Many who have attended a church for most of their lives can attest that they seldom or never heard teaching that revolves around the concept of the New Covenant. They may have been taught to view the Bible as one book, and in doing so, have been confused with a combination of two very different covenants that don't always translate into the true gospel.
There are also some who don't believe there is a New Covenant available except to those who are Jewish. Paul spent a good deal of time explaining to Gentiles (in the flesh) the changes that took place since the cross and resurrection ... opening the gate to both groups to receive salvation and life by faith ... while leaving the old ministry of law in the dust.
The Apostle Paul said: "But now we have been delivered from the law." We often apply a phrase such as this to us who are believers in Christ today who typically are not from a Jewish background. We'll offer a perspective on who Paul was specifically addressing from Romans 7 and how removing the dividing wall of separation (the law of commandments) brought Jews and Gentiles together in Christ.
When huddled with His disciples, Jesus said: "Do not think that I came to destroy (abolish) the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." While it was not the mission of Jesus to arrive on earth to declare the law as abolished, He did complete what He came to do—which was first to fulfill it—and this resulted in the law from the Old Covenant being abolished in His flesh and fully annulled and set aside (or cancelled).
When scanning the scriptures in the Bible or hanging out in a mixed-covenant church culture, understanding who was being spoken to, what was being said and when it was said will help us to avoid blending law and grace ... while growing in the knowledge of the truth about the gospel that offers a better hope than an obsolete covenant of works (which we were never alive to).
The Christian religion has notoriously attempted to mix the grace of the gospel of Jesus Christ with a hodgepodge of works-based rules and requirements that will vary with great extreme from one denominational brand to the next. Leapfrogging through various Bible verses which are often taken out of the context of the New Covenant can leave people in a place of uncertainty when it is based upon our doing instead of the finished work of Jesus Christ.
Our conversation will examine the inconsistencies in mixing various aspects of old covenant law with the assurance we have in Christ by faith. Paul made a simple and yet profound statement that is easily overlooked: "For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace" (Romans 6:14).
There seems to be no shortage of contrasts when it comes to comparing the New Covenant to the Old. Sadly, most won't ever hear about it within the walls of their church building, so welcome to our podcast!
Perhaps nobody explains it better than whoever wrote the letter called Hebrews. While they were attempting to bring a revelation of Jesus to their Jewish brothers and sisters of that time, we have so much to gain by latching onto their explanation of what it would mean for all believers in Christ. The Old Covenant contained many offerings which couldn't take away sins, featuring many priests that were weak and sinful—who came and went because of death. It was a covenant deemed to be unprofitable with its many commandments which nobody could do.
Jesus came to fulfill the law within that Old Covenant by offering himself one time (once) for the sins of the world ... to be taken away forever. The Old way of stone tablet commandments given to Israel would be annulled, abolished, cancelled, and made obsolete. It would be completely out of service, null and void, because the new High Priest would be declared ... not by the law, but by the word of the oath (from God). Unlike the priests appointed by law, Jesus would hold his priesthood permanently, forever. Through his blood and the word of the oath, Jesus is now the mediator of a better covenant, it's a more excellent ministry than the Old, established upon better promises.
In a land known as "seminary," it is commonly taught that the law of Moses was basically divided into three different categories, typically referred to as sacrificial laws, ceremonial laws, and moral laws. Dietary commands and many other "miscellaneous" statutes are usually considered as part of the ceremonial group. The misguided approach with this is that the ceremonial and sacrificial laws were brought to an end after the cross, but the "moral laws" are still to apply. This ideology is passed on to the church sheep as it is filtered through Bible teaching from those with educational degrees. The problem? None of this is true. It's completely fabricated. The Bible says no such thing about the law being broken up with some of it eliminated and a small portion of it still in place. Such a concept should be known as cheap law.
There was one law which came through Moses (not multiple laws) ... and it was all bundled together ... of which God declared that nothing shall be added to it or taken from it. The Jews were required to do all of it. Either it all had to remain in effect, or it all had to come to an end. Cherry-picking a few rules here and there while disregarding others is exactly what the law itself says cannot be done. It's interesting to notice that many individual laws the church ignores are mixed right into the very same passages as ones they think should be kept. It's a murky mixture of a covenant combination with glaring inconsistencies.
None of the law was going to pass until it was fulfilled. Jesus fulfilled the entire law, not to mention the Psalms and the Prophets. By establishing a new and better covenant, we now live in a more glorious ministry of the Spirit, where He guides us into all truth, and by grace teaches us how to live in godliness.
In Matthew 18, Jesus makes a statement that is often quoted in religious circles:
“Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
This is usually plucked out and used in a church group setting where people are worshipping together, or it may be applied when "two or more" are gathered to pray, and that their prayers will be answered because there is more than one person present ... "power in numbers," they might say. Notice Jesus didn't say two or more, but was very specific about two or three ... and it was for a distinct reason based on what the law said.
In spite of our assumptions, Jesus was talking about something entirely different and it was from a law-based, Old Covenant perspective (now obsolete). It involved conflict resolution when one would sin against another. Jesus even quoted from the law within the passage. It's clear Jesus is not speaking to non-Jewish people and it's not a "Christian" passage with new instructions—but He was looking back at something from the Mosaic law which was still in place before His death.
Why did some of Paul's statements appear as a contrast to some things Jesus said? Put simply, Jesus made statements to Jewish people who were still under the burden of the Mosaic law. Paul provided revelations of truth for those people who had been freed from that law after Jesus fulfilled it. The mistake of assuming Jesus is always speaking to future believers will miss valuable context regarding what He came to deliver people from—especially as it relates to Israel and the shift from one covenant that was about to be made obsolete ... to something brand new.
One example is when He said, "You are the salt of the earth." Traditionally, many Christians have identified themselves as the salt of the earth, but this was a covenant conversation Jesus was having with His Jewish disciples who were still under the law. A covenant of salt between men was not an uncommon idea in those times. The problem is that Israel failed the covenant God made with them, the salt lost its flavor—and needed to be thrown out (Gulp!). Nobody could attain righteousness through that covenant containing the law. The good news is that by God's grace and mercy, it would not be the people being thrown out, but the covenant would need to be tossed aside and replaced with something better.
The house of Israel was also considered the light of the world as Jesus spoke to them, but it was a light growing dim through an inconsistent effort of works of the law. Jesus later stated He was the light of the world ... and new covenant writings describe us as children of the light ... but it's His light that we reflect, which is a different position than His reference to Israel in Matthew 5.
When it comes to the teachings of Jesus, developing an understanding of the Old and New Covenants and their timeline will help avoid a lot of inconsistencies in what we say and what we think we believe.
It's easy to get confused between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant if we're under the assumption that when Jesus was speaking to His disciples, it means He was also speaking directly to us today.
Jesus was born under the law for the purpose of redeeming the Jewish people from that law, which was incapable of providing them with life and righteousness. The New Covenant did not begin in Matthew 1:1 or at the birth of Jesus ... but would be ratified after His death (Hebrews 9). The "sermon" in Matthew 5-7 was Jesus attempting to methodically show His disciples that if they were to continue to make attempts at attaining righteousness through that law of works, they would fall short of the perfection it demanded ... because it would mean keeping every jot and title of the 613 commandments and statutes. They would need a greater righteousness.
Therefore, what Jesus spoke with His words in these passages is of critical importance ... but it was not a new Christian teaching for all future believers in Christ with a new set of rules that would be even more difficult to follow than the impossible law. They would need a better way to get to God—and Jesus would be that way.
In the early days of the church, there were intense disputes and disagreements among Jewish believers in Jesus regarding non-Jewish people (Gentiles) and how they would fit into the bigger picture. Since Gentiles had never been under the law, but seemingly could still be saved, how would all of this work? Most believing Jews still assumed the Mosaic law would continue to be in effect and remain part of the “Christian” culture in a post-resurrection world.
There were even those named as apostles who were advocating for a gospel catering to Jews and another for Gentiles. Paul came along with a revelation on how the establishment of a New Covenant by Jesus resulted in a bringing together of these two groups—not a separation with different gospel messages. And the obsolete and abolished law would have nothing to do with the one gospel message to be ministered to all people.
The world has an army of theologians who consider themselves soldiers sent to interpret the writings of the Bible. An army is more effective when they work together in sync, but the countless array of viewpoints and opinions have largely left each individual soldier fending for themselves, running in all kinds of different directions and resulting in confusion and disarray. One of the subjects that has “Bible believers” all over the map is on the topic of the New Covenant.
Some will claim it hasn’t begun yet and it will come later after Israel agrees to the terms of the agreement. Others will say it is in effect, but only for Israel. Others who believe the NC is in place and available for everyone have differing views on just exactly how the covenant should be defined. Few church denominations teach on it at all. So let’s take a closer look at the New Covenant and the Jewish/Gentile controversy that was taking place in those early days after the resurrection of Jesus.
