Major Differences Between Old and New Testament

[Josheb]

I had noticed that also, almost to the point of 'obey or else!'
I guess it is God's way of 'shutting us up all under sin'.

You mentioned Dispensationalist leanings. Do you subscribe to the classic, traditional, orthodox position of the continuity of scripture, or the Dispensational view of discontinuity?

 

[Arial]

My point was, since the OT had literal fulfillments in the NT, shouldn't we expect the same (from the NT into the future)?

Of course. But I think you need to explain what you consider literal. For example Jesus is called the sacrificial Lamb of God. Does that mean He is literally a lamb? That would be literalizing. Literalizing does not take into account metaphor, figurative language and ignores the genre of the text. Literal strives to find the author's intent and meaning and according to the genre.

For example, there are many types and shadows in the OT which have a real substance in the NT (which becomes its antitype).
Ex. sacrificial lambs in the OT have their literal fulfillment in Christ (its antitype). I said I agreed, as long as the antitype is not spiritualized.

All the types and shadows in the OT have a real substance in the NT. Jesus is the fulfillment of them all. It is the very nature of a type shadow to be pointing to a future, greater reality. I.E. we have Abraham not possessing any of the promises given for the land or the future blessing that would come on all nations through him, looking forward to a better country, a heavenly country. We see Jesus as the fulfillment of that promise in a right now/not yet tensions. We too look forward to the consummation of the promise.

Concerning your post above, I would also need to have a better understanding of what you consider spiritualized.

 

[Mr GLee]

Lk 10:16.

Hi Thanks I would offer

Luke 10:16 He who hears and heeds you [disciples] hears and heeds Me; and he who slights and rejects you slights and rejects Me; and he who slights and rejects Me slights and rejects Him who sent Me

Jesus the apostle prophet did not send his own self.

The witness of two as if one, empowered by one Christ the husband. The testimony God has spoken

The kind of spiritual food not seen which the disciples at first knew not of . The food or strength of the father working in the Son of man Jesus to both reveal his will and empower the Son of man, Jesus to do it to the good pleasure of Christ

John 4:33-35King James Version33 Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat?34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

The same dynamic dual both below

13 [Not in your own strength] for it is God Who is all the while [j]effectually at work in you [energizing and creating in you the power and desire], both to will and to work for His good pleasure and satisfaction and [k]delight.

 

[Arial]

I'm thinking more in terms of the imprecatory prayers against enemies in the OT whereas we are called to bless and curse not, also the continual warfare that goes on with seeming approval from God. I'm sure there are other differences.

To address this directly: It takes time and diligence to work these things out. But it is not a difference between the two testaments, it is a progression of the covenant of redemption. I do not kid myself that I have all of it right or that there is not more to learn, but I will give what I so far have reached in the way of understanding.

The very first thing that we must always keep in mind is that the entire Bible is the same "story" and that story is God acting within our history to redeem alinatied men and in doing so restore also His entire creation. The end goal is to destroy sin and death and the consequences it has in and on the world. Jesus came to conquer sin and death.

The two testaments could perhaps in our day be more clearly expressed as Book One and Book Two, as we sometimes see in novels. It is the same story, different view or aspect. In the case of the Bible, Book One is the promises and the goal moving forward historically to Book Two. Book Two is "Here He is, the promised Redeemer has come!"

So in the wars commanded by God, in the curses we find in some of the Psalms where people are asking God to curse other people, it is within the context of God revealing Himself as the one true God in a covenantal relationship. The blessings and cursings attached to the covenant Law reveal what that relationship is to be. Obedience to God. Righteousness instead of lawlessness. And there is much more to be said on this, but space would not permit in one post.

To sum up an answer to the above questions: In the OT the enemies were human and they were not only enemies of God's people, they were enemies of God. With the advent of Jesus, His perfectly righteous life, His substitutionary death, His resurrection and ascension, His righteousness imputed to the believer, sin and death have been defeated in that sin has no power to condemn those in Christ through faith, and though they die, they to will be resurrected and glorified.

God hasn't changed in any way. It is the enemy who has changed. The enemy is no longer flesh and blood as it was in the OT times. It is the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places.(Eph 6:10-12; 2 Cor 10:3-6) Because we have been shown mercy through the person and work of Christ, we now show mercy.

What the wars and such were in the OT paved the way, for the coming of the victorious King.

 

[Mr GLee]

The old the law the letter death with the new, the law of faith .As labor of love . "let there be" the law signified by Moses and its testimony the prophets. Signified by Elisa old testament power of the Spirit passed down the John the Baptist. New testament

Two working as one as one

Isaiah 8:19 -20And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, (singular) it is because there is no light in them.

In that way faith is a work Just not of our own selves . we had none, not little .He calls us ones of "little faith" Peter praying Increase it

 

[Alive]

To address this directly: It takes time and diligence to work these things out. But it is not a difference between the two testaments, it is a progression of the covenant of redemption. I do not kid myself that I have all of it right or that there is not more to learn, but I will give what I so far have reached in the way of understanding.

The very first thing that we must always keep in mind is that the entire Bible is the same "story" and that story is God acting within our history to redeem alinatied men and in doing so restore also His entire creation. The end goal is to destroy sin and death and the consequences it has in and on the world. Jesus came to conquer sin and death.

The two testaments could perhaps in our day be more clearly expressed as Book One and Book Two, as we sometimes see in novels. It is the same story, different view or aspect. In the case of the Bible, Book One is the promises and the goal moving forward historically to Book Two. Book Two is "Here He is, the promised Redeemer has come!"

So in the wars commanded by God, in the curses we find in some of the Psalms where people are asking God to curse other people, it is within the context of God revealing Himself as the one true God in a covenantal relationship. The blessings and cursings attached to the covenant Law reveal what that relationship is to be. Obedience to God. Righteousness instead of lawlessness. And there is much more to be said on this, but space would not permit in one post.

To sum up an answer to the above questions: In the OT the enemies were human and they were not only enemies of God's people, they were enemies of God. With the advent of Jesus, His perfectly righteous life, His substitutionary death, His resurrection and ascension, His righteousness imputed to the believer, sin and death have been defeated in that sin has no power to condemn those in Christ through faith, and though they die, they to will be resurrected and glorified.

God hasn't changed in any way. It is the enemy who has changed. The enemy is no longer flesh and blood as it was in the OT times. It is the spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places.(Eph 6:10-12; 2 Cor 10:3-6) Because we have been shown mercy through the person and work of Christ, we now show mercy.

What the wars and such were in the OT paved the way, for the coming of the victorious King.

Amen! What has happened is the place where the battle is waged has changed from the 'Land' to His sons. I wrote this with 'sanctification' in mind, but it is the same as clearing the Land (Canaan) from the evil ones, so that He would have this set aside piece of real estate.

I think in terms of two analogies, neither of which are perfect, but have been of some help to me over the years.

1. A tree

2. The land

When God made us Alive 'In Christ' the source of our life changed from the earthly to the heavenly. He essentially and in a very real way severed us from the kingdom of darkness and into His Kingdom. We being like a tree uprooted and turned upside down with our roots now in the heavens. However, the branches are still in this earthly realm and subject to much of what this realm exudes. Our branches are always catching flying things that wish to land there and affect our thinking and yank on our flesh. We have this Treasure in earthen vessels. Through His word (scriptures) rhema and our brethren, we learn to shew away those birds. God will touch something in us and we respond with a "yes Lord", thus agreeing with Him and 'changed'. This is all the Lord's doing. It is only because of 'New Life' that we are able to say 'Yes Lord'.

The other is the 'Land' and I will attempt to connect this aspect of our ongoing sanctification to His Kingdom.

When the Israelites were entering the Land and one way or another the inhabitants were driven out or not, the Lord was establishing His Kingdom on earth. A place set aside for His purpose and our learning. I see the Land as a metaphor for our ongoing sanctification.

When He touches something in us that is not of Him, and we say 'yes Lord' and thus give our loyalty to Him rather than the flesh and the earth, He reigns there. His Kingdom is in a very real way established. The gates of hell cannot withstand the onslaught of His Victory.

It is needful and healthy to remember that it is all His Working in us.
Jesus said, "you can do nothing without me". "No thing". Not some things, or things of a catagory or another!

No thing.

This is the sense and realization as He works in us; to know deep within our being that we need Him to walk, talk, breathe and think.

Thus we grow toward that place where He is Lord. We decrease as He increases.

Our roots are 'In Him'.

 

[Arial]

Amen! What has happened is the place where the battle is waged has changed from the 'Land' to His sons. I wrote this with 'sanctification' in mind, but it is the same as clearing the Land (Canaan) from the evil ones, so that He would have this set aside piece of real estate.

I think in terms of two analogies, neither of which are perfect, but have been of some help to me over the years.

1. A tree

2. The land

When God made us Alive 'In Christ' the source of our life changed from the earthly to the heavenly. He essentially and in a very real way severed us from the kingdom of darkness and into His Kingdom. We being like a tree uprooted and turned upside down with our roots now in the heavens. However, the branches are still in this earthly realm and subject to much of what this realm exudes. Our branches are always catching flying things that wish to land there and affect our thinking and yank on our flesh. We have this Treasure in earthen vessels. Through His word (scriptures) rhema and our brethren, we learn to shew away those birds. God will touch something in us and we respond with a "yes Lord", thus agreeing with Him and 'changed'. This is all the Lord's doing. It is only because of 'New Life' that we are able to say 'Yes Lord'.

The other is the 'Land' and I will attempt to connect this aspect of our ongoing sanctification to His Kingdom.

When the Israelites were entering the Land and one way or another the inhabitants were driven out or not, the Lord was establishing His Kingdom on earth. A place set aside for His purpose and our learning. I see the Land as a metaphor for our ongoing sanctification.

When He touches something in us that is not of Him, and we say 'yes Lord' and thus give our loyalty to Him rather than the flesh and the earth, He reigns there. His Kingdom is in a very real way established. The gates of hell cannot withstand the onslaught of His Victory.

It is needful and healthy to remember that it is all His Working in us.
Jesus said, "you can do nothing without me". "No thing". Not some things, or things of a catagory or another!

No thing.

This is the sense and realization as He works in us; to know deep within our being that we need Him to walk, talk, breathe and think.

Thus we grow toward that place where He is Lord. We decrease as He increases.

Our roots are 'In Him'.

Very apt analogy.

 

[Mr GLee]

I would offer.. Demonym used in parables. "Residents know by location" . The Christians land the married land named after her husband Christ

Isaiah 62:4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

 

[prism]

Depends on which brand of dispensationalism to which you subscribe. . .

Two bodies of Christ is one difference.

I didn't realize Christ had more than one body.

Ephesians 2:16 (KJV) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Ephesians 3:6 (KJV) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Ephesians 4:4 (KJV) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

 

[prism]

Of course. But I think you need to explain what you consider literal. For example Jesus is called the sacrificial Lamb of God. Does that mean He is literally a lamb? That would be literalizing. Literalizing does not take into account metaphor, figurative language and ignores the genre of the text. Literal strives to find the author's intent and meaning and according to the genre.

Yes, I guess Luther and Zwingli duked that one out at Marburg.

Concerning your post above, I would also need to have a better understanding of what you consider spiritualized.

One example would be using baptism as a 'spiritualized' type of circumcision,
another is designating the Church as a 'spiritualized Israel (IMHO).

 

[prism]

You mentioned Dispensationalist leanings. Do you subscribe to the classic, traditional, orthodox position of the continuity of scripture, or the Dispensational view of discontinuity?

If you are familiar with John MacArthur's form of Dispensationalism (hybrid of Reformed and Dispensational), I'm pretty much there. So no, I'm not a Darbyite if that is what you mean. I do see that God has dealt with man through law/gospel from the beginning.

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

You just contradicted your own statement. If the OT "lays the foundation" then it is part of the gospel. The implication being the gospel has no OT foundation, no foundation at all, and the NT is an entirely new and radically different revelation begetting a radically different religion that has absolutely nothing to do with the OT.

Scripture proves otherwise. Nearly everything Jesus taught can be found in the OT.

That is not entirely correct because the word euangalion means good news of a specific kind, not just any kalon akoe. A euangalion was good news of a great victory won by a great warrior or king. See HERE. There are more than two dozen references to good news in the OT and most of them can be understood typologically as the gospel foreshadowed. There is no greater victory than that in which sin and the grave are defeated and that is decidedly found in the OT.

Appeal to ridicule noted.

You can have your opinions. But that does not make them true or accurate. Your statements are entirely false.

 

[Josheb]

If you are familiar with John MacArthur's form of Dispensationalism (hybrid of Reformed and Dispensational), I'm pretty much there. So no, I'm not a Darbyite if that is what you mean. I do see that God has dealt with man through law/gospel from the beginning.

How about the two separate people with two separate purposes and two separate outcomes (one on earth and one in heaven?

Subscribing to any of that?

 

[Josheb]

You can have your opinions. But that does not make them true or accurate. Your statements are entirely false.

And I think the exact same thing about your position.

Feel better now?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

And I think the exact same thing about your position.

Feel better now?

The big problem for you is that your opinion is not backed up by God's word. Mine is. As God prophesied through Isaiah.

And I will give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, Is 42:6

Behold, the former things have come to pass; Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I cause you to hear them.” Is 42:9

The new covenant, according to God Himself, is entirely to do with His Messiah.

 

[Arial]

One example would be using baptism as a 'spiritualized' type of circumcision,
another is designating the Church as a 'spiritualized Israel (IMHO).

I don't know of any teaching that baptism is a spiritualized type of circumcision.
I don't know of any teaching that the church is a spiritualized Israel.

The terms spiritual and spiritualized are being used as synonyms\ when they are not, just as literal and literilized are confused.

Baptism is a sign of union with Christ, just as circumcision was a sign of union with the old covenant community. The old was of the flesh. The new is of the heart--regeneration by the Spirit.

The church is spiritual Israel, not a spiritualized Israel. Israel in the OT were the people of God. The people of God in the new covenant are those in Christ whether Jew or Gentile and they are not in one location as national Israel and her people were, but are all over the world. Paul referred to believers as true Israel. Do you think he was showing the reality of the shadow or was he spiritualizing Israel?

 

[Josheb]

The big problem for you is that your opinion is not backed up by God's word.

Baloney.

Pick one single statement I've made and I'll show explicit scripture proving the comment true.

Mine is.

No, it's not. You contradict yourself constantly. For example...

As God prophesied through Isaiah.

And I will give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, Is 42:6

Behold, the former things have come to pass; Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I cause you to hear them.” Is 42:9

The new covenant, according to God Himself, is entirely to do with His Messiah.

Which is exactly what I said. The OT informs the NT.

The OT foreshadows the NT. The foundation of the gospel is found in the OT. The Messiah is preached throughout the OT. There is no "major" difference between Old and New because the New Testament is simply a continuation of God's revelation, God's purpose in creation, that began with Genesis 1:1. Isaiah preached the gospel promise of a coming anointed one, the one promised to Abraham's descendants (not the geo-political nation-state of Israel). The new covenant was preached in the Old Testament and the new covenant was first promised when the gospel was preached to Abraham and Jesus.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The gospel promises were made to Abraham. Abraham lived in the Old Testament, centuries before his descendants ever became a nation. The gospel promises were also made to Jesus, the seed of Abraham, when they were made to Abraham.

The big problem for you is that your opinion is not backed up by God's word.

Galatians 3:16 proves otherwise.


With one sentence you protest and the next you prove me (and others) correct.

 

[Eleanor]

I didn't realize Christ had more than one body.

Ephesians 2:16 (KJV) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Ephesians 3:6 (KJV) That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Ephesians 4:4 (KJV) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;

He doesn't, but some dispensationalism has two separate bodies of believers.

 

[Arial]

If you are familiar with John MacArthur's form of Dispensationalism (hybrid of Reformed and Dispensational), I'm pretty much there. So no, I'm not a Darbyite if that is what you mean. I do see that God has dealt with man through law/gospel from the beginning.

That view has God returning to the shadows of the OT for a literal thousand years, while Christ rules and reigns on earth. Does that seem right to you?

 

[eclipseEventSigns]

Baloney.

Pick one single statement I've made and I'll show explicit scripture proving the comment true.

No, it's not. You contradict yourself constantly. For example...

Which is exactly what I said. The OT informs the NT.

The OT foreshadows the NT. The foundation of the gospel is found in the OT. The Messiah is preached throughout the OT. There is no "major" difference between Old and New because the New Testament is simply a continuation of God's revelation, God's purpose in creation, that began with Genesis 1:1. Isaiah preached the gospel promise of a coming anointed one, the one promised to Abraham's descendants (not the geo-political nation-state of Israel). The new covenant was preached in the Old Testament and the new covenant was first promised when the gospel was preached to Abraham and Jesus.

Galatians 3:16-18
Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

The gospel promises were made to Abraham. Abraham lived in the Old Testament, centuries before his descendants ever became a nation. The gospel promises were also made to Jesus, the seed of Abraham, when they were made to Abraham.

Galatians 3:16 proves otherwise.


With one sentence you protest and the next you prove me (and others) correct.

Not interested. You disqualified yourself from proper discourse long ago.