Issue of the Covenant

by Nyron Medina

The Elijah Messenger

Among the many controversies upon the earth today one of them stands out as extremely important in that it is tied in with the claim of the validity of the law of God. In a nutshell, the argument goes like this: The old covenant is the Law, the new covenant is the Grace of God in Christ. With the death of Christ the old covenant - the Law, was abolished, and the new covenant is now in force. This tells us that the Law no longer has to be kept, or that the works of the Law is not necessary for salvation, so that we are saved by Grace without the works of the Law.

This is the general argument of many Sunday keeping churches today, to excuse their transgression of Yahweh's Sabbath and to justify their honoring of Sunday. Since they have no direct scripture that shows the Law to be abolished, all they have to do to get the Law out of the way is to claim that the Law was the old covenant, thus the Law was abolished. But why that hate against God's Law, what is behind this anti-nomianism? The answer is the Sabbath. Unsanctified emotions find the Sabbath unpalatable, and to rid of it they simply claim that the Sabbath is abolished; when requested to give Biblical proof, since there are none, they resort to saying the Law was abolished, and because there are no scriptures to also ratify the "theory" that the Law was abolished, the claim that the Law is the old covenant and the old covenant was abolished is presented as the final court of appeal. Thus anti-nomianism is anti-Sabbatarianism, and the idea of the covenants is both. So in brief the argument goes like this:

OLD COVENANT WOULD MEAN - LAW IS ABOLISHED - THUS SABBATH IS ABOLISHED

This study is intended to totally repudiate this false concept. The pattern it follows would be an exposition of the real issue of the covenants as it is in the Bible, and a refutation of the anti-nomian idea of covenants as is presented in the writings of the "new" Worldwide Church of God.

The Meaning of the word Covenant

What does the word covenant mean? We start our search with the original Hebrew word so translated and then the Greek word in the Second Witness (NT). The Hebrew word translated "covenant" is "b'rith", and the word is of doubtful meaning to many scholars whose conjectures differ as far as the east is from the west. But this one meaning seems to make the most sense.

"Thus Gesenius - Buhl derives "b'rith" from the root "baraya" as it is used in 1 Sam. 17:8 (the word is translated "choose" in the KJV, meaning "to decide" or "allot to." Those etymologies point toward the giving of an inheritance and favor the meaning "testament." J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, p. 79.

Here the Hebrew word "b'rith" translated "covenant" is presented as favoring the word "testament". This is the best we can go in the original meaning of the word which is obviously shrouded in mystery. But what of the word "testament", a word used in the KJV (for example Rev. 11:19)? Observe the meaning.

" Testament, n. [From Latin "testamentum". from "testor," to make a will]. A solemn authentic instrument in writing by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a "will". A testament, to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes. A man in certain cases may make a valid will by words only, and such will is called "nuncupative". Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828 edition).

We shall observe that this same meaning is the true understanding of the original words translated covenant. However, the Hebrew word "b'rith" being obscure, we can at least say this about it.

"Although there may at times appear certain mutually binding conditions so that we call the resultant arrangement a "covenant", these conditions do not represent the essence of the "b'rith". It is still a sovereignly imposed, monopleuric injunction. . . Hence, God chooses the word "b'rith", the available term for a legally binding instrument, to describe what is His sovereign pleasure. When the parties concerned are God in His grace and man in his sin, on whose behalf God acts, the "b'rith" becomes God's self-imposed obligation for the deliverance of sinners... It is not 'compact' or 'contract' or "agreement" that provides the constitutive or governing idea but that of "dispensation" in the sense of disposition... Though essentially monergistic, effectuated by "one worker," (God, not man and God), the b'rith required that men qualify." J. Barton Payne, The Theology of the Older Testament, p.81.

A more positive way of finding out the real meaning of the Hebrew word "b'rith" is to understand the meaning of the Greek word with which it is translated. If we can determine the true meaning of this word, we shall know from its use in the Septuagint (the Greek version of the First Witness or (OT), and from the second witness or (NT) just what "b'rith" meant.

"In the New Testament the Greek word that represents "b'rith" is "diatheke". The primary meaning of "diatheke" is a "disposition of property by will"... Thus in the Septuagint, the pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, "diatheke" is employed to translate "b'rith" throughout". Ibid., pp.82,23.

We have many testimonies that "diatheke" means a "will" from a broad spectrum of scholars.

"Diatheke at the time when the Septuagint and the New Testament came into existence not only could mean "testament", but such was the current meaning of the word... The legal usage, however, referring it to a testamentary disposition had monopolized the word... "diatheke" meant currently "last will",... "Geerhadus Vos, Biblical Theology, p.24.

"Diatheke... in profane Greek always signifies the disposition which a person makes of his property in prospect of death, i.e. testament; this is its meaning when used either in the singular or plural... being the testamentary arrangements of a person." Hermann Cremer, Biblical-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek, p. 549.

Another thorough examination of the contemporary meaning of the Greek word "diatheke" yields the same definition.

"In papyri and inscriptions the word means testament, will, with absolute unanimity, and such frequency that illustration is superfluous... Against this word stands suntheke (not in NT),... It is to the last the word for compact, just as "diatheke" is properly "dispositio", an "arrangement" made by one party with plenary power, which the other party may accept or reject, but cannot alter. A will is simply the most conspicuous example of such an instrument... A covenant offered by God to may was no "compact" between two parties coming together on equal terms. "Diatheke" in its primary sense, as described above, was exactly the needed word... Deissmann (St. Paul, p. 152) insists on testament everywhere... even a Jew like Paul, with Greek language in the very fibre of his thought, could never have used "diatheke" for covenant without the slightest consciousness of its ordinary and invariable contemporary meaning". J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, pp. 148,149.

Thus we have positive proof for the meaning of the word "b'rith" in its namesake "diatheke". Furthermore the following should be considered.

"...no one in the Mediterranean world in the first century A.D. would have thought of finding in the word "diatheke" the idea of "covenant". St. Paul would not, and in fact did not". A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 337.

So the idea of "an agreement between two persons" as the meaning of the word covenant was not what was meant by the words "b'rith" and "diatheke", this meaning is foreign to the Bible writers. The word "will" of "testament" was what was meant by the words.

"The Greek translators, however, seen deliberately to have avoided representing "b'rith" by the word "suntheke", which is the ordinary term for a compact or mutual agreement. "suntheke" means literally a thing "put together" and its connotations of legal equality rendered it an appropriate for application to the revealed will of the sovereign God. "Diatheke", a thing "put through" was thus assigned to "b'rith" and was then used for all occurrences of the Hebrew word even when it described a human agreement. "Diatheke" had become a comprehensive term... The conclusion is this:Wherever "diatheke" occurs in the New Testament, it means just one thing, "testament". J. Barton Payne, Theology of the Older Testament, pp. 83,85.

It is now time that we look into the Bible itself to gain a real understanding of the meaning of the word "diatheke" by the nature of its use.

The Biblical Usage

There are many places in the Bible that the Word "covenant" is used, but its uses is not enough to give an explanation of what it is all about, we do not get an explanation of the real meaning of the word in the form of a definition. However, there is one place in the Bible where sufficient explanation of what is involved in a "diatheke" is given, and from that we can gain a real understanding of the meaning of the word and thus understand the word "covenant" differently. This place is Heb. 9:15-20. In the KJV the word "diatheke" is translated "testament" (which means will) because this is found to be the natural meaning. We are not attempting an interpretation of the text, but our primary effort is to call attention to how the word is used in these verses.

In Heb. 9:15 we see that Christ in His mediatory role makes us receive the "eternal inheritance", His death qualified Him to purchase us out of the bondage of sin and release us free that is, in obedience). See Rom 3:24; Rom 6:12,13,17,18. Even past transgressions are dealt with by Christ on the grounds of His eternal suffrage (Rev. 13:8). But Heb 9:15 tells us that Christ is the "mediator of the new testament..." What is this new testament"? It is in Heb. 8:8-12 and the word "diatheke' is there translated "covenant". The "testament" of "will" God has made with man is a means of saving man from sin, a subjective work done only by His Spirit. This is exactly what is presented in Heb. 9:14, the "...purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God".

In Heb. 9:16 we are told the fact about a "will" or "testament", that the will maker is expecting to die so that he makes a will, that is, a testimony of what he intends to give to the one whom he is blessing, so that we can understand that Christ was to die, (Jn. 10:10,11,15), so He testified what He intended to give us through His death; the content of Heb. 8:8-12 is it. Heb. 9:14 reinforces this.

Heb. 9:17 tells us that it is death that bequeaths to us what is in a "will" or "testament", so that nothing is bequeathed while the will maker is yet alive. Upon His death Christ testified of what we were to get, it is in Heb. 8:8-12, that is the content of His will, and the influence of Christ's death speaks this to us and it is given when we repent and believe (Mk. 1:15), by the resurrected Christ in the heavenly sanctuary (Heb. 8:1-7).

Could you imagine fitting the wrong idea of covenant into these verses? If a covenant was indeed an agreement between two persons, the two persons needed to be alive to cut it, none of the parties need to die to make it, in fact death would nullify any agreement that had been previously made alive. Death therefore, destroys this type of covenant so that the idea cannot fit into Heb. 9:16,17, but one can readily understand a will or testament as explained in the verses. Heb. 9:18-20 refers to the testament (or covenant) in the First Witness (OT) relating to verse 16 and 17 thus telling us that the whole use of the word "b'rith" in the First Witness in the Hebrew and "diatheke" in the Septuagint should also mean "will" or "testament". The blood of the animal meant death had occurred and that a bequeathal was being given to Israel a ceremonial system pointing to Christ (Gal. 3:24). Thus the natural God-intended meaning for the word was "will" or "testament".

The Sense of Will or Testament

But how can we understand will or testament? The basic thing to understand is what the disposition of the will-maker in this sense God - was all about. What does the document of a will or testament show about God's disposition or mind? God's intention must be understood, and the content of His will must be also understood, however, the latter is an indication to the former. From the content of the will in Heb. 8:8-12, we draw the testimony that God has Love to us, not just Love, but salvific Love, a Love that efficiently deals with man's problem of sin. This reminds us of Jn. 3:16; Rom. 5:8,9; I Jn. 3:16. In reality a document of a will, or whatever way a will is made, it is essentially a testimony of God's sincere heart-intention of salvific Love towards sinners. The will is a testimony and gift expressing how God thinks towards us. We see thoughts of Love to the point of giving Himself for our salvation (Matt. 1:23). So we can understand "new covenant" or "testament" as "new testimony and gift of God's Love towards us". And is this not what Christ gave? A new testimony and gift of God's Love towards us! This is very important and has many implications for our understanding the issue of the covenants.

Applications to Covenant Issue

In applying what we just understood to the fact of the old and new covenants or testament, many misconceptions in the camp of the Evangelicals are exposed. For example: since covenant is testament, and it means a will or a testimony of God's heart towards humanity in sin, as salvation is from the beginning (see Heb. 11), then God must have had a salvific heart of Love towards sinners then. So the old covenant or testament would not be an old way of salvation (and there is only one way Acts 4:10-12), it would not be a Jewish way of attaining to salvation, (they did not make the covenant), rather it would be an old way of testifying of God's salvific Love towards us, an old testimony of this saving Love, one that has now become obsolete and is replaced with the incarnation, doing and death of Jesus. In this way Jesus is become the mediator (or influence dispenser) of the new testimony of God's heart of salvific Love to sinners, not a new replacement of an old Law-based way of salvation. The difference is crucial, because one point shows a change of testimony formation while the other claims a change in an old way of salvation, that is, by the works of the Law. But salvation was never by the works of the Law not in Abraham's time nor from Moses to Jesus, it was always by God's effectual spiritual working upon our hearts (Ps.51:10,17), it was always through the Grace of God who at that time also put the Law in the hearts of First Witness (OT) people (Ps. 37:30,31). The content of God's will or testament has never changed, they are still the same today, it is the type of testimony for those same contents that has changed. This must be carefully seen.

What we are saying in effect is that the way God has shown His eternal salvific Love - through the Ceremonial system - that has changed, it is the old covenant or testimony of God's Love. The incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus this is the new testimony of God's undying Love. Is testimony or will content also? Yes, it is moreso! The content of the old testament (or covenant) was the ceremonial system which also testified of God's salvific Love, the content of the new testament (or covenant) is the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus which gives a "better" testimony of God's salvific Love. What we next need to understand is the issue of "new" covenant. What is "new"? And why "new" covenant or testament?

What "new" Means

Of all the places in the Bible where the word "new" is used associated with covenant or testament the majority word for new is the Greek "kainos". Only in one instance another Greek word for new - "neos" - is used, and that is in Heb. 12:24. But in Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Lk. 22:20, I Cor. 11:25, II Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:8,13, and Heb. 9:15 it is "kainos". In Heb. 10:20 where we are told of a "new and living way" the word for "new" in that verse is "prosphatos" which is synonymous to "kainos" so in understanding that word "kainos" we shall cover "prosphatos". The facts are that the two Greek words translated "new" - "kainos" and "neos" have different meanings, they mean new in different senses. Of the word "neos" we are told: "Contemplate the new under aspects of time, as that which has recently come into existence and this is "neos". Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 219-220.

"Neos traditionally focuses on time. The thing it describes is "new" in the sense of being newly arrived, or just appearing. Thus neos wine is this year's crop". Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of the Bible Words, p. 458.

"New, recent. New in relation to time, that which has recently come into existence or become present". Spiros Zodiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament, p. 1007.

But of the word "kainos" we are also told:

"New in the aspect of quality is kainos..." Ibid, p.1007.

"New, i.e., current or not before known, newly introduced". Ibid., p. 804.

"The classical word that indicates new (and superior) in quality is kainos. In secular Greek usage the kainos was definitely better than the old... "new" in the qualitative sense..." Lawrence O. Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, p.458.

"But contemplate the new, not now under aspects of time, but of quality, the new, as set over against that which has seen service, the outworn, the effete or marred through age, and this is kainos... kainos will often, as a secondary notion, imply praise; for the new is commonly better than the old... kainos... implies that it is something not only new but sufficiently diverse from what had gone before..." Richard C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, pp. 220-222.

Thus the evidence of the real meaning of the two Greek words for "new" - "neos", and "kainos" could be summed up as:

a. Neos - new as to time, that is, now present in time.

b. Kainos - new as to quality, superior, but not as to time.

Now how do we judge the fact that only one text - Heb. 12:24 - uses the word "neos" with covenant, while eight scriptures, all the remaining texts with covenant, have "kainos" in them?

The neos Covenant

The text is in fact easy to understand; in it we are told that "Jesus (is) the mediator or the new (neos) covenant..." We have already understood that the word "covenant" is not the appropriate word, the better word is "will" or "testament", so that the text should read: "...Jesus (is) the mediator of the new will/testament..." When we consider that the will contains the inness of the Law with regards to the human heart, and our service to God (Heb. 8:8-13; Heb. 10:16,17), and also the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus (Heb. 12:24; I Cor. 11:23-26; Rom. 11:26,27; Heb. 10:29), we have to ask what about these things are new (neos) as to time? The answer is certainly the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus Christ. These things are new, having never occurred in time before, and this is the context of the use of "new covenant" in Heb. 12:24. But as to the Law in the heart which is also in the new will (covenant), this part is not new in the sense of now come, this has always been the only way of salvation. Observe how this new covenant/will has the "blood of sprinkling..." (Heb. 12:24), "...blood of the covenant (will)..." (Heb. 10:29), and is called the "...blood of the everlasting covenant..." (Heb. 13:20). It is new (neos) yet "everlasting". This is because in Heb. 12:24, the blood of Christ part of the content of the will/covenant, is new (neos), but not the work of the changing of the heart and perfecting of the works (Heb. 13:21), a result of the "blood of Christ" this is not new or now come. So we have here the will or covenant of God in which some of its contents are of recent historical transactions, or new as neos, and we have some as everlasting realities. For example:

WILL/COVENANT

A. Incarnation B. Earthly life of Jesus C. Death/Blood of Jesus D. Resurrection of Jesus (kainos things) E. Law in heart F. God being our God, we being his people G. Forgiveness of sins/justification etc.

But what about the part of the Will/Covenant that is called "kainos"?

The kainos Covenant

All the remaining texts that have "new covenant/testament" have the word "kainos". They are Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8,13 and Heb. 9:15. The number of texts are eight "kainos" compared to only one "neos". The consensus certainly is in favor of "kainos" will/covenant". This is not the now come things, but everlasting things, qualitative things or superior things. So that the "new covenant/testament" speaks about the things that are qualitatively better than "old covenant". So the phrase "new (kainos) covenant/testament" simply means a "fresh", "restated", "better", "superior" covenant/testament, not a now come as to time covenant. Thus the content of the covenant/will in Heb. 8:8-12, has been existing in the time of the First Witness (OT). Take for instance the phase "... I will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people..." Heb. 8:10. This phrase is a direct quote from Gen. 17:7, which explains the covenant/will that God made with Abraham. The same phrase is also found in a number of scriptures among which we have Lev. 26:12; Eze. 28:26; Jer. 24:7; Jer. 31:1; Jer. 32:38; Ex. 11:20; Eze. 36:28, Eze. 37:27; Hos. 2:23; Zech. 8:8; and Zech. 13:9. This clearly shows that the contents of the new (kainos) will/covenant, isn't new (neos), now come with the death of Christ, but was in force as the only way of salvation long before the historical death of Jesus. It was the covenant God made with Abraham (Gen. 17:7) and his seed in which anyone who is to ever be saved must share in (Gal. 3:16,29). Thus we see clearly that there is only one way of salvation from Adam to the end of the world, and God introduced no type of "covenant" that ever interfered with the promises made in the everlasting will/covenant (Gal. 3:17,18). What have we thus learned from all this?

Summary

In summary, we understand that "covenant" should be "will" or "testament", and that new (neos) identified parts of the everlasting covenant that came later, such as, the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus, while "kainos" (new) identifies the parts of the covenant that have always been intact, but presents them as qualitatively better or superior. Also the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus is also qualitatively better though they are new (neos) now come. So the new covenant/testament/will is in fact God's attitude or disposition of salvific Love towards us as testified in the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus (Jn. 3:16), in the "new" "kainos" (qualitatively better) covenant/testament/will, the Law is to be placed in our hearts just as it had been done in the First Witness (OT). (Heb. 8:10; Heb. 10:16; Ps. 37:30,31). Now if this Law with its Sabbath had been abolished as a part of the covenant, then no one should be justified by it, neither should it be put in the heart of anyone. And if one were to say that Love is the new commandment, then that new is not "neos"/now come, but "kainos"/qualitatively better or superior, and the scriptures teach that Love is the fulfilling of the ten commandments (Rom. 13: 8-12; Jam. 2:8,9). Love as the fulfilling of the Law was also the exact requirement of the worship of Yahweh in the First Witness (OT) (Lev. 19:17,18,34; Deut. 10:19).

When Jesus presented Love to God and Love to man as the real point of the first Witness (OT) and that it was and that it was applicable to Second Witness (NT) times (Mk. 12:28-33), He showed that the true religion of Yahweh was always obedience to the Law (I Jn. 5:2,3). How then this could be abolished as the old covenant?

The Old Covenant

What then is the old covenant? We have already understood that covenant is will or testament, thus the old covenant is the old will or testament. This means that there were requirements to be practiced to point men to sin's horribleness and to God (Gal. 3:19,24). These requirements were not what gave salvation, but pointed the way as a testimony of the Love of God. In other words they pointed to the real everlasting covenant/testament or to the spiritual facts of salvation which were the real covenant. In the Second Witness (NT) "old covenant" is used to identify only the ceremonial system given to the Israelites. We do not find it touching the Law of the ten commandments at all. The ceremonial system was made up of holy days, rituals, and sacrificial requirements (Num. 29). None of these things were meant to give salvation and to think so was to miss the whole point of them (Heb. 10:1-4; Gal. 3:19-24). Texts in the Second Witness that in one way or another show that the ceremonial system was the old covenant are for example. Heb. 7:11,12,16-19,28; Heb. 8:4,7; Heb. 9:1-7,12,13,18-21; Heb. 10:1-9. The term "old covenant" is frankly a Pauline term; it is not used by God, but however the term "new/kainos" covenant would imply an "old" one as Paul shows us (Heb. 8:13). God tells us about only a "new/kainos" or qualitatively superior covenant/testament (Heb. 8:8,9), and from that Paul draws an implication of "old" covenant. Now the Greek word for "old" in Heb. 8:13 is "palaios", and it means: "...old, that which has been around for a long time but not necessary from the beginning as the word "archaios" ...would imply, as being original." Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary, New Testament, p. 805.

This finally clarifies the difference of new/kainos, and old/palaios covenant/testaments. While the new/kainos testament is the incarnation, doing and dying of Jesus, the Law being in the heart, and God being our God, and we being his people, and forgiveness of sins (Heb. 8:10-12), the old/palaios and contrasted testament is the ceremonial system. We are being told in the Bible that the life of Christ and forgiveness of sins is a qualitatively better or superior will or testimony of God's Love, than rituals, holy days and sacrificial requirements which has been around for sometime, but not from the beginning. That is all that is meant; but these Evangelical sects misrepresent the fact about the old covenant, when they present "old" as meaning the covenant written in the Old Testament (FW), just because the word "old" is used they look for the word "covenant" in the Old Testament, and the Sabbath also, they call them the Old Covenant, and as the old covenant is abolished they connectively say that the Law and especially the Sabbath is abolished. This is a most serious mistake; because, the Law and Sabbath is not the old covenant since it is the Law in the heart (which includes the Sabbath) that constitutes the new covenant/testament, and the of the word "old" is merely that which has been around for a long time, but not from the beginning, and applies to the ceremonial system. One must remember that the Law and Sabbath has been around not merely for a long time, but from the very beginning (Gen. 2:1-3; Heb. 4:3,4; Gen. 4:7), thus "palaios" does not apply to them. This brings us to the issue of covenant in the First Witness (OT).

What was the Covenant in the First Witness

We can start with Abraham. Apart from God promising Abraham land and children (Gen. 12:7; Gen. 13:14-16; Gen. 15:5,18), in His will/testament, He promised true religion and all that it implied to Abraham and his seed (Gen. 17:7). But we see in Gen. 17 double covenants, one which is symbolical and one which is spiritual.

We will call them the Symbolical Covenant and the Spiritual Covenant for clarity and distinction. The real covenant is in Gen. 17:7, that is the Spiritual Covenant, the other one, the symbolical Covenant is the "seed" promised to Abraham in Gen. 17:8, the land of Canaan, Gen. 17:8, and circumcision in Gen. 17:10-14. Circumcision in Gen. 17:11 is even called a "token" which means a "sign" of the real covenant of Gen. 17:7.

Thus when God declared His covenant/testament to Abraham, it was double covenant/testament God made. One was the SPIRITUAL COVENANT (called the new covenant in the Second Witness), and the other was the SYMBOLICAL COVENANT (called the old covenant in the Second Witness). The Symbolical Covenant was a public testimony of the Spiritual Covenant something like baptism is a sign of the death of the old man of sin and the resurrection of the new man in Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). The Symbolical Covenant which was the salvific Love of God. The fact that when God made or gave His Covenant to Abraham it was two covenants ..... made at that time can be seen in the following examples.

1. (a) Seed of children promised to Abraham. Gen. 15:5,18. (b) But this symbolized Christ. Gal. 3:16.

2. (a) Land promised to Abraham. Gen. 15:18. Gen. 17:8. (b) This symbolizes the new earth and new Jerusalem. Rom. 4:13; Heb. 11:8-10,14-16.

3. (a) Circumcision was given. Gen. 17:10-14. (b) But it symbolized Righteousness by Faith. Rom. 4:11.

4. (a) Finally, when God said that in Abraham shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. Gen. 12:2,3. (b) He meant the promise of the Spirit. Gal. 3:8,9,14.

This establishes beyond the shadow of doubt that whenever God made a covenant in the First Witness (OT), He really made double covenants. Thus we see that when God promised the tribe of Judah kingship in Israel, He spiritually meant Jesus, the Lion of the tribe of Judah; when He promised David that he will have seed ruling on the throne, He meant Jesus the Son of David as the true King. In every case the symbolical was an indication to the spiritual. Sometimes, the symbolical alone would be made, but behind it would be the spiritual; (as for example, no where did God promise the world to Abraham, only the land of Canaan, but in Rom. 4:13 we see for the first time that Canaan symbolized the world). Sometimes the spiritual alone would be made, but there would be a symbolical to enforce the spiritual upon the consciousness. The same case is true for the covenant/testament declared by God at Mt. Sinai. This covenant is explained in Ex. 20-23, and in Ex. 24:1-8 it is ratified by animal blood. Certainly God would not make a symbolical Covenant alone with all Israel as if that could save them, in Ex 20-23, there must be a Spiritual Covenant in the Mt. Sinai event, a covenant by which the people are brought to "...love (God) and keep (His) commandments." Ex 20:6, so that they would be saved. Whosoever thinks that the Spiritual Covenant of Righteousness by Faith (which includes the Law in the heart etc.) were denied to Israel from Moses to Jesus have a terribly wrong understanding of Mt. Sinai. The giving of the Law was never meant to save, it could not have negated the covenant of the Spirit made by God to Abraham (Gal. 3:21). Anyone to be saved was to be saved by the Spiritual Covenant promises made to Abraham as Abraham's seed and blessed with him (Gal. 3:6-9,14,16,29). Salvation was always through the Faith of Jesus Christ from Adam to the end (Rom. 4:16). Thus at Mt. Sinai, a Spiritual Covenant and a symbolical Covenant were made. That the real covenant made was Spiritual is seen in Jer. 7:21-23. That the Ten Commandments was given as part of the Spiritual Covenant at Mt. Sinai is seen the fact that it is Love from the heart that is the fulfilling of this Law (Ex. 20:6). A major interpretation of the giving of the covenant at Sinai is found in the book of Deuteronomy. But aspects of the spirituality of the covenant at Sinai could be seen in Exodus itself. For example. God being Israel's God as seen in the Spiritual covenant to Abraham in Gen. 17:7, is to be found in Ex. 25:28, Ex. 29:45,46: also in Ex. 34:6,7. But in the book of Deuteronomy, there are literally dozens of statements that show that the everlasting, new (kainos) and Spiritual Covenant was in fact made by God with Israel at Mt. Sinai. In Deut. 4:13 we see that the Law of ten commandments is called God's covenant. In Deut. 4:19,23 Israel is forbidden from worshipping the sun, moon, stars or any graven image, if they do that they will forget the covenant of Yahweh their God; of course this is a heart matter and service to God here must be the Spiritual Covenant. In Deut. 5:2 the fact that God made a covenant with Israel in Mt. Sinai is recounted, the ten commandments Law is repeated by Moses in Deut. 5:6-21, verse 10 shows that it is heart Love that fulfils this Law, this is the Spiritual or kainos Covenant.

In Deut. 5:22 Moses shows that the law was limited to only ten precepts and no more, then in Deut. 5:29 it is wished that Israel would have the right "heart in them" to fear God and keep the Law, this is certainly an indication to the spirituality of the covenant. In Deut. 6:4,5,6 God's oneness is presented, also laving God with all one's heart (which is keeping His commandments Jn. 14:15, I Jn. 5:2,3) is presented, and the fact that the Law was to be put in Israel's heart is seen, and what is that but the new (kainos) covenant that is spiritual covenant, "our righteousness" is the works of the Law done by us through the Faith of God (Rom. 3:31, Rom. 2:26,27).

Deut. 7:9 shows the covenant God keeping mercy with those that "...love him and keep his commandments..." again this is the new/kainos covenant, because love is from the heart. Deut. 8:2,3,5,6 speaks about the Law with phrases like "...in thine...", surely this is the kainos/new covenant.

Deut. 10:4,5 recounts God writing the Law of Moses putting the tables of stone in the ark, and in Deut. 10:12,13 Moses shows what the Lord requires of Israel with regards to this Law; we are told that they are to obey the Law with Love from their hearts for their good, this is indeed the Spiritual Covenant. However, as we come to Deut. 10:16-19, we are told how to cure the stiff-necked attitude of the people. Their hearts were to be circumcised which is a renewing of the mind (Rom. 2:28,29; Eph. 4:23,24,; Col. 2:11,13, and they were commanded to love the stranger. Surely this is the same Spiritual Covenant as is expressed in the Second Witness (NT). Even Deut. 11:1 again calls for Israel to love God which is keeping His commandments (I Jn. 5:2,3). This same call is repeated in Deut. 11:13 and 22, Deut. 11:18 tells us the Law should be in their heart. All this is the kainos/new covenant.

Deut. 19:9 repeats Love to God as Law keeping, the Spiritual Covenant. ^The fact that the Israelites were to be established as "an holy people" if they kept the Law as shown in Deut. 28:9, how that they were not devoid of the saving Love of God of the better covenant though they were given the ceremonial system. Deut. 30:2 shows heart obedience is necessary and in Deut. 30:2 shows that God is the one to circumcise the heart to make the Israelites love Him and keep His Law, isn't this the Spiritual Covenant? So important is Deut. 30:10-16, that it is quoted in part in Rom. 10:6-10 as an evidence of Justification through Faith as against that of works to make one righteous, yet Moses used it to show the same thing that Paul showed in Romans, this is the kainos/new covenant as in Deut. 30:17,19,20. In Deut. 32:46,47 obedience from the heart is presented as the very life of the Israelites, this is indeed the new/kainos covenant. Thus on Mt. Sinai, when God gave the Law to Israel, He as a fact gave the Spiritual Covenant, but there were symbolic aspects to it, even the symbolic covenant, and the Israelites could understand because they were yet fleshly (see II Cor. 3:3-6), thus many fell in the wilderness because they were unconverted (Heb. 3:18,19; Heb. 4:1,2). All this is enough to show that the covenant of Mt. Sinai was both the ceremonial system - the old or symbolic covenant, and the spiritual covenant, later called the kainos/new covenant.

The Gift of the Law on two Tables of Stone

Now the giving of the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone was also a part of the old covenant, not that this is when the Law came into existence, no it did not, for Cain broke this same Law when he killed Abel (Gen. 4:7,8), God stopped Pharaoh from committing adultery with Abram's wife (Gen. 12:14-20), and even before Israel reached Mt. Sinai where the Law was given, the Law with its Sabbath was referred to by God as an imperative for the sons of Israel to keep, in fact, God rebuked them for not keeping the Law (Ex. 16:22-30). What was the significance of the gift of the Law on Mt. Sinai? The real significance was how it was given to Israel, it was given to them on two tables of stone. This was also very symbolical, because the gift of the Law on stone, and written with the finger of God (Ex. 24:12; Ex. 32:15,16), meant the permanent nature of the Law (Ps. 111:7,8), the Law was eternal, thus it was represented as engraved in stones. Another thing the Law written in stones symbolized was the Law condemning the carnal mind. The carnal mind was symbolized as stone (Eze. 36:26), and since it is not subject to the Law of God (the real problem of sinful man (Rom. 8:7), for the Law to confront this mind is to condemn this mind, and this is exactly what the Law written and engraved in stones meant as seen in II Cor. 3:6,7,9. So we can now say that the ten commandments on two tables of literal stone was the symbolic or old covenant/testament. As long as Israel had the literal Law engraved in stones they had the old covenant, but when the Law on stone was removed from Israel, or their temple, the old covenant was de-emphasized or removed out of the way as such. That the Law was removed from the temple and forever lost is seen in the following statements:

"Among the righteous still in Jerusalem, to whom had been made plain the divine purpose, were some who determined to place beyond the reach of ruthless hands the sacred ark containing the tables of stone on which had been traced the precepts of the Decalogue. This they did. With mourning and sadness they secreted the ark in a cave, where it was to be hidden from the people of Israel and Judah because of their sins, and was to be no more restored to them. That sacred ark is yet hidden. It has never been disturbed since it was secreted." Ellen White, Prophets and kings, p. 453.

..."there are Jewish traditional legends from the Apocrypha which relate that Jeremiah secretly hid the Ark and the alter of incense in cave..." Grant R. Jeffrey, Armageddon, Appointment with Destiny, p.122.

Now that the old covenant (or at least the real symbolical center of it) was hidden away forever, and the old temple of Solomon was burned by the Babylonians (II Chron. 36:14-21), seventy years later God instructed the Jews to build a new temple (Ezra 1:2-5), which they finished building (Ezra 6:14-16). What was in the second apartment of this new temple? Nothing, it was empty, without the ark in which was the Law. Latter at the time of the Roman Empire, Pompey, the Roman general found nothing in the second apartment.

"He (Josephus) wrote that nothing was found in the Holy of Holies, including the Ark... Most agree the Ark was not in Herod's Temple or in the possession of the Jews at this time". Doug Wead, David Lewis, and Hal Donaldson, Where is the Lost Ark", p. 120.

"By right of conquest he (Pompey) entered their Temple. It is a fact well known, that he found no image, no statue, no symbolical representation of the Deity: the whole presented a naked dome; the sanctuary was unadorned and simple". Roman Historian Tacitus quoted in: Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild, p. 64.

Why was there nothing in the second apartment of the rebuilt temple? Because God Himself had told Jeremiah that He would make a new covenant with the Jews when they returned from Babylonian exile (Jer. 31:31-34). This is the same text Paul quoted in Heb. 8:8-12. Since the center of the Symbolic Covenant was removed, then the things associated with it were to fall into disuse at a gradual pace until they gradually disappeared. With the appearance of Christ on the earth, and at His death, the decay of the Symbolic Covenant speeded up and disappeared altogether at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. This would mean that the new/kainos (qualitatively better) covenant/will had its presentation and emphasis since the return from Babylonian captivity in 536 BBC. How do we know when this new covenant would have its influence? The scriptures tell us; it says : "...the days come..." Jer. 31:31. What days? The days "...when I shall bring again their captivity..." (see Jer. 31:22-30). And since the Jews became free from Babylonian captivity around 536 BBC (Ezra 1:2-6), then from that time the Symbolic Covenant began to decay and the Spiritual Covenant was emphasized. It was the absence of the ark in which is the Law, it was the absence of the Law on the tables of stone - the real center of the Symbolic Covenant, and emphasis on the better covenant that existed alongside with the Symbolic Covenant was made. One could now understand why God said that the ark of the covenant was no longer to come to the mind of the people when they are given knowledge and understanding, and that Jerusalem - the church, was to become the throne or the ruling place of God (see Jer. 3:15-17). One must now ask; that if the Law engraved in stones was the old covenant or the Symbolic Covenant, what was the Spiritual Covenant that was behind it? This is clearly explained in the Bible. It is the Law engraved in the heart (Jer. 31:33). In II Cor. 3 the contrast between the Law engraved in stones, and the Law engraved in the fleshly tables of the heart is presented. II Cor. 3:3-11 shows that the new (kainos) covenant is the gift of the Spirit of Life as against the Law on stones which could only serve to condemn. The fact that the Law on stones symbolizes the Law of God confronting the stony heart, and that such a thing could only lead to condemnation (Rom. 8:7), is what II Cor. 3:6,7,9 is all about, and the gift of the Spirit is the new (kainos, qualitatively better) covenant (II Cor. 3:3,6,8,9). But we must have a caution here, we must understand that the Law itself was not the old covenant, the Law engraved in stones - that is, the tables of stone with the Law, that which was mere stones with writings, that was the old covenant. And it would be absurd for God to just have an instrument of condemnation before the Israelites if He loved them and wanted to save them. But the facts are, that alongside the Law in stones was also the Spiritual Covenant which is the Law in the heart to whosoever repented.This new (kainos, qualitatively better) covenant is seen in Deut. 6:4,5, which is love to God, (see also Deut. 10:12,13), and love to man (Deut. 10:18,19). That this could only be done by a changed heart, a new mind is seen by the real meaning - the spiritual meaning of circumcision (Deut. 10:16, Deut. 30:6). Thus the Spiritual Covenant was available to the Israelites in the First Witness (OT) times, but the problem with them was that they were full of unbelief (Heb. 3:7-19; Heb. 4:1-3), and as the Vail of flesh (Heb. 10:20) was upon their minds they could not see the real purpose of the Law in stones, and this is what II Cor. 3:3-16 is all about. All these facts are authenticated by what is said in Gal. 3. What was the purpose of the Law (that is, the Law in stones and all the ceremonies, the Symbolic Covenant)? It was added (or put towards the Israelites) till Christ should come, and it was a school master, or childhood-guardian to lead us to Christ who embodies the real Spiritual Covenant (Gal. 3:19,24), thus the Symbolic Covenant was to point us to the Spiritual Covenant which is Christ the Truth in essence (Jn. 14:6) that we would be justified by the Faith of Jesus Christ (2:16; Gal. 3:24), that Faith that was in the ancient prophets (see Heb. 11 and I Pet. 1:10,11). We who are of the Faith of Abraham and are thus justified by that Faith are Abraham's sociological and spiritual children (Gal. 3:7) therefore the promises in the Covenant/will are to us, so that the Law engraved in stones given at Mt. Sinai could not, and were never meant to destroy these true spiritual promises (Gal. 3:17). Also God never meant that the Law engraved in stones were to be kept by one's own personal initiative in an effort by works to bring oneself into the experience of salvation, a thing that can only be achieved through Faith. God wants us to live in the Law (Gal. 3:12), and according to the principle of "mutual in-ness" (Jn. 15:4,5,7) this means that the Law must be first placed in our hearts, and this is the new/kainos covenant of Heb. 8:8-13. Thus being in the Law is the Law being in us, and isn't that the same teaching of Deut. 11:1,13,18,22? Any obedience to the works of the Law that was done as our works righteousness (Deut. 6:24,25) were to be done from a heart full of Faith (Rom. 3:28,30,31), this is why God wished at the time of Mt. Sinai that the Israelites would have "...such an heart in them...(to) ...keep all (His) commandments..." Deut. 5:29.

All these things firmly establishes the fact that the Spiritual Covenant always existed alongside the Symbolic Covenant and was the superior of the two. When men were saved, it was always by the Spiritual Covenant, never by the symbolic one, and the Symbolic Covenant always an indicator to the Spiritual Covenant. That the Spiritual or new/kainos (qualitatively better) covenant was existent in the time of the First Witness (OT) can be seen from this: In Rom. 8:6 we see that to be Spiritually minded is "life and peace", truly this is the Spiritual or new Covenant; but in Mal. 2:5 God says: "My covenant was with him of life and peace, and I gave them to him..." Surely this is not the old covenant, it is the new/kainos or better one, and behold it was in the First Witness (OT) times. All these serve to show us that the anti-nomian idea of covenant theology is wrong, because it makes two ways of salvation at different times, and it robs a whole dispensation (as they call it) of real salvation since they had to wait for Christ to come. Furthermore it replaces the Law is LOVE; it tells us that the Law is abolished, and it means that obedience of the Law is abolished. But all these things are wrong, because the Law as it is in reality - God's Nature of Love - is not the Old Covenant, neither also is obedience to the Law. The tables of stone, that and all the ceremonial laws was the old or passing away covenant.

TABLE SHOWING THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS

OLD (PALAIOS) WILL/COVENANT: 1. Holidays/Feasts 2. Rituals 3. Levitical Symbols 4. The tables of Stones with the law written on it.

NEW (NEOS) WILL/COVENANT: 1. Incarnation 2. Life of Jesus 3. Death and Resurrection.

NEW (KAINOS) WILL/COVENANT: 1. Incarnation 2. Life of Jesus 3. Death and Resurrection 4. Ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary 5. Spiritual Law 6. Law in heart 7. Sanctification 8. Gift of the Spirit 9. God being our God we being His people 10. The blotting out of sins.

siracus@idirect.com