Hello J. Edwards,
Many of the points that you raised I have covered in my answer to Pilgrim, so please have a look at that before you reply.
However, you wrote:-
------------------------------------------------------------
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.
------------------------------------------------------------
It is indeed immense. It leads you to impose Abraham and Moses upon Christ, which is hyper-covenantal <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/jester.gif" alt="" /> However, if you read my post to Pilgrim, you will see that I see the Old Covenant, not as separate, but promisary and preparatory. 'It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect......' (Heb 9:9 ).
You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.”
------------------------------------------------------------
Prove it. You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------
You are wrong in your interpretation. The NKJV says, 'Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.' Hebrews was almost certainly written around 65 AD. The Temple sacrifices were still being offered, but they had no purpose now that the One perfect Sacrifice for sin had been offered. The OC was obsolete, and in AD 70 it vanished in a blaze.
You went on:-
------------------------------------------------------------
(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.
------------------------------------------------------------
The law has indeed been fulfilled; it has not been abrogated, but brought to its rightful conclusion. As it is written:-
'The law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor' (Gal 3:24-25 ).
You continued:-
------------------------------------------------------------
“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.
------------------------------------------------------------
Listen to what the Holy Spirit says:-
'For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says, "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah- NOT ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS.......' (Heb 8:8-9 ). Why do you keep contradicting God by saying that the two covenants are the same? According to the writer to the Hebrews the New Covenant is a 'better covenant' (7:22 ) with
A better hope (7:19 )
Better promises (8:6 )
A more excellent ministry (8:6 )
A greater and more perfect tabernacle (9:11 )
A better sacrifice (9:23 )
A new and living way (10:20 ),
and of course, a greater and more excellent HIgh Priest (8:1 ). There is also, 'an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness (7:18 ).
To call the New Covenant a 'renewed' covenant as Matt McMahon does, is a travesty. It is the reality of which the OC was the foreshadowing (10:1 ). 'He takes away the first that He may establish the second' (10:9 ).
BTW, I am away for a week as from Monday to hear the excellent ministry of Alastair Begg. There may therefore be a delay in my next post.
Every blessing,
Steve
