New Covenant vs Old Covenant

[Trivalee]

Saying the covenant is like a contract is like saying marriage is like a contract. The point is lost. Marriage is primarily a relationship. That's the main point.

You confuse me, Cady. I just read somewhere, your beautiful explanation of the interplay between a covenant and a contract, or was it written by someone else, not sure anymore? Anyhow, as far as the English language is concerned, I don't know how a covenant is any different from a contract in general terms? Marriage is a relationship (as it was between God and Abraham, the church and Jesus, etc).

Technically, when the terms of the relationship/contract in a marriage is broken by one or the two parties, divorce often follows. The same applies to believers. When a believer rejects God and becomes apostate, God, in turn, rejects him. When ancient Israel broke the terms of her contract, God divorced her (Jer 3:8). I could go on and on but this should suffice.

[randyk]

You confuse me, Cady. I just read somewhere, your beautiful explanation of the interplay between a covenant and a contract, or was it written by someone else, not sure anymore? Anyhow, as far as the English language is concerned, I don't know how a covenant is any different from a contract in general terms? Marriage is a relationship (as it was between God and Abraham, the church and Jesus, etc).

Technically, when the terms of the relationship/contract in a marriage is broken by one or the two parties, divorce often follows. The same applies to believers. When a believer rejects God and becomes apostate, God, in turn, rejects him. When ancient Israel broke the terms of her contract, God divorced her (Jer 3:8). I could go on and on but this should suffice.

Not only is that absolutely the truth, but I don't think you can fully understand the Scriptures unless you know this. This is a major picture of what is happening between God and Israel through the Bible.

1) God makes an eternal covenant with Abraham. This is a promise, an eternal promise that cannot be broken. It is unconditional.
2) God puts in place with Israel a temporary contract of Law, in order to keep the nation united under a single monotheistic system.
3) The contract of Law is repeatedly broken due to the fact the whole nation is never faithful. The trend is away from uniform compliance in the nation, with a relative few ultimately continuing to be faithful.
4) The contract of Law perseveres until Christ comes to initiate a new covenant, not based on the contract of Law. It is the fulfillment of the eternal covenant made with Abraham, and is made with the faithful few who continue to be faithful to God. The plan is to rebuild the nation of Israel around the Christian faith contained by this Israeli remnant, and gather other nations to the same Christian faith in a similar way.

Thanks for your perspective in this matter, which I completely agree with!

[jesusinmylife]

If you think "walk before me and be thou perfect (righteous) is simple and easy, then ask Adam and Eve.

Who said it was easy? It's actually impossible. That's why He declares us righteous, APART, from our works, so NONE of us can boast.

Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; [B]Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

And that includes circumcision. Or are you implying we still need to be circumcised?

[Trivalee]

And that includes circumcision. Or are you implying we still need to be circumcised?

No brother, that's not what I meant. Circumcision only endured until the Old Covenant was abrogated. It has no place in the new. Christians who do it now, simply do it for aesthetic reasons.

[Trivalee]

Not only is that absolutely the truth, but I don't think you can fully understand the Scriptures unless you know this. This is a major picture of what is happening between God and Israel through the Bible.

1) God makes an eternal covenant with Abraham. This is a promise, an eternal promise that cannot be broken. It is unconditional.
2) God puts in place with Israel a temporary contract of Law, in order to keep the nation united under a single monotheistic system.
3) The contract of Law is repeatedly broken due to the fact the whole nation is never faithful. The trend is away from uniform compliance in the nation, with a relative few ultimately continuing to be faithful.
4) The contract of Law perseveres until Christ comes to initiate a new covenant, not based on the contract of Law. It is the fulfillment of the eternal covenant made with Abraham, and is made with the faithful few who continue to be faithful to God. The plan is to rebuild the nation of Israel around the Christian faith contained by this Israeli remnant, and gather other nations to the same Christian faith in a similar way.

Thanks for your perspective in this matter, which I completely agree with!

And thanks for even explaining it better. You've given me some bits I'll use to update my Blog on the subject, hope you don't mind?

[CadyandZoe]

You confuse me, Cady. I just read somewhere, your beautiful explanation of the interplay between a covenant and a contract, or was it written by someone else, not sure anymore? Anyhow, as far as the English language is concerned, I don't know how a covenant is any different from a contract in general terms? Marriage is a relationship (as it was between God and Abraham, the church and Jesus, etc).

Technically, when the terms of the relationship/contract in a marriage is broken by one or the two parties, divorce often follows. The same applies to believers. When a believer rejects God and becomes apostate, God, in turn, rejects him. When ancient Israel broke the terms of her contract, God divorced her (Jer 3:8). I could go on and on but this should suffice.

I was reacting to Walls comparison between the Covenant and a contract with a dealership to buy a car. And I was also reacting with the suggestion that the Old Covenant was the Ten Commandments. Neither of these ideas forms a complete picture. The Covenant at Mt. Sinai is not simply an agreement to obey the Ten Commandments. It also involves a commitment by both parties to each other similar to a marriage as you say.

Where have I confused you?

[Jesuslovesus]

I want to say this thread is Awesome(similar to a question I asked in another thread) I want to thank everyone for there comments and KYC for asking such a good question. I want to say from what I've seen and understood during my personal studies my current position is closely aligned to those expressed by Walls & Cady who did a far better Job of Expressing my Views then i Could and taught me some very interesting things in their Posts.

I personally believe Randy is offering the New Covenant to those who were never a part of the Old Covenant namely (Gentiles). In this Case i would Suggest rereading Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

The way i undestand this Passage (Correct me if you see it different) Is that if there is No First Covenant there is NO NEED for Second. Seeing as How Gentiles Where NEVER under the First Covenant, Why do they need the Second one??

Yet I personally have not seen Randy produce one scripture that says the New Covenant is promised to the Church while all passages quoted EXPLICITLY Promise the New Covenant to Israel and Judah (See Jer 31:31, Hebrew 8:8 & Hebrews 10:16).

The Fact is if we accept the position outlined by Randy-

1. That the New Covenant is to/for the Church(including those Jews who join the Church).

2. The New Covenant is now in Effect.

We must ask ourselves is what is said concerning the New Covenant a current reality for the Church? Any Church?

Namely do you believe that all who believe in Jesus fit into this mold after being saved?

Jeemiah 31:33 I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

So once more if we ignore the Explicitly stated mention of the House of Israel.

All we need to do is Ask is there ANY CHURCH in the World Where: They shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Point me to a Church that does not teach for ALL of them Know the Lord??

[Jesuslovesus]

You confuse me, Cady. I just read somewhere, your beautiful explanation of the interplay between a covenant and a contract, or was it written by someone else, not sure anymore? Anyhow, as far as the English language is concerned, I don't know how a covenant is any different from a contract in general terms? Marriage is a relationship (as it was between God and Abraham, the church and Jesus, etc).

Technically, when the terms of the relationship/contract in a marriage is broken by one or the two parties, divorce often follows. The same applies to believers. When a believer rejects God and becomes apostate, God, in turn, rejects him. When ancient Israel broke the terms of her contract, God divorced her (Jer 3:8). I could go on and on but this should suffice.

I think Cady was just saying that the Word Contract doesn't express the Relationship part of the Covenant, Just like a Marriage can be considered a "contract" but there is also a huge Relationship component to it that makes it More than just a list of obligations.

[randyk]

And thanks for even explaining it better. You've given me some bits I'll use to update my Blog on the subject, hope you don't mind?

I was just agreeing with you. Clearly, a covenant is a contract. The covenant God made with Abraham was an unconditional agreement, and so, an unusual contract that did not depend on Israel keeping their part of the agreement. God would find men who would in fact keep their part of the agreement.

[randyk]

I want to say this thread is Awesome(similar to a question I asked in another thread) I want to thank everyone for there comments and KYC for asking such a good question. I want to say from what I've seen and understood during my personal studies my current position is closely aligned to those expressed by Walls & Cady who did a far better Job of Expressing my Views then i Could and taught me some very interesting things in their Posts.

I personally believe Randy is offering the New Covenant to those who were never a part of the Old Covenant namely (Gentiles). In this Case i would Suggest rereading Hebrews 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

The way i undestand this Passage (Correct me if you see it different) Is that if there is No First Covenant there is NO NEED for Second. Seeing as How Gentiles Where NEVER under the First Covenant, Why do they need the Second one??

Yet I personally have not seen Randy produce one scripture that says the New Covenant is promised to the Church while all passages quoted EXPLICITLY Promise the New Covenant to Israel and Judah (See Jer 31:31, Hebrew 8:8 & Hebrews 10:16).

The Fact is if we accept the position outlined by Randy-

1. That the New Covenant is to/for the Church(including those Jews who join the Church).

2. The New Covenant is now in Effect.

We must ask ourselves is what is said concerning the New Covenant a current reality for the Church? Any Church?

Namely do you believe that all who believe in Jesus fit into this mold after being saved?

Jeemiah 31:33 I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.”

So once more if we ignore the Explicitly stated mention of the House of Israel.

All we need to do is Ask is there ANY CHURCH in the World Where: They shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Point me to a Church that does not teach for ALL of them Know the Lord??

JLU, I need to explain what I do believe to figure out where you stand with respect to my position. I believe the New Covenant, as explained in Jer 31, refers not to when that Covenant was first initiated, but rather, when it will initiate a transformation of the nation Israel into a Christian nation. That hasn't happened yet, and so Jer 31.31 has not yet been completely fulfilled.

And yet Jesus did initiate the New Covenant at his first coming. He symbolically represented this at his Last Supper when he initiated the Communion ceremony, designed to show how the New Covenant is initiated in his death and new life, given for many.

The Covenant God made with Abraham was designed to initiate the nation of Israel first, and then a company of nations that join together with Israel in a single faith, the faith of Abraham.

The Contract of Law, initiated by Moses, was "faulty," as you indicated, because it could not entirely remove sin from Israel. That is obvious because Israel continued to sin all the way through their history, and was at their worst when they crucified Christ.

And so, the Contract of Law was "faulty," and required another Covenant, the Covenant of Christ. This one separates the "sheep from the goats," selecting out Israelites who are willing to put their faith in Christ. The rest of the nation are to be cast off, and the new nation will be created out of a Christian remnant at the end of the age. And so, Jer 31.31 is fulfilled at the end of the age, when Christ returns.

As to whether Christ's New Covenant was for Israel or for the Church I must agree that Christ at least started out giving it only to the faithful Israeli remnant that believed in him. But at the end of his earthly ministry Jesus instructed his disciples to carry his gospel to all the earth, to all nations.

So yes, the New Covenant of Christ was given to the whole Church, and not just to Israel. The history of redemption began with Israel as a prototype, but was meant to expand outwards to encompass all nations. But Israel still has to be included in those nations who obtain Christian redemption, since at this point only a small remnant has accepted Christ.

[CadyandZoe]

JLU, I need to explain what I do believe to figure out where you stand with respect to my position. I believe the New Covenant, as explained in Jer 31, refers not to when that Covenant was first initiated, but rather, when it will initiate a transformation of the nation Israel into a Christian nation. That hasn't happened yet, and so Jer 31.31 has not yet been completely fulfilled.

And yet Jesus did initiate the New Covenant at his first coming. He symbolically represented this at his Last Supper when he initiated the Communion ceremony, designed to show how the New Covenant is initiated in his death and new life, given for many.

The Covenant God made with Abraham was designed to initiate the nation of Israel first, and then a company of nations that join together with Israel in a single faith, the faith of Abraham.

The Contract of Law, initiated by Moses, was "faulty," as you indicated, because it could not entirely remove sin from Israel. That is obvious because Israel continued to sin all the way through their history, and was at their worst when they crucified Christ.

And so, the Contract of Law was "faulty," and required another Covenant, the Covenant of Christ. This one separates the "sheep from the goats," selecting out Israelites who are willing to put their faith in Christ. The rest of the nation are to be cast off, and the new nation will be created out of a Christian remnant at the end of the age. And so, Jer 31.31 is fulfilled at the end of the age, when Christ returns.

As to whether Christ's New Covenant was for Israel or for the Church I must agree that Christ at least started out giving it only to the faithful Israeli remnant that believe in him. But at the end of his earthly ministry Jesus instructed his disciples to carry his gospel to all the earth, to all nations.

So yes, the New Covenant of Christ was given to the whole Church, and not just to Israel. The history of redemption began with Israel as a prototype, but was meant to expand outwards to encompass all nations. But Israel still has to be included in those nations who obtain Christian redemption, since at this point only a small remnant has accepted Christ.

You and I see this differently. You see the fault in the Law but Paul says the fault wasn't in the law, it was in the people. (Romans 7:7)

[Walls]

JLU, I need to explain what I do believe to figure out where you stand with respect to my position. I believe the New Covenant, as explained in Jer 31, refers not to when that Covenant was first initiated, but rather, when it will initiate a transformation of the nation Israel into a Christian nation. That hasn't happened yet, and so Jer 31.31 has not yet been completely fulfilled.

And yet Jesus did initiate the New Covenant at his first coming. He symbolically represented this at his Last Supper when he initiated the Communion ceremony, designed to show how the New Covenant is initiated in his death and new life, given for many.

The Covenant God made with Abraham was designed to initiate the nation of Israel first, and then a company of nations that join together with Israel in a single faith, the faith of Abraham.

The Contract of Law, initiated by Moses, was "faulty," as you indicated, because it could not entirely remove sin from Israel. That is obvious because Israel continued to sin all the way through their history, and was at their worst when they crucified Christ.

And so, the Contract of Law was "faulty," and required another Covenant, the Covenant of Christ. This one separates the "sheep from the goats," selecting out Israelites who are willing to put their faith in Christ. The rest of the nation are to be cast off, and the new nation will be created out of a Christian remnant at the end of the age. And so, Jer 31.31 is fulfilled at the end of the age, when Christ returns.

As to whether Christ's New Covenant was for Israel or for the Church I must agree that Christ at least started out giving it only to the faithful Israeli remnant that believe in him. But at the end of his earthly ministry Jesus instructed his disciples to carry his gospel to all the earth, to all nations.

So yes, the New Covenant of Christ was given to the whole Church, and not just to Israel. The history of redemption began with Israel as a prototype, but was meant to expand outwards to encompass all nations. But Israel still has to be included in those nations who obtain Christian redemption, since at this point only a small remnant has accepted Christ.

While I appreciate the freedom to post one's beliefs, we actually are here to discuss the Bible. And amid your posting I find not a single verse to support your theory. The only verse you allude to is Jeremiah 31:31, but this verse pointedly says that the new Covenant is made with united Israel.

Then, you believe that Israel will become a Christian nation. But on what basis? They refuse the Messiah. The greater portion of Israelites refused the Law and are scattered among the nations and have died in unrevoked chastisement and unrepentant UNBELIEF. How can any man become a Christian when, till his dying day, he refuses Jesus Christ?

Next, you say that our Lord Jesus has "initiated" the New Covenant. But at the same time you maintain that it must wait for the end of the age. Then again you maintain that the New Covenant is for the Church which has been in existence since the resurrection day of our Lord Jesus when He breathed the Holy Spirit into His disciples. See the difficulties?

Next, you maintain the New Covenant is for the Church. But the New Covenant is a Contract of God's LAWS (Jer.31:33). A large portion of the New Testament denies and forbids the LAW for the Church, starting with the Apostles themselves (Acts 15).

Next you call the New Covenant of Law "the Covenant of Christ". But it is in both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 a Covenant of Law FROM Jehovah - the Father. It is only RATIFIED in Christ's blood, but the Contract is between Jehovah and His earthly people Israel.

Next, you say that "the Contract of Law was faulty". But Hebrews 8:8 say that He "found fault with THEM (Israel)", and in Romans 7:7-14 it is categorically stated that;

• "Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, ... ." (v.7)
• "the commandment, which was ordained to life, ... ." (V.10)
• "the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (v.12)
• "(the Law), "... is good ... ." (v.13)
• "the law is spiritual: ... ." (v.14)

Only in Romans 8:3 does the Holy Spirit show any "weakness" in the Law, but the blame is again on the FLESH of man. It reads, "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." Note that it not the Law that is "condemned", but the FLESH. It is neither the Law nor the Contract of Law that is faulty, but men in the flesh who could not keep them. Israel broke a perfectly good Contract that they had agreed to with one voice. Exodus 24:7 tells us,

"And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient."

[kyCyd]

Not only is that absolutely the truth, but I don't think you can fully understand the Scriptures unless you know this. This is a major picture of what is happening between God and Israel through the Bible.

1) God makes an eternal covenant with Abraham. This is a promise, an eternal promise that cannot be broken. It is unconditional.

Genesis 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
This is conditional.... these are the nations that still circumcise today
https://photius.com/rankings/circumc...try_ranks.html

2) God puts in place with Israel a temporary contract of Law, in order to keep the nation united under a single monotheistic system.

Where does God say it is temporary? Scriptures

Psalms 105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:

This to me sounds like the law is more everlasting.

3) The contract of Law is repeatedly broken due to the fact the whole nation is never faithful. The trend is away from uniform compliance in the nation, with a relative few ultimately continuing to be faithful.

What did that covenant actually provide? Lev 26 God left an open door to this.

4) The contract of Law perseveres until Christ comes to initiate a new covenant, not based on the contract of Law. It is the fulfillment of the eternal covenant made with Abraham, and is made with the faithful few who continue to be faithful to God. The plan is to rebuild the nation of Israel around the Christian faith contained by this Israeli remnant, and gather other nations to the same Christian faith in a similar way.

Where in scripture does it say anything that you mention here? Nowhere

The covenants have to do with land and nations except for the first covenant of the bow in the heavens. Show me where God changed his mind on any of them or where one covenant replaces the other? Nowhere does it say God is changing the law. We don't know what the new covenant will be with Israel and Judah, it has yet to be given to them.

[kyCyd]

You and I see this differently. You see the fault in the Law but Paul says the fault wasn't in the law, it was in the people. (Romans 7:7)

I agree, the law was not faulty, God doesn't make faulty covenants.

[Jesuslovesus]

You and I see this differently. You see the fault in the Law but Paul says the fault wasn't in the law, it was in the people. (Romans 7:7)

Correct. Once more Hebrews 8:8 NIV might be Clearer. But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.

It didn't say God found fault with the Covenant but with his people.