A new start for the New Testament?
New Testament.-
Matthew 1 verse 1. The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Anyone asked to read from the start of the New Testament would most likely read out the above verse, but would he be correct?
Matt1v1 is certainly the first verse of that collection of gospels and letters which we all call the New Testament, but when did the actual historic period of the N.T. really start. When did the Old Testament cease to be valid in God's eyes?
Matthew26v28. For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
We all know this verse, but do we comprehend the ramifications of it?
If Matt26v28 is the verse where Jesus first pronounces the New Testament, then does it not follow, (or precede) that the whole 33 year period of His life and ministry, prior to his death and the shedding of His blood, was actually a continuation of the Old Testament time period?
If true, we could ask.-
Was Jesus born during the OT or the NT?
Was Jesus baptised during the OT or the NT?
Was John the Baptist an OT prophet or a NT prophet?
I am not asking for answers to these three simple questions, but merely showing the sort of dilemma it brings. If my assertion that the NT didn't start till Matt26v28 is correct, then there are far more serious questions which could be asked
So, when did the real New Testament time period actually start, when did the Old Testament cease to be valid, and what questions does it raise?
Views: 211
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Salvatore Vavalle on -
Good questions and thoughts to ponder upon. I may not be correct in any of what i say but it seems to me that Jesus made a contract with us on the night of the Lord's Supper the same way a marriage ceremony was made in the Jewish customs. He, along with us, drew up a ketubah by setting up stipulations for the marriage union. He signed it in blood on the cross to signify the contract is legally bought and paid for on the behalf of the bride's dowry, which gives her a status and redeems her from her former lowly reputation while being betrothed (which by Jewish terms is legally married but a not yet physically consummated marriage). The glass shattering marriage was consummated by the tearing off the veil (signifying the shame of her living in her fathers house before they came together) off the brides face because she had officially stepped out of her fathers house and gone to meet her husband on 70 AD. And we are simply out on the road to meet him now as he is coming back from building another extension, or room for us to live in at his Father's house.
Does this make sense?
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on -
Thanks Salvatore.
Not quite the connection that I was aiming at in the original post, nevertheless had you considered that the bride already existed in the OT?
Isaiah54 makes this clear, particularly v5. For thy maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is his name.......
-
Permalink Reply by Salvatore Vavalle on
-
Sorry to deter it by the answer then, Frank.
But yes, I do. She seems to always have been evident in the Old Testament times and even before then. She was already in Christ from my speculation, but pieces, or glimpses of her were evident within the small few faithful within Zion.
Does that make sense?
Because it makes more sense within my head than it does on paper, or html actually. lol
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
Do I need a can opener on your head then? LOL.
Although it is a little off course, this is still the reason why I wanted to explore the OP.
Everyone starts from the premise that the idea of the Bride, Church etc started at Matt 1v1 or maybe Pentecost etc. Most Christians are blind to what God was doing in the OT. They forget that it is WE who are grafted into THEM, -Israel.
In the same way, the Greek word for "Church", Ekklesia is the same word that can be found throughout the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament which Jesus always quoted from. In the Septuagint "ekklesia" refers to the assembly or congregation of the Israelites. It is to the OT ekklesia that the NT gentile ekklesia is grafted.
Salvatore Vavalle said:Sorry to deter it by the answer then, Frank.
But yes, I do. She seems to always have been evident in the Old Testament times and even before then. She was already in Christ from my speculation, but pieces, or glimpses of her were evident within the small few faithful within Zion.
Does that make sense?
Because it makes more sense within my head than it does on paper, or html actually. lol
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
As an example of what the OP is aiming at, please consider the following.
The Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost. Most believe that this was an exclusive post Calvary idea. Many even teach that nobody could be born again until the death of Jesus and the Spirit was poured out.
However if the teaching ministry of Jesus was conducted during the Old Testament period, ie.prior to his death, then the truth of this discourse about the Holy Spirit was applicable to any Old Testament man or woman.
Luke 11v10 “For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened.
11“Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12“Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he?
13“If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?”
Here Jesus, speaking to OT people, makes it clear that the issue is about asking the Father. He makes it clear that they could receive the Holy Spirit then and there, in the OT period.
There is far more to this, but I will wait and see the response. If any!
-
Permalink Reply by Salvatore Vavalle on
-
Bro, I honestly would fear the repercussions of what you'd find in that head of mine if you actually attempted to open it up much less make a h*** in it. LOL
But I do see your point though. I do admit, it is a very simple way of asking the questions, yet it requires a very descriptive answer or illustration though. I am in agreement from what I am starting to grasp of it thus far, because Christ is the lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world. So if this happened in that manner, we, the bride of Christ, was already present in the Old Testament period. Even if we consider the new birth, we would have to conclude that the prophets of the Old Testament times had to be born a new in order to SEE the Kingdom of God enough to tell the Israelites of God's plans and provision for them/us. Sure they didn't see the fullness, or the grand scheme of it like we, through the Apostle's revelation of it through the same Spirit, but they had the same interaction with the Holy Spirit enough for us to come to see it in the same light through their words.
Even before John and Jesus spoke to anyone the Spirit spoke to Simeon (Luke 2:25) and Anna (Luke 2:36) who believed in the "redemption of the Lord," which is Christ, also. I am seeing glimpses of the NT church within the OT period as well by the way that the prophets comforted Zion while they were about to go through judgement for their actions, because it does seem as if not "all of Israel" was Israel in order for the comfort and judgement to be given to the same people unless there was a remnant within it on both sides.
Does that make sense?
Bet you wished you didn't take that can opener out so soon now. Huh? LOLI do like the thoughts that you ignite within this topic though. I'm eager to see what more you have on this.
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
Thanks Salvatore for coming back on this topic.
Yes, all that you say makes sense, even without a h*** in the head!
I would really like to explore this much deeper than where I am at the present. I believe that this is crucial to our understanding of the character of God.
Continuing the theme of the NT in the OT and the continuity of the church from the very beginning. Here we have Christ escorting his bride.-
1Cor12v1 Moreover brethren I would not that you should be ignorant, that all of our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea.
2 And were all baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea
3 And did all eat the same spiritual food
4 And all did eat the same spiritual drink, for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ.
This is a most profound statement! Do we understand the significance of it. Jesus was there with the Israelites crossing the Red Sea!
5. But with many of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6. Now these things were our examples to the intent that we should not............etc.
Our example? How many believers take the OT "real time relationship" between God and man as an example for their current walk. Reading onwards from these verses makes it clear that God hasn't changed his attitude and treatment of his children from the OT to NT. This makes it crystal clear that we really need to beware, not of our eternal position, but our earthly walk. What did Paul say, "I would not that you should be ignorant...."
The truth is that the church is totally and willfully ignorant.
And again.-
Hebrews11v24. By faith, Moses......refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter.......26. Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.......etc.
Again here we have Moses, over a thousand years before the birth of Jesus, persuaded by Christ of his correct calling.
-
Permalink Reply by Micheal Ellis Childress on -
And Abraham was given a covenant that was not to be nullified by a law given 450 years later (Galatians 3:16-18). What if the New Covenant (Testament) really began in Genesis?
Peace from the NN's of the Earth,
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
Mike, now you are being really mischievous! That truly is a spanner in the works.
I had not noticed that one, but it should have been obvious, so would you care to explore it further please?
Just to make it clear, everything that happened between God and man depends on the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, upon his blood poured out for us. Nevertheless, we should not trap ourselves into a timeframe which is not found in scripture. Loosely, what I mean is that the relationship between Abraham and God depended on the blood of Jesus, even though Abraham had no clue about what God was going to do over a thousand years later.
Even Abel understood this.
Therefore your statement absolutely needs to be unravelled further. If Paul links our faith directly to Abraham's, what of the Law given by Moses? What was all that about?
(I did start to answer my own question here, but deleted it in favour of seeing where the discussion goes.)
Micheal Ellis Childress said:
And Abraham was given a covenant that was not to be nullified by a law given 450 years later (Galatians 3:16-18). What if the New Covenant (Testament) really began in Genesis?
Peace from the NN's of the Earth,
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by Micheal Ellis Childress on
-
You are correct about the time issue. As humans we have trouble wrapping our heads around eternity and tend to try to explain it as a really long period of time when in reality eternity is the absence of time. We get a glimpse of this in this passage:
Hebrews 4:3
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
If we look at Exodus 19 and 20, it seems to me that God wanted to have the same sort of covenental relationship that He had with Abraham with the Israelites but they were unwilling and fearful and asked Moses to be their go between.
As to the law that was given, they represent Spiritual truths that we, at best have trouble understanding. In fact, in what we refer to as the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes to great pains to explain that they had misinterpreted the law as strict hoops that must be jumped through rather than Spirtual principles to be followed in conjunction with discernment. And in fact, God claims that many of the rules he passed on were not even good for us and that we could not live by them (Exekiel 20:25) and that if we are not careful His Word will become just words and a stumbling block rather than beneficial (Isaiah 28:10-13)
Peace from the NN's of the Earth,
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by Frank on
-
Spot on Mike.
Time was created by God, whereas He dwells outside of time. A good definition of it is, "Time is the thing that stops everything happening at once."
I have often wondered what God meant when he says to "redeem the time". Most bible scholars talk in terms of using time wisely for the kingdom. However if we are to "redeem the time because the days are evil", it may be because, like all the rest of creation, time has fallen because of Adam. Time therefore needs to be redeemed, ie. "bought back", and the price is still the blood of Jesus.
However that is digressing from the OP and might be a better subject for another post.
Returning to your comment Ex19 and 20. It is clear in Ex19v6 that God wanted them to be a Kingdom of priests. They actually agreed to it in v8. Yet in Ex20v19 they all change their minds and tell Moses to act on their behalf as they don't want to speak with God direct!
I don't believe that it was God's desire that Levi was the only tribe to provide priests. Nevertheless when Moses was sent back down the mountain with the Ten Commandments to find them worshipping a Golden Calf, he said, who is on the Lord's side, let him come to me, and all the sons of Levi gathered themselves unto him.
It was Levi and Moses that stood in the gap for the whole of Israel. I believe that this is the reason for Levi only bearing the priesthood.
Christians seem to forget that God takes us at our words and decisions. Again and again it is we who set the scene and thwart Gods intentions. Evidence for this is found throughout the bible. Yet God being sovereign, he plans accordingly and still reaches his stated target even if faithless "believers" obstruct the route with their "better ideas".
Micheal Ellis Childress said:You are correct about the time issue. As humans we have trouble wrapping our heads around eternity and tend to try to explain it as a really long period of time when in reality eternity is the absence of time. We get a glimpse of this in this passage:
Hebrews 4:3
For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said, "AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST," although His works were finished from the foundation of the world.
If we look at Exodus 19 and 20, it seems to me that God wanted to have the same sort of covenental relationship that He had with Abraham with the Israelites but they were unwilling and fearful and asked Moses to be their go between.
As to the law that was given, they represent Spiritual truths that we, at best have trouble understanding. In fact, in what we refer to as the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus goes to great pains to explain that they had misinterpreted the law as strict hoops that must be jumped through rather than Spirtual principles to be followed in conjunction with discernment. And in fact, God claims that many of the rules he passed on were not even good for us and that we could not live by them (Exekiel 20:25) and that if we are not careful His Word will become just words and a stumbling block rather than beneficial (Isaiah 28:10-13)
Peace from the NN's of the Earth,
Mike
-
Permalink Reply by Micheal Ellis Childress on
-
It is nice to see that ther are some that see the Kingdom message in the Spiritual light and understand that God has not changed the way He operates just the means through which He does. In case that does not make sense, He has always wanted a relationship with us that leads us to being in the Law and not a following of the Law to get to a relationship.
Our Partners
Badge
© 2013 Created by Dale Interactive.
