Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 70

Thread: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

  1. #1

    New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?


    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,352
    Blog Entries
    31

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?

    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?
    As you may already know, the phrase "New Covenant" comes from Jeremiah 31, where the Lord indicates that he will make a "New Covenant" with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, unlike the one they broke. From this passage we understand that God is making this new covenant with the House of Israel and the house of Judah and if this passage was all we had, we would have no basis to conclude that this New Covenant applied to anyone other than these two houses. In fact, if one were interested in becoming a beneficiary of that covenant, one would need to enter one of these two houses.

    Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that.
    Agreed, the New Covenant was not given to Christians. Rather, the New Covenant is between Yahweh and the house of Israel and the house of Judah. But according to the apostle Paul, God has grafted Gentiles onto that covenant as well. According to that metaphor, the houses of Judah and Israel are the natural branches, seeing that the covenant was made with them. Gentiles are like branches that came from another tree that were grafted onto this tree. The covenant wasn't given to Gentiles; but they are the beneficiaries of the covenant nonetheless because God has grafted them in.

    Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant?
    The New Covenant was established the day Jesus was crucified. According to the word of Jesus, his body and blood became the basis for the New Covenant. And the formal sign of God's consent was the resurrection of Jesus. The New Covenant became officially valid the day Christ was raised to life. And any individual who believes the gospel, and having believed is marked with the Holy Spirit of promise, will be saved.

    The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?
    Yes, although the New Covenant has been established and individual people have access to the benefits of that covenant; God has yet to formerly apply his covenant to the houses of Israel and Judah, i.e. a family covenant does not exist yet.

    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah.
    It's important, I think, to maintain the idea that the New Covenant will be made with the "house" of Israel and the "house" of Judah. The "house" of Israel are the family lines associated with the northern ten tribes that arose from Jacob. And the "house" of Judah are the family lines associated with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. And together they comprise all the family lines that came from Jacob.

    The New Covenant as specified in Jeremiah 31, anticipates a day in our future, I believe, when these families will all come to understand the depth and profundity of their sins and turn to the Lord for forgiveness and restoration. That day will be marked by a universal repentance, when all members of those families will repent.

    Jeremiah 31:
    34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

    In this context, to "know" someone is to be in covenant relationship with someone else. Jesus warned some of those who were casting out demons in his name that he might tell some of them, "I never knew you." and what he means is, "you and I were never joined together by covenant." In other words, "you never came to me in repentance seeking forgiveness." In the future, the entire family line of Jacob will come to the Lord in repentance seeking forgiveness and in this way they will all, individually, enter into covenant with the Lord.

    It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant.
    The promise of eternal life was actually given to Abraham and his descendants, but not only his physical descendants but all those who have the faith of Abraham, since God made Abraham the father of many peoples, not just one people. All peoples have access and can benefit from God's promise to Abraham if they believe God's word as Abraham did.

    The promise was eternal life yes?
    Yes.

  3. #3

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?


    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?
    Really great question, and you will get a variety of answers. My own answer is that the New Covenant is already in place. That's why the New Testament Scriptures are called the "New Testament!" Jesus toasted his resurrection at the Last Supper, and we've celebrated the Communion ever sense, remembering the fact he on the cross paid for all time for our sins.

    Therefore, we no longer have to seek redemption under the Law, which was temporal redemption at any rate. We only have to live by the law of Christ's own life, which presented holiness apart from the Law. He fulfilled the Law--something only he could do. Therefore, we don't have to fulfil the Law ourselves--something we could never do.

    The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 that the New Covenant would take effect for Israel is a *prophecy* of something that remains future. It is when the New Covenant will actually take effect for Israel as a nation, ie when Israel becomes a Christian nation. It is *not* when the New Covenant was first rolled out at the cross.

    We hear of the promises God made to Abraham. The New Covenant was the means of fulfilling those promises *permanently.* The Law only served those promises *temporarily.*

    The promises involved not just Israel but all nations who have adopted the faith of Abraham. Israel adopted Abraham's faith in the OT era of Law. But now that Christ has come the faith of Abraham is revealed in a better way--the same faith and yet a New Covenant that applies those promises permanently. As I said, the Covenant of Law could only fulfil those promises temporarily. The New Covenant of Christ fulfilled those promises eternally.

    Today, if you hope to participate in the promises God made to Abraham you would have to have the New Covenant presently in place. There is no longer any means of temporary participation through the Law of Moses. The system failed with Israel's final demise under that system. The only system in place today is the permanent system giving us the promises of Abraham, otherwise known as "eternal life."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Kalahari
    Posts
    4,909

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?


    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?
    For your consideration.

    1Co 11:25 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, "This cup is God's new covenant, sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me."

  5. #5

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by CadyandZoe View Post
    As you may already know, the phrase "New Covenant" comes from Jeremiah 31, where the Lord indicates that he will make a "New Covenant" with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, unlike the one they broke. From this passage we understand that God is making this new covenant with the House of Israel and the house of Judah and if this passage was all we had, we would have no basis to conclude that this New Covenant applied to anyone other than these two houses. In fact, if one were interested in becoming a beneficiary of that covenant, one would need to enter one of these two houses.

    Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that.
    Agreed, the New Covenant was not given to Christians. Rather, the New Covenant is between Yahweh and the house of Israel and the house of Judah. But according to the apostle Paul, God has grafted Gentiles onto that covenant as well. According to that metaphor, the houses of Judah and Israel are the natural branches, seeing that the covenant was made with them. Gentiles are like branches that came from another tree that were grafted onto this tree. The covenant wasn't given to Gentiles; but they are the beneficiaries of the covenant nonetheless because God has grafted them in.

    Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant?
    The New Covenant was established the day Jesus was crucified. According to the word of Jesus, his body and blood became the basis for the New Covenant. And the formal sign of God's consent was the resurrection of Jesus. The New Covenant became officially valid the day Christ was raised to life. And any individual who believes the gospel, and having believed is marked with the Holy Spirit of promise, will be saved.

    The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?
    Yes, although the New Covenant has been established and individual people have access to the benefits of that covenant; God has yet to formerly apply his covenant to the houses of Israel and Judah, i.e. a family covenant does not exist yet.

    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah.
    It's important, I think, to maintain the idea that the New Covenant will be made with the "house" of Israel and the "house" of Judah. The "house" of Israel are the family lines associated with the northern ten tribes that arose from Jacob. And the "house" of Judah are the family lines associated with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin. And together they comprise all the family lines that came from Jacob.

    The New Covenant as specified in Jeremiah 31, anticipates a day in our future, I believe, when these families will all come to understand the depth and profundity of their sins and turn to the Lord for forgiveness and restoration. That day will be marked by a universal repentance, when all members of those families will repent.

    Jeremiah 31:
    34 They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

    In this context, to "know" someone is to be in covenant relationship with someone else. Jesus warned some of those who were casting out demons in his name that he might tell some of them, "I never knew you." and what he means is, "you and I were never joined together by covenant." In other words, "you never came to me in repentance seeking forgiveness." In the future, the entire family line of Jacob will come to the Lord in repentance seeking forgiveness and in this way they will all, individually, enter into covenant with the Lord.

    It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant.
    The promise of eternal life was actually given to Abraham and his descendants, but not only his physical descendants but all those who have the faith of Abraham, since God made Abraham the father of many peoples, not just one people. All peoples have access and can benefit from God's promise to Abraham if they believe God's word as Abraham did.

    The promise was eternal life yes?
    Yes.
    Thanks for your reply. Because of what you said it caused me to look up some things. The more I read the more I am trying to understanding just who is who and what is given in these New Covenants! Anyway I go to

    Matthew 26:26-28 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

    So to whom is this new testament (covenant) given that is mentioned here? Is this the same covenant you see being given to Israel and Judah? We really are not told what the new covenant will be with Israel and Judah or was that the covenant? Are we just assuming it will be the same as the new testament Christ gave?

  6. #6

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Really great question, and you will get a variety of answers. My own answer is that the New Covenant is already in place. That's why the New Testament Scriptures are called the "New Testament!" Jesus toasted his resurrection at the Last Supper, and we've celebrated the Communion ever sense, remembering the fact he on the cross paid for all time for our sins.

    Therefore, we no longer have to seek redemption under the Law, which was temporal redemption at any rate. We only have to live by the law of Christ's own life, which presented holiness apart from the Law. He fulfilled the Law--something only he could do. Therefore, we don't have to fulfil the Law ourselves--something we could never do.

    The prophecy in Jeremiah 31 that the New Covenant would take effect for Israel is a *prophecy* of something that remains future. It is when the New Covenant will actually take effect for Israel as a nation, ie when Israel becomes a Christian nation. It is *not* when the New Covenant was first rolled out at the cross.

    We hear of the promises God made to Abraham. The New Covenant was the means of fulfilling those promises *permanently.* The Law only served those promises *temporarily.*

    The promises involved not just Israel but all nations who have adopted the faith of Abraham. Israel adopted Abraham's faith in the OT era of Law. But now that Christ has come the faith of Abraham is revealed in a better way--the same faith and yet a New Covenant that applies those promises permanently. As I said, the Covenant of Law could only fulfil those promises temporarily. The New Covenant of Christ fulfilled those promises eternally.

    Today, if you hope to participate in the promises God made to Abraham you would have to have the New Covenant presently in place. There is no longer any means of temporary participation through the Law of Moses. The system failed with Israel's final demise under that system. The only system in place today is the permanent system giving us the promises of Abraham, otherwise known as "eternal life."
    Thanks for the reply, yes I understand what we were given in Christ. My thing is trying to understand the difference in the New Covenant. To me it was either given already or not to Israel and Judah. If it has not yet been given, then why do you think it will be the same covenant that Jesus gave?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalahari View Post
    For your consideration.

    1Co 11:25 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup and said, "This cup is God's new covenant, sealed with my blood. Whenever you drink it, do so in memory of me."
    I did think about that, thank you.

  7. #7

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    "By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [a surety] of a better covenant." Hebrews 7:22blb

    http://biblehub.com/text/hebrews/7-22.htm

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,148

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?


    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?
    The difficulty that Christians encounter in the matter of the Covenants is that they believe one of three things.
    1. The first is that because Israel rejected their Messiah, God is finished with Israel, and has raised up the Church made of individual Jews and individual Gentiles. In believing this, they annul the prophets of old, and must ignore Romans Chapters 9-11.
    2. The second is that the Church is an extension of Israel. This comes from the belief in the prophets of old that the Olive Tree of Romans somehow allows the Church and Israel to be one
    3. The third is that our Lord Jesus took the Kingdom away from Israel (Matt.21:43) and set it up with the Church so that the Church may now rule. The way around this is to allegorize nearly the whole Bible and make the prophets of old mean the Church. The Roman Catholic Church, which forbade the reading and studying of the Bible for 1,000 years, is the champion of this doctrine and thus Israel has no place in God's plan. Thus, all the Covenants fall to the Church and the Church can rule the earth through the Pope.

    But the Bible, if taken without adding or subtracting, and without men's thoughts, teaches that God is dealing with THREE INDIVIDUAL entities, (1) Israel, (2) the Church and (3) the Gentiles, and each has their time and "dispensation"*. This allows a literal understanding of the Prophets of old, and a literal understanding of the Church and it answers the questions about the Covenants. The intellect of a fallen man is at its best when all things are neatly in a line. The glory of God's intellect is that He can deal with multiple entities at the same time, each with with a different set of rules, without violating His righteousness. This glory of God is shown simply and effectively in the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard of Matthew Chapter 20. There, the Master of the Vineyard makes a Covenant with the first workers, and deals with the subsequent workers, not by Covenant but by grace - all without violating His righteousness.

    Now concerning the Covenants that God has made with men, we can start with a blanket statement. It is Romans 9:4;

    "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises."

    In this verse, plus others from the Old Testament, it is plainly stated that the Law is made with Israel alone, AND SO ARE THE COVENANTS. There is just ONE Covenant made outside of Israel. That is the Covenant of the Rainbow made with Noah, from whom came all men after the flood.

    The Covenants made with Israel are;
    1. The First Covenant that Israel received was that made by God with Abraham - the Covenant of Circumcision, in which God PROMISED to bring Abraham and his seed INTO the Land of Canaan.
    2. Then, 430 years later, after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and THREE Generations of Abraham's seed had NOT inherited this Land (Heb.11:13), God brought Israel over Jordan to occupy the Land of Canaan. But because Israel were (1) to be host the the Presence of God in their midst, (2) be God's testimony on earth, and (3) need God's blessing to do such an huge work for God, God gave them His Law. This Law ensured that Israel were righteous like their God, that Israel was ritually clean to host God's presence in their midst, and that Israel would not pollute the Land like their heathen predecessors. The Covenant of Law made with Israel ONLY is to ensure a nation FIT TO REMAIN IN, AND OCCUPY THE LAND.
    3. After this, various other Covenants were made like the Passover, Sabbath, Davidic etc. These are not the subject of discussion but they are included in Romans 9:4.

    Now, we all know the terrible fate of Israel. They broke this Law from the Golden Calf onward. And just short of 1,000 years after entering the Good Land they were cast out by God using Assyria and Babylon. No Israelites ever returned from the Assyrian captivity, and only 2½% of those carried off to Babylon ever returned. In AD 70 the Jews of that 2½% had their City and Temple destroyed and they were dispersed into the nations. But the prophets of old predicted multiple times that Israel would one day would be forgiven and restored ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT OF PROMISE (not Law). It will be then that Israel, mostly in resurrection (being the Israelites of 3,500 years), will be gathered back to their Land, including Abraham and all those Israelites who never entered and/or owned the Land of Canaan. BUT NOW A QUESTION ARISES!

    The question is then, WHAT IS TO STOP ISRAEL BEING THROWN OUT OF THEIR LAND AGAIN LIKE THE FIRST TIME? The answer is that God will make a New Covenant of Law with Israel - one with a better PREMISE. And this PREMISE is that THOSE SAME LAWS OF SINAI (for the Law will not pass till after the Millennial reign of Christ), ARE NOT WRITTEN ON STONE TABLETS, BUT ON THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE ISRAELITES. It is this Covenant that Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-10 speak. The Covenant, OR CONTRACT is NEW; BUT THE LAWS ARE THE SAME BECAUSE ISRAEL'S JOB IS THE SAME - own and occupy the Land of Canaan and be host to Jesus Christ, (1) Emmanuel, (2) Son of God, (3) very God, and (4) King of the Jews. Jesus will live in Jerusalem and Israel's duties have NOT changed. The New Covenant is to ensure that Israel are never cast out of their Land again.

    Lastly, every Covenant made between God and fallen men must be ratified by blood. Noah sacrificed, Abraham sacrificed and Moses sacrificed (Gen.8:20-22; Gen 15:7-10; Heb.9:18-22) to RATIFY their Covenants. And the New Covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 MUST ALSO BE RATIFIED IN BLOOD. Thus, the New Covenant of Law is RATIFIED IN CHRIST'S BLOOD. That does not mean that the New Covenant is in effect yet, for God said it would be made "in that day" when Israel (ten northern Tribes) and Judah (two southern Tribes) were UNIFIED again. This is still to come when Christ returns. "IN THAT DAY" (future) the Covenant will be INSTITUTED, BUT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RATIFIED BY CHRIST'S BLOOD.

    When our Lord Jesus took the cup at the last Passover before His death, the cup was a symbol of His blood for a number of things.
    • His blood is for the "sin" (singular - the Adamic nature of men) of the WORLD (Jn.1:29). This was to give God the legal right to resurrect all men one day (Jn.5:28; 1st Cor.15:22).
    • His blood was for the "sins" (plural - all offenses ever committed) of the WORLD (1st Jn.2:2). This gives God the legal right to extend mercy on whom He wishes, especially Israel (Isa.1:18; Lk.1:68-69, etc.)
    • His blood was for the curse that is upon the creature so that God has legal right to lift the curse on the creature (Rom.8:19-25). Thus, His blood "... speaks better things than that of Abel" (Heb.12:24). It was Abel's blood that called the a further curse on creation, and represents all the innocent blood ever shed into the ground (Lk.11:51). But Christ's blood, unlike Abel's blood that calls for vengeance, calls for the curse to be lifted as vengeance has been satisfied
    • HIS BLOOD IS TO RATIFY THE NEW COVENANT OF LAW MADE EXCLUSIVELY WITH RESTORED ISRAEL. The New Covenant of Law is not yet in force, BUT IS HAS ALREADY BEEN RATIFIED.

    Hope this helps a bit.

    * The word that the Bible uses "Dispensation" is "Oikonomia" in the Greek. It primarily means "Household Management", and we derive the word "Economy" from it. The "Economy" of a country is its "Household Management" and the government "DISPENSES" its goods according to its plan. Thus, the correct understanding of the word "DISPENSATION" in the Bible is hoe God dispenses His assets. God deals with each man, depending on his origin, according to a specific "household management" or "Dispensation". It is not primarily a period of time.

  9. #9

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    Thanks for the reply, yes I understand what we were given in Christ. My thing is trying to understand the difference in the New Covenant. To me it was either given already or not to Israel and Judah. If it has not yet been given, then why do you think it will be the same covenant that Jesus gave?
    As I said the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is the difference between temporalness and permanency. The Law was a form of *temporary redemption.* The New Covenant of Christ brought *eternal redemption.*

    The New Covenant was indeed given to Israel--Israel and Judah as separate kingdoms no longer existed when Jesus brought the New Covenant. So let's just say Jesus brought the New Covenant to Israel.

    So yes, Jesus came to first offer the New Covenant to Israel, even before it was sealed in his blood. But since Israel as a whole rejected that offer, which was expected, the offer went out to the whole world, though not excluding Israel either.

    The simple fact is the New Covenant came at Jesus' resurrection and is offered to the whole world, including Israel. Israel, as a nation, is not yet ready to accept the New Covenant. Prophecy appears to dictate that things must happen, with respect to continuing judgment, before a believing remnant will pave the way for national restoration.

    We already have a believing remnant in the modern state of Israel. But I think that national judgment must destroy unbelief in the heart of Israel before the nation is ready for spiritual reformation.

  10. #10

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    The difficulty that Christians encounter in the matter of the Covenants is that they believe one of three things.
    1. The first is that because Israel rejected their Messiah, God is finished with Israel, and has raised up the Church made of individual Jews and individual Gentiles. In believing this, they annul the prophets of old, and must ignore Romans Chapters 9-11.
    2. The second is that the Church is an extension of Israel. This comes from the belief in the prophets of old that the Olive Tree of Romans somehow allows the Church and Israel to be one
    3. The third is that our Lord Jesus took the Kingdom away from Israel (Matt.21:43) and set it up with the Church so that the Church may now rule. The way around this is to allegorize nearly the whole Bible and make the prophets of old mean the Church. The Roman Catholic Church, which forbade the reading and studying of the Bible for 1,000 years, is the champion of this doctrine and thus Israel has no place in God's plan. Thus, all the Covenants fall to the Church and the Church can rule the earth through the Pope.
    I don't agree with several of your points but you clearly present your views, allowing me to present mine by contrast.

    Here are 3 positions held by some in Christian history.
    1) National Israel has been discarded forever in favor of the Church, consisting of Christian minorities from all nations. (This denies, illegitimately, the idea of Christian *nations.*)
    2) The Church is the true Israel, inheriting the promises given to Israel in a spiritual way. (This denies, illegitimately, eternal promises made to national Israel.)
    3) Israel exists within the Church, which is a multi-nation entity. Although Israel only exists within the Church as a national remnant presently, in the future the entire nation will be converted to Christianity. (This is my position.)

    I've worded the list different from yours because my understanding is somewhat different from how you presented it. I suppose my view is closest to your #2, that the Church is an extension of Israel. It is more complicated than that, since Israel is defined a little differently in the New Testament. True Israel in the New Testament is changed to include only those regenerated spiritually by Christ, leaving the rest either lost or as yet unfulfilled. But "true Israel" in the New Testament is defined as *Christian Israel.*

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    Now concerning the Covenants that God has made with men, we can start with a blanket statement. It is Romans 9:4;

    "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises."

    In this verse, plus others from the Old Testament, it is plainly stated that the Law is made with Israel alone, AND SO ARE THE COVENANTS. There is just ONE Covenant made outside of Israel. That is the Covenant of the Rainbow made with Noah, from whom came all men after the flood.
    I agree that the Law was given to Israel alone, that the Old Covenant was made with Israel alone. But I don't agree that all the covenants have been made with Israel alone. Clearly, the New Covenant was made with the whole world. Jesus' death was for all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    The Covenants made with Israel are;
    1. The First Covenant that Israel received was that made by God with Abraham - the Covenant of Circumcision, in which God PROMISED to bring Abraham and his seed INTO the Land of Canaan.
    2. Then, 430 years later, after Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and THREE Generations of Abraham's seed had NOT inherited this Land (Heb.11:13), God brought Israel over Jordan to occupy the Land of Canaan. But because Israel were (1) to be host the the Presence of God in their midst, (2) be God's testimony on earth, and (3) need God's blessing to do such an huge work for God, God gave them His Law. This Law ensured that Israel were righteous like their God, that Israel was ritually clean to host God's presence in their midst, and that Israel would not pollute the Land like their heathen predecessors. The Covenant of Law made with Israel ONLY is to ensure a nation FIT TO REMAIN IN, AND OCCUPY THE LAND.
    3. After this, various other Covenants were made like the Passover, Sabbath, Davidic etc. These are not the subject of discussion but they are included in Romans 9:4.

    Now, we all know the terrible fate of Israel. They broke this Law from the Golden Calf onward. And just short of 1,000 years after entering the Good Land they were cast out by God using Assyria and Babylon. No Israelites ever returned from the Assyrian captivity
    I don't believe that's true. According to Ezekiel's prophecy of the Dry Bones Israel would be resurrected by a combination of the two kingdoms, north and south, into a single Kingdom. In at least partial fulfillment of that Israel was restored following the Babylonian Captivity as a single people, the Jews, who comprised not just those from Judah, but much more, those from all 12 tribes. Several tribal names are mentioned in the NT Scriptures, not the least of which was Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin. But there were other tribes mentioned as well.

    I must say that the emphasis in the Restoration of Israel, following the Babylonian Captivity, was on a record of the priests, in order to maintain purity of genealogical record, in order to properly observe the Law once again. This did not mean that other tribes did not participate in the restoration at that time or in later times.

    Indeed there are vague references to the participation of all Israel in the Persian Restoration. But from that time on tribal differentiation played a much lesser degree of importance, and may not have been mentioned much for that reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    ...and only 2½% of those carried off to Babylon ever returned. In AD 70 the Jews of that 2½% had their City and Temple destroyed and they were dispersed into the nations. But the prophets of old predicted multiple times that Israel would one day would be forgiven and restored ACCORDING TO THE COVENANT OF PROMISE (not Law). It will be then that Israel, mostly in resurrection (being the Israelites of 3,500 years), will be gathered back to their Land, including Abraham and all those Israelites who never entered and/or owned the Land of Canaan. BUT NOW A QUESTION ARISES!

    The question is then, WHAT IS TO STOP ISRAEL BEING THROWN OUT OF THEIR LAND AGAIN LIKE THE FIRST TIME? The answer is that God will make a New Covenant of Law with Israel - one with a better PREMISE. And this PREMISE is that THOSE SAME LAWS OF SINAI (for the Law will not pass till after the Millennial reign of Christ), ARE NOT WRITTEN ON STONE TABLETS, BUT ON THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE ISRAELITES.
    What the prophecy is saying is that only regenerate Jews will be included in the New Covenant, ie Christian Jews. And it isn't their Christianity that keeps them from being destroyed as a nation again. Rather, it is due to the fact two things happen. One, the wicked in Israel are once again judged and removed. And two, Satan is bound. These two things allow Israel to be reconstituted as a nation, spiritually, and to make their salvation finally stick.

    I don't know what you mean by saying "those same laws" will be written on their hearts? Are you suggesting that there will be a reinstatement of the laws of priesthood, temple worship, and sacrifices? That's not going to happen. Writing those laws on the heart in the NT era has to do with a different temple, priesthood, and sacrifice--all having to do with Christ. Christ's law is written on our hearts under terms of the New Covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    It is this Covenant that Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Hebrews 8:8-10 speak. The Covenant, OR CONTRACT is NEW; BUT THE LAWS ARE THE SAME BECAUSE ISRAEL'S JOB IS THE SAME - own and occupy the Land of Canaan and be host to Jesus Christ, (1) Emmanuel, (2) Son of God, (3) very God, and (4) King of the Jews. Jesus will live in Jerusalem and Israel's duties have NOT changed. The New Covenant is to ensure that Israel are never cast out of their Land again.
    I can only partly agree with you here. The same old Israel will be saved, albeit Christians only. However, it will not be under terms of the *old laws* of the Old Covenant of Law. No, Israel's final salvation will be the same New Covenant agreement that Christ established 2000 years ago, disbanding the terms of the Law and establishing a new eternal covenant based on his own righteousness alone.

    The New Covenant never was just for Israel and something to be applied only with Israel at the end of the age. On the contrary, the New Covenant was made after Christ's crucifixion with the whole world, including Israel. But it will only save Israel as a nation when they are judged and see a Christian remnant emerge. The result will be a reconstitution of the whole nation along Christian lines at Jesus' return.

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls
    Lastly, every Covenant made between God and fallen men must be ratified by blood. Noah sacrificed, Abraham sacrificed and Moses sacrificed (Gen.8:20-22; Gen 15:7-10; Heb.9:18-22) to RATIFY their Covenants. And the New Covenant predicted in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 MUST ALSO BE RATIFIED IN BLOOD. Thus, the New Covenant of Law is RATIFIED IN CHRIST'S BLOOD. That does not mean that the New Covenant is in effect yet, for God said it would be made "in that day" when Israel (ten northern Tribes) and Judah (two southern Tribes) were UNIFIED again. This is still to come when Christ returns. "IN THAT DAY" (future) the Covenant will be INSTITUTED, BUT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN RATIFIED BY CHRIST'S BLOOD.
    There is no ratification of Mosaic Law under the New Covenant of Christ!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by kyCyd View Post
    I get confused with the terms some use on the forum. Some refer to a new covenant as being already given to Christians and I don't see that. Some say the new covenant replaces the old... but if the covenant has not been given yet then how does it replace the old covenant? The new covenant won't replace the old until it is given to Israel and Judah yes?


    It is my understanding that the new covenant will be, when it happens, with Israel and Judah. Am I understanding this wrong? It is also my understanding, that what Christians were given was a promise not a covenant. Is my understanding wrong? The promise was eternal life yes?


    Has the new covenant actually been given yet? If not, then doesn't the old covenant still apply?
    Others have rightly answered some of your questions. I will address the subject of the new covenant replacing the old covenant.

    When God makes a covenant and says it is forever, that means it is forever. It does not expire or get replaced. Ever! God started out making a covenant with Noah.
    Then He made a covenant withAbraham. Then He made a covenant with Isaac. Then Jacob. Then Moses. Then Levi. Then David. Etc. None of these covenants are ever replaced or superseded. They are simply additional covenants God made to His people. The new covenant in Jesus' blood does not replace any of the former covenants. God is the ultimate multitasker. To think He can only have one promise at a time is silly, imo. Further, to accuse God of nullifying a covenant that He specifically said was forever, is to accuse God of lying, or at least unrighteousness. If God does not honor His eternal covenants, why would we ever believe Jesus would honor His word and save us? You see the slippery slop of not trusting God here I hope. When God said forever, He meant forever.

  12. #12

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    Others have rightly answered some of your questions. I will address the subject of the new covenant replacing the old covenant.

    When God makes a covenant and says it is forever, that means it is forever. It does not expire or get replaced. Ever! God started out making a covenant with Noah.
    Then He made a covenant withAbraham. Then He made a covenant with Isaac. Then Jacob. Then Moses. Then Levi. Then David. Etc. None of these covenants are ever replaced or superseded. They are simply additional covenants God made to His people. The new covenant in Jesus' blood does not replace any of the former covenants. God is the ultimate multitasker. To think He can only have one promise at a time is silly, imo. Further, to accuse God of nullifying a covenant that He specifically said was forever, is to accuse God of lying, or at least unrighteousness. If God does not honor His eternal covenants, why would we ever believe Jesus would honor His word and save us? You see the slippery slop of not trusting God here I hope. When God said forever, He meant forever.
    Well, you're wrong because the *new* testament by definition supersedes an *old* covenant! It has nothing to do with God's ability to multi-task! God has only one program in place--the program of salvation. The Old Covenant of Law was a tutor for Israel to prepare for that.

    God's word of honor is not at stake simply because He indicated the laws of Moses were given in perpetuity. "Forever" means perpetual, assuming value as long as conditions for its efficacy continue. But the value of the Law was lost when Israel forsook Christ. This was not an isolated incident, since Israel had forsaken God before, leading to the Babylonian Captivity.

    So the precedent for nullification of the Law was set during the Babylonian Captivity when the Prophets declared that Israel had been in effect "divorced" by God. Though a remarriage took place this was symbolic of the fact that the perpetuation of the Abrahamic Promises could continue not under a strictly ethnic structure, but more, under terms of actual compliance. And that would take place first by a Christian remnant, and then later, following judgment with the entire Jewish nation converting to Christianity.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,134

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Well, you're wrong because the *new* testament by definition supersedes an *old* covenant! It has nothing to do with God's ability to multi-task! God has only one program in place--the program of salvation. The Old Covenant of Law was a tutor for Israel to prepare for that.

    God's word of honor is not at stake simply because He indicated the laws of Moses were given in perpetuity. "Forever" means perpetual, assuming value as long as conditions for its efficacy continue. But the value of the Law was lost when Israel forsook Christ. This was not an isolated incident, since Israel had forsaken God before, leading to the Babylonian Captivity.

    So the precedent for nullification of the Law was set during the Babylonian Captivity when the Prophets declared that Israel had been in effect "divorced" by God. Though a remarriage took place this was symbolic of the fact that the perpetuation of the Abrahamic Promises could continue not under a strictly ethnic structure, but more, under terms of actual compliance. And that would take place first by a Christian remnant, and then later, following judgment with the entire Jewish nation converting to Christianity.
    You seem to be confusing "the law" of Moses with all of God's covenants. Forever means forever. Period. It is sad that you accuse God of such unrighteousness. Nowhere did Jesus say He dissolved any covenants. This sort of replacement theology is based on profoundly misunderstanding the scriptures.

  14. #14

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by Tony P View Post
    You seem to be confusing "the law" of Moses with all of God's covenants. Forever means forever. Period. It is sad that you accuse God of such unrighteousness. Nowhere did Jesus say He dissolved any covenants. This sort of replacement theology is based on profoundly misunderstanding the scriptures.
    I hate to make you mad, Tony, because you're such a *nice guy!* However, I'd like to pursue this a little further. I'm not of course suggesting that God is dishonest or fails to keep His word. His word is gold, obviously.

    So the question is, did God make the Covenant of Law a conditional covenant or not? Obviously, it was made to be a conditional covenant--conditioned on the obedience of Israel. It was *perpetual* only as long as Israel remained as a true partner in the agreement. That's what a contract is. It requires faithfulness on the part of *both parties* to the agreement. Israel, however, was unfaithful.

    And I've made the point before. This had nothing to do with imperfections in Israel, or with minor infractions committed against the Law. Obviously, the Law was given with the idea in mind that Israel would sin and need protection, or what I call "temporary redemption."

    No, I'm talking about breaking the agreement in bits, with one of the parties utterly failing to keep their end of the bargain. In this case, Israel, by committing national apostasy, completely failed to keep their part of the agreement.

    And so, the Law was given in perpetuity, as long as the contract was in effect. When the contract broke down, the Law was no longer in effect. It was a dead letter. Not only so, but the infrastructure of the Law God allowed to be completely ruined so that Israel *could not keep the Law at all!* Keeping the Law faithfully required temple, priesthood, and sacrifices. The temple was destroyed, making keeping the laws of the temple impossible.

    This was the 1st great divorce under the Law. God miraculously restored Israel during the Persian Restoration. The 2nd great divorce was in the time of Christ when Israel rejected their Savior. This resulted in the 2nd great divorce, as I said, and once again, nullified the Law. And the superstructure of the Law once again was destroyed so that Israel *could not* keep the Law of the temple.

    But this time God never intended the old superstructure to be rebuilt. Instead He instituted a brand new covenant that did not require the superstructure of the Law. This new covenant was not based on the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices. It had a completely different kind of these things that those things had merely symbolized. It was based on Christ alone.

    So God didn't fail to keep His word during the period of the Law. He kept His part of the agreement. He forgave Israel when they complied with the system of redemption He had instituted. But the whole nation of Israel had turned to idolatry, and were unfaithful to God. This rendered the agreement obsolete.

    So you ask, Did Jesus ever talk about dissolving any covenants? What he did was imply that the same kind of divorce that took place under the Babylonian Captivity was happening again. I don't see how you can get around it? Jesus said Israel's status as God's People and as God's Nation was being taken from them and given to others. He said their temple--symbol of the Covenant--was going to be destroyed within the very same generation that he spoke in.

    This is clearly a statement of dissolution of the Covenant of Law. How could Jesus say that Israel was once again going into an entire age of dispersion if this didn't imply a dissolution of the Law? The Law was meant to preserve Israel in her land, blessed and protected from enemies. If Jesus was judging Israel for their sins, and consigning them to foreign captivity that implies that they were once again guilty of national apostasy, and subject to divorce.

    Rom 4.13 It was not through the law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.14 For if those who depend on the law are heirs, faith means nothing and the promise is worthless,15 because the law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who have the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”
    Last edited by randyk; Nov 22nd 2017 at 04:12 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    4,148

    Re: New Covenant vs Old Covenant

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    I don't agree with several of your points but you clearly present your views, allowing me to present mine by contrast.

    Here are 3 positions held by some in Christian history.
    1) National Israel has been discarded forever in favor of the Church, consisting of Christian minorities from all nations. (This denies, illegitimately, the idea of Christian *nations.*)
    2) The Church is the true Israel, inheriting the promises given to Israel in a spiritual way. (This denies, illegitimately, eternal promises made to national Israel.)
    3) Israel exists within the Church, which is a multi-nation entity. Although Israel only exists within the Church as a national remnant presently, in the future the entire nation will be converted to Christianity. (This is my position.)

    I've worded the list different from yours because my understanding is somewhat different from how you presented it. I suppose my view is closest to your #2, that the Church is an extension of Israel. It is more complicated than that, since Israel is defined a little differently in the New Testament. True Israel in the New Testament is changed to include only those regenerated spiritually by Christ, leaving the rest either lost or as yet unfulfilled. But "true Israel" in the New Testament is defined as *Christian Israel.*



    I agree that the Law was given to Israel alone, that the Old Covenant was made with Israel alone. But I don't agree that all the covenants have been made with Israel alone. Clearly, the New Covenant was made with the whole world. Jesus' death was for all.



    I don't believe that's true. According to Ezekiel's prophecy of the Dry Bones Israel would be resurrected by a combination of the two kingdoms, north and south, into a single Kingdom. In at least partial fulfillment of that Israel was restored following the Babylonian Captivity as a single people, the Jews, who comprised not just those from Judah, but much more, those from all 12 tribes. Several tribal names are mentioned in the NT Scriptures, not the least of which was Paul, from the tribe of Benjamin. But there were other tribes mentioned as well.

    I must say that the emphasis in the Restoration of Israel, following the Babylonian Captivity, was on a record of the priests, in order to maintain purity of genealogical record, in order to properly observe the Law once again. This did not mean that other tribes did not participate in the restoration at that time or in later times.

    Indeed there are vague references to the participation of all Israel in the Persian Restoration. But from that time on tribal differentiation played a much lesser degree of importance, and may not have been mentioned much for that reason.



    What the prophecy is saying is that only regenerate Jews will be included in the New Covenant, ie Christian Jews. And it isn't their Christianity that keeps them from being destroyed as a nation again. Rather, it is due to the fact two things happen. One, the wicked in Israel are once again judged and removed. And two, Satan is bound. These two things allow Israel to be reconstituted as a nation, spiritually, and to make their salvation finally stick.

    I don't know what you mean by saying "those same laws" will be written on their hearts? Are you suggesting that there will be a reinstatement of the laws of priesthood, temple worship, and sacrifices? That's not going to happen. Writing those laws on the heart in the NT era has to do with a different temple, priesthood, and sacrifice--all having to do with Christ. Christ's law is written on our hearts under terms of the New Covenant.



    I can only partly agree with you here. The same old Israel will be saved, albeit Christians only. However, it will not be under terms of the *old laws* of the Old Covenant of Law. No, Israel's final salvation will be the same New Covenant agreement that Christ established 2000 years ago, disbanding the terms of the Law and establishing a new eternal covenant based on his own righteousness alone.

    The New Covenant never was just for Israel and something to be applied only with Israel at the end of the age. On the contrary, the New Covenant was made after Christ's crucifixion with the whole world, including Israel. But it will only save Israel as a nation when they are judged and see a Christian remnant emerge. The result will be a reconstitution of the whole nation along Christian lines at Jesus' return.



    There is no ratification of Mosaic Law under the New Covenant of Christ!
    I have read your comments through and noted them. As I lay falling asleep after my posting last night (European time), I ran through it in my mind to find fault with it. And surely, I feel that I left something important out. When I laid down the three majority beliefs in Christianity right at the beginning of the posting, (all three of which I do NOT subscribe), I failed to adequately give the results of such doctrines. The result is the same for each camp of belief - that is, the New Covenant is for the Church. The rest of my posting was an argument, supported by scriptures, why Israel received the Law of Moses, that they broke it, and why they receive the new Covenant of Law. In this argument there is NO PLACE for the Church. Not only is the plain wording of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 clear that this Covenant will be (future) made with united Israel, but our Lord Jesus Himself forbade Covenants for the Church.

    When God made His Covenants He SWORE with an OATH (Lk.1:73; Heb.6:13-18). The other party of any Covenant also SWEARS to keep it. Now, in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, although the Lord's words were heard by the multitude, the teachings were only for His disciples. The grammar of Matthew 5:1-2 is clear.

    1 "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
    2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying
    ,"


    The "them" according to the rules of grammar must be the disciples. And following this clear indication that the teachings of Jesus were ONLY for His followers, our Lord said in Matthew 5:33-37.

    33 "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
    34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
    35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
    36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
    37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."


    While Israel is given "the Covenants" and are commanded to keep their OATHS, the disciple of Jesus is FORBIDDEN to make OATHS. So, besides the prophecy of the new Covenant being made ONLY with united Israel, and besides the fact that there is NOT A SINGLE verse that says the Church has any part of this Covenant, THE MAKING OF A COVENANT BY A CHRISTIAN IS FORBIDDEN.

    I am aware that Christianity has centuries of doctrine that no-one is prepared to investigate, just like Christianity revels in heathen feasts like Christmas, Easter and Halloween - all KNOWN debauched feasts of the heathen. And just like Christianity holds onto their doctrine of going to heaven with all their might despite not a single verse that plainly says it, so also do the Christians hold fast to partaking of a Covenant that the Bible clearly says belongs ONLY to Israel. But this Forum is to discuss the Bible, not men's traditions, and the Bible says ...
    • plainly that the Covenants (plural) belong to Israel
    • plainly that the New Covenant is made ONLY with united Israel
    • plainly that it is a Covenant of LAW
    • plainly that the Christian is NOT to make Covenants

    If any residual doubt remains, then, to avoid a lengthy posting, answer my posting thus. If the New Covenant is made with Christians, what are the conditions that God must fulfill toward a Christian in this Covenant, and what are the conditions that the Christian must fulfill toward God in this Covenant WITH SCRIPTURES PLEASE? Please also include then (with scriptures) why the Christian must be in a Covenant of LAW.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Where is the Ark of the Covenant?
    By Trivalee in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: Jul 1st 2016, 02:39 PM
  2. The New Covenant
    By Kahtar in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: Jun 3rd 2013, 09:05 AM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: Jan 8th 2013, 05:51 PM
  4. New vs. Old Covenant
    By embankmentlb in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Mar 11th 2009, 08:08 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •