'The New Covenant starts with the cross (Luke 22:20).
This statement begs the question since there is a New Covenant, then there must have been a “former” covenant—since this one is “new” (I will explain “new” and/or “former” later). Indeed, there were “former” covenants (which are ONE unfolding covenant, which includes the NC) with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Should we not begin reading a book, especially “the book” at the beginning? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/read.gif" alt="" />
Ask yourself about God’s divine order of the Holy Scriptures. God could have begun the Bible at Luke 22:20 and then later added, through divine revelation, Gen-Mal, but He didn’t. God began His Word at the beginning.
Redemptive History has a history and we are not justified in short circuiting it. Our understanding of it must begin at the same place as God’s revelation to us (at the beginning) or we will “inevitably end up missing the point.” The Bible is the study of the progressive unfolding of the redemptive revelation of God in terms of its consummation in the New Covenant. Just because Jesus came “in the fulness of time,” (Gal 4:4) does not mean we should neglect the study of “the times past,” (Heb 1:1).
Where do the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants fit in?
The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants don’t "just"
fit in! They are a part of the history of redemption the way God, who is sovereign, designed them! However there is a redemptive end and inauguration in Christ. The OT is quoted in the NT approximately 224 times (
Roger Nichole). The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 books of the OT and Jesus himself quotes 24 different OT books. If we include allusions, the total rises dramatically, with tallies ranging from 442 to 4,105 (
Ronald Youngblood). The OT/OCs do MUCH more than just
fit in. They are part and parcel of the overall story of redemption. We do a severe injustice to God and His Word by not studying the OT or by putting the NT “above” the OT—it is ALL God’s Word!
It is evident when you speak of the OC and the NC you speak of TWO different covenants (a
dispensational hermeneutic), however when a CTer speaks of the OC/NC they see a UNITY and recognize it as ONE unfolding covenant. The difference is immense.
Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.” Normally, readers of the NT use Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away,” and say the OC is GONE. However, they fail to read the text: (1) it is in the present tense—thus it is
still passing away, why, because it is eternally connected to the NC and can never fully pass away and thus the beautiful use of the Greek present tense (2) moreover, Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount, that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it (Matt 5:17-18) resound even more here. “New” here has the meaning the fulfilling of the OC,
not a brand new covenant! To confuse the two is to make yet another grave hermeneutical error in interpretation.
The O.T. saints, then, were saved by grace through faith just as we are. But they were saved as they looked forward to the New Covenant (1Peter 1:10-11) of which the Old Covenant was merely symbolic (Heb 9:9-10) and the other Covenants were promisary.
symbolic? So the OCs accomplished “nothing?” So God was not REAL in the OC? Here in one swift stroke you destroyed everything you lectured us on about the OC. Here once again you SEPARATE the OC and the NC seeing (here is that word again),
less continuity in them (a
dispensational hermeneutic). While the OT saints looked forward to that which was to come (and indeed it is better and more glorious; Heb 7:22), something actuality happens all the way through redemptive history! God has ONE plan not many
as in the dispensational mindset. The OT saints “tasted” what was to come—they had a reality of it, but not its completeness (and may I add, neither do we till glory).
Any understanding of the Covenants must start and finish with Christ. For all the promises of God in Him [not in Abraham] are Yes, and in Him Amen to the glory of God (2Cor 1:20). He, and no one else, is ‘the author and finisher of our faith’, the Alpha and the Omega. If you start with Adam or Abraham, you are not starting at the beginning (John 8:58) and you will inevitably end up missing the point.'
So why not begin with Christ and His eternal redemptive plan as opposed to Luke 22? Why not begin our study of redemptive history at its true beginning—Christ and His redemptive plan and not merely its end (the Cross)? Your method presupposes that Christ’s involvement in the OC was of a (here is that word again)
lesser importance. To emphasize the most important historical fact (Jesus) you de-emphasize the Christ of the whole OT. However, Jesus has a history going all the way back to Adam. God was sure to state this history, so we would not miss the significance of His covenant plan (Matt 1:1-17; and the other covenants in Luke 3:23-38). Yes, the genealogies of Jesus have a purpose!
There is a unity in the Bible found in the covenants. There is the same essence throughout in the covenants. There is a formula which is found in every covenant. This formula is seen in the phrase: "I shall be your God and you shall be My people." This is illustrated by Abraham (Gen 17:7-8), where God is described as being “their God.” It is quoted by Paul in 2 Cor 6:16, saying “I will be their God, and they shall be my people." This is clearly seen in the goal of God’s redemptive plan in Rev 21:3, where it says, “He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them." When the writer of the book of Hebrews speaks of an "everlasting covenant" (Heb 13:20; compare Gen 17:7) it describes an unbroken covenant that runs continually throughout the ages. (notes from Dr. O. Palmer Robertson’s,
Old Testament Biblical Theology which can be accessed partially
here).
