Archived Daily Manna | Rejoice Fellowship | A mission to release people to rejoice in the world.

Message: First off, a note on the terms “testament” and “covenant.” We are not going to discuss why and how these two terms are used and misused in English Bibles, because it involves impossibly tangled-up translation difficulties between Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English. Here is a good rule we will follow: The word “testament” should only be used to describe the two main parts of the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament. If your Bible uses the word “testament” anywhere else, scratch through it (mentally or physically) and substitute “covenant.” The actual word is Hebrew (berit) and refers to a relationship that is fundamentally akin to a contract. It exists between two or more persons; generally they must both agree to it — but we will see exceptions. Normally both have duties and benefits under its terms. In the Bible, the Hebrew word we translate “covenant” was often understood to mean the relationships initiated by Yahweh; He would make certain requirements that, if accepted by a person or people, would bring His favor to them. (Greek did have not such a specific word, and neither does English.) Unlike the English or Greek words used for these occasions, berit also describes promises made by God, which might be effective in posterity, but without any promise or behavior required of the recipient. God’s promise to Noah, for example, not to destroy the earth by another great floor, is called a “covenant” even though it is not a contract in English. Moreover, the covenants of God often involve a ritual by the humans involved and this often includes blood sacrifice. In Genesis 15, we see God require a bizarre ritual to solemnize one of the covenants of Abraham (still called Abram at that time): Abram cut animals in half and then went to sleep, so that a burning oven and torch could pass between the animal halves. Faith to walk in the footsteps of Christ Can a human covenant, “once ratified,” be canceled or amended? Paul says not, and we must simply accept that he is talking about a Semitic concept that did not have a specific Greek word to translate it. In our laws, pretty much any contract can be canceled or amended by agreement of all parties. But some sources indicate that the Hebrew practice of cutting animals in half and walking between them would create an absolute contract; so perhaps this is what Paul means by “ratified.” Finally, we get to the main point: The Law of Moses, even though it was a covenant of God, did not extinguish, change, or in any way affect the covenant made with Abraham. God’s promise to Abraham was the inheritance of the heirs of Abraham and thus unchangeable. Of course God, who is all-powerful, could hypothetically change anything He pleased, but He will not renege on His promise to Abraham; for one of the attributes of God is that He is faithful. (E.g. 2 Thessalonians 3:3; Deuteronomy 7:9.) What we attribute as faithfulness to God might, however, be a human way of understanding His omniscience. We see a similar situation in the New Testament, concerning the Law of Moses. The Gospels tell us explicitly that the coming of Christ did not abolish the Law of Moses, either in terms of the promises made or the moral force underpinning the laws it contained. (Matthew 5:17-20) The difficulty with the Law is that it was a conditional contract: God would fulfill His promises if the Hebrews followed the Law, which they did not do. (And in fact, as Paul will tell us, God knew all along that the Hebrews were incapable of following the Law. But we are getting ahead of ourselves, so we will leave this for later.)