"Old" Covenant to "New" Covenant - What Has Changed?

From the time of Abraham to the time of Moses ... From the time of Moses to the time of Yahshua ... From the time of Yahshua, even unto the present time; what we now call Christianity has undergone innumerable changes in virtually every facet of its establishment. This has given birth to a paradoxical keynote of Christianity in the minds of unbelievers, as these same Christians proclaim that "God" is the same yesterday, today and forevermore. How can the God of Christianity be a "never-changing God", yet Christianity itself has changed so much that it no longer has any of its original beliefs and practices? This is often polished away by the perception that Christians are now under a "New Covenant", hence the original beliefs and practices are now obsolete! Is this really a fact? Has Yahweh finally gone back on His words and changed what was written? From the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, what [really] has changed?

The History and Establishment of the First Covenant

It is always comical to see Christians trying to "explain" the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, using only the New Testament. It should not take a rocket scientist to highlight that a transition is a process that can only be accurately explained through a timeline. One must begin at the very beginning: starting with the Old Covenant, then describe the events and changes leading up to the New Covenant. This is the only way the transitional process can be clearly seen. The first thing we may want to do is to remove the man-made concept of an "Old and New Covenant", and refer to them as the Scripture portrays them: "First and Second Covenant" (Heb.8:7). The concept of an Old and New Covenant as seen in Hebrews 8:13, is an entirely different concept that does not even involve the Gentiles, but speaks specifically to the house of Judah (Heb.8:8).

This covenant relationship between man and Yahweh started some 4,000 years ago with a man name Abraham (Gen.17:1-2). Yahweh promised to bless this man and make him a great nation (Gen.12:2). This promise was extended to his descendants, who will inherit a piece of land (Gen.12:7). Believe it or not, this great promise that Abraham and Israel received was the promise to a piece of land! (Gen.13:15, Gen.15:18) This was the same promise spoken of in the New Testament (Acts 7:5, Heb.11:8), and it is the very same promise Christians are to receive through Yahshua - Land! (Gal.3:14,16) This may come as a surprise to many, as a piece of land seems all too simple; but this land will not just be any piece of land. On this land will be a kingdom (Daniel 7:27), and not just any Kingdom, but the Kingdom of the Messiah in which all those who are a part of the covenant will partake and be rulers (Rev.5:10). This is the real promised that Abraham received which was passed down to his descendants, then finally extended to the rest of the world through Yahshua the Messiah - the land, or rather, the earth! The benefit of the meek as seen in Matthew 5:5 is this same land!

A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties; hence if Yahweh has promised man land as a part of a covenant relationship, man must do something in return. Otherwise it would not be a covenant at all. Man (Israel) therefore, was required to obey Yahweh and keep His commandments (Exodus 19:5-6). Israel agreed and the deal was seal (Ex.19:8). Anyone who went contrary to the commandments of Yahweh was rejected and cut off from the covenant (Lev.18:29). This was the first covenant that was created; Israel would have been given a special land if they obey the commands of Yahweh.

The Establishment of the Second Covenant

The first covenant was later broken, and a second was created. Many people use Paul's words in Hebrews 8:7 to say that the law had a fault. This would have been a direct contradiction to Psalm 19:7 which establish the law as being perfect. It is impossible for perfect laws to have faults; hence the fault in the first covenant could have never been the law. That is contrary to the very nature of Yahweh! The fault in the first covenant was with the people! Israel did not fulfill their end of the bargain. Their duty was to obey the law of Yahweh, and they did not do it (Nehemiah 9:29). Since they did not obey the law, they breached the contract (covenant) and as such made it faulty. It would not make much sense to change the law if it was the people who were at fault. Yahweh, therefore, did not change the law as many professed. He changed the people (Isa.65:1)! Yahweh replaced the Israelites with the Gentiles in the covenant, hence making it a different covenant, since it does not deal with the same people. This, however, does not imply a change of agreement. Paul explained this process thoroughly in his epistle to the Romans. Using the analogy of an olive tree, Paul stated that branches were broken off so that wild olives can be grafted in (Rom.11:17). These original branches represented the Israelites, whereas the wild olives represented the Gentiles (Rom.11:25). Paul made it crystal clear that these wild branches are supported by the same root (Rom.11:19). This shows that whosoever conditions or agreement was there in the first covenant is the same that exist for the second. The root has not changed, only branches were broken off. In other words, the covenant has not changed; it only applies to a new set of people. Paul again cautioned the Gentiles in Romans 11:22 to continue in their kindness as Yahweh continues in His kindness. What "kindness" is this? -This 'kindness' is being true to one's word! Yahweh is true to His people that He will give them the land, so His people are to be true to Him that they will obey His commands. Paul reassured the Gentiles that Yahweh will not spare them as He did not spare the original people (Rom.11:21). If the Israelites were replaced because they did not keep the commands, the Gentiles too will be replaced if they follow suit. The commandments, therefore, are an integral part of the covenant.

Legal Institution vs. Methodology

Ever so often the institution of the law if confused with the method of which it is carried out. The institution of the law contains the purpose and what is to be taught. The method is just the way it is done. Whilst the method may change, the institution or the law itself remains. A perfect example of this is the law of circumcision. Many will say that law of circumcision was abolished, but the truth of the matter is that it was not! No law was ever abolished. What happened was simply a change in methodology. Instead of a physical circumcision where the foreskin is removed (Gen.17:11), there is now a spiritual circumcision where the carnal 'flesh' is removed (Rom.2:29). The law still remains; one must be circumcised to be a part of the covenant.

A clear analogy of this would be a house being built. It is not yet finished, but someone has to live in it while work is being done. There are no windows, doors or roof. The structure of the house is temporarily covered by plastic which is functioning as the roof. The places where the windows and doors are to be, are held by pieces of boards. Until the roof comes, the plastic will have to suffice. When the roof is finally available, it replaces the plastic, but the function is the same as it provides shelter. Notice that the installation of the roof does not affect the boards in place, as those pieces of boards will have to remain until the actual windows and doors are installed.

So it is with the change from the first to the second covenant. Scripture shows that the promise was always meant to be fulfilled through Yahshua (Gal.3:16), but until he came things had to be put into place. Yahshua was always meant to be our sacrifice, but until he came, blood had to be spilled for sins to be forgiven (Heb.9:22). This was the reasons lambs were sacrificed in the past. In fact, Yahweh did not even delight in animal sacrifices (Isa.1:11). It pleasured him when Yahshua finally came and fulfilled that purpose (Isa.53:10). Many will say that the priesthood and temple worship has been abolished, but that is not so either. Why would Yahweh make a bunch of laws then turn around and destroy them? Is He not all-knowing? Is His mind so shallow that His establishments were only for a period? Think about it! We still have a High Priest, so the priesthood still exists (Heb.4:14). This High Priest still stands as a mediator between us and Yahweh (Rom.8:34). We still have a temple (1Cor.6:19), and we still offer sacrifices (Heb.13:15). The institution of the law therefore remains in place, it is only that there has been a change in methodology. A classic example would be Capital Punishment (for countries with this practice). In the past Capital Punishment was done by hanging, but now it is done by lethal injection. The method has changed, but the law remains the same.

As seen in the analogy with the house being built, the instillation of the roof did not affect the pieces of boards  which were substituting for the windows and doors. In like manner, the first appearance of Yahshua did not affect every single law in place, but some were left unaltered until his second advent. Paul alluded to such practices in Colossians 2:16-17 stating that they are a shadow to things TO come. One such practice is "The Sabbath Day" ... coming up next in this series

The Voice of Yahweh has spoken ... He that has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches