Temple Course 1: Patterns in Gospels & Epistles

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Carole Kapsner says:

    You teach that the “new” covenant is not new, ,and I agree. (I had thought it the Abrahamic Covenant that had been renewed, but like the Creation Covenant….btw, where was blood shed To ratify that covenant? BUt back to this….). Why, then, do you think Wrights language is so perfect as you quote him saying that the “new” testament is about a “new” covenant and a new people? Who now come by faith and not by genetics????

    From the beginning people have come in by faith….there is no new covenant or new people. There is just nothing new under the sun. I’m not a Wright fan, as you may guess. To my mind he is boring to listen to….easier to read.

    • Dinah Dye says:

      The original creation covenant did not require blood. The covenant that God established between the heavens and the earth did not require a cleansing agent. It was a covenant synonymous with life…that is creation. Blood was required to renew the creation covenant – a cleansing was required. The new covenant to my mind is the restoration of the creation covenant. It is not new in the way we think of it likely would be better thought of as restored to the original.

Leave a Reply