When does the New Testament begin?
The book of the Bible is clearly divided into 2 sections. Even the numbering of pages in the New Testament starts with number 1. As if to say that the Old and New Testaments are 2 completely different books, combined into one by some strange publisher.
However, if you ask yourself when the New Testament officially begins, you can come to very unexpected conclusions. Some may think that the Old Testament ends and the New Testament begins with the birth of Jesus Christ.
However, God has determined that every covenant or agreement is sealed with blood. If the Old Testament was concluded through the blood of animals, calves, then the New Testament was concluded by the blood of Jesus Christ himself.
And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words.
(Ex. 24:8)
For Moses, having pronounced all the commandments according to the law before all the people, took the blood of bulls and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you. 9:19.20)
Christ was the sacrifice by which the New Testament was established. The shedding of His blood - the death of Jesus marked the beginning of the New Testament.
And he said to them: This is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many.
(Mark 14:24)
And so what, you ask? The New Testament has come after all - and what difference does it make from the birth of Jesus or from death, the main thing is that believers now live in the New Testament.
And it affects how you read the Gospels. Because everything that happened in the Gospels - during the life of Jesus Christ - happened in the Old Testament - happened during the operation of the law, not grace.
The requirements of the law were such that if a person wanted to be justified before God, he had to fulfill the entire law without violating even the slightest commandment in the law. If he violated one small commandment - he became a criminal of the law - and the punishment was to be death.
In one of the phrases in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that if someone says a bad word about a neighbor, insults, calls him a "fool" or an "idiot" - this will be tantamount to murder.
You have heard what the ancients said: do not kill; whoever kills is subject to judgment.
But I tell you that everyone who is angry with his brother in vain is subject to judgment; whoever says to his brother: "cancer", is subject to the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, "insane," is subject to fiery hell.
(Mat. 5:21,22)
Many believe - that this is just the New Testament. However, given that Jesus is talking to Jews who are in time in the Old Testament. And the death of Jesus was not even discussed - Jesus here explains to the Jews the meaning of their own law. Those. Jesus, as a rabbi interprets the scriptures - from the point of view of God - that's the meaning of the Law of Moses. And the people, the Jews, spoiled it with their traditions. Jesus wanted to teach them how to actually keep the law.
Moreover, if you look at who this Gospel of Matthew was intended for, it will become clearer what the author wanted to emphasize. It was for the Jews. That is why it talks so much about how the Old Testament law was to be kept.
And the main idea that Jesus wanted to convey when he spoke the Sermon on the Mount was that it was necessary to fulfill the whole law, i.e. it is necessary to be perfect, like God himself.
And the feelings that should have appeared in the listeners of Jesus - not delight at the miraculous words of grace - but horror at the inexorable requirements of the law. The realization of the sinfulness of every Jewish listener, the understanding that no one fulfilled the law - this is the goal that Jesus was striving for.
And considering the Gospel from this perspective, one can see in a new way the story told by the authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. The story that law preceded grace. A story about how much the New is better than the old.
"Name" of Jesus
Expressions involving the "name" of Jesus are common in the New Testament and are of great importance because their use parallels the use of the name of God in the Old Testament. The early Christians had no difficulty in substituting the name of Jesus for the name of God. Indeed, for them, the divine name, YHWH, referred to Jesus, since before Him every knee had to bow, and every tongue had to confess that He was Lord (Philippians 2:9). -11; compare Isaiah 45:20-23). New Testament believers are to live in the name of Jesus, just as Old Testament believers were to live in the name of Yahweh.
People who have heard the Good News and responded to it call on the name of Jesus for salvation (Acts 2:21), believe in His name (John 1:12; 1 John 5:13); then they are justified (1 Corinthians 6:11) and receive forgiveness in the name of Jesus (Acts 10:43; 1 John 2:12), and then they are baptized in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:33; 10:48; 19:5 ). Now, having life in His name (John 20:31), believers should glorify the name of Jesus (2 Thess. 1:12), give thanks and do everything they do in the name of Jesus (Eph. 5:20; Col. 3.17). Just like the Old Testament, where the name of God represents the person of God and all that He is, in the New Testament the "Name" of Jesus means all that Jesus is as Lord and Savior.
In addition to the all-encompassing thought that is contained in the very name of Jesus, there are also a number of important ways of naming that are used in the New Testament in relation to Jesus. Each of them reveals a certain feature of who Jesus was, and in combination they represent the definition of His person and deeds, and become, as it were, His “name”.
Jesus Christ
The name "Christ" or "anointed one" (Heb, mashiah; Ar. meshiha; Greek christos), which occurs about three hundred and fifty times in the New Testament, comes from verbs whose main meaning is "to rub (something)", and the more specific - "to anoint someone." In the Old Testament, the anointing of priests with oil (see Ex. 29:1-9), kings (see 1 Sam. 10:1; 2 Sam. 2:4; 1 Sam. .19,16), as a sign of their special duties to the people of Israel. The prophet Isaiah mentions his own anointing (to “bring the good news to the poor,” Isaiah 61:1) and that of Cyrus, king of Persia (to subdue the nations, Isaiah 45:1), which seem to have come directly from the Lord, without the usual ritual of anointing. As a noun, the word "anointed" (God's) usually referred to kings (see 1 Sam. 12:3, 5), and its designation of priests (see Lev. 4: 5) or patriarchs (see Ps. 104, 15) less common.
However, directly to refer to the coming messianic figure called to save Israel, the word "messiah" i.e. "anointed one" not used in the Hebrew Bible. In the post-captive Old Testament texts we find hope for a renewed (Davidic) monarchy. This event was often portrayed as an event of extraordinary proportions (see Hagg. 2:20-23; Zech. 9:9-10; 12:7-13:1). From this hope grew (probably already in the Hellenistic period, i.e. after 331 BC) the designation by the word mashiah (and its Greek equivalent, christos) future messenger of God. (It was usually believed that such a messenger would restore the independence of Israel and justice.) Therefore, during His gospel, Jesus Himself did not apply this title to Himself, as others called him (Peter, see Mk. high priest, when it became clear that He would be condemned in any case, Jesus does not hesitate to say that He is the Messiah, and immediately paraphrases that He is the Son of Man, so that they would not think that He claims to be messianic from a political point of view. Nevertheless, by the time of the birth of Jesus, a number of places in the Hebrew Bible were understood as references to a special anointed one who would bring redemption to Israel, and this person was called “Christ” (see Acts 2:30,31), the Samaritans were waiting for His coming ( see John 4:25). The Jews were waiting for him and believed that he would perform great miracles (see John 7:31). He was to be the son of David (see Mt. 22:42) and, like David, come from Bethlehem (see John 7:41-42); Even a criminal sentenced to death by crucifixion knew about Christ and asked Jesus if it was He (see Luke 28:39).
In the New Testament the word "Messiah" appears only twice (cf. John 1:41; 4:25) to explain the Greek word "Christ". Obviously, the Gentiles, unfamiliar with Jewish messianic aspirations, did not consider the word christos as a religious term. And only when the Greek-speaking Jewish Christians translated the Hebrew word mashiah to them did it acquire the meaning of a Christological title among the linguistic Christians of the Roman Empire.
So the word "Christ" used to refer to Jesus of Nazareth as the One who was anointed by God to be the redeemer of mankind. Therefore, it often appears as a title in the expressions "Jesus Christ" (Acts 5:42), "Jesus is the Christ" (Acts 18:28) (synod, also: "Christ is Jesus" and "This is the Christ"). Peter calls Him "Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36). Very often this word is combined with the name "Jesus" and actually forms the compound name "Jesus Christ" (see Acts 2:38; 3:6; 9:34; 10:36; Rom. 1:6-8; 1 Cor. 1:6-10), although it does not act as a surname, since the combination "Christ Jesus" is also common (see 1 Cor. 1:1-30; Gal. 2:4). In the same chapter, Jesus can be called "Jesus Christ" (Gal. 3:22), a little lower - "Christ" (Gal. 3:24), and then also "Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3, 26).
In Paul's writings, the word "Christ" used in combination with the title "Lord" (kyrios, Rom. 10:9), as well as in combination with such concepts as the gospel (see Rom. 1:16) and faith (see Gal. 2:16) and in passages that speak of the death and resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15; Romans 3:23; 5:6-7; Gal. 3:13) reflecting the early Christian belief that crucifixion was part of Jesus' messianic role.
As for other places in the New Testament, the writer of Hebrews refers to the Old Testament ideas about the anointing of priests and transfers them to Jesus (see Heb. 1:9; 5:8-10; 7:1-28). The name "Christ" is also found in the epistles of Peter (see 1 Peter 1:13; 3:18; 2 Peter 1:1-2:16; 3:18), in James (see James 1:1; 2, 1) and Judas (see Jude 1:47,21,25). In the Revelation of John, Jesus is called Christ, it anticipates the end of time, when the Kingdom and salvation of the Lord and His Messiah will completely and forever prevail (Rev. 11:15; 12:10; 20:4,6). The meaning of the name "Christ" lies in the fact that this is the title given to Jesus due to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in Him and His resurrection from the dead. The name "Jesus" was quite common among the Jews (the Greek form of "Joshua" "Yeshua", "Josiah", cf. Lk.3:29; Heb.4:8, where the name "Jesus" in the Greek text corresponds to the name "Joshua"), he was but-powered by other people mentioned in the New Testament, for example, Justus (see Col. 4:11). But no one else was called Christ. It is significant that the first disciples of Jesus began to be called not "Jesusians", but "Christians", followers of Christ (see Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet. 4:16).
Jesus - Son of God
This is by far the most significant Christological term in the New Testament. The words "Son of God" or their equivalents ("Son", "My Son", etc.) are found in it more than 124 times, and they can be considered the main Christological category in each of the Gospels. The New Testament describes the relationship of Jesus with God, primarily in terms of divine sonship. This concept itself includes several meanings associated with a special mission, obedience, the deepest relationship, knowledge, god-likeness, gaining blessings and gifts.
In the Old Testament, the concept of divine sonship appears in connection with three persons or groups of persons: these are angels (Gen.6.2; Job.1.6; Dan.3.25), Israel (Ex.4.22-23; .11:1; Mal. 2:10) and the king (2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 88/89:26-27). When it comes to Israel and the king, sonship emphasizes the special belonging to God, the election for the service of God (i.e. obedience to Him) and the experience of God's love, mercy, protection and gifts.
Although in the Old Testament the king is relatively rarely referred to as the son of God, this use of the term is closer to the meaning that it has in the New Testament than to the meaning of angels or even the whole people. Also, the Old Testament does not explicitly refer to the Messiah as the Son of God. However, there are three passages in the Qumran writings in which the idea of the Son of God is associated with the Messiah: "He will be praised as the Son of God, and they will call him the Son of the Most High." Although the passages ascribed to the Messiah as sons of God are rare and scattered, the following have been noted: 1) Messianic hopes during this period were almost always associated with the ideal king of the line of David (who is called the "Son of God" in the Old Testament); 2) in some statements in the New Testament, apparently, there is a conjugation of the concepts of "Messiah" and "Son of God" (see Mark 14:61; Matt. 16:16). This suggests that the perception of the Messiah as the Son of God was not entirely alien to Palestinian Judaism.
Asks DmitryAnswered by Alexander Dulger, 13.03.2011
Dmitry writes: Hello! I have a question regarding donations to the Church. There are many questions on tithing on your site, although, as far as I know, neither Christ nor the apostles commanded Christians to give the Church a tenth of their earnings, gift or other income, i.e. the Old Testament tithing. Carefully studying the New Testament, I came to the conclusion that a Christian should give to the Church as much as his heart tells him and his state allows. I will be very grateful to you if you show me at least one place in the New Testament Scripture that says that a Christian should give tithe. So far, I have not found anything like this either on your site or in the New Testament. Thanks in advance for your reply!
Peace to you, brother Dmitry!
With regard to offerings (donations), you have come to the right conclusion.
Regarding tithing, I want to ask you - what is the "Old Testament tithing"? What is this term? Do you want to say that all the institutions that are in the Scriptures of the books of the Old Testament do not apply to us? Is this the meaning you put into the term "Old Testament"? That is, unnecessary? And what about the "Old Testament" commandment number 3 (). Shouldn't it be followed as well? After all, it is not mentioned in the New Testament.
Speaking strictly according to the Bible, that is the Levitical tithe (, etc.), which many point to as the reason for the abolition of tithes in the New Testament, since the law of the Levitical priesthood ceased to exist. However, there is a tithe, and not a Levitical one, but just a tithe. It was given by Abraham and his grandson Jacob. Apostle Paul writes about this in the 7th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. On what grounds shall we abolish this tithe? Just because it is mentioned in a book that is included in the Old Testament canon?
In Paul writes: "Those who receive the priesthood from the sons of Levi are commanded to take according to the law tithes from the people, that is, from their brothers, although these also came from the loins of Abraham." ()
For the Levites, the basis for receiving tithing was the Law of Moses given by God. But later in verses 6 and 7, Paul writes that Melchizedek accepted the tithe even though he was not a Levite. Why? On what basis?
This means that there was exactly the same divine institution, on the basis of which the righteous of antiquity, even from the first people, gave tithe to the priests of the Most High God (). There were quite a lot of such institutions and they are not mentioned in the Bible, but the context allows us to draw such a conclusion.
The same Abraham did not steal and did not commit adultery, not at all because he independently came to such a conclusion, but because there was such a divine institution. Although it is not mentioned in the Bible.
Abel brings a sacrifice for the sin "hatat" () exactly according to the ritual described in. But he lived 2500 years before the Levitical laws. How did he know this?
Noah offers a burnt offering "ola" () according to the ritual described in. How did he know how to perform the ritual? Did you invent it yourself?
The laws of God were well known to ancient people and existed in the form of oral tradition, and not in the form of a written code of law. Sacrifices were carried out according to the rules, although perhaps with less detail than in the Law of Moses, tithes were returned and the 10 moral precepts were observed.
Melchizedek was a type of Christ, writes Paul, as were the Levites. And although the law of the Levitical priesthood ceased to exist due to the change of priesthood (v. 12), but the authority of Christ to accept tithes from mortal people remained (v. 7-8). Since this is the fact of recognizing the elder as the younger, the Creator as a creation.
Of course, we cannot give the tithe directly to Christ. Yes, He does not need it in heaven. In all ages He commanded to pass it on to His representatives on earth (Melchizedek, the Levites, the servants of the Church).
Sincerely,
Alexander
Read more about "Tithing and Offerings":
Of course, Mat. 5:5, 6:10, 2 Pet. 3:13 or Rev. 5:10 and 21:1, but there is a more important point here. This very question betrays a misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Kingdom of God and those messianic prophecies that Christ fulfilled. This, in turn, is connected with the perception of the Bible as two unrelated parts (“Testaments”) and Christianity and Judaism as two different religions. Meanwhile, Christ did not found a new religion, but simply fulfilled the prophecies previously given by God through the prophets. It is worth understanding this, and we will immediately see that the question asked in the title is initially meaningless.
Let's look at just a couple of examples. The vast majority of biblical scholars in all but the most radical denominations agree that the following prophecies were fulfilled (or will be fulfilled) in Jesus Christ:
Behold, the days will come, says the Lord, when I will fulfill that good word which I spoke concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will restore to David the righteous Branch, and it will produce judgment and righteousness on the earth ... For thus says the Lord: David's husband who sits on the throne of the house of Israel will not fail (Jer. 33:14-15, 17).Rejoice with joy, daughter of Zion, rejoice, daughter of Jerusalem: behold, your King is coming to you, righteous and saving, meek, sitting on a donkey and on a young donkey, the son of a jock. Then I will cut off the chariots of Ephraim and the horses of Jerusalem, and the bow of battle will be crushed; and he will proclaim peace to the nations, and his dominion will be from sea to sea and from the river to the ends of the earth (Zech. 9:9-10).
These prophecies were made after Judah had lost its independence and the Davidic dynasty had lost its power. However, Jeremiah and Zechariah write that a descendant of David will regain power and carry out grandiose transformations. They write about the future. This is what the Jews were waiting for all the time later. Note that in both cases it is said that the new king from the dynasty of David will rule on earth, and not on another planet, in another dimension or in the spiritual realm. Which is completely logical, since all his predecessors ruled the earth. However, there will be one important difference - the future kingdom of the Messiah (the Anointed One) will cover the whole earth ("to the ends of the earth").
Of particular interest here is the text from Zech. 9:9-10. This prophecy consists of two parts, of which the first has already been fulfilled (Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey). The second part is yet to be fulfilled: peace to the nations and dominion to the ends of the earth. And if the first part of the prophecy has already been fulfilled, and this is a historical fact, then what reason do we have to doubt the fulfillment of the second part?
Lest anyone think that I am tweaking the Bible to suit my needs, here is how the first prophecy is explained in various commentaries:
Jeremiah 33 repeats with sufficient and rich color the revelation of these
blessings and concerns, in particular, the presence of the Messiah; she announces that the branch of righteousness will return to David and judgment and righteousness will be fulfilled on earth. Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will live in safety... We do not find in Jeremiah a rejection of the Messiah. Its theme is present sins and future intentions with which the Messiah is coming (D. Darby).Of the 20 kings in the line of David before the captivity, almost all of them were lawless. Only very few were worthy of the name of David. In chapters 22 and 23, the prophet Jeremiah strongly incriminates the entire royal dynasty, to whom God promised an eternal throne. Here in chapter 33 God gives a more detailed explanation of the prophecy about the great king, called the "Branch", in whom all the promises will be fulfilled (G. Gelley).
This is not about the restoration of royal power, but about the establishment of the kingdoms of the Messiah (New Geneva Study Bible).
(It is interesting that the word "Branch", which is used by Isaiah in a similar prophecy (11:1), echoes the name of the city of Nazareth, where Jesus was born, which emphasizes in his Gospel Matthew (2:23): "... and when he came, he settled in the city called Nazareth, may it come true that it was spoken through the prophets that He would be called a Nazarene.” There is not a single prophecy where Christ is called a Nazarene, but the fact is that the word “Nazarite” also means “branch” or “offspring.” This play on words.)
Here is how biblical scholars comment on the second prophecy from Zechariah:
Verse 9 is quoted in the New Testament in connection with the solemn entry of Christ into
Jerusalem (Mat. 21:5; John 12:15). In the same spirit, in verse 10 the prophet speaks of the day of final triumph. A look at the beginning of the messianic kingdom, a look at the end (G. Gelley).10 I will destroy the chariots ... the horses. The paraphernalia of war will be destroyed in the peaceful kingdom of the righteous King (Is. 2:1-5; 11:6-9; Mic. 5:10&COM) (New Geneva Study Bible).
Okay, but maybe things are different in the New Testament? No. Let us remember what the angel Gabriel told Mary. And these are important words, they reveal the whole future role of the Messiah and his place in the intention of God:
He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father; and shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom shall have no end (Luke 1:32-33).
We see the same prophecies about the "throne of David" and the "house of Jacob" that abound in the Hebrew Scriptures. The angel confirms that these prophecies will be fulfilled in Jesus. And where was Jacob's house - in heaven or on earth? Jesus will rule there. And again the biblical commentary on this verse:
He will be great. The majesty of Jesus as the Son of the Most High was to surpass the majesty predicted to John (v. 15). Throne of David his father. Even David was prophesied that the Messiah would be one of his descendants (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Ps. 89:30). 33 His kingdom will have no end. Only the Kingdom of God can be an eternal kingdom (New Geneva Study Bible).God will give Him the throne of his father David. Here again we clearly see that He is seen as a man born into this world. The throne of His father, David, belongs to Him. God will give it to him. By birthright He will inherit vows, earthly vows for the kingdom that belongs to the line of David; but it will be by the counsel and authority of God. He will reign over the house of Jacob, not only over Judah forever and ever, for the transitory power is fragile, and life is short-lived; and his reign will be endless. As Daniel truly foretold, it will never be given to another and will never pass to another people. It will be established according to the will of God, which is unchanging, and in accordance with His authority, which will never fall. Until He hands over the kingdom to God the Father, He will reign unconditionally and will hand over the kingdom (on fulfillment of all promises) to God, but the glory of kingship will never fade in His hands (D. Darby).
So, to the question “Where does the NT speak of an earthly paradise?” the correct answer would be: "Wherever the Kingdom of God is spoken of."
This is about 100 times. This is how this teaching was understood by all the Jewish listeners of Christ, who knew these prophecies from the cradle. When Christ positions himself as the Messiah and the fulfiller of the prophecies, he draws the attention of the listeners to those prophecies that they already know well. They did not need to further explain what kind of kingdom they were talking about. Let us remember how the apostle (then-to-be) Andrew reacted when he learned about Jesus: “We have found the Messiah” (John 1:42). He found someone he already knew and was waiting for, not some new preacher of a new religion. For the same reason, the thief, to whom Christ promised life in paradise, understood Christ from a half-word (Luke 23:43). This is why the NT does not chew on this teaching in great detail. Jesus and the apostles are building on the foundation that was already there. But if we, contemptuously branding them "shabby", then we will have a gap in knowledge and a lot of questions.
This was believed by the early Christians long after the apostles. Here is what a contemporary of Justin, the “father of the church” and the official Orthodox Catholic saint Irenaeus of Lyon, writes:
For during the time of the kingdom, a righteous person, while on earth, will already forget to die: “When it is said that everything is subdued, it is clear that except for Him who subdued (to Him) everything. When everything is subject to Him, then the Son Himself will be subject. Him who subjected all to Him, may God be all in all” (1 Cor. 15). So John clearly foresaw the first resurrection of the righteous and their inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; according to him, the prophets foretold about him. The Lord also taught the same thing, promising to have with his disciples a new dissolution of the cup in the kingdom (Matthew 26:29). And the Apostle confessed that the creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption into the freedom of the sons of God (Rom. 8.21). And in all this and through everything, the same God the Father is revealed, who created man and promised the fathers an earthly inheritance, leading her (from slavery) into the resurrection of the righteous, and fulfilling the promises in the kingdom of His Son, and then paternally bestowing that which the eye has not seen, not an ear heard, and what did not ascend into the hearts of people (Refutation of false knowledge).
Another 2nd century writer, Justin the Philosopher (Martyr):
And I and other Christians who are sensible in everything, know that there will be a resurrection of the body and a millennium in Jerusalem, which will be settled, adorned and exalted, as Ezekiel, Isaiah and other prophets declare. Isaiah says this about this millennium: there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and the former ones will not be remembered and will not come to the heart, but they will find joy and gladness in it because of what I am doing; for I will make Jerusalem a joy and my people a joy, and I will rejoice in Jerusalem and rejoice in my people. And there will be no more voices of weeping, no more voices of crying, and there will no longer be any baby and old man who will not fulfill his time; for the youth will be a hundred years old, but the dying sinner a hundred years old and will be cursed. And they will build houses and live themselves, and plant vines and eat its fruits and drink wine (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew).
Someone may object: but the kingdom is called heavenly. Yes, but why? First, the sky symbolizes God and everything that comes from him, everything holy and righteous. Remember: “Heaven is my throne” (Acts 7:49; Matt. 5:34; 23:22). Secondly, it literally rules from heaven, from the symbolic heavenly Jerusalem. The Jews understood this metaphor: David also ruled his country from Jerusalem, which was located on Mount Zion, that is, in a rather high place. If one can be on a mountain and rule a valley, then one can also be in heaven and rule the earth. Even John, describing the heavenly Jerusalem in vision, describes it not as a place isolated from the earth, but as "coming down from heaven" (Rev. 21:2). Where does he go if not to earth? It shines to the “saved peoples”, and, we note, “kings of the earthly» (Rev. 21:24). All images and prototypes of the heavenly Kingdom are closely connected with the earth and its inhabitants. It cannot be otherwise, since the Messiah and his kingdom are the means of “destroying the work of the devil” (1 John 3:8), and from this devilish work, as we know from the first chapters of Genesis, it is mainly the earth that suffers.
Commentators on Revelation 21:
Against the background of the general renewal of the universe, the appearance of a new heaven and a new earth is taking place - the voice of God announces the descent from above the New Jerusalem ... 1 I saw a new heaven and a new earth. Some interpreters believe that the new world will be completely different, in no way connected with the old one. But the word of God (Is. 65:17-25 and Rom. 8:21-23) indicates that it means the transformation of the old world, just as our old bodies are transformed into new ones (1 Cor. 15:35-37) . The words "I make all things new" (v. 5) indicate the fullness and comprehensiveness of the process of transformation; its result is the redemption of mankind, not creation anew (New Geneva Study Bible).What follows is a description of the heavenly city, just as we read the description of Babylon earlier. His heavenly essence and thousand-year connection with the earth are revealed. One of the seven angels, as in the case of Babylon, shows the prophet the bride, the wife of the Lamb. The results of judgment on earth serve as a prelude to better and higher blessings. Like Moses, the prophet ascends in spirit to look into the realms of promise; he sees the New Jerusalem descending from heaven from God (D. Darby).
And here is what we read in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
Chiliasm (from the Greek chilias - a thousand) - faith in the "thousand-year kingdom" of God and the righteous on earth, that is, in the implementation of the mystically understood ideal of justice even before the end of the world. The term (chiliasm) is usually applied to early Christian teachings, condemned by the church in the 3rd century, but revived in medieval popular heresies and later sectarianism.
Encyclopedia Britannica (my translation):
Millenarianism, also known as chiliasm, is the doctrine expressed in the Revelation of John, the last book of the New Testament, that Christ will establish a 1000-year reign of the saints on earth (millennium) before the Last Judgment.
(Let's pay attention to the phrases “the kingdom of God and the righteous” and “the reign of the saints on earth” - this indicates that Christ will rule. Irenaeus of Lyon spoke in a similar way: “They who are honored with a heavenly sojourn will go there, i.e. to heaven, others will enjoy the pleasures of paradise, others will own the beauty of the city, but everywhere God will be seen, as those who see Him will be worthy "(Refutation of false knowledge). The 17th century Christian thinker John Milton wrote in his poem "Paradise Regained": "(Christ) He will reward the faithful with bliss in Heaven or on Earth; for then the whole Earth will become Paradise, Eden far exceeding the immensity of happy days.")
Why then, today, few people believe in it? The Newest Philosophical Dictionary says:
Christianity, having become the official religion of the Roman Empire (324), refused to change earthly orders, emphasized the idea of otherworldly retribution and condemned chiliasm as a false doctrine.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia :
After Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire (4th century), the established Christian church, seeing in chiliasm an ideology hostile to the existing world order and belittling the “saving” role of the church, began to cruelly persecute the chiliasts as heretics.
Britannica (my translation):
Augustine went even further, declaring that neither history nor chronology should be interpreted in an apocalyptic way, and that the millennium is not a future event, but one already begun by Christ. To explain the ongoing wars, hatred, injustice and poverty, Augustine resorted to the concept of "two cities". There was a "heavenly city", a heavenly Jerusalem, where the millennium had already manifested itself, and an "earthly city", earthly Babylon, where the millennium was not yet visible. These two cities will coexist as a corpus permixtum ("mixed body") in every individual and every society until the end of time. Thus, the empire and the earthly church cannot represent the complete realization of eschatology, and their historical destiny has nothing to do with God's plans for the salvation of man. This interpretation radically reoriented Christian eschatology and removed from Christian theology the doctrine of the coming kingdom of God on earth.
So, the clear teaching of the Bible came into conflict with the interests of certain religious organizations, and they decided to get rid of it. If Justin and Irenaeus lived only two centuries later, they would be considered heretics. Today, these organizations are still active and still want to influence what we believe in. Fortunately, each of us has his own head on his shoulders, and we can choose what to believe in - the teachings of the Bible or Augustine.
Some will say that Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about the two classes (I've already talked about that) or about other nuances of eschatology. Yes, it has many nuances. This is not an easy topic. But something else is much more important: today Jehovah's Witnesses are practically the only denomination that has preserved the original Christian faith in the millennium kingdom of Christ and the saints over the paradise earth inhabited by people. Even if they are wrong about something (who is right about everything?), no one comes closer than them to a correct understanding of this key biblical teaching. I invite all open-minded seekers of truth to reflect on this.
The contract/covenant creed is central to understanding God's salvation story as revealed through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of His Son and our Lord Jesus Christ. It also plays a key role in understanding the nature of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. I hope the following material will help shed light on these issues and encourage us to praise God even more for His merciful treatment of sinful mankind.
Covenant with Abraham
Although God's merciful relationship with fallen mankind began in Paradise when He called Adam and Eve, it was during Abraham's call that God first decided to establish that relationship in the form of a covenant. The covenant that God made with Abraham is seen in the Bible as the foundation of salvation history. In Genesis 15, we read that God appeared to Abram in a vision at the same time that Abraham began to doubt how God would fulfill His promise to bless him with many offspring. Abraham already had a certain relationship with God, who called him from the pagan city of Ur and brought him to the land of Canaan. Abraham's relationship with God was based on trust, confirmed by the sacrifices he made to God in the new earth. Abraham knew that God needed to be pleased by offering sacrifices for sins, just as sacrifices were made to the gods in pagan religion. So when we read in Genesis 15 that God spoke to Abraham in a vision, we cannot say that it was then that God established a relationship with him or gave him new promises. Even earlier, Abraham received from God the promise of a multitude of offspring who would inherit the land where he now temporarily resided. He received the promise that in him, that is, in his "seed", all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3). When God again spoke to Abraham in a vision, He confirmed these promises through the rite of a bonded oath.
This rite, which is literally described as "cutting the covenant," is an ancient ritual in which two parties making oaths to each other cut the animals in half and pass between the two halves to finalize the pledge. Passing between the cut parts of a dead animal was supposed to symbolize the death of the person making the promise, in case he breaks it. In this regard, God, called to be a witness to the oath, is asked to kill the perjurer.
Jer. 34:17–20
“Therefore thus saith the Lord: ye disobeyed me in that every one should declare liberty to his brother and to his neighbor; Therefore, behold, says the Lord, I declare to you freedom to be subjected to the sword, pestilence and famine, and I will hand you over to bitterness in all the kingdoms of the earth; And I will give those who transgressed My covenant and did not stand in the words of the covenant which they made before Me, cutting the calf in two and passing between the torn parts of it, the princes of Judah and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs and the priests, and all the people of the earth that passed between the torn parts of the calf, I will give them into the hands of their enemies and into the hands of those who seek their lives, and their dead bodies will be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.”
It is important to note that the covenant ceremony with which God came to Abraham, as described in Genesis 15, is one-sided, that is, God acts as the only party who makes promises, and therefore only God in the form of smoke as would be from the furnace and the flame of fire passes between the dissected animals. However, this does not mean that the promise was unconditional. Genesis 18:17–19 (cf. Gen. 17:1) clearly indicates the faithful obedience required of Abraham and his descendants in order for the covenant promise to stand. And a few years later, God added an important symbolic act in the form of circumcision to preserve this covenant relationship. Circumcision was the visible sign of this special relationship with God, who made a special promise to the seed of Abraham.
A covenant is a promise sealed by an oath ritual;
God makes a promise to Abraham (not vice versa);
This promise has a condition: the obedience of faith.
The Covenant Through Moses
In Exodus 24, we read that Moses, returning from the mountain, where he got acquainted with all the subtleties of God's law, expounds it in detail to the people, who agree to be obedient to God's word. The chapter then goes on to describe the worship service that took place the next morning.
Ref. 24:4–8:
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rising early in the morning, he set up under the mountain an altar and twelve stones, according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel; And he sent young men from the children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed the calves as a peace offering to the Lord. Moses, taking half of the blood, poured it into the bowls, and sprinkled the altar with the other half; And he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud to the people, and they said, All that the Lord has said we will do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, saying, Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you concerning all these words.
We may wonder about the importance of this special ritual involving the shedding of blood and its relation to the concept of the covenant. The words of verse 8 were quoted by the Lord Jesus Christ at the time of His establishment of the tradition of the Lord's Supper, and applied in this context, these words reveal to us His interpretation of this ritual.
“For this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matthew 26:28).
It is quite clear that Jesus viewed the "blood of the covenant" as atoning blood, that is, as a substitutionary punishment for sins committed against God. It seems that the apostle Peter was of the same opinion, since the phrase about the sprinkling of blood in the following quotation may refer to the 24th chapter of the book of Exodus.
“Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to strangers, ... chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, with sanctification from the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 1:1-2).
Obviously, the blood of the sacrificial animals in Exodus 24 performs a different function than the animals cut in half in Genesis 15. In addition, it can be said that the animals used during the ritual of making an oath contract were not sacrificed on the altar. In the 24th chapter of the book of Exodus, special importance is attached to the sprinkling of the people during the ritual of sacrifice. God's work of cleansing the people, the purpose of which is to establish these covenant relationships, is in the foreground, as well as the desire of people to obey God with gratitude. These two elements are also present in God's covenant with Abraham, namely in Genesis 15:6, which describes the moment when God imputed Abraham's faith to him for righteousness, and the obedience expected from him is spoken of in Genesis 18:17–19. It is important to note that despite the people's promise to be obedient, the covenant in Exodus 24 is God's covenant with His people (v. 8), not the other way around. The actual promises of the Lord are no longer specified in chapter 24. Because deliverance from Egyptian bondage was part of the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham and his seed in Genesis 15, along with the promise of the inheritance of the land and the promise of many descendants, we find reference to the continued fulfillment of these covenant promises throughout the context. worship of God (cf. Deut. 1:8). Naturally, the essence of the covenant is the promise that God will be the God of the people of Israel (Gen. 17:7; cf. Ex. 19:5–6; Lev. 26:9–12), i.e., He will protect them in the promised land and bless them if they fulfill the terms of the covenant. In the ritual of sacrifice, Jesus emphasizes the element of forgiveness of sins (cf. Matt. 26:28), which is key to maintaining a relationship with a holy God.
Thus, each Old Testament sacrifice to God is, as it were, a repeated rite of making a covenant, through which the covenant is confirmed by God's desire to cleanse His people from their sins with the blood of bulls and goats. This is clearly expressed in Ps. 49:5 where God says:
"Gather to me my saints, who have entered into a covenant with me at the sacrifice."
This is also repeated by the apostle Paul in Rom. 11:26-27 (based on Isaiah 59:20-21):
“As it is written: The Redeemer will come from Zion, and he will turn wickedness away from Jacob. And this is my covenant to them, when I take away their sins from them.”
We should also note that regular human covenants often ended with a sacrifice to God (or gods) and a sacrificial meal (cf. Gen. 31:43–54 (Jacob and Laban) and Ex. 34:15 (prohibition of alliances). with unbelievers, because it would entail sacrificing to their gods.) In the standard human covenants, God was the witness of the oath given in His name. who entered into the covenant, and God.
Let's summarize the above:
Because of sin, God's people do not fulfill the conditions of having the obedience of faith;
The covenant is repeatedly affirmed by the shedding of the blood of sacrificial animals for the forgiveness of sins.
God's relationship with His people is presented as a marriage covenant
Many prophets presented God's covenant relationship with His people as a marriage covenant. Obviously, in Old Testament times, marriage was seen as a form of covenant (בְּרִית). The prophet Malachi, in 2:14, makes this clear when he literally speaks of the "lawful wife" (בְּרִית) (cf. Ezek. 16:8). When establishing a marriage alliance, the husband and wife publicly take oaths (promises under oath) to be faithful to each other. For this reason, the prophets use this imagery to show the spiritual adultery of Israel when they serve other gods (cf. Hosea 1–3). This image is also often used in describing a divided kingdom. Jehovah is called the husband of two sisters, Israel and Judah, who committed adultery. As a result, the divorce laws come into force, which the prophet describes by referring to the captivity in the beginning of Israel and then Judah (cf. Jer. 2:2, 20; 3:1ff; Ezek. 16; 23; Is. 50:1). When captive Jews are called to return to the promised land, this is portrayed as a restoration of marital relations (cf. Isaiah 54:5–8; 62:4–5).
Although it is clear that this imagery is used in relation to God's relationship with His people, and therefore in relation to certain covenant relationships discussed above, the connection between the imagery of marriage and the covenant made with Abraham and established under Moses has never been specifically established. It is important to take this into account when considering what the New Testament says about a "covenant" or "testament." Although the New Testament clearly uses the image of marriage to describe the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church (see Eph. image with the concept of "treaty" or "testament". In fact, the manner in which the concept of contract/testament is presented in the New Testament was heavily influenced by the translation known as the Septuagint.
Agreement or will?
In Hellenistic times, around the third century B.C., Jewish translators of the Holy Scriptures working in Alexandria began the work that later became known as the Greek translation of the Old Testament, used by Jews throughout the world, and which is known to us today as the Septuagint.
In considering our topic, it is important to note that various translators have chosen to translate the Hebrew word for "treaty" (בְּרִית) by the common Greek word for "testament" (διαθήκη). By using this term, the translators seem to have wished to highlight the promising nature of the covenant that God has made with His people. They may also have been influenced by the fact that God's relationship with His people is sometimes characterized as that of a father with his son(s) (e.g., Ex. 4:22–23; Deut. 14:1; 32:5–6 ; Hos 11:1). Strictly speaking, the term "testament" (διαθήκη), applied to God's covenant with Abraham and its further references in the Old Testament, is used in the sense of a covenant-based promise (i.e., in the understanding of the Old Testament - an oath promise) to provide certain " things" or "property" to the recipient at a specific time. A "testament" does not necessarily imply that the provision of the promised things will come to pass only after the death of the testator, as is clear from Galatians 4:1-2 and Jesus' parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-12).
The translation of the word "covenant" into Greek by the term "testament" had a much deeper meaning when it was used by Jesus and the apostles, speaking of God's covenant, or better said "testament", for His people and the promised "new covenant/testament" . The New Testament consistently adheres to the Septuagint in its use of the word "testament" rather than "contract". For many interpreters of the New Testament who understand the word בְּרִית. in a broader sense - in the sense of "agreement" or "contract", this use of the word caused considerable difficulties. Therefore, it was decided to interpret the word διαθήκη in a broad sense as "agreement", despite all lexical evidence to the contrary. The writers of the New Testament, which emphasizes the death of the testator (Heb. ch. 9) and the terminology of inheritance (cf. Gal. 3:15-18), clearly understood the term διαθήκη ("testament") in its usual sense. Special efforts must be made to understand the term differently, although many have succumbed to this. For this reason, many translations of the New Testament use the word "treaty" to translate the Greek word "testament." However, this often does not lead to significant difficulties in understanding. A good example of this is Hebrews 9:15-18, where the author consistently uses the word "testament" but translators translate the same word sometimes as "covenant" and sometimes as "testament." If we read this passage with the concept of a will in mind, we will see how clearly the author makes his point:
“And therefore He is the mediator of the new covenant, so that, in consequence of [His] death, which was for redemption from the crimes committed in the first covenant, those called to the eternal inheritance receive the promised. For where there is a will, it is necessary that the death of the testator should follow, because the testament is valid after the dead: it has no effect when the testator is alive. Why the first [covenant] was not approved without bloodshed.”
Let's summarize the above:
Whenever you read the word "covenant" in the New Testament translation, you must understand it as "testament".
The promise of a new covenant
It was the beginning of the Babylonian captivity that marked the end of the "old" covenant. People broke the covenant by putting their trust not in the Lord and not keeping His commandments (Lev. 26:15; Deut. 31:16, 20). Therefore, the Lord left His temple and expelled His people from the promised land for their failure to fulfill the terms of the covenant promises. Thus they reaped the curse of the covenant, as stated in Leviticus 26:14-45 and Deuteronomy chapters 27-28 (see esp. Deut. 28:64-65). But despite this, the Lord did not break His oath/covenant to keep Abraham's seed (cf. Leviticus 26:44; Judges 2:1; Rom. 3:3). Abraham's offspring were not completely destroyed during the captivity. At the same time, the Lord also made a promise that He would make a new covenant with the remnant of His people. In the new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13), the law will be written not only on tablets of stone, but on hearts (just as it was part of God's intentions in the old covenant, cf. Deut. 30:6). This covenant will be eternal, i.e. it will not be a covenant that can be broken through unbelief (cf. Jer. 32:40; 50:5; Is. 54:9-10; 55:3, etc.) .
The establishment of this covenant was expected upon the return of the people from captivity (Isaiah 40). But was the new covenant really established at that time? The Israelis faced some problem. On the one hand, the covenant/covenant was re-established at the time of their return, but on the other hand, not all the promises of the new covenant have yet been fulfilled. Where was the shechinah (appearance of the glory of the Lord in the cloud) during the consecration of the new temple? Soon after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, Ezekiel saw the glory of the Lord depart from the old temple (Ezek. 10:18–19; 11:22–23). The Lord promised that His glory would return to the new temple of the new covenant (Ezek. 43:1–5). Where was the ark of the covenant? Why did the new temple not match the size Ezekiel saw in vision (Ezek. 40-48)? Where was the Messiah? The Israelites had to wait! The return from captivity was a disappointment for them. Although many have been inclined to believe that the prophecies recorded in Isaiah 40 and Jeremiah 31 (and other passages of Scripture) were fulfilled at the time of the return, yet even the last book of Old Testament prophecy shows us that the promises of the new covenant had not yet been fulfilled. The Lord God has not yet returned to His temple among His people (for this reason, the shechinah and the ark were missing). Through the prophet Malachi, the Lord promised that He would—at some unknown time in the future—return to His temple…
“Behold, I am sending my angel, and he will prepare the way before me, and suddenly the Lord whom you seek will come to his temple, and the angel of the covenant whom you desire; behold, he comes, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 3:1).
How should we describe the period of the second temple (i.e., the period after the return from captivity)? Was it the unfinished beginning of the new covenant or a temporary reprieve of the old covenant? In any case, at that time people lived in great tension. Perhaps they considered that situation to be the time of the unfinished new covenant. However, when the Messiah came, the prophecies of the new age began to receive their true and complete fulfillment. For this reason, the prophecy of Isaiah 40 (“the voice of one crying in the wilderness”) was truly fulfilled with the coming of John the Baptist and his announcement of the coming of Jesus (Mark 11:4). For this reason, Rachel's lamentation for her children (Jer. 31:15, originally lamentation for children lost in captivity) received a new fulfillment during the murder of children in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:17-18).
So the history of covenants can be schematically shown as follows:
Jesus leaves us a covenant: a new covenant in the blood of Jesus
The Lord in His glory (shechinah) returned to His people in the person of the only begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The apostle John refers to this aspect of the incarnation of Jesus when he speaks of the Word, which was God (John 1:1), became flesh, and dwelt among men who saw His glory (John 1:14). Jesus Himself announced the time of the new covenant in His blood when He established the tradition of the Lord's Supper at the Passover meal with His disciples before His crucifixion. Luke 22:20 records Jesus specifically speaking about the new covenant in His blood. We have already looked at the passage above where Jesus mentioned the covenant ceremony of Exodus 24, as well as the redemption from sins by His blood. For students who grew up on the Greek translation of the Pentateuch - the Septuagint, it was customary to consider the Old Testament as a testament. During the last supper, Jesus added a new dimension to this concept when he spoke of the new covenant in His blood. The term "testament" now took on its most appropriate and proper meaning: He would die so that they might be heirs!
Jesus Becomes Heir of the Covenant: Paul's Interpretation of the History of the Covenant
The apostle Paul also knew the tradition of establishing a new covenant by Christ in His blood at the last supper and therefore quoted the words of Christ in 1 Cor. 11:25, referring to the celebration of the Lord's Supper. In this context, however, Paul does not attempt to clarify the theological meaning of Christ's words. In 2 Cor., ch. 3, referring to Ezekiel 36:26, where the renewal of the covenant is characterized by the replacement of hearts of stone with hearts of flesh, Paul describes the new covenant as the presence of God's life-giving Spirit who directs the believer to Christ. But despite this, in only one passage, namely in the 3rd-4th chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which Paul reveals the long history of the covenant, he does not compare the "old" and "new" testaments known from the prophets and Jesus himself , and does not combine the concept of the covenant with the death of Christ.
In Galatians, in refuting the heresies of Jewish believers, Paul clarifies the relationship between God's covenant with Abraham, the laws of Moses, Jesus Christ, and the position of Gentile believers before God. In Galatians 3:15–18, he defends the fact that Jesus, as the true promised "seed" (singular) of Abraham, inherited the covenant promises given to him and "his seed", while the possession of the land of Canaan and the great multitude of the people of Israel was not complete. fulfillment of promises. After all, God promised that all nations would be blessed in Abraham (Gen. 12:3, quoted in Gal. 3:8). According to the apostle Paul, the ceremonial system of laws given in the time of Moses was not intended as a new way of salvation, but was given to separate Israel from other peoples and make them aware of the need for God's grace before the coming of the promised "seed", Jesus. Jesus became the heir. And by becoming part of the body of Jesus through faith, all believers, regardless of race or position in this life, can inherit God's promises in Him (Gal. 3:29). It is important to note that Jesus' inheritance of the promises does not imply the death of His Father, as Paul explains this within the paradigm of an inheritance that a father can give at a predetermined time (Gal. 4:1-2).
The question may arise as to what promises Jesus inherited. The quotation Paul gives in Gal. 3:16 "and to your seed" is used in many passages that speak of God's dealings with Abraham. First of all, the promise of a land is recorded in these quotations (Gen. 12:7; 13:15; 24:7), although the promise that God will be the God of Abraham and his “descendants” is also presented (Gen. 17:7). Through the line of David, Jesus inherited the kingdom, that is, the promised land in which He would reign. This land turned out to be much larger than the land of Canaan, which was only a prototype, or symbolic foreshadowing, of the kingdom of the universe that Jesus inherited. He also inherited all the true descendants of Abraham who believe in Him.
It is obvious that this interpretation of the coming of the new covenant, recorded in Galatians, differs significantly from the traditional one set forth in the books of the prophets and in the words of Jesus. While Paul does not discount the importance of Christ's death in Galatians 3 (cf. v. 13), he does not link it to the concept of a will, as Jesus does. Jesus' use of the concept of "testament" during the last supper is in keeping with the tradition of the promised "new covenant," and it is this tradition that is ignored in Galatians.
We do not know for sure how Paul would relate his explanation of the covenant in Galatians to the traditional view of the promised "new covenant" and its connection with the death of Christ and the Lord's Supper. It seems likely that Paul could have viewed God's covenant with the people through Moses, as described in Exodus 24, which was connected to and based on God's covenant with Abraham as a separate, separate covenant that he decided not to discuss. The "new covenant" was brought into being by the blood of Christ and was directly related to the covenant given through Moses, and therefore was not significant in the context of his argument.
Two perspectives on the covenant
Jesus Leaves the Covenant: The History of the Covenant in Hebrews
Hebrews, in a different way than Paul's letter to the Galatians, contrasts the old and new testaments. The Old Testament is seen as a shadow or type of the New Testament (Heb. 8:4-5; 9:23-24). Just as the shadow of a person vaguely conveys his form, everything related to the Old Testament is a shadow of the things of the New Testament. For example, the tabernacle was simply the image and shadow of the true heavenly temple. The ancient promises are types or shadows of the new promises (Heb. 8:6). In the same way, Hebrews compares the promise of a ritual cleansing of the body with the blood of animals with the cleansing of the conscience with the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:13-14). Therefore, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross provides true atonement for sins, including those committed during Old Testament times (9:15). Believers inherit the promises from Jesus, who ratified the new covenant by His death. Thus, His death was the wages for sin and the establishment of the new covenant. The writer of Hebrews is more strict about the concept of a covenant than the apostle Paul when he speaks of the need for the death of a testator to validate a testament (9:16-17). The death of sacrificial animals in Old Testament times was a type and symbol of the death of Christ (9:18ff).
The comparison of the old and new covenants in this epistle shows us the superiority of the new covenant in Jesus Christ. The weakness of the Old Testament is evidenced by the fact that twice all Old Testament relationships were broken due to unbelief and hardness of heart. The first break took place during a 40-year wandering in the wilderness, the second - during the Babylonian captivity.
In Hebrews 8, there is a quote from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, where he foretells the coming of the new covenant. This passage describes the shortcomings of the Old Testament. Among other things, Jeremiah speaks of changing people's hearts so that they truly know the Lord and obey His commandments. This promise of inner renewal in the new covenant/testament is also spoken of by the prophet Isaiah in 44:1–4, where he connects it with the working of God's Spirit. However, noteworthy is the fact that the book of Hebrews does not emphasize spiritual renewal in the hearts of people (in the new covenant all will believe), as the prophet Jeremiah says. Surely this message suggests that in the new covenant there is the possibility of someone hardening their heart (3:13). While the promised spiritual regeneration of human beings as part of the new covenant cannot be denied, the difference and superiority of the new covenant lies mainly in the existence of a heavenly temple (as opposed to an earthly temple) and, above all, in its high priest, Jesus Christ, the officiating eternal high priesthood, who in any case is better, because it establishes true reconciliation with God the Father. It is from here that the New Testament church derives its eternal and enduring character. This also refers to the fact that the New Testament churches are local churches in direct relationship with the unshakable and perfect temple in heaven. The community of this temple can never again be infected with unbelief. People who come to this temple (in faith, with prayer and asking for forgiveness) are true believers. The local church that degenerates through unbelief will eventually (unless repentance follows) be rejected by Christ (see Rev. 2:5; 3:16). Nevertheless, through the working of God's Spirit, the true churches of Christ will always exist in the hearts of men.
Parallel to these differences is the claim that the new covenant rests on better promises (Heb. 8:6). Hebrews 9:15 characterizes the promise of a new covenant as "an everlasting inheritance." Thus the promise of the land of Canaan (cf. 11:8–9) is contrasted with a new heaven and a new earth. Just as the earthly temple was a type of the heavenly temple, so the promise of the land of Canaan was a type of the new heaven and earth in glory (cf. 11:14–16). Therefore, the full riches of the new covenant are still hidden in the future.
The perfections of the new covenant, according to Hebrews, are not so much in the believer himself, but in the new temple and its new High Priest. They can be summarized as follows:
1. Christ remains High Priest forever (there is no succession of priests).
2. The heavenly temple was made by God Himself.
3. Christ is always in God's presence (the Levite high priest came into God's presence only once a year).
4. Christ shed His blood, not the blood of animals.
5. The sacrifice of Christ is one for all and does not need to be repeated.
6. The blood of Christ gave us access to the Holy of Holies (there is nothing like it in the Old Testament).
Believers now see God's work of salvation much more clearly. And therefore, the penalties for breaking God's covenant are more severe (Heb. 10:29). But the same righteous law remains.
The Promise and Action of God's Spirit in New Testament Times
Another important aspect of the difference between the old and new covenants is the promise of an outpouring of God's Spirit, as, for example, it was given to people in the books of the prophets Ezekiel (36:26-27), Isaiah (44:1-4) and Joel (2:28). –29). Therefore, it is important to understand correctly what the promise of the Spirit means for the new covenant. The promise of the descent of God's Spirit was a fundamental aspect of New Testament prophecy. However, it cannot simply have to do with the regenerating action of the Spirit in the human heart, since even in the Old Testament period the Spirit actively regenerated the hearts of believers, such as Abraham. In Old Testament times, this regenerating work of the Spirit was not described as an operation of the Spirit, but in various other ways, such as God's work in circumcising human hearts (e.g. Deut. 30:6), which Paul especially refers to as an operation of the Spirit (Rom. 2:29). If we understand this, then we are able to realize that the outpouring of God's Spirit does not mean that the Spirit was not present with God's people before. Indeed, there is a promise that the new covenant will be a time of spiritual rebirth when God's people learn to believe in God again and follow His commandments (Isa. 44:1–4; Ezek. 36:26–27), unlike sinful people, who were sent into captivity. Also, in Joel 2:28–29 God promises that His Spirit will come upon all flesh; in other words, the gospel will penetrate into the hearts not only of the Jews according to the flesh, but also into the hearts of people from other nations. This new dimension of the work of God's Spirit will be characterized by special gifts such as prophecy. Another aspect of the promised outpouring of the Spirit had a special effect on the work of the apostles. In His address to His disciples at the Last Supper, Jesus promised that He would send them a Comforter who, among other things, would remind them of everything He had ever said to them (John 14:26). The Spirit will help them fulfill the task of being witnesses for Jesus (John 15:26-27), He will guide them and reveal to them all the necessary knowledge regarding the future (John 16:13). In the new covenant, the work of the Spirit among the people after the outpouring also plays an important role in uniting believers with Jesus Christ. From this point of view, we must appreciate the difference between faith in the days of the Old Testament and faith after the special descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
Before Pentecost, the nature of faith could be characterized as trust in God and His Word. Naturally, this included faith in the promised Messiah. But from the Gospels (see especially the Gospel of John, ch. 14-16) we learn that the disciples, until the day of Pentecost, never properly understood what the person and works of Jesus Christ meant. Their spirit was crushed by the crucifixion of Jesus. And even after the resurrection, there was no sign of their understanding of the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection. Only after the disciples received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost did they finally understand everything. Jesus promised that the Spirit would teach them everything and remind them of everything He said (John 14:26). The descent of the Spirit meant that the Father and the Son would dwell in their hearts. Thus, the aspect of the indwelling of the Father and the Son in the heart of the believer is something that is characteristic only of the nature of faith after Pentecost. After Pentecost this sojourn is even described as a sign of true faith, as Paul says in 2 Cor. 13:5:
“Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; explore yourself. Or do you not know yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you? Unless you are what you should be."
If we cannot say that Jesus is in us, then we are not in the faith! After Pentecost, true faith is the faith that understands who Jesus really is and what is the meaning of His crucifixion and resurrection. This new faith in the person and work of Christ is directly related to the special sending of the Spirit by Jesus Christ on the day of Pentecost.
There is also another important aspect of the operation of the Spirit in the new covenant. The prophecies indicate that the Spirit will work in a special way in the Messiah Himself (Isaiah 61:1). Naturally, Jesus was not regenerated by the Spirit, but He was prepared to work in His field. The Spirit was given to Him at baptism (cf. Luke 3:21-22; 4:1, 16-21). This is the same Spirit that the Lord Jesus promised to send to His disciples as the Comforter (John, ch. 14-16), and again, not in order to revive the disciples, but to prepare them for work in His field as apostles (see . above). When Jesus sent His Spirit on the day of Pentecost, it was the fulfillment of His promise to the disciples, as well as the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy that God's Spirit would be poured out on all flesh.
The special gifts of the Spirit were first poured out on the apostles, who on that day spoke in foreign tongues. They also received the power to give these gifts to others who came to faith (the operation of the Spirit). The transmission of these special gifts of the Spirit was done by the apostles through the laying on of hands (see Acts 2:38; 8:1-19; 19:6). Through the distribution of these special gifts of the Spirit, the Lord made the young church clearly aware of the fact that His gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is indeed meant for all flesh (see Acts 10:44–48; 11:15–17).
In conclusion, I would like to urge: let us learn anew to appreciate the great wealth of the new covenant. Then we will not be inclined to take the presence of the Father and the Son by the Holy Spirit in our hearts for granted. The special name of Jesus, Immanuel (God with us),
will mean a lot more to us. The richness of faith in Jesus Christ, who triumphed over death for us, shows us God's fatherly love and mercy in a way that was not possible in the Old Testament. And the understanding of this wealth naturally brings with it immense gratitude to Him!
