Old vs new covenant

[Don9of11]

My nephew recently posted this question on Facebook: *The thief on the Cross. Was he under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant when he died? *

I replied that he died under the new covenant established by Jesus at the last supper.Luke 22:20 and I also sighted 1Cor 11:25 and Hebrews 12:24. I also directed him to Catholic Answers, but since he has left the Catholic church he may not avail himself of this great resource.

He disagrees. Sighting Hebrews 9:15-17 and 1Peter 3:15 and questioning when was the last will and testament of Jesus intact?

I need some help to answer these questions.

 

[Disciple4Christ]

Of coarse he was under the new covenant for Jesus himself opened the gates to the kingdom. His acknowledgment that Jesus was the true son of God shows his repentant heart. Jesus alone knew what was in his heart and for that reason he was told he would join him in paradise.
It matters little of the timeline anyhow because Jesus is not constrained to time as we are…

Keep being the light in your nephews and Pray for his return to the Church.
He never would have left if he truly understood Gods plan for us so pray for his understanding and blow gently on the flames to reignite them.

God Bless

 

[Cachonga]

You might also point out that Jesus died before the thief, so that would, in effect, activate the New Covenant (see John 19:31-34).

 

[Don9of11]

In this continuing exchange with my nephew I recently replied in the following way:

In John 19: 31-34, the Jews requested Pilot that the legs of the those crucified be broken because it was Preparation Day and they did not want the bodies on the cross during the Sabbath for is is a solemn one. So they came and broke the legs of the first and the other one that was crucified with Jesus. But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. So Jesus was already dead thus firmly establishing the new covenant.

Jesus’ role as mediator of the new covenant is based upon his sacrificial death. His death has effected deliverance from transgressions, i.e., deliverance from sins committed under the old covenant, which the Mosaic sacrifices were incapable of effacing. Until this happened, the eternal inheritance promised by God could not be obtained. This effect of his work follows the human pattern by which a last will and testament becomes effective only with the death of the testator. Therefor, since Jesus was already dead the good thief died under the New Covenant.

He in turn replied in this manner:

When was the Last will and Testament of Yeshua Ha Maschiach given it couldn’t had been while alive and he had to die and ressurect frm the Dead. Jesus in the Great Commission gave the Marching Orders to the Apostles. But he also told them to tarry ye here Luke 24. Till they recieve power from on high. The Comforter, The Holy Ghost had to come and reveal all truth to the Apostles. John 14, 15, 16. When did this happen as prophesied by the Prophet Joel And came to pass on Pentecost, the birth of the CHurch that he purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28). It was not Roman either. The Holy Ghost came. God the Father gave the plan, Christ the Son executed the plan, The Holy Ghost organized and revealed the plan.

I am trying to do a good job of instruction but I have no idea what he is saying or where he is coming from. Who is “Yeshua Ha Maschiach”? Is this some other name for Jesus? I could use some good help here.

 

[Cachonga]

Yeshua Ha Maschiach is the Hebrew (or Aramaic, not sure which) name for Jesus Christ. “Yeshua” is the name “Jesus”, “Ha Maschiach” means “the Annointed One” or “the Christ”. Jesus did promise the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise before the end of the day (Luke 23:43). Jesus didn’t lie to the thief. Since the New Covenant requires belief in Jesus Christ (John 11:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Gal 2:16, among many other places), while the Old Covenant requires sacrifices, I would think it is obvious that he entered under the New Covenant.

 

[Don9of11]

Well a few more developments. Since this discussion on the old and new covenant was started on facebook, others have responded. I bring the latest comments. I was hoping someone could give me an insight to my nephews train of thought and believes.

I invite you to my facebook page to follow along if there is any further interest.

My nephews latest reply suggest that the new testament was not in force until Pentecost. I am not sure how to reply to his latest comments. I am also dismayed regarding his comments of the Catholic faith.

The thief on the Cross was under the Mosiac Law, He was a Jew in Covenant relationship with God under the Old Testament. Jesus could pardon all sins before he died. But The New Testament was not in force yet because he had to die and then be russurected then dispacth the Holy Ghost to bring his last will and testament to pass. Day of … Read MorePenetecost. Acts 2. I gave a host of scripture the other night. It is all connected. The Church and kingdom are one and was established on Pentecost. Jesus pardon Mary Magdalene. He was not even dead yet. John the Baptist the Gospel he preched was not that of what Peter and the eleven preached on Pentecost. Not the same. Jew and Gentile was to become Echad(Hebrew).One in Christ (Gal 3:23-29). Hebrews 8:8-13 in connection with Jeremiahs Prophecy (31:31-34), therefore fulfilled. Hebrews 9:15-17 states clearly all of these. There is indeed a DISTINCTIVE IDENTITY OF THE NEW COVENANT. I understand the pride and your commitment. I am glad I was raised Cat.

But, I am not anymore. I believe the Bible. Not Cathecism anymore. Care for anymore. I have plenty book chapter and Verse. Plenty. We prove by the Bible not Cathecism. Are you sure that if you die tonight, that you can be saved like the thief on the Cross and go to heaven. You better check the Book. Acts 2. Then Compare to Thief on the Cross according to the Bible.

 

[Cachonga]

He sounds a little confused, and somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, he claims “The thief on the Cross was under the Mosiac Law, He was a Jew in Covenant relationship with God under the Old Testament.”, then later he asks, “Are you sure that if you die tonight, that you can be saved like the thief on the Cross and go to heaven. You better check the Book. Acts 2. Then Compare to Thief on the Cross according to the Bible.” How can he use the example of the thief on the cross if he was under the old covenant? If the thief was under the old covenant, then shouldn’t we also submit to the old covenant in order to “be saved like the thief on the Cross”? On the other hand, if the thief was saved under the new covenant, then we most definitely should follow his example and be saved; that is, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!

 

[po18guy]

You might also point out that Jesus died before the thief, so that would, in effect, activate the New Covenant (see John 19:31-34).

OK, then what about Simeon the prophet, at the presentation of Jesus in the temple? Which covenant was he under?

 

[Don9of11]

You raise an excellent point regarding his example, I didn’t see that initially.

and I didn’t see your post po18guy; I would think Simeon the prophet would be under the old covenant. Am I missing something?

 

[po18guy]

He sounds a little confused, and somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, he claims “The thief on the Cross was under the Mosiac Law, He was a Jew in Covenant relationship with God under the Old Testament.”, then later he asks, “Are you sure that if you die tonight, that you can be saved like the thief on the Cross and go to heaven. You better check the Book. Acts 2. Then Compare to Thief on the Cross according to the Bible.” How can he use the example of the thief on the cross if he was under the old covenant? If the thief was under the old covenant, then shouldn’t we also submit to the old covenant in order to “be saved like the thief on the Cross”? On the other hand, if the thief was saved under the new covenant, then we most definitely should follow his example and be saved; that is, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ!

The thief, if he was indeed under the old covenant, would have needed a priest to make a sacrificial offering (grain or flesh) upon the altar to atone for his sins. There is no reason to believe that this process occurred, and he was probably not baptized by John. So, he was going to his death with the weight of his sins upon his soul - in other words, without hope. But, look: Jesus, the one eternal High Priest, made the sacrifice before his eyes, atoning for the thief’s sins by the suffering and death that He was undergoing.

I am sure that you are familiar with the doctrine of Baptism of desire. The thief’s admission of his sins amounts to his repentance and confession, since he indicated that his sins were “rightly” the very reason for the suffering that he was undergoing. His repentance, confession of his sin, and subsequent statement of faith in Jesus, combined with his request for mercy and his recognition of Jesus as King of the eternal Kingdom, constitute a complete change of heart and statement of faith. It may certainly be inferred that he desired, and would have submitted to Baptism had it been possible for him. So, he was Baptized into Christ by his desire. That is confirmed by Christ’s statement and promise to him.

 

[po18guy]

Yeshua Ha Maschiach is the Hebrew (or Aramaic, not sure which) name for Jesus Christ. “Yeshua” is the name “Jesus”, “Ha Maschiach” means “the Annointed One” or “the Christ”. Jesus did promise the thief that he would be with Him in Paradise before the end of the day (Luke 23:43). Jesus didn’t lie to the thief. Since the New Covenant requires belief in Jesus Christ (John 11:25, Acts 8:37, Acts 16:31, Romans 10:9, Gal 2:16, among many other places), while the Old Covenant requires sacrifices, I would think it is obvious that he entered under the New Covenant.

Here again, the thief did not go to Heaven that day, since the gates of Heaven were closed until Jesus ascended. So, where was he? Where were Abraham and Lazarus the poor man, since God was not present to them, yet they were comforted as if waiting?

 

[Cachonga]

po18guy:

OK, then what about Simeon the prophet, at the presentation of Jesus in the temple? Which covenant was he under?

Excellent question! I would suggest that, since God had informed him that he would see Messiah before he died, that he was under the old covenant (just like David). However, to put this in another light, I would ask - what difference does it make? How are we saved today? Isn’t it under the new covenant?

 

[po18guy]

My nephews latest reply suggest that the new testament was not in force until Pentecost. I am not sure how to reply to his latest comments. I am also dismayed regarding his comments of the Catholic faith.

First, Jesus did not speak such a futuristic language as Olde English. A demon has lead your nephew astray and has convinced him to reject the One Church of Christ and to believe only that which King James permitted Christians to believe. King James appointed himself the head of the Catholic Church in England, rejecting the authority that Christ placed within the Church. Once off the true path, any and all ideas and beliefs present themselves. Your nephew is using private interpretation of scripture, which is prohibited by the very same bible that he quotes! You might remind him of the following:

2 Peter 1:20 (King James Version)

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

Of course, the Body of Christ is indestructible, so the demon can only weaken it by dividing it. And, this is exactly what he has done with your nephew. The demon accomplishes this by planting a hatred of the One True Church, which leads to rejection of her God-given authority (including interpretation of scripture).

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[po18guy]

You raise an excellent point regarding his example, I didn’t see that initially.

and I didn’t see your post po18guy; I would think Simeon the prophet would be under the old covenant. Am I missing something?

The Holy Spirit told Simeon that he would not die until he had seen the salvation of Israel. So, filled with the Holy Spirit, he went to the Temple at Jesus’ presentation and declared Jesus, yet a baby of poor parents, to be God’s Messiah, or “anointed one”. That was a statement of faith in the Christ. So, was Simeon a Christian? He had a Divine revelation that Jesus was the Gospel, the fulfillment of prophecy, without hearing a word preached to him. Simeon lived under the old covenant, but expressed faith in the new and eternal covenant. This is something to ponder.

 

[Don9of11]

Thanks everyone for your help in this matter and your insights into scripture. I hope you don’t mind if I paraphrase some of your comments in a reply to my nephew.

 

[po18guy]

Thanks everyone for your help in this matter and your insights into scripture. I hope you don’t mind if I paraphrase some of your comments in a reply to my nephew.

Do not expect him to be swayed by anything you can say. Pride and arrogance lead us to the desire of private interpretation of scripture, since it then reflects more closely our personal beliefs. But, Christ taught us to deny ourselves and take up our crosses. That does not involve searching for an acceptable version of the Gospel, as there is only one.

Pray for him. It is the Holy Spirit that accomplishes all conversions and reversions.

 

[Don9of11]

Well it’s clear that my nephew has rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church and feels we have all been mislead. He desires a meeting with me and whoever I wish to bring and his mentors to publicly debate. He clearly see this exchange as winning and loosing, who is right and who is wrong. Would a correct response be that if he rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church he has rejected me? I mean thats how I feel at the moment and rather then respond emotionally I would like to respond with a clear head and heart.

Christ had the power to forgive sin under the Mosiac Law. Your Logic and reaosoning is faulty based on Catholic teaching and tradition. You appearently lack the understanding of the difference of the Old testament and The New testament. Jewish Law and The Law of Christ. OT TO NT. I am very anchored in The Word of God. We find what thus saith the Lord in The Bible and not in Catechisms or Baptist charters or and other denominational creeds or disciplines.

Becuase many feel all they have to do is believe on Jesus to be saved like the thief on the cross and go and live anyway they want to and still be saved. They think that they are saved by faith alone. Martin Luther. Catholics believe in Faith and Works. So do I. Please remermber if we can set this up, I will invite brother Mac Deaver from Austin, TX one of my proffessors and Great friend that has battled Catholic lay ministers in Public debate and defeated them. If you know anything about the Church of Christ, you will therefore know that they are very grounded and will defend the truth. Or perhaps have your priest meet my Biship Rick Farley, who will be here in October 4 thru the 7th for revival. It is up to you. I will walk on broken glass to meet you if need be. Open your Bible and lets get down with it.

 

[PJM]

=Don9of11-]My nephew recently posted this question on Facebook: *The thief on the Cross. Was he under the Old Covenant or the New Covenant when he died? *

**
1 Cor.11**:23 "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for * you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." Because this proceeded the death of Christ and the thiefs it has to be the N.C.] [1 Cor.13:10 quoted below].

I replied that he died under the new covenant established by Jesus at the last supper.Luke 22:20 and I also sighted 1Cor 11:25 and Hebrews 12:24. [Very good:thumbsup:] I also directed him to Catholic Answers, but since he has left the Catholic church he may not avail himself of this great resource.

He disagrees. Sighting Hebrews 9:15-17

15 "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. [This speaks of those Justified before the process of Redemption had been accomplished] 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. [It was and it is: Mt.26-28, Mk. 14:24, Lk. 22:20, and 1 Cor.11: 23-26] 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.[Yes the New Covenant was not ratified until Christ died. However one should note the following: 1 Cor, 13: 10 “but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away.” [It no longer exist! ]

1Peter 3:15 and questioning when was the last will and testament of Jesus intact? 15 “but in your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence;”

Heb. 9:17 "For a will takes effect only at death, "[OK, so Christ died and the new Covenant itmediately takes effect.] As a side note: Christ died before either of the thiefs, thus they did not have to break his legs as they did for them! So it is definetly under the NC.

I need some help to answer these questions.

You may wish to also share this with your young Bible scholar.

This was written by Paul in the First Century, when there was Only One Church, that which has come to known as the CC. So this would have been written by a Catholic for catholics.

Heb. 6:4 "For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift [Eucharist], and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,[Baptism and Confirmation] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God [the singular truth as explained by Christ ONLY Church] and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

Let us know if we can provide additional assistance. I’ll say a prayer for both of you.

Pat

 

[Todd_Easton]

I have looked for something authoritative from the Catholic Church that says exactly when the New Covenant was established. In the Glossary that appears at the end of my *Catechism, *in the entry for “Covenant,” it says in part, “In the New Testament or Covenant, Christ established a new and eternal covenant through his own sacrificial death and Resurrection.” (emphasis mine)

If I understand the *Glossary *statement correctly, the New Covenant was not completely established until Christ’s Resurrection. So, it would appear, since he died before Christ’s Resurrection, the Good Thief could not have died under the New Covenant.

 

[po18guy]

Well it’s clear that my nephew has rejected the teaching of the Catholic Church and feels we have all been mislead. He desires a meeting with me and whoever I wish to bring and his mentors to publicly debate. He clearly see this exchange as winning and loosing, who is right and who is wrong. Would a correct response be that if he rejects the teaching of the Catholic Church he has rejected me? I mean thats how I feel at the moment and rather then respond emotionally I would like to respond with a clear head and heart.

He does not think he is rejecting you. He believes he is saving you. To place it in that context will make it personal between the two of you. What he is rejecting is God’s revealed truth, in favor of a “new gospel”, which we are to reject even if an Angel should speak it to us.

You cannot win any debate in their eyes. Don’t do it! Rather, ask him where his mentor’s authority is to interpret scripture. Any “debate” will require you to be prepared to defend against the entire 1,976 year history of the church. They will attack, machine gun style, until you are overwhelmed. This is the tactic of the evil one, used to divide the Church. I suggest first praying more intensely for him, then speaking the truth as revealed through the Catholic Church. Draw him back to reality by constantly asking about his pastor’s authority to interpret scripture came from. The bible is not a source - it is a resource for those in authority. Let the Holy Spirit go to work via prayer. This is not as satisfying, but it is how we are supposed to approach such things.

Christ’s peace be with you.