Cont.
How many covenants?
I will present evidence of two covenants, the old and the new. I will do so from the perspective of the Hebrews, who were party to the old
covenant, and as a party to the old, were more qualified to understand it than we are, two thousand- three thousand years later.
First allow me to post scripture from
Jeremiah 31.
[31] 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:
[32] 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 an husband unto them saith the LORD: . . .
I think it is important to realize that in every case this passage is referring to the covenants (new and old) in the singular sense. They are never referred to as the covenants. This seems to cast doubt on the theory that there were two covenants consummated in Exodus. If someone can post a scripture that refers to the Exodus covenants (plural) that would be helpful in proving their case.
The language in Hebrews is nearly verbatim in describing the old covenant. Likewise it never mentions multiple covenants that were entered in Exodus.
[7] For if that first
covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the
second.
[8] For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
[9] Not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my
covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Once again we have the old and new covenants referred to in singular context. Also we have the reference in verse seven of Hebrews chapter eight, to the second (as in second covenant). This reference in verse seven to the second covenant, appears to mean the NEW covenant.
If in fact, the second covenant reference in verse seven is referring to the new covenant, that would preclude there being two covenants in Exodus. Because if there were two covenants in Exodus, it would necessarily follow that the new covenant would be the third.
Now I will skip to chapter 10 to reinforce the doctrine of two covenants, one new, and one old.
Hebrews 10
[6] In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
[7] Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
[8] Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
[9] Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the
first, that he may establish the
second.
[10] By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
This passage seems to put to rest the theory that there are multiple covenants in Exodus (at least from the perspective of the Hebrews). This passage mentions the first and second covenants (once again in singular context, absolutely consistent with the others).
But notice verse 10. It identifies the second covenant at the end of verse 9, as the new covenant. Because we know that the new covenant was consecrated by the offering of the body of Christ through the crucifixion. That means that there are not two covenants in Exodus, because if there were, the new covenant would (once again) have to be (at the least) the third.
Also, if you notice verse 9, it says that He (Jesus), came to do the will of God. Then it continues that when He taketh away the first (the old covenant which contains the Ten Commandments) that He may establish the second. This brings about a whole new possibility.
Is it harmless that some want to believe in dual covenant theology?
Is it a matter of the Israelites pining for the garlic and leeks of Egypt?
Or is it more serious than that?
Are the people who try to cling to the Ten Commandments unwittingly attempting to subvert the will of God?
Which would be a serious matter indeed!
Threaded Mode
