New Covenant

Read the series.

Read the series.

The New Covenant in the Gospels

Coming now to the Four Gospels, let me begin with Simeon’s statement in Luke 2. Luke tells us that Simeon was,

waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. (Lk. 2:25)

As far as Simeon was concerned Jesus was to have a dual salvific role to the Gentiles and also to Israel:

Read the series.

Looking at Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in Light of the New Covenant

Many lists of New covenant verses do not include Isaiah 52:13-53:12. But I believe there is justification for using it as at least a supporting passage for the study of the New covenant. Allow me to explain my reasons for this.

Read the series.

Although being cognizant of Fredrickson’s research regarding pre-19th century commentators on Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 I think a selection of quotes from representative scholarship will help drive my point home. My point being that it is not some novel view that understands the “covenant” in these texts as being, in fact, Jesus Himself. Many may wish to avoid saying “Jesus is the New covenant.” But I think it hard to circumvent the claim that “Jesus is the embodiment of the New covenant.”

Read the series.

Read the series.

Let me repeat the conclusion I arrived at previously:

Jesus is the Redeemer who saves by the Spirit through the New covenant!

Read the series.

Let me begin with a statement that will have to be defended, but which I think is difficult to argue against:

Nowhere does the OT tell us that the New covenant is only intended for Israel.

Especially among Dispensationalists, the subject of the New covenant creates a bone of contention. Perhaps the majority Dispensationalists hold that the Church has no participatory relationship in the New covenant. Many others believe that the Church does participate in the trickle-down effects of the New covenant, which is still thought to be made with Israel as full parties. Then there are those, myself included, who believe that the Church is made a full party to the New covenant alongside of Israel.

This article argues that the Roman Catholic Church (“Rome”) is wrong about the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. In fact, she is so incorrect that her teaching on this matter is grave error that distorts the gospel.

By “Christ’s atonement,” we mean the action by which Christ’s vicarious death reconciles us to God and restores fellowship with him. The dispute here is about the sufficiency of this atonement. Did Christ atone for the consequences of all our sins? Is his atonement permanent or conditional?

Read the series.