Meyer carefully examines the distinctions between the old and new covenants, based largely on an exegetical study of the new covenant in Paul’s writings. Designed to be academic by nature this commentary can be a rigorous read, however Meyer does an admirable job of reiterating key themes and points throughout. He has crafted a well-researched and well-argued addition to the NAC series, and it is worthy of the effort required to consider such a fundamental issue.

The law of God and the promises of God do not contradict each other in the plan of God. [30]

The old man stands for who we were in Adam. Paul can describe this reality as “our” old man because of Adam’s representative connection to all humanity. This view states that the cross did not “kill” the “old nature”; the cross put an end to our relational ties to Adam…the cross cancels our former relationship with Adam, and faith in Christ initiates a new representative connection with Christ so that the believer is no longer “in Adam,” but “in Christ.” [41]

The old covenant could not change Israel’s spiritual condition because it did not possess any intrinsic provisions for changing the heart. The genius of the new covenant comes in its different design. God made the new covenant with the intrinsic provision of the Spirit for changing the heart of its covenantal members. [112]

The downward spiral introduced by the advent of the law reveals that the law did not save Israel then and will not save anyone now. Humankind needs a Savior, not more stipulations. [169]

The new covenant is “new” in that it cannot be broken. The reason for its inviolability is not the moral improvement of the human race since the time of Moses. The difference is owing to the fact that God deals with the same sinful people in a remarkably different way: by creating the faithfulness for which He calls through the new covenant, which is inaugurated by the atoning death of Christ and carried forward by the transformative power of the Holy Spirit. [277]

TOP