I wanted to do a very brief post to explain something that I think confuses a lot of people, especially in Sabbatarian systems like Armstrongism. I thought a graphic might help. The issue is one of Testaments versus Covenants. They aren't the same thing, and they do overlap. It's important to know this.
Let's start with the basics:
Testaments refer to collections of books. There are two testaments of the Bible: the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The Old Testament contains all of the books from Genesis to Malachi. They center mainly around the history of Israel. The New Testament contains all of the books from Matthew to Revelation. They mainly center around Jesus and the Apostles.
Covenants refer to contracts with God's involvement. There are two great covenants in the Bible: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant was between God and Israel only, and starts at Israel's experience at Mt. Sinai, which you can read about in the book of Exodus. The Old Covenant ended when Jesus died on the cross. The New Covenant is between God and anyone who accepts the covenant. The New Covenant began when Jesus died on the cross. The New Covenant has no end.
The confusion I am referring to is that many people seem to think the Old Covenant stopped at the same place the Old Testament stopped, and the New Covenant starts in the same place the New Testament starts. That is not true! The Old Testament stops before the Old Covenant does. Yes, the Old Covenant continues into the New Testament.
This handy graphic explains it all -
Notice how the Old Covenant extends to the end of the four Gospels. The Old Testament stops at Malachi, but the Old Covenant keeps going.
To be even more precise, the Old Covenant ended at the cross. It was just easier making the graphic the way I did.
People are mistaking where the Covenants begin and end versus where the Testaments do. How does this mistaken understanding manifest? We see it in Armstrongism quite frequently, when people say things like, "Jesus kept the Sabbath, so we should too."
How is that a mistake? Jesus did keep the Sabbath, after all. Don't we want to be like Him?
It is a mistake because He had to do that. He lived His entire regular human life as a Jew during the Old Covenant period. You read about it in the New Testament, but it's during the Old Covenant.
The Old Covenant did not end until He died on the cross. Jesus did everything an Old Covenant Jew would have normally done (only He never sinned, so He never had to do the ritualistic parts regarding atonement for sin/defilement). Of course, Jesus did not do everything the way the religious leaders thought He should. That much is obvious. Yet, He was a Jew during the Old Covenant period none the less and would have behaved accordingly. He had to. He was under that Covenant. Hence, the Sabbath observance.
Are we in that Old Covenant? No. So, claiming we are beholden to the terms of the Old Covenant because Jesus was is a mistake. What Jesus wanted us to do as His disciples is clear: be loyal to the Covenant we are in.
Jesus is not a way backwards to the Old Covenant.
The same with the Apostles. Same with the Rich Young Ruler. Same with every Jew in the Gospels. All of them lived during the Old Covenant. None of them are secret entrances back to the Old Covenant.
Even if they were, they wouldn't lead to one or two or Ten laws only. It's all or nothing.
Most people who try to sneak their way into the Old Covenant don't want all 613 laws. They only want one or two things, and usually that's the Sabbath day. Maybe they will pinch tithes and meats on the way out. Well, that's just not how Covenants work. One does not sneak into the Old Covenant to enjoy a buffet.
So, bear in mind the difference between the Testaments and the Covenants, and pay particular attention to where they begin and end. It might just clear up a few things.
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; )
Acts 17:11
************
2 comments:
Yes, this is crucial to understanding the whole question of a Christian's proper relationship to Torah. I also liked the Torah is NOT a buffet analogy - it is a package, a whole - we don't get to pick and choose and discard what we don't like. As I've said many times, Christ fulfilled the whole law!
One more thing: Whether or not it should be included in the canon is an entirely different question, but I've always thought that Catholics were smart to include books like I and II Maccabees in their Bibles. There were several hundred years between the close of the Old Testament and the advent of the New Testament. I think that all Christians would benefit immensely from a better understanding of what happened during that period.
I couldn't agree more with what you've said about the Second Temple period literature. Maccabees, Enoch, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Not cannon, but very helpful. I absolutely agree Christians would benefit immensely, as you said. 100%
Post a Comment