Was that a Renewed Covenant or New Covenant

[Vic]

There are many in Hebrew Roots or Hebraic Roots and some who call themselves Messianics, who believe that Jeremiah 31:31-32 means a renewed covenant, not a new covenant. What is accomplished by calling it renewed? And what do the Scriptures really say?

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

[Emjesown]

HELLO

What i have learned ( and believe) is that the word for new here is kainos and means brandnew.
Jesus also spoke about a new convenant if i remember correctly.

Emjesown

[aahavaa]

I think one of the reasons that some messianics call it a renewed covenant is so that they can justify telling everyone that they have to obey the Torah of Moses given at Sinai.
The problem I see here is that in Jeremiah the Hebrew clearly says brit (covenant) chadasha (new). If you ask any Hebrew speaker, regardless of their religious beliefs),what chadasha means, they will agree means "new".
As a further witness, the words following it say….lo k´brit , not like the covenant , that I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand…

This tells us that it is a new and different covenant to the one made when God took the Israelites out of Egypt.
To call it renewed seems to be to ignore the rest of the sentence in the Jeremiah verse.

[Rob]

I have run into some people at my congregation that are "pushy" when it comes to the Law. I too see B'rit Chadesha as being "New Covenant".

[Vic]

(12-13-2008 06:55 PM)Rob Wrote:  I have run into some people at my congregation that are "pushy" when it comes to the Law. I too see B'rit Chadesha as being "New Covenant".

The problem is--that pushiness--is it Biblical or pushing an unbiblical doctrine?

And as the above posts agree--it is a New Covenant and cannot be taken as renewed so why do so many ignore facts--provable facts-linguistics to push that doctrine? Do they really believe a lie?

[Rob]

(12-13-2008 08:22 PM)Vic Wrote:  

(12-13-2008 06:55 PM)Rob Wrote:  I have run into some people at my congregation that are "pushy" when it comes to the Law. I too see B'rit Chadesha as being "New Covenant".

The problem is--that pushiness--is it Biblical or pushing an unbiblical doctrine?

And as the above posts agree--it is a New Covenant and cannot be taken as renewed so why do so many ignore facts--provable facts-linguistics to push that doctrine? Do they really believe a lie?

I believe the pushiness is not Biblical.

I believe people ignore facts when they feel it will assist them with furthering themselves or their ideas. Do they really believe it? Ya know, thats a great question. :D

[Vic]

(12-13-2008 10:43 PM)Rob Wrote:  

(12-13-2008 08:22 PM)Vic Wrote:  

(12-13-2008 06:55 PM)Rob Wrote:  I have run into some people at my congregation that are "pushy" when it comes to the Law. I too see B'rit Chadesha as being "New Covenant".

The problem is--that pushiness--is it Biblical or pushing an unbiblical doctrine?

And as the above posts agree--it is a New Covenant and cannot be taken as renewed so why do so many ignore facts--provable facts-linguistics to push that doctrine? Do they really believe a lie?

I believe the pushiness is not Biblical.

I believe people ignore facts when they feel it will assist them with furthering themselves or their ideas. Do they really believe it? Ya know, thats a great question. :D

ummm...you were supposed to answer that question :D

[grafted]

Pushiness is not Biblical to my understanding, but I attempt to bounce many items off Romans 14, and am equally guilty of violating it.

The largest problem I have run into are those who chastise when I use the word Jesus, as if it were a curse word vs his name in a different language. I know my name in Greek doesn't sound the same in English, and yet I know who is being addressed, and if me, (a simple person,) knows that much, then the Messiah would certainly know whom is being addressed.

my .02¢

[sheep wrecked]

(12-14-2008 11:14 AM)grafted Wrote:  Pushiness is not Biblical to my understanding, but I attempt to bounce many items off Romans 14, and am equally guilty of violating it.

The largest problem I have run into are those who chastise when I use the word Jesus, as if it were a curse word vs his name in a different language. I know my name in Greek doesn't sound the same in English, and yet I know who is being addressed, and if me, (a simple person,) knows that much, then the Messiah would certainly know whom is being addressed.

my .02¢

You make a good point - way too much emphasis is put on calling Him by His "real name". We can only make a pretty good guess at what it was, but the NT, written in Greek, uses His Greek Name, Iesous. It's simple language science. The Greeks could not pronounce Yeshua, so His Name was transliterated [not translated] into Iesous.

As Greek was the main language of the region in the first century, it only makes sense to understand that many called Him Iesous. But unfortunately, those with an agenda must push for Hebraic primacy or their whole "Hebraic mind set" and name issues tumble to the ground.

[aahavaa]

Mat 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink you all of it;
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Luk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.

Jesus speaks of the New Covenant in His blood.
In the second chapter of Corinthians we can see where Paul lists three differences between these two covenants.


2Co 3:3 Since you are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.
2Co 3:6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life.
2Co 3:7 But if the ministry of death, written and engraved in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away:

2Co 3:8 How shall not the ministry of the Spirit be more glorious?
2Co 3:9 For if the ministry of condemnation be glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness exceed in glory.
2Co 3:10 For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excels.
2Co 3:11 For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remains is glorious.

He says the Old Covenant that was engraved in stones was glorious but that the ministry of the spirit was more glorious, because the glory of the ministry of the law given Moses was passing away .The glory of the New overshadows the glory of the old.
Thus we see that the first was a temporary one whose glory passed away, yet the New being eternal, remained.

The Old was a ministry of condemnation (v9) and death (v7), the New is the ministry of life(v6) and righteousness(v9).The law is holy but due to man´s inability to adhere to it, it became a ministry of death, showing us that man can never be righteous by his own efforts.
As Isaiah the prophet said, all our righteousness is as filthy rags.