Basically, I would suggest that the Old Covenant which was made obsolete by the arrival of the New is the covenant made on Mount Sinai, which came after the Abrahamic Covenant, and could not nullify it (Gal. 3:17-19), but largely served to showcase man’s transgression, and so show the need for a redeemer to come and fulfill the Abrahamic promises in a way the Law never could. So in other words, the whole Old Testament was not made obsolete, but the Mosaic Covenant, being a largely a typical/instructive/pedagogical covenant was made obsolete with the arrival of Christ, who fulfilled the Abrahamic Covenant and brought us into its promised blessings.

Does that make any sense?

One question,

How would a Covenant Theologian deal with the text in Heb 8:13 (in fact, many parts of Hebrews), where it says that “in speaking of a new covenant, he made the old obsolete”?

It seems to suggest that instead of one overarching Covenant of Grace, there are 2 covenants, where the one in the OT is made obsolete by the one Christ brought in the NT.

At this point in time, I’m struggling between Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. Very interesting read indeed.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for stopping by. No, I haven’t read Clark’s “The Atonement”. It sounds good, I know Clark always has a lot of useful things to say.

Christopher Neiswonger

I appreciate your suggested change. I suppose that, in essence, I meant the same thing by what I said as what you had in mind when you offered the emendation (simply because what I referred to as “the basic components of Covenant Theology” are really just the major heads of the unfolding saga of redemption, as they are revealed in scriptures) — but on the other hand, the change is significant enough to warrant implementation. I definitely want to impress upon the reader that our “system,” in which we relate the various teachings of the bible, should be driven by the story of the bible; and our reading of the bible story should certainly not be driven by any imported system. Maybe I’ll re-work that particular paragraph to reinforce the importance of biblical-story driven hermeneutics.

Thanks again for the suggestion. Nathan

I am wondering if it would be possible to correct this “fuzzy understanding” by having a grasp of the basic components of the actual Bible story as opposed to the basics of Covenantal Theology? I do not have a problem with Covenantal Theology — I am just wondering if one should not tie hermeneutics tightly to the story as opposed to a system.

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer such questions!