Do Christians Partake of the New Covenant Promised to Israel?

[episkopos]

Actually, I said the following and then gave an explanation as to what that means:

The Hebrew words melo hagoyim means "fulness of nations" so Genesis 48:19 is saying that "his seed shall fill up the nations."

You previous remarks agree with my statement. You said:

But you are missing the point of the Genesis declaration. The Jews are not a congregation of Gentiles. The Jews are not in every tongue and colour and tribe.

[JerryShugart]

But you are missing the point of the Genesis declaration. The Jews are not a congregation of Gentiles. The Jews are not in every tongue and colour and tribe.

No, I am not missing the point. You fail to understand that "Jews" were called "Israelites" and "Israelites" were called "Jews."

Here Paul; classifies the world into two groups--Jews and Gentiles:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Ro.3:9-10).

Here Paul uses the word "Jews" to represent all of the house of Israel, including both the Northern Tribes as well as the Southern ones. He then uses the "Jews" and the "Gentiles" combined to represent the whole world and then says that "there is none righteous, no, not one."

Your ideas originated with Herbert W. Armstrong and the World Church of God--more commonly known as Anglo-Israelism.

[Raybob]

No, I am not missing the point. You fail to understand that "Jews" were called "Israelites" and "Israelites" were called "Jews."..

All through the bible, the term "Jew" referred to people of the tribe of Judah since Judah split apart from Israel, after God divorced national Israel. Read the OT and you will know that.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, I am not missing the point. You fail to understand that "Jews" were called "Israelites" and "Israelites" were called "Jews."

Here Paul; classifies the world into two groups--Jews and Gentiles:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Ro.3:9-10).

Here Paul uses the word "Jews" to represent all of the house of Israel, including both the Northern Tribes as well as the Southern ones. He then uses the "Jews" and the "Gentiles" combined to represent the whole world and then says that "there is none righteous, no, not one."

Your ideas originated with Herbert W. Armstrong and the World Church of God--more commonly known as Anglo-Israelism.

Herbert is wrong, just like Cyrus and the Dispensationalists. Two peas... different pod.

[episkopos]

No, I am not missing the point. You fail to understand that "Jews" were called "Israelites" and "Israelites" were called "Jews."

Here Paul; classifies the world into two groups--Jews and Gentiles:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Ro.3:9-10).

Here Paul uses the word "Jews" to represent all of the house of Israel, including both the Northern Tribes as well as the Southern ones. He then uses the "Jews" and the "Gentiles" combined to represent the whole world and then says that "there is none righteous, no, not one."

Your ideas originated with Herbert W. Armstrong and the World Church of God--more commonly known as Anglo-Israelism.

Wrong ...LOL!!!

Actually the bible is the source of much truth. It interprets itself. The Jews are notall of Israel but only a small part. The 10 northern tribes...collectively called "Israel" were dispersed among the nations. We are become this part of Israel when we are grafted into Christ.

[John146]

Of course the death of the Lord Jesus did ratify the New Covenant promised to the house of Israel but in order for it to come into effect it was necessary for the nation of Israel to repent.

He didn't just die for Israel. His blood was shed for all so that means all who believe in Him enter into the promises of the new covenant. Galatians 3 and 4 make it clear that Gentile believers are included.

And on the day of Pentecost we see Peter telling the nation that if she repented then her sins would be blotted out and the Lord Jesus would be sent to them so that they could enjoy His presence:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

No, that was a call for each individual to repent of their own sins and to be converted and have their sins blotted out. He wasn't telling the nation as a whole to repent there.

The nation did not repent so even though the New Covenant had been ratified by His blood it did not come into effect.

Nowhere does it say that was necessary in order for the new covenant to go into effect. It went into effect upon His death. That's why the curtain of the temple was torn in two, to show that the new covenant of grace had been ushered in. God would begin to meet with people and dwell in their hearts rather than in the physical temple building. That signified the changing of the guard from the old covenant of the law to the new covenant of grace that was ushered in by the blood of Christ.

It would be ridiculous to even imagine that a people who refused to repent would begin to receive the benefits of that covenant.

But not all of them refused to repent. The ones who believed received the benefits of the covenant. That wouldn't be possible if the covenant was not yet in effect. Nowhere does it say that all of them would need to repent in order for the covenant to go into effect.

The New Covenant applies to the same "Israel" who was given the Old Covenant, the Law:

"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: 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" (Jer.31:31-32).

Read Hebrews 8:6-13. It's quoted within there and that says the new covenant replaced the old covenant. The old covenant had already been made obsolete at the time that was written but you think it's still not obsolete today?

The New Covenant will be made with those who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." So that can only be referring to Israel "after the flesh." It was Israel "after the flesh" who broke the Covenant which God made with "their fathers." Also, it was Israel "according to the flesh" who was brought out of the land of Egypt.

Well, passages like Hebrews 8-10 and Galatians 3-4 say otherwise. Do you accept the New Testament as truth? Why are you not accepting the NT explanation of the fulfillment of that covenant? It may not be clear from the OT text that Gentile believers are included in the covenant but that is made quite clear in the NT.

Your whole argument is based on a faulty understanding of the verses which speak of the New Covenant which was promised to the houses of Judah and Israel. Until you get past that your understanding will remain seriously flawed.

Your understanding will remain flawed as long as you continue to not understand what the NT teaches us about the new covenant. Those verses from Jeremiah 31 are quoted in Hebrews 8:6-13. Please tell me your interpretation of Hebrews 8:6-13.

That is the Abrahamic Covenant and not the New Covenant promised to the houses of Judah and Israel.

What you call "the Abrahamic Covenant" is the New Covenant. Notice that the new covenant is contrasted with the old covenant of the law in the book of Hebrews. What is contrasted with the old covenant of the law in Galatians? What you call "the Abrahamic Covenant". What you don't understand is that they are the same covenant. The old covenant and new covenant are being contrasted in Galatians 3 and 4 just like they are in Hebrews 8-10.

Again, it is the Abrahamic Covenant.

What is the covenant represented by the bondwoman in Galatians 4:22-31?

[John146]

Here is where Christ's New Covenant is promised to everyone....not limited to just Israelites.

[I]I John 1:7-2:2 "1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he(Jesus Christ) is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

The words "New Covenant" do not even appear once in these verses. So you have proved nothing.

What that passage proves is that when Jesus talked about the new covenant being His blood being shed for the remission of many that includes "the whole world" and not just Israel. Clearly, He shed His blood for the sins of the whole world and not just for Israel so it shouldn't be hard to understand that means the new covenant is for the whole world and not just for Israel. Do you think when Jesus said "Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." He was saying His blood was shed just for Israel for the remission of sins? Passages like 1 John 1:7-2:2 show otherwise. That passage doesn't have to contain the words "new covenant" in order for us to know that's what it's talking about because the new covenant is all about Christ shedding His blood for the remission of sins, which is exactly what that passage is talking about.

[John146]

I have already said that the New Covenant was promised to the house of Israel. Besides that, the benefits of that covenant was not for "all" men but instead "many":

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt.26:28).

The "blood of the new covenant" was not for all but instead for "many." And the many only includes those in the house of Israel.

The word "many" does not have to mean "not all". I've had to correct people on this regarding Daniel 12:2. But that's another story. In this verse the word "many" is translated from the Greek "polys" and that word does not have to mean a large number, but not all. It can refer to all of something and refer to the number of all as being "many". Let me give you a couple examples where that is the case:

Matt 4:25 And there followed him great(Greek: polys) multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

This verse isn't referring to only some of the "multitudes of people from Galilee", etc. that followed Him. It's referring to all of them and the number of them was "great".

Matt 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

This isn't speaking of only some of those that "shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven". It's speaking of all of them and the number of them is "many".

I can give plenty of other examples but hopefully you see the point. The word "many" does not mean a large number but not all in Matt 26:26. It means all people, the number of which is "many".

[John146]

Hi , and Eph 2:12 absolutly says that Gentiles were NEVER given any type of Covenant , period , dan p

Not originally, but that verse (and the surrounding verses) shows that they were graciously included in the covenants of promise by the blood of Christ.

Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: 13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Yes, at one time the Gentiles were "strangers from the covenants of promise". But what about now? Paul said "But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ" and he later said "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God" (Eph 2:19). So, the Gentiles were once strangers of the covenants of promise (not included in them) but now they "are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens".

[JerryShugart]

He didn't just die for Israel. His blood was shed for all so that means all who believe in Him enter into the promises of the new covenant.

There is no doubt that the Lord Jesus died for "all" but the New covenant is not for "all" but instead for "many":

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Mt.26:28).

Here we see that originally it was not taught that the Lord Jesus died for all men because He said the following:

"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt.15:24).

That is why we read that he gave His life a ransom for "many":

"Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Mt.20:28).

it was not revealed until later ("to be testified in due time") that He died for all:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time" (1 Tim.2:6).

No, that was a call for each individual to repent of their own sins and to be converted and have their sins blotted out. He wasn't telling the nation as a whole to repent there.

So everytime an "indivuidual" repented the Father would send back the Son?:

"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you" (Acts 3:19-20).

But not all of them refused to repent. The ones who believed received the benefits of the covenant. That wouldn't be possible if the covenant was not yet in effect. Nowhere does it say that all of them would need to repent in order for the covenant to go into effect.

Here it says that all of the house of Israel will receive the forgiveness of sins:

"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...And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31).

Read Hebrews 8:6-13. It's quoted within there and that says the new covenant replaced the old covenant. The old covenant had already been made obsolete at the time that was written but you think it's still not obsolete today?

Well, passages like Hebrews 8-10 and Galatians 3-4 say otherwise. Do you accept the New Testament as truth? Why are you not accepting the NT explanation of the fulfillment of that covenant?

Let us take a close look at the following verses that are in regard to a New Covenant:

"The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds...Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more" (Heb.10:16-17; NIV).

Here the author of Hebrews changes the wording of the verse from the O.T. that speaks of Israel's New Covenant so that the Jewish Christians would not be left with the impression that the blessings of Israel's New Covenant were being applied to them.

The words from the OT which read "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel" (Jer.31:33) are changed to "this is the covenant that I will make with them."

So the author writes that "the Holy Spirit testifies to us...this is the covenant that I will make with them."

Common sense dictates that "us" is not "them" and it is "them" who will receive the benefits of the New Covenant--not "us.".

Please tell me your interpretation of Hebrews 8:6-13.

I will quote John Walvoord, the second President of Dallas Theological Seminary, because what he says is in agreement with my interpretation:

"The argument hangs on the point that the Mosaic covenant was not faultless-was never intended to be an everlasting covenant (Heb. 8:7). In confirmation of this point, the new covenant of Jeremiah is cited at length, proving that the Old Testament itself anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new covenant is predicted to supplant it...A further statement is made that the old covenant is 'becoming old' and is 'nigh unto vanishing away.' It should be noted that nowhere in this passage is the new covenant with Israel declared to be in force. The only argument is that which was always true-the prediction of a new covenant automatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a temporary, not an eternal covenant" [emphasis added] (Walvoord, "The New Covenant with Israel," Bibliotheca Sacra 110 [July 1953], p.201).

What is the covenant represented by the bondwoman in Galatians 4:22-31?

The Abrahamic Covenant.

[JerryShugart]

Actually the bible is the source of much truth. It interprets itself. The Jews are notall of Israel but only a small part. The 10 northern tribes...collectively called "Israel" were dispersed among the nations. We are become this part of Israel when we are grafted into Christ.

As I said, the word "Jew" came to be used to identify all of those from both the houses of Israel and of Judah.

At Romans 3:9 Paul is making the argument that "all" men universally are "under sin" and the two groups that represent "all" men are the Jews and the Gentiles:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Ro.3:9-10).

If those of the house of Israel were not included under the group called "Jews" then Paul would be leaving out some people even though he was obviously speaking of "all" men universally. If those from the house of Israel were not included in the group "Jews" then Paul's argument would have been this:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved that the Jews, Israelites and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

Paul did not use the word "Israelite" because the word "Jew" included all from both the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

[keck553]

It's not like no one from the northern tribes (Israel) was around in the first century. For example Anna (Luke 2:36) was from the tribe of Asher, colloqually she would have been classified as a "Jew."

[episkopos]

As I said, the word "Jew" came to be used to identify all of those from both the houses of Israel and of Judah.

At Romans 3:9 Paul is making the argument that "all" men universally are "under sin" and the two groups that represent "all" men are the Jews and the Gentiles:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one" (Ro.3:9-10).

If those of the house of Israel were not included under the group called "Jews" then Paul would be leaving out some people even though he was obviously speaking of "all" men universally. If those from the house of Israel were not included in the group "Jews" then Paul's argument would have been this:

"What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved that the Jews, Israelites and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."

Paul did not use the word "Israelite" because the word "Jew" included all from both the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

The Jews were the only visible entity that remained of Israel (with a few exceptions). We are part of the Israel of God. God knows where every speck of sand is. He also knows they that are His own. He sees in the Spirit...not according to the flesh. Paul was speaking as a man who was observing the entrance of the nations into the Israel of God. The VISIBLE nations. But we who are in Christ are NO LONGER of the nations...but of Christ...and the Israel of God to be made manifest soon enough.

[episkopos]

It's not like no one from the northern tribes (Israel) was around in the first century. For example Anna (Luke 2:36) was from the tribe of Asher, colloqually she would have been classified as a "Jew."

Or an Israelite. The fact that Anna is recorded as being of Asher shows the distinction being made. The bible does not say she was a Jewess.

[keck553]

The Jews were the only visible entity that remained of Israel. We are part of the Israel of God. God knows where every speck of sand is. He sees in the Spirit...not according to the flesh. Paul was speaking as a man who was observing the entrance of the nations into the Israel of God. The VISIBLE nations. But we who are in Christ are NO LONGER of the nations...but of Christ...and the Israel of God to be made manifest soon enough.

Are you am ethnic Hebrew?