davidbu@tekigm2.men.tek.com (David Buxton) (02/05/90)
Did a fairly in depth study of the Covenants a few weeks ago. I was reading a topical concordance endorced by Billy Graham and happened to open to the section on Covenants. To my surprise it sited covenant after covenant, stating under conditions - NONE. That is what prompted me to dig into my Bible and see what my Bible had to say. What I found was that these covenants, including the New Covenant, all have their conditions. One way of looking at it is that all these covenants, including the New Covenant, are really all the same Covenant. The Covenant of a Messiah to come had no conditions, that is about the only exception to the rule that all the Covenants have their clearly stated conditions. Of the conditions don't show up in the same verse or chapter but they can be found easily enough. My reading of the New Covenant is as follows - Down through the OT ages we find a world in rebellion against God - Idolatry, sexual perversions, etc etc. And then there was . . . . . Each of these patriarchs were the exception to the rule of their day. They were willing to do things God's way. The children of Abraham became the people of God. God had a nation in those days. It was God's desire that they would be a witness to the world. He placed them at the cross roads of the world where He planned to bless them so that the world would come to them to learn of their success. The story of the Love of God was to be their primary 'export'. Take for example the early days of the reign of King Solomon. Instead of 'exporting' the ways of God to the nations around them they instead imported the pagan idolatries of their neighbors. God had a people who promised to do things God's way but they so often turned to the idolatry of the world around them. One of the prominent idolatries were the various forms of sun worship such as Baal, which involved the sacrifice of children. In those days God was pretty much limited to His nation Israel; no other people cared to have anything to do with God. Guess I should not make that to all encompassing - there were a few in other nations who did turn to God - the Maggi of Jesus day come to mind. The New Covenant breaks away from the OT tradition of having only one nation under God. Rather the New Covenant is a covenant with anyone and everyone who is willing to turn to God and to do things God's way. Under the New Covenant it matters not what creed, race, nation, sex, color, or even the clothes that you wear. If you are willing to let God place His laws withing your heart for a truely spiritual Christ filled keeping of God's law then you are a partaker of the OT covenant promises. The OT blessings were for Israel who promised to do God's will - some did but most of them did not. The New Covenant is for those exceptions out of every walk of life who turn to God to do things God's way. The blessings are the same, the conditions are the same. Its really all the same Covenant. The difference is simply that God no longer places the emphasis on a singular nation. The promised blessings are for anyone and everyone who honestly turn to God and invite Jesus into their hearts and their lives. The promised blessings are for anyone who chooses God and allows God to work His wonders of transformation in their hearts. These are the true keepers of God's law - He does it in them, in their hearts. The New Covenant began when the gospel exploded out to the far corners of the world. God no longer has a singular people. He has you and me and it matters not what is your color, creed, dialect, . . . . . . . . . . . Just turn to Him and do things His way. I'd be glad to email or post my outline notes on request. Friend, Dave [The concept of convenant seems to imply that both sides have made promises. It seems to me that some of these "covenants" may simply be things that God promised, not covenants in the usual sense. But as for "no conditions", perhaps we're getting into issues of what people mean by terms. Clearly the new convenant has obligations on our side, to love and obedience. There may be some distinction between "conditions" and obligations assumed under the convenant. --clh]
davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (02/05/90)
In article <Jan.29.23.37.35.1990.14256@athos.rutgers.edu> mdg@ronin.UUCP (Mike Gallatin) writes: >The thief on the cross is suppossed judged by a different dispensation >then after Jesus' death. The spilling of Jesus blood is the begining >of the New Convenant. 'It is finished' he says before giving up the >ghost. The thief on the cross, John the baptist, Isaiah, Moses, Noah, Enoch, and Abel were all saved in the same manner as those of us are who live after the crucifiction, i.e. faith in the one and only truly atoning sacrifice of Jesus. This is possible because God considers Jesus to be "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8). God did not have to wait until the actual sacrifice was made before He could save those who lived before it because, as one who never lies and always keeps every single one of His promises with impecable commitment and accuracy, the sacrifice was as good as paid already as soon as He said it would be. Those of us who live after the crucifiction look back at the finished work and place our trust in it. Those who lived before the crucifiction placed their faith in God's promise that He would do something. The whole ceremonial law was designed by God to give them insight into all the various elements of His salvation plan. Both for us and for them the only escape route from a certain arrival in hell is faith in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. John 14:6 says "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.". Acts 4:12 says "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.". Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014 856 Grenon Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2B 6G3