I was asked this question the other day by someone. "What should we pay attention too.... the Old Testament, or the New Testament, or both? What she was asking is essentially how much of the Old Covenant is brought over into the New Covenant? In a way that is a great question but, it also demonstrates some of the error in teaching that is out there among evangelicals. Essentially you have three main views. The dispensationalists believe that in some ways both, with the New Covenant having priority. Those who are New Covenant theologians see the New Covenant as the only one in force, and then there are the Covenant theologians that see but one covenant, which they call the "covenant of grace." It is a covenant between the Father and the Son for the redemption of humanity. All of them are somewhat right but all of them are equally wrong. I personally believe that the New Covenant theologians are the closest to right. The reason is that the ONLY covenant that is in force today is the New Covenant aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant.
In all of the above mentioned covenant views there is a presupposition or assumption. It is that the bible/scripture is a legal constitutional document between God and humanity; a prescriptive document that is a manual for right living. This is where all of the views fall short. While I admit that what we call the Old Testament was in a way a legal constitutional document between God and Israel it is no longer that. The reason is that Jesus and the first century apostles/disciples that wrote the New Testament documents began to see it as the redemptive narrative that was all about the Messiah.
Of course the terms new covenant and old covenant come from a passage in the writings of the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah's mention of a NEW covenant of necessity suggests that there is an Old Covenant. When most people think in terms of the old covenant what they really mean is the Mosaic Covenant given on Mt. Sinai. It is important to note that there are other covenants mentioned in the portion of scripture that we call the Old Testament. God made a covenant with Noah and Abraham prior to the Mosaic Covenant. There is also a covenant with King David that Isaiah referred to as "the sure mercies of David" Isaiah 55. In fact, it is the Abrahamic Covenant that made way for the Old Covenant but, as we shall see moving forward, the Abrahamic Covenant also made way for the New Covenant and the sure mercies of David. The Mosaic Covenant was parenthetical with the purpose of developing a people who would bring forth the Savior. It was also designed to be a tutor or a pedagogue to drive humanity to Jesus Christ for reconciliation and justification.
To try to define some terms here, Jesus referred to what we now call the Old Testament as the Law and the Prophets or sometimes he simply said the law when he was referring to the Old Testament scripture. At least that is what is recorded of Him in the Gospels. He was referring to the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the writings which make up the Jewish TaNaKh which is what they call the Old Testament. The word comes from the three sections of the Jewish sacred text or the Masoretic Text. They are the Torah (Pentateuch,) Nevi'ium, and Ketuvim or in other words the TNK and the Jewish acronym is TaNaKh.
So then Jesus clearly stated that the Law and Prophets were in effect through John the Baptist. Luke 16:16 NRSV "The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. So then, by Jesus own words the force of the Law and Prophets would come to an end with the prophet John the Baptist." Now I know, what about Matthew 5:17-20? Well, the fact is that ALL must have been fulfilled because jots and tittles were taken away from the law. How you ask? Well, Genesis 17:10-14 was eliminated based on Galatians chapter three and Acts chapter 15. The Gentiles could be part of the Abrahamic Covenant without being circumcised, and Genesis 17:10-14 clearly and completely prohibits it.
So the question remains, how do I see the covenants? My answer is somewhat nuanced. I think that Jesus has stated in the above Luke Text that the force of the Old Testament, the TaNaKh was coming to a closure. More than that however, as I have proven over and over in this blog with a preponderance of evidence, Jesus and his first century disciples were eliminating the legal constitutional reading of scripture in favor of a redemptive reading. Jesus stated in John 5:39-40 that the purpose of the scripture was to point to Him. More than that, In Luke chapter 24 it is recorded that Jesus actually opened their minds to understand the scripture and see that it was all about him (Luke 24:27; 43-45.) Even further, it is recorded in Revelation chapter five that the Lamb of God, Jesus, opened the scroll to those who could not read and understand it.
Paul states quite clearly in Galatians chapter three that the Gentiles are brought into the Abrahamic Covenant through Christ Jesus. Paul's point is that Jesus is the promised seed of Abraham. Further, that since Abraham received the promise before circumcision, that the Gentiles could and would be included in the family of God as the children of Abraham based upon the faith of the promised seed, Jesus the Christ. This was the content of the good news... the gospel.
The gospel contained a better way to achieve righteousness. It was not from a legal point of view but rather from the view point of total unconditional justification based on the faith OF Christ (Galatians 2:16.) You will see the actual wording faith of Christ and not faith in Christ in the KJV, the NET, and the YLT. The clear fact is that it was the faith of Christ in the original Greek text. The gospel operates in the following way. When proclaimed, it gives peace with the Father, (Romans 5:1,) that translates into love for the Father, which in turn when proclaimed often and heard often produces love in the individual toward his neighbor which according to Jesus is everyone including what we see as our enemies.
The bottom line is that it is the New Covenant, and the gospel that are now in charge. The Mosaic Covenant ended with the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. The Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants are part of the New Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant can still be beneficial when not looked at as Law whereby one can become righteous.
I began this blog in 2009 to chronicle my paradigm shift. It came about because I was concerned with the way that current evangelical dogma caused such bondage and fear. I had grown tired of people manipulating others for power, prestige, and to perpetuate a system that was very likely incorrect, and had been developed after the first century to keep people under control. I dedicate this to those who have been victims of spiritual abuse, and for those who have not yet realized they are.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Six Reasons Why Bishop Carlton Pearson Was Right About Hell: A Biblical and Historical Perspective
The story of Bishop Carlton Pearson’s transformation from a prominent Pentecostal preacher to a vocal proponent of what he calls the “Gospel...
-
The introductory post explains the purposes, goals and scope of this blog. If you have not read it, I suggest you start there and then, l...
-
Mat 24:15 "So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader...
-
Isaiah 55:1-4 "Come, everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; and he who has no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk ...
No comments:
Post a Comment