Covenant Transition

[didymus]

One man's tangent becomes another man's thread.

Morris said in another thread:

It's a side bar of this thread to say the least, but this is why I have difficulty with a "covenant transition period". Christ's flesh abolished the law on the cross. If "soon" truly meant "soon" then "It is finished" truly meant "finished".

Morris, I do not understand your difficulty with the covenant transition. The book of Hebrews does a good job at explaining it.

So, you got me curious, and I was wondering if you would explain further you difficulty. I started this thread for that purpose. So you can do that without feeling guilty of starting a tangent.

[Once4all]

I think the Law was abolished for those who would be crucified with him (baptized into his death). In other words, converted Jews were no longer under the Law. But until the destruction of Jerusalem—the heart and pulse of the Old Covenant Law—it was still a reality for unbelieving Jews, even though it was no longer a valid covenant in God's eyes. So the "transition" is one in appearance. God did not have two covenants active at the same time.

Sheldon, is this in agreement with how you see it?

[Morris]

May 26, 2010 13:48:27 GMT -5 Once4all said:

I think the Law was abolished for those who would be crucified with him (baptized into his death). In other words, converted Jews were no longer under the Law. But until the destruction of Jerusalem—the heart and pulse of the Old Covenant Law—it was still a reality for unbelieving Jews, even though it was no longer a valid covenant in God's eyes. So the "transition" is one in appearance. God did not have two covenants active at the same time.

Sheldon, is this in agreement with how you see it?

Yep, this sounds more like how I see it. As the writer of Hebrews put it, the old was obsolete even though it was still visible, but it was about to vanish.

[Morris]

Here's an interesting thought on the transition. First, let's look at Isaiah 66,

"This is what the LORD says:
"Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?

2 Has not my hand made all these things,
and so they came into being?"
declares the LORD.
"This is the one I esteem:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit,
and trembles at my word.

3 But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

4 so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring upon them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me."

5 Hear the word of the LORD,
you who tremble at his word:
"Your brothers who hate you,
and exclude you because of my name, have said,
'Let the LORD be glorified,
that we may see your joy!'
Yet they will be put to shame.

6 Hear that uproar from the city,
hear that noise from the temple!
It is the sound of the LORD
repaying his enemies all they deserve.

7 "Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.

8 Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children.


Thus Jesus says regarding the destruction of Jerusalem,
Matthew 24:8
"All these are the beginning of birth pains."

Isaiah declared that the birth comes first; the birth of a country, a nation. But then the 'mother' experiences the pains of the labour afterward.

Again we find,
1 Thessalonians 5:1-3
"Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape."

In a sense, you could say the 'transition period' was the time between birth and the labor pains.

Going back to the country/nation thought above;
and I'm sure this one is no surprise,
1 Peter 2:9
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."

Hebrews 11:16
"Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them."

Ephesians 2:6
"And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus"

[Once4all]

Awesome post! Thanks, Sheldon.

[MoGrace2U]

I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed that a lot of things prophecied from the heavenly perspective seem to have a backwards direction to them - probably because only the Lord knows the end from the beginning.

[Once4all]

May 26, 2010 23:15:27 GMT -5 MoGrace2U said:

I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed that a lot of things prophecied from the heavenly perspective seem to have a backwards direction to them - probably because only the Lord knows the end from the beginning.

Or a reversal of direction. For example,

From mankind, God chooses a people for Himself.
From that people a smaller group is chosen (12 tribes)
From those 12 tribes emerges one man, the Christ
By that one man, 12 apostles are chosen
By those 12 apostles, a larger group begins to gather (the church)
...

Imagine an hour-glass shape with Christ in the middle.

[didymus]

Okay folks,

I have a chart in my computer that shows the transition. Now how do I get here?

Didy

[Morris]

The only thing I can think of is to place it on an image-hosting site and then link to it in your post.

[Morris]

May 26, 2010 13:48:27 GMT -5 Once4all said:

God did not have two covenants active at the same time.

An additional thought regarding this, is that the writer of Hebrews notes that a covenant is essentially a will. Not only does it not come into effect until death, but there can only be one legal will in place.

Note Hebrews 8:13, "By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."" I know people often comment on the later portion of this verse but somehow nobody says much about the first part; the old covenant was voided (made obsolete) by the very existence of a new one.

[mellontes]

[quote author=morris board=any thread=527 post=4908 time=1275335380
Note Hebrews 8:13, "By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."" I know people often comment on the later portion of this verse but somehow nobody says much about the first part; the old covenant was voided (made obsolete) by the very existence of a new one.[/quote]

I guess the reason the present emphasis in preterism is on the former part of the verse is because it emphasizes first century eschatology. Not too many people have difficulty in associating the cross with the new covenant, which, in turn, makes the old covenant of no effect. However, the apostate Jews did not recognize this (and consequently did not believe this) and continually held to the old covenant economy right up to the parousia event. Dispensationalists believe the new covenant came into force at the cross, BUT ONLY FOR THE CHURCH. The new covenant won't be active for those Christ-hating Middle East people until the time of His appearing (again).

This is why the temple MUST be rebuilt so that it can be quickly destroyed again. Ezekiel is used for this particular idea. However, Ezekiel's prophecy includes offerings for sin for the specific purpose of ATONEMENT. This is ignored and played down as only required for "memorial" purposes...

But I suppose when one messes up what the "end" was all about in the first place, one has to do just about anything to justify their paradigm.

[didymus]

Okay, I think I understand. You guys are saying that at any one time there was only one covenant in force. At the cross, the first covenant was nailed to the cross with Christ, which, as Hebrews puts it, with the death of the testator, the New Covenant was in force since then. And since there was one covenant in force at any one time, there was no transition. So, it was the cross that ended one covenant, and began the new. The covenant of the flesh came to an end, the a spiritual covenant began.

Okay, that makes sense. But what about all the events in time between the cross and the parousia. Was that not, for the lack of a better word, a transition, like a birth? Our time in the womb is a transition, is it not? A transition from what we were before we entered the womb to what what we were/are after birth. Isn't that why it is written in Matthew 24.8, "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs"? -NASB. "... beginning of sorrows," in the KJV and NKJV. Greek - odin = birth pangs. The culmination of this birthing process was the parousia.

Does this clarify my position of a transition? However, you are quite right. There was only one covenant in force after the cross.

[Morris]

May 31, 2010 17:06:46 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Okay, that makes sense. But what about all the events in time between the cross and the parousia. Was that not, for the lack of a better word, a transition, like a birth? Our time in the womb is a transition, is it not? A transition from what we were before we entered the womb to what what we were/are after birth. Isn't that why it is written in Matthew 24.8, "But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs"? -NASB. "... beginning of sorrows," in the KJV and NKJV. Greek - odin = birth pangs. The culmination of this birthing process was the parousia.

Does this clarify my position of a transition? However, you are quite right. There was only one covenant in force after the cross.

The Bible describes this 'transition' as the time between birth and the labour pains (as I explored above). We naturally think about the pains first, leading up to the birth. However, in this context, scripture speaks of the birth first and then the pains/sorrows (judgment).

This is why I do not see this 'transition' period as resulting in a birth (of any kind), but rather the pain and sorrow (judgment) results from birth. Counter-intuitive indeed, but that is the way I see scripture describing it. As Isaiah put it, "Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things?"

[As always, remember that this is simply my opinion of what I see in scripture, and am therefore compelled to believe.]

[Morris]

May 31, 2010 15:08:18 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Dispensationalists believe the new covenant came into force at the cross, BUT ONLY FOR THE CHURCH. The new covenant won't be active for those Christ-hating Middle East people until the time of His appearing (again).

That's a whole other can of worms, but that's the kind of results one will come to when holding onto an interpretation of some scripture and using that to interpret other scripture, and never questioning the starting point.

But to be fair, the majority of dispensationalists I have met in my life don't fully understand what the system beliefs are. Many of them aren't even aware that other systems even exist. I was in that place myself at one time.

I remember thinking to myself, "How can the entire world of Christianity be wrong in this belief?" Then I discovered that the entire world of Christianity did NOT believe in futurism, but it still took a few years of study to see (and accept) the enormity of the error.

Now I'm rambling. Sorry.

[didymus]

Jun 1, 2010 9:27:59 GMT -5 Morris said:

The Bible describes this 'transition' as the time between birth and the labour pains (as I explored above). We naturally think about the pains first, leading up to the birth. However, in this context, scripture speaks of the birth first and then the pains/sorrows (judgment).

This is why I do not see this 'transition' period as resulting in a birth (of any kind), but rather the pain and sorrow (judgment) results from birth. Counter-intuitive indeed, but that is the way I see scripture describing it. As Isaiah put it, "Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things?"

[As always, remember that this is simply my opinion of what I see in scripture, and am therefore compelled to believe.]

To continue this birthing metaphor, is it not so that the greatest pain for the deliverer is in the actual delivery itself? So, if I understand the direction you are going in; Christ, our deliverer suffered the pain of the delivery at the cross. But, he had no pain in his resurrected body, did he? Then why did he describe the events of a tribulation and say it was the beginning of birth pangs, when it was after the deliverance?

[mellontes]

Jun 1, 2010 22:29:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

But, he had no pain in his resurrected body, did he?

What Scripture(s) leads you to believe this?

[Morris]

Jun 1, 2010 22:29:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

To continue this birthing metaphor, is it not so that the greatest pain for the deliverer is in the actual delivery itself? So, if I understand the direction you are going in; Christ, our deliverer suffered the pain of the delivery at the cross. But, he had no pain in his resurrected body, did he? Then why did he describe the events of a tribulation and say it was the beginning of birth pangs, when it was after the deliverance?

I sense some confusion here, at least regarding what Isaiah was saying.

The labour pains are experienced by the 'mother', as it says, "Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.

Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children."

Notice what is being said here; it is Zion that gives birth to a nation. The question becomes, do we see any notion of this in the NT? The answer, in my opinion, is yes:

1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." "

Jesus Christ was the one born by Zion. However, we must also notice that Isaiah spoke of a nation, and so does this passage, for we see that we are also likened unto living stones that built together. Am I stretching things too far? I don't believe so because just a few verses later, in verses 9 and 10, Peter says;

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Now, we know from Galatians chapter 3 that the promise to Abraham, that his offspring would be great in number and possess the land, referred to Christ. So how is it that we are able to be called living stones like Christ and a nation to God?

Galatians 3:29
"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

So Christ is the starting place, the one born of Zion and to whom the promises refer to. We become co-heirs and are built together with Christ to form a nation, a spiritual house. Therefore, as Isaiah said, a nation was born in a moment. And don't forget, this is the answer to the question God asks back in verse 1,
"Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?"

It is Christ who was born of Zion that Isaiah speaks of, not the baby Jesus being born in a stable, specifically, but rather the Christ who was 'born' as king and as a kingdom of those who believe in Him; the day the house of God was made and in which His spirit dwells.

Does this help to clear things up?

[mellontes]

Jun 2, 2010 12:53:39 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jun 1, 2010 22:29:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

To continue this birthing metaphor, is it not so that the greatest pain for the deliverer is in the actual delivery itself? So, if I understand the direction you are going in; Christ, our deliverer suffered the pain of the delivery at the cross. But, he had no pain in his resurrected body, did he? Then why did he describe the events of a tribulation and say it was the beginning of birth pangs, when it was after the deliverance?

I sense some confusion here, at least regarding what Isaiah was saying.

The labour pains are experienced by the 'mother', as it says, "Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.

Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children."

Notice what is being said here; it is Zion that gives birth to a nation. The question becomes, do we see any notion of this in the NT? The answer, in my opinion, is yes:

1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." "

Jesus Christ was the one born by Zion. However, we must also notice that Isaiah spoke of a nation, and so does this passage, for we see that we are also likened unto living stones that built together. Am I stretching things too far? I don't believe so because just a few verses later, in verses 9 and 10, Peter says;

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Now, we know from Galatians chapter 3 that the promise to Abraham, that his offspring would be great in number and possess the land, referred to Christ. So how is it that we are able to be called living stones like Christ and a nation to God?

Galatians 3:29
"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

So Christ is the starting place, the one born of Zion and to whom the promises refer to. We become co-heirs and are built together with Christ to form a nation, a spiritual house. Therefore, as Isaiah said, a nation was born in a moment. And don't forget, this is the answer to the question God asks back in verse 1,
"Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?"

It is Christ who was born of Zion that Isaiah speaks of, not the baby Jesus being born in a stable, specifically, but rather the Christ who was 'born' as king and as a kingdom of those who believe in Him; the day the house of God was made and in which His spirit dwells.

Does this help to clear things up?

Well put, Sheldon...

Do you think we could add this verse to the mix as well?

Hebrews 12:22 - But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

[Morris]

Jun 2, 2010 13:22:05 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Well put, Sheldon...

Do you think we could add this verse to the mix as well?

Hebrews 12:22 - But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

Thanks, mel, and indeed; I had that verse in my post when I was first putting it together but removed it because I felt it was getting too long (again), and it introduced even more expansion to the subject

Another passage that was going to be used along with that one was surrounding Galatians 4:25,26
"Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother."

[didymus]

Jun 2, 2010 6:18:45 GMT -5 @mellontes said:

Jun 1, 2010 22:29:01 GMT -5 @didymus said:

But, he had no pain in his resurrected body, did he?

What Scripture(s) leads you to believe this?

I don't have any off hand. That's why I asked the question. Do you believe the resurrected body of Christ did experience pain?

[didymus]

Jun 2, 2010 12:53:39 GMT -5 Morris said:

I sense some confusion here, at least regarding what Isaiah was saying.

The labour pains are experienced by the 'mother', as it says, "Before she goes into labor,
she gives birth;
before the pains come upon her,
she delivers a son.

Who has ever heard of such a thing?
Who has ever seen such things?
Can a country be born in a day
or a nation be brought forth in a moment?
Yet no sooner is Zion in labor
than she gives birth to her children."

Notice what is being said here; it is Zion that gives birth to a nation. The question becomes, do we see any notion of this in the NT? The answer, in my opinion, is yes:

1 Peter 2:4-6
"As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." "

Jesus Christ was the one born by Zion. However, we must also notice that Isaiah spoke of a nation, and so does this passage, for we see that we are also likened unto living stones that built together. Am I stretching things too far? I don't believe so because just a few verses later, in verses 9 and 10, Peter says;

"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of God; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy."

Now, we know from Galatians chapter 3 that the promise to Abraham, that his offspring would be great in number and possess the land, referred to Christ. So how is it that we are able to be called living stones like Christ and a nation to God?

Galatians 3:29
"If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

So Christ is the starting place, the one born of Zion and to whom the promises refer to. We become co-heirs and are built together with Christ to form a nation, a spiritual house. Therefore, as Isaiah said, a nation was born in a moment. And don't forget, this is the answer to the question God asks back in verse 1,
"Where is the house you will build for me?
Where will my resting place be?"

It is Christ who was born of Zion that Isaiah speaks of, not the baby Jesus being born in a stable, specifically, but rather the Christ who was 'born' as king and as a kingdom of those who believe in Him; the day the house of God was made and in which His spirit dwells.

Does this help to clear things up?

Yes, that does make things a bit clearer, and I agree 100%. But that still doesn't negate the transition. You quoted Hebrews 8.13 a while back. I agree, the old covenant was made obsolete. But, let's not deny the later part of the verse that says it was "soon to disappear." That means that it hadn't yet disappeared. The NKJV says it this way, "... Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." In that it says "becoming obsolete," indicates that it is not yet obsolete. "Growing old," indicates not old yet. "Ready to vanish away," indicates not vanished away yet.

This entire section is speaking of the priesthood of Christ, the new priesthood. But, according to Hebrews 8.4, there were still priests "who offer the gifts according to the law." So, as of the writing of Hebrews, there were still priests under the old Covenant still performing their priestly duties. This continued till the destruction of the temple, which put an end to the preists' ability to continue there duties.

This is where the idea of a transition comes from. Is this wrong?

[Morris]

Jun 4, 2010 18:05:18 GMT -5 @didymus said:

The NKJV says it this way, "... Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." In that it says "becoming obsolete," indicates that it is not yet obsolete. "Growing old," indicates not old yet. "Ready to vanish away," indicates not vanished away yet.

The NKJV may put it that way, but that isn't the way it is written; it is literally 'he has made old', 'which is growing old', and 'being decrepit'. The first two share the same root word while third is followed by 'is near of disappearance'.

I hate to say it, but it is possible that theology may have influenced that translation.

This entire section is speaking of the priesthood of Christ, the new priesthood. But, according to Hebrews 8.4, there were still priests "who offer the gifts according to the law." So, as of the writing of Hebrews, there were still priests under the old Covenant still performing their priestly duties. This continued till the destruction of the temple, which put an end to the preists' ability to continue there duties.

This is where the idea of a transition comes from. Is this wrong?

I think the idea comes from the fact that the practices of the law continued even though it was fulfilled. The remainder of Hebrews drives home the point that even though priests offered gifts according to the law, it was of no effect.

Hebrews 7:12
"For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law."

Hebrews 7:18,19
"The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God."

Hebrews 10:1-4
"The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."

Hebrews 10:18
"And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin."

Hebrews 10:26
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left"

Hebrews 13:9
"Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings. It is good for our hearts to be strengthened by grace, not by ceremonial foods, which are of no value to those who eat them."

This book goes to lengths to say that those offering sacrifices are no longer priests to God (the priesthood has now changed) and the sacrifices themselves do not remove sin but rather simply remind you of them. The sacrifice has been made; there are no others.

Isaiah described how God saw these priests,
"But whoever sacrifices a bull
is like one who kills a man,
and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck;
whoever makes a grain offering
is like one who presents pig's blood,
and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol.
They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

so I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and will bring upon them what they dread.
For when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, no one listened.
They did evil in my sight
and chose what displeases me."

God didn't phase the the old covenant out and the new one in. The old covenant became a covenant of judgment.

[didymus]

Jun 4, 2010 22:03:45 GMT -5 Morris said:

Jun 4, 2010 18:05:18 GMT -5 @didymus said:

The NKJV says it this way, "... Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." In that it says "becoming obsolete," indicates that it is not yet obsolete. "Growing old," indicates not old yet. "Ready to vanish away," indicates not vanished away yet.

The NKJV may put it that way, but that isn't the way it is written; it is literally 'he has made old', 'which is growing old', and 'being decrepit'. The first two share the same root word while third is followed by 'is near of disappearance'.

I hate to say it, but it is possible that theology may have influenced that translation.

Sorry Morris, but I can not find any evidence to support you contention. I have looked at other reputable translations, and they all agree with the NKJV. I have looked at my Greek/English Interlinear. It also agrees with the NKJV. When I can get to it, I will do a word study, using Strong's Concordance. In the meantime, Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament states the following regarding Hebrews 8.13:

"The whole statement indicates that the writer regarded the Sinaitic covenant, even in Jeremiah's time, as obsolete, and that Jeremiah himself so regarded it. When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of abrogation of the old. The new covenant is so shaped as to avoid the defects of the old one, and some one has remarked that, in one aspect, it is a criticism of the Sinaitic covenant. The following are its provisions: (1) The law will no more be merely external, but a law written in the heart. (2) The people will be on intimate and affectionate terms with God, so that the knowledge of God will be general. (3) Sin will be dealt with with more radically and effectively."

Vincent refers to Jeremiah. You'll find what he is referring to in Jeremiah 31.31-34. So, was the old covenant already obsolete when first announced by God through Jeremiah? You'll find Jeremiah quoted in Hebrews 8.8-12. Obviously, Vincent is correct. The writer of Hebrews is referring to Jeremiah 31.

But then the writer says, "Now," obviously pointing out the contemporaneous nature of the passage in Jeremiah to the time of the writing of Hebrews. "Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Vincent supports this language. I would quote what he said, but this computer does not have any Greek letters, and to quote what he said without the Greek would be insufficient.

So far, the literary evidence I have uncovered does not support your contention. Which is not intended as a view of you as a person. I hope you understand that. I will continue with my own word study.

Didy

[Once4all]

Jun 5, 2010 0:44:51 GMT -5 @didymus said:

... Vincent's Word Studies in the New Testament states the following regarding Hebrews 8.13:

...(1) The law will no more be merely external, but a law written in the heart...

You know how you can read something that you know and have read dozens of times, yet a new connection or thought can still come to you? That happened when I read your post, Tom. I can agree that the old covenant was already becoming useless in Jeremiah's day, which is also indicated by God saying that he was not pleased by their sacrifices.

Regarding the above line from Vincent's, I'm not sure I agree with the "merely" part, as though an external law still exists. I think the external was completely replaced by the internal. (Which can also be looked upon as physical vs. spiritual.)

The old law was on tablets of stone, the new law on our hearts. In other words, we don't have to go to an external source (the tablets) and view it or have it read to us, we KNOW it because it is engraved on our heart. And because God's Word is God (an exact representation of His heart and mind), that is how "all will know Him, from the least to the greatest" (Hebrews 8:10-11). With His law written on our hearts, we have no excuse.

Worship under the old covenant was conducted by sacrifices. That, too, was external worship and what was sacrificed was external (animals). Under the new covenant, sacrifices of worship are still made, but it is internal.

(Romans 12:1 NASB) Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

How do we "present our bodies" as a sacrifice? By living righteous lives. We take on the mind of Christ; we clothe ourselves with Christ. That is not a costume as many believe, to "fool" God into thinking he sees Christ when he looks at us. It is a way of living. Walking as Christ walked.

Whoops. I've climbed up on a soapbox and didn't even realize it. I'll step down now.

[didymus]

I'm sure that's what he meant, Bev. It was probably a point of contrast, at least that's the way I understood it. But don't you think that the internal law has external implications, as it is the internal that governs the external?

Did you ever read the book, "Inside Out"? It dealt with this very point.

Didy

[Morris]

Jun 5, 2010 0:44:51 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Sorry Morris, but I can not find any evidence to support you contention. I have looked at other reputable translations, and they all agree with the NKJV. I have looked at my Greek/English Interlinear. It also agrees with the NKJV. When I can get to it, I will do a word study, using Strong's Concordance.

My source for that transliteration was the Concordant Greek-English Sublinear - (Idiomatic).

Note some other commentaries (which I actually didn't view previously) which I think clarify even what Vincent stated;

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary
Heb 8:13
he — God.
made ... old — “hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant.” From the time of God’s mention of a NEW covenant (since God’s words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul’s argument turning wholly on the one word “NEW” (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

that which decayeth — Greek, “that which is being antiquated,” namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul’s time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, “nea”). Compare Hos_3:4, Hos_3:5.

Note also what Vincent said:

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old (τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενου καὶ γηράσκον)
Rend. but that which is becoming old and waxing aged. Γηράσκειν (only here and John 21:18) adds the idea of infirmity to that of age.

I think that a good analogy is that of something that is very aged, it may still be around but it is frail and not functional. It is old. It is getting older. It is decaying to the point where it will still disappear.

[didymus]

Then we are both wrong. The old covenant was already obsolete in Jeremiah's time. If it is predicated upon when God initially made the statement.

Take care guys.

Tom

[Once4all]

Jun 5, 2010 12:51:35 GMT -5 @didymus said:

I'm sure that's what he meant, Bev. It was probably a point of contrast, at least that's the way I understood it. But don't you think that the internal law has external implications, as it is the internal that governs the external?

Absolutely! Our external actions are evidence of our inward change. Saying or thinking that Christ is in you, without outward demonstration, is simply giving Christianity lip service without actually being a Christian. It is simply pretending or maybe wishful thinking.

Jun 5, 2010 12:51:35 GMT -5 @didymus said:

Did you ever read the book, "Inside Out"? It dealt with this very point.

No, I haven't. Had not even heard of it. I just read about it on Amazon and it sounds interesting. Thanks for mentioning it.

[didymus]

Jun 5, 2010 14:06:01 GMT -5 Morris said:

Note also what Vincent said:

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old (τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενου καὶ γηράσκον)
Rend. but that which is becoming old and waxing aged. Γηράσκειν (only here and John 21:18) adds the idea of infirmity to that of age.

I think that a good analogy is that of something that is very aged, it may still be around but it is frail and not functional. It is old. It is getting older. It is decaying to the point where it will still disappear.

Well, Vincent didn't use the term "very aged." He supports the language of the NKJV, and other translations in agreement. "Becoming old and waxing (growing) aged." The use of the word, "infirmity," does suggest the soon departure of "that age."

But, when did this happen? In Jeremiah's time? In the time of Christ? In the time of the apostles? Certainly, it is plain that the new covenant had it's beginning at the cross. But the old covenant did not come to it's final end until the temple was destroyed. That happened in 70AD.

You will agree that the old covenant had a temple system that included sacrifice and offering. The timing fits the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel perfectly. A portion of verse 9.27 reads, "He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation which is determined, is poured out on the desolate." Let me tell you, until preterism, I never understood this. This is yet another problem with futurism. This is referring to the end of the old covenant system of sacrifice and offering. Jesus referred to this as recorded in Matthew 24:15. The consummation of the temple system of sacrifice would end as the result of this "abomination of desolation."

Let's recap what had happened. History records that, I believe it was Titus, stood up in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be the God of the Jews, and told the temple servants to sacrifice a pig unto himself. And, I think he added, that they should spread the pigs blood around the temple. He was not claiming himself to be a god, he was mocking the God of heaven, and the Jewish religion. Then the temple was destroyed, ending the system of sacrifices forever. Thus, the old covenant system of sacrifice and offering came to an end, fulfilling the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel. But, from the cross to the destruction of the temple, the priests still practiced the old covenant system. It came to an end as both Daniel and Christ said it would. And that happened in 70 AD. To me, that indicates transition.

Didy

[didymus]

Bev wrote:

Absolutely! Our external actions are evidence of our inward change. Saying or thinking that Christ is in you, without outward demonstration, is simply giving Christianity lip service without actually being a Christian. It is simply pretending or maybe wishful thinking.

Okay, Bev. This "inward change." Are you saying that it does not effect doctrine? You agree that the inward change does effect our external actions. Is it too much of a stretch to say that this inward change also has an effect on our external doctrine? Look at your own life. Hasn't your doctrine changed as a result of the inward change? I tell you, mine has, several times. Each time, I hope I am getting closer and closer to the pure and perfect truth of God.

Didy