If parents were to make rules for one child, and different rules for another child, we would believe that this would be unfair. How about our Father in heaven, does He change the rules for some children but is much more lenient with his other children? Does He change his ways? Does He love one child above the other? Our Father in heaven has an everlasting covenant with His children. And as we are about to look at, His character, rules, and His ways are never changing. (Mal 3:6) Therefore we can trust our Father and have confidence and assurance of eternal life through the blood of that covenant.
1. What are the conditions of God’s covenant?
“Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:” (Exodus 19:4-6)
“This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;” (Hebrews 10:16)
“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.” (Deutoronomy 4:12, 13)
“…: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land … and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them: yea, I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Ezekiel 37:24-27 See also Rev 21:3, 4, )
Answer: The basis or condition of God’s covenant is the Ten Commandments which were given in Exodus 20:2-17. But after this the people did not want to hear the practical explanation of them. (Exo 20:18-22) in Exodus 21-23 are written the statutes and the judgments (Exo 21:1) which are a practical application or explanation of the Ten Commandments. The reference to the altar-how it should be built, and how approached -in Ex. 20:24-26, simply shows the care that God would have taken in His worship. In Ex. 23:14-19 we have other commandments also concerning worship. Finally in chapter 24 we read that “Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exodus 24:8) Obedience to “all these words” in God’s law is the condition to the covenant.
Note: The day is coming where “the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.” (Rev 21:3, 4) In this day God will make a covenant with them, and as a condition of the covenant, obedience to His commandments, statutes and judgments will be required. (Eze 37:26)
The dictionary describes a covenant as “A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from some act or thing; a contract.”- Webster.
2. What did God propose to make the Israelites if they were to obey?
“…ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: …and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5, 6)
Answer: God proposed to make Israel a nation of kings and priests. A Holy nation should they accept that God would perform in them his righteous laws. However as we shall get to, they did not obey, and built a golden calf within a few weeks, furthermore, only one of the tribes were made priests, that is the Levites. And none of that tribe were made kings. God was actually offering them a covenant that would make them kings and priests.
“(For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament (Covenant).” (Hebrews 7:21, 22)
The covenant to become priests and kings “after the order of Melchisedec” was actually the “better covenant” with Jesus as the “mediator.” This covenant was what God was offering to Israel. (Deu 5:2, 3) But, there was more for them to hear, and they entered into a covenant without understanding all the conditions.
3. What comparison does God make between the two covenants?
“But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” (Hebrews 8:6, 7)
Answer: One Covenant is “less excellent”, has “worse promises”, is “faulty” and is a “worse covenant”. There was something wrong with the covenant made at Sinai.
4. In what respect was the covenant at Sinai faulty?
“He [Christ] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. For finding fault with them.” (Heb 8:6, 7)
Answer: It must have been faulty in the very particulars wherein the second was better, namely, in the promises, as seen by the last part of Hebrews 8:6 “He [Christ] is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
God’s promises are “better”. So who made the “worse promises”? “Finding fault with THEM.” They made faulty “promises”.
5. What was the promise of the people after God had promised to do all this in them and through them?
“And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.” (Exodus 19:8)
Answer: Keeping the covenant was something they needed to trust God to do through them. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” (Ephesians 2:8) But the people had not yet understood the power of God. Therefore, the words or promises of the people were “faulty”. (Heb 8:7, 8) God promised to write the law in their heart. The people merely needed to say “Amen.”
Certainly the fault was not with the promises of God.
6. When Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and they promised to be obedient (Ex. 24:3), what did Moses then do, that there might be no misunderstanding?
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. . . . And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” (Exodus 24:4, 7, 8)
“And sprinkled both the book and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” (Hebrews 9: 19, 20)
Answer: We have here the complete account of the making of the first covenant. It consisted of a promise of obedience to the Ten Commandments, on the part of the children of Israel, and the statement by the Lord of what he would do for them provided they obeyed his voice.
Even the “blood” of this covenant was “worse” because it was the blood of an animal. The Covenant of Grace was established upon better blood. We are told that the covenant of grace was established on “better sacrifices”. (Heb 9:23, 11:4, 12:24, 13:20) The blood of this covenant made at Sinai was not the blood of Christ.
- Is the covenant made at Sinai the only covenant which God made with Israel?
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord.” (Jeremiah 31:31, 32)
Answer: No, another covenant is to be made with the house of Israel and Judah. The covenant involves God being a husband to them, and them being a bride to him. (Rev 12:1, Gal 4:24-26, 2 Cor 6:14-18) Some believe that this covenant was a covenant with the gentiles. But the Bible is clear that the new covenant is only with Israel and Judah (Jews).
8. Who are Israel and Judah today, the seed of Abraham?
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:” (Romans 9:4-6)
“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” (Romans 2:29)
“That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:” (Ephesians 2:12)
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29)
“That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:8)
Answer: Those who accept Christ are adopted as the seed or children of Abraham. The name Israel means “overcomer”, the name Jew means the “praise of the Lord” or the “chosen of God”. The promise was to Abraham and his seed. However, the seed could only be those who accepted Christ. Some take the name Israel or Judah in vain. They must have it in the heart.
9. What did the promise or covenant to Abraham include?
“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” (Romans 4:13)
“By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” (Hebrews 11:8-10)
“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest (Down Payment) of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.” (Ephesians 1:13, 14)
Answer: The Promise included the land that they were to inherit. The inheritance is the promise. (Gen 12:2) This promise is only for those who “keep his commandments”. (Rev 22:14) The Holy Spirit is called the earnest or down payment on the land we will inherit, as when we buy a house, we are to give a down payment, Many limit the promised inheritance to a piece of land in the Middle East. However, the promise included the inheritance of “the world” (Rom 4:13). The entire earth was promised to Abraham and to his seed.
Abraham is to receive this promised inheritance at the second coming of Christ. (Heb 10:36, 37)
10. Was the promise of the Holy Spirit and being born again only given to those after the time period of the cross?
“That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again… Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:6-10)
“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise…Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Galatians 4:22, 23, 28, 29)
Answer: As it was then, so it is now… Jesus when explaining to Nicodemus the concept of being “born again” or “born of spirit” was asking Nicodemus how it was that he was a leader in Israel and didn’t know about these things. In Jesus’ day all that was in writing was the Old Testament. And Jesus was pointing Nicodemus back to that very concept of how it was always the born again child that would receive the promised inheritance. Jesus made this very clear to the professed children of Abraham when he said “And the servant(slave) abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.” (John 8:35) In other words, if you really are the seed of Abraham and heirs of the promised land, you will “do the works of Abraham.” (Joh 8:39)
In order to become a “son” you must be born again of the Holy Spirit. These children were Abraham’s seed after the flesh. But even Paul made it clear that unless they were born again, they were not “heirs of the promise.” (Gal 3:31)
Isaac’s children also, Esau and Israel. Esau was born first after the flesh. But God said “Israel is my son, even my firstborn.” (Exo 4:22) Esau rejected the birthright. (Heb 12:16) This was the gospel back then being given to the Egyptians. Israel referred to the “born again” seed of Abraham.
The son will inherit “the house” or “kingdom of God.” “Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” (Gal 4:30) This promise regarding Abraham’s child Ishmael is true with all children who do not accept the down payment or “earnest of the inheritance” the Holy Spirit. (Eph 1:13)
The truth that “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) Has been truth since the fall of Adam.
11. What truth is stated concerning these two sons of Abraham? Ishmael, the one born after the flesh, and Isaac, the second son born of the Holy Spirit? (Gal 4:29)
“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” (Galatians 4:24-6)
Answer: There are two covenants. And any study of these covenants without studying the story of the sons of Abraham is an incomplete study of the covenants. One child, Ishmael symbolizes Mt. Sinai. Why? Abraham was given a promise from God that he would give Abraham a son. In a moment of distrust Sara told Abraham to take her bond slave Hagar and go into her so that they could fulfill the covenant promise that Abraham would be a “father of many nations”. (Gen 16:1-3, 12:2, 13:16, 17:2, 3)
A covenant is often symbolized by marriage, and Abraham in violation of the covenant “the two shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:24, 1 Cor 6:16) invited a third party into the covenant violating that covenant. But furthermore, distrusting God to do what he promised, Abraham and Sara basically made the same promise that was made at Mount Sinai. “All that the LORD hath spoken we will do.” (Exo 19:8) They of themselves felt that they by their own works could fulfill the covenant of God. Not realizing that a covenant with God involves believing that God can do the impossible inside of you when it seems impossible. In the same sense we are taught the lesson that though our righteousness is filthy rags, we can believe that God can create by his own power and not ours a new heart in the believer. This is the new covenant promise.
It must be by faith in the power of God, that this new covenant and the law is to be performed. Not by our own works. Jerusalem being the “mother of us all” (Gal 4:26) shows that she is the woman symbolized in Revelation 12, and we are “the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ” (Rev 12:17) and the “faith of Jesus”. (Rev 14:12)
This has been the only way since the creation, since we read in Galatians 4:29 that “as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.” (Galatians 4:29)
Note: There is a common teaching today that says that there is another way since the cross. But this way, has been the same way since the beginning. It is Jesus, the way, truth and the life. (John 14:6) Any other “way” is a “way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” (Pro 14:12) For us to believe that God ever had another way, is to preach “another gospel”. (Gal 1:8, 3:8)
Was there ever hope in the blood of bulls and goats? No. (Heb 10:4). Just as there was never hope in the faulty promises of Sinai. (Heb 8:7,8)
The fact that Christ, as mediator of the second covenant, died for the remission of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, shows that there was no forgiveness by virtue of that first covenant. (Heb 8:6, 7, 9:15)
12. Is the Abrahamic Covenant the same covenant that was made at Sinai?
“The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. (Sinai) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” (Deuteronomy 5:2, 3)
Answer: No. The covenant at Sinai was a different covenant than the one made with the fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Here in this verse (Deu 5:2) we have both covenants before the cross clearly distinguished between. These are the two covenants. (Gal 4:24) One of which contained the promise of salvation, and the other to which no salvation could be had. (Exo 24:8, Heb 10:4) One of which was ratified by the blood of an animal. (Exo 24:8) And one which established upon the blood of Christ. (Gal 3:31) The better covenant established upon better sacrifices. (Heb 9:23, 13:20) The reason for which it is called the second or new covenant has only to do with the timing in which it was ratified.
13. If the New Covenant was better than the old, and the old covenant had no promise of eternal life. Then how could people before the cross receive benefit from the New Covenant?
“For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, …Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:” (Hebrews 6:14-18)
“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)
Answer: Some like doubting Thomas need to see the nail prints in the hands first in order to believe. But “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” and furthermore “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Hebrews 11:1, 3)
The word of God was good to Abraham, and he accepted it. Some laid hold upon the hope set before them without seeing. God made a promise to Abraham, and the answer to the question is that they could believe it by faith in the word of God. The same way that we today looking back believe it without seeing it. The blessing to Abraham could not be had by Thomas while he was doubting. Blessed are they who believe without seeing. It is only to those who can believe the word of God that can truly receive the blessing of the new covenant. And it can be received by anyone no matter which age or dispensation a person is living in.
Abraham did not have to see the nail prints in the hands in order to believe. He was blessed because though he had “not seen…yet believed.” (Joh 20:29)
If Abraham had said “I can’t believe in the power in the blood until I see it, maybe God might fail, or Christ might not make it, maybe Christ could be making a promise but it’s possible that he could lie or Christ could fail.” Then the blessing would not have been his. And he would not have received the benefit and power contained in the “blood of the everlasting covenant”. (Heb 13:20)
14. Does God change the rules to receiving the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant after the cross?
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” (Revelation 22:14)
“Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.” (Psalms 119:1)
“… for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” (Galatians 3:10 see Deu 27:26)
“For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” (Malachi 3:6)
Answer: God wants to write his laws in the heart today, just as he did back then. The sanctuary or temple is a type of his people, we are to be “the temple of God” (1 Cor 3:16) and just as back then the law was written on dead stones and put in a temple made with dead stones, Just as the little book was to be placed in the side of the ark. (Deu 31:26) Even in that time God wanted to write his law in the heart. (Deu 30:6, 10-14) As it was then, even today He wants a walking “epistle…known and read of all men.” (2 Cor 3:2) That same law written in the heart today.
Many believe that it is a curse to try to keep the law today. If we make a promise to try, then yes, it will become a curse. If we say “Amen” letting God do the work, then we as Abraham’s seed will be the “blessed…who do his commandments” (Rev 22:14) The curse is for those who fail to keep his commandments. And it is only by the power of God, and believing the word to do what it says that a man can ever keep these laws. (See John 15:4, 5; Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10; Heb. 13:20, 21; 1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 2:20)
It is the same law that was written in stone in the Old Covenant, which is to be written in the heart in the New Covenant. And it has been this way since the beginning. (1 Joh 3:8-12, Gen 3:15, Heb 11:4)
15. Then why was the covenant made at Sinai if the Abrahamic Covenant was the only one offering salvation?
“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises (or covenant) made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ (with Abraham), the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,(at Sinai) cannot disannul,(change the covenant with Abraham) that it should make the promise(or covenant to Abraham) of none effect.” (Galatians 3:16, 17)(Brackets added for clarity.)
Answer: The Lord was just giving His law at Mount Sinai. He made covenant with Abraham 430 years earlier and this was a repeat of laws that were already previously in effect, which can be seen by a careful study of Leviticus 18:24-28. Sinai changed nothing. The Israelites had yet to hear even the gospel, and were quick to make promises to fulfill the law of God without understanding how it could even possibly be done. The promise of the Israelites to keep it perfectly, and their failure; brought them face to face with the consequences of violating the law of God. The consciousness of guilt, and a sense of its consequences, would be much more forcibly impressed upon their minds than if they had not made the promise which they did. And being thus brought face to face with their sin, and realizing its full enormity, they would be driven to the only source of help, ample provision for which had been made in the covenant with their father Abraham.
The covenant with Abraham was not nullified or changed in one particular at Mount Sinai. Nor did the promise at Mount Sinai make the covenant with Abraham of “none effect”. (Gal 3:17) The covenant with Abraham was the “everlasting covenant” (Heb 13:20, Gen 17:7, 13, 19) And it still is and always will be.
16. Between whom and when did the “everlasting covenant” come into existence?
“Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zechariah 6:13)
Answer: The covenant was made between the Father and the Son. This covenant had to be made before even an angel was ever created. The Father and Son before creating another being, had to make provision should sin ever enter into existence. Without first making a covenant, no provision would have been in place should an angel ever sin. Furthermore the covenant provided for free willed beings. Love would not have anything else, and the love between the Father and Son was so strong that they made a covenant that should sin ever enter the only begotten Son of God who alone could make provision would do so. The Father being the only immortal could not give His life back because He is the source of all life. (1 Cor 8:6, 1 Tim 6:16) Only Christ could fully take on human nature in order to take upon himself the sin, and provide an escape for those would accept “the blood of the everlasting covenant.” (Heb 13:20) The counsel of peace and the plan of salvation was made before any being in the universe was created.
17. Will you accept the blood of the everlasting covenant and salvation from the bondage of sin and self?
1. Doesn’t “first covenant” mean that this covenant was made first?
Clearly the Abrahamic covenant was made before the covenant at Sinai. (Gal 3:17, Deu 5:2, 3) The only reason that the Old Covenant is called “the first covenant” has only to do with having Israel as a whole, and when the “blood” was shed. The blood of their covenant (Exo 24:8) was shed before “the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb 13:20) However the covenant with Abraham is called the everlasting covenant because it is everlasting, and it was called everlasting well before the promise made at Mt. Sinai. (Gen 17:7)
2. When it is demonstrated that the first covenant-the Sinaitic covenant contained no provisions for pardon of sins, some will at once say, “But they did have pardon under that covenant.” Why do they say this?
The trouble arises from a confusion of terms. It is not denied that under the old covenant, i.e., during the time when it was specially in force, there was pardon of sins, but that pardon was not offered by the old covenant, and could not be secured by virtue of it. The pardon was secured by virtue of something else, as shown by Heb. 9:15.
“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Hebrews 9:15)
Not only was there the opportunity of finding free pardon of sins, and grace to help in time of need, during the time of the old covenant, but the same opportunity existed before that covenant was made, by virtue of God’s covenant with Abraham, which differs in no respect from that made with Adam and Eve, except that we have the particulars given more in detail. We see, then, that there was no necessity for provisions to be made in the Sinaitic covenant for forgiveness of sins. The plan of salvation was developed long before the gospel was preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:8), and was amply sufficient to save to the uttermost all who would accept it. The covenant at Sinai was made for the purpose of letting the people see the impossibility of overcoming by man’s power and promises, and to see that only by accepting the promise and power of God contained in the promise and covenant made with Abraham could they overcome sin.
3. Hebrews 9:1 is a text that hinders many from seeing that all God’s blessings to man are gained by virtue of the second covenant, and not by the first. That text reads: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” This, together with the fact that when men complied with these ordinances of divine service, they were forgiven (Leviticus 4), seems to some conclusive evidence that the old covenant contained the gospel and its blessings?
The Bible says forgiveness of sins was not secured by virtue of those offerings; “for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4. Forgiveness was obtained only by virtue of the promised sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 9:15), the mediator of the new covenant, their faith in whom was shown by their offerings. So it was by virtue of the second or new covenant that pardon was secured to those who offered the sacrifices provided for in the ordinances of divine service connected with the old or first covenant.
Moreover, those “ordinances of divine service” formed no part of the first covenant. If they had, they must have been mentioned in the making of that covenant; but they were not. They were connected with it, but not a part of it. They were simply the means by which the people acknowledged the justice of their condemnation to death for the violation of the law which they had covenanted to keep, and their faith in the mediator of the new covenant.
In brief, then, God’s plan in the salvation of sinners, whether now or in the days of Moses, is: The law sent home emphatically to the individual, to produce conviction of sin, and thus to drive the sinner to seek freedom; then the acceptance of Christ’s gracious invitation, which was extended long before, but which the sinner would not listen to; and lastly, having accepted Christ, and being justified by faith, the manifestation of the faith, through the ordinances of the gospel, and the living of a life of righteousness by faith in Christ.
4. Weren’t circumcision and sacrifices part of the Abrahamic Covenant?
Abraham’s children were to be circumcised on the eighth day. This symbol of cutting off the flesh, represents the same symbol we have today in doing baptism.
“”In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;” (Colossians 2:12, 13)
According to those verses we are circumcised with the circumcision of Christ which is signified in Baptism. This symbolizes the new birth and becoming a member of the family of Abraham. (Gal 3:31)
The ritual of sacrifice was not something God desired. However, it was an object lesson that taught the sinner very quickly the consequences of sin. When putting to death a little innocent lamb, that person would be brought to see that someone else had to pay because of what he had done. A terrible lesson, yet a necessary lesson. And hopefully a lesson that would not take long to learn.
The sacrifices ceased at the cross. (Daniel 9:27) And since then Christ ordained a service in remembrance of what he did on the cross. The communion service. “Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us, therefore let us keep the feast.” (1 Cor 5:7, 8) As with the sacrifices which were done at the appointed times. (Numbers 28, 29) So too, was the communion to be done at the appointed times. (Col 2:16, John 6:55, Rev 22:1, 2, Heb 10:25, 1 Cor 5:7,8)
5. Why is first part of the Bible called the Old Testament and the second half called the New Testament?
The Bible says:
“Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:” (2 Corinthians 3:7)
In this particular passage we are told that:
1. The letter kills
2. The commandments written in stone are a ministry of death.
If it isn’t written in the heart, it is an old covenant, whether it be the two tables of stone, or the written letter of the law on a piece of paper. God wants to write the law on two “tables of the heart.”(2 Cor 3:3) However, there is a deeper truth to this that needs to be understood. The part of the Bible called the New Testament also, if it isn’t written in the heart is only the letter. It is a piece of dead paper as is the Old Testament. And if it isn’t written in the heart, it will condemn the sinner as much as the Ten Commandments written on stone will and it also is a “ministration of death”. In fact all Ten Commandments are written in the New Testament. Therefore the New Testament as it is called if it is only written on paper would be a ministry of death and we would be under the old covenant if it wasn’t written in the heart. It would be nothing but a letter, and thus a “ministry of condemnation.” (2 Cor 3:9) But Christ has given us a “more excellent ministry.” (Heb 8:6). We are “ministers of the new testament.” (2 Cor 3:6) And therefore vice-versa both Testaments, if written in the heart can be a New Covenant.
1. The Conditions of Receiving the Abrahamic Blessing include (3)
_____ Saying prayer before bed each night for all my sins I’ve committed that day.
_____ Keeping the Commandments
_____ Moving to Jerusalem
_____ Walking in the Judgments and Statutes
_____ Working at doing better each day
_____ Believing and accepting the grace of God to transform my life
_____ Singing plenty of worship songs every Sabbath
2. The people were saved by the blood of bulls and goats before the cross
3. In the New Covenant God’s people are (2)
4. The Promise of the Covenant at Sinai were faulty(1)
5. Christ is the mediator of (1)
_____ The Old Covenant
_____ The New Covenant
6. Isaac when born of spirit was in the new covenant? (1)
7. Why was the covenant was Abraham called the “second covenant”?
_____ Because it didn’t exist before Sinai.
_____ Because of when it was ratified at the cross of Christ.
_____ Because the author of Hebrews was mistaken.
8. When did the everlasting covenant come into existence? (1)
_____ A.D. 31
_____ Mount Sinai
_____ When Abraham received it.
_____ Before an angel was created.
9. Men were unable to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before 31 AD? (1)
10. God likens receiving the covenant to becoming a born again child? (1)
11. The Law is different in the New Covenant? (1)
12. The First covenant was faulty because (1)
_____ God makes bad promises.
_____ God’s didn’t give clear instructions in His law.
_____ The promise of the people was faulty.
_____ The fault was with the angels.
13. When you accept the New Covenant this makes you (3)
_____ A Gentile
_____ Abraham’s seed
_____ A Jew
14. Are you willing accept the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant? (1)