Just testing my mail, but I'd offer my humble comments,   My thoughts in [brackets]

-----Original Message----->	9706 by: Moe Bergeron

 (1)  The Old Testament is not the same as the Old Covenant. They are not interchangeable terms. John

    1. Correct. I might add that using "Old Covenant" to describe the "Law Covenant" in contrast to all other covenants should be vigorously encouraged. Moe

[Tim's comments:
I would agree with Moe here to John's statement.  Yes the words are interchangable, but the Biblical context of old and new covenants is more narrow.  
New Covenant:
Heb 10:16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

Old Covenant:
Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

The context of Hebrews, (and I don't think you will easily find thoughts of 'old covenant' outside this context in the Bible) is comparing it to the New Covenant of Jer.31 in Heb.10 above.  Thus we may look at this context to see if 'old covenant' is narrower than the entire Old Testament:

Heb 7:11 ¶  If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
Heb 7:12  For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Heb 7:18  For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
Heb 7:19  For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

In fact the entire flow of Hebrews is a change in priesthood (for under it the people received the law,) or in other words, the way the people recieve the law depends on the preisthood in place.  And THAT is the context of 'old covenant' vs. 'new covenant'.  Since the Old Testament includes much more than the people receiving the law through the priesthood in place, then our concept Old Testament must be broader, and include it's other covenants for our learning, and it's precepts and testimonies for our wisdom.  In fact the New Testament pulls in the Old many times over in those ways and more, without placing us under that old priesthood again, for Christ is a better mediator of a better covenant, which was described well in the prophets, and is the same yesterday, today and forever.]

 (2)  We should use the phrase Old Testament [Scriptures] instead of the Old Testament. John
    2. Correct. Moe    [I don't think it matters as long as we stay in context and in Christ. Tim]

    (3)  The term Old Covenant should be used only to refer to the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai that established their special and unique national relationship with Him.  John
       3. Agreed. I might add that using "Old Covenant" to describe the "Law Covenant" in contrast to all other covenants should be vigorously encouraged. Moe

[Tim's thought:
  I think 'old covenant' from a New Testament standpoint might be restricted to any context that includes Hebrews 7 and 8 etc.  Cetainly God set that priesthood up at Sinai to give the people the law.  Change in priesthood; change in the law by necessity.  Apples and Oranges.  Leave that context, and we get applesauce, where men find it easy to add a little spice here and there.  This does not mean that God's many wonderful laws are not yet written in our hearts.  They are, and we still may praise Him, "Oh how I love Thy law!"  We just have a better Priest to love them  in an even more pleasing way, in Spirit and in truth.]


  (4)  The Continuity versus Discontinuity argument involves covenants and not the Scriptures. Saying a New Covenant replaces an Old Covenant is not the same saying the New Testament Scriptures replace the Old Testament Scriptures.  John
    4. Agreed but - How would answer this question? Is the following quotation part of the Old Covenant and thus not binding upon the Christian in the New Covenant age? Moe
    Mark's Gospel (NET Bible)
    12:28 Now one of the experts in the law came and heard them debating. When he saw that Jesus60 answered them well, he asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is: 'Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' 12:31 The second is: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 12:32 The expert in the law said to him, "That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that he is one, and there is no one else besides him. 12:33 And to love him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

[Tim's comment:
  Yes, I agree,  and not just covenant's but the Sinai covenant vs. God's law written on our hearts. (Jn.6:45)
A question is, "is any part of that Sinai covenant NOT done away with it's priesthood, and change of the law?"
What I'm sure of is the the New (law in our hearts)  replaces the Old (tablets of stone), and Christ is all in all. 
Certainly then Moe's question seems awkward to me, for the greatest commandment to love God with our all is 
in no way is done away by a change in priesthood;  it's just now in our hearts.  The mystery is made known, 
Christ in us is our hope of glory, and His greatest commandment in Mark is yet our greatest commandment.]  

   (5)  The Psalms are part of the Old Testament Scriptures but are not part of the Old Covenant.  John
     5. Perhaps. But a fair number of the Psalms relate to Temple worship. How then do you divorce them from the OC without creating confusion? Moe

[Tim's comment:
  Moe, I think the Holy Spirit does that quite well.  Not just in the Psalms, but in places throughout the Bible, we have to do a little study to show ourselves approved to God.  I sang a worship song from Luther this year (A Mighty Fortress), and might not have taken it all the same way Luther meant it, but worshiped God well with it just the same.  The same with the worship songs (Psalms) of God.  They are more wonderful than Luther's, and we may worship Him well with them.  In any place where they take me to the old priesthood, I may read them as history, and still glorify God for His great mercy.

 (6)  Does a new covenant believer use the Psalms the same way a believing Israelite would use them? John
    6. Yes and No. This may at first sound silly but does a passage such as Psalm 127:3-5 have any relevance to New Covenant children? Moe
      Ps.127:3 Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him. 4 Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are sons born in one's youth. 5 Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their enemies in the gate. (NIV)

[Tim's response:
  David was a man after God's own heart.  Our standard is higher: God has given us a heart for Himself.  I would think we would see, for example the 23rd Psalm in a very similar way.  What precious part of it would not mean the same thing to David and myself?  When the Lord saved me 25 years ago, my unsaved wife left me, and I was truly in the mire.  I read Psalm 127, and the God of Heaven flooded my soul with His power and hope that He would take care of me.    Years passed, and today I have a Christian wife, and the 6 most beautiful kids I could imagine.  I sit in 'my' gate and rejoice in God's abundant goodness and mercy.  Surely they have followed me, and surely God turned this wonderful Psalm to my admonition and good.  Praise His Name!
In Christ, Tim Clifton]