Old Covenant or New Covenant and the Law

[Menno]

Of course the Old Testament in particular, is filled with stories of war, judgment, and violence. What is labeled as the "wrath of God" is on display during the time of the Old Covenant.

However, very rarely is the "wrath of God" an added judgment on someone; in other words it is not an added consequence to one's actions. Rather, the "wrath of God" is the natural outcome of one's personal sin. It is the natural outcome of "cause and effect". Romans 1:28 "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper"

Let us also point out that often times the "effect" or "consequence" of sin, (that which is seen as punishment) is sin itself. Looking at the account of Cain in Genesis 4, God not only tells Cain why he is to be punished, but also what that punishment will be and how it will be accomplished. Sinful men will "drive him out". Sinful men will no longer tolerate Cain. This is the natural law at work.

However, we are aware that the moral law, that which Christians are to operate under, tells us that we are to return good for evil! Therefore, under the moral law - Cain would not be driven out. God actually stepped in, and prevented natural law from being fully exercised - Cain was not to be touched (ie: killed).

In meting out punishment, the punishment itself is often times sin - that is how natural law works. A clear example of this is David, who is described as being a "man after God's own heart" yet was not permitted to build the temple, because David was a man of war and had blood on his hands.

For the Christian, we are bound not to the natural law, but the moral law through the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant. Therefore, as believers in Covenant with God, bound to the moral law - we are not to operate under the "natural law".

The divine wrath of God requires that man suffers the natural consequences of his sin, however the Christian is not an agent of God's wrath. That role has been passed to the State, who operates as an agent of God's wrath in carrying out the punishment under natural law.

When God acts in the Old Testament, it is because of man's response to God. War is an "effect" of man's actions - it is the outcome of the natural law of "cause and effect". Israel's fighting was a result of her sins. God's permissible will meets us at our level. While God desires us to operate and live under His moral law, we all to often to do live up to that standard and operate under the natural law.

For example, God did not desire for Israel to have an earthly King. Yet after much protest, God allowed for their to be a king, under God's permissible will. God allowed for their to be a king (keep in mind Romans 1:28 - he gives us over to our depraved mind) and the consequences that follow.

------------------------------------------------

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Hebrews 8:7-13

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

 

[TheCatholic]

You do realize, don't you, that there are six covenants in the Bible?

Adamic (established with Adam )
Noahic (established with Noah )
Abrahamic (established with Abraham )
Mosaic (established with Moses )
Davidic (established with David )
New Covenant (established by Christ )

To enter into a covenant is to enter into a Family. That is part of Jewish culture. To enter into THESE covenants is to enter into the Family of God.

Readers will note that each covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: A man & wife, a family, a tribe, twelve tribes, a kingdom, and finally the whole world.

This was God's plan of salvation from the beginning, which was to bring more and more people back into a relationship with him.

This is the key to understanding authentic Christianity, and to understanding the Church, which today is the Family of God, the People of God.

 

[Menno]

Is there a reason why you felt the need to enlarge your font for your response?

 

[TheCatholic]

Is there a reason why you felt the need to enlarge your font for your response?

Only because, of the many things I have learned over the years, what I posted is the most important to understanding God's plan of salvation for mankind

 

[Menno]

Also, your understanding of Covenant is incorrect. Covenants were not necessarily entered to become a part of a family.

Rather, they were entered into by equal parties. The amazing thing about God entering into Covenant with humanity, is that we could not and cannot fulfill our obligation in the Covenant.

 

[TheCatholic]

Also, your understanding of Covenant is incorrect. Covenants were not necessarily entered to become a part of a family.

Rather, they were entered into by equal parties. The amazing thing about God entering into Covenant with humanity, is that we could not and cannot fulfill our obligation in the Covenant.

I say that it is your understanding that is incorrect, no mine. But having read some of your other posts in this forum, I know that trying to explain it to you would be an excersize in futility

 

[Slyvena]

Guys WHO CARES!!

I don't care what the technical description of what a covenant is!!!!!

It hasn't had any effect on my walk so far, I just learn more about God and discover more about his plan for my life each day, what does it matter what the official description of the covenant I'm under is, I'll just follow the rules obediently and let that be that.

I don't think it was Gods plan from the start, I think that each new covenant was God giving humanity a chance, and each time with stuffed up he made it easier and became more involved, finally when we really just couldn't get it right he sent his Son and the Holy Spirit which basically goes along the lines of, "I've removed the barrier to the holy of holies, I've given you an entity that can at any point in time give you exactly the right words to say and allow you to heal all infirmities, I have built an entirely new system for my followers to allow easy conversion and learning of the way, if you guys don't do it right this time then I'm out of ideas!"

But TheCatholic despite your rather rude last post I'm am intrigued, please go ahead and explain for my benefit and others. I am not so arrogant as to assume I've got it all right (I am human after all) so please present your reasons for your viewpoint on the covenants etc, (not that it truly matters in the larger scheme of things)

 

[TheCatholic]

.....I don't care what the technical description of what a covenant is!!!!!

And after little rant and rave, I am supposed to care about reading the rest of your post?

 

[jasoncran]

everheard of the near kinsmen?

 

[TheCatholic]

everheard of the near kinsmen?

Yup. In what context are you referring to them?

 

[jasoncran]

everheard of the near kinsmen?

Yup. In what context are you referring to them?

The idea that convenants were set up so that jesus could be a near kinsmen redeemer to all.

 

[Slyvena]

.....I don't care what the technical description of what a covenant is!!!!!

And after little rant and rave, I am supposed to care about reading the rest of your post?

somewhat uncalled for but whatever, If you'd read my post you'd of known I was still interested in your reasoning anyway, but oh well. I hope you don't showcase this kind of attitude when unbelievers disagree with you

 

[TheCatholic]

everheard of the near kinsmen?

Yup. In what context are you referring to them?

The idea that convenants were set up so that jesus could be a near kinsmen redeemer to all.

Hmmm. We are not merely kinsmen to Jesus, we truly are part of his family, but by adoption to the Father and not by blood. Let me quote my first post:

You do realize, don't you, that there are six covenants in the Bible?

Adamic (established with Adam )
Noahic (established with Noah )
Abrahamic (established with Abraham )
Mosaic (established with Moses )
Davidic (established with David )
New Covenant (established by Christ )

To enter into a covenant is to enter into a Family. That is part of Jewish culture. To enter into THESE covenants is to enter into the Family of God.

Readers will note that each covenant encompasses a larger and larger group of people: A man & wife, a family, a tribe, twelve tribes, a kingdom, and finally the whole world.

This was God's plan of salvation from the beginning, which was to bring more and more people back into a relationship with him.

This is the key to understanding authentic Christianity, and to understanding the Church, which today is the Family of God, the People of God.

NOW let add this to my first post:

Up through to the time of Jesus, the people of God were actually related by blood. Oh, yes, occassional outsiders were brought into tribes (again, by means of a covenant), but when Jews spoke of Father Abraham or the "fathers", they really meant it: The people of God were alll blood related.

When Jesus came, in order to extend Gods covenant to all mankind, he "spiritualized" the relationship. Now we are all the Family of God, but not by blood: Now we are all the Family of God spiritually.

I would really like to go further into this, but soon I will stray into the Catholic POV. Oh what the heck, I'll stray just a leeeeetle bit.

So even though we are all brothers and sisters spiritually now and not by blood, the basic structure of the People of God remains. This is why we call priests "father", and some nuns "mother" (like mother Theresa). We call the Pope father just as all Jews called Abraham "Father Abraham". (Even Jesus called Abraham "Father Abraham")

Now, the people of God is truly world-wide, still a pyramid structure, but joined by spirit and not by blood. And, instead of circumcision being the sign of the covenant, now baptism is.

Anyways, please folks, lets not debate that last part. Its sort of against forum rules. Sorry. But still, suffice to say that we enter into the Family Of God by means of "covenant".

So, to your point: We are not merely kinsmen to Jesus, we truly are part of his family, but by adoption to the Father.

 

[TheCatholic]

.....I don't care what the technical description of what a covenant is!!!!!

And after little rant and rave, I am supposed to care about reading the rest of your post?

somewhat uncalled for but whatever, If you'd read my post you'd of known I was still interested in your reasoning anyway, but oh well. I hope you don't showcase this kind of attitude when unbelievers disagree with you

Sorry if I misread you. Perhaps my last post will clarify my reasoning

 

[Slyvena]

And after little rant and rave, I am supposed to care about reading the rest of your post?

somewhat uncalled for but whatever, If you'd read my post you'd of known I was still interested in your reasoning anyway, but oh well. I hope you don't showcase this kind of attitude when unbelievers disagree with you

Sorry if I misread you. Perhaps my last post will clarify my reasoning

yeah, it was a good read to hear the whole structure summarised up that way, the little bit of catholic stuff was interesting too, I didn't know thats why you did that. The things you learn

 

[(THE)]

Of course the Old Testament in particular, is filled with stories of war, judgment, and violence. What is labeled as the "wrath of God" is on display during the time of the Old Covenant.

However, very rarely is the "wrath of God" an added judgment on someone; in other words it is not an added consequence to one's actions. Rather, the "wrath of God" is the natural outcome of one's personal sin. It is the natural outcome of "cause and effect". Romans 1:28 "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper"

Let us also point out that often times the "effect" or "consequence" of sin, (that which is seen as punishment) is sin itself. Looking at the account of Cain in Genesis 4, God not only tells Cain why he is to be punished, but also what that punishment will be and how it will be accomplished. Sinful men will "drive him out". Sinful men will no longer tolerate Cain. This is the natural law at work.

However, we are aware that the moral law, that which Christians are to operate under, tells us that we are to return good for evil! Therefore, under the moral law - Cain would not be driven out. God actually stepped in, and prevented natural law from being fully exercised - Cain was not to be touched (ie: killed).

In meting out punishment, the punishment itself is often times sin - that is how natural law works. A clear example of this is David, who is described as being a "man after God's own heart" yet was not permitted to build the temple, because David was a man of war and had blood on his hands.

For the Christian, we are bound not to the natural law, but the moral law through the Ten Commandments and the New Covenant. Therefore, as believers in Covenant with God, bound to the moral law - we are not to operate under the "natural law".

The divine wrath of God requires that man suffers the natural consequences of his sin, however the Christian is not an agent of God's wrath. That role has been passed to the State, who operates as an agent of God's wrath in carrying out the punishment under natural law.

When God acts in the Old Testament, it is because of man's response to God. War is an "effect" of man's actions - it is the outcome of the natural law of "cause and effect". Israel's fighting was a result of her sins. God's permissible will meets us at our level. While God desires us to operate and live under His moral law, we all to often to do live up to that standard and operate under the natural law.

For example, God did not desire for Israel to have an earthly King. Yet after much protest, God allowed for their to be a king, under God's permissible will. God allowed for their to be a king (keep in mind Romans 1:28 - he gives us over to our depraved mind) and the consequences that follow.

------------------------------------------------

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

Hebrews 8:7-13

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:
"The time is coming, declares the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.
9It will not be like the covenant
I made with their forefathers
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,
and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.
10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time, declares the Lord.
I will put my laws in their minds
and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest.
12For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Let us also point out that often times the "effect" or "consequence" of sin, (that which is seen as punishment) is sin itself. Looking at the account of Cain in Genesis 4, God not only tells Cain why he is to be punished, but also what that punishment will be and how it will be accomplished. Sinful men will "drive him out". Sinful men will no longer tolerate Cain. This is the natural law at work.

However, we are aware that the moral law, that which Christians are to operate under, tells us that we are to return good for evil! Therefore, under the moral law - Cain would not be driven out. God actually stepped in, and prevented natural law from being fully exercised - Cain was not to be touched (ie: killed).

:bigfrown :bigfrown

The reason Cain was not killed is because he and his bloodline fall under prophecy,,,,,boy it seems like you talk more then you read..........The children of Cain are the tares mentioned in Matthew 13.....

they are also the leopard,,,which is merged in the beast on Revelation 13 and Daniel 2......

God didnt touch Cain and his children and we are told not to also,,,,I know you have no idea of what I speak ,,,,anyhow,,,,

SO you trying to say we should not kill,,,because God didnt kill Cain is bogus,,,,,,

GOD KILLED,,,,,Aarons 2 sons,,,just because they put the wrong king of fire on the alter ...

Leviticus 10
1And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.

2And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

DO we really need to go through the bible and see how many people God killed,,,,ita alot I got tell ya.....

 

[Menno]

If killing is approved by God as justice for us to dish out, why then was David not considered justified to build the temple?

 

[(THE)]

If killing is approved by God as justice for us to dish out, why then was David not considered justified to build the temple?

DO you really thing because you read one scripture that says David was a man of war,,,,so he cant build the temple,,,,,,,,,,means we cant protect ourself.........

I Chronicles 22:8 "But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, `Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: thou shalt not build an house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight."

Of course David was a man of war ,,,God had Him kill Goliath when he was a mere boy.........

I have a verse for you ...

1 Samuel 15

1Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD.

2Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

GOd just told Saul to kill infants,,,,whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

Even told them to kill the sheep,,,,,Looks like the God you say,, says "no kiling" put a hit on some new born babies.....

 

[Menno]

You are mis-using the Old Covenant to justify your actions under the New Covenant! In everything you have posted to justify your personal use of violent force, has one common factor - God. God was the one in control, not the person themselves.

You need to understand how the Law operated under the Old Covenant and how it operates under the New Covenant. Mixing the two is creating havoc with theology and practice.

David was not permitted to build the Temple, because he was a "man of war" - only someone pure could build the temple. Please read over what I posted that sometimes the natural consequences of sin is sin itself.

That is how the government operates in restraining evil - the very thing it does to restrain evil requires it to use evil. While our political laws have attempted to justify those actions and make them "legal" - that merely covers the natural law - that does not mean that under the spiritual law they are no longer evil.

 

[(THE)]

You are mis-using the Old Covenant to justify your actions under the New Covenant! In everything you have posted to justify your personal use of violent force, has one common factor - God. God was the one in control, not the person themselves.

You need to understand how the Law operated under the Old Covenant and how it operates under the New Covenant. Mixing the two is creating havoc with theology and practice.

David was not permitted to build the Temple, because he was a "man of war" - only someone pure could build the temple. Please read over what I posted that sometimes the natural consequences of sin is sin itself.

That is how the government operates in restraining evil - the very thing it does to restrain evil requires it to use evil. While our political laws have attempted to justify those actions and make them "legal" - that merely covers the natural law - that does not mean that under the spiritual law they are no longer evil.

Im not mis-using anything,,,all im doing is posting scripture,,

Justify my actions????? YOur confused ,,,,,whom ahve I killed????????

My personal of violent force???????----Um have you forgetten we are on a forum????? YOu dont know anything about me.......

Im not mixing the law or twisting it,,,,,,,The law says that people for some actions are to be put to death,,,,Christ didnt change that.........He told you he didnt change that ,,,,,dont you listen????

David was a man after GOds heart,,,,but he was a Jerk,,,,,,
ask Uriah........

U are you trying to tell people ,,,they cant kill,,,,because David didnt get to build the temple ummmmmmmmmm :rolling :rolling :rolling

Look either Christ abolished ,,,some of the law ,,,,all of the law,,,or none of the Law,,,,,I say none.........