Old Covenant vs. New Covenant "I am so confused"
Old Covenant vs New Covenant • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 6 viewsNotes
Transcript
Handout
Intro:
Intro:
There has been debates since in the inception of the church about the Mosiac Covenant particularly are we supposed to obey it all, part, or none.
Several Religious Groups take the position that we are responsible to keep the OT Law except the Sacrificial Part of the Law.
IBF redact large parts of the OT
Baptist Sabbatarians
7 day adventist
Hebrew Israelite
Pentecostal and Apostolic also follow some of the OT law is it pertains to dress
Why is this important?
If a person end game is God’s glory it is imperative that we are aware of what pleases him.
My intent is not shred each of these belief system but to look at scripture to see What the Prophets & Apostles say about the Old Covenant and New Covenant
I will simply be scratching the surface if you want more you will have to come to church as I will be starting a series in Mid-April related to the Covenants in the Bible.
This is little something to wet your whistle.
In the Westminster Confession the Law is broken up in three categories:
Moral Law
Ceremonial Law
Civic Law
In this model the only part of the Law carried over into the NT and that is binding on the NT believer is the Moral Law. Both the Ceremonial Law(Whole Sacrificial System), Civic(Eye for Eye)
Now remember this breaking up of the Law is scripture it was done years later(Not by any writers of scripture) to help us answer the tough question about “What is biding on believers now?”
The weakness of this model is the Ancient Hebrews did not view the Law in three categories they looked at the Law as one unbroken unit. Paul the Apostle picks up on this when he says in Gal 5:3-4
3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
I would like look at a classic scripture used by 7day adventist, and Hebrew Israelites in the NT used to justify the NT Christian obligation to follow the Mosiac Law it is found in Matthew 5:17-20
17 “Don’t think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all things are accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever does and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven.
(v.17) “Don’t think” Jesus gets the Pharisees straight off the bat. Due to his teaching they have already heard which contradicted their’s they assume he is going to change, or abolish the law. This “Dont’ think” is emphatic. We might say in our modern vernacular “Don’t get it twisted” I am not against the Mosiac Law or all the Prophets who preached about it
(v.17) “Don’t think I came to abolish”
I came to abolish-abolish means to absolutely destroy not accidently but intentionally
(v.17) “Don’t think I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill”
But to filfill-to completely overflow-all the OT intended to communicate.
THE MOSIAC COVENANT WAS Bilateral(Explain) the OT is a long story about the failures of Israel trying to fullfill there end of the law
A marriage is a bilateral covenant
When you think about filfill as it relates to a covenant this carries the idea of totally meeting all the requirements of said covenant then going over and beyond.
18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the law until all things are accomplished.
(v.18)