So what's so new about the new Covenant, and is it better, really?

[mailmandan]

2:14 Paul now goes on to describe something else that was included in the work of Christ. Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

The handwriting of requirements that was against us describes the law. In a sense, the Ten Commandments were against us, condemning us because we did not keep them perfectly. But the Apostle Paul is thinking not only about the Ten Commandments, but also about the ceremonial law that was given to Israel. In the ceremonial law, there were all kinds of commandments with regard to holy days, foods, and other religious rituals. These were all a part of the prescribed religion of the Jews. They pointed forward to the coming of the Lord Jesus. They were shadows of His Person and His work. In His death on the cross, He took all this out of the way, nailing it to the cross and cancelling it as a bill is cancelled when the debt is paid. As Meyer put it: “By the death of Christ on the cross, the law which condemned men lost its penal authority, inasmuch as Christ by His death endured for man the curse of the law and became the end of the law.”

Paul's language here very likely refers to an ancient practice of nailing the written evidence of a cancelled debt in a public place as a notice to all that the creditor (God) had no more claim on the debtor (us). Jesus paid the penalty of our sin. "It is finished" said Jesus and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

(Believers Bible)
.

You made some good points. Colossians 2:14 - Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.

Ephesians 2:15 - having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.

Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15 refer to the whole old covenant law including the ten commandments.

Leviticus 19 lists 5 of the 10 commandments as well as 24 references to the "ceremonial law" and calls them My statures and all My ordinances without differentiation.

In Deuteronomy 5:1 the ten commandments are called "My statures and all My ordinances."

In Deuteronomy 5:1-6:25 we have two whole chapters that deal exclusively with the ten commandments and the following 5 terms are used interchangeably without distinction: "statutes", "ordinances", "commandments", "judgments", "testimonies."

In Ezekiel 20:19-21 My sabbaths (including the weekly sabbath) is called "My statures and all My ordinances."

In Nehemiah 9:13-14 the weekly sabbath is included without distinction: "ordinances, true laws, good statutes, commandments."

Malachi chapter 4 closes with a call to keep "statutes and ordinances" which obviously include the 10 commandments.

2 Corinthians 3:6 - who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<The Law leads to Christ, how?>>>

By the law, sin then can be imputed upon the transgressor, thereby making him guilty of sin against God, which was not the case before the law was given. There was judgment, and corresponding punishment (curse) awaiting them. The law condemns them. The law bring wrath to them who transgress the commandments. And the law, while it provided for atonement and forgiveness of sin, the sacrifices offered continuously and year after year, reminded them of their sinfulness and helplessness. That ought to have taught them that of their own effort and will, that no matter how they wanted to, they could not attain to the righteousness of the law. In other words they can’t save themselves, as they could not remove and free themselves of sin. That then ought to bring them to the promised Messiah of God, the one who can save them. They were told of the Messiah, even by Moses, a prophet like Moses, Moses having been sent by God to save them from slavery in Egypt, a type wherein is a situation where they found themselves helpless and could only be set free by a savior and would be saved by hearing him and believing in him. Then God also throughout the years, had spoken through prophets about the Messiah. But why when the Messiah came, that Israel did not received Him, we know the story. Not that the law failed in its purpose, but because of them and of many factors.

What you described Tong, is a conflict of principles. The two Laws , works and faith, were enacted simultaneously for one is antithetical to the other. You have truly confounded two mutually exclusive legalities, it's either one or the other, one makes the other redundant - who needs sacrifice when sins are no more accounted for.

God implemented the Law by blood, and not one jot or tittle will fail until it gets fulfilled. Thus, the Law had to be abrogated before instituting a new law. You are conflating two entirely separate judicial systems, that cannot be implemented in unison.

I don’t think so.

We learn from scriptures that faith is what pleases God and without faith no one can please God. Whether works are acceptable and pleasing to God is not whether they are right or wrong, good or bad, according to the knowledge of good and evil, but whether they come from and are according to faith or not. That has been the spiritual reality ever since.

So, we can easily understand that God’s salvation is through faith and not through works. So, to think that God gave the codified body of law, the law of Moses, consisting of works ~ the works of the law, as another way through which God saves, runs in conflict to the law of faith and contradicts many truths in scriptures. For one, it contradicts the very purpose of the giving of the law, that is, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. It also contradicts what Paul said concerning the Law, that there was not a law given that which could have given life. For if there was, Paul reasoned that, righteousness would have been by the law. It also contradicts what Paul said, “ For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.“. And many more...

The Salvation of God has always been through faith, then and now. Even in living a righteous life, it has always been by faith. Remember? The just shall live by faith.

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<How does the Law keep Israel on guard, without saving them?>>>

If not for the law that was given to them by God as a code written in scriptures to be taught them and by which they are to observe and keep, with the judgment and curses and all that was included therein, that they should walk and live by them, they would have been like the rest of mankind, who became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. God would have gave them up to uncleanness, to vile passions, and given over to a debased mind, on their way to certain destruction. The law in that sense kept them under guard, until their Messiah comes.

Again, you're stating one thing, that the Law kept the Israelites in check, but by historical evidence, it had absolutely no efficacy for they committed everything that you claimed it was to deter them from. The Law was meant to condemn, it was not a superfluous injunction that was only meant as a guideline, or a 'do your best if you can' precept. It was austere in both ordinances and punishments, it both gave life, and took it away as readily. It was meant to save, but by arduous means until the time of Christ came. And once that the principles of Christ were explained in the NT, then the Jews were meant to realize the obsolete and lethal nature of the Law, not prior, for it was not revealed as such.

Tong, you're speaking extremely hypothetically, you know very well that Christ was not taught in the OT. There are allusions, but they do not suffice to save by Grace. For even us under the New Dispensation, it takes 27 books to get the point across, ...and even then some of us still are slow to comprehend.

Why the law was codified and was given to Israel was for some purpose, which Paul have revealed in his writings. It is also clear that it was not given as a way to be saved from sin and hell, but to keep them under guard. Under guard from what, is the thing many seems not to really put time and effort to find out. On my part, I told you what my view is, which is in the quote box.

<<<you know very well that Christ was not taught in the OT.>>>

God sent word about Him through the prophets. Not that there was nothing spoken about Him, but that what was taught concerning Him was different from what the word of God said of Him. If the Messiah was not taught in the OT, why did Israel knew of the Messiah, that they await Him? The short coming was not with God, but with those of Israel who were tasked to teach them the word of God, especially the Levites and the Levitical priests. Their shepherds had led them astray.

Tong
R1875

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Paul said that after the fact.>>>

Paul said that in revelation, more than in reasoning.

<<<The austerity of the Law is what caused men to sin/fail, plus the inherent enticement of it, but the fulfillment of it would've been the victor's glory.>>>

In a sense the austerity of the law was a factor why sin abounded, but I would not say that it is the law or the austerity of it is what caused them to sin. The law is good and holy, remember? Causing them to sin isn’t at all a good thing.

The fulfillment of it would’ve been victory for the one who fulfills it. But then, not one was and is able, except of course Jesus Christ. And God knows that, for He knows man. He had spoken of this in Gen.6:5, that every intents of the thoughts of his heart is continually evil, even from childhood. So, we can understand why God had not given the law as a way for them to be saved by works, by the works of the law, nor gave it as means by which they will have justification by the works of the law.

But, He did not institute it for no deliberate and tangible reason also. Christ was not revealed in the OT, it foreshadowed his coming, but there was not a single Jew, even at the time of Christ, that understood who he was until the epistles. You know that this is true, so you cannot hypothesize that Christ as saviour, was known and worshipped by the OT saints.

As I said, why the law was given to Israel as a codified body of laws, Paul had revealed that in his writings.

Not only that it was a shadow of realities that would come, that is, Christ, but God sent His word to Israel concerning Him. They would have known the truth about the Messiah and what He will do for them when He comes, if only their leaders were faithful to the word and sought understanding from God, and have taught it to the people. But that was not what happened.

Tong
R1876

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The new covenant is basically a continuation and based on the abrahamic covenant

What makes this a better covenant is the terms

If we look at the covenant with adam, we have a dual covenant, Adam failed to keep his part, so was expelled and he died,

Abraham was a different type, it was a one sided covenant, god said I will, and he will

then we had the mosaic, a covenant given in which no one could keep, as the conditions were out of reach (only Jesus met them all) and the punishment was death

then we have the new covenant, again a single sided where God said I will

both the abrahamic and new are based on grace, not on us meeting the conditions, because God knew we could not keep his condition, Israel failed, and was punished based on the same mosaic covenant, but God still keeps his word, we fail, and are chastened also, but again, God always keeps his word,

And amen to the op, it is all based on Gods love,

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
To answer your question, the law that was nailed to the cross was the old covenant law, the law of Moses. The written code of commandments, and precepts, with the judgement and curses, that was given to Israel through Moses, that kept them under guard and serve as their tutor and schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. That was the law that was added to the covenant of God with Abraham because of transgressions.

So let me understand you correctly. Romans 7 as I showed previously, reveals 3 laws.
The law of God which wars against the law of sin, and the law of the spirit of life which frees us from bondage to sin. It seems you are saying, and I am open to being corrected, that it is the law of God given through Moses which points out sin which is nailed to the cross. This therefore leaves the law of sin in the human mind still very much alive and kicking yes? Why would God destroy His own law rather than the law of sin?

The codified body of laws, that is, the law of Moses, that God gave to Israel in covenant through Moses, is that which was nailed to the cross.

That leaves the “law of sin” or the “law of sin and death” in man, in the flesh, as that which Paul said it is that do the evil that he wills not to do.

<<<Why would God destroy His own law rather than the law of sin?>>>

God did not destroy His own Law. What He had done was replaced the codified body of laws, the law of Moses, and that had in no way destroyed His Law. Like in replacing the Mosaic covenant with a new covenant in Jesus Christ, is not destroying His covenant with Israel, but in fact making it a better one.

Tong
R1877

 

[Tong2020]

The new covenant is basically a continuation and based on the abrahamic covenant

What makes this a better covenant is the terms

If we look at the covenant with adam, we have a dual covenant, Adam failed to keep his part, so was expelled and he died,

Abraham was a different type, it was a one sided covenant, god said I will, and he will

then we had the mosaic, a covenant given in which no one could keep, as the conditions were out of reach (only Jesus met them all) and the punishment was death

then we have the new covenant, again a single sided where God said I will

both the abrahamic and new are based on grace, not on us meeting the conditions, because God knew we could not keep his condition, Israel failed, and was punished based on the same mosaic covenant, but God still keeps his word, we fail, and are chastened also, but again, God always keeps his word,

And amen to the op, it is all based on Gods love,

The new covenant is still the covenant of God with Abraham, only that, it is a better covenant. A much much better one at that, I have to say, replacing that covenant which He made through Moses with the children of Israel, to whom God said, “I am the Lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name Lord, I was not known to them. I have also established My covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, in which they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel whom the Egyptians keep in bondage, and I have remembered My covenant. Therefore say to the children of Israel: ‘I am the Lord; I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, I will rescue you from their bondage, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great judgments.
I will take you as My people, and I will be your God. Then you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brings you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you into the land which I swore to give to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and I will give it to you as a heritage: I am the Lord.’ ”

Tong
R1878

 

[Ferris Bueller]

But Paul states there was another law added because of those transgressions.

The law was added to the promise.

17What I mean is this: The law that came 430 years later does not revoke the covenant previously established by God, so as to nullify the promise. Galatians 3:17​

 

[Ferris Bueller]

The apostle John tells us that sin is the transgression against the law.
KJV 1 John 3:4
4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Then Paul tells us that the law was added because of transgressions.

KJV Galatians 3:19
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

So scripture tells us that transgressing against the law is sin

Be careful not to switch what John said. He did not say transgression of the law is sin. He said sin is transgression of the law. To illustrate, you aren't sinning if you don't sacrifice an animal for your sin as required by the law. So he was not saying transgression of the law is sin. What he was saying was when you sin you are in violation of the law.

 

[Tong2020]

Be careful not to switch what John said. He did not say transgression of the law is sin. He said sin is transgression of the law. To illustrate, you aren't sinning if you don't sacrifice an animal for your sin as required by the law. So he was not saying transgression of the law is sin. What he was saying was when you sin you are in violation of the law.

Be careful. Under the law, if one sinned and he did not do as the law commanded, that he should offer an animal sacrifice to atone for his sin, then he is transgressing the law by that. He had not observed and kept that commandment.

Tong
R1882

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Be careful. Under the law, if one sinned and he did not do as the law commanded, that he should offer an animal sacrifice to atone for his sin, then he is transgressing the law by that. He had not observed and kept that commandment.

Tong
R1882

I was referring to John's perspective.....this time of the New Covenant, where various laws do not have to be literally kept anymore. From this perspective it is not correct to switch what John said, 'sin is transgression of the law', to 'transgression of the law is sin'. It seems like you can at first, but you can't.

Whenever we sin we are in transgression of the law, but because of the cross it is no longer correct to say that every time we literally transgress the law we are sinning. I used the most obvious example in the law to illustrate the truth of that—animal sacrifice.

 

[amigo de christo]

We are Justified by Repenting from all of our sins before we die....your “ Gospel” in a nutshell ...

Sorry BB , but you are dead wrong about that . WE are soley and truly JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN JESUS , BY HIS BLOOD .
Never forget that . But never forget this . IF we are TRULY HIS we WOULD LOVE , OBEY HIM , LOVING ALL HIS TEACHINGS .
Who we follow , who we obey , IS WHOSE servants we are . whether of sin unto death or of obediance unto righteousness .
Many lip service His name BB , I was once one of those , my faith was dead and my evil works proved my faith was dead .
Now sin can and will harden a heart . THUS as paul once said , LET NOT INQUITY ONCE be named among you.
ANd if one does err , REPENT . THEY all taught it BB . SO I teach it .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I've only scanned this thread and it looks like we're missing what the Bible says is superior about the New Covenant over and above the old covenant—it's Priesthood and Sacrifice and how sin is dealt with. This is all taught in Hebrews.

Sin was magnified and made more apparent when it was defined by the law of Moses. And a system of atonement was set in place with that law to deal with the sin now made more apparent, even aroused, by the law of Moses. But that system of atonement was far inferior to the New way of atoning for sins committed and defined by the law of Moses. And so this New way is superior in regard to how it deals with sin. A New Priesthood and a New Sacrifice have replaced the old priesthood and sacrifice.

 

[justbyfaith]

Reminder: non Jews have never been under the Jewish Mitzvot Laws found in the Pentateuch (Torah).

Tell me what you mean by Mitzvot laws.

That the law applies to both Jew and Gentile should be evident in Romans 3:19-20. All the world will become guilty before God because of what is written in the law. So, the law applies as a standard for all that declares the guilt of every sinner.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Sorry BB , but you are dead wrong about that . WE are soley and truly JUSTIFIED BY FAITH IN JESUS , BY HIS BLOOD .
Never forget that . But never forget this . IF we are TRULY HIS we WOULD LOVE , OBEY HIM , LOVING ALL HIS TEACHINGS .
Who we follow , who we obey , IS WHOSE servants we are . whether of sin unto death or of obediance unto righteousness .
Many lip service His name BB , I was once one of those , my faith was dead and my evil works proved my faith was dead .
Now sin can and will harden a heart . THUS as paul once said , LET NOT INQUITY ONCE be named among you.
ANd if one does err , REPENT . THEY all taught it BB . SO I teach it .

My post was meant to MOCK those who add “ Repenting Of sins to be Saved “ to our Gospel Of Pure Grace......
Repent of sins ? Of course we should ....But Who needs to worry about it?..... Like almost everything that matters to God , it occurs Naturally if you are Born Again.....If you aren’t Born Again , you are Lost Anyway , so there ya go.......

 

[DNB]

I don’t think so.

We learn from scriptures that faith is what pleases God and without faith no one can please God. Whether works are acceptable and pleasing to God is not whether they are right or wrong, good or bad, according to the knowledge of good and evil, but whether they come from and are according to faith or not. That has been the spiritual reality ever since.

So, we can easily understand that God’s salvation is through faith and not through works. So, to think that God gave the codified body of law, the law of Moses, consisting of works ~ the works of the law, as another way through which God saves, runs in conflict to the law of faith and contradicts many truths in scriptures. For one, it contradicts the very purpose of the giving of the law, that is, to bring them to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. It also contradicts what Paul said concerning the Law, that there was not a law given that which could have given life. For if there was, Paul reasoned that, righteousness would have been by the law. It also contradicts what Paul said, “ For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.“. And many more...

The Salvation of God has always been through faith, then and now. Even in living a righteous life, it has always been by faith. Remember? The just shall live by faith.


Why the law was codified and was given to Israel was for some purpose, which Paul have revealed in his writings. It is also clear that it was not given as a way to be saved from sin and hell, but to keep them under guard. Under guard from what, is the thing many seems not to really put time and effort to find out. On my part, I told you what my view is, which is in the quote box.

<<<you know very well that Christ was not taught in the OT.>>>

God sent word about Him through the prophets. Not that there was nothing spoken about Him, but that what was taught concerning Him was different from what the word of God said of Him. If the Messiah was not taught in the OT, why did Israel knew of the Messiah, that they await Him? The short coming was not with God, but with those of Israel who were tasked to teach them the word of God, especially the Levites and the Levitical priests. Their shepherds had led them astray.

Tong
R1875

Again Tong, I feel that you're quoting a lot of verses that support your position, and they do, but you're not really comprehending their significance. Or, at at least, you haven't really explained how two, mutually exclusive, Covenants were enacted by God side by side? There is no need for one, with the other, they are antagonistic to each other. You insist that the Israelites knew of Christ, but for the life of you, you can't find a single exposition in the OT about this?

I agree with the passages that you quoted, but it is an extremely tricky prospect to try and harmonize them with what occurred in the OT. I believe, therefore, that Paul cites these principles as to what should be realized once Christ has been revealed, and how it is prudent to entirely abandon the precepts of the Law. Even up to the time of Christ, Simeon & Anna, Zechariah & Elizabeth, Nathaniel , fastidiously held to the Law, it is understood that they were not misguided nor mislead. For again, one Law is absolutely redundant while the other one is in place.

 

[DNB]

As I said, why the law was given to Israel as a codified body of laws, Paul had revealed that in his writings.

Not only that it was a shadow of realities that would come, that is, Christ, but God sent His word to Israel concerning Him. They would have known the truth about the Messiah and what He will do for them when He comes, if only their leaders were faithful to the word and sought understanding from God, and have taught it to the people. But that was not what happened.

Tong
R1876

No Tong, you haven't a single OT passage to confirm what you are saying. The shadows were laid in the OT, but they were not explained until the NT. Their allusions in the OT were only meant to confirm their revelation in the NT, not meant to abide by as a Law unto salvation. This is what Paul is explaining. Even Paul himself nor Gamaliel, saw Christ from the OT, as you very well know.

 

[justbyfaith]

My post was meant to MOCK those who add “ Repenting Of sins to be Saved “ to our Gospel Of Pure Grace......
Repent of sins ? Of course we should ....But Who needs to worry about it?..... Like almost everything that matters to God , it occurs Naturally if you are Born Again.....If you aren’t Born Again , you are Lost Anyway , so there ya go.......

So, if you are born again, repentance will occur, is what you are saying.

Is it not nearly the same thing?

Why do you say that it is a FALSE and PERVERTED gospel to teach that a man is born again through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?

Does not repentance occur either way?

 

[Ferris Bueller]

My post was meant to MOCK those who add “ Repenting Of sins to be Saved “ to our Gospel Of Pure Grace......
Repent of sins ? Of course we should ....But Who needs to worry about it?..... Like almost everything that matters to God , it occurs Naturally if you are Born Again.....If you aren’t Born Again , you are Lost Anyway , so there ya go.......

10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation 2 Corinthians 7:10

 

[justbyfaith]

10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation 2 Corinthians 7:10

Yes, I would venture to say that this passage tells us that repentance comes first, and then salvation.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation 2 Corinthians 7:10

Notice again....it does NOT say “ Repentance From SIN “......
Find anywhere in the KJV where it says the Way to be Saved is to Repent from your sins, and I will send you $1000......