About Brent Jobe, DVM Expertise Specifically able to help one defend the plan of salvation, especially immersion for the remission of sins with emphasis on both the English and Greek. Very able to assist someone in refuting the doctrine of salvation by faith only before and without any further acts of obedience. Capable, but certainly not a scholar, in other areas of doctrine: church organization, music in worship, eternal security, etc, but do not claim the same degree of knowledge of these subjects. I would view myself, as well as the church that I attend, as very mainline, possibly (and hopefully) tending toward conservative. I can express the liberal viewpoint, if one so desires, although I believe it to be dangerous and divisive.
Experience Avid reader and possess original editions of most debates concerning baptism and faith alone. I am familiar with both sides of the issue, and have probably heard every argument advanced against the necessity of baptism. I truly feel that I can help other members of the church who may have been asked difficult questions, and I will take the time to thoroughly answer - in English, Greek, and possibly ancillary statements, though uninspired, from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century Christians. Member of the church for about 30 years - 6th generation at the same congregation.
Organizations Religiously, none other than the local congregation. Professionally, of course, quite a few, but none that would apply in this context.
Education/Credentials I am a veterinarian (DVM) by profession and have practiced for twenty years. Almost all of my religious education other than the usual (family, attending services) was derived at the feet of Foy E. Wallace, Jr. If I cannot answer your question, I have direct contact with Judge Alan Highers and Dr. Jimmy Allen, both men of considerable knowledge and debating experience: if I am not satisfied with my answer, I can call upon them for additional information. The writings and sermons of N. B. Hardeman are among my favorites.
Question QUESTION: Which covenant is harder to live under, the Old or the New Covenant? I know Christians are under the New Covenant, but is the New harder to live under than the Old? If it is, please provide proof. If the Old is harder to live under, please also provide proof. I was told my a preacher that the New Covenant is harder to live under than the Old Covenant was and I really thought that was backward.
I am aware that the New Covenant holds us to a higher standard than the Old because we are expected to be obedient even though we have Grace which came from the blood sacrifice of Jesus. But is it harder?
I pointed out that Jesus said His yoke is easy and His burden is light in Matt.11 but the preacher explained that I ignored the context of that passage. He said Jesus was presenting a contrast between the yoke of the Pharisees and His yoke...not the yoke of the Old Covenant.
I am confused. Any assistance is greatly appreciated.
ANSWER: Hello:
I would say the general answer is the "Yes, it is easier to live under the New Covenant then the Old." Jesus is called "mediator of a better covenant," while the Old is called the "handwriting of ordinances that was against us...."
Col 2:13-15
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
Heb 8:5-7
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Now, if one desires to engage in a very narrow topic, adultery, for instance, then I suppose the Old was easier:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
The clarifying remarks should be under the Old Covenant, the offender was subject to being put to death. Under the New, we must simply repent and pray for forgiveness.
I realize that this is a VERY simplified answer, and if you have a follow, feel free to send it.
Thank you,
Brent Jobe, DVM
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I appreciate your answer but do have follow-up questions. I still see the Old Covenant was harder even when one considers adultery. If you were caught in adultery, there was no second chance, you were stoned to death. But under the New Covenant, you can repent and turn from that sin. It does not cost you your life.
I also believe that what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 5 was true under the Old Covenant as well as the New Covenant. God has always been concerned about the condition of our hearts. This is just one thing the Pharisees messed up on. They were more concerned with the letter of the law than the purpose behind it. An example was, the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Is this not correct?
The law did have a form of grace, but not the full measure of Grace that came in the form of Jesus and His sacrifice. I see another difference as well.
In the Old Covenant, they had detailed instructions as to how much they give to God. When you add up the 10% tithe with the other things, it was more equal to 30% of all they had. Under the New Covenant, we are just told to be cheerful givers from the heart. We are never told how much to give.
In some ways this might be harder, but really it is easier. If we give with a cheerful heart, it is not difficult. So is this right? Please elaborate more if you have the time. I also pointed this preacher to Acts 15:10,11.
Thanks for your time and efforts to help.
Answer I can elaborate, but I agree with everything you said in your follow-up. Sometimes it helps to follow a viewpoint to its natural outcome or consequences. In this case, your preacher is forcing himself to say, "The sinless Son of God came to this Earth and endured unspeakable sufferings culminating in dying on a cross and being buried in a borrowed tomb - and took away an easier covenant and instituted a more difficult one." Who would defend that?
Another thing I notice as I read along, "the preacher explained that I ignored the context of that passage. He said Jesus was presenting a contrast between the yoke of the Pharisees and His yoke...not the yoke of the Old Covenant." Alright, that's an assertion, and he is under obligation to prove it. I'd say the "yoke of the Pharisees" is not implied and not in the context.
Another thing is that one's sins were never really, actually forgiven right then and there under the Old Law. They were forgiven upon a sort-of "promissory note" basis, looking forward to the cross and the shed blood of Christ. Under the New Covenant, of course, our sins are really, actually, and completely forgiven. If nothing else, that's more comforting.
On a personal level, I think you are totally right, and can't understand the motive of someone who would say, in general, that the Old Covenant was easier or better. The entire book of Hebrews was written in defense of the superiority of the Testament of Jesus Christ. I believe you are correct and have a good understanding of the subject.
