HomeDailyAt the Cross, Did God Change the Law Given from Sinai?    

Comments

At the Cross, Did God Change the Law Given from Sinai? — 3 Comments

  1. Thanks, Shirley, I agree with Skip's general idea, but I see his summary is being a little too close to the typical explanation that divides salvation history into two historical eras - the Old Testament/Old Covenant "era" of being saved by offerings, etc., versus the New Testament/New Covenant "era" of being saved by works.

    I don't believe in such historical "eras" because there were plenty of people in OT times who lived the New Covenant experience, while there are even more people in New Testament times who regrettably live in the Old Covenant experience.

    I like William's suggestion:

    Maybe we could clear up a lot of confusion by just calling the New Covenant the Everlasting Covenant, and calling the Old Covenant the “useless covenant.” Remember the New Covenant is the renewing of the original everlasting covenant based on better promises – God’s promises.

    (13)
  2. I couldn't agree more. Ellen White, in Patriarchs and Prophets, makes it clear that the "new covenant" (of grace) was inaugurated in Genesis 3, repeated to Abraham, and ratified at the cross. The "old covenant" was inaugurated at Sinai, ratified by the blood of animals, and broken at the golden calf. That's how long it lasted.

    The "new covenant" is called "new" only because its ratification came later in time than that of the "old covenant". It appears to me that Paul had to deal with the concept of the two covenants because the apostate Jews of his day were still trying to be saved under the long-obsolete "old covenant," which was based on the promises of man to obey God's law, as opposed to the promise of God to write His law on our hearts.

    The lesson authors might do well to read that book. They have the "new covenant" being inaugurated at Jesus' ascension after His resurrection. This is clearly based on their misunderstanding that the earthly sanctuary and its services were the "old covenant," rather than a temporary, illustrative teaching tool for the "new covenant." They must have been the latter, as Paul insists that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sins.

    (6)
  3. Thank you Willam for a very clear explanation of the covenants. I plan to
    use it to help others understand something I couldn't so clearly explain.

    I appreciate all the knowledge and help you bring to the lessons.

    (0)

Leave a Reply

Please read our Comment Guide Lines and note that we have a full-name policy. Please do not submit AI-generated comments!

Notify me of follow-up comments via e-mail. (You may subscribe without commenting.)

Please make sure you have provided a full name in the "Name" field and a working email address we can use to contact you, if necessary. (Your email address will not be published.)

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>