PDA

View Full Version : old/new testament



In Dust and Ashes
Jan 12th 2009, 09:04 PM
When/why/where did we ever start to call them the old testament and the new testament? Why not first and second?

David Taylor
Jan 12th 2009, 09:05 PM
Because there will never be a third.

There is the original covenant (which was a shadow pointing forward to the NT), and the new covenant which supplanted it, and is everlasting.

thethinker
Jan 12th 2009, 09:40 PM
When/why/where did we ever start to call them the old testament and the new testament? Why not first and second?
The expressions "old" and "new" in reference to the covenant(s) of salvation originated with God Himself.

"In that He [God] says, 'A new covenant,' He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13).

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 12th 2009, 10:25 PM
ok, so when were they first named the old and new testaments?

Julian
Jan 12th 2009, 11:17 PM
ok, so when were they first named the old and new testaments?
The first covenant/testament was brought in and wouldn't have been called the old covenant until the new one was established in Christ's blood (the death of the testator).

So as soon as Christ died and shed his blood, the new covenant was of force, and the first one would have become the old. If someone understands how covenants/testaments work, they can see that the second (new testament) started with the death and blood of Christ (on the cross), thus making the first the 'old testament'. So technically the books of the NT begin with the blood and death of Christ - maybe why the 4 books of Matthew through John are the 'gospels' and each end with mention of the beginning of the New Testament in Christ's blood.


He's the truth on the matter:

Heb 9:14-19 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people

thethinker
Jan 12th 2009, 11:58 PM
ok, so when were they first named the old and new testaments?

The moment God spoke the word. The two covenants were distinguished the very moment God said, "I will make a new covenant".

Julian
Jan 13th 2009, 12:30 AM
The moment God spoke the word. The two covenants were distinguished the very moment God said, "I will make a new covenant".
This is confusing. Isn't the new testament still in place, not distinguished? Please read my post just prior to yours and Hebrews 9.

keck553
Jan 13th 2009, 12:38 AM
"Old" and "New" is a man made term. What people call the "Old Testament" comes from what the Hebrews referred to as Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvim (TeNaKh) (Teaching, prophets and writings)

When Paul talks about 'new' and 'old', he's talking about our changed relationship to Torah as pertains to the yoke of bondage from sin. Since our relationship to sin has changed through faith in Christ, our relationship to living in obedience to His Word has changed, and it no longer condemns us.

There was no written "New Testament" in the 1st Century. Every teaching came from the TeNaKh and the One who insipired it.

It's all God breathed, therefore it's all One 'book'.

Psalms Fan
Jan 13th 2009, 03:21 AM
In the passage from Hebrews that was quoted, different translations will translate the word as either "covenant" or "testament". So the "New Testament" is the collection of apostolic writings of the New Covenant/Testament, and the "Old Testament" is the collection of writings of the Old Covenant/Testament.

So one of the previous posters wrote, it started with the author of the book of Hebrews.

OldChurchGuy
Jan 13th 2009, 03:56 AM
When/why/where did we ever start to call them the old testament and the new testament? Why not first and second?

It is my understanding the terms came about after Constantine became emperor over the Eastern Roman Empire (4th century - about 1,700 years ago). Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and commissioned Eusebius to create a final list of the official Christian writings to be compiled into a book or Testament of faith.

Because it's roots were based on the Hebrew Bible it seemed only logical to declare this collection of writings as the New Testament regarding understanding and explaining God. Since this was referred to as the New Testament, it seemed natural to call the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament. The implication was that the Hebrew Bible is important but is superceded by the New Testament.

Understand this is a simple explanation of a rather complex set of events.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Julian
Jan 13th 2009, 05:10 AM
In the passage from Hebrews that was quoted, different translations will translate the word as either "covenant" or "testament". So the "New Testament" is the collection of apostolic writings of the New Covenant/Testament, and the "Old Testament" is the collection of writings of the Old Covenant/Testament.

So one of the previous posters wrote, it started with the author of the book of Hebrews.It did not start with the author of the book of hebrews. This is a misunderstanding of what was said. Please read that post you are referring to again and the text that says the New Testament started with Christ's death and shedding of blood - not with the author of the book of Hebrews.

The new testament/covenant is God's covenant with mankind through the blood/death/accomplishment of the Lord Jesus Christ - and elsewhere in scripture he is referred to as the mediator between God and man. God made this covenant with the blood of Christ which cleanses us from our sins.

The collection of writings called the 'New Testament' care called this because they deal with the time frame of when this covenant has been established.

And similarily with the Old Testament, the collection of writings include the time frame of when the first covenant was established - and it referrs to when Moses received the commandments and the law and he made a covenant with God through the blood of calves and goats sprinkled on the people and the 'book'.

The short answer for the original question is that the scriptures themselves call them the old and new testament:
When: As soon as men understood that Christ's death and blood began a new testament/covenant with God.
Why: Because this is God's way of covenanting with man - through the blood and death of a testator.
Where: In the scriptures, and specifically we can read about the truth unfolded in the book of Hebrews chapter 9.

thethinker
Jan 13th 2009, 08:29 AM
In the passage from Hebrews that was quoted, different translations will translate the word as either "covenant" or "testament". So the "New Testament" is the collection of apostolic writings of the New Covenant/Testament, and the "Old Testament" is the collection of writings of the Old Covenant/Testament.

So one of the previous posters wrote, it started with the author of the book of Hebrews.
Greetings Psalms Fan,
Hebrews 8 says that when God spoke the words, "I will make a new covenant the old covenant at taht point began to passs away.

The apostle Paul's faith alone gospel was the new covenant gospel. James who wrote decades before Paul's revelations taught justification by faith + works. Therefore, James was old covenant.

blessings,
thinker

In Dust and Ashes
Jan 13th 2009, 08:57 PM
It is my understanding the terms came about after Constantine became emperor over the Eastern Roman Empire (4th century - about 1,700 years ago). Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Eastern Roman Empire and commissioned Eusebius to create a final list of the official Christian writings to be compiled into a book or Testament of faith.

Because it's roots were based on the Hebrew Bible it seemed only logical to declare this collection of writings as the New Testament regarding understanding and explaining God. Since this was referred to as the New Testament, it seemed natural to call the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament. The implication was that the Hebrew Bible is important but is superceded by the New Testament.

Understand this is a simple explanation of a rather complex set of events.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

I was looking for an answer along these lines. Thanks.

I meant literally where did the titles begin for the book sections.

reformedct
Jan 14th 2009, 03:57 PM
The first covenant/testament was brought in and wouldn't have been called the old covenant until the new one was established in Christ's blood (the death of the testator).

So as soon as Christ died and shed his blood, the new covenant was of force, and the first one would have become the old. If someone understands how covenants/testaments work, they can see that the second (new testament) started with the death and blood of Christ (on the cross), thus making the first the 'old testament'. So technically the books of the NT begin with the blood and death of Christ - maybe why the 4 books of Matthew through John are the 'gospels' and each end with mention of the beginning of the New Testament in Christ's blood.


He's the truth on the matter:

Heb 9:14-19 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people


throughout Jeremiah doesnt God continually make promises of a new covenant? so isnt it true that the "new covenant" idea was already present in during the old covenant?

thethinker
Jan 14th 2009, 06:47 PM
throughout Jeremiah doesnt God continually make promises of a new covenant? so isnt it true that the "new covenant" idea was already present in during the old covenant?

I disagree. The moment God spoke the word "new" in reference to the covenant the old Mosiac was on its way out. We see a similar principle in Romans 4 where Paul quoted God saying to Abraham, "I have made thee a father of many nations".

According to Paul the verb tense used by God "I have made" amounted to God calling "into being things that were not as though they were". So Abraham became a father of many nations the moment God spoke the word.

Therefore, the moment God said "I will make a new covenant" the old covenant started to pass away (Heb. 8:13).

peace,
thinker

Julian
Jan 14th 2009, 07:28 PM
throughout Jeremiah doesnt God continually make promises of a new covenant? so isnt it true that the "new covenant" idea was already present in during the old covenant?
I don't know where, off hand. It would be good to examine - though I didn't say anything contrary to this.

I was focusing on when the new testament/covenant started and the fact that the first one would have then been considered the old testament/covenant with the start of the new.

I'm sure that the OT believers who looked forward to the coming Messiah were thinking there would be a new and better way established - hence the siginificance of a messiah coming in the first place.