhow, I'm not sure I should be trying to explain how it came across, because I'm quite confused by it.

Let me state it this way:

I believe that there is ONE God, ONE law, ONE covenant, and that these are ONE. The law is a revelation of God's character, e.g. a part of God. The covenant He makes with us is to bless us as we obey His law. This, too, is just like God--a part of His character.

Every example of the covenants that I gave in my prior post which included the phrases "my covenant", "everlasting", "my statutes", "my commandments", and so forth are evidence of a COMMON THEME. They are intertwined. That's what I was trying to show, although perhaps did not well explain.

Did you miss the entire section I gave providing texts for the correlation between God's covenant and God's covenant?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

GC, I'm not understanding the idea that the Old Covenant is the same as the New. How do you understand what Jeremiah wrote? Also EGW's comment that rather than seeking to establish our own righteousness (OC) we accept the righteousness of Christ (NC)?

Also there are two laws. One law is eternal, the other was nailed to the cross (Col. 2:14). I presented an EGW statement regarding this as well. I don't recall your responding to this either. Sorry if you did, and I'm making you repeat yourself.

Regarding your conversation regarding the EC with Scott, I'm eagerly following it, as I think I'm agreeing with the overall idea you have. It seems to be similar to what Hubert was presenting, if you read earlier in the other thread I think ("The Everlasting Covenant" thread).

Hi GC:

If you read post #100548 (7/04/08 at 11:29am) I challenged you to provide me with what I thought was non-existent biblical evidence that the Noahatic and the Abrahamic covenants were the same.

You responded in post #100603 (7/05/08 at 8:02pm) that you would grant my request and you presented one text from the bible and three Ellen White quotes.

I responded to you in post #100606 (7/05/08 at 8:34pm) and told you:



You answered my me in post #100608 (7/05/08 aat 9:38pm) with a list of texts from the bible to support your claim. In this post you say:



If you read these posts in order you will realize that you provided me with the Bible quotes after I made the statement about the watermelon and the cucumber. Thus my last post tried to explain this.

I would like to continue our discussion if possible. I will repeat my last post before we went on this wild goose chase.

scott

Hi GC:
Here is my last post that considers the texts you quoted from the Bible.

Scott,

Your contractor analogy is a good one, and you've made a good case with it. I understand what you are saying; now let me try to explain better how I see things.

The big picture is that God's covenant is one of salvation. He offers this equally to all. But, God has referred to His plan of salvation in myriad ways and times. Does this mean that each is its own unique plan? Are they not linked together into one and the same?

Let me illustrate where I'm going, here, with some Bible texts:

Genesis 3:15 - God tells Adam and Eve:
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." (Genesis 3:15, KJV)

This was the first promise of salvation. Adam and Eve had the capacity to understand its import to them, and looked for one their own sons to fulfill the promise.

God promises Abraham:
"And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;" (Genesis 26:4, KJV)

Abraham understands the message to refer to the future Messiah as well (though this title may not have been used yet). His grandson passes on the promise of God's covenant to his children in these words:

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be." (Genesis 49:10, KJV)

The message becomes more and more clear each time it is given.

"And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words." (Exodus 24:8, KJV)

Tokens are added to symbolize God's promised salvation.
The rainbow: salvation from deluge; the circumcision: setting apart to be God's special people; the blood: representing the future Sacrifice that would bear their sins.

Each addition to the covenant reveals a little more about how God would keep His promise; each time God encourages His people to keep looking for the promised Salvation.

God weaves His Law into the covenant, showing them how it is related to their salvation from sin:

"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant." (Exodus 31:16, KJV)

"And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." (Exodus 34:28, KJV)

The covenant is everlasting:
"And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel." (Numbers 25:13, KJV)

This, to me, is a clear allusion to Jesus, our High Priest, who is "from everlasting to everlasting." The "covenant" here is a Messianic prophecy, and beyond. Jesus' death on the cross did not end His role as our High Priest. The covenant is still in effect.

"Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;" (Deuteronomy 7:9, KJV)

We have not even seen a thousand generations yet.
"Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant," (1 Chronicles 16:15-17, KJV)

Let me address the Old and New Covenants in another post. I believe they are the same, but it will take some explanation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

ON THE WORD "NEW"

In order to understand the terms "new covenant" and "new testament" correctly, I feel it is important to understand the biblical sense of the word "new." Pardon the length of this, but if you read it carefully, I promise not to repeat this content again later.

For clarity's sake: I have done this study following the King James Version Bible, and its usage, so bear with me if any of the analysis seems not to fit with a more "modern" version--as I do not attempt to make this study apply to all versions.

The word "new" first appears in the Bible in one verse in Exodus, when speaking of a new king in Egypt. It does not appear again until Leviticus, where we begin to see how it is used:

"Even unto the morrow after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meat offering unto the LORD." (Leviticus 23:16, KJV)

Notice how "new" is used. It refers to a repetition, or recurrence of an action, not a change in type. I will not attempt to say here, that EVERY use of "new" in the Bible has this same sense, for some of them certainly do refer to new in type (and one might benefit from studying the Hebrew and Greek here). However, if you follow this carefully, you will soon see how frequently the word "new" is used in a way that does not mean different or new in type or kind.

"Also in the day of the firstfruits, when ye bring a new meat offering unto the LORD, after your weeks be out, ye shall have an holy convocation; ye shall do no servile work:" (Numbers 28:26, KJV)

If the meat offering were of a different type each year they did this, soon they would run out of clean animals to bring!

"So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat." (1 Samuel 20:24, KJV)

Have you ever wondered why we call it the "new moon"? It's the same old moon that always was there before. The word "new" is merely alluding to a repetitive event, a new occurrence of the same event which has happened before.

"For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God." (Nehemiah 10:39, KJV)

I interpret this to mean the same as saying "fresh wine." It does not mean that the wine is different than any wine ever made. It is, again, a recurrence of that which has come before.

"And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD." (Psalms 40:3, KJV)

Does this mean that no one had ever praised God before? No, this is, again, just declaring that the song is "fresh." Praises to God are sung "again" or "anew."

This "new song" concept occurs frequently. "O sing unto the LORD a new song: sing unto the LORD, all the earth." (Psalms 96:1, KJV)

Solomon goes so far as to say:
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." (Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, KJV)

This obviously refers to new in type, but its message is of interest.

God speaks through Isaiah:
"For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind." (Isaiah 65:17, KJV)

We often talk about this "earth made new." Does it mean another planet somewhere that we have never seen before? Or is it just the same earth we have now, restored to its former beauty? made again, fresh, anew?

Speaking of the Lord's mercies, Jeremiah writes:
"They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness." (Lamentations 3:23, KJV)

But does this mean God was not merciful before? Once again, this is not new in type, but referring to a recurring event, new in time.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh." (Ezekiel 36:26, KJV)

Again, these do not refer to new in type, but new in the sense of "fresh," "renewed," "restored." Our hearts have become hardened, like stone. God wants to restore them to perfect condition.

"And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine." (Ezekiel 47:12, KJV)

The fruit here is continually growing, so that there is "fresh" fruit all the time. Each month may have a fresh variety, but this is a cycle that will repeat.

"No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse." (Matthew 9:16, KJV)

Was cloth never made before? No, that cannot be the case, for the garment is itself made of cloth. Probably the same kind of cloth. The difference is that the "new" cloth is "fresh."

Multiple times we hear these terms in the Bible. I won't go to every verse. "A new generation," "a new king," etc. all represent a repetition of that which has come before.

When Jesus offered His blood as a "new testament," did this mean that blood had never been offered as a testament before? No. We had many such testaments offered before. Jesus' testament was only the most recent, and might I add the best and last one necessary.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matthew 26:28, KJV)

If one wishes this to mean "new in type or kind," and I think it has this meaning as well (double meaning here), then I think he or she would look at this as saying "instead of the blood of animals, you will now drink this wine as a symbol of my blood."

"Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." (Mark 14:25, KJV)

In these words of Jesus, He clearly says He will drink it "again" with us in Heaven.

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;" (Mark 16:17, KJV)

I'm learning a new "tongue"--Chinese. Is it a "new" language? Hardly! It is perhaps the oldest language on earth. It is only "new" to me. When Jesus speaks of the "new" commandment:

"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another." (John 13:34, KJV)

He likewise renewed, or directed to me, an OLD commandment:

"...but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18, KJV)

The "New Covenant" is a fresh presentation of the "Old Covenant."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Hi GC,

The word “new” in Leviticus 23:16 in reference to the meat offering is the Hebrew word “chadash” and it simply means something that is new or fresh. Meat spoils and therefore has to be replaced very frequently and this is the context. Notice the comparison in Leviticus 26:10 “And ye shall eat old store, and bring forth the old because of the new.”

The reason for the name “new meat offering” is because it was replaced often so as not to become full of maggots and stinking. The old was continually replaced by the new. You said, “you will soon see how frequently the word "new" is used in a way that does not mean different or new in type or kind.” And you are right in this case because meat is meat is meat is meat and God only made a few types of lamb and to use the word “chadash” meaning a new different type would have force Israel to travel the world in search of different species related to sheep, goats, and cows.


I see your point, but I don’t agree with your application. The word “chadash” can mean something that is repeated continually or something that is brand new exactly like we use the word to describe a new car or a whole new way of transporting people by displacing their molecules and reassembling them on another planet. The word new has to be put in context in order to apply its meaning. What you are doing is finding a multitude of times the word “new” is used describing a continuum and making the claim that “new” is always in reference to a continuum.

I think it would be good for us to see how the NT bible writers translated “New Covenant” in the Greek. The Greek word they used is “kainos” which means recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn as respects substance of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of.

The Greek word is not talking about getting a new car when the old one wears out, but a whole new way of transportation like a space ship. This same word is used for “new man in Christ” and a “new creature in Christ”. Do you think that God is going to repair or restore our old nature or do you think that the old man has to die and become a new man?

In fact the Greek uses the word “noumenia” for new moon which is a combination of “neos” and “men”. “Neos” meaning younger or youngest and “men” meaning month. Youngest month! Why didn’t the Greek use the word “kainos” with month?

What I hear you saying is that because “new” is used many times in the OT for things that cycle or continue that when it is used describing covenant that it must be talking about a cycle or continuum. I believe you are operating on a false premise and I believe the NT proves my point very well. The NT writers could have chosen words that mean a continuum or something refreshed, but it didn’t. So I am left to either believe your interpretation of the text or their's.

Even though I don’t believe the Bible supports your take on “new” I don’t believed that the NC was new in the sense of newer than the old. In fact I believe the NC existed from the Genesis 3:15 in the promise that God would send a man to redeem humankind. The reason it is called new is because it was ratified, put in effect, the terms were met, however you want to put it, at the cross. The OC was ratified by the blood of animals, but the NC was ratified by the blood of Christ after Sinai. That is why it is called “new”.

There are major differences in the covenants:

1) The OC was only to Abraham’s physical children, but the NC was to all of mankind.
2) The OC had an earthly sanctuary, but the NC has a heavenly sanctuary.
3) The OC had and earthly priesthood, but the NC has Jesus as our High Priest and those who believe in Him are the priesthood of all believers.
4) The OC had animal sacrifices which didn’t cause maturity those who did them, but the NC has Christ as the sacrifice which causes us to see God’s love and mature in that love.
5) The OC sacrificed daily, monthly, and yearly, but the NC there is only one sacrifice and when it was made it was finished.
6) The ceremonies of the OC were a compacted prophecy of Jesus and when He came they were all fulfilled and we are no longer required to act them out.

But outside of building a theology out of words I would like to suggest that we go to one of the two places in the Bible where systematic theology covers this subject. And we find that theology in Galatians 4 where Paul says in verse 24-26: ”Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”

The 2nd place we find it is the whole book of Hebrews where we see Jesus as the fulfillment of the OC and now that He has come the OC has become obsolete and ready to pass away.

Both the OT and NT tell me there are 2 covenants and you tell me there is one. Who am I supposed to believe?

Also in your presentation you don’t include anything about God’s covenant to Noah which is the point we were discussing first.

I really do see your point. I agree that God has had a plan from the beginning and that every dealing He has had with mankind is another expression of His plan. Had He not entered covenant with Noah there would be no family to bring the Messiah through. You also must realize that this is the position you have set yourself to prove:



The Old Covenant was based on the principle of “keep the law and live”, but the New Covenant was based on the principle that “God would send a Messiah to save us from ourselves”. This is why the law stands in condemnation of us and the gospel shows us God’s gracefulness and our acceptance in Him. Two different covenants with two different sets of principles!

The fact that there are two covenant is the reason we there is so much discussion in the NT about the law and grace. We have a covenant of law and a covenant of grace. One leads to bondage and one to freedom. One condemns us and the other frees us from our condemnation. One is a taskmaster while the other reveals a Friend and Lover. One was only for the physical children of Abraham and the other is for the whole world to see God's graciousness.

scott

Thank you. At least you have understood my perspective. I appreciate that.


You didn't read carefully. I very clearly stated that I did not apply this usage to every occurrence of the word. What I am stating, however, is that the word is frequently used this way, and therefore it casts doubt on the usage of "new in type." In other words, since it could have more than one meaning, we must not rush to judgment as to what it means without careful study.


Is that so? "A new commandment I give unto you..." Care to guess which Greek word that was? Ah....perhaps now you will begin to see this from a "new" perspective.

Jesus was OBVIOUSLY not talking about a "new spaceship" here. Yet the word is "kainos." Look carefully at what "kainos" means. It is NOT the same as "neos," which would be "new" in the sense of type or kind. If he wanted to describe a new spaceship, as opposed to the old car, the word should have been "neos."


Actually, the word "new moon" in the Bible is a single word. The word "new" is just part of its English equivalent. I found a comment in my Strong's Concordance on the Greek word for new which I find rather unsettling, for it appears to be an insertion of someone's interpretation as to the intent of the word, as opposed to an actual translation of its meaning. This should be a no-no. It's the same error committed repeatedly in the NIV, often grievously.


No, I'm not limiting this to the OT. However, I did run out of time (and space) toward the end and did not add in as many texts from the NT as I might have. The example of "new commandment" being "kainos", however, should be sufficient to mark out the usage for "kainos" in the Greek, and the parallel with the Hebrew in this sense. It is no different. Kainos may be used more than one way, just like the Hebrew words for "new."


This is puzzling to me. If you are already agreeing with me, essentially, then how can you be disagreeing at the same time?


Alright, let's break this down point-by-point.
1) Incorrect. The Old Covenant is for all people, not just the children of Abraham. The fact that the Jews kept the knowledge of it to themselves is merely to their own condemnation. God desired them to be a light to the nations around them.
2) Sort of. I believe there has always been a sanctuary in Heaven. The earthly one was given as a model of it. But, yes, the earthly sanctuary was destroyed, and not permitted to be rebuilt. God wanted the "sanctuary" to be thought of as a place in our hearts, in our "body temple", as opposed to a physical place on earth.
3) Jesus has always been our High Priest..."after the order of Melchizedek."
4) Sacrifices don't cause maturity. Jesus' sacrifice, in this particular, is no different. There are plenty of people on earth today who scoff at it. God's love has always been evident. Many were the wonders God worked for His people throughout the times of the Old Testament. Many, too, were the praises they sang to God in return. Interestingly, there are no books of praise in the New Testament that resemble the praises of David (Psalms) of the Old. Does this mean we no longer need praise God? Of course not. It does show a strong relationship with God on David's part, and I do not believe he had any disadvantage in terms of realizing God's love.
5) Yes and no. We should be daily worshiping God still.
6) Agreed.



How many laws are there? It depends on how you count. As I've said before, whether you say there were 10 Laws, hundreds of laws, 2 laws, or some other figure, they all boil down to just one law: love. None of the laws operates from a different principle than this. The same is true of the covenants. If you want to split them up on a per-presentation/renewal basis, we can have many of them. They all boil down to one.


Not different. The difference lies in your understanding. There is no contradiction in the Bible.

Why did the people sacrifice animals? Because "God would send a Messiah to save us." You have stated something as applying to the New Covenant, which I think applies more fittingly to the Old.

As for the covenant to Noah, it certainly remains in effect today, or do you disagree? And it was not just to "the descendants of Abraham," since Abraham did not even yet exist. If it were to "just" the descendents of Noah, I think it's quite clear to whom it applies: ALL. However, the Bible is clear enough...let it do the explaining.

"And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:" (Genesis 9:12, KJV)


The law does not "lead us to bondage." The law simply shows us that we ARE in bondage. If we are sinning today, Paul says we are "in bondage to sin." I think this still applies now, don't you? Can I sin now, and not be in bondage to the sin?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Here's a quote I've often presented, although to date I don't believe it's had any impact.