It seems that Paul is referring to the inward change that has outward manifestations in 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15 more than anything else.

The other aspect of your question though, regarding the replacement/supersession of the old covenant is highly thought provoking. In mainstream Christianity today, many believe that the "new testament" replaced the "old testament," or more precisely, that the 'laws were done away with and are no longer relative to believers.' However, the clerics of the Carolingian era, when Christianity was being more well defined, would consider a subsequent testament (aka Will) to be perjury, as the original sworn oath could never be broken without perjuring oneself. Ha Mashiach (the Messiah) himself stated that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Both the Law and the Prophets (aka Old Testament) were often quoted as well. Therefore, the "new testament" should only have been a renewal of the old. But that seems to be far from the case as we see it in today's world.

I think Paul himself addresses this question in his letter to the Romans, by asking a series of rhetorical questions. I am thinking about, particularly, Romans Chapter 3. He finishes chapter 3 with this:

"Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31, NIV)

The old covenant was the law, given to Moses, from God, to give the the people. The new covenant is a fulfillment of the old, not a replacement (Matthew 5:17).

" , that it involves a kind of replacement/supersession of the old covenant, or does it merely involve a renewal/reinterpretation of the old? Explain. "

The word used in Paul is Kainos not neos (Strongs G2537). The meaning of Kainos is better translated "renewed". Neos means new in the sense that it never occurred before, such as unique in time and place. In Matt. 5:17, the idea to fulfill ( plēroō ) means to establish or fill up and not to replace.

Cheryl, that is not correct. In the Strongs dictionary, the concept of renewal is not even present. The definition of the old 1890 Strong's lexicon of kainos is: "of uncertain affinity; new (especially in freshness; while 3501 is properly so with respect to age): — new... new as respects form recently made, fresh, recent, unused, unworn as respects substance of a new kind, unprecedented, novel, uncommon, unheard of". But notwithstanding, the 2000 Bauer lexicon places 2 Cor under the third main meaning of kainos: "3. pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new...", and under the second sub-meaning: "b. in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new... 2 Cor 5:17a... 17b". The Louw and Nida Lexicon (1988) gives the definition of kainos in the same meaning as neos (domain 67.115): "pertaining to having been in existence for only a short time".

Hi

A short thought.

I have always emphasized Jesus as the new Moses; there is the new Exodus language; the church is in many respects the New Israel ("Israel of God" ) When questioned if this is "replacement theology" I respond that it is really "Fulfillment" - not replacement.