IS THE NEW TESTAMENT THE SAME AS THE NEW COVENANT?

[DougE]

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

 

[Right Divider]

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

:thumb:

 

[Bradley D]

The Greek word διαθήκη (diathéke) is translated as both “testament” and “covenant”; or alternatively as “will”. So “testament” and “covenant” are synonymous and translate the same Greek word.

However, the “New Testament” (ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη), spelled with capital letters, has come to refer specifically to the collection of books at the end of the Christian bible, which describe the “new covenant” (spelled with small letters).

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-New-Testament-and-the-New-Covenant


Strong's Concordance
diathéké: testament, will, covenant
Original Word: διαθήκη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Definition: testament, will, covenant
Usage: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.

 

[Right Divider]

The Greek word διαθήκη (diathéke) is translated as both “testament” and “covenant”; or alternatively as “will”. So “testament” and “covenant” are synonymous and translate the same Greek word.

However, the “New Testament” (ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη), spelled with capital letters, has come to refer specifically to the collection of books at the end of the Christian bible, which describe the “new covenant” (spelled with small letters).

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-New-Testament-and-the-New-Covenant


Strong's Concordance
diathéké: testament, will, covenant
Original Word: διαθήκη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: diathéké
Phonetic Spelling: (dee-ath-ay'-kay)
Definition: testament, will, covenant
Usage: (a) a covenant between two parties, (b) (the ordinary, everyday sense [found a countless number of times in papyri]) a will, testament.

I don't think that you did a very good job of reading what DougE wrote.

It is the CONTEXT where each instance is used that determines its meaning and therefore translation.

 

[Lon]

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

A Covenant is an agreement and or promise. A testament is a 'statement' not just in wills, but that stands for posterity and as such, it can include a Covenant promise, but the idea is redundant.

More specifically and to the thread: I believe these type of discussions can get lost in details with 'what's the point?' part of another's passing these over. While I am a 'Covenentalist' necessarily, I recognize and realize that MAD nor any form of Dispensationalism really, hold to covenants applying to gentiles. There are many especially the Abrahamic Covenant that do, thus we necessarily must see ourselves as under some/many of God's Covenants.

Next: MAD doesn't see the gospels, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc. applying to them. In a sense, I agree: you have to read them as 'to' the address audience, just as the O.T. Many principles learned can be applied across board, but we have to be careful to learn the broad lesson, and not, for instance do any thing with sacrificial instructions. Rather, those O.T. passages give us an idea of the scope and cost of the Father, Son, and Spirit's Sacrifice, in sending the Son to die for the sins 'of the whole world.'

I truly appreciate MAD. Even though I've believed long that it is too simplistic to be accurate (the Apostle Paul reiterates many O.T. principles and directives), I've long appreciated MAD's overall guidance and stance on being careful not to read somebody else's mail, as if these had their name on it. It took me a long time to realize Hebrews, was written to "Hebrews." It is included in our Bible so that we can see the broad truths and special grace to "Hebrew" believers.

Finally, while I might point back to the big picture, not being MAD, I appreciate yet, the MAD perspective, even where I disagree. :up: In Him -Lon

 

[Right Divider]

A Covenant is an agreement and or promise. A testament is a 'statement' not just in wills, but that stands for posterity and as such, it can include a Covenant promise, but the idea is redundant.

Not redundant, but overlapping in meaning.

More specifically and to the thread: I believe these type of discussions can get lost in details with 'what's the point?' part of another's passing these over. While I am a 'Covenentalist' necessarily, I recognize and realize that MAD nor any form of Dispensationalism really, hold to covenants applying to gentiles. There are many especially the Abrahamic Covenant that do, thus we necessarily must see ourselves as under some/many of God's Covenants.

What is called the Old Covenant in the Bible is an agreement between God and Israel. The new covenant is also clearly between those same two parties.

Next: MAD doesn't see the gospels, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc. applying to them.

I've never heard of the epistles written by Peter, Jame and Jude being called "gospels".

Once again Lon, the general things apply to everyone, but there are many things that do not. There are many things that apply only to the intended target audience. James 1:1 clearly does NOT apply to gentiles.

So many Christian preachers, preach the entire book of James as if James 1:1 does not even exist.

Since James 1:1 does exist, our understanding of the entire book of James must take that into account.

In a sense, I agree: you have to read them as 'to' the address audience, just as the O.T.

Something that SO many have problems with.

Many principles learned can be applied across board, but we have to be careful to learn the broad lesson, and not, for instance do any thing with sacrificial instructions.

Indeed!

I truly appreciate MAD. Even though I've believed long that it is too simplistic to be accurate (the Apostle Paul reiterates many O.T. principles and directives), I've long appreciated MAD's overall guidance and stance on being careful not to read somebody else's mail, as if these had their name on it. It took me a long time to realize Hebrews, was written to "Hebrews." It is included in our Bible so that we can see the broad truths and special grace to "Hebrew" believers.

This is yet more stuff that most of Churchianity fails to understand.

 

[Lon]

Not redundant, but overlapping in meaning.
What is called the Old Covenant in the Bible is an agreement between God and Israel. The new covenant is also clearly between those same two parties.
I've never heard of the epistles written by Peter, Jame and Jude being called "gospels".

Me neither. I need to correct this in your perspective. Let me know if more needs to be said but I'd think you get it. -Lon

Once again Lon, the general things apply to everyone, but there are many things that do not. There are many things that apply only to the intended target audience. James 1:1 clearly does NOT apply to gentiles.

Depends what you mean by 'applies.' Direct application? Agreed. Peripheral applications? I'd have to contest. We need to be specific for meaning at this point. I believe you iterate such, next, but could be clearer:

So many Christian preachers, preach the entire book of James as if James 1:1 does not even exist.

I haven't heard a lot of James preached, but there certainly are principles covered that apply to us. Faith, pride, etc.

Since James 1:1 does exist, our understanding of the entire book of James must take that into account.

As I said, I greatly appreciate MAD for this. While I'm not MAD, I totally agree that contexts are incredibly important and MAD separates contexts like champs. On this, we are very close. I'm not MAD, but I'd suggest other's read and understand MAD, for the mere fact they will definitely learn to make sense of their Bible reading. Context helps and you know I've often argued the same over contexts as MAD has.

Something that SO many have problems with.

Absolutely.

Indeed!

Once I met MAD, I'd found a lot of my own Bible reading and understanding, wasn't as 'novel' as I'd seen myself. I feel comfortable within MAD discussions because there is more in agreement, than not, but there is still a sense that I see more cohesion than at least MAD talk about, if not see. IOW, "Cohesion" of God's working with people isn't the halmark of MAD theology, if that makes sense. I tend to see more in my scripture reading.

This is yet more stuff that most of Churchianity fails to understand.

Needed discussion for the future. Its important and as I said, I appreciate MAD simply for the fact that this discussion needs to continue. In Him -Lon

 

[DougE]

A Covenant is an agreement and or promise. A testament is a 'statement' not just in wills, but that stands for posterity and as such, it can include a Covenant promise, but the idea is redundant.

More specifically and to the thread: I believe these type of discussions can get lost in details with 'what's the point?' part of another's passing these over. While I am a 'Covenentalist' necessarily, I recognize and realize that MAD nor any form of Dispensationalism really, hold to covenants applying to gentiles. There are many especially the Abrahamic Covenant that do, thus we necessarily must see ourselves as under some/many of God's Covenants.

Next: MAD doesn't see the gospels, Peter, James, John, Jude, etc. applying to them. In a sense, I agree: you have to read them as 'to' the address audience, just as the O.T. Many principles learned can be applied across board, but we have to be careful to learn the broad lesson, and not, for instance do any thing with sacrificial instructions. Rather, those O.T. passages give us an idea of the scope and cost of the Father, Son, and Spirit's Sacrifice, in sending the Son to die for the sins 'of the whole world.'

I truly appreciate MAD. Even though I've believed long that it is too simplistic to be accurate (the Apostle Paul reiterates many O.T. principles and directives), I've long appreciated MAD's overall guidance and stance on being careful not to read somebody else's mail, as if these had their name on it. It took me a long time to realize Hebrews, was written to "Hebrews." It is included in our Bible so that we can see the broad truths and special grace to "Hebrew" believers.

Finally, while I might point back to the big picture, not being MAD, I appreciate yet, the MAD perspective, even where I disagree. :up: In Him -Lon

I appreciate your comments and the tenor. My only aim is to generate deeper thinking from a different perspective, and to promote understanding, and appreciation of our riches in Christ.

 

[God's Truth]

The New Covenant/Testament is the Old Covenant/Testament with some changes.

Instead of doing the purification works of the law to clean/purify yourself to go to the temple to be near God's Spirit and be called a child of God, Jesus purifies/cleans us by just having faith that his blood cleans us of the sins we repent of doing and we become the temple.

 

[Bright Raven]

Can it be said that the new testament is just another way to say the new covenant?

Is this not just another error in translation?

In regard to God, a covenant is a stated obligation from God to perform a promise; this can be seen in God's promise not to flood the earth again in Genesis 9:9-11.

The new covenant is made only with the houses of Israel. The new covenant is yet future. The new covenant will bring Israel into the promised land, forgive their iniquity, and enable Israel to walk in the law (Jeremiah 31:31-34 Ezekiel 36:24-28 Deuteronomy 30:5-8).

A covenant is an agreement between two parties, as pertaining to men, as seen in Genesis 21:32.

Israel and God made a covenant, in which Israel would keep all the words of the law, as seen in Exodus 19:5-8.

The blood of the covenant in Exodus 24:8 was the provision to reconcile the transgressions Israel committed in breaking the law under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:7). The blood of the covenant is the sacrificial blood of animals of the first testament.

Hebrews 9:16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

A testament is not the same as a covenant, because a testament sets forth the stated will of the testator.

A testament is only carried out upon the death of the testator.

Hebrews 9:18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Is this verse wrong? Shouldn't it say, "Whereupon neither the first COVENANT was dedicated without blood."

I say no, this verse should indeed say the "first testament", and below is why.

Hebrews 9:19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,

Hebrews 9:20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.

The translators would correctly use the word testament, rather than covenant, in these verses. All the sacrificial blood of animals under the first testament was a shadow of the shed blood of Christ.

Christ shed his blood for the new testament as seen in Matthew 26:28.

The first testament was the provision of animal death and blood for remission of sins, for reconciliation; the new testament was the death and blood of Christ himself. The first testament, as the first covenant, was replaced with the better new testament (Hebrews 7:22 Hebrews 8:6).

Hebrews 9:21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

The law given within the covenant, demanded the shedding of blood for remission.

Hebrews 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The earthly patterns were purified by the blood of calves and goats under the first testament, but the heavenly things, by the blood of Christ under the new.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

In conclusion, this verse, as others, is correctly translated testament, and not covenant. Christ, by his death and shed blood for the new testament, redeemed the transgressions under the first testament sacrificial offerings.

The first testament was the will of God, that the death and shed blood of animals would be accepted by reflecting the death and shed blood of Christ. The death and shed blood of Christ for the new testament would be the propitiation, the appeasement, that would make reconciliation and provide forgiveness. The death of Christ, and his shed blood, put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 10:12), and took away the first testament (Hebrews 10:9).

In the new covenant, God will no longer remember the sin and iniquities of Israel, because they have been taken away by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:17-18).

Yes! :thumb: