ECT The Eternal Covenant

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The closing doxology of Hebrews speaks of the eternal covenant. The blood of this covenant resurrected Christ, meaning, it was his work which is being spoken of. But in Hebrews we know that this is the reality of which the old covenant was only a shadow.

An eternal thing is there before time (human history) began. So the term 'new covenant' as it becomes useful to us as humans is not temporally correct because the eternal covenant was already planned and factored in before creation, before the Law, before the peak and collapse of Israel. In Gen 3 for example, the words are ready to go: the Seed will defeat the serpent but the serpent will wound him doing so. I find this to be something like parents having a backup plan for a worst case scenario with a child.

The eternal covenant was already there in another sense: before the law there was the priesthood of Melchizedek, which was Christ. This was already greater than Aaron's before that got started. Heb 7 covers this and Heb 8:1 starts by telling us why he told us that (ch 7). There already IS SUCH A PRIEST!!!

Hopefully this will clear up any questions about the need or worth of anything Judaic on earth, now or in the future.
 
Nang

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Interplanner said:
The closing doxology of Hebrews speaks of the eternal covenant. The blood of this covenant resurrected Christ, meaning, it was his work which is being spoken of. But in Hebrews we know that this is the reality of which the old covenant was only a shadow.

An eternal thing is there before time (human history) began. So the term 'new covenant' as it becomes useful to us as humans is not temporally correct because the eternal covenant was already planned and factored in before creation, before the Law, before the peak and collapse of Israel. In Gen 3 for example, the words are ready to go: the Seed will defeat the serpent but the serpent will wound him doing so. I find this to be something like parents having a backup plan for a worst case scenario with a child.

The eternal covenant was already there in another sense: before the law there was the priesthood of Melchizedek, which was Christ. This was already greater than Aaron's before that got started. Heb 7 covers this and Heb 8:1 starts by telling us why he told us that (ch 7). There already IS SUCH A PRIEST!!!

Hopefully this will clear up any questions about the need or worth of anything Judaic on earth, now or in the future.
Click to expand...

Reformers call it "The Covenant of Redemption."

Established in the Godhead before creation, revealed in time as the Covenant of Works (Law) and the New Covenant (Grace).

All other covenants subsist from these three.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
The closing doxology of Hebrews speaks of the eternal covenant. The blood of this covenant resurrected Christ, meaning, it was his work which is being spoken of. But in Hebrews we know that this is the reality of which the old covenant was only a shadow.

An eternal thing is there before time (human history) began. So the term 'new covenant' as it becomes useful to us as humans is not temporally correct because the eternal covenant was already planned and factored in before creation, before the Law, before the peak and collapse of Israel. In Gen 3 for example, the words are ready to go: the Seed will defeat the serpent but the serpent will wound him doing so. I find this to be something like parents having a backup plan for a worst case scenario with a child.

The eternal covenant was already there in another sense: before the law there was the priesthood of Melchizedek, which was Christ. This was already greater than Aaron's before that got started. Heb 7 covers this and Heb 8:1 starts by telling us why he told us that (ch 7). There already IS SUCH A PRIEST!!!

Hopefully this will clear up any questions about the need or worth of anything Judaic on earth, now or in the future.
Click to expand...

What works did you do in order "to enter into that rest"?
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
CHRIST did. We believe upon them. At least try to get into the mind of the writer! The child dwells on the 'elementary truths', the adult on the solid food of the teaching about justification, 5:12, 13.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Nang said:
Reformers call it "The Covenant of Redemption."

Established in the Godhead before creation, revealed in time as the Covenant of Works (Law) and the New Covenant (Grace).

All other covenants subsist from these three.
Click to expand...



Sorry but I'm not going to clutter up what Hebrews already says. The old is gone, the new or eternal one is in its place and all we need to know about.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
Were they "saved"?
Click to expand...



All people since the Gospel era began are saved (justified) by belief upon what Christ accomplished, whether they read it before, heard it before or heard it after the events themselves.

There is an extra sense for Israel specific to the 1st century historical situation in the middle decades of the 1st century. They could exacerbate things with Rome or they could work in God's mission and dovetail with Rome generally as Paul did. If you want to call that 'saved' you can, however, it becomes a clutter if you separate it too far from the basic Christian doctrine of justification. And it only had that situation in mind. The save of Lk 21:19 tends that direction. 2 th 2:10 is probably both.

As I often try to point out, I usually find no delay of time between the DofJ and the end of the world in Paul. I believe that fact is what Peter means is 'hard to understand' in his chapter on the end of the world. Yet there is Peter having to explain a delay.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
All people since the Gospel era began are saved (justified) by belief upon what Christ accomplished, whether they read it before, heard it before or heard it after the events themselves.

There is an extra sense for Israel specific to the 1st century historical situation in the middle decades of the 1st century. They could exacerbate things with Rome or they could work in God's mission and dovetail with Rome generally as Paul did. If you want to call that 'saved' you can, however, it becomes a clutter if you separate it too far from the basic Christian doctrine of justification. And it only had that situation in mind. The save of Lk 21:19 tends that direction. 2 th 2:10 is probably both.

As I often try to point out, I usually find no delay of time between the DofJ and the end of the world in Paul. I believe that fact is what Peter means is 'hard to understand' in his chapter on the end of the world. Yet there is Peter having to explain a delay.
Click to expand...

Why weren't they resting?
 
A

Ac28

New member
Concerning the title of this thread - "Eternal Covenant." The Greek word aiōnios, translated "eternal" or "everlasting" (KJV) in the doxology of the book of Hebrews means "belonging to an age" or, as Rotherham translated it, "age-abiding." It doesn't really mean eternal or forever as we think of the term. Most occurrences of the words eternal and everlasting fall into this category.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Ac28 said:
Concerning the title of this thread - "Eternal Covenant." The Greek word aiōnios, translated "eternal" or "everlasting" (KJV) in the doxology of the book of Hebrews means "belonging to an age" or, as Rotherham translated it, "age-abiding." It doesn't really mean eternal or forever as we think of the term. Most occurrences of the words eternal and everlasting fall into this category.
Click to expand...

I know that's more the case in Hebrew, but in this letter notice what happens. After introducing the new covenant, he also tells us that the kingdom is unshakeable, because it is the NHNE. With that established he can call this (new) one eternal. He meant the one that will escort us to that NHNE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top