Hebrews 1:1-2 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, (2) but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
But in these last days!!!!! Verse 1 refers to Old Testament and Old Covenant revelation and verse 2 refers to New Testament and New Covenant revelation.
Certainly this means that New Testament revelation should be used to interpret Old Testament revelation. It is clear that Jesus Christ brought a change of Covenants as Hebrews goes on to fully explain. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. Why? Hebrews goes on to say that the Old Covenant is replaced by a better Covenant for which Jesus is the guarantor (Heb. 7:22). It further states that the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Yet, neither Dispensational Theology nor Covenant Theology views the Old Covenant as obsolete.
Dispensational Theology completely separates the Old from the New Covenant. For example in the thread of my last post, a dispensational adherent said, We see the law is in effect for the Jews during the tribulation period when Jesus again starts dealing with the nation Israel (Matt 24:20).
Although the New Testament clearly ends the role of physical Israel in redemptive history and brings all of humanity under the gospel of grace, the dispensationalist views a day when Israel will be dealt with completely separate from the Gentiles. Paul’s statement about there being neither Jew nor Greek does not interpret Old Testament Scripture in this view. The Old Testament is used to interpret the New in dispensational hermeneutics.
Covenant Theology, on the other hand, holds tightly to the Old Testament and Old Covenant principles. The New Covenant is viewed as the final revelation of a single major Covenant of grace, and there is barely a bump in the road from the Old Testament to the New Testament in Covenant theology.
A covenant theology adherent said the following in our last thread:
”I think the problem in Galatians 3:3 is that the Galatians were too reliant on the law without the help of the Spirit of God to seek to keep it.”
Although there are many warnings by Paul to totally reject law keeping, Covenant Theology, as seen by this commenter, views Paul’s warnings on law keeping as referring only to the manner or reason for doing so. Therefore, in this view the Galatian error was not law keeping, but law keeping without the help of the Spirit of God.
But in these last days!!!!! Verse 1 refers to Old Testament and Old Covenant revelation and verse 2 refers to New Testament and New Covenant revelation.
Certainly this means that New Testament revelation should be used to interpret Old Testament revelation. It is clear that Jesus Christ brought a change of Covenants as Hebrews goes on to fully explain. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant. Why? Hebrews goes on to say that the Old Covenant is replaced by a better Covenant for which Jesus is the guarantor (Heb. 7:22). It further states that the Old Covenant is obsolete (Heb. 8:13). Yet, neither Dispensational Theology nor Covenant Theology views the Old Covenant as obsolete.
Dispensational Theology completely separates the Old from the New Covenant. For example in the thread of my last post, a dispensational adherent said, We see the law is in effect for the Jews during the tribulation period when Jesus again starts dealing with the nation Israel (Matt 24:20).
Although the New Testament clearly ends the role of physical Israel in redemptive history and brings all of humanity under the gospel of grace, the dispensationalist views a day when Israel will be dealt with completely separate from the Gentiles. Paul’s statement about there being neither Jew nor Greek does not interpret Old Testament Scripture in this view. The Old Testament is used to interpret the New in dispensational hermeneutics.
Covenant Theology, on the other hand, holds tightly to the Old Testament and Old Covenant principles. The New Covenant is viewed as the final revelation of a single major Covenant of grace, and there is barely a bump in the road from the Old Testament to the New Testament in Covenant theology.
A covenant theology adherent said the following in our last thread:
”I think the problem in Galatians 3:3 is that the Galatians were too reliant on the law without the help of the Spirit of God to seek to keep it.”
Although there are many warnings by Paul to totally reject law keeping, Covenant Theology, as seen by this commenter, views Paul’s warnings on law keeping as referring only to the manner or reason for doing so. Therefore, in this view the Galatian error was not law keeping, but law keeping without the help of the Spirit of God.
