Community answers are sorted based on votes. The higher the vote, the further up an answer is.
The notion that the covenant that God made with man is any different than the Old Testament infers that God made a mistake, which he did not. The same covenant existed from the beginning. What differed was how man kept the covenant. Man kept breaking the covenant. The covenant at Sinai failed because the Israelites said all that God says we will do. That was a presumptuous way to make the covenant seeing man did not have any way to meet the requirements to keep the covenant outside of God. God had to become a man in order for humanity to keep up their end of the covenant. The covenant throughout the bible is based on grace and faith. We know this because there is mention of grace and numerous examples of grace throughout the old testament. If there was not, how did Jesus and the apostles preach it from the only portion of scripture that was available at the time, which was The Old Testament? Every sacrifice that was made in the Old Testament was made by faith because Hebrews 10:4 says this plainly: "4 For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." So no sin was taken away by the sacrifices. John the Baptist said it was Jesus who took away the sins of the world, therefore we are all saved by grace through faith. I could pile on the other Scriptures to support this; however I lack the space to do so. The covenant, old and new, are based on the same promises from God's end.
Short Answer: "O.T. Theology" is a made up idea originating in the minds of certain supposed scholarly men that were most probably non-believers. Satan is a master at creating anything that would complicate the gospel message. Long Answer: The so called discipline of "Old Testament Theology" is a rather recent development, barely going back further than the beginning of the nineteenth century. The earliest propagators of O.T. theology wanted people to believe that changing social, political, and religious conditions were responsible for the writing of the O.T. books. In fact it was not until 1787 that J.P. Gabler made distinction between the N.T. and the O.T. Prior to Gabler's writings, the OT was viewed in a systematic sense and only in relationship to New Testament (NT) understanding. Gabler began to incorrectly study the O.T. in a so called "critical sense." Supposedly Gabler was looking for how the theology of ancient Israel would have been reflected in the O.T. books. Again, proposing that the O.T. evolved from man's changing social, political, and religious conditions. Gabler's approach was not in accordance with the Lord's teaching. The Lord Jesus taught that the O.T. is in no way separated from N.T. doctrines (All scripture is God breathed, without error and our final authority for all faith and practice). In other words, The N.T. is a continuance of the O.T. as evidenced by Christ's words (refer Gospel accounts N.T.). Bottom Line. Jesus made it clear that the O.T. was not separate from the doctrines He taught and man's redemption promised in the O.T. would be accomplished by our Lord's death, burial, and resurrection (recorded in the N.T.).
All answers are REVIEWED and MODERATED.
Please ensure your answer MEETS all our guidelines.
A good answer provides new insight and perspective. Here are guidelines to help facilitate a meaningful learning experience for everyone.