Hebrews 8 and 17 Points

Hebrews 8 and the Better Covenant

We turn, if you please, to Hebrews chapter 8, the book of Hebrews, chapter 8, after a number of months. It was August since we were last in Hebrews chapter 8. We return to our study of this wonderful epistle.

And here, looking at the new covenant, Hebrews chapter 8, before we open the Word of God together, let us ask the Lord's blessing upon our time. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we thank You for Your Word, and we thank You for its preservation down to this day.

We thank You that Your Spirit gathers with us and helps us to understand, opens our hearts and our minds to understand Your truth. We pray that He will do that now, that this time will be to Your honor and glory, to our edification.

We pray in Christ's name. Hebrews chapter 8 introduces us to the concept of the new covenant. And we worked through the first five verses back in August. We will review them today. You may be asking, why is it that you took so long to get back to this text?

Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you. It's Mr. Callahan's fault. Yep, it's Mr. Callahan's fault. Well, after the last sermon, he came up to me and said, Mr. White, I'm looking forward to knowing exactly how the new covenant is better in all of these areas.

And I got scared. Because, you know, that's a big topic. And we need to handle it. We need to handle it well. I think Mr. Callahan knows it's an important subject. It's an important subject, especially for us who call ourselves Reformed Baptists.

Because most of our Baptist friends wonder why we use that term Reformed. And a lot of our Reformed friends wonder why we use that term Baptist. So, we find ourselves, smack dab, in the middle. And we have a tremendous amount in common with our Reformed Presbyterian brothers.

And yet, we have areas of difference. And quite honestly, as far as I can tell, one of the primary areas of difference that we have comes down to how you understand this eighth chapter of the book of Hebrews.

And so, while we have been working through Hebrews, and we don't want to miss the emphasis of the book by becoming focused upon what might be our own particular areas of interest. Yet, at the same time, we do need to, I think, give consideration as to whether we have rightly handled what the Word of God here says, and to hear what is said about the New Covenant.

And so, let's look at what this chapter says. Briefly review the beginning of it. And then, I'm going to warn you ahead of time. Don't worry. It's going to scare you when I first say this. But, I have 17 points.

Now, if Pastor Fry said that, you all would break out your lunch and get ready for a good afternoon here. But, there's 17 points stolen directly with attribution from that great writer, John Owen. And if any of you have read John Owen, you know that John Owen can come up with 17 points for ordering a cheeseburger.

So, if you've not read John Owen, you have no idea why I would say that. But, if you have, you know that John Owen was loquacious. And so, hopefully, we can work through his 17 points fairly quickly. But, let's look at Hebrews chapter 8.

Now, the main point in what has been said is this. We have such a high priest who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens. A minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched.

Not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So, it is necessary for this high priest to also have something to offer. Now, if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all.

Since there are those who offer the gifts according to the law. Who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. Just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle. For see, he says, that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.

Now, he has obtained a more excellent ministry. By as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second for finding fault with them.

He says, behold days are coming says the Lord when I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel with the house of Judah. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.

For they did not continue in my covenant and I did not care for them says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will write them on their hearts.

And I will be their God and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen and everyone his brother saying, Know the Lord for all will know me from the least to the greatest of them.

For I will be merciful to their iniquities and I will remember their sins no more. When he said a new covenant he has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Amen. Now back in August we went through the first five verses. We saw that the author is summarizing his argument primarily of chapter 7. But it really started even all the way back in chapter 5. Saying that we have a high priest.

Remember we have gotten indication after indication. That this book is written before the destruction of the temple in AD 70. There is just no reason to believe. It just wouldn't make any sense. It wouldn't have the force that it has.

If in point of fact the temple was still operating. And there were still, the temple was not operating. There were still not sacrifices going on. Clearly there were. And these believers are being drawn back.

There is pressure being placed upon them to go back to the old ways. We have seen the supremacy of Christ presented to us in numerous different forms up to this point in time. And now we have entered into the high priesthood of Christ.

The fact he is a priest after the order of Melchizedek. And he says we have such a high priest. And he has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens. A minister in the sanctuary in the true tabernacle.

In other words he keeps using the tabernacle. That first place of worship that God showed Moses. This is how you make the tabernacle. He is saying this is but a shadow of the heavenly reality. And we have a high priest.

He has taken his seat. He has been exalted. He has died. Been resurrected. He is at the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens. And he is a minister in the sanctuary. In the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched.

Not man. So that which is on heaven is but a shadow of the reality that is in heaven. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. So it is necessary that this high priest also has something to offer.

Everybody knew what the high priest did. Especially on the day. Remember we talked about the day of atonement. Yom Kippurim where the high priest would make atonement for himself. Make atonement for the tabernacle.

Then make atonement for the people. We even went through Leviticus chapter 16 and looked at how that happened. And so this high priest who is different than the high priest who dies all the time. Remember we looked at Hebrews chapter 7.

Since he never dies he is able to save to the uttermost those who are not near to God by him. And then he points out if our high priest were on earth he would not be a priest at all. He was not of the tribe of Levi.

He was not of the priestly family. He was of the royal family. So if he were on earth he would not be a priest at all. Since there are those who offer gifts according to the law. Again, no indication that the temple has been destroyed at this time.

These things are still ongoing. But those in the temple serve a copy, a shadow of the heavenly things. Just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to wreck the tabernacle. For see that you make all things according to the pattern which is shown you on the mountain.

See God said to Moses, don't vary here. Don't become your own architect. Don't do what many people in the church do today. God said this is how I want my worship to be done. This is how I want worship to take place.

This is what is pleasing to me. But today we are so man-centered. That was fine back then. But we have the freedom today to do things differently than what God said. God says make the tabernacle according to the pattern which is shown you on the mountain.

That pattern, we call that a blueprint. A model that had been given to Moses. Make sure that you make it according to that. Why? So that it would accurately represent the heavenly reality. That's what we went through before.

Then we look briefly at verse 6. But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry. A more excellent ministry than the high priest who is serving in the shadows. He is serving in a model. And not the reality, but what looks like the reality.

But now he, that is our Savior, our high priest, Jesus the Messiah, has obtained a more excellent ministry. By as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

Now here we encounter the word covenant. And you remember what we did last time in August. We actually sort of stopped here and we said, you know, we need to look at this term mediator. We took a whole evening service.

And we looked at Christ's role as mediator, especially as it is explained in other texts outside of Hebrews. But here we have this assertion. We have a more excellent ministry. Now we just had ministry up above.

Where it says he is a minister. And that more excellent ministry, so that which Jesus is involved in doing, is more excellent than that which the high priest had done. By as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant.

And so this better covenant has a more excellent ministry. And it has been enacted on better promises than the old. Now, immediately, we can see what the argument here would be for the writer to the Hebrews.

Remember, why is he writing to the Hebrews? Is he just writing to demonstrate his great knowledge of the Old Testament and things like that? Of course not. He's writing to the Hebrews to demonstrate that there's nothing to go back to.

Pressures being placed upon them. Family pressures. Cultural pressures. Come back to the old ways. Look, Moses established these things. You're showing disrespect to all of your ancestors. Come back, come back, come back.

And the whole argument from the very first words of this epistle, which probably was a sermon that was preached, or it's communicated to these people in such a way that it's meant to encourage them. From the very beginning, the point has been there's nothing to go back to because that which you're being drawn back to actually points away from itself to a greater fulfillment.

And that greater fulfillment has come in Jesus Christ. Remember what it was like to be in those first generations. The pressure that was upon them. They had no church history to look back upon. They didn't have anybody to say, oh, but look at all these great Christians that have lived, and look at the generations of faithfulness that God has shown to His people.

They had none of that. They had God's faithfulness to the people of Israel, but it was the people of Israel who were claiming, oh, no, no, you are rebelling against us. You are doing blasphemy against the name of Moses and Abraham.

This is a cult that you're joining. You see, the whole point of the argument is all that which you're calling me back to is now an empty shadow because the reality has come. But, oh, someone might say, what about the covenant?

The covenant that was made there upon the mountain? Well, now we really have a transitionary statement in verse 6. He has obtained a more excellent ministry. He is the mediator of a better covenant. It's a covenant which has been enacted on better promises.

You might see verse 6 as a statement of the argument that is now going to come from the longest citation of the Old Testament in the New Testament. Did you know that? The longest continuous citation of the Old Testament in the New Testament is what we have here in Hebrews chapter 8 from Jeremiah chapter 31.

And so we are going to have another instance of apostolic interpretation of an Old Testament text beginning in verse 8 when we have Jeremiah chapter 31 quoted to us extensively. But now the question has been asked.

In light of this summary statement in verse 6, what about this issue of the Old and New Covenants? I mean, we can understand. We can understand. Some of you might have encountered Jewish apologists today.

They exist, believe it or not. I mean, let's face it. The vast majority of Judaism today is cultural. A large portion of people who would be called Jewish are ethnically Jewish. But when it comes to religion, well, you know what the majority of religion in Israel is.

Atheism. It is. A large majority of people there are atheists. And while they might be externally Jewish in certain cultural aspects, as far as a vital religious faith, a relationship with God, worship of God, anything like that.

No, no, no, no. And so you may have met many a secular Jew. But believe it or not, there are individuals who are Jewish apologists. They're anti-missionaries. It is their job to try to keep Jews from becoming Christians.

It's not so much positively to promote Judaism. It's rather an ironic thing. It's really brought about by cultural things. It's not so much to say Judaism is what everybody needs to know. They're not really evangelistic in the sense of spreading the message of Judaism.

They're much more anti-Christian. Anti-missionary work amongst the Jews. And I've encountered a number of these individuals. That's not my area of expertise. I know people for whom it is. And I'm thankful for their work in those fields.

But I've encountered a few of them. And I know what their arguments are. And the argument, the primary argument here is real simple. Wait a minute. How can you tell me that the old covenant was given by God?

It was divinely instituted. And yet it's been replaced. In fact, isn't that sort of a verse 7 saying? For if that first covenant had been what? Faultless. That first covenant had been faultless. It sounds like in some essence, some way here, that first covenant is being faultless, being said.

How can you say that and still say it was divinely ordained? And then the beginning of the citation of Jeremiah 31 in verse 8 says, For finding fault with them. Now, there's actually a very minor textual variant there.

When I say very minor, what I mean is that the two readings, the difference between the two is a single letter. And verse 8 could be, For finding fault, he says to them. Or for finding fault with them, he says, which is what we have in the new American standard.

It can be understood in either way. Or even for finding fault with it. That is the first covenant, he says. Those are the three possible ways. There's only one variant, but there's three possible ways of translating the language.

And so it's possible to see two statements where there is fault being found with this first covenant. And even if you understand it, for finding fault with them, the point of the citation is going to be the first covenant did not perfect in the way that the second covenant, the new covenant, will.

There's something fundamentally different in that sense. And so how can we say these things? How can we come to these types of conclusions? I mean, I understand that there are going to be people that are going to say, this just doesn't make any sense.

Well, that's why I said I had 17 points for you today. I don't know if I'm going to get through all of them. But I want to at least try to introduce the information to you. And as I've mentioned, I stole these directly from John Owen.

If you want to read them in their fullness, in their loquacious beauty, you can do so by reading his commentary on Hebrews 8, verse 6. But I think he does a good job in bringing out where the two covenants differ and hopefully help us in our thinking of this.

So that as we dig into the citation of Jeremiah 31, we've got a framework that we can build on. And as we seek to make application as well, especially in regards to our belief in what the new covenant is, we will be able to understand these things.

The Seventeen Differences Between the Old and New Covenants

First of all, Owen points out, number one, and I was listening at one point to our good brother, Dr. Jim Renahan, one of the few folks that has stood behind this pulpit. And he was speaking on the subject, actually, of new covenant theology.

But he went through these 17 points. And when he got to number 17, he said, and 17thly. And he said, now that's either very puritan or a word that really does not exist. One of the two. But then the 17thly point is this.

But I'll start at the beginning. First and foremost, these two covenants differ in the circumstance of time as to their promulgation, declaration, and establishment. In brief, the first covenant was made at the time that God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt.

It took the second covenant, of course. The new covenant was declared and made known in the latter days. And the dispensation of the fullness of times, as Paul puts it in Ephesians 1 .10. And it took date as a covenant formally obliging the whole church from the death, resurrection, ascension of Christ and the sending of the Holy Ghost.

Well, that makes sense. They are instituted at different times. Number two. They differ in the circumstance of place as to their promulgation, which the Scripture also takes notice of. The first was declared on Mount Sinai, the manna whereof and the station of the people in receiving the law.

Very different from that of the new covenant. The covenant of promise, giving liberty and freedom, was given at Jerusalem in the death and resurrection of Christ with the preaching of the gospel which ensued thereon.

So, the old covenant that brought the people into bondage was given at Mount Sinai. In Arabia, the new covenant comes in Jerusalem. Thirdly, at this speed, we will get through in time. Don't worry about it.

They differ in the manner of their promulgation and establishment. And this is quite interesting. There were two things remarkable that accompanied the solemn declaration of the first covenant. Which is what?

Well, think about the people of Israel when that first covenant was given. The dread and terror of the outward appearance on Mount Sinai, which filled all the people, even Moses himself, with fear and trembling.

With fear and trembling. Now, here's something that's sort of unique, how this comes to be. There were actually stories prevalent amongst the Jews pretty much after the time of Christ. I'd never heard this before.

I'd never seen this in a commentary, never heard this. The only reason I know about this is because of my studies of Islam. So, you're getting something absolutely unique here. And I hope it's interesting to you.

There were actually stories amongst the Jewish people after the time of Christ. We think of the people at the foot of Mount Sinai. And we've all seen the Ten Commandments and Moses goes up on the mountain and so on and so forth.

Some people actually started to read the Old Testament narrative. Not that they were at the foot of the mountain. But there were Jewish stories that God actually caused the mountain to levitate above the people.

So, the mountain is above them. Now, that would make me probably filled with terror, as it would you as well. Just the sight of it, first of all. But then you have the law and the thunderings and all the rest of this stuff.

Now, why in the world would anyone make note of that? Well, certainly it would fill with terror. And why would that come up in my Islamic studies? There's good evidence that that's how the author of the Quran understood this.

Understood from the Jewish stories that the mountain itself had been raised up over the people. And that this was a threat of God that he was just simply going to plop the mountain down on top of them.

If they were not pleasing to him. And so, you had this difference, this dread and fear. Together with a spirit of fear, bondage administered to all the people. So, that they chose to keep at a distance and not draw an eye to God.

They weren't running to, oh, I want to see God. There is a fear, there is a dread. Now, things are quite otherwise in the promulgation of the New Covenant. The Son of God, in his own person, declares it.

He spake from heaven, as the apostle observes. In opposition, under the giving of the law on the earth, he did all things that belonged unto the giving of this covenant. In a spirit of meekness and condescension.

With the highest evidence of love, grace and compassion. Encouraging and inviting the weary, the burdened, the heavy laden to come to him. And by his spirit, he makes his disciples to carry on the same work of the New Covenant.

So, there is a fundamental difference in how the two were established. And what they were accompanied with in the giving of the two of them. Fourthly, they differ in their mediators. They differ in their mediators.

The mediator of the first covenant was Moses. The mediator of the New Covenant is the Son of God himself. There is one God, one mediator between God and men. The man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.

1 Timothy chapter 2. He who is the Son and the Lord over his own house, graciously undertook in his own person to be the mediator of this covenant. And herein it is unspeakably preferred before the old covenant.

The mediator of the covenant is completely different. He is called a better mediator, there as we saw it in Hebrews chapter 8. Now, better in what way? Not just simply, well, you know, the person of Jesus is somehow more glorious than the person of Moses.

As Owen himself says, it is the divine God-man who is the mediator of this covenant. If it is the God-man who is the mediator of this covenant, what does it say about the covenant and its application and its permanence and its perfection?

Now, Moses, as great as he was, was not even allowed into the promised land. He only saw it from afar. And so to have such a mediator, I think we will see that point come up over and over again as we consider the betterness of the New Covenant.

Fifthly, they differ in their subject matter, both as to precepts and promises. The advantage being still on the part of the New Covenant. For, what do we mean by this? The old covenant, in the perceptive part of it, renewed the command of the covenant of works.

Now, this is an area where there is a lot of controversy today. There are a lot of people who don't want to say that Adam had a covenant of works. Do this and live. But it's very clear that the law says, do this and live.

In fact, that's the very point that Paul focuses upon in Galatians in saying, look, it was never the intention of the law to bring life. It was to point out, do this and live. Jesus has done this, and the life that he can now give to us is the fulfillment of all these commands.

But, is it not clear that there was a very strong element, a prescriptive element in the old covenant? Notice he says, renewed the commands of the covenant of works, and that on their original terms. Sin, it forbade it.

That is all and every sin in matter and manner, on the pain of death. And gave the promise of life to perfect, sinless obedience only. Whence the Decalogue itself, which is a transcription of the law of works, is called the covenant in Exodus 34, 28.

Besides this, as we observed before, it had other precepts innumerable, accommodated under the present condition of the people and imposed upon them with rigor. But in the new covenant, the very first thing that is promised, is the accomplishment and establishment of the covenant of works, both as under its command and sanction in the obedience and suffering of the mediator himself.

Hereon the commands of it, as under the obedience of the covenanters, are not grievous, the yoke of Christ being easy and his burden light. He continues on. The Old Testament, absolutely considered, had no promise of grace to communicate spiritual strength or to assist us in our obedience, nor any of eternal life, nor otherwise, but as it was contained in the promise of the covenant of works, the man that doeth these things shall live in them, and had promises of temporal things in the land of Canaan, inseparable from it.

In the new covenant, all things are otherwise, as we will see when we look at Hebrews chapter 8, verses 8 and following. And again, there's much controversy there, but Owen, I think, does a good job in exegeting Hebrews 8 as well.

Sixthly, that's not as far as we can go with the iftly part, but we'll see how that works. Sixthly, they differ, and that principally, in the manner of their dedication and sanction. This is that which gives anything the formal nature of a covenant or testament.

There may be a promise, there may be an agreement in general, which does not have the formal nature of a covenant or a testament. And such was the covenant of grace before the death of Christ. But it is the solemnity and manner of the confirmation, dedication, and sanction of any promise or agreement that give it the formal nature of a covenant or testament.

And this by a sacrifice, wherein there is both bloodshed and death ensuing thereon. Now, this in the confirmation of the old covenant, how did that happen? Well, it was only by the sacrifice of beasts, whose blood was sprinkled on all the people, Exodus 24, 5 -8.

But the New Testament was solemnly confirmed by the sacrifice and blood of Christ himself, the Mediator. And the Lord Christ, dying as the Mediator and surety of the covenant, he purchased all good things of the church, and as a testator, bequeathed them unto it.

Hence, he says, the sacramental cup, that is, it is the New Testament in his blood. Or the pledge of his bequeathing to the church, all the promises and mercies of the covenant, which is the New Testament, the disposition of his goods unto his people, unto his children.

A vast difference in how the covenant is brought about. Seven, they differ in the priests that were to officiate before God in behalf of the people. In the old covenant, Aaron and his posterity alone were to discharge this office.

It was a genealogical thing. You could only be privileged to have that position because of your genetic relationship to Aaron and his posterity. In the new, the Son of God himself is the only priest of the church.

Now, we've already seen that in Hebrews chapter 7. And it's almost unusual for Owen to be so brief. But let it be repeated, my friends, that it is the natural tendency of sinful man to try to undo that which is to God's glory alone, so that man can intrude himself into that.

And when you look at the history of the church, what is it that man continually does? He tries to insert himself into salvation by asserting his own autonomy and his own power. What does he do when it comes to the singularity of the priesthood of Christ?

Well, we've seen it so many times. The creation of a priesthood, a class of priests that stand between God and the people. We have one High Priest, Jesus Christ, and Him alone. To have any others is to insert people into a place they do not belong.

That's a very brief statement, but it's a very large statement. The sacrifice upon which the very peace we have with God is dependent in the new covenant. Nobody brought any turtle doves here today. At least I hope you didn't.

Nobody brought any wave offerings. There's no altar here. I mean, we've got a table down there, but it's not really an altar. The sacrifices were on the peace and reconciliation with God, which is tendered in them, very different between the old and the new covenants.

9. They differ in the way and manner of their solemn writing or enrollment. All covenants were of old, in the olden days, solemnly written in tables of brass or stone, where they might be faithfully preserved for the use of the party's concern.

As to the old covenant, as to the principal fundamental part of it, it was engraven in tables of stone, which were kept in the ark. And God did so, he did so in his providence, that the first draft of them should be broken to intimate that the covenant contained in them was not everlasting nor unalterable.

Remember, when Moses first came down, broke them. Saw the people, had to get another set. But the new covenant, remember just a few moments ago we read this, but the new covenant is written in the fleshly tables of the hearts of them that do believe.

It's not like the old covenant in that I now write my law upon the heart. It's internalized. It's not written in stone. It's internalized. It's made real internally to the person. It's spiritually applied.

Now clearly, there were members of the old covenant who had an internal spiritual love of the law of God. The psalmist could not write the things that he wrote unless he was lying through his teeth. If he did not have written on his heart a spiritual love for that law.

But there were many who were a part of that covenant. Who bore the signs of that covenant. Part of the people of that covenant. They had no love of the law. They had no love for the God who gave that law.

This is one of the differences. Number ten. They differ in their ends. The principal end of the first covenant was to discover sin. To condemn it and to set bounds unto it. So says the apostle, it was added because of transgressions.

And this it did in several ways. It did so by conviction. By the law is the knowledge of sin. By condemning the sinner in application of the sanction of the law to his conscience. By the judgments and punishments wherewith on all occasions it was accompanied.

In all, it manifested and represented the justice and severity of God. The end of the new covenant is to declare the love, grace, and mercy of God. And therewith to give repentance, remission of sin, and life eternal.

Now, don't mishear what I just said. Don't buy into the lie of so many today. Well, you've got that wrathful God of the Old Testament. Then you've got the loving God of the New Testament. It's the same God.

The reason the new covenant communicates love, grace, mercy, repentance, remission of sin, life eternal, is because the holiness of God expressed in that old covenant has been fulfilled in the perfect life of Jesus Christ, His perfect death.

It is not a repudiation of holiness. It is not a relaxing of the strict standards of holiness. It is a fulfillment of those things that you have in the new covenant. Eleventhly, they differed in their effects.

For the first covenant being the ministration of death and condemnation, it brought the minds and spirits of them that were under it into servitude and bondage. Whereas spiritual liberty is the immediate effect of the New Testament.

And there is no one thing when the Spirit of God does more frequently give us an account of the difference between these two covenants than in this of the liberty of the one and the bondage of the other.

Liberty and bondage. Law, fulfillment points to its own fulfillment. Not to see that is to miss the point. Twelfth, they differ greatly with respect under the dispensation and grant of the Holy Spirit.

I'm going to say Holy Spirit. He said Holy Ghost. But that's just the way it is. It is certain that God granted the gift of the Holy Spirit. Well, He says Spirit there. Under the Old Testament and His operations during that season.

But it is no less certain that there was always a promise of His more great effusion upon the confirmation and establishment of the New Covenant. Yea, so sparing was the communication of the Holy Spirit under the Old Testament compared with His effusion, His pouring out under the New, that the evangelist affirms that, quote, the Holy Spirit was not yet because Jesus was not yet glorified, John 7, 39.

That is, He was not yet given in that manner as He was to be given upon the confirmation of the New Covenant. The Holy Spirit would come upon individuals. But David could pray and cry out, take not your Holy Spirit from me.

And yet, what is the universal understanding of the writers of the New Testament? What binds believers together? What is the common experience of them all? They have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit who is the Arabon, the down payment of God's work of redemption in their lives.

Thirteenth, they differ in the declaration made in them of the kingdom of God. Of the kingdom of God. You see, the kingdom is not a big emphasis in the Old Covenant. It's there, but it's so closely connected with evil kings and the land of Israel and the division between Israel and Judah and the politics and all the things that come with it.