Was that a Renewed Covenant or New Covenant

[Dredge]

(10-07-2009 08:20 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote:  

(10-06-2009 09:18 PM)Dredge Wrote:  Are unsaved people part of the New Covenant?

Think about it Dredge - are unbelievers under the New Covenant if they have rejected or have no belief in Christ? Please re-read 1 John 3:23 or John 3.

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
Joh 3:11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
Joh 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
Joh 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
Joh 3:21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

Then how can the New Covenant be, as you said earlier, un-conditional?

[sheep wrecked]

(10-07-2009 04:06 PM)Dredge Wrote:  Then how can the New Covenant be, as you said earlier, un-conditional?

I explained that. Here is what I posted earlier:

Quote:The old covenant was contingent on animal sacrifices which atoned for sin [disobedience] conditionally - in other words, the sacrifice was only good for a limited time and had to be repeated over and over again.

The new covenant is a done deal. Once Jesus died for sin, all sin - past, present, and future - is atoned for [unconditional]

Disobedience under the new covenant requires repentance, but forgiveness and atonement were already given/accomplished, so it remains an unconditional covenant, not like the old covenant which was dependent on man's obedience for forgiveness.

Acceptance of the New Covenant, aka belief if Christ, is a free gift - not by works, but by grace through faith = unconditional [God gives both the faith and the grace].

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

[Rose of Shushan]

Well put Sheep. By unconditional it means that we enter into by faith and then let God do the work of changing our hearts himself.It is not by anything that we do..totally based on faith.Because Dredge we can never make ourselves righteous.Thats what the Law intended to show.And also that we can outwardly do all the ceremonial and ritualistic parts of the Law and still inwardly have stony hearts prone to all sorts of sins.
The NT calls us to enter into the rest that Jesus gives.Check out Hebrews 4.Yet this is a rest from our labours in trying to make ourselves righteous for God.We will always fail in some points or another.Each person has their own vulnerabilities or weak points, regardless of how good we may seem we are compared to some people.
Ironically it is those whio have sinned much and are forgiven and healed of much that are maybe more aware of how important this New Covenant really is.And of how important it is to have God take over and change us.Sin ruins lives, relationships and of course leads to eternal death.

[Ben Masada]

(09-15-2009 04:46 PM)Dredge Wrote:  

Quote:Thank you, I had thought the Mosaic covenant was an extention of the Abrahamic covenant.

The name is neither Mosaic Covenant or Old Covenant. The term "Old Covenant" is a Pauline strategy to implement Replacement Theology.

[quote]In Heb 8:10 the author writes "after those days" is this past or future?

"After those days," Paul might have had his precondition notions in mind, but what Jeremiah meant was after the days of the exile in Babylon, God would make a New Covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah as one People. No longer under the tribal system. (Jer. 31:31)

Quote:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

What would be different in the New Covenant is that no one would have to teach each other at how to know the Lord, or be taught by the Levites and Prophets. We would all have access to the Scriptures and know the Lord ourselves from our own freewill. (Jer. 31:33,34)

Quote:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

It means that the relationship of God with the People would be personal and not through mediators: Levites, Priests and Prophets. (Jer. 31:34)

Quote:Also what laws are being referenced in "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts"?

The answer to this one is found in Deuteronomy 30:11-14. "For this command which I enjoin on you today is not too msterious and remote for you. It is not up in the sky, that you should say, 'Who will go up in the sky to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' Nor is it across the sea, that you should say, 'who will cross the sea to get it for us and tell us of it, that we may carry it out?' No, it is something very near to you, already in your mouths and in your hearts; you have only to carry it out." Exactly according to the wording of the New Covenant in Jeremiah.

[Benny]

Having come off the reading of 'bechukotai- in my statutes [Lev. 26-27] in which we read of the blessings and the curse, one reads [for sake of brevity, I have not written the entire passage, but listed the verses of the passages written]:

Leviticus 26.3-13, 44-45
3 If you will follow my decrees and observe my commandments and perform them...
6 I will provide peace in the land, and you will lie down with none to frighten you;...
9 I will turn My attention to you, I will make you fruitful and increase you; and I will establish my covenant with you. ...
11 I will place my sanctuary among you; and my spirit will not reject you.
12 I will walk among you, I will be God unto you and you will be a people unto me.
14 But if you will not listen to me...[he proceeds to list a serious of bad that will happen to Israel in different stages].
44 But despite all this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul my covenant with them- for I am Hashem, their God.
45 I will remember for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God unto them-- I am Hashem.

In like manner, but with some additional details, we read in Deut 30:

1 It will happen when all these things come upon you- the blessing and the curse that I have presented before you- then you will take it to your heart among all the nations where Hashem your God has dispersed you;
2 and you will return unto Hashem, your God, and listen to his voice, according to everything that I command you today, you and your children, with all your heart and all your soul.
3 Then Hashem, your God, will bring back your captivity and have mercy upon you, and He will gather you in from all the peoples to which Hashem, your God, has scattered you.
4 If your disperse will be at the ends of heaven, from there Hashem, your God, will gather you in and from there He will take you.
5 Hashem, your God, will bring you to the Land that your forefathers possessed and you shall possess it; He will do good to you and make you more numerous than your forefathers.
6 Hashem, your God, will circumcise you heart and the heart of your offspring, to love Hashem, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

The prophets all spoke in this manner, as we find in the Torah, that Israel will return to God nationally in the future.
To suggest, as some have posted, that the return from Babylon was the fulfillment of the promise, is not fully accurate, because we do not see all the promises fulfilled. This is the manner of prophecy: a prophecy can have many partial fulfillments. Thus, we see many times where a prophecy seems to have been, or is said to have been, fulfilled, even though the details are fully completed. This is the only way one can possibly see the use of such passages as Is 7.14, Joel 3, etc being quoted as a fulfillment, when the context obviously betrays such a literal fulfillment.

People imagine that 'cirumcision of the heart' is something new...but in fact it was in the Torah. It dawned on me this Shabbat to suggest that what is meant by saying, Hebraic mindset [which I often see people attack], is to look at things through the lenses of the TaNaKh [ie 'OT'], first. Then read the passages of the 'NT', and understand them. Likewise, the context of the times in which the 'authors' of the NT were living.

Concerning the post previous to this, where one suggests that there won't be a need for prophets, priests, etc. I understand the gist of which you are speaking, but if what you say is taken literally, this is not true. We already know that the Torah speaks of a certain rank and file...in like manner, the NT speaks of such many times, whether it is in Timothy and Titus concerning 'bishops' and 'deacons', or in Acts where they select another in Judas' place, or in Acts 6 when they select Stephen, or in Ephesians 4.11-12, etc.

I, personally, think that the problem with many HR is that they assume that all have to keep Torah, which is not true. ISRAEL needs to keep Torah [Jews, and eventually, the lost tribes-ROSE, the sages emphasize that they have not returned, yet, and that redemption is contingent on it...read a little bit of the commentaries Malbim, Radak, Metsudat David, if you doubt me], but not those who are not Israel.

I don't think that it is scholarly to jump the gun and say, 'we Christians believe in the NT as equally authoritative' and dismiss what is said above. I am not saying to reject the NT...I am saying read it in light of what is said in the 'OT'...perhaps light will come to you on what is being said.
When I read the NT, I don't read it with the attitude of 'this is not true'. That would not allow for objective understanding. But neither can I read it as 'separate', ie the contextual reading of the 'OT' is immaterial, and the NT being 'new' revelation...because then we are dismissing what the 'OT' is saying. How then are they equally authoritative, as Christians suggest?
patience and persistence.
This is where the concept of 'hebraic thinking' [as spoken by the HR adherents] comes in [from my limited understanding].

As a last brief not, in this post, I suggest reading the 'famous' Jer 31 in light of Lev 26 and Deut 30 as stated above. Compare them.

Be well.

[Rose of Shushan]

Quote:Having come off the reading of 'bechukotai- in my statutes [Lev. 26-27] in which we read of the blessings and the curse, one reads [for sake of brevity, I have not written the entire passage, but listed the verses of the passages written]:

Leviticus 26.3-13, 44-45
3 If you will follow my decrees and observe my commandments and perform them...
6 I will provide peace in the land, and you will lie down with none to frighten you;...
9 I will turn My attention to you, I will make you fruitful and increase you; and I will establish my covenant with you. ...
11 I will place my sanctuary among you; and my spirit will not reject you.
12 I will walk among you, I will be God unto you and you will be a people unto me.
14 But if you will not listen to me...[he proceeds to list a serious of bad that will happen to Israel in different stages].
44 But despite all this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul my covenant with them- for I am Hashem, their God.
45 I will remember for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be a God unto them-- I am Hashem

Lev 26:44 And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the LORD their God.
Lev 26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.


This was fulfilled and came to pass when they were exiled to Babylon. Even though they were in the land of their enemies ie Babylon God looked after them,indeed we see in Jeremiah how God warned them to heed His commands to go to Babylon and not to go to Egypt instead.

God did then bring them back and we can read all about it in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Quote:The prophets all spoke in this manner, as we find in the Torah, that Israel will return to God nationally in the future.
To suggest, as some have posted, that the return from Babylon was the fulfillment of the promise, is not fully accurate, because we do not see all the promises fulfilled.

I am not sure what you mean by nationally? You even underlined it.
The prophets never promised a mass return of all those exiled, on the contrary they said only a remnant would. One of Isaiah's sons that were to be for signs and wonders was called Shear yashuv which means a remnant will return.
The ones that did return though, were blessed and they did multiply and many gentiles also became proselytes and fulfilled the relevant prophecies. The leaders though again strayed and the people ended up like sheep without a shepherd and under roman domination.Eventually God sent the promised Saviour and King who would deliver them from a bondage greater than those of the Romans .The Kingdom though was a heavenly kingdom and those looking for it on earth were sorely disappointed.

Maybe you could go through some of the things you say were unfulfilled and discuss them.

Quote:People imagine that 'cirumcision of the heart' is something new...but in fact it was in the Torah. It dawned on me this Shabbat to suggest that what is meant by saying, Hebraic mindset [which I often see people attack], is to look at things through the lenses of the TaNaKh [ie 'OT'], first. Then read the passages of the 'NT', and understand them. Likewise, the context of the times in which the 'authors' of the NT were living.

As Christians that is what we normally do..we look at the New Testament based on what we already know in the Old. To me and many Christians, the division is purely in the covenants but our Bible is one and both OT and NT carry equal weight. Between the OT and NT ie Malachi to the Gospels were just 400 or so years.
I would say we do use a Hebraic mindset.The problem with this Hebraic mindset is that some now have turned that term into something totally different.It now becomes a Talmudic mindset for many in messianic circles. And they try to view the NT and even OT from the viewpoint of your post Temple sages .To me this makes no sense.
I got into the study of Talmud and some other writings to better understand my jewish brothers in order to witness to them but its crazy for me to see how Christians are turning to these writings for wisdom and a greater insight. Its preposterous since these sages have had to make do with what they have in the face of losing the temple,priests and prophets after the rejection of their Saviour and Redeemer.Why would a Christian who has the truth turn to them for guidance and study.For all their study they reject the One that God sent.

[Lois]

Me thinks this one needed a