As I was reading through Hebrews 8 this morning, I think I learned something. Now, maybe I'm just slow and everybody else really already got this, but I'm just getting it now.
In Hebrews 8, it says that this New Covenant which we find ourselves living under, is a better covenant. The author of Hebrews, aka Paul, is reviewing what he has written so far in the book. He tells how the Priest is better, how the Sanctuary is better (being a heavenly one, not earthly), and he just says it's a better covenant. And then he adds, "established upon better promises."
Now, I can take this two ways, and I think the latter is closer to the truth. But first, this new covenant was established upon better promises could mean that the actual Promises were better under the new testament. That is, if in the Old Testament there was no such thing as eternal security, then the Promise of eternal security is a better promise.
Secondly, though, and I believe more in tune, I think the rewards of the promise is better. The Old Testament made with Moses was not a conditional promise to have everlasting life, but rather physical, temporal blessings. For example, Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long upon the land. Whereas in the New Testament, He tells us of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven.
I guess my hangup was with the question, "Well, how were people saved under the Old Testament?" The answer, from what I can tell, is not found in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant did not save people. I think the salvation of saints before Christ came outside of that covenant... by God's grace given to those that had a faith that manifested itself by its works.
Just a thought...
In Hebrews 8, it says that this New Covenant which we find ourselves living under, is a better covenant. The author of Hebrews, aka Paul, is reviewing what he has written so far in the book. He tells how the Priest is better, how the Sanctuary is better (being a heavenly one, not earthly), and he just says it's a better covenant. And then he adds, "established upon better promises."
Now, I can take this two ways, and I think the latter is closer to the truth. But first, this new covenant was established upon better promises could mean that the actual Promises were better under the new testament. That is, if in the Old Testament there was no such thing as eternal security, then the Promise of eternal security is a better promise.Secondly, though, and I believe more in tune, I think the rewards of the promise is better. The Old Testament made with Moses was not a conditional promise to have everlasting life, but rather physical, temporal blessings. For example, Honor thy father and mother, that thy days may be long upon the land. Whereas in the New Testament, He tells us of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven.
I guess my hangup was with the question, "Well, how were people saved under the Old Testament?" The answer, from what I can tell, is not found in the Old Testament. The Mosaic Covenant did not save people. I think the salvation of saints before Christ came outside of that covenant... by God's grace given to those that had a faith that manifested itself by its works.
Just a thought...
2 comments:
How were saints saved in the OT? By Grace through Faith, right?
I guess the wording of your question is exactly what I was trying to address in my post... Saints weren't saved under the Old Testament, the Old Covenant. If I'm right in my post, then that's my point...
Your question should be, How were saints saved before Christ. That answer would be by grace through faith that manifested itself with works. Romans 9 (the last few verses) clarify that it was, by no means, the keeping of the law which brought righteousness - that was a stumblingstone, but rather it was faith.
Then there's the whole issue in that nobody really could be saved until Christ's blood was shed... but that sounds like a post for another day
Post a Comment