Christian Forums

The New Testament Begins in Acts Not Matthew

When you read the Gospels in the Bible, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do they sometimes seem to contradict other parts of the New Testament Scripture? For example, in Matthew 6:15, Jesus said, "If you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins." Yet, in Colossians 2:13, the Apostle Paul wrote, "...God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins." How can there be two different perspectives written in the same New Testament?

Many Christians experience confusion because they think all of Jesus' teachings are part of the New Testament, also known as the "New Covenant." However most of them are not. The New Testament, which is God's New Covenant with mankind, actually starts in the book of Acts, not Matthew. How do we know this fact is true?

When reading the New Testament, ask yourself this question, "Had Jesus died yet when this was written?" If not, then those writings are part of the Old Covenant in most cases. If the writings are after Jesus died, then it's part of the New Covenant.

When Jesus came to earth, He came directly to the Jews who were still under the Old Covenant with God. Want the gist of the Old Covenant? Deuteronomy 28 spells it out very clearly. If Israel obeyed God's laws, there were 12 verses of blessings He would give them (see Deuteronomy 28:1-14). But, if Israel disobeyed God's laws, there were 52 verses of curses He would give them. (see Deuteronomy 28:15-68).

Would you want to live in that kind of tension-filled relationship with God? No way! Unfortunately, many Christians today believe that is still how God treats them, even though we are under the New Covenant of grace. Therefore, Christianity feels more like a burden, instead of a blessing.

Many of the things that Jesus taught in the Gospels was Old Covenant instruction to the Jews of His day. When He taught them, He was raising the bar of how perfect they needed to be accepted and blessed by God. Here are some examples:

"Unless you are more righteous than the strictest religious leaders in Jesus's day, the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will not go to heaven." (Matthew 5:20)

"Calling someone an idiot or crazy because you are angry with them will send you to hell." (Matthew 5:22)

"Lust is adultery." (Matthew 5:27-28)

"You must live a perfect life exactly the way God does." (Matthew 5:48)

These performance-based teachings were aimed to show the Jews and anyone who reads the Bible today that it's impossible to get God's unconditional acceptance by obeying the law. Jesus was preparing people to understand how much they needed Him to be their Savior.

God was about to bring into existence the New Covenant, and Jesus was preparing them and everyone else for it. But, here's the key. The New Covenant did not begin until Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension were complete. For instance, Hebrews 9:15 says:

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the Old Covenant."

Remember Jesus' teachings we just listed from the book of Matthew? Let's compare what the New Covenant says about you as a Christ follower:

God has already forgiven you whether you forgive or not. (Colossians 2:13)
God made you perfect in your identity in Christ. (Hebrews 10:14)
God made you a holy person and not a lustful person in Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:2)
God made you a patient person because you're complete in Christ. (Colossians 2:10)

The Old Covenant was conditional based on mankind's imperfect works. The New Covenant is conditional based on faith in Jesus' perfect work. Do you see the amazing difference?

Read the New Testament with a lot more clarity now that you know the New Testament starts in Acts, rather than Matthew!

[URL unfurl=true]https://www.gracelifeinternational.com/freebies/new-testament-begins-in-acts/[/URL]

HEBREWS
Analysis by Kenneth S. Wuest
Wuest's Word Studies
From the Greek New Testament

http://www.bcbsr.com/books/hebw.html

Most of Jesus' teaching such as that you have spoken of there is the message that no one will be saved by law keeping.  It is preparatory to the coming of the New Covenant where we learn that salvation is by grace through faith, not through law keeping.

Quote from: Dave... on Tue Nov 04, 2025 - 19:33:42The New Testament Begins in Acts Not Matthew

When you read the Gospels in the Bible, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do they sometimes seem to contradict other parts of the New Testament Scripture? For example, in Matthew 6:15, Jesus said, "If you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins." Yet, in Colossians 2:13, the Apostle Paul wrote, "...God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins." How can there be two different perspectives written in the same New Testament?

Many Christians experience confusion because they think all of Jesus' teachings are part of the New Testament, also known as the "New Covenant." However most of them are not. The New Testament, which is God's New Covenant with mankind, actually starts in the book of Acts, not Matthew. How do we know this fact is true?

When reading the New Testament, ask yourself this question, "Had Jesus died yet when this was written?" If not, then those writings are part of the Old Covenant in most cases. If the writings are after Jesus died, then it's part of the New Covenant.

When Jesus came to earth, He came directly to the Jews who were still under the Old Covenant with God. Want the gist of the Old Covenant? Deuteronomy 28 spells it out very clearly. If Israel obeyed God's laws, there were 12 verses of blessings He would give them (see Deuteronomy 28:1-14). But, if Israel disobeyed God's laws, there were 52 verses of curses He would give them. (see Deuteronomy 28:15-68).

Would you want to live in that kind of tension-filled relationship with God? No way! Unfortunately, many Christians today believe that is still how God treats them, even though we are under the New Covenant of grace. Therefore, Christianity feels more like a burden, instead of a blessing.

Many of the things that Jesus taught in the Gospels was Old Covenant instruction to the Jews of His day. When He taught them, He was raising the bar of how perfect they needed to be accepted and blessed by God. Here are some examples:

"Unless you are more righteous than the strictest religious leaders in Jesus's day, the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will not go to heaven." (Matthew 5:20)

"Calling someone an idiot or crazy because you are angry with them will send you to hell." (Matthew 5:22)

"Lust is adultery." (Matthew 5:27-28)

"You must live a perfect life exactly the way God does." (Matthew 5:48)

These performance-based teachings were aimed to show the Jews and anyone who reads the Bible today that it's impossible to get God's unconditional acceptance by obeying the law. Jesus was preparing people to understand how much they needed Him to be their Savior.

God was about to bring into existence the New Covenant, and Jesus was preparing them and everyone else for it. But, here's the key. The New Covenant did not begin until Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension were complete. For instance, Hebrews 9:15 says:

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the Old Covenant."

Remember Jesus' teachings we just listed from the book of Matthew? Let's compare what the New Covenant says about you as a Christ follower:

God has already forgiven you whether you forgive or not. (Colossians 2:13)
God made you perfect in your identity in Christ. (Hebrews 10:14)
God made you a holy person and not a lustful person in Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:2)
God made you a patient person because you're complete in Christ. (Colossians 2:10)

The Old Covenant was conditional based on mankind's imperfect works. The New Covenant is conditional based on faith in Jesus' perfect work. Do you see the amazing difference?

Read the New Testament with a lot more clarity now that you know the New Testament starts in Acts, rather than Matthew!

[URL unfurl=true]https://www.gracelifeinternational.com/freebies/new-testament-begins-in-acts/[/URL]

The New Testament begins with Matthew.  I think you mean the New Covenant begins with Acts.  Actually, the New Covenant begins with the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.  It was instituted or inaugurated at Pentecost which is described in Acts.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed Nov 05, 2025 - 03:27:38The New Testament begins with Matthew.  I think you mean the New Covenant begins with Acts.  Actually, the New Covenant begins with the resurrection of Jesus from the tomb.  It was instituted or inaugurated at Pentecost which is described in Acts.

Hey 4wd

In Hebrews it says when the death of the Testator activates His Testament. And unless I'm missing something, it also appears to use the terms 'Covenant' and 'Testament' as interchangeable as most people do. I'm guessing by your response that you disagree? If so, can you give a me a reason why you think that they are different? According to that passage it would be Jesus's death on the cross that would usher in the NT.

I think this is something that's really important for todays Christians to understand. Both Calvinists and Pentecostals/Charismatics have this in common and build doctrines from this misunderstanding. That is, that since people were already born again in the Gospels (they consider it all NT), that the baptism with the Holy Spirit must be something more. I believe that both are in error. In short, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the NT begins when each records the death of Jesus on the cross. Before that, even though we call in the NT, it's still the OT. Acts pretty much picks up at that point, that being the cross. 

Hebrews 9:15-18 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

I found another article that goes into it.

-----------------

When did the New Covenant begin?

Quick Answer: When did the New Covenant begin? The New Covenant began at the death of Christ (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:16). This means Jesus lived and ministered under the Old Covenant (Galatians 4:4). This is why some of Jesus' teachings expose the true spirit of the Old Testament law.

Diving Deeper: Once we have finished reading the Old Testament, we come to the New Testament which starts in Matthew 1. But did you know that the New Testament era, or new covenant, does not really begin in Matthew 1? That's right. It's not baby Jesus in a manger that brings in God's new way of grace. The new covenant didn't begin until 33 years later at the death of Christ (Luke 22:20; Hebrews 9:16).

Note that the words "testament", "covenant", and "will" are all the same Greek word diathéké. This is important because it's a death, not a birth, that is required to activate a will or testament. Therefore, the New Testament era (also known as the new covenant) actually begins at the death of Christ, not at His birth. Hebrews 9:16-17 says: "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living."

A will does not go into effect until the death of the one who made it. Likewise, the new covenant did not go into force until Jesus died. In fact, even the old covenant did not go into effect without blood: "Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words" (Exodus 24:8). For this same reason, at the Last Supper, Jesus told His disciples the new covenant would be coming through His blood (not His birth): "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you" (Luke 22:20b).

This means that Jesus' entire earthly ministry was under the Old Covenant (Galatians 4:4). Jesus was born under the Law, and we draw the dividing line of human history at the cross, not at the manger: "But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those under the law" (Galatians 4:4-5). Both Jesus and His audience lived during the old covenant Law. This is why we see so many harsh teachings from Jesus in which impossible standards are taught – cut off your hand, pluck out your eye, be perfect like God (see the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 for examples).

Have you ever wondered why Jesus taught that forgiveness was conditioned upon forgiving others first (Matthew 6:12-15)? Or why Jesus said we must be perfect like God (Matthew 5:48)? This was Jesus teaching the perfect standard of the Law so his hearers would see their need for God's grace instead (Galatians 3:19-23). So, when you're reading the Bible and come across verses in the four Gospels that seem to make rightness with God difficult or burdensome, remember that Jesus was showing the proud Jews of His day the impossibility of Law-based living and the fallacy of self righteousness.

This does not mean that all of Jesus' teachings before the cross were only relevant to those living under the old covenant. Jesus knew the new covenant was imminent, and the goal of His teachings was twofold: (1) to show people the futility of trying to keep the Law and (2) to prepare them for a new way of grace. These are the two main messages we see in the teachings of Christ.

When we realize the cross is the dividing line between the old covenant and the new covenant, the impossible law-based teachings of Jesus finally make sense. And the message of God's grace found in the Gospel becomes clearer than ever!

https://biblequestions.com/answers/when-did-the-new-covenant-begin/

I googled it for funzies, this is what it said

"Testament and Covenant are the same thing, right?"

"No, "covenant" and "testament" are not exactly the same thing, although the biblical Greek word diatheke was translated as both, causing confusion. A covenant is a formal agreement or contract between two or more parties, while a testament refers to a legal will that goes into effect upon the death of the testator. In a biblical context, a testament can be a specific type of covenant that is sealed by the death of the "testator"."

Would you agree with this? 

Quote from: Dave... on Wed Nov 05, 2025 - 13:06:43I googled it for funzies, this is what it said

"Testament and Covenant are the same thing, right?"

"No, "covenant" and "testament" are not exactly the same thing, although the biblical Greek word diatheke was translated as both, causing confusion. A covenant is a formal agreement or contract between two or more parties, while a testament refers to a legal will that goes into effect upon the death of the testator. In a biblical context, a testament can be a specific type of covenant that is sealed by the death of the "testator"."

Would you agree with this? 

Yes, but what is indicated by the depictions of Old Testament and New Testament are specifically God's written revelations which we have in the Bible which contain but are not limited to the Old and New Covenants

Quote from: Dave... on Wed Nov 05, 2025 - 13:06:43I googled it for funzies, this is what it said

"Testament and Covenant are the same thing, right?"

"No, "covenant" and "testament" are not exactly the same thing, although the biblical Greek word diatheke was translated as both, causing confusion. A covenant is a formal agreement or contract between two or more parties, while a testament refers to a legal will that goes into effect upon the death of the testator. In a biblical context, a testament can be a specific type of covenant that is sealed by the death of the "testator"."

Would you agree with this? 

Hi, it would seem different terms to give a deeper spiritual undestanding not changing the simplicity of the gospel "Christ saves sinners"

I would offer a look at the doctrine of the letter of the law and how it is used to represent .. .deader than fried chicken   

A formal agreement or contract (as written law) between two or more parties, that writen testament (letter of the law death) it goes into effect when hearing death (the letter what our eyes see the scripture)---the letter  "do not eat" or in dying, living in a earthen body of death (sin) you will perish like just as if you never existed .That temporal existence returned to spiritless dust blowing in the wind.

Sons of God receive their new born again spirit and a living hope beyond the grave of a new incorruptible body that will be neither male not female ---Jew nor Gentile a  bride of Christ.  The former sufferings of hell in thier earthen bodies of death will not be remembered or ever come to mind forever more. 

Romans 7:6 But now we are delivered from the law,(thou shall not)  that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldnesss of the letter.-------(Death thou shall not)

Two used in parables is the one witness that God not seen has spoken. called the law of faith .Let there be and it was God alone good

Romans 3:27-28 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Two laws working togethter a one new perfect law . One seen the temporal dying  letter death working together with that not seen the eternal things of the Holy Father

Jesus took the just punishment of the letter "sufferings unto death" justifying the work of the Holy Father who bruised the son of man Jesus' heel crushing the head of the serpent

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his(Holy Father) righteousness: that he(Holy Father)  might be just(letter), and the justifier(Holy Father) of him which believeth in Jesus.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 05:00:16Yes, but what is indicated by the depictions of Old Testament and New Testament are specifically God's written revelations which we have in the Bible which contain but are not limited to the Old and New Covenants

Hey 4wd and garee

The way I see it is that the old and the new Testaments are distinctly separate, while the old and the new covenants are really the same covenant, it's just one is in promise, and the other is a fulfillment of the promise. Yet, a distinction should still be made between the Law and grace, even though the Law is still good and Holy today, and we see God's grace active in the Old Testament. I would separate the Covenant by dispensation, one being the Law and the other being grace, one being the promise of grace and the other being manifestation of that promise. As Wuest laid out in a previous link that I supplied. There's always overlapping. Like Israel in type was God's people in the Old Testament, yet spiritual Israel was also active in the Old Testament by including Gentiles, like at Nineveh through Jonah. 

Regardless, the Bible makes a distinction, and separates the two, both covenant and Testament, at the cross. Promises are being fulfilled. God's relationship with man through the Holy Spirit changes. We must recognize this to interpret Scripture accurately.

Quote from: Dave... on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:02:15Hey 4wd and garee

The way I see it is that the old and the new Testaments are distinctly separate, while the old and the new covenants are really the same covenant, it's just one is in promise, and the other is a fulfillment of the promise. Yet, a distinction should still be made between the Law and grace, even though the Law is still good and Holy today, and we see God's grace active in the Old Testament. I would separate the Covenant by dispensation, one being the Law and the other being grace, one being the promise of grace and the other being manifestation of that promise. As Wuest laid out in a previous link that I supplied. There's always overlapping. Like Israel in type was God's people in the Old Testament, yet spiritual Israel was also active in the Old Testament by including Gentiles, like at Nineveh through Jonah. 

Regardless, the Bible makes a distinction, and separates the two, both covenant and Testament, at the cross. Promises are being fulfilled. God's relationship with man through the Holy Spirit changes. We must recognize this to interpret Scripture accurately.

I think you may need to include more covenants than just Old and New.

By "Old" I think you mean Moses covenant.  But there's also Abraham's covenant, which is actually older.

And by New I think you mean the covenant cut in Jesus blood.  But Jeremiah announces a "New" covenant already in the 8th century BC, and it isn't Moses covenant.

Clear as mud?

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:29:05I think you may need to include more covenants than just Old and New.

By "Old" I think you mean Moses covenant.  But there's also Abraham's covenant, which is actually older.

And by New I think you mean the covenant cut in Jesus blood.  But Jeremiah announces a "New" covenant already in the 8th century BC, and it isn't Moses covenant.

Clear as mud?

Also, to muddy the water, the New Covenant that Jeremiah spoke about in Jeremiah 31:31 was for the House of Israel and the House of Jacob.

Quote from: Jaime on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 13:49:04Also, to muddy the water, the New Covenant that Jeremiah spoke about in Jeremiah 31:31 was for the House of Israel and the House of Jacob.

House of Israel and House of Judah.

But reading around the other prophecies of the same event, it's clear that the "House of Israel" is to be re-constituted by adopting a whole bunch of Goys.

Yes Judah not Jacob!

I understand we as Christians are grafted into Israel per Romans 11, but not sure about the House of Judah. The wild branches or Gentile believers, in Christ are grafted onto the olive tree and the grafted BACK ON natural branches previously broken off or Jewish believers in Christ.

Of course prior to the splitting of the kingdom, God's people (His olive tree) was simply the original 12 tribes of Jacob (Israel).

Jeremiah 11: 16-17

16 The LORD once called you 'a green olive tree, beautiful with good fruit.' But with the roar of a great tempest he will set fire to it, and its branches will be consumed.
17 The LORD of hosts, who planted you, has decreed disaster against you, because of the evil that the house of Israel and the house of Judah have done, provoking me to anger by making offerings to Baal."

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:29:05I think you may need to include more covenants than just Old and New.

And by New I think you mean the covenant cut in Jesus blood.  But Jeremiah announces a "New" covenant already in the 8th century BC, and it isn't Moses covenant.

Clear as mud?

I like to simplify it to this...True Israel is a spiritual lineage through Jesus made up of both Jew and Gentile. Through Jesus we are both offspring of Abraham. 

In Galatians Paul uses Abraham alone to explain the both the Gentiles and Jews with faith in Jesus can be heirs according to the promise. In Romans Paul says that not all Israel is Israel. Sound pretty simple. Covenants made with what appeared to be physical Israel, were really made to Spiritual Israel. The Covenants are fulfilled in those who have faith in Jesus, these are considered the true Israel.

Quote from: Jaime on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 13:49:04Also, to muddy the water, the New Covenant that Jeremiah spoke about in Jeremiah 31:31 was for the House of Israel and the House of Jacob.

Wouldn't the New Covenant prophecy made by Jerimiah also apply to Abraham's lineage, thus spiritual Israel?

Quote from: Dave... on Fri Nov 07, 2025 - 11:48:59Wouldn't the New Covenant prophecy made by Jerimiah also apply to Abraham's lineage, thus spiritual Israel?

Since in Jeremiah, God's olive tree is His people, His people who are HIS spiritually, yes - compreised of natural branches once broken off, now grafted BACK on and wild branches grafted on for the time. Jew AND Gentiles becoming HIS people, the Israel of God. Absolutely a spiritual phenomenon. The invitation is to all Jews and all Gentiles, or everyone coming to Christ. Emphasis on "coming to Christ".  By coming to Christ, we ARE Abraham's spiritual decendants.

Gal 3:29
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise

The NT largely takes place under the old covenant but it isn't Old Testament.  The Gospels are a bridge from the OT to the New Covenant

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Sat Nov 08, 2025 - 05:49:46The NT largely takes place under the old covenant but it isn't Old Testament.  The Gospels are a bridge from the OT to the New Covenant

I am not sure what you intend by that.  The gospels as history describes what happened during the time of the life of Jesus Christ here on earth.  That time in some ways represent a bridge between the Old and New Covenants; but it occurred within the duration of the Old Covenant. However, the Old Covenant was never really about salvation; rather it included the promise of salvation. The Old Covenant was the conditional statement by God that in return for Israel's obedience to the law (The Law of Moses) He would protect and bless them.  It was a communal thing.  The New Covenant is statement by God that salvation is made available. It is an individual thing.

Quote from: Dave... on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:02:15Hey 4wd and garee

The way I see it is that the old and the new Testaments are distinctly separate, while the old and the new covenants are really the same covenant, it's just one is in promise, and the other is a fulfillment of the promise. Yet, a distinction should still be made between the Law and grace, even though the Law is still good and Holy today, and we see God's grace active in the Old Testament. I would separate the Covenant by dispensation, one being the Law and the other being grace, one being the promise of grace and the other being manifestation of that promise. As Wuest laid out in a previous link that I supplied. There's always overlapping. Like Israel in type was God's people in the Old Testament, yet spiritual Israel was also active in the Old Testament by including Gentiles, like at Nineveh through Jonah. 

Regardless, the Bible makes a distinction, and separates the two, both covenant and Testament, at the cross. Promises are being fulfilled. God's relationship with man through the Holy Spirit changes. We must recognize this to interpret Scripture accurately.

God makes men different from one another causing division --- in that way what God has joined together--- the two. "Let there be" and "it was good" - - - two used to represent faith (the unseen eternal) making one 

Mark 10:9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
I would offer the word two is a metaphor used in parables to represent the faithful "Let there be"

The faithful work or labor of Christ's love working in and with  sons of God (Christian) The unseen "Let there be"--- revealed by the things that appear "very good".

The Elohim .Two Gods, one the Creator and two . . .sons of God, the creation. God calls us gods to whom the living word comes

John 10:34-36 King James Version Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

It would seem the reason why on Mount Sinai with his will he by faith hewn out two tables written on both sides with no room for the oral traditions of dying mankind

Exodus 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of (one) testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 32:15 And Moses turned, and went down from the mount, and the two tables of the testimony were in his hand: the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written.
When Moses came down the oral tradition of dying mankind had gone hog wild 

Therefore violating the letter of the law "death"  the tables were destroyed to show death then to represent the new testament two new Tables .This time Moses did the granite paper work and God again with his finger wrote the same words .

Ten loving commandments. Ten in parables to equal all the commandments .It would seem on one side the first five (1-5)  to represent letter of the law (death)  and the other side the things of men earthly relationship.(5-10) 

The old testimony of the just law "death" not separate from the new, The new the justifier

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just(1), and the justifier(2) of him which believeth in Jesus.

Exodus 34:4And he hewed two tables of stone like unto the first; and Moses rose up early in the morning, and went up unto mount Sinai, as the Lord had commanded him, and took in his hand the two tables of stone.

two tables written on both sides used 20 times in the parables .

Quote from: Dave... on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:02:15Hey 4wd and garee

The way I see it is that the old and the new Testaments are distinctly separate, while the old and the new covenants are really the same covenant, it's just one is in promise, and the other is a fulfillment of the promise. Yet, a distinction should still be made between the Law and grace, even though the Law is still good and Holy today, and we see God's grace active in the Old Testament. I would separate the Covenant by dispensation, one being the Law and the other being grace, one being the promise of grace and the other being manifestation of that promise. As Wuest laid out in a previous link that I supplied. There's always overlapping. Like Israel in type was God's people in the Old Testament, yet spiritual Israel was also active in the Old Testament by including Gentiles, like at Nineveh through Jonah. 

Regardless, the Bible makes a distinction, and separates the two, both covenant and Testament, at the cross. Promises are being fulfilled. God's relationship with man through the Holy Spirit changes. We must recognize this to interpret Scripture accurately.

Whenever I read or hear someone introducing the concept of dispensations I know that what is being said is likely to be a bit skewed.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 03:57:20Whenever I read or hear someone introducing the concept of dispensations I know that what is being said is likely to be a bit skewed.

I would offer.

It would seem the use of dispensations as if God worked differently in time periods. This is even though we are informed he did all the work in 6 days as the lamb slain. Nothing new under the sun .

The spirit of lies not having any spiritual understanding  replaced to use of parables the signified prophecy the spiritual understanding hid from the father of lies who is not subject to salvation. The guessing god. Three times to Jesus the Son of man given words from the father . . .If you are the son of God . If, if, if  the iffy god

Three times in Mathew 4 Jesus declared the words of his Holy Father as it is written then the devil did flee

Christ warned of the sign and wonder, wonder, wonder seekers. No signs were given .Not one sign to seek after spoken of in the book of Revelation .

The last sign to the unbelieving word (believers have prohecy) was the sign of Jonas. It was fulifled by the Son of man Jesus. A evil generation even today seek after one o wonder, wonder, wonder as if true prophecy.

Turning time periods into lying signs that mankind might wonder, wonder, wonder after just as if true prophecy which is closed up and sealed with 7 seal till the last day under the sun 

The opening statement refers to parables the signified understanding. Therefore comparing or mixing the temporal historical to the unseen eternal spiritual.

Christ has not left the believers as orphan without the proper tools needed to rightly divide the parables.

2 Corinthians 4:18 King James Version While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
 
No mixing of the two---no gospel rest .(Hebrew 4:1-2)

The parable remains a mystery hid from Satan .

Without parables Christ spoke not--- not even once. Called hidden manna in Revelation chapter 2:17 Our daily bread .

Parables do not change the historical but do enrich taste of manna our daily bread like Honey. They can as temporal confidence draw one closer . If too much is eaten beware of false pride.

Revelation 1King James Version The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable (secret things) spake he not unto them:

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things (parables) belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world
 

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 03:57:20Whenever I read or hear someone introducing the concept of dispensations I know that what is being said is likely to be a bit skewed.

It's a shame that every theological term these days comes with baggage. If it helps, I didn't mean the whole dispensationalism movement, or theological camp, rather, just the Old and New Testaments, which are each a dispensation by definition.

Dave

Quote from: 4WD on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 03:57:20Whenever I read or hear someone introducing the concept of dispensations I know that what is being said is likely to be a bit skewed.

Me too.

I find that covenants provide a better framework for understanding the Bible than dispensations.

Quote from: Dave... on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 12:25:56...just the Old and New Testaments, which are each a dispensation by definition.

Dave

It isn't that clean a break.

Abraham's covenant is first, and it's everlasting.

Moses covenant is second, and it's meant to be temporary - a punishment on Israel for their sins.

The "New Testament" is really a return to the covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and not a new thing.  The only thing that is "new," is that the Gentiles are now included, by means of being adopted.  I put "new" in quotations, because if one actually reads the Old Testament prophets, they tell us pretty plainly that this development will happen, even though it doesn't take place until Pentecost.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 17:01:36It isn't that clean a break.

Abraham's covenant is first, and it's everlasting.

Moses covenant is second, and it's meant to be temporary - a punishment on Israel for their sins.

The "New Testament" is really a return to the covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and not a new thing.  The only thing that is "new," is that the Gentiles are now included, by means of being adopted.  I put "new" in quotations, because if one actually reads the Old Testament prophets, they tell us pretty plainly that this development will happen, even though it doesn't take place until Pentecost.

Yes, the Moses Covenant was temporary and was a punishment of [national] Israel for their disobedience.  But that was strictly a physical or an earthly punishment and was not a spiritual punishment of anyone.  Throughout all time, salvation from eternal condemnation was and is by grace through faith.  Before Christ, faith was in the promise that God would send a savior; after Christ, faith was and is in the fact that God sent a savior.  Salvation through the death of Christ on the cross was retroactive back to the very beginning of creation.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Nov 09, 2025 - 17:01:36It isn't that clean a break.

Abraham's covenant is first, and it's everlasting.

Moses covenant is second, and it's meant to be temporary - a punishment on Israel for their sins.

The "New Testament" is really a return to the covenant with Abraham and his Seed, and not a new thing.  The only thing that is "new," is that the Gentiles are now included, by means of being adopted.  I put "new" in quotations, because if one actually reads the Old Testament prophets, they tell us pretty plainly that this development will happen, even though it doesn't take place until Pentecost.

What is even more interesting is that the Gentiles were actually already grafted in, all the way back to at least Nineveh. So we see even more overlapping of the promises made and the promises delivered between the old and new Testaments. 

And this is the distinction missing from Calvinism. For whatever reason, Calvinism doesn't see anything new happening at Pentecost except more power, just as the Pentecostals and Charismatics do. Strange bed fellows theologically speaking, but it's true. Charismatics and Pentecostals see the baptism with the Holy Spirit as taking a Christian into elite status and power (since they are already born again). Nothing could be further from the truth, as that Spirit baptism, which is the result of the indwelling, is what places us into Christ, the One True Church and saves us both positionally and practically, making us justified and born again. Calvinism just says "something more was given, but never expounds on that. The transition that takes place and all the intricacies are what is missing from Calvinism's TULIP. This is why this needs to be explored, and not ignored. That's right, I can free style. 

Mrk 1:14 Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, 15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Luk 10:8 And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you: 9 And heal the sick that are therein, and say unto them, The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, 11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you. 12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Quote from: Dave... on Tue Nov 04, 2025 - 19:33:42The New Testament Begins in Acts Not Matthew

When you read the Gospels in the Bible, such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, do they sometimes seem to contradict other parts of the New Testament Scripture? For example, in Matthew 6:15, Jesus said, "If you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins." Yet, in Colossians 2:13, the Apostle Paul wrote, "...God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins." How can there be two different perspectives written in the same New Testament?

Many Christians experience confusion because they think all of Jesus' teachings are part of the New Testament, also known as the "New Covenant." However most of them are not. The New Testament, which is God's New Covenant with mankind, actually starts in the book of Acts, not Matthew. How do we know this fact is true?

When reading the New Testament, ask yourself this question, "Had Jesus died yet when this was written?" If not, then those writings are part of the Old Covenant in most cases. If the writings are after Jesus died, then it's part of the New Covenant.

When Jesus came to earth, He came directly to the Jews who were still under the Old Covenant with God. Want the gist of the Old Covenant? Deuteronomy 28 spells it out very clearly. If Israel obeyed God's laws, there were 12 verses of blessings He would give them (see Deuteronomy 28:1-14). But, if Israel disobeyed God's laws, there were 52 verses of curses He would give them. (see Deuteronomy 28:15-68).

Would you want to live in that kind of tension-filled relationship with God? No way! Unfortunately, many Christians today believe that is still how God treats them, even though we are under the New Covenant of grace. Therefore, Christianity feels more like a burden, instead of a blessing.

Many of the things that Jesus taught in the Gospels was Old Covenant instruction to the Jews of His day. When He taught them, He was raising the bar of how perfect they needed to be accepted and blessed by God. Here are some examples:

"Unless you are more righteous than the strictest religious leaders in Jesus's day, the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will not go to heaven." (Matthew 5:20)

"Calling someone an idiot or crazy because you are angry with them will send you to hell." (Matthew 5:22)

"Lust is adultery." (Matthew 5:27-28)

"You must live a perfect life exactly the way God does." (Matthew 5:48)

These performance-based teachings were aimed to show the Jews and anyone who reads the Bible today that it's impossible to get God's unconditional acceptance by obeying the law. Jesus was preparing people to understand how much they needed Him to be their Savior.

God was about to bring into existence the New Covenant, and Jesus was preparing them and everyone else for it. But, here's the key. The New Covenant did not begin until Jesus' death, burial, resurrection, and ascension were complete. For instance, Hebrews 9:15 says:

"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a New Covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that He has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the Old Covenant."

Remember Jesus' teachings we just listed from the book of Matthew? Let's compare what the New Covenant says about you as a Christ follower:

God has already forgiven you whether you forgive or not. (Colossians 2:13)
God made you perfect in your identity in Christ. (Hebrews 10:14)
God made you a holy person and not a lustful person in Christ. (1 Corinthians 1:2)
God made you a patient person because you're complete in Christ. (Colossians 2:10)

The Old Covenant was conditional based on mankind's imperfect works. The New Covenant is conditional based on faith in Jesus' perfect work. Do you see the amazing difference?

Read the New Testament with a lot more clarity now that you know the New Testament starts in Acts, rather than Matthew!

[URL unfurl=true]https://www.gracelifeinternational.com/freebies/new-testament-begins-in-acts/[/URL]

Gods Word begins with Genesis...

Hebrews 9:16-18 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.


Anyone?

Quote from: Dave... on Wed Nov 05, 2025 - 12:56:28Hey 4wd

In Hebrews it says when the death of the Testator activates His Testament. And unless I'm missing something, it also appears to use the terms 'Covenant' and 'Testament' as interchangeable as most people do. I'm guessing by your response that you disagree? If so, can you give a me a reason why you think that they are different? According to that passage it would be Jesus's death on the cross that would usher in the NT.

I think this is something that's really important for todays Christians to understand. Both Calvinists and Pentecostals/Charismatics have this in common and build doctrines from this misunderstanding. That is, that since people were already born again in the Gospels (they consider it all NT), that the baptism with the Holy Spirit must be something more. I believe that both are in error. In short, in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the NT begins when each records the death of Jesus on the cross. Before that, even though we call in the NT, it's still the OT. Acts pretty much picks up at that point, that being the cross. 


https://biblequestions.com/answers/when-did-the-new-covenant-begin/

I see the gospel as the gospel of Christ, not the gospel of the sent messengers. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the apostles all testify to the same Author—the Holy Spirit. There is no division in God's testimony, though Satan seeks to create division where God has given unity.

In the same way, I do not see the Old and New Testaments as opposing one another. They are one continuous revelation of God's purpose. The law and the testimony belong together. The God who said, "Let there be..." is the same God who fulfilled His promise in Christ.

Mount Sinai already established the written testimony. God wrote the two tables with His own finger on both sides (Exodus 31:18; 32:15), leaving no room to add human tradition to His completed written revelation.

The first set of tablets was broken, illustrating the law broken by mankind. God then commanded Moses to hew a second set of stones, and once again God Himself wrote the same words upon them (Exodus 34:1). The message did not change—only the demonstration changed. The same righteous God who gave the law is also the One who justifies those who believe.

Moses represents the Law, while Elijah represents the prophetic testimony. John the Baptist came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17), preparing the way for Christ by calling people to repentance and pointing them to the One who gives new life.

The gospel is not divided. It is one message from Genesis to Revelation: God is both the Just and the Justifier (Romans 3:26). The written Word consistently points to Christ, who fulfills the law and the prophets without contradicting them.

Quote from: garee on Thu Jul 30, 2026 - 07:26:16I see the gospel as the gospel of Christ, not the gospel of the sent messengers. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the apostles all testify to the same Author—the Holy Spirit. There is no division in God's testimony, though Satan seeks to create division where God has given unity.

In the same way, I do not see the Old and New Testaments as opposing one another. They are one continuous revelation of God's purpose. The law and the testimony belong together. The God who said, "Let there be..." is the same God who fulfilled His promise in Christ.

Mount Sinai already established the written testimony. God wrote the two tables with His own finger on both sides (Exodus 31:18; 32:15), leaving no room to add human tradition to His completed written revelation.

The first set of tablets was broken, illustrating the law broken by mankind. God then commanded Moses to hew a second set of stones, and once again God Himself wrote the same words upon them (Exodus 34:1). The message did not change—only the demonstration changed. The same righteous God who gave the law is also the One who justifies those who believe.

Moses represents the Law, while Elijah represents the prophetic testimony. John the Baptist came "in the spirit and power of Elias" (Luke 1:17), preparing the way for Christ by calling people to repentance and pointing them to the One who gives new life.

The gospel is not divided. It is one message from Genesis to Revelation: God is both the Just and the Justifier (Romans 3:26). The written Word consistently points to Christ, who fulfills the law and the prophets without contradicting them.

Hi garee

It's not the Gospel that is divided, rather, it's the promises made by God in the OT that is divided from the realization of those promises in the NT. We see that realization begin at Pentecost. The Promise was given in Word and in type in the OT. The NT is the realization of those promises, and it's a spiritual realization. If there was no difference, then there would be no need for the promise made, or realized. Jesus said that He must be lifted up and glorified before those promises could begin to be realized. Assumed into "lifted up", and "ascend to the Father" is the death, resurrection and ascension.

In this passage, what is Jesus dividing, the Gospel, or the promise made from the promise given?

OT-John 7:38-39 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water." But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

John 12:32-33 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself." This He said, signifying by what death He would die.

John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 16:7-16 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. "A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father."

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu Nov 06, 2025 - 12:29:05I think you may need to include more covenants than just Old and New.

By "Old" I think you mean Moses covenant.  But there's also Abraham's covenant, which is actually older.

And by New I think you mean the covenant cut in Jesus blood.  But Jeremiah announces a "New" covenant already in the 8th century BC, and it isn't Moses covenant.

Clear as mud?

I like the way this guy laid it out. It's very clear as far as the covenants are concerned, using Galatians 3 to make the distinction between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants.

https://www.paramountchurch.com/blog/post/understanding-the-contrast-of--law--and--promise--in-galatians-3

The Abrahamic Covenant is in promise in the OT, and that promise is realized in the NC through the promised "Seed", who is Jesus, as recorded in the NT, especially Galatians 3. These two Covenants are actually the same covenant, one is in promise, the other is in the fulfillment of that promise. And those promises made and received are further recognized and distinguished from each other in and by time by the Old and New Testaments, which are by definition each a dispensation.

Here's a monkey wrench for you.

Calving believed that the NT/NC began at the cross.

-------------
"In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin specifically noted that while the Old Covenant was temporary and held "in suspense," it was finalized and made new by the shedding of Christ's blood. Commenting on Jesus' words at the Last Supper, Calvin wrote:

"Then only did it become new and eternal when it was consecrated and established in the blood of Christ. Hence the Saviour, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament in his blood; intimating, that the covenant of God was truly realised, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood."

For Calvin, the cross was the historic, legal ratification of the New Covenant. Just like the human wills and testaments he commented on in Hebrews 9:16–17, the legal force of the New Testament required the actual death of the testator to go into effect."

https://heidelblog.net/2014/11/calvin-on-the-distinction-between-the-old-and-new-covenants/
-------------

Most Calvinists today would deny that same Biblical truth, but Calvin didn't, he just made the wrong conclusions from it. He believed that the promises were not actually promises, but were realized the moment the promise were made. Contradicting himself and Scripture, of course, because the promised "Seed" of which the promises were realized through was not available until the Holy Spirit was given, and with that giving of the Holy spirit believers could be "placed into" the promised "Seed", and that's also when the ingredients that save were already accomplished to make that spiritual union have the saving affect.

His conclusion that OT believers were born again was based solely on the idea of total depravity. His theology needed that promise to be realized the moment it was made, or else OT believers could not be born again and would only be saved in promise. that requires questions and answers from Scripture. Those that most are unwilling to seek out.

Quote from: Dave... on Mon Sep 21, 2026 - 12:48:00I like the way this guy laid it out. It's very clear as far as the covenants are concerned, using Galatians 3 to make the distinction between the Mosaic and the Abrahamic covenants.

https://www.paramountchurch.com/blog/post/understanding-the-contrast-of--law--and--promise--in-galatians-3

The Abrahamic Covenant is in promise in the OT, and that promise is realized in the NC through the promised "Seed", who is Jesus, as recorded in the NT, especially Galatians 3. These two Covenants are actually the same covenant, one is in promise, the other is in the fulfillment of that promise. And those promises made and received are further recognized and distinguished from each other in and by time by the Old and New Testaments, which are by definition each a dispensation.

Here's a monkey wrench for you.

Calving believed that the NT/NC began at the cross.

-------------
"In his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin specifically noted that while the Old Covenant was temporary and held "in suspense," it was finalized and made new by the shedding of Christ's blood. Commenting on Jesus' words at the Last Supper, Calvin wrote:

"Then only did it become new and eternal when it was consecrated and established in the blood of Christ. Hence the Saviour, in giving the cup to his disciples in the last supper, calls it the cup of the new testament in his blood; intimating, that the covenant of God was truly realised, made new, and eternal, when it was sealed with his blood."

For Calvin, the cross was the historic, legal ratification of the New Covenant. Just like the human wills and testaments he commented on in Hebrews 9:16–17, the legal force of the New Testament required the actual death of the testator to go into effect."

https://heidelblog.net/2014/11/calvin-on-the-distinction-between-the-old-and-new-covenants/
-------------

Most Calvinists today would deny that same Biblical truth, but Calvin didn't, he just made the wrong conclusions from it. He believed that the promises were not actually promises, but were realized the moment the promise were made. Contradicting himself and Scripture, of course, because the promised "Seed" of which the promises were realized through was not available until the Holy Spirit was given, and with that giving of the Holy spirit believers could be "placed into" the promised "Seed", and that's also when the ingredients that save were already accomplished to make that spiritual union have the saving affect.

His conclusion that OT believers were born again was based solely on the idea of total depravity. His theology needed that promise to be realized the moment it was made, or else OT believers could not be born again and would only be saved in promise. that requires questions and answers from Scripture. Those that most are unwilling to seek out.

Dave, I would not base the conclusion that Old Testament believers were born again upon Calvin's doctrine of total depravity. I see the born-again principle beginning much earlier, in Genesis 4.

Cain, whose name speaks of an "acquired possession," represents confidence in what can be seen and possessed. Abel, the second son, whose name means "vanity," demonstrates the need to walk by faith rather than by sight. Though Abel died, Hebrews 11:4 says, "he being dead yet speaketh." He became the first faithful messenger in the spiritual line.

That spiritual seed continued from one generation to another. When Enos was born, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (Genesis 4:26). Born-again mankind could now be identified by faith in God's promised Seed rather than confidence in the flesh.

Moses was also one of this spiritual second-born seed. I do not mean that he was biologically the second child, but that he belonged to those born first according to the flesh and afterward identified with the life of faith. He refused the visible treasures of Egypt because "he had respect unto the recompence of the reward" and "endured, as seeing him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:26–27).

The promise did not begin with Moses. It was carried through Abel, Enos, Abraham, Moses, and all the faithful who looked forward to its fulfillment. Galatians 3:16 identifies that promised Seed as Christ.

The line reached its promised fulfillment through Jesus, the Son of man, "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). The Old Testament faithful were saved by faith in the same promised Seed: they looked forward to the finished demonstration, while we look back upon it. The time and administration differed, but the saving faith and its eternal object remained the same.

Quote from: garee on Mon Sep 21, 2026 - 19:05:30Dave, I would not base the conclusion that Old Testament believers were born again upon Calvin's doctrine of total depravity. I see the born-again principle beginning much earlier, in Genesis 4.

Cain, whose name speaks of an "acquired possession," represents confidence in what can be seen and possessed. Abel, the second son, whose name means "vanity," demonstrates the need to walk by faith rather than by sight. Though Abel died, Hebrews 11:4 says, "he being dead yet speaketh." He became the first faithful messenger in the spiritual line.

That spiritual seed continued from one generation to another. When Enos was born, "then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (Genesis 4:26). Born-again mankind could now be identified by faith in God's promised Seed rather than confidence in the flesh.

Moses was also one of this spiritual second-born seed. I do not mean that he was biologically the second child, but that he belonged to those born first according to the flesh and afterward identified with the life of faith. He refused the visible treasures of Egypt because "he had respect unto the recompence of the reward" and "endured, as seeing him who is invisible" (Hebrews 11:26–27).

The promise did not begin with Moses. It was carried through Abel, Enos, Abraham, Moses, and all the faithful who looked forward to its fulfillment. Galatians 3:16 identifies that promised Seed as Christ.

The line reached its promised fulfillment through Jesus, the Son of man, "the firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). The Old Testament faithful were saved by faith in the same promised Seed: they looked forward to the finished demonstration, while we look back upon it. The time and administration differed, but the saving faith and its eternal object remained the same.

Hey Garee

I think we agree in part. The promised "Seed" is defined in Galatians 3 as Jesus. Paul even specifically said that the promise was not made to seeds, but to "Seed". And then says if we're in Christ, that is placed into Him, we're are included in that promise to Abraham.

And we must be in Christ to be born again. I believe that we agree up to this point.

This is where I think that we begin to part ways. Only after the cross can this promise be realized for many reasons.

It's a common idea all throughout Scripture, that only in Christ do we receive these things. A person is only placed into Christ after the Holy Spirit is given, beginning at Pentecost.

Even Ephesians 1 says that it's Jesus Who is elect, and we become elect with Him, when we're placed in Him. Only in Him, or in Christ, are we elect.

Hebrews 11:38-39 tells us that those heroes of faith all died having not received the promise. In fact, it also says that the OT heroes were not made perfect apart from the writer of Hebrews, and those who he was writing to. The writer, and who he was writing to were still alive when that was written. This means the writer is not speaking of an eternal state, as Calvin believes, he's speaking of justification (Hebrews 10:14). That's why they were not allowed to enter the holy of holies until after the cross (John 3:13-14).

In fact, In John 13:36-38 Jesus tells Peter he cannot go where He is going "now", but later. This has nothing to do with Peters ministry needing to be fulfilled, and has everything to do with the cross. The teaching goes on into chapter 14:1-6, where Jesus says He's going to prepare a place for them so that where He is they may also be. He said that He will come again and then they will have these things, and be able to be where He is. The "come again" in John 14:3 is qualified by John 14:16-21 ("I will no leave you orphans"). He's speaking of the indwelling Holy Spirit, which began to be given at Pentecost, and places a believer in Christ. This is why back in John 13:38, when Thomas asked Jesus what "the way" was, Jesus answered that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The promised "Seed" by which the promises are realized through.

The Promised is realized in Christ, that's where a person is born again, that's where we're imputed with His righteousness, and sin is atoned. But only after the death, resurrection, and ascension were these saving ingredients available when we're made one with Jesus and placed into Him with the indwelling. The Holy Spirit needed that blood from the cross to be able to enter us and give us these things through Christ Jesus.

Garree, what I'm saying is yes, OT believers were saved just like NT believers, but only by promise. But that promise was not realized the moment that it was made. OT believers were not born again, they were not literally justified. They were owed these things, but by promise. because it was not yet realized, nor could it be, until after the death, resurrection, and ascension.

All those recorded as coming to faith in Acts are true OT believers. Actual salvation came to them, both Gentile and Jew, when they believed the Gospel and and received the indwelling Holy Spirit. These were predestined to believe the Gospel because they already loved God and were known by Him (Romans 8:28-30, 1 Corinthians 8:3). Given to the Son by the Father, predestined to hear and believe the Gospel, receive the indwelling Holy Spirit, and be placed in Christ where the Promise is realized, Just like Paul said in Galatians 3:26-29. 

This is what defines the NT. It's the promise realized through the promised "Seed". For those it was owed in the past, and for anyone after the Spirit was given the moment that they first believe.

Think about it, the OT priests could not enter the the holy of holies on credit. Actual blood needed to shed. This is a picture, and paints the reality that I'm trying to share with you. We are called Temples of the Holy Spirit in the NT. God will not be joined to us by the indwelling Holy Spirit until the indwelling Holy Spirit comes into us with the blood of the cross that we're made clean by. Him in us, we're in Him.

OT believers were not yet indwelt, because they didn't hear the Gospel and believe. They were not yet "in Christ", the only Way, Truth and Life. There were no saving ingredients "now" to justify, and make the born again. All they had was the presence of God.

You have the OT believers having all these promises already, but that reality was impossible according to Scripture. They must be in Christ after the death resurrection and ascension. And it's the Holy Spirit indwelling that joins us to Him, or places us onto Him, called the baptism with the Holy Spirit. Everything that was needed to begin this 'placing into' Christ, the Church, began with the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
   

...........Romans 4:4-7 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;

Romans 3:24-26 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

This is what the OT sacrificial system did, it covered sin. But it didn't take it away. God did not ignore this sin, but delayed His wrath by covering it until Jesus died in the cross to officially atone for that sin.