This Subject has been divided into sections for your convenience. Please select the section you would like to jump to:
**NOTE** Clicking the section headers will bring you back to the top of this page.
Lets first begin with acknowledging two facts:
- ALL “modern bibles” change the words “New Testament” to “New Covenant.“
- The KJV makes a distinction between the two.
So which one is right? To find that out we must first define the two words. In this section we will take a look at how the bible defines a “testament.”
Even though every modern version uses the two terms interchangeably, for some reason most of them keep the word “testament” in the place the bible defines it.
Hebrews 9, in most versions, defines a testament as such:
- 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
- 14 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.
-KJV translation
Although dishonest, it’s clear why modern versions keep “testament” in verse 16, even though they changed the word to “covenant” in verse 15 and all other 5,880 verses (in the New Testament) that contain it. The Greek word used was “diatheke” and in vs.16 the word for “testator” was “diatithemi.” They couldn’t say (vs 16) “For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be the death of the covenantor.”
The word covenantor does exist but there’s a reason the modern translators didn’t use it (I’m sure they would have if they could). The word is defined as “a party bound by a covenant.” Since this passage is speaking of Jesus Christ the question then would be, what covenant was he bound by? In Matthew 26:53 Jesus himself makes it clear that if he wanted to be saved from his fate his Father would have sent more than 12 legions of angels to save him. But Jesus CHOSE to go through his sacrifice by choice, to fulfill scripture. Not because he was bound to it. It was an act of love.
Sticking then with the word “testament” since even the modern versions keep the word in this one place, we can see how the bible defines it:
- A testament requires blood/death (vs.16)
- The New Testament was established with Christ’s blood on the cross (vs.14-15)
- The First Testament was established with the blood of animals under the law (vs.13) and (vs.18-22 **see below)
With this knowledge in hand, it is, I believe, fair to say, that a testament is similar to that of a “Last Will & Testament.” The testament itself is a promise or a claim that would go into effect with the death of the testator (the one who makes/writes the testament). If you were to write a will today, for example, it would only go into effect once you died. In that case you are the testator and the will is the testament.
Under the First Testament, the law of Moses, animals served as testators. Hebrews 9:18-23 tells us that this was a picture of what was to come with Christ and the New Testament:
- 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,
- 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
- 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
- 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
- 23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
It was a picture of Christ’s death, even though the Jews at the time didn’t know it. Even when it was first given to Moses he told the people that one would come, like unto him (Moses was Prophet, Priest and King), and that that man would bring forth new commandments:
- I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. -Deuteronomy 18:18
The first testament of the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t an eternal testament because the blood that testified of it wasn’t eternal. That is why the Jewish people were looking for their Messiah, to bring about a new covenant.
The First Testament is interchangeable with the Mosaic Covenant. As we’ll see later, a covenant is an “agreement” between two parties. Specifically, between god and man. Because it also required the death of testator (in this case animals), it fits the terms of a last will and testament. It is also called the Old Testament in 2 Corinthians 3:14 and the First Covenant in Hebrews 8 and 9. Throughout all of the Old Testament it is also referred to as “The Law.”
**NOTE**
Today, we separate the bible into two sections called testaments (39 old testament books and 27 new testament books), but no one in what we call the “New Testament” today made the same distinction. Whenever ANYONE in the bible spoke of the “old testament,” they were specifically speaking about the Law of Moses and the Mosaic Covenant.
We will discuss the Mosaic Covenant a bit more below, but first lets define some more terms because one could easily run into a problem here:
- The best publicly available source we have (I believe), for defining a word in the terms the King James authors intended them to be used is Websters 1828 dictionary.
**NOTE**
I do NOT claim the Websters 1828 dictionary to be infallible. If the bible defines something for us and it differs to that of any dictionary of lexicon, I will go by what the bible says any day of the week. These tools can be useful for studying, but they are not God’s preserved words.
According to Websters 1828 disctionary, here are the definitions for both a testament and a testator:
TEST’AMENT, noun [Latin testamentum, from testor, to make a will.]
1. A solemn authentic instrument in writing, by which a person declares his will as to the disposal of his estate and effects after his death. This is otherwise called a will. A testament to be valid, must be made when the testator is of sound mind, and it must be subscribed, witnessed and published in such manner as the law prescribes.
A man in certain cases may make a valid will by words only, and such will is called nuncupative.
- TESTA’TOR, noun [Latin] A man who makes and leaves a will or testament at death.
When reading these two definitions, it certainly seems that the one making the Testament is also the Testator, and yet, in the bible, this is NOT the case.
Take the Mosaic Covenant/First Testament, for instance. Who made the testament? God. Who was the testator? Animals (Hebrews 9:13-14).
What about the New Testament? Who’s “will” was it? Matthew 26:39 seems to indicate that it was God’s, not Jesus’:
- 39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Of course, we know that Jesus IS God but we can separate the Father from the Son. In this case the Son was doing the Father’s will.
For further evidence let’s look at what the New Testament promise is and WHO it was made to. A lot of people like to think the promise was made to us but it was, in fact, the Father’s promise to his Son:
- In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; -Titus 1:2
If the promise here is eternal life, and it was made before the world began, it could only be made to Jesus:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. -John 1:1-3
We don’t have eternal life through Christ because of what was promised to us, we have it because of what was promised to HIM. We are merely grafted in, adopted, JOINT heirs with HIM:
- The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. -Romans 8:16-17
Everything you have, you have through Christ. PERIOD.
But here’s where we get into a problem:
- The First Tesament was made by God but the testator were animals.
- The New Testament was made by God but the testator was Jesus.
So how can we reconcile the two?
Shouldn’t the Testator be the one making the testament?
In most cases yes, but there is a third party that can intercede: “mediators.”
Websters 1828 dictionary defines a mediator as the following:
- MEDIA’TOR, noun One that interposes between parties at variance for the purpose of reconciling them.
The bible says, concerning Jesus:
- 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. -Hebrews 9:15
The above verse makes it clear that Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament AND that the animal sacrifices that served as the first testament could not redeem, they could only remit. That is how the Old Testament saints received the promise of eternal inheritance. The animal sacrifices remitted them enough to save them from hell and instead rest in Abraham Bosom, and then Christ’s blood redeemed them and they were able to receive an eternal inheritance. Because Christ’s blood is eternal.
Unfortunately, there is no spelled out definition of what a covenant is in the bible. Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines it like this:
- COVENANT, noun [L, to come; a coming together; a meeting or agreement of minds.]
- COVENANT, verb intransitive To enter into a formal agreement; to stipulate; to bind ones self by contract. A covenants with B to convey to him a certain estate. When the terms are expressed ti has for before the thing or price.
Although the bible doesn’t define the term for us, it gives us enough to work with to come a pretty solid conclusion. That conclusion being:
- A COVENANT is “a promise or agreement between God and someone else.” That someone else can be an individual (such as a the Davidic Covenant with David), or it can be a with an entire Nation (such as the Mosaic Covenant with the nation of Israel). The Mosaic Covenant, however, was also a testament, because it was an agreement that required the death of the testators (animal sacrifices). But most covenants didn’t require death and thus were not considered to be testaments.
Below, we will be exploring each of these covenants but as you read and study a few things should become apparent:
- A covenant does NOT always require blood (so not all covenants are testaments).
- A covenant requires at least two parties.
- Some covenants are conditional and some are unconditional.
- Some covenants require the agreement of both parties, while some only require God’s agreement.
Lets stay in Hebrews 9 since this is the only other covenant that is also a testament.
Hebrews 9:15-22:
- 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,
- 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
- 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
- 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Here we can see that what the King James Bible calls the “First Testament” is specifically referring to the Mosaic Covenant and the death of the animal sacrifices that make it a testament.
The Mosaic Covenant was the agreement God made with the nation of Israel in the book of Exodus for them to be his people and him to be their God. That he would establish and keep them in the Land of Israel so long as they kept their end of the covenant. This was, then, a conditional covenant (Exodus 19:6).
Those conditions included about 613 laws. Some will call Moses the mediator of this covenant because the nation of Israel recruited him to be the one to speak with God, as they were too afraid, in Exodus 20:18-19, but I think a better word would be intercessor. The real mediator, I believe, would be the animal sacrifices who served as temporary mediators until the ultimate mediator came along in Christ Jesus.
There were several covenants in the bible made between God and Man before the Mosaic Covenant:
The Edenic Covenant – Between God and Adam.
- This was a conditional covenant between God and Adam. The agreement was for Adam to not eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge. In return God gave Adam (and all that were in Adam) life and blessings. Adam broke his part in the covenant and the death of all mankind was the result (1 Corinthians 15:22).
The Adamic Covenant – The agreement with Adam and Eve after the Edenic Covenant was broken.
- This agreement includes the curses of Genesis 2. Mankind will need to sweat and work the ground. Childbearing will bring pain, etc. It also gave men guidelines to live by their conscience and do right in return for blessings (Gen. 4:7).
The Noahic Covenant – The agreement between God and Noah (approx 1686 years after the Adamic Covenant).
- This agreement was that God would never again flood the earth to wipe out mankind (Genesis 9).
The Abrahamic Covenant – The agreement between God and Abraham.
- This agreement was that God would bless Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:2-3) and that in his lineage would come the messiah (Genesis 22:18). There were more promises made in that covenant based on the works of his descendants, but the overlying covenant is unconditional.
The above covenants were made before the Mosaic Covenant. The following are covenants God made after the Mosaic Covenant (but not nullifying the Mosaic Covenant):
The Palestinian Covenant – The unconditional covenant between God and the Jewish people.
- This is a covenant that no matter what the Jewish people do God will save a remnant and will restore to them the Land of Israel permanently (Deuteronomy 29-30). This has not happened yet but will happen in the Millennial Kingdom.
- **Called the Palestianian covenant by man because that was the name given to the land by the Romans during their occupation in order to insult the Jewish people.
The Davidic Covenant – The promises God made to David.
- This covenant promises that a son of David (Jesus) will reign on the throne of Israel forever (2 Samuel 7).
The New Covenant is the last covenant mentioned in the bible. It is also referred to as the “Everlasting Covenant” (Hebrews 13:20, Jeremiah 32:40), but there are other “Everlasting Covenant’s” in the bible (such as the Noahic Covenant – Gen.9:16) , so this title is more a trait than anything else. That said, a very important trait.
Let’s look at Hebrews 8:8-13 (which mirrors nearly word for word what Jeremiah 31:31-34) for what the bible says about this covenant:
- 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
- 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
- 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
- 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
- 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
- 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.
First things first, this covenant is VERY specific to WHO it is a covenant between. It’s a covenant between God and the house of Israel and the house of Judah (vs.8). This is a covenant SPECIFICALLY to and for the Hebrew people. The Church is NOT the house of Israel.
Nearly every commentary on the market inserts the church into this covenant. This is a mistake. We can see it’s a mistake if we read the verses because another thing is made clear in this covenant, that they (the house of Israel and Judah) shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (vs.10-11).
What we read about this covenant is nothing short of a miracle. Granted, anyone getting saved today through the blood of the New Testament is a miracle, but lets be honest, you didn’t all of a sudden believe on Christ out of nowhere. You were witnessed to. Maybe by a person, an online video, or even directly from the Word of God. All throughout the Pauline Epistles the church is called to witnesses for this very reason, that others might also come to know Christ. But what we just read is different. What we just read is an event where the entire nation of Israel instantly comes to know Christ.
Unless I missed something, that hasn’t happed yet.
When the New Covenant is brought to the Jewish people, the Mosaic Covenant (Hebrews 8:9-10) which is still in effect today for all those that are not in Christ (The law today is a schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25) meant to point them towards the truth of Christ. We read in Romans 3:31 “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”).
When the New Covenant arrives the law will be written on the hearts of the people and the Mosaic Covenant will be done away with.
When does this happen? At the end of the tribulation, the start of the Millennial Kingdom, on the Day of the Lord (Zechariah 12-14). And it happens in an instance (Isaiah 66:8).
It’s important to KNOW that this covenant has NOT occurred yet because this is where ALL modern bibles cause major division. By claiming the New Testament is the New Covenant, modern bible have fast forwarded us in time and put the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom at Christ’s crucifixion. But we know (or we should know), that the Millennial Kingdom is yet to take place (see this youtube playlist for more on the Millennial Kingdom: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLtshM1xA5Q0TmTHGYhAc2Nm4KmGLACRqH).
It’s clear from chapter 8 of Hebrews that the New Covenant:
- Has not happened yet.
- Is the same Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah, specifically for the Jewish people.
The confusion then comes in the following chapters of Hebrews.
**NOTE**
It’s important to remember when reading the book of Hebrews who it was written to. Dispensationalists understand that the entire bible was written for us but it wasn’t all written to us. You can see the basics of dispensationalism HERE in a few short animations I made a while back.
In short, the book of Hebrews is written primarily to the Hebrews. While it has historic significance in the past, it is also prophetical and has dispensational significance for the Jews during the tribulation.
In the tribulation salvation changes back to a faith and works system and so to the Hebrew people the book of Hebrews will be one of the main books they read to understand what’s ahead for them. The New Covenant promised in the Old Testament.
In chapter 9 we leave the New Covenant and move over to the New Testament (see Testament section). This is necessary because in order to understand the New Covenant one must Understand the New Testament. The reader then returns to the New Covenant in Chapter 12, thus making one consider that if the New Covenant is spoken about directly before and directly after the New Testament then they might very well be the same thing. But this is a flaw.
The covenant itself does NOT fit the terms of a testament. It is an agreement but no death is required… right? Well, yes and no. The covenant itself requires no death but it does rest on the New Testament and what Christ already did for us. If this in an eternal covenant (which it is), then the sins of the Jewish people will still need atoning for, and since only blood can pay for sin (Hebrews 9:22) and ONLY Christ’s blood is eternal, then Christ’s blood is what will save them, just as it saves us! The only difference is that our covenant in the New Testament is the covenant that God made with Christ, which is why we will be conformed to his image (Romans 8:29), and joint heirs to his promises, but the covenant that the Jewish People are under will result in a different reward. One Specific to them!
Just as the Old Testament saints were ultimately redeemed by the blood of Christ, even though there were many old testament saints not under the “Old Testament” (Abraham, Noah, Adam etc), their covenant rewards differ from ours because they are under their own covenant. In reality, the blood of Jesus Christ redeems anyone under any covenant! But not all covenants are testaments as we’ve clearly seen above. So while the New Covenant relies on the New Testament, it is NOT the New Testament.
- For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: -1 Peter 3:18
Not only did Christ’s blood redeem the Old Testament Saints from Abraham’s Bosom; Not only does it redeem us today; Not only does it redeem tribulation saints; It redeems the Jewish people at the end of the tribulation when they look on him who they pierced and are saved in an instance! That is why Hebrews puts such a heavy emphasis on the First Testament and the New Testament. That is why it goes back and forth between the New Testament and the New Covenant. The book of Hebrews is going to give the Hebrew people hope and understanding in Christ. They will be enduring to the end with the blessed hope of their Messiah bringing them the New Covenant!
I won’t pretend that I have a complete understanding of this issue. There are some deep thoughts (Psalm 92:5) at hand in trying to FULLY grasp the magnitude of both the New Testament and the New Covenant. HOWEVER, while it may be hard to understand the scope of each, it’s not difficult to see how they are different and the doctrinal implications that arise when you try to make them the same thing.
But by arriving at this conclusion, that there IS a distinction, we are then left with one very important question…
Why do ALL modern bibles change the “New Testament” to the “New Covenant?”
The answer is simple, although difficult for many to accept.
ALL modern bible versions come from the Alexandrian manuscripts. The same texts the Vatican use (one of the main texts they use is even called the “Vaticanus”) and ALL modern bible versions translate from the 30 or so manuscripts of the Alexandrians. But not he King James Bible. The King James translators translated from the over five thousand manuscripts which come from Antioch known as the Textus Receptus.
The NKJV bible is a little more sly because it claims to use the Textus Receptus but every change that is made falls in line with the Alexandrian versions. And each change they make show their insincerity. If they were sincere in their translation then they would have also changed the word “testament” to “covenant” in 2 Cor. 3:14. After all, both verses use the same Greek word.
But what’s so bad about the Alexandrian versions? Aside from everything God says directly about Egypt and Alexandria in the bible (none of it good), it is the preferred text of the Catholics, who are Amillennials, which mean they don’t believe that God, in the form of Jesus Christ, will have an earthly rule here on earth. They believe the millennial kingdom spoken of in the bible is happening now, that the church replaced Israel, and all modern bibles are changed to align with these views.
If you want to know more about the real Catholic religion, see my article HERE.
For more information on Covenant Vs Testament, please see these videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-ZrlwHi5sE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgWPJG4QMMI&t=3879s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F3mQCWXG94
Normally I do not read article on blogs however I would like to say that this writeup very forced me to try and do so Your writing style has been amazed me Thanks quite great post
Thank you for sharing your studies. You are a huge blessing to me and my three sons.
Wondering if you’d seen any of Robert Breaker’s videos and thoughts on his position on confession or calling with the lips or prayer as a work. 🙂 Blessings.