Thursday, August 9, 2012

Overlap of Covenants: Question 21

One thing I've never fully understood is how the Old Covenant and the New Covenant seem to be operating on some level simultaneously.  For example, one may belong to Israel via Old Covenant and yet by not believing in Yeshua still not belong to the New Covenant.  I believe scholars have at times tried to explain this by saying that there are different types of Israel (e.g. the Israel of G-d).  But I've not heard anything really persuasive.

Question 21:

Has anyone studied about this concept?  What ways the old covenant remains operative/inoperative?  Your thoughts would be appreciated.


  1. When understanding the covenants it is important to take everything said in the bible concerning them and make them add up, so to speak.

    The Abrahamic and Noah-tic Covenants are not based on (if). They are upheld by the power of the word, written into the flesh of Abraham/the Word Of God and the Heaven's respectively. It is not possible to break them for the terms are not breakable. Even if the progeny of Abraham do not fulfill the Abrahamic Covenant, God has the power to raise up sons to Abraham from stone in the ground.

    Some people read the Law of Moses and believe that it is the Sinai covenant but they are wrong. That's a critical error that will mess up all theology.

    The Sinai Covenant is based on(if you keep my instruction). The instruction stands alone first....then the Sinai Covenant is made in reference to it. They are 2 separate things being married together but we know eventually they were broken apart.

    The Sinai Covenant is breakable and it was broken. God said so. Broken means does not mean as some suppose still in effect because God is keeping it so. He never said that. He said he would make a New Covenant NOT LIKE THE ONE I MADE WITH YOUR FATHERS AT MT that is NOT BREAKABLE.

    The broken Old Covenant passed away and was replaced with one NOT based on (if) but (I will) resulting in (all shall know me). The (Knowing God) is a permanent state and eternal and can not be broken or changed. God says he does it in spite of how Israel treated the covenant bssed on the Law. In his words.."for my name's sake".

    What is the same in both the New and Old Covenants? The Law of Moses. Both covenants are based on this law but 'the law" is not the Covenant. The Covenant is the AGREEMENT made between the parties based on the terms of the Law of Moses. In the Old the law is written on stone and is not possible to make one know God (the error of Kabbalah and Yeshua spoke of the one who gets into the wedding without wedding clothes) In the New Covenant, that same law is written into our hearts. Just like a baby girl knows how to nurse for milk without being instructed because it is 'written in her heart', it is part of her and her nature, instruction written INTO her. It's easy and natural and she will not need teaching but will easily do what is needful for life. The mothers task would be impossible if she had to teach the child to suckle as the child would die before developed enough to learn.

    So shall be "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" easy and natural and leading to life by the Ruach.

    At the moment the New Covenant was made, Israel was invited first (to the Jew first)the Old passed away. But those who are drinking the 'old wine' are not immediately willing to drink the 'new wine' for they say the old is better. Thus Christ becomes a stumbling block to the Jews.

    Today, the Old wine has turned to vinegar and after a time without wine, Israels tastes will accept the new. (all of Israel will be saved)

    Sorry so long

    1. Very interesting. What has me thinking is your statement: "What is the same in both the New and Old Covenants? The Law of Moses. Both covenants are based on this law but 'the law" is not the Covenant. The Covenant is the AGREEMENT made between the parties based on the terms of the Law of Moses."

      This gives me a lot to think about. Because I used to see the covenant as Torah but really Torah is merely one aspect of covenant. There's really an underlying relationship. So it's not just about terms.

      Thus, when Israel at times violated provisions of the Torah it was possible to seek forgiveness, appealing to channels of atonement based on a relationship with G-d. But the channels of atonement under the Old Covenant were imperfect--they didn't really get rid of the sin that wound up damaging the relationship.

      So perhaps this New Covenant then is superior in that the underlying relationship is superior...whilst the terms themselves remain relatively unchanged.

      Very interesting comment, sir. Thank you for taking the time to share . This is what I hope more and more people will do. May we all be blessed by open dialogue together!

  2. Hi,

    Please do not confuse breaking a covenant with annuling or voiding a covenant. The fact that a covenant has been broken by one of the parties does not void it. It simply entitles the other party to some corrective actions. If Israel breaks the covenant, they will receive the curses! This did happen. The scriptures call the covenant with Abraham, Isaac & Jacob an everlasting covenant. Thus breaking it cannot void it. If it was voided, we would not have an Elohim, because that is what was promised to us. If your children do not obey your instructions do they stop being your children?

  3. Schalk, your comment does not matches ALL scripture.

    Hebrews 8:13
    In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

    1. Now we've got a discussion going! I'll have to read up on Hebrews today to even be able to join in this discussion...

    2. Peter,
      When you read this, please take note what the topic of Hebrews 7,8 and 9 is about. It is about the function of the High Priest. It is not about the covenant. In Hebrews 8 the word "covenant" is inserted by the translators.
      Look at Hebrews 8:7-8. If it is a covenant the writer is talking about, why is he referring to "them" - masculine, plural, 3rd person. If he was talking about the former High Priests, then the grammar would make sense. The writer of Hebrews is arguing that Y'shua is a better High Priest.

      Because He is a better High Priest, we need to adapt the laws because we do not need all the laws governing the High Priest anymore. We do not need anybody going into the Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur as Y'shua does this everyday!

      What also confirms this for me is that Ezekiel never talks about a High Priest in his description of the temple. He does talk about normal priests.

      Let me know what you find!

    3. Schalk,

      Actually, when he says "them" he IS talking about men. The writer is speaking about the Old and New Covenants as 2 different things and states the reason for the New Covenant is made not because the Old Covenant was bad but he found fault with "them"..."men".

      "The writer of Hebrews is arguing that Y'shua is a better High Priest."
      What would be your understanding of Hebrews 7:22, you believe he is not also arguing a better covenant?

      "by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant."

  4. Where exactly in that verse does it state that the covenant was annulled or voided? Do you know that the word covenant is not in the source text here? New could mean new - "did not exist before" or "renew" like in updated. Looking at the use of the same Hebrew word in Isa 66:22 it cannot always mean created from scratch with no regard of what existed before.

    Please clarify for me the scripture below as you see it.

    Lev 26:44-45
    44 ‘Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, nor will I so abhor them as to destroy them, breaking My covenant with them; for I am YHVH their Elohim. 45 ‘But I will remember for them the covenant with their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their Elohim. I am YHVH.’ ”

    1. Not that I disagree with you, but I do have a question for you. What do you make of this verse:

      Jeremiah 3:8 "She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. Yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but she too went and played the whore."

      What is this writ of divorce that was giving to the House of Israel? Again, I don't claim to have all the answers (but I do have plenty of questions).

    2. Peter,

      Yes, this is one of those curve balls that I am still working through.
      Will let you know if I have a solid answer.

      Question from my side: why was it only given to the Northern tribes? The covenant was with all tribes.

      Really interesting discussion!

    3. I'm not sure. I'll be interested in hearing what you find out. I THINK it might be that the House of Israel (not House of Judah) was divorced because it rejected the Temple Service and instituted its own moedim. But, thankfully, the law of divorce which states that a divorcee may not return to first husband, this law is annulled as soon as the first husband dies. Since Yeshua did in fact die, it seems this restriction would be lifted and G-d may, in a sense, remarry the divorced House of Israel. So, again, we see that G-d is very faithful to His covenants.

  5. “Where exactly in that verse does it state that the covenant was annulled or voided?”

    Is says Aphanismos
    Aphanismos: to disappear, destruction

    “Do you know that the word covenant is not in the source text here? “
    Yes, but what is being discussed? When I back up and read the context it seems clear to me ‘the Covenant made after leaving Egypt’. So why would you mention the word covenant is not in the text? Is there a point I’m missing?

    “New could mean new - "did not exist before" or "renew" like in updated”
    True, I don’t know Greek but it seems to have that possibility. However, what about when combined with other scripture such as “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second.” First means first and second means not the first or “the other of two”. So they can’t be the same Covenant. The text also mentions it would NOT be like the one made after Egypt.

    “Please clarify for me the scripture below as you see it.” Lev 26:44-45

    This Lev scripture was fulfilled. For 430 years God’s people refused to keep the sabbaticals and the Jubilees holy to God. The land was kept from its rest during the 70 sabbath years. So, God kept his promise and remembered his Covenant with the ancestors at that time and this prophecy was fulfilled long before and up to when Yeshua made the New Covenant in his blood.

    It’s not possible for the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant to overlap. One is life and death. One is Eternal Life period. You cannot operate under both covenants. When one enters the New Covenant, the gift of eternal life, the Ruach haKodesh, the indwelling Word of God, etc., can never be combined with death. So the first truly has to pass away. The Law of Moses however can never pass away, for Israel and Judah the New Covenant was made…..they just don’t want it yet. They say the Old was better, but we all know they will eventually drink the new wine.

    God does not need to remember the Covenant he made at Mt Sinai today unless he is putting someone to death in judgment for refusing the New. When he is giving life it will be in Yeshua, by the Covenant made in his blood and no other possible.

  6. "God does not need to remember the Covenant he made at Mt Sinai today unless he is putting someone to death in judgment for refusing the New."


    "Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you." (Ezekiel 16:60)

    1. Also, Romans 11:28-29 "...they are loved on account of the Patriarchs. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

    2. Let's also keep in mind that the New Covenant is made with Israel (Jeremiah 31). AND let's keep in mind that it involves the writing of Torat Moshe on the heart.

  7. I didn't mean to say that the Covenant of God was not with Israel or that God does not remember his covenants. He does.

    When he tells the lawless to depart into every lasting destruction he is definitely remembering the Covenant that was broken.

    When he tells those who have accepted the New Covenant, righteousness by grace, to enter into eternal life he is definitely remembering the Covenant made by the mediator Yeshua at the table with his disciples.

    God can not possibly JUDGE Israel without the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant both present. One ends in death, the other eternal life.

    Again, if you think the Torat Moshe is the Sinai Covenant you will never understand. The word is eternal, the Law exists apart from the covenant when it is broken. They are only married when the law is obeyed. Marriage only exist when you have not gotten a divorce.

    The law can never separate you "as far as east is from the west" from your sin. It can only make you dead as all have sinned and fallen short.

    1. I don't see disjointedness in G-d's plan. I see order and harmony and an inexorable progression of recurrent and amplified themes.