Paul's Passing Thoughts

Certainly, the covenants are a complex issue and one should always be open and teachable accordingly, but though the New Covenant is definitely superior to the old, even to the point of its glory being insignificant because of the glory of the new, I can’t buy into an ending to the old covenant and all of its attributes altogether prior to the Lord’s return. The following is my eight reasons why:

1. Because the “OC” includes the law. And the “law” includes all Scripture (Matt. 5:18). Two choices there: Law of Moses, or “law” as all of Scripture. Either way, nothing passes away till all is accomplished.

2. When Paul speaks of the OC’s uselessness and its ministry of death, I think this is in regard to justification and not sanctification. If the OC has no more use, what is Paul’s point in Ephesians 6:1-3?

3. As an aside for additional thought: I know “Decalogue” is not a biblical term, but is “Old Covenant” a biblical term? I can’t find that specific term anywhere in the Bible. We have to be careful that language not used in the Bible doesn’t suggest ideas that aren’t in the Bible. For instance, “church” which suggests a special and particular distinction between the Gentiles and the Jews. And “legalism” which suggests that there is an abuse of the law that is separate from anti-law. All abuses of the law are against the law. I don’t think I am belaboring a mute point here because many foul doctrines are afoot due to a distinction between the so-called “ten commandments” and the rest of the law as if the fact that there are ten is some kind of monumental purpose intended by God to set it apart from the rest of Scripture. Just because there are ten. I’m not buying that. The Hebrew writer referred to a “first covenant.” John referred to an “old commandment.” So, if we are going to refer to it, let’s refer to it in biblical language: the “first covenant” (which of course raises some questions at that point). With all of that said, this may be a simple case of missing that term in Scripture, but I’m still looking.

4. I am uncomfortable with a  grammatical tense contradiction between total eradication and total replacement verses what Paul and the Hebrew writer say: they seem to be saying that the OC is in the process of passing away, rather than being totally eradicated. Kenneth Wuest’s expanded translation presents those passages in that tone as well.

5. Jeremiah said the NC is specifically a covenant with Israel, and implies that the consummation is future. I mean, I’m just saying; not everybody from the least to the greatest knows the Lord right now. There is no need for anybody to be taught about the Lord at this present time? Paul writes in 1Cor. 13 that only love will endure, but knowledge will pass away in the future. What knowledge is he talking about? NCT teaches that the “old law” has been replaced with the law of Christ, or the single law of love. That seems to be what Paul is saying in 1Cor. 13, except it’s future.

6. And hearkening back to my third point, “OC” implies that there is only one significant covenant other than the New Covenant. The term “OC” carries that implication with it, but nothing is farther from the truth: there are many other covenants in the OT. Are they eradicated as well?

7. All of the OT covenants had “promises.” The “OC” is certainly no exception. The “OC” also had “blessings and cursings.” If those are not still valid, what do you do with James 1:25 and Ephesians 6:1-3?

8. Because the OC is part of “All Scripture” (2Tim.3:16) and “every word that comes from the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). We still live by it and it is still profitable that the man of God will be equipped for every good work. “All” means “all” and “every” means “every.”