I'm sorry to bother you . A New Covenant theology advocate presented this argument and I'd like to get an educated opinion. "In discussing Covenant theology the covenant of Grace is an overarching covenant with 2 administrations. Which if that is the case, then would Jesus have broken the covenant. He did away with priesthood( Num. 18:7 ), because he's not being a Levite couldn't be a high priest. That it must be the entire law is done away with(Matthew 5:17-19) , because the change of priesthood we also need a change in law (Hebrews 7:12). So, the Mosaic covenant must be fulfilled and completely done away with or when Jesus gave more laws and changed the priesthood he would've violated the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 6:4). Therefore, we must have 2 covenants and no overarching covenant of Grace. The gist of the argument: 1) Scripture states a covenant cannot be altered once ratified. Galatians 3:15 states with clarity that a covenant cannot be altered "Brothers, I’m using a human illustration. No one sets aside or makes additions to even a human covenant that has been ratified". (Deuteronomy 6:4) 2) The Covenant of Grace is altered in various ways (priesthood, sign, blessings, ect.) 3.) Thus the covenant is altered and broken "
i) The Mosaic covenant is like a contract with an expiration date. Or a contract that automatically terminates once it outlives its usefulness. That wouldn't be a case of "breaking" the covenant, since it was intentionally temporary from the get-go. A means to an end rather than an end it itself.
ii) Contracts can be modified. Take a contract with a deadline. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the deadline can't be met. Say there's a blizzard that caused a power outage for several days. Both parties can agree to an extension. Amending a contract doesn't nullify the entire contract, but just one provision.
iii) Finally, the provisions in the Mosaic covenant are not all of a kind. Some provisions are adapted to the socioeconomic conditions of ancient Israel. An agrarian society. A tribal society in which you had common property as well as private property. Those aren't applicable in every time and place.
Likewise, the kosher laws and sacrificial system were symbolic object lessons.
However, the Mosaic covenant also contains moral norms, like the prohibition against adultery and murder, or the obligation to honor your parents.
The Mosaic covenant isn't that makes those morally obligatory or prohibitory. Those are moral norms independent of their formal codification in any particular legal document. They're not moral norms because they're codified; rather, they're codified because they're moral norms.
I'm sorry to bother you . A New Covenant theology advocate presented this argument and I'd like to get an educated opinion.
ReplyDelete"In discussing Covenant theology the covenant of Grace is an overarching covenant with 2 administrations. Which if that is the case, then would Jesus have broken the covenant. He did away with priesthood( Num. 18:7 ), because he's not being a Levite couldn't be a high priest. That it must be the entire law is done away with(Matthew 5:17-19) , because the change of priesthood we also need a change in law (Hebrews 7:12). So, the Mosaic covenant must be fulfilled and completely done away with or when Jesus gave more laws and changed the priesthood he would've violated the Mosaic covenant (Deuteronomy 6:4). Therefore, we must have 2 covenants and no overarching covenant of Grace.
The gist of the argument:
1) Scripture states a covenant cannot be altered once ratified. Galatians 3:15 states with clarity that a covenant cannot be altered "Brothers, I’m using a human illustration. No one sets aside or makes additions to even a human covenant that has been ratified".
(Deuteronomy 6:4)
2) The Covenant of Grace is altered in various ways (priesthood, sign, blessings, ect.)
3.) Thus the covenant is altered and broken "
i) The Mosaic covenant is like a contract with an expiration date. Or a contract that automatically terminates once it outlives its usefulness. That wouldn't be a case of "breaking" the covenant, since it was intentionally temporary from the get-go. A means to an end rather than an end it itself.
Deleteii) Contracts can be modified. Take a contract with a deadline. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the deadline can't be met. Say there's a blizzard that caused a power outage for several days. Both parties can agree to an extension. Amending a contract doesn't nullify the entire contract, but just one provision.
iii) Finally, the provisions in the Mosaic covenant are not all of a kind. Some provisions are adapted to the socioeconomic conditions of ancient Israel. An agrarian society. A tribal society in which you had common property as well as private property. Those aren't applicable in every time and place.
Likewise, the kosher laws and sacrificial system were symbolic object lessons.
However, the Mosaic covenant also contains moral norms, like the prohibition against adultery and murder, or the obligation to honor your parents.
The Mosaic covenant isn't that makes those morally obligatory or prohibitory. Those are moral norms independent of their formal codification in any particular legal document. They're not moral norms because they're codified; rather, they're codified because they're moral norms.