1

The Old Covenant, entered into with the physical bloodline children of Israel, makes this remark, as a sign that validated the covenant

“You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day.” ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭8:18‬ ‭

But according to the New Testament (New Covenant) the Old Covenant is obsolete, this is succinctly mentioned in the book of Hebrews

“In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭8:13‬ ‭

Does it therefore follow that under the New Covenant generation of wealth is not a sign of convening confirmation? Why or why not?

Edit

This is not a systematic theology question.

Hebrews 8:13 last part says it’s becoming obsolete. Is the Old Covenant still in effect or not according to Hebrews? If it is still in effect, to whom would it still apply, those under the Old Covenant only?

Is prosperity part of the New Covenant according to Hebrews? In what sense does it apply to prosperity or what type of prosperity, if yes?

7
  • Deu 31:20 explains what King Solomon experienced. Jun 25 at 23:06
  • 2
    Mmmm .... the reason the ‘old’ was replaced is because the ‘new’ was [much] better, and is founded on much better promises. (Ref: Hebrews 8:6). Do you honestly believe that there were some parts of the ‘old’ that might have been better?
    – Dave
    Jun 25 at 23:23
  • @Dave it’s not a matter of better but of continuity if applicable. Jun 26 at 0:10
  • 1
    I'm not sure this is even on-topic - you're not really asking a question about the text of Hebrews, you're asking for a systematic theology of covenants and wealth.
    – curiousdannii
    Jun 26 at 5:54
  • 1
    Again, if you've no textual justification for asking about wealth from Hebrews, I'd agree this question doesn't arise naturally from the text.
    – Steve Taylor
    Jul 2 at 5:56
2

I would not interpret hayil here as "wealth", because "wealth" was not a sign of the covenant. Posession was a sign of the covenant -- e.g. the promised land. That is why they needed strength to acquire it. Posession is a better interpretation here.

This is a speech Moses gave prior to the invasion. He was not praying that the listeners would be strong enough to acquire money.

Of course in traditional societies, land, together with cattle, was one of the primary markers of wealth. But the sense here is the covenant with Abraham in which he was promised land, that all the nations would be blessed by his seed, and that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars.

In the new covenant -- which is really the older covenant, of which the covenant of Moses was instruction to a type and shadow -- our goal remains posession of the promise, but it is a better land and country that we are to inhabit, of which the promised land was merely a type.

1
  • That’s why I prefer the original to the translation. Jun 26 at 0:37
1

Is wealth no longer a sign of a covenant?

If I have understood the question correctly, here is the short answer: One's wealth has always been irrelevant.

It is certainly true that Christ seems to have derided those with riches:

Matthew 19:24: “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

How do we reconcile this with the material wealth of a saint? It may be remembered that Abraham was a wealthy man. He was under the Patriarchal Law — not the Law of Moses. The passage in Matthew is not saying that wealth will prohibit a rich man's entry into heaven. Rather, it is his reliance on wealth for salvation that is condemned. Otherwise, Abraham could not enter:

Genesis 13:2: "Now Abram was very rich in livestock, in silver and in gold."

If Matthew 19:24 is referring to one's material assets, then Abraham, "a friend of God", could not make it! However, we know that Abraham has made it:

Matthew 8:11: “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven."

One's possessions have nothing to do with their salvation under the New Covenant. Rather, trusting in wealth to save is that which Christ denounces.

2
  • Deuteronomy 8:18 makes the case that God is to be remembered because it is He that will confirm His covenant by prospering them. I’m rephrasing to place the emphasis on wealth being the sign of the old covenant. When the children of Israel were faithful to the covenant God was supposed to prosper them as a sign of confirmation that the covenant was in effect and working. Or put differently, if they became wealthy it was only because it was God honoring the covenant and the wealth was a sign of His honoring Jun 25 at 22:20
  • @NihilSineDeo You are certainly correct regarding Deu. 8:18 - a sign that God would prosper them. But it is also true that as Israel obeyed God, they would receive miraculous gifts (clothing, manna, etc.). Of course, other means by which Israel prospered was their deliverance from Egypt, their ability to cross the Red Sea, and victories over other enemies. The gifts they received as a consequence of conquering another nation was obviously a material benefit. Deu. 8:17 seems to have provoked vs. 18: "You might [say], 'The power and strength of my hands have made this wealth for me.'”
    – Xeno
    Jun 25 at 22:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.