Among modern Christians there is a fairly widespread idea that one union-covenant with God somehow replaces another. Thus, the covenant with Noah was replaced by the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Abraham in turn by the covenant with Moses, then by the covenant with David, and the pyramid is crowned by the covenant concluded through Jesus Christ, the new, messianic, and final covenant, which...
Among modern Christians there is a fairly widespread idea that one union-covenant with God somehow replaces another. Thus, the covenant with Noah was replaced by the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with Abraham in turn by the covenant with Moses, then by the covenant with David, and the pyramid is crowned by the covenant concluded through Jesus Christ, the new, messianic, and final covenant, which cancels all the previous ones, which automatically cease to operate with the coming of Christ.
Perhaps that would be so if the matter concerned only a legal contract. Then such logic would be quite understandable and absolutely correct: if changes are made to a contract concluded by the parties at the initiative of one of them, then the previous version of the contract automatically ceases to be valid. But in this case we are not speaking of a contract in the legal sense, but of a union, of relationships binding God with His people and with individual representatives of that people.
And a union and relationships presuppose a certain dynamism; they can and must deepen and be filled with new content as they develop. And in this case a new stage of relationships by no means cancels or devalues the previous one. At least as long as the previous stage or previous stages remain relevant for even one person. And even the coming of Christ and the nearness of the Kingdom change nothing in principle here, because concrete people are what matter in this case.
Of course, the approaching Kingdom changes many things objectively, but a person remains a person. And if there are people on earth who remain at the stage, for example, of the covenant with Noah, then that covenant itself will remain relevant precisely for such people. What has been said is all the more true with regard to the covenant with Abraham or with Moses: after all, the Torah entered the world precisely through the covenant with Moses, and it remains relevant for Christians too, if, of course, we are speaking of the inner Torah. But those who stop at the Noahic covenant, or, like most Jews in Paul's day, at the Abrahamic covenant, cannot be considered rejected by God.
The door always remains open for them. They have passed through some part of the path in their relationship with God, stopping at a certain stage; however, this does not mean that their path is finished. God is always waiting for them. And the apostle is convinced: when those who have stopped use their opportunity to move farther and enter the Kingdom, it will be a great day in the history of the Church and in their own history. A day comparable to the day of the universal resurrection from the dead.
11
11:17 Thou - O gentile. Being a wild olive tree - Had the graft been nobler than the stock, yet its dependance on it for life and nourishment would leave it no room to boast against it. How much less, when, contrary to what is practised among men, the wild olive tree is engrafted on the good!
11:18 Boast not against the branches - Do not they do this who despise the Jews? or deny their future conversion?