The so-called "new" covenant is just a renewed "old" covenant in a sense. In fact, the "new covenant" pre-existed the "old covenant," and trumps it, if we want to be technical (which we usually do).

The new covenant existed before Adam and Eve were created. It involves perfect obedience to God's law, just as the old covenant does. The difference I see between the two is primarily the source of our obedience. Are we doing good works in order TO BE good, or are we doing them because we ARE good. Put another way, is our motivation for doing the good works extrinsic or intrinsic.

God says He will write His laws upon our hearts, not just on our door posts. That's the difference between the old and the new. Where is the law written?

The law is exactly the same in both covenants. The new covenant does nothing to change God's requirement of our obedience. He explicitly stated that He did not come to destroy the law...and that heaven and earth would pass away before so much as a jot or tittle of it should fade.

One of the keys to understanding the "new covenant" is to understand the usage of the word "new" in the Greek. The word is "kainos." Look it up and compare to other passages in the NT where it is used.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

A covenant is an agreement between two people or two parties. The OC was an agreement between God and the Jews. God laid out the law of life and living and the Jews agreed to live in harmony with it. "'All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.' This is the pledge that God's people are to make in these last days. Their acceptance with God depends on a faithful fulfilment of the terms of their agreement with him."

I hear you two saying, no, the OC was flawed because it required (expected, depended on) the Jews to render obedience without God's supernatural aid. I disagree. True, the Jews, like so many today, attempted to obey without God's help; however, it is not proof the OC was flawed, not any more than it is proof the NC is flawed because people nowadays attempt the same thing.

Why would God agree to a covenant you two believe was flawed and impossible to keep? Who established the terms and conditions of the OC? Was it not God Himself? I find it difficult to believe God established a covenant no one could keep. To what purpose? What if the Jews had refused it? What if they had insisted on the Abrahamic Covenant instead? Did they have a choice? Was Moses as ignorant as the Jews?


You wrote, "Yes, perfect obedience has always been required." Ellen wrote, "Everyone who by faith obeys God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression." Here's why and how: "It is the privilege of every believer in Christ to possess Christ's nature, a nature far above that which Adam forfeited by transgression. He who sees the Son by faith and believes in Him, is obedient to the commandments of God, and in this obedience he finds everlasting life." The idea that this kind of obedience and righteousness is somehow sinful and requires the covering, atoning blood of Jesus to ascend acceptable to the Father calls into question several pillars of faith.

I disagree. There is only one OC - the second one that you describe. The covenant made with sinful Adam, requiring sacrifices, was the New Covenant.

If Adam ever participated in the OC, it was before his fall. At that time, he could "obey and live." But after sin entered, the only way for man to live was by the NC, which I think is summarized well this way: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

That's a very good way of putting it.

OC: You obey the law written on stone in order to be given life.
NC: You are given life in order to live out the law written on your heart.

While there are some similarities, the NC is fundamentally different from the OC. Yes, the same law is the foundation of both, but the provision for keeping that law cannot be more different.

The OC was demonstrated by Cain. He gave the best fruits of his labors, by them expecting to be brought into favor with God. The Israelites thought to do the same. But that is impossible.

The only way to be brought into God's favor is by the sacrifice of Jesus, demonstrated by Abel. Our obedience, our sacrifice, our anything and everything is insufficient. Only Jesus supplies the necessary grace.

But when we receive that grace, and only by receiving that grace, we are enabled to "live in obedience to the law of God written upon our hearts."


God laid out His law, which has always been the same. But the people made a foolish promise. It was a bad promise. Hence, the need for "better promises."


Here's the inspired answer:



Then God would have been quite pleased.

Moses was not ignorant. In fact, he played his part as the symbol of Christ by offering his life for the people.

Arnold, thank you for sharing your point of view. You seem convinced God created a flawed covenant in order to teach the Jews they are incapable of rendering obedience without His supernatural aid. Just exactly how did the terms and conditions of the OC teach them? And, how do the terms and conditions of the NC differ from the OC? Did God cancel the OC after the Jews sinned and repented? Ellen wrote:


Did Abraham fare any better? It wasn't long before he broke his covenant with God. And, what about us? We break our covenant with God several times a day. Does have to create another covenant every time we sin?

MM, I think you are missing a crucial difference between the OC and the NC. The OC was "obey and live." Once you fail to obey, you die. Period.

The NC was designed for those who have failed to obey. These sinners are offered redemption.

Failure to comply with the OC meant sure and eternal death. Failure to comply with the NC meant the sinner needed to confess, repent, and try again. The OC offers no hope to the sinner, while the NC is the only hope for the sinner.

Failure to obey has been a constant of human history, so there's no surprise that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. You will not have any difficulty finding examples of failure to keep either covenant. But you cannot find a single example of a sinner who was able to pull himself up by the bootstraps and comply with the Old Covenant.

The surprise to me is that people are still trying to live by a covenant that was proven to be a complete and utter failure 6000 years ago.

Please don't quote that verse from the NIV, Arnold! It perverts the truth.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

1. Disobey and die = OC.
2. Disobey and live = NC.

Are you sure?

What verse? There's only one verse that I prefer in the NIV over the NKJV, and I haven't quoted it here for a very long time.