PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Covenants - Promises And Benefits



Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 07:51 AM
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 03:11 PM
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Are the promises and benefits of these covenants the same?

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 10th 2008, 03:15 PM
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits
I think that these are "instances" or "renewals" of one single covenant whose purpose is to solve the sin problem, and rescue all creation from sin and death.

......except for the "Thanks" and the "FirstFruits" covenants - I could not find them in my Bible......:D

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 03:31 PM
I think that these are "instances" or "renewals" of one single covenant whose purpose is to solve the sin problem, and rescue all creation from sin and death.

......except for the "Thanks" and the "FirstFruits" covenants - I could not find them in my Bible......:D

Thanks Drew,

Are the promises and benifits the same for all the covenants?

Firstfruits

RoadWarrior
Sep 10th 2008, 03:37 PM
Perhaps it would be useful to spell out what the covenants were... post some scriptures on each one. Can we say which one is different unless we understand what each one is?

For example, the word covenant in the Bible first appears here:



Ge 6:17-18
17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee.
KJV

We must read ahead to see what the covenant with Noah is:



Ge 8:20-22
20 Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart,

"I will never again curse the ground for man's sake, although the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.
22 "While the earth remains,
Seedtime and harvest,
Cold and heat,
Winter and summer,
And day and night
Shall not cease."
NKJV




Ge 9:8-17
8 And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying,
9 And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you;
10 And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth.
11 And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
12 And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:
13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.
14 And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:
15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.
16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth.


Covenant is:



OT:1285 beriyth (ber-eeth'); from OT:1262 (in the sense of cutting [like OT:1254]); a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh): -confederacy, [con-] feder [-ate], covenant, league.

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

drew
Sep 10th 2008, 03:39 PM
Thanks Drew,

Are the promises and benifits the same for all the covenants?

Firstfruits
My "knee-jerk" answer to this question is "yes".

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 03:41 PM
Perhaps it would be useful to spell out what the covenants were... post some scriptures on each one. Can we say which one is different unless we understand what each one is?

For example, the word covenant in the Bible first appears here:


We must read ahead to see what the covenant with Noah is:





Covenant is:

Thanks RoadWarrior,

There is method in my madness, your points are noted.

God bless you

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 03:45 PM
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits

The odd one out is the Mosaic Covenant - because ALL the other covenants are covenants OF GRACE and their fulfillment rests upon the faithfulness of God alone, whereas the Mosaic Covenant promises rested equally upon the faithfulness and obedience to the Law of the chsoen nation.

Also, the Davidic and New Covenant promises ARE BASED ON the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, and confirm them - there is an unbroken and unbreakable golden chain which links the Abrahamic Covenant to the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant.

ananias

RoadWarrior
Sep 10th 2008, 03:51 PM
God covenants with Abraham to give him the land.



Ge 15:18
18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
KJV



To make him a father of many nations, as well as giving him the land.



Ge 17:1-11
17 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
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.
11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
KJV



Did you notice that the sign of the covenant with Noah, is the rainbow?
And the sign of the covenant with Abraham and his descendants is circumcision?

Did you notice whether any action was required of the recipients of the covenant?

Did you notice a tangible change for Abram that would be evident to others?

Bible study is best done by asking questions of the text, who, what, where, when, why.

Who establishes the covenant?
Who is the 2nd party of the covenant?
What are the promises in the covenant?
What are the responsibilites of party A? of party B?
Where will this covenant take place? (land?)
When will this happen, how long will it last?
Why did this happen? Notice the context of the covenant.

Enoch365
Sep 10th 2008, 03:57 PM
According to the long and living Ethiopian Tradition, there are Seven Covenants,
as enshrined in the Scriptures, that God made with humanity ever since Creation.

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

The Covenants, as described above and each symbolized by real signs, are
personified by humble individuals who pleased God with their true love for Him. These
persons became unique and parties of their respective Covenants with God following
their singular triumphs over great trials of various physical and spiritual dimensions.
And these trials were meant to test the truthfulness of their love for God before each one
of them actually won His favor to be chosen as a representative party for the specific
Divine Covenant.

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 04:34 PM
The odd one out is the Mosaic Covenant - because ALL the other covenants are covenants OF GRACE and their fulfillment rests upon the faithfulness of God alone, whereas the Mosaic Covenant promises rested equally upon the faithfulness and obedience to the Law of the chsoen nation.

Also, the Davidic and New Covenant promises ARE BASED ON the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant, and confirm them - there is an unbroken and unbreakable golden chain which links the Abrahamic Covenant to the Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant.

ananias

Thanks Ananias,

That deals with the promises, but what about the benefits of the covenants regarding the promises? If the Mosaic covenant is not the same as the others how do the benefits differ?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 04:39 PM
According to the long and living Ethiopian Tradition, there are Seven Covenants,
as enshrined in the Scriptures, that God made with humanity ever since Creation.

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

The Covenants, as described above and each symbolized by real signs, are
personified by humble individuals who pleased God with their true love for Him. These
persons became unique and parties of their respective Covenants with God following
their singular triumphs over great trials of various physical and spiritual dimensions.
And these trials were meant to test the truthfulness of their love for God before each one
of them actually won His favor to be chosen as a representative party for the specific
Divine Covenant.

Thanks Enoch,

With regards regards to the last four;

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,

Are the promises and the benefits and therefore the outcome the same?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 04:45 PM
God covenants with Abraham to give him the land.



To make him a father of many nations, as well as giving him the land.



Did you notice that the sign of the covenant with Noah, is the rainbow?
And the sign of the covenant with Abraham and his descendants is circumcision?

Did you notice whether any action was required of the recipients of the covenant?

Did you notice a tangible change for Abram that would be evident to others?

Bible study is best done by asking questions of the text, who, what, where, when, why.

Who establishes the covenant?
Who is the 2nd party of the covenant?
What are the promises in the covenant?
What are the responsibilites of party A? of party B?
Where will this covenant take place? (land?)
When will this happen, how long will it last?
Why did this happen? Notice the context of the covenant.

When we understand what the promises are and the benefits that go with those promises then we will see either how they are either the same or that they are not the same. We know that in each it is God that established all the covenants but they were not all applied the same.

As we go further into the word we will hopefuly understand more.

God bless

Firstfruits

Richard H
Sep 10th 2008, 05:46 PM
Being late to respond, I see that RoadWarrior has already touched upon the contractual aspect of a covenant.

But I’ll toss this into the mix anyway.

---
To answer your question: The "odd one out" is the Mosaic Covenant.

However - think before you toss out the commandments with it.

Were the Ten Commandments a covenant? Or simply laws handed down by God?

A covenant is a two-way street. It is a promise on the part of both parties to fulfill certain obligations.
Like a legal contract it usually specifies benefits for adherence and penalties for negligence.

The Ten Commandments are a one-way street. Simple statement saying “Do this…”

There are no provisions or exclusions. There is no agreement on the part of the other party.
They are indeed COMMANDS.

Now, shortly thereafter, Moses (speaking for the people) and entered into covenant about how the people were to fulfill these commands.
Procedures, benefits, penalties, provisions and (perhaps) even exclusions were specified and agreed to.
Moreover, feasts (not in the way we think of “feasts”) and other observations (moons and special Sabbaths) were specified.

(Without even addressing all the junk the Rabbis “tacked-on” in the Talmud)
_____________________________________________
THIS is the Mosaic Covenant which no longer applies.
************************************************** *************

[Not to say that it is wrong to be aware of the significance of it all]

I know one of your sticking points FirstFruits, so let me say this:
The Seventh Day was established in Genesis. It was the first thing God said was Holy. Meaning: set apart for God.
The Commandments said to REMEMBER (to keep) the Sabbath – the Seventh Day.
‘Nuf said.

As for the Commandments:
Jesus Himself stated that these commandments would not be “invalid” until Heaven and Earth passed-away. (Mat 5:17-20)

So you are correct to toss out the Mosaic Covenant. It has been replaced by a better one.

However, don’t assume that the Commandments are part of that covenant.
The covenant concerned the HOW TO instructions. Not the actual Commandments.

Richard

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 06:28 PM
S each covenant nullifies the previous? Or do they build upon one another?

I diagree that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of grace. What greater show of grace and mercy is there that we have been given God's Teaching for life? We do not have to "pray for direction," "wait for the spirit to moves us" or figure out why "the Lord did/did not not say that to me". It is not about personal interpretation. We have a clear blueprint of the Messiah and the manner in which we can walk.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 06:30 PM
However, don’t assume that the Commandments are part of that covenant.
The covenant concerned the HOW TO instructions. Not the actual Commandments.

Richard


The 10 commandments are clearly laid out in the Mosaic Covenant as part of the Mosaic Covenant, most specifically, the Sabbath (sign for who?).

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 06:31 PM
Thanks Ananias,

That deals with the promises, but what about the benefits of the covenants regarding the promises? If the Mosaic covenant is not the same as the others how do the benefits differ?

Firstfruits

This is such an interesting thread, and after today, I'm only going to be able to come back to it on Friday. Yipee to many, no doubt (lols), but pity to me.

The benefits of the covenant did not differ in the Mosaic Covenant - only in the Mosaic Covenant, A CONDITION WAS ADDED - THEIR OBEDIENCE AND FAITHFULNESS:

There are basically seven promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, which are called "the promise" a number of times in the New Testament. They are (not were, but are) to do with the eternal election of Abraham and his descendants, and the land of Canaan being given to Abraham and his seed forever, and the fact that through Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not solicited by Abraham or his descendants, and the promised blessings did not depend on their obedience to the Law which came 430 years later (Gal.3: 17). The only thing that was needed to inherit the promises, was faith in the Word of God. And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.

The Mosaic Covenant was different, in that it ADDED a condition - the benefits remained the same - but a condition was added:

The Israelites would be blessed and would dwell securely IF they remained faithful and IF they obeyed the Law given by God to them through Moses.

They promised, "Everything that the Lord has said we will do":

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." (Exo.19: 5-8).

But the Israelites DID NOT keep their side of the bargain, in that they DID NOT do what they said they would do - but their disobedience neverthless still did not annul the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it." (Gal.3: 17).

The Davidic Covenant confirmed the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant - the everlasting King of Israel would be a descendant of king David and His kingdom (Israel) and throne (Jerusalem) would be established FOREVER - hence CONFIRMING the Abrahamic Covenant.

The New Covenant once again CONFIRMED the Abrahamic Covenant (NOTE verses 35-40):

"Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;

but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD,

I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

verses 35-40:

So says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day and the laws of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when its waves roar; the LORD of Hosts is His name; if those ordinances depart from Me, says the LORD, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever.

So says the LORD, If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be searched out, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever." (Jer.31: 31-40).

God had promised to be God to Abraham and His seed forever. Now hE CONFIRMS not only this again, but also confirms the everlasting throne of the Messiah, son of David, AGAIN (verses 38-40)

WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME CONTEXT OF THIS PROPHECY IN JEREMIAH?

It is the time immediately after "the Day of the LORD" and a time when the descendants of Israel had been gathered back into the land following a world-wide dispersion (Jeremiah chapters 30-31 are one and the same prophecy).

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 06:33 PM
Being late to respond, I see that RoadWarrior has already touched upon the contractual aspect of a covenant.

But I’ll toss this into the mix anyway.

---
To answer your question: The "odd one out" is the Mosaic Covenant.

However - think before you toss out the commandments with it.

Were the Ten Commandments a covenant? Or simply laws handed down by God?

A covenant is a two-way street. It is a promise on the part of both parties to fulfill certain obligations.
Like a legal contract it usually specifies benefits for adherence and penalties for negligence.

The Ten Commandments are a one-way street. Simple statement saying “Do this…”

There are no provisions or exclusions. There is no agreement on the part of the other party.
They are indeed COMMANDS.

Now, shortly thereafter, Moses (speaking for the people) and entered into covenant about how the people were to fulfill these commands.
Procedures, benefits, penalties, provisions and (perhaps) even exclusions were specified and agreed to.
Moreover, feasts (not in the way we think of “feasts”) and other observations (moons and special Sabbaths) were specified.

(Without even addressing all the junk the Rabbis “tacked-on” in the Talmud)
_____________________________________________
THIS is the Mosaic Covenant which no longer applies.
************************************************** *************

[Not to say that it is wrong to be aware of the significance of it all]

I know one of your sticking points FirstFruits, so let me say this:
The Seventh Day was established in Genesis. It was the first thing God said was Holy. Meaning: set apart for God.
The Commandments said to REMEMBER (to keep) the Sabbath – the Seventh Day.
‘Nuf said.

As for the Commandments:
Jesus Himself stated that these commandments would not be “invalid” until Heaven and Earth passed-away. (Mat 5:17-20)

So you are correct to toss out the Mosaic Covenant. It has been replaced by a better one.

However, don’t assume that the Commandments are part of that covenant.
The covenant concerned the HOW TO instructions. Not the actual Commandments.

Richard

Thank you Richard H,

You asked if the ten commandments were a covenant, I hope the following will answer you question.

Deut 4:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Deut 4:23 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=23) Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee.

Deut 4:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) (For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deut 5:2 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=2) The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.

Deut 5:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=5&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

Deut 9:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) When I was gone up into the mount to receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the LORD made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water:

Deut 9:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, that the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.

Deut 9:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=9&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) So I turned and came down from the mount, and the mount burned with fire: and the two tables of the covenant were in my two hands.

That is the Mosaic covenant.

I hope that helps.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 06:37 PM
S each covenant nullifies the previous? Or do they build upon one another?

I diagree that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of grace. What greater show of grace and mercy is there that we have been given God's Teaching for life? We do not have to "pray for direction," "wait for the spirit to moves us" or figure out why "the Lord did/did not not say that to me". It is not about personal interpretation. We have a clear blueprint of the Messiah and the manner in which we can walk.

The Mosaic Covenant was not all grace - the condition of the Israelites faithfulness and obedience was added - and the Covenant was a covenant of grace + works and not grace only.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 06:42 PM
This is such an interesting thread, and after today, I'm only going to be able to come back to it on Friday. Yipee to many, no doubt (lols), but pity to me.

The benefits of the covenant did not differ in the Mosaic Covenant - only in the Mosaic Covenant, A CONDITION WAS ADDED - THEIR OBEDIENCE AND FAITHFULNESS:

There are basically seven promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, which are called "the promise" a number of times in the New Testament. They are (not were, but are) to do with the eternal election of Abraham and his descendants, and the land of Canaan being given to Abraham and his seed forever, and the fact that through Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not solicited by Abraham or his descendants, and the promised blessings did not depend on their obedience to the Law which came 430 years later (Gal.3: 17). The only thing that was needed to inherit the promises, was faith in the Word of God. And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness.

The Mosaic Covenant was different, in that it ADDED a condition - the benefits remained the same - but a condition was added:

The Israelites would be blessed and would dwell securely IF they remained faithful and IF they obeyed the Law given by God to them through Moses.

They promised, "Everything that the Lord has said we will do":

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the LORD commanded him.

And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD." (Exo.19: 5-8).

But the Israelites DID NOT keep their side of the bargain, in that they DID NOT do what they said they would do - but their disobedience neverthless still did not annul the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant:

"And I say this, A covenant having been ratified by God in Christ, the Law (coming into being four hundred and thirty years after) does not annul the promise, so as to abolish it." (Gal.3: 17).

The Davidic Covenant confirmed the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant - the everlasting King of Israel would be a descendant of king David and His kingdom (Israel) and throne (Jerusalem) would be established FOREVER - hence CONFIRMING the Abrahamic Covenant.

The New Covenant once again CONFIRMED the Abrahamic Covenant (NOTE verses 35-40):

"Behold, the days come, says the LORD, that I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;

but this shall be the covenant that I will cut with the house of Israel: After those days, says the LORD,

I will put My Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And they shall no more teach each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, Know the LORD; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sins no more.

verses 35-40:

So says the LORD, who gives the sun for a light by day and the laws of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, who divides the sea when its waves roar; the LORD of Hosts is His name; if those ordinances depart from Me, says the LORD, the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me forever.

So says the LORD, If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be searched out, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says the LORD.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner. And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath. And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever." (Jer.31: 31-40).

God had promised to be God to Abraham and His seed forever. Now hE CONFIRMS not only this again, but also confirms the everlasting throne of the Messiah, son of David, AGAIN (verses 38-40)

WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME CONTEXT OF THIS PROPHECY IN JEREMIAH?

It is the time immediately after "the Day of the LORD" and a time when the descendants of Israel had been gathered back into the land following a world-wide dispersion (Jeremiah chapters 30-31 are one and the same prophecy).

ananias

Thanks Ananias,

With the mention of disobedience, can our actions affect the outcome or benefits of the covenants mentioned here?

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 06:48 PM
S each covenant nullifies the previous? Or do they build upon one another?

I diagree that the Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of grace. What greater show of grace and mercy is there that we have been given God's Teaching for life? We do not have to "pray for direction," "wait for the spirit to moves us" or figure out why "the Lord did/did not not say that to me". It is not about personal interpretation. We have a clear blueprint of the Messiah and the manner in which we can walk.

I understand that the Mosaic covenant is based on works, so I do not know how you would apply the following;

Rom 11:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Paul seems to show that there is a difference.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 07:09 PM
Thanks Ananias,

With the mention of disobedience, can our actions affect the outcome or benefits of the covenants mentioned here?

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

Firstfruits

Once again, only the the fifth one:

"And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut.5: 28-29).

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 07:33 PM
Once again, only the the fifth one:

"And the LORD heard the voice of your words, when ye spake unto me; and the LORD said unto me, I have heard the voice of the words of this people, which they have spoken unto thee: they have well said all that they have spoken. O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut.5: 28-29).

ananias


Thank you Ananias,

So the Mosaic covenant can be affected by our actions, and not the others? Unlike the other covenants if the Mosaic covenant is disobeyed will the Promise and the benefits not be upheld by God?

Firstfruits

Richard H
Sep 10th 2008, 07:38 PM
So, First Fruits...
is it your stance that Jesus was either ambiguous or a liar when he said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”Mat 5:17-20

?

BroRog
Sep 10th 2008, 07:44 PM
Thanks Drew,

Are the promises and benifits the same for all the covenants?

Firstfruits

No, the promises and benefits of these covenants are not the same.

P.S.

God made two covenants with Abraham, one transitory the other eternal.

Also, there is no such thing as the "Mosaic Covenant." The covenant was made with the entire nation of Israel at Mt. Sinai, not with Moses as a unique individual.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 07:47 PM
I understand that the Mosaic covenant is based on works, so I do not know how you would apply the following;

Rom 11:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Paul seems to show that there is a difference.

Firstfruits

There is no argument about grace. There is no argument about works. They are mutal. Do you truly believe that the Law was given for salvation and redemption?

Believing the Law was given so that a man could be saved by living it perfectly is quite ridiculous. If that were the case there would be no need for a sacrifical system at all.

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 07:49 PM
So, First Fruits...
is it your stance that Jesus was either ambiguous or a liar when he said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”Mat 5:17-20

?


It depends on what Jesus meant when he said it, and the following is what Jesus explained to the apostles.

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

So I know what Jesus said, but what do you believe he meant when he said it?

Does it affect the promises and the benfits of the covenant even though we cannot keep it anyway?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits

BroRog
Sep 10th 2008, 07:50 PM
I understand that the Mosaic covenant is based on works, so I do not know how you would apply the following;

Rom 11:5 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=5) Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Paul seems to show that there is a difference.

Firstfruits

Actually, the Mt. Sinai has always been by faith. It was the Pharisees who attempted to use it as a means to God's favor. But it was not that way from the beginning.

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 07:57 PM
Thank you Ananias,

So the Mosaic covenant can be affected by our actions, and not the others? Unlike the other covenants if the Mosaic covenant is disobeyed will the Promise and the benefits not be upheld by God?

Firstfruits

Unlike the other covenants, if the Mosaic covenant is disobeyed, the promise and benefits will not be upheld by God.

PS And they were not!

ananias

Richard H
Sep 10th 2008, 08:01 PM
It depends on what Jesus meant when he said it, and the following is what Jesus explained to the apostles.

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

So I know what Jesus said, but what do you believe he meant when he said it?

Does it affect the promises and the benfits of the covenant even though we cannot keep it anyway?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits

So He was being ambiguous?

He has already taken the punishment we deserve, so there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
Thus we are able to receive the promise of benifits.

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 08:02 PM
So, First Fruits...
is it your stance that Jesus was either ambiguous or a liar when he said:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets;
I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear,
not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen,
will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,
but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law,
you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”Mat 5:17-20

?


Originally Posted by Firstfruits http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1778824#post1778824)
Let us therefore look at them separately.

According to what is written, what has God put in your heart?

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 10:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

With the understanding that the Spirit is Christ and that which is written on stone is the ten commandment. which of them has been abolished?

Which is therefore in you heart?

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Has that which is abolished been re-established?

Firstfruits


NOTE:

"Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart"

"The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive"

The Ten Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God on the Day of Pentecost.

The Ten Commandments began to be written on human hearts by the Spirit of Christ on the day of Pentecost.

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

But Jesus said,

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." (Mat.5: 17-18).

The Law was fulfilled by Jesus, who said,

"Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled."

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

So the Law is established by the Spirit of Christ:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So when we seek to obey the Law ourselves, we seek to fulfill a Law that has already been fulfilled by Jesus the Christ. But the Law , having been fulfiiled by Christ, is established by our faith in Him.

ananias.

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:05 PM
No, the promises and benefits of these covenants are not the same.

P.S.

God made two covenants with Abraham, one transitory the other eternal.

Also, there is no such thing as the "Mosaic Covenant." The covenant was made with the entire nation of Israel at Mt. Sinai, not with Moses as a unique individual.

Thank you BroRog

So what we call the Mosaic covenant is just the covenant that God made with Israel at Mount Sinai? I will try and remember that, thanks.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:09 PM
Originally Posted by Firstfruits http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1778824#post1778824)
Let us therefore look at them separately.

According to what is written, what has God put in your heart?

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 10:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

With the understanding that the Spirit is Christ and that which is written on stone is the ten commandment. which of them has been abolished?

Which is therefore in you heart?

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Has that which is abolished been re-established?

Firstfruits


NOTE:

"Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart"

"The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive"

The Ten Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God on the Day of Pentecost.

The Ten Commandments began to be written on human hearts by the Spirit of Christ on the day of Pentecost.

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

But Jesus said,

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." (Mat.5: 17-18).

The Law was fulfilled by Jesus, who said,

"Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled."

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

So the Law is established by the Spirit of Christ:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So when we seek to obey the Law ourselves, we seek to fulfill a Law that has already been fulfilled by Jesus the Christ. But the Law , having been fulfiiled by Christ, is established by our faith in Him.

ananias.

What does it mean when we say that Jesus fulfilled the law, is it that he did what was written about him in the law or that he came to keep the ten commandments?

Firstfruits

Richard H
Sep 10th 2008, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by Firstfruits http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1778824#post1778824)
Let us therefore look at them separately.

According to what is written, what has God put in your heart?

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Heb 10:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

With the understanding that the Spirit is Christ and that which is written on stone is the ten commandment. which of them has been abolished?

Which is therefore in you heart?

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Has that which is abolished been re-established?

Firstfruits


NOTE:

"Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart"

"The letter killeth, but the Spirit maketh alive"

The Ten Commandments were written on tables of stone by the finger of God on the Day of Pentecost.

The Ten Commandments began to be written on human hearts by the Spirit of Christ on the day of Pentecost.

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

But Jesus said,

"Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled." (Mat.5: 17-18).

The Law was fulfilled by Jesus, who said,

"Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled."

"Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law." (Rom.3: 31).

So the Law is established by the Spirit of Christ:

Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

So when we seek to obey the Law ourselves, we seek to fulfill a Law that has already been fulfilled by Jesus the Christ. But the Law , having been fulfiiled by Christ, is established by our faith in Him.

ananias.

Yes the Holy Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
That is liberty - that we should want to obey. Not liberty from obeying.

If we do not obey, we become:
murders, liers, adulterers, idolitors (sp?) and so on.

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 08:19 PM
What does it mean when we say that Jesus fulfilled the law, is it that he did what was written about him in the law or that he came to keep the ten commandments?

Firstfruits

He did both - He kept the Ten Commandments as well as any other commandments prescribed by the Law, and He fulfilled the types and shadows which were contained in the ceremonial law and the prophets, and which pointed to Him.

We can't fulfill the Law again - but the Law is established by faith in Jesus - not through obedience to rituals, ceremonial laws and civil laws - but by faith in Jesus, since it is the Spirit of Christ in us which causes us to obey the Ten Comamandments without even having to look at the written Law.

The written Law on the tables of stone WAS VISIBLE and outside of ourselves.

The Law written by the Spirit of Christ inwardly on human hearts is invisible - but it's based on the same written Ten Commandments.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:22 PM
Yes the Holy Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
That is liberty - that we should want to obey. Not liberty from obeying.

If we do not obey, we become:
murders, liers, adulterers, idolitors (sp?) and so on.

According to the following God has put Jesus, not the law in our hearts.

2 Cor 1:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=1&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

2 Cor 2:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) I had no rest in my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went from thence into Macedonia.

2 Cor 3:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.

2 Cor 3:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

2 Cor 3:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious?

2 Cor 3:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 08:22 PM
He did both - He kept the Ten Commandments as well as any other commandments prescribed by the Law, and He fulfilled the types and shadows which were contained in the ceremonial law and the prophets, and which pointed to Him.

We can't fulfill the Law again - but the Law is established by faith in Jesus - not through obedience to rituals, ceremonial laws and civil laws - but by faith in Jesus, since it is the Spirit of Christ in us which causes us to obey the Ten Comamandments without even having to look at the written Law.

The written Law on the tables of stone WAS VISIBLE and outside of ourselves.

The Law written by the Spirit of Christ inwardly on human hearts is invisible - but it's based on the same written Ten Commandments.

ananias

Only, it is the Spirit of Life behind the Ten Commandments - the author of the Ten Commandments which is now written on human hearts.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:25 PM
He did both - He kept the Ten Commandments as well as any other commandments prescribed by the Law, and He fulfilled the types and shadows which were contained in the ceremonial law and the prophets, and which pointed to Him.

We can't fulfill the Law again - but the Law is established by faith in Jesus - not through obedience to rituals, ceremonial laws and civil laws - but by faith in Jesus, since it is the Spirit of Christ in us which causes us to obey the Ten Comamandments without even having to look at the written Law.

The written Law on the tables of stone WAS VISIBLE and outside of ourselves.

The Law written by the Spirit of Christ inwardly on human hearts is invisible - but it's based on the same written Ten Commandments.

ananias

Why then is it said that no one can keep the law if the law is in our hearts?

Does keeping the law enable us to receive Gods promises and benfits?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 08:33 PM
Why then is it said that no one can keep the law if the law is in our hearts?

Does keeping the law enable Gods promises and benfits?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits

O.K I added to that in another Post that it is not the Law in our hearts, but the author of the Law - the Spirit of Christ who is in our hearts.

Keeping the Law does not and never will enable God's promises and benefits.

The reason why we are still not able to obey the Law is because we still have the old Adam sin-nature in us. Therefore even though we are being sanctified by the Spirit of Christ and eneabled to obey the Law without looking at it, the old foe of our old sin-Adam nature keeps cropping up again like a the walking dead rising from the dead every time our guard is down.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:41 PM
O.K I added to that in another Post that it is not the Law in our hearts, but the author of the Law - the Spirit of Christ who is in our hearts.

Keeping the Law does not and never will enable God's promises and benefits.

The reason why we are still not able to obey the Law is because we still have the old Adam sin-nature in us. Therefore even though we are being sanctified by the Spirit of Christ and eneabled to obey the Law without looking at it, the old foe of our old sin-Adam nature keeps cropping up again like a the walking dead rising from the dead every time our guard is down.

ananias

I am confused, if we have Christ in our heart and we obey his command to love one another why then should sin have dominion over us?

Rom 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 08:45 PM
I am confused, if we have Christ in our heart and we obey his command to love one another why then should sin have dominion over us?

Rom 6:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

Firstfruits

Sin does not have dominion over us. Does this mean we never sin?

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:51 PM
Sin does not have dominion over us. Does this mean we never sin?

ananias

No it does not, but who do we turn to when we do is it Jesus or the law?

Thanks Ananias.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 10th 2008, 08:59 PM
It seems as though the covenant that we speak of more than the others is the one made at Mount Sinai (I remembered), yet the covenants that affect our eternity, with regards to the promises and benefits, do not seem to have such importance. So what therefore are the promises of these covenants and their benefits?

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 09:40 PM
No it does not, but who do we turn to when we do is it Jesus or the law?

Thanks Ananias.

Firstfruits


are you covering old ground yet again?

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 12:30 AM
Yes the Holy Spirit writes the law on our hearts.
That is liberty - that we should want to obey. Not liberty from obeying.

If we do not obey, we become:
murders, liers, adulterers, idolitors (sp?) and so on.

The Holy Spirit hasn't written the law on my heart since I am not Jewish.

BHS
Sep 11th 2008, 02:06 AM
Firstfruits, what do you think the word "fulfill" means? And what do you think "establish" means?

Emanate
Sep 11th 2008, 02:06 AM
The Holy Spirit hasn't written the law on my heart since I am not Jewish.


Congratulations. You are not part of the new covenant according to your word.

You really think the law was only for the tribe of Judah?

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:26 AM
are you covering old ground yet again?

Not old ground but if we sin who is our advocate, is it Jesus or is it Moses?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:36 AM
Firstfruits, what do you think the word "fulfill" means? And what do you think "establish" means?

It means to finish/complete as in the following; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Do you believe that God sent Jesus to keep the ten commandments?

To establish means to set up as in the following;

Heb 8:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:41 AM
Congratulations. You are not part of the new covenant according to your word.

You really think the law was only for the tribe of Judah?

Can you have the New covenant at the same time as the first?

What is wrong with the first?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:47 AM
Why is the Covenant made at Mount Sinai spoken of more than the others even though the promises and benefits in no way compare to the promises and benefits of the other covenants?

Knowing the covenants, their promises and benefits will help us understand how they apply to us.

God bless

Firstfruits

Emanate
Sep 11th 2008, 12:20 PM
Can you have the New covenant at the same time as the first?

What is wrong with the first?

Heb 8:7 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=7) For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Firstfruits


Again, this verse, in context, speaks directly of the priesthood and the sacrifical system.

Perpetua
Sep 11th 2008, 01:28 PM
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Well, the Mosaic covenant sticks out differently from the others, in that it was the only covenant that was conditional and bilateral. All the other biblical covenants, going back to the first one (Noahic covenant), were unilateral and unconditional -- covenants made by one, that is by God alone, promises God made to us that take no consideration or input from man. Thus all of these covenants are still in effect, unlike the Mosaic covenant.

valleybldr
Sep 11th 2008, 02:14 PM
Not old ground but if we sin who is our advocate, is it Jesus or is it Moses?

Firstfruits Answering a question with a question. Are you sure you're not Jewish? Just kidding, because you sure don't think with a Hebraic mindset. todd

Emanate
Sep 11th 2008, 02:16 PM
Well, the Mosaic covenant sticks out differently from the others, in that it was the only covenant that was conditional and bilateral. All the other biblical covenants, going back to the first one (Noahic covenant), were unilateral and unconditional -- covenants made by one, that is by God alone, promises God made to us that take no consideration or input from man. Thus all of these covenants are still in effect, unlike the Mosaic covenant.


As a side note. With the common belief that the Mosaic covenant is not in effect it is no wonder that Judaism has rejected the Messiah. If Saul does say what mean here suggest, then by Torah he is called a false prophet. Interesting that Saul also denied the assertion that he taught the Mosaic covenant was not in effect by continuing in the sacrifical system.

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 02:25 PM
Congratulations. You are not part of the new covenant according to your word.

You really think the law was only for the tribe of Judah?

As I read Paul's arguments in Romans and Galatians, I am not saved based on a New Covenant with Israel. Rather, I am saved based on a promise God made to Abraham. Indeed, even Abraham himself is not saved based on the New Covenant.

God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. In that day, he will write his law on their hearts.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 02:36 PM
No, the promises and benefits of these covenants are not the same.
I believe there is indeed a sense in which it can be said that the "covenant promises are all the same".

When God covenantally promises to rescue the Jews from exile and restore them to Palestine, is this promise really what it appears to be? I think that the answer is "no". When God says this, He really means something else - that He will rescue "true Israel" from the exile of death and restore them to an entirely remade and re-transformed cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following).

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1, all of God's covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

So while the Jews may now be back in Israel, this is not the fullfillment of any covenant.

I think it is clear that Paul re-interprets all the covenant promises in the light of what Jesus has accomplished and reaches the startling conclusion that they are not to be taken "literally". They point to some deeper and more global promises.

Paul's central realization that leads him to this conclusion: He sees that God's promises to Israel - that she will be vindicated and restored to her land - have actually all come true for Jesus. This leads him to conclude that Jesus has borne Israel's destiny. And he further concludes that covenant promises that seem to be for "national Israel" were never that at all - all along, such promises were always for "true Israel" - Jesus, and those who have faith in Him.

So, on the view that I believe Paul is espousing, many of the covenant promises mean something entirely different from their literal reading.

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 02:36 PM
As a side note. With the common belief that the Mosaic covenant is not in effect it is no wonder that Judaism has rejected the Messiah. If Saul does say what mean here suggest, then by Torah he is called a false prophet. Interesting that Saul also denied the assertion that he taught the Mosaic covenant was not in effect by continuing in the sacrifical system.

It may be a side note, but you raise an issue that needs to be addressed. If Paul is the author of Hebrews, it's interesting that in his argument that Jesus is our high priest, he argues that Jesus is a priest according to a different order than Aaron. And, he says, this comes about due to a change in the law. The change in the law was predicted, he says, when God announced through Jeremiah that he would establish a New Covenant with the people. Had there not been a fault with the first, why predict a new one?

Going back to the prophecy in Jeremiah, we learn that, according to God himself, the covenant had already been broken -- in Jeremiah's day. Now why would Paul attempt to keep his standing within a covenant that was already broken?

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 02:41 PM
I believe there is indeed a sense in which it can be said that the "covenant promises are all the same".

When God covenantally promises to rescue the Jews from exile and restore them to Palestine, is this promise really what it appears to be? I think that the answer is "no". When God says this, He really means something else - that He will rescue "true Israel" from the exile of death and restore them to an entirely remade and re-transformed cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following).

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1, all of God's covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

So while the Jews may now be back in Israel, this is not the fullfillment of any covenant.

I think it is clear that Paul re-interprets all the covenant promises in the light of what Jesus has accomplished and reaches the startling conclusion that they are not to be taken "literally". They point to some deeper and more global promises.

Paul's central realization that leads him to this conclusion: He sees that God's promises to Israel - that she will be vindicated and restored to her land - have actually all come true for Jesus. This leads him to conclude that Jesus has borne Israel's destiny.

So, on the view that I believe Paul is espousing, many of the covenant promises mean something entirely different from their literal reading.

I would take the opposite view. I don't think Paul reinterprets any of the covenant promises. His arguments are solidly grounded in God's word. And I do not think God is guilty of equivocation or deception.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 02:46 PM
The Holy Spirit hasn't written the law on my heart since I am not Jewish.
This seems like a hard statement to countenance in light of this from Romans 2:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,....

Clearly "the law" has been can and is written onto the hearts of Gentiles. Now, I do not beleive that by "the Law" here, Paul means all the prescriptions of Torah, he means instead the "essence" or "heart" of Torah.

If you are saying that the Torah as per the 613 rules and practices have not been written on your heart, I would agree.

But the "law" in some form has indeed been written on the heart of every believing Gentile. This is asserted all over the place in Paul.

Lest ye think I am playing fast and loose by drawing a false distinction between the Law as "613 rules" and the "heart" of the Torah, I am only following Paul here.

It is clear that Paul sees such a distinction. I will make the case for this if asked.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 02:52 PM
I would take the opposite view. I don't think Paul reinterprets any of the covenant promises. His arguments are solidly grounded in God's word. And I do not think God is guilty of equivocation or deception.
So then, what do you think that Paul means when he writes this?:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

I take this at face value. There are no promises that are not fulfilled in Christ's accomplishment.

Were the Jews restored in their land at the time of Christ? Not really - they were there physically but under Romans occupation. So if Paul means what he says here, we have to face the fact that the promise of restoration to Palestine has been fulfilled in actions of Jesus. So, with Paul, we conclude that the promise never was about Palestine at all, and it was never for ethnic Israel. Instead, the promise meant something else - that God would rescue the "true" family of Abraham (Romans 4) from a deeper exile - the Adamic exile into sin and death.

Does this make God deceptive? No, it makes Him mysterious and subtle, full of surprises.

Richard H
Sep 11th 2008, 03:26 PM
As I read Paul's arguments in Romans and Galatians, I am not saved based on a New Covenant with Israel. Rather, I am saved based on a promise God made to Abraham. Indeed, even Abraham himself is not saved based on the New Covenant.

God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. In that day, he will write his law on their hearts.

Amen! (New Covenant with the House of Judah AND the House of Israel)

After [1 Kings11:26-39], “Judah” referred to the southern kingdom – the Jews.
“Israel”, “the House of Israel” and then “the lost sheep of Israel” referred to the northern kingdom – the other tribes of Israel.

As a total they are called “Jacob” or “The whole house of Israel”.

After the Diaspora (Jeremiah 3 and 2 Kings 17:40), the genealogical/cultural identity of “Israel” was lost.

You or I could be part of Israel and not know it.

Jesus said:
"I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." Mat 15:24

Now, there is no difference: Jew, gentile or lost sheep, whether we of the tree or grafted in through faith.

Steps
Sep 11th 2008, 03:33 PM
Whao! I just spent one hour going through this thread, and I'll just say Awesome! It really helped me when I imagined FF, BR, Ananias, Drew, etc all sitted in a circle. I imagined FF looking into everyone's eye after their response and always coming back to say,
so what if? So what then? Maybe, but...? What? how? why? is there? etc I enjoyed it and I learnt a lot

All through only three things been ringing in my heart:
- Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever
- The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life
- For the law of THE Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the Law of Sin
and Death

Seriously though, am wondering why all this many convenants? Is it possible that Jehovah has one purpose in heart (what I would call The Spirit of The Letter) for all these many covenants that 'man' by his study have come to isolate? You know, much the same way that Thou shall love the Lord thine God with all thine heart and love your neighour as youself, pretty much covers the Ten commandments

Steps
Sep 11th 2008, 03:47 PM
Now, there is no difference: Jew, gentile or lost sheep, whether we of the tree or grafted in through faith.

Oh! I am going to say A-Amen!!! to this. One of the most straight forward truths said on this thread so far.

:pp

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 03:57 PM
Whao! I just spent one hour going through this thread, and I'll just say Awesome!
Its good to know that people are benefiting. This really is a complicated matter and it is not surprising that there is such a range of views.


Seriously though, am wondering why all this many convenants? Is it possible that Jehovah has one purpose in heart (what I would call The Spirit of The Letter) for all these many covenants that 'man' by his study have come to isolate?
This is one of the advantages of the position that I am advocating for here - namely that all the covenantal promises of whatever type are really about accomplishing one related set of goals:

1. Rescuing humanity from exile into sin and death;
2. Reworking and re-transforming the fallen cosmos;
3. Bringing all things together in Christ.

I freely admit that, under the view I am advocating for, God says "X" and really does not mean literally "X" - He means something else, much deeper, and wider.

Now, perhaps this strikes people as representing God as deceptive. But, on the other hand, there is an appeal to the position that all these various detailed covenants - all their promises - are really all part of a single integrated plan for the redemption of God's created order.

I would re-iterate these words from Paul:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

If we take this literally, it really does seem to make it clear that all these various covenants are fulfilled in the actions of Jesus. This is a strong argument in favour of the view that all the promises to Israel - include restoration to their land - were fulfilled, at least in a sense, 2000 years ago. How can we make sense of this, given that the Jews were effectively still awaiting return from exile 2000 years ago?

By realizing, as I think Paul did, that the promise meant something more profound - that a people not limited to the Jews, would be given not Palestine, but the entire redeemed cosmos.

And all this was indeed fulfilled, at least in principle, with the work of Jesus. Romans 8:18 and following is the true meaning of "getting restored to Palestine". It is about the entire creation:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

Now even though this event lies in our collective future, it has still been fulfilled in principle, in the sense that Jesus' work ensures this outcome.

Steps
Sep 11th 2008, 04:19 PM
Now, perhaps this strikes people as representing God as deceptive. But, on the other hand, there is an appeal to the position that all these various detailed covenants - all their promises - are really all part of a single integrated plan for the redemption of God's created order.


One of the many things I've learned in my relationship with God is that God is not a liar and He is not slack as some men count slackness. His ways will remain higher than ours until we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Until then we, each differently, will be limited in our ability to take in His word. I said differently because as we develop our spirit in relationship with Him the more level of ease with which may understand Him. Draw near to me and I'll draw near to He says. Its similar to the way that after a good relationship with someone, if he says, 'Come to my house' you would know straight off that he means 'come celebrate with me' or that 'something good is the offing' or 'he needs my prayer/advise'. However the literal value remains, 'come to my house'.

I have learned that I can spend my whole life trying to push through the heart of others one very simple, short revelation from God. The like of Kenneth Hagin lived his whole life expounding on what the English calls 'faith'. He has a deep 'understanding'/revelation of it. The truth is that sometimes the language of man may never be able to carry the messages across fully...Which is why I say, the letter kills, but the spirit (the heart, purpose of God) gives life.

Didn't mean to digress there.....back to bible study

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:24 PM
Well, the Mosaic covenant sticks out differently from the others, in that it was the only covenant that was conditional and bilateral. All the other biblical covenants, going back to the first one (Noahic covenant), were unilateral and unconditional -- covenants made by one, that is by God alone, promises God made to us that take no consideration or input from man. Thus all of these covenants are still in effect, unlike the Mosaic covenant.

Thank you Perpetua,

Are you saying that the covenant made at Mount Sinai is not in effect? And why are the others still in effect?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:27 PM
Again, this verse, in context, speaks directly of the priesthood and the sacrifical system.

Since you are choosing to us "priesthood and not covenant, what then are the teachings/commandments of the New priesthood (Jesus being the New priest)?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:32 PM
Answering a question with a question. Are you sure you're not Jewish? Just kidding, because you sure don't think with a Hebraic mindset. todd

Hello Valleybldr,

I do not recall you answering the OP;

Originally Posted by Firstfruits http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1782631#post1782631)
With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Which do you think is the odd one out?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:35 PM
As a side note. With the common belief that the Mosaic covenant is not in effect it is no wonder that Judaism has rejected the Messiah. If Saul does say what mean here suggest, then by Torah he is called a false prophet. Interesting that Saul also denied the assertion that he taught the Mosaic covenant was not in effect by continuing in the sacrificial system.

Emanate,

To which scripture are you referring?

Thanks

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:38 PM
As I read Paul's arguments in Romans and Galatians, I am not saved based on a New Covenant with Israel. Rather, I am saved based on a promise God made to Abraham. Indeed, even Abraham himself is not saved based on the New Covenant.

God will make a New Covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel. In that day, he will write his law on their hearts.

BroRog,

I believe that this is where we need to understand the covenants regarding the promises and beniefits.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:42 PM
I believe there is indeed a sense in which it can be said that the "covenant promises are all the same".

When God covenantally promises to rescue the Jews from exile and restore them to Palestine, is this promise really what it appears to be? I think that the answer is "no". When God says this, He really means something else - that He will rescue "true Israel" from the exile of death and restore them to an entirely remade and re-transformed cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following).

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1, all of God's covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

So while the Jews may now be back in Israel, this is not the fullfillment of any covenant.

I think it is clear that Paul re-interprets all the covenant promises in the light of what Jesus has accomplished and reaches the startling conclusion that they are not to be taken "literally". They point to some deeper and more global promises.

Paul's central realization that leads him to this conclusion: He sees that God's promises to Israel - that she will be vindicated and restored to her land - have actually all come true for Jesus. This leads him to conclude that Jesus has borne Israel's destiny. And he further concludes that covenant promises that seem to be for "national Israel" were never that at all - all along, such promises were always for "true Israel" - Jesus, and those who have faith in Him.

So, on the view that I believe Paul is espousing, many of the covenant promises mean something entirely different from their literal reading.

Are all the covenants mentioned fulfilled in Christ?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:46 PM
This seems like a hard statement to countenance in light of this from Romans 2:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,....

Clearly "the law" has been can and is written onto the hearts of Gentiles. Now, I do not beleive that by "the Law" here, Paul means all the prescriptions of Torah, he means instead the "essence" or "heart" of Torah.

If you are saying that the Torah as per the 613 rules and practices have not been written on your heart, I would agree.

But the "law" in some form has indeed been written on the heart of every believing Gentile. This is asserted all over the place in Paul.

Lest ye think I am playing fast and loose by drawing a false distinction between the Law as "613 rules" and the "heart" of the Torah, I am only following Paul here.

It is clear that Paul sees such a distinction. I will make the case for this if asked.

If they are a law unto themselves does that mean that God has not put the law in their hearts?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:50 PM
So then, what do you think that Paul means when he writes this?:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

I take this at face value. There are no promises that are not fulfilled in Christ's accomplishment.

Were the Jews restored in their land at the time of Christ? Not really - they were there physically but under Romans occupation. So if Paul means what he says here, we have to face the fact that the promise of restoration to Palestine has been fulfilled in actions of Jesus. So, with Paul, we conclude that the promise never was about Palestine at all, and it was never for ethnic Israel. Instead, the promise meant something else - that God would rescue the "true" family of Abraham (Romans 4) from a deeper exile - the Adamic exile into sin and death.

Does this make God deceptive? No, it makes Him mysterious and subtle, full of surprises.

Knowing that as God has said, the law has been broken and God promised a New one, has the covenant made at Mount Sinai been fulfilled?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 06:56 PM
One of the many things I've learned in my relationship with God is that God is not a liar and He is not slack as some men count slackness. His ways will remain higher than ours until we come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Until then we, each differently, will be limited in our ability to take in His word. I said differently because as we develop our spirit in relationship with Him the more level of ease with which may understand Him. Draw near to me and I'll draw near to He says. Its similar to the way that after a good relationship with someone, if he says, 'Come to my house' you would know straight off that he means 'come celebrate with me' or that 'something good is the offing' or 'he needs my prayer/advise'. However the literal value remains, 'come to my house'.

I have learned that I can spend my whole life trying to push through the heart of others one very simple, short revelation from God. The like of Kenneth Hagin lived his whole life expounding on what the English calls 'faith'. He has a deep 'understanding'/revelation of it. The truth is that sometimes the language of man may never be able to carry the messages across fully...Which is why I say, the letter kills, but the spirit (the heart, purpose of God) gives life.

Didn't mean to digress there.....back to bible study

Thank you Steps,

Truly as you say as it is also written the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. Now the Bible says that Jesus is that Spirit, and as we know that Jesus is life.

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 06:56 PM
Are all the covenants mentioned fulfilled in Christ?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Firstfruits
I guess it depends on what you mean by "fulfilled".

However, I will venture to answer "yes" to your question, taking 2 Corinthians 1:20 as one evidence to support that position.

I think one can reasonably say that all covenants are fufilled in Christ and still say that the fulfillment of some covenantal promises lie in the future - such as the restoration of the creation from it bondage to decay and the resurrection of the saints. Even though such events lie in the future, all covenants are "fulfilled" in Christ in the sense that His actions guarantee that these things will happen.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 06:58 PM
If they are a law unto themselves does that mean that God has not put the law in their hearts?

Firstfruits
I thought I was clear but perhaps not. I am echoing Paul when he says that God writes the "law" onto the hearts of Gentiles.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 06:59 PM
Knowing that as God has said, the law has been broken and God promised a New one, has the covenant made at Mount Sinai been fulfilled?

Firstfruits
Yes, the covenent made at Mount Sinai has been fulfilled.

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 07:07 PM
I guess it depends on what you mean by "fulfilled".

However, I will venture to answer "yes" to your question, taking 2 Corinthians 1:20 as one evidence to support that position.

I think one can reasonably say that all covenants are fufilled in Christ and still say that the fulfillment of some covenantal promises lie in the future - such as the restoration of the creation from it bondage to decay and the resurrection of the saints. Even though such events lie in the future, all covenants are "fulfilled" in Christ in the sense that His actions guarantee that these things will happen.

With regards to fulfillment, I mean complete/finished.

Which covenants promised to the fathers are concerned with Gentiles?

Rom 15:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Rom 15:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

So does this still apply to all the covenants?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 07:10 PM
I thought I was clear but perhaps not. I am echoing Paul when he says that God writes the "law" onto the hearts of Gentiles.

Paul states that the Gentiles do not have the law.

Rom 2:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 11th 2008, 07:16 PM
Yes, the covenant made at Mount Sinai has been fulfilled.

Knowing that the covenant made at Mount Sinai, requires man to do all that is written in the law, and that fact that God said it is broken, how then is it fulfilled? Remember the law was not made for a righteous man for instance Jesus.

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 07:36 PM
With regards to fulfillment, I mean complete/finished.

Which covenants promised to the fathers are concerned with Gentiles?
All of them


Rom 15:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
Rom 15:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=15&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

So does this still apply to all the covenants?
I see nothing in this text that goes against the argument that there is fundamentally really only one covenant.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 07:45 PM
Paul states that the Gentiles do not have the law.

Rom 2:14 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Firstfruits
Paul says that the Gentiles do not have the law by nature, that is to say by birth. But he says rather clearly that the law will be written onto the heart of some Gentiles:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,...

I think you will a very difficult time in supporting a position that God does not write "the law" on the hearts of Gentiles. It is not only stated here, it is implicitly present in Romans 10, when Paul quotes a text from Deuteronomy 30 that refers to the Spirit being written on the heart of the true covenant member. And we know Paul believes that true covenant members - Abraham's true familty as per Romans 4 - contains both Jew and Gentile.

Are you asserting that God does not write "the law" (and what this term means is perhaps debatable) on the heart of Gentiles?

If so, you seem to be directly at odds with Paul's statement in Romans 2.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 07:49 PM
Knowing that the covenant made at Mount Sinai, requires man to do all that is written in the law, and that fact that God said it is broken, how then is it fulfilled? Remember the law was not made for a righteous man for instance Jesus.
It was fulfilled by Jesus - Jesus is the faithful Israelite who fulfills the covenantal obligations. One of Paul's central insights is that Jesus is "Israel rolled up into a single person".

And I am not sure what your comment about "the law not being made for a righteous person". Jesus bore sin, was made sin for our benefit.

keck553
Sep 11th 2008, 07:54 PM
...made sin for our benefit.

This is a totally inaccurate statement. Read the Greek. Jesus was a sin offering, not sin.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 07:57 PM
This is a totally inaccurate statement. Read the Greek. Jesus was a sin offering, not sin.
I spoke loosely, and in fact am in total agreement with you (I think). Jesus was not condemned on the cross, sin was condemned on the cross (Romans 8:3 draws this distinction). I still think that it can argued that Jesus, acting as Israel, fulfills the Mt. Sinai covenant.

keck553
Sep 11th 2008, 08:05 PM
OK, sorry to jump on that. I'm really sensitive to that teaching. Jews had a lot of slang for things. The Temple was most often referred to as simply "Bet" (house). The first 5 books and the prophets we also commonly referred to as "Torah" kind of like you would refer to all 66 books as "Bible". I know the first 5 books of Moses was technically "Torah", but people use colloqueal terms all the time. So I read at least two major things in the 'fullfillment statement' (assuming we have the same interpretation as the writer did).

1. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies in the TeNaKh regarding His first coming (Torah, Prophets and Writings).
2. Jesus brought into fullness the intent of Torah (law).

Fulfill doesn't mean discard. The teachings of Jesus are God's interpretation of Torah as opposed to human interpretation. Both are gifts and holy (as Paul stated), meaningless if followed from one's mind but very meaninful if followed from one's heart.

And I totally agree that Jesus did what Israel failed to do. Perhaps that failure is a good lesson for all of us.

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 08:45 PM
So then, what do you think that Paul means when he writes this?:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

I take this at face value. There are no promises that are not fulfilled in Christ's accomplishment.

Were the Jews restored in their land at the time of Christ? Not really - they were there physically but under Romans occupation. So if Paul means what he says here, we have to face the fact that the promise of restoration to Palestine has been fulfilled in actions of Jesus. So, with Paul, we conclude that the promise never was about Palestine at all, and it was never for ethnic Israel. Instead, the promise meant something else - that God would rescue the "true" family of Abraham (Romans 4) from a deeper exile - the Adamic exile into sin and death.

Does this make God deceptive? No, it makes Him mysterious and subtle, full of surprises.

It took me awhile to find the passage so that I might read it in context. The passage comes from 2Corinthians chapter one.

This is either the third or fourth letter Paul wrote to this church, depending on how one puts the evidence together. Even at that, the Corinthians are still not convinced that Paul is a genuine Apostle and he continuously needs to answer those who raise a charge against him.

If I am reading this right, it would appear as if some folks in Corinth have accused Paul of being doubleminded in his promise to visit them again. They would say, "you know, when Paul says "yes" he doesn't really mean it. He merely says 'yes" because that's what we want to hear.

We pick up his answer here,

17 Therefore, I was not vacillating when I intended to do this, was I? Or what I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, so that with me there will be yes, yes and no, no [at the same time]? 18 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. 19 For the Son of God, Christ Jesus, who was preached among you by us--by me and Silvanus and Timothy--was not yes and no, but is yes in Him. 20 For as many as are the promises of God, in Him they are yes; therefore also through Him is our Amen to the glory of God through us. 21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, 22 who also sealed us and gave [us] the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. 23 But I call God as witness to my soul, that to spare you I did not come again to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but are workers with you for your joy; for in your faith you are standing firm. 2:1 But I determined this for my own sake, that I would not come to you in sorrow again. 2 For if I cause you sorrow, who then makes me glad but the one whom I made sorrowful? 3 This is the very thing I wrote you, so that when I came, I would not have sorrow from those who ought to make me rejoice; having confidence in you all that my joy would be [the joy] of you all.

He explains his reason for not coming, even though he said he would. We know from reading his first letter that he had some harsh and difficult things to say to them, which caused many of them sorrow. He decided that since he needed encouragement as much as they did, he would avoid returning to Corinth until they worked things out. That way, when he did return, they both would have something to celebrate.

In his explanation, he couches his apology in terms of "yes" and "no". When I promised to come, he says, "was my word to you both "yes" and "no?" He repudiates such double-speak suggesting that his word to them was "yes in him." That is, the surety of Paul's word to the Corinthians, that he would return to them, was guaranteed by Jesus himself. If the Corinthians could count on Jesus to follow through with a promise, they could also count on Paul's word too, since he is acting in the authority and name of Jesus. Whatever promise Paul makes to the Corinthians in the name of Jesus, will come true as Jesus will see to it.

So then, we are left with this question, "Was Paul making a universal claim about each and every promise God ever made?" Or was he making a statement concerning specific promises Paul made to the Corinthian church? I think that issue needs to be explored.

Now, for the sake of conversation, let's assume the former. Let's suppose Paul was making a universal claim concerning every promise God made. What does it mean to say, "in him they are 'yes'?" Does it mean they have come to pass, or that they were fulfilled?

We can see from the text that in Paul's case, the promise had not yet been fulfilled. While Paul claims that his promise to return to Corinth was "yes in him", at the time of writing, Paul had not yet returned to Corinth. Therefore, I can not conclude that the phrase "yes in him" means, "fulfilled in him". Just as Paul's promise to visit the Corinthians was yet to be fulfilled even as he writes, "yes in him", some of the other promises of God also remain unfulfilled though they are also "yes in him."

As for Paul's statement in Romans 4 that Abraham would be "heir of the world" I can say two things about that. First, this is another example in which God has not yet fulfilled his promise to Abraham, since Abraham has not yet inherited the world (though he certainly will.) And assuming this promise is also "yes in him", we have another example of a promise not fulfilled yet, though Jesus will be its guarantor.

Secondly, God made two covenants with Abraham, and the land covenant was a different covenant from the one that promised Abraham the inheritance of the world. In one case, we read where God took Abraham to a tall mountain and assured him that he would inherit from horizon to horizon, which is basically all of it. In another case, God actually defines the borders of the land inheritance according to which people lived there at the time.

BroRog
Sep 11th 2008, 09:08 PM
BroRog,

I believe that this is where we need to understand the covenants regarding the promises and beniefits.

Firstfruits


Yes, and I should back up my statement with scripture, which I will do.

One place we find this idea comes from Romans 4

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham , who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

In this we understand that God's promise to Abraham became the basis for God's saving both Jews and Gentiles. Paul argues his case on the basis that God declared, "A father of many nations have I made you." When he says, "many nations" he affirms that Abraham is the father, not only of those who are "of the law", but those who have the faith of Abraham. Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile is a child of Abraham if he or she has the faith of Abraham who believed that God was able to give "life to the dead and call into being that which does not exist."

Thus we see that the basis for universal salvation is a promise God made to Abraham that he would be heir of the world and that he would be the father of many nations (contrary to those who suggest that believers form a new nation so called "spiritual Israel".) Paul argues that Abraham is the father of many nations, not a single nation as some suppose. And salvation comes on the basis of a covenant, which came 430 years before the Law of Moses. We move to Galatians 3,

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise ; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 09:18 PM
ISo then, we are left with this question, "Was Paul making a universal claim about each and every promise God ever made?" Or was he making a statement concerning specific promises Paul made to the Corinthian church? I think that issue needs to be explored.
I certainly grant the possibility that Paul is not making a universal claim here in 2 Corinthians. But, I think it is clear from all his stuff in Romans - I am far more familiar with Romans that with his other letters - that he indeed sees a single covenant with promises to "national Israel" meaning something other than their apparent meaning.

Now, I am not prepared to make that argument in this post, or in any one post for that matter. But I need to if the case is to be substantiated. Hopefully, time will allow.

So, I should underscore that there are plenty of reasons other than the 2 Corinthians 1 statement to believe that Paul thinks there never really was, for example, a promise to the nation of Israel that they would get Palestine back.


Secondly, God made two covenants with Abraham, and the land covenant was a different covenant from the one that promised Abraham the inheritance of the world. In one case, we read where God took Abraham to a tall mountain and assured him that he would inherit from horizon to horizon, which is basically all of it. In another case, God actually defines the borders of the land inheritance according to which people lived there at the time.
I understand your point here and it seems to have some merit. But, at the end of the day, I think the overall balance of consideration tilts in the direction that the "Palestine" promise was intended to be a "metaphor" for the more substantial promise (the first one in your para above).

But I fully understand that I have not filled in the details of my case about this.

drew
Sep 11th 2008, 09:27 PM
Thus we see that the basis for universal salvation is a promise God made to Abraham that he would be heir of the world and that he would be the father of many nations (contrary to those who suggest that believers form a new nation so called "spiritual Israel".)
I do not think this is all that convincing. You appear to be arguing for a plurarility structure in the kingdom which I think is not really sustained by so much of what Paul writes - he really seems to emphasize that there is absolutely zero distinction, no internal sub-structure if you will, to Abraham's world-wide family. Hence his rebuke of Peter in Galatians re the whole table-fellowship deal.

I simply cannot see how can read Paul as countenancing any "internal structure" of any kind in Abraham's world-wide family. So I think that it is entirely proper to talk about Paul thinking in terms of this category "spiritual Israel" (as you call it).

But perhaps I misunderstand you. Can you explain in what sense you see Paul as being the father of many nations. I see the use of the "many nations" terms as simply a way of saying that members of what is otherwise an entirely homogeneous family will, in point of fact be drawn from many nations.

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:32 AM
All of them


I see nothing in this text that goes against the argument that there is fundamentally really only one covenant.

There is a difference when you look at the promises and the benefits?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:35 AM
It was fulfilled by Jesus - Jesus is the faithful Israelite who fulfills the covenantal obligations. One of Paul's central insights is that Jesus is "Israel rolled up into a single person".

And I am not sure what your comment about "the law not being made for a righteous person". Jesus bore sin, was made sin for our benefit.

So you are saying that all Jesus came to do was to show us that we like him can keep the law, and that is what he fulfilled?

What about the other covenants?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:39 AM
Paul says that the Gentiles do not have the law by nature, that is to say by birth. But he says rather clearly that the law will be written onto the heart of some Gentiles:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,...

I think you will a very difficult time in supporting a position that God does not write "the law" on the hearts of Gentiles. It is not only stated here, it is implicitly present in Romans 10, when Paul quotes a text from Deuteronomy 30 that refers to the Spirit being written on the heart of the true covenant member. And we know Paul believes that true covenant members - Abraham's true familty as per Romans 4 - contains both Jew and Gentile.

Are you asserting that God does not write "the law" (and what this term means is perhaps debatable) on the heart of Gentiles?

If so, you seem to be directly at odds with Paul's statement in Romans 2.

If God has put the law into our hearts, then there is no place for Jesus, because the law would be all that God would require us to keep.

We would not have to follow Jesus.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:46 AM
Yes, and I should back up my statement with scripture, which I will do.

One place we find this idea comes from Romans 4

13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; 15 for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham , who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written, "A father of many nations have I made you") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

In this we understand that God's promise to Abraham became the basis for God's saving both Jews and Gentiles. Paul argues his case on the basis that God declared, "A father of many nations have I made you." When he says, "many nations" he affirms that Abraham is the father, not only of those who are "of the law", but those who have the faith of Abraham. Anyone, whether Jew or Gentile is a child of Abraham if he or she has the faith of Abraham who believed that God was able to give "life to the dead and call into being that which does not exist."

Thus we see that the basis for universal salvation is a promise God made to Abraham that he would be heir of the world and that he would be the father of many nations (contrary to those who suggest that believers form a new nation so called "spiritual Israel".) Paul argues that Abraham is the father of many nations, not a single nation as some suppose. And salvation comes on the basis of a covenant, which came 430 years before the Law of Moses. We move to Galatians 3,

17 What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise ; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.




Thank you BroRog,

So the the benefits of the Promise made to Abraham are not the same as the benefite of the Law, is that right?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:51 AM
I certainly grant the possibility that Paul is not making a universal claim here in 2 Corinthians. But, I think it is clear from all his stuff in Romans - I am far more familiar with Romans that with his other letters - that he indeed sees a single covenant with promises to "national Israel" meaning something other than their apparent meaning.

Now, I am not prepared to make that argument in this post, or in any one post for that matter. But I need to if the case is to be substantiated. Hopefully, time will allow.

So, I should underscore that there are plenty of reasons other than the 2 Corinthians 1 statement to believe that Paul thinks there never really was, for example, a promise to the nation of Israel that they would get Palestine back.


I understand your point here and it seems to have some merit. But, at the end of the day, I think the overall balance of consideration tilts in the direction that the "Palestine" promise was intended to be a "metaphor" for the more substantial promise (the first one in your para above).

But I fully understand that I have not filled in the details of my case about this.

Again here I believe, as we are doing we need to understand the covenants and their benefits.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 07:02 AM
With regards to the following scripture all Gods covenants are covered with regards to the promises and benfits;

2 Cor 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Which are temporal and which are eternal?

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 08:22 AM
I believe there is indeed a sense in which it can be said that the "covenant promises are all the same".

When God covenantally promises to rescue the Jews from exile and restore them to Palestine, is this promise really what it appears to be? I think that the answer is "no". When God says this, He really means something else - that He will rescue "true Israel" from the exile of death and restore them to an entirely remade and re-transformed cosmos (Romans 8:18 and following).

As Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1, all of God's covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ:

For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ

So while the Jews may now be back in Israel, this is not the fullfillment of any covenant.

I think it is clear that Paul re-interprets all the covenant promises in the light of what Jesus has accomplished and reaches the startling conclusion that they are not to be taken "literally". They point to some deeper and more global promises.

Paul's central realization that leads him to this conclusion: He sees that God's promises to Israel - that she will be vindicated and restored to her land - have actually all come true for Jesus. This leads him to conclude that Jesus has borne Israel's destiny. And he further concludes that covenant promises that seem to be for "national Israel" were never that at all - all along, such promises were always for "true Israel" - Jesus, and those who have faith in Him.

So, on the view that I believe Paul is espousing, many of the covenant promises mean something entirely different from their literal reading.

drew,

Like the theory of evoloution, your theory is an interesting theory - except that the Bible itself doesn't teach it, just like the design in nature itself doesn't teach the theory of evolution. Yet many believe the theory of evolution...

ananias

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 08:33 AM
It may be a side note, but you raise an issue that needs to be addressed. If Paul is the author of Hebrews, it's interesting that in his argument that Jesus is our high priest, he argues that Jesus is a priest according to a different order than Aaron. And, he says, this comes about due to a change in the law. The change in the law was predicted, he says, when God announced through Jeremiah that he would establish a New Covenant with the people. Had there not been a fault with the first, why predict a new one?

Going back to the prophecy in Jeremiah, we learn that, according to God himself, the covenant had already been broken -- in Jeremiah's day. Now why would Paul attempt to keep his standing within a covenant that was already broken?

I agree with Brorog. And I think the misunderstanding of many Jews who accept Messiah comes about because of the fact that Judaism teaches that the Law God gave the people through Moses on Mount Sinai is God's marriage-contract with Israel.

Yet Jesus said that the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and while the Groom was saying His vows on Mount Sinai, the bride was already committing adultery with a golden calf - and were it not for Moses' intercession on their behalf, they would all have perished there and then - and afterward, the bride contnued to commit adultery over and over again with the gods and the kings of the nations around her.

It's no wonder God said through Jeremiah that a NEW covenant would come which would be unlike this covenant, because Israel had broken that covenant, even though God had been a husband to them.

Thank God, God's promise to Abraham to be God to Abraham and his descendants forever was made 430 years before the Law and the Covenant God gave through Moses, and God's promises to Abraham did not and do not depend on the faithfulness of Abraham's descendants or to their obedience to the Law.

ananias

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 08:37 AM
As a side note. With the common belief that the Mosaic covenant is not in effect it is no wonder that Judaism has rejected the Messiah. If Saul does say what mean here suggest, then by Torah he is called a false prophet. Interesting that Saul also denied the assertion that he taught the Mosaic covenant was not in effect by continuing in the sacrifical system.

The problem with your statement, Emanate, is that Judaism is the result of the Jews' rejection of Jesus and of Paul - not of Gentile church theology.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 08:46 AM
The problem with your statement, Emanate, is that Judaism is the result of the Jews' rejection of Jesus and of Paul - not of Gentile church theology.

ananias

Ananias,

Have you been able to check which covenants are temporal and which are eternal with regards to this scripture?

2 Cor 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 08:54 AM
Its good to know that people are benefiting. This really is a complicated matter and it is not surprising that there is such a range of views.

This is one of the advantages of the position that I am advocating for here - namely that all the covenantal promises of whatever type are really about accomplishing one related set of goals:

1. Rescuing humanity from exile into sin and death;
2. Reworking and re-transforming the fallen cosmos;
3. Bringing all things together in Christ.

I freely admit that, under the view I am advocating for, God says "X" and really does not mean literally "X" - He means something else, much deeper, and wider.

Now, perhaps this strikes people as representing God as deceptive. But, on the other hand, there is an appeal to the position that all these various detailed covenants - all their promises - are really all part of a single integrated plan for the redemption of God's created order.

I would re-iterate these words from Paul:

20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ.

If we take this literally, it really does seem to make it clear that all these various covenants are fulfilled in the actions of Jesus. This is a strong argument in favour of the view that all the promises to Israel - include restoration to their land - were fulfilled, at least in a sense, 2000 years ago. How can we make sense of this, given that the Jews were effectively still awaiting return from exile 2000 years ago?

By realizing, as I think Paul did, that the promise meant something more profound - that a people not limited to the Jews, would be given not Palestine, but the entire redeemed cosmos.

And all this was indeed fulfilled, at least in principle, with the work of Jesus. Romans 8:18 and following is the true meaning of "getting restored to Palestine". It is about the entire creation:

The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21that[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28123i)] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God

Now even though this event lies in our collective future, it has still been fulfilled in principle, in the sense that Jesus' work ensures this outcome.

drew,

Everything you've said above is absolutely true - PARTLY. The other part is that the LITERAL promise of the restoration of (the hardened part of Israel) to God, as well as the promise of their subsequent blessing in their land, is YES in Christ AS A RESULT OF HIS SECOND COMING.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 09:03 AM
Originally Posted by drew http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1784440#post1784440)
Its good to know that people are benefiting. This really is a complicated matter and it is not surprising that there is such a range of views.

This is one of the advantages of the position that I am advocating for here - namely that all the covenantal promises of whatever type are really about accomplishing one related set of goals:

1. Rescuing humanity from exile into sin and death;
2. Reworking and re-transforming the fallen cosmos;
3. Bringing all things together in Christ.

According to the promises and and benfits of the covenants they do not all have the same goal, some do but not all.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 09:05 AM
I think one can reasonably say that all covenants are fufilled in Christ and still say that the fulfillment of some covenantal promises lie in the future - such as the restoration of the creation from it bondage to decay and the resurrection of the saints. Even though such events lie in the future, all covenants are "fulfilled" in Christ in the sense that His actions guarantee that these things will happen.

I'm glad to see you at least understand that principle, drew. Becuase the promises of the resotration of (the hardened part of) Israel to God and to land still lie in the future.

ananias

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 09:15 AM
Knowing that the covenant made at Mount Sinai, requires man to do all that is written in the law, and that fact that God said it is broken, how then is it fulfilled? Remember the law was not made for a righteous man for instance Jesus.

Firstfruits

Jesus is man's representative:

"And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit." (1Cor.15: 45).

To God, there are only two human beings: The first Adam whose disobedience brought death to everyone, and the last Adam, whose obedience brought life to everyone.

The Law was fulfilled in the righteous one who was made unrighteous in the place of the unrightoeous, as the scripture in my signature says:

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 09:27 AM
With regards to the following scripture all Gods covenants are covered with regards to the promises and benfits;

2 Cor 4:18 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=47&CHAP=4&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=18) While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Which are temporal and which are eternal?

The first of these Covenants is signified and eternalized by the Matrimony of
Adam and Eve (Gen. 2/21-25, Mt. 19/4-6);

the second, by the Rainbow of Noah (Gen. 9/8-17);

the third, by the Bread and Wine Offering of Melchizedek (Gen. 14/18-20);

the fourth, by the Circumcision of Abraham (Gen. 17/1-14);

the fifth, by the Ark of Moses (Deut. 5);

the sixth, by the Throne of David (2Sam. 7/8-16);

the seventh and the last, by the Crucified Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, born of the
Virgin Mary (Mt. 26/26-29).

Firstfruits

The only temporal covenant is the one which was based equally upon man's faithfulness and obedience - the fifth one.

All the others are eternal - because they are based on GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD, which is eternal.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 09:28 AM
Jesus is man's representative:

"And so it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living soul," the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit." (1Cor.15: 45).

To God, there are only two human beings: The first Adam whose disobedience brought death to everyone, and the last Adam, whose obedience brought life to everyone.

The Law was fulfilled in the righteous one who was made unrighteous in the place of the unrightoeous, as the scripture in my signature says:

Do you mean fulfillment of the scriptures in the law concerning Jesus, as Jesus expounded to the apostles?

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

BTW how are you doing with the temporal and eternal covenants?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 10:03 AM
Do you mean fulfillment of the scriptures in the law concerning Jesus, as Jesus expounded to the apostles?

Lk 24:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Lk 24:44 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=44) And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

BTW how are you doing with the temporal and eternal covenants?

Firstfruits

Was busy answering your question regarding the temporal and eternal covenants while you were busy posting the above.

I mean Jesus fulfilled tha Law in these two ways:

(a) Fulfillment of the scriptures in the law concerning Jesus, as Jesus expounded to the apostles; and

(b) Fulfillment of the Law itself with all its commandments, by way of perfect obedience.

And since Jesus is the last Adam, He represents all those who are IN HIM through rerpentance and faith in Him. The first Adam's disobedience led to death for all. The last Adam's obedience led to life for all those who are IN HIM through repentance and faith in Him (1Cor.15: 45; Rom.5: 19-21).

When Jesus obeyed the Law, all those IN HIM obeyed the Law

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 10:21 AM
Was busy answering your question regarding the temporal and eternal covenants while you were busy posting the above.

I mean Jesus fulfilled tha Law in these two ways:

(a) Fulfillment of the scriptures in the law concerning Jesus, as Jesus expounded to the apostles; and

(b) Fulfillment of the Law itself with all its commandments, by way of perfect obedience.

And since Jesus is the last Adam, He represents all those who are IN HIM through rerpentance and faith in Him. The first Adam's disobedience led to death for all. The last Adam's obedience led to life for all those who are IN HIM through repentance and faith in Him (1Cor.15: 45; Rom.5: 19-21).

When Jesus obeyed the Law, all those IN HIM obeyed the Law

ananias

Thanks Ananias,

Knowing then that Jesus is the author of the New covenant and he has commanded us to love one another, and that love fulfils the law of Christ, would that be where the New covenant supercedes to law of Moses?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 10:30 AM
Thanks Ananias,

Knowing then that Jesus is the author of the New covenant and he has commanded us to love one another, and that love fulfils the law of Christ, would that be where the New covenant supercedes to law of Moses?

Firstfruits

"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another. By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another." (Joh.13: 34-35).

Yes, I guess that would be where the New Covenant supercedes the law of Moses.

ananias

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 10:32 AM
"I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. As I have loved you, you should also love one another. By this all shall know that you are My disciples, if you have love toward one another." (Joh.13: 34-35).

Yes, I guess that would be where the New Covenant supercedes the law of Moses.

ananias

Actually, I should say, where the New Covenant supercedes God's law and commandments which He hgave to the people through Moses, and which was/were fulfilled by the obedience of Christ, the last Adam.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 10:44 AM
Actually, I should say, where the New Covenant supercedes God's law and commandments which He hgave to the people through Moses, and which was/were fulfilled by the obedience of Christ, the last Adam.

ananias

Thanks Ananais,

If the law and the commandments that God gave to the people through Moses has been fulfilled, What has happened to the other Covenants of God?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 10:57 AM
Thanks Ananais,

If the law and the commandments that God gave to the people through Moses has been fulfilled, What has happened to the other Covenants of God?

Firstfruits

The other covenants all still stand. The question is, have ALL the promises contained in these other covenants ALREADY been fulfilled by Jesus?

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 11:10 AM
The other covenants all still stand. The question is, have ALL the promises contained in these other covenants ALREADY been fulfilled by Jesus?

ananias

There are two that without a doubt are not yet finished, the Edenic and the Nohahic.

The New covenant is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic, Davidic covenants.

These may help with the question concerning Temporal and Eternal covenants.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 11:17 AM
There are two that without a doubt are not yet finished, the Edenic and the Nohahic.

The New covenant is the fulfilment of the Abrahamic, Davidic covenants.

These may help with the question concerning Temporal and Eternal covenants.

Firstfruits

Yes, without a doubt, the Edenic and Noaic covenants have not been fulfilled yet.

But which of the following promises contained in the Abrahamic, Davidic Covenants have been fulfilled by the New Covenant?:

(1) That through Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth will be blesssed?

(2) That God would be God to Abraham and his seed forever.

(3) That God would give the land of Canaan (which is the kingdom of David) to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) as their everlasting posession

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 11:54 AM
Yes, without a doubt, the Edenic and Noaic covenants have not been fulfilled yet.

But which of the following promises contained in the Abrahamic, Davidic Covenants have been fulfilled by the New Covenant?:

(1) That through Abraham's seed, all the nations of the earth will be blesssed?

(2) That God would be God to Abraham and his seed forever.

(3) That God would give the land of Canaan (which is the kingdom of David) to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) as their everlasting posession

ananias

Where did Abraham dwell?

Gen 13:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.

Gen 16:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Gen 17:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Gen 24:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

Jesus is the promise of God.

Acts 3:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

I hope this has been helpful.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 12th 2008, 01:01 PM
Where did Abraham dwell?

Gen 13:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) Abram dwelled in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and pitched his tent toward Sodom.

Gen 16:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

Gen 17:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

Gen 24:3 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=1&CHAP=24&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=3) And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

Jesus is the promise of God.

Acts 3:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

I hope this has been helpful.

Firstfruits

Thanks, Firstfruits. This whole thread has indeed been helpful to me and to many, as you can see by some of the comments made in some of the posts. The Law has indeed been fulfilled 100% by Christ, and when He obeyed the Law, all those who are IN HIM by faith obeyed the Law. The new commandment, as you have pointed out, is to love one another as Christ has loved us.

ananias.

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 01:27 PM
Thanks, Firstfruits. This whole thread has indeed been helpful to me and to many, as you can see by some of the comments made in some of the posts. The Law has indeed been fulfilled 100% by Christ, and when He obeyed the Law, all those who are IN HIM by faith obeyed the Law. The new commandment, as you have pointed out, is to love one another as Christ has loved us.

ananias.

Thanks Ananias,

The encoureagement is much apprieciated.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 01:44 PM
With regards to the promises and benefits of the covenants to which covenant does Jesus refer to in the following?

Mt 6:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mt 6:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Mt 6:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 02:44 PM
Just as Paul's promise to visit the Corinthians was yet to be fulfilled even as he writes, "yes in him", some of the other promises of God also remain unfulfilled though they are also "yes in him."
I have revisited your argument and still maintain that the 1 Corinthians 20 statement strongly undermines the claim, if anybody is making such a claim - that there remain yet to be fulfilled covenantal promises to Israel (as in "national" Israel as opposed to "true" Israel).

I think our difference in respect to the 2 Corinthians text is basically the following, expressed in the context of an example of a specific promise to national Israel - the promise of restoration to Palestine:

1. You seem to think that the promise means what it literally says and that the 2 Corinthians material is asserting is that the promise had yet to be "cashed in" at the time of Jesus (the Jews were effectively still in exile), although Jesus is in some sense its guarantor - Jesus' actions somehow ensure or validate the ultimate "cashing in" of the promise. So for you, the expression "in Him" is a way of expressing his role as guarantor of later "cashing in" of the promise taken as a literal promise of restoring the Jews to Palestine. Am I correct?

2. I take the "in Him" expression to mean that Jesus' actions constitute the fulfillment - Jesus is not merely a guarantor. So, in this case, Paul sees Jesus rising from the dead, and, understanding Jesus to be acting as Israel, concludes that it is restoration from death to life and not restoration from political exile to Palestine that is the essence of the promise.

Now I recognize that I have not (yet) made my case. But at least perhaps you will understand where I am coming from.

Part of my argument would be that there are powerful reasons for concluding that Paul understands Jesus to have taken on the role of Israel. If this case can be made, it is not hard to then conclude that a promise that seems to be for national Israel is really a promise for Jesus. And then it is not hard to see how Paul would see Jesus' resurrection as, for example, fulfillment of the promise that Israel would be vindicated in front of her enemies. In short, Jesus has been vindicated (resurrected) in the presence of his enemies (sin and death).

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 02:52 PM
So you are saying that all Jesus came to do was to show us that we like him can keep the law, and that is what he fulfilled?

What about the other covenants?

Firstfruits
I never said anything even remotely close this - I never said that all Jesus came to do was to show us that we can keep the law.

And as far as the other covenants are concerned, I will re-state my view that Jesus actions fulfilled all of them. Of course, this means that I view many of the promises as being "metaphorical" - meaning something other than what they literally say.

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 03:04 PM
If God has put the law into our hearts, then there is no place for Jesus, because the law would be all that God would require us to keep.

We would not have to follow Jesus.

Firstfruits
Why do assume that the human heart is the kind of thing that can only hold either the law or Jesus? And why would you assume that "following Jesus" would take you down a different road than following the "law"? In this respect, please note that I do not believe "the law" here is the 613 rules of Torah. It is instead the "essence" of Torah, perhaps best summarized by what Jesus says in Matthew - the stuff about how "loving God and neighbour" is the summary of Torah.

Paul is quite clear at a number of places that the "law" has been written on the heart of the believer. In Romans 10, he writes this:

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-28181c)]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "[B]The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-28182d)] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:

This is a statement that the "law" (as I have explained it has indeed been written on the heart of the believer). And, of course, this does not "push Jesus out".

And I will re-state stuff from Romans 2 which is even more clear - "the law" gets written on the heart of the believer:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

Are you claiming that this is not true, that the requirements of the law are not wrritten on the heart?

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 03:07 PM
Like the theory of evoloution, your theory is an interesting theory - except that the Bible itself doesn't teach it, just like the design in nature itself doesn't teach the theory of evolution. Yet many believe the theory of evolution...
We shall see. Which claim of mine do you think is not taught? The claim that Israel's destiny is borne by Jesus? I am more than happy to provide scriptural arguments for such a position.

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 03:10 PM
drew,

Everything you've said above is absolutely true - PARTLY. The other part is that the LITERAL promise of the restoration of (the hardened part of Israel) to God, as well as the promise of their subsequent blessing in their land, is YES in Christ AS A RESULT OF HIS SECOND COMING.

ananias
I think that there is no outstanding promise to the Jews in respect to them getting "their land". Are you appealing to the famous text in Romans 11 about "all Israel" will be saved". I think that Romans 11 is saying no such thing. We can discuss the specifics if you wish.

BroRog
Sep 12th 2008, 03:38 PM
I have revisited your argument and still maintain that the 1 Corinthians 20 statement strongly undermines the claim, if anybody is making such a claim - that there remain yet to be fulfilled covenantal promises to Israel (as in "national" Israel as opposed to "true" Israel).

I think our difference in respect to the 2 Corinthians text is basically the following, expressed in the context of an example of a specific promise to national Israel - the promise of restoration to Palestine:

1. You seem to think that the promise means what it literally says and that the 2 Corinthians material is asserting is that the promise had yet to be "cashed in" at the time of Jesus (the Jews were effectively still in exile), although Jesus is in some sense its guarantor - Jesus' actions somehow ensure or validate the ultimate "cashing in" of the promise. So for you, the expression "in Him" is a way of expressing his role as guarantor of later "cashing in" of the promise taken as a literal promise of restoring the Jews to Palestine. Am I correct?

2. I take the "in Him" expression to mean that Jesus' actions constitute the fulfillment - Jesus is not merely a guarantor. So, in this case, Paul sees Jesus rising from the dead, and, understanding Jesus to be acting as Israel, concludes that it is restoration from death to life and not restoration from political exile to Palestine that is the essence of the promise.

Now I recognize that I have not (yet) made my case. But at least perhaps you will understand where I am coming from.

Part of my argument would be that there are powerful reasons for concluding that Paul understands Jesus to have taken on the role of Israel. If this case can be made, it is not hard to then conclude that a promise that seems to be for national Israel is really a promise for Jesus. And then it is not hard to see how Paul would see Jesus' resurrection as, for example, fulfillment of the promise that Israel would be vindicated in front of her enemies. In short, Jesus has been vindicated (resurrected) in the presence of his enemies (sin and death).

This sounds like it could be a long discussion, perhaps in another thread. But if you were not impressed with my analysis of 2 Corinthians, then I doubt you will be convinced by other analysis of mine. I would, of course disagree strongly with your assertion that Jesus takes the role of Israel.

BroRog
Sep 12th 2008, 04:11 PM
Thank you BroRog,

So the the benefits of the Promise made to Abraham are not the same as the benefite of the Law, is that right?

Firstfruits


Yes, in general, I think that's right. In regards to the benefits of the Law, I think Paul teaches that the Law's benefits can be categorized in four ways.

1. Terms of a covenant:

What we know as the Mosaic Law became the terms of a covenant, a covenant God made with the sons of Jacob at Mt. Sinai. The essential agreement between God and the Nation of Israel was "I will be your God; and you will be my people."

2. To live as a Holy People:

When God decided to deal overtly with a single human family, Jacob's family, this in itself made them a holy people. The term holy simply means, "to be singled out for a unique purpose." So, in the sense that God had singled out Jacob and his family for this unique purpose, they became a holy people. However, God also gave them a law, which contained his moral vision. And to the extent that his people obey that law, they are living and acting like a holy people. It is one thing to be declared a holy people; it's another thing to live like it. The Law serves to define what holiness looks like.

3. An example to the world:

In Romans 3, Paul asserts that the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles because they had readily access to the oracles of God. He argues that even though the Jews did not put their trust in the oracles of God, this did not negate the faithfulness of God. In that argument, Paul also asserts that the Jews were "entrusted" with the law, which I take to mean, they were the custodians of it. The implication in many of Paul's arguments is that the Gentile world has an opportunity to learn about God's character from both his law, and how he treats his special people.

4. Lead one to Christ:

Paul argues in Galatians that the true purpose of the Law was not a means to justification or God's favor, but the law was a means to know God's moral vision and to stand in humble honesty before that vision would lead someone to Christ. In Romans he argues by analogy to a widow seeking a new husband because her first husband had died. The analogy associates the act of seeking justification through the law as the first husband, which has died, and associates seeking justification through Christ as the second husband, which she is free to take as a husband now that the old way of seeking justification has died.

Paul says that this was never the intent of the law, but since folks like the Pharisees had taken it on as a means to justification, they had to realize that seeking God's favor through this route was not valid and could never be achieved. Having realized this, they are free to find salvation in what Jesus did on the cross.

As a side note it is worthy to note that some make the Law itself the first husband and suggest that the Law has died. I do not think this is what Paul had in mind. The Law continues to serve the same purposes it always has served, and we must not throw it away as if it is invalid.

mcgyver
Sep 12th 2008, 05:10 PM
With so many pages of answers, I wanted to bring the original question forward...


With regards to promises and benefits, which of these covenants is the "odd" one out?

Abrahamic,

Davidic,

Mosaic,

New.

Thanks

Firstfruits

Although I'm not enamored of the term "odd one out" :P, I'd have to say that it is the New Covenant because:

The New Covenant is the covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemptive work of Christ


In this, it is different from all the other covenants, and is the only covenant among those you listed that is not obsolete (here we go!!!! :lol:)

Hebrews addresses the different covenants, and I want to focus for a moment on Hebrews chapters 8-10 which specifically addresses the Mosaic covenant, which may be viewed as the culmination of all the other covenants.

In Hebrews 8:7 it is written: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

and in Hebrews 8:13: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now I understand that in verse 10 it says: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

But yet again we are told that we have been "grafted into the vine" and attained the promises (salvation) given to the house of Israel, so I don't see this as a stumbling block.

So...as the only covenant (outside the "eternal covenant") that is not obsolete is the New Covenant...then the New Covenant must be the "odd one out"...

JMO

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 05:15 PM
I would, of course disagree strongly with your assertion that Jesus takes the role of Israel.
I think that the evidence for the assertion that Jesus takes on the destiny of Israel is compelling. Of course, one cannot point to a single verse (or set of verses that say this explicitly). But I think the case is there throughout Paul's writings.

In Romans 3, Paul starts by suggesting that the Jews have been faithless. To anyone familiar with the Old Testament, this faithlessness would be clearly seen as being specifically in respect to the covenant(s) that God has entered into with Israel:

What, then, the superiority of the Jew? or what the profit of the circumcision? 2much in every way; for first, indeed, that they were intrusted with the oracles of God; 3for what, if certain were faithless? shall their faithlessness the faithfulness of god make useless?
4let it not be! and let God become true, and every man false,...

Verse 2 is a clear reference to the covental role of Israel to be a light to the world. And in verse 3, Israel is characterized as being faithless.

Now what is the real purpose of the covenant God enters into with Abraham? How will Israel bless the nations as per covenant promises to this effect? What options are there concerning the means by which Israel will bless the world?

By giving them Torah? By showing what a super thing it is to live under Torah? Although I will not fill in the case here, I think it is clear that Paul does not believe that the Torah can do anything more than "cast a light on sin and magnify it". Torah does not reach to the depths of the real problem of the nations. The real problem is the Adamic problem - the sin problem. And Torah cannot really fix this, according to Paul.

I suggest that the way that Israel is intended to bless the nation is to act out the Christ pattern - to be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated and magnified (through the action of Torah) so that it can then passed on to Israel's true representative - Jesus. And then sin is condemned (Romans 8:3). And this is the real goal of the Abrahamic covenant - solving mankind's deepest problem: sin. Israel's story is not an interesting experiment run in parallel to what God will do with Jesus. Israel's story is part of the redemptive plan.

Paul hints at this very thing in Romans 5:20 when he makes this seemingly odd statement:

20And law came in, that the offence might abound

God is doing the same thing to Israel that He does with Jesus, except in a "setup" role. God uses Torah to heap sin on Israel in order to ultimately localize it so that it can be condemned. Can Israel fulfill its destiny? Can she truly bear the sin of the world? No she cannot. She, too, in Adam (Romans 3:10 and following).

So does God abandon his promise to use Israel to solve the Adamic sin problem?

No. He finds a faithful Israelite to fulfill it:

And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
22and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference,

The above rendering of Romans 3:20 and following is from Youngs. Paul here is not talking about "faith in Christ", he is talking about the "faith of Christ". Paul is identifying Jesus as the covenantally faithful Israelite who has indeed borne Israel's destiny to be a light to the nations.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 05:24 PM
The covenant we find ourselves in truely has all the promises plus greater promises. I think with these greater promises comes greater accountability, hence our heart condition is of utmost importance. It's no longer 'good enough' that we do from outward obedience, but that we, even blindly, trust our LORD with every fiber of being that we are, that we become totally dependant on Him for every decision that we make, and that it all starts from the heart. In that I mean we have two choices - God's way and our way.

There are many decisions we make that may seem 'our way', but if we consider them carefully, we may find our decisions are the result of our minds being transformed by the Holy Spirit - still we have to be careful, and the best way to be sure we line up with God in agreement is through His Word, because any contradiction would be blatent. We still get lied to, and the lies come with reasoning that seems to 'make sense', but if they are contrary to what God says, be assured they are lies. We are equipped to oppose lies and spiritual warfare, but we must use the full armor to do so. It's not always 'easy' to do. We have to shed our self reliance appear to become vulnerable and trust in God. That's very difficult to do in some situations, but if we are willing, God has the patience to conform us.

That said, the principles of this latest covenant were laid out very long ago.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 05:28 PM
The above rendering of Romans 3:20 and following is from Youngs. Paul here is not talking about "faith in Christ", he is talking about the "faith of Christ". Paul is identifying Jesus as the covenantally faithful Israelite who has indeed borne Israel's destiny to be a light to the nations.

I didn't want to quote your entire post, but have you compared your idea with Isaiah 54? Your last sentance is spot on.

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 05:56 PM
Why do assume that the human heart is the kind of thing that can only hold either the law or Jesus? And why would you assume that "following Jesus" would take you down a different road than following the "law"? In this respect, please note that I do not believe "the law" here is the 613 rules of Torah. It is instead the "essence" of Torah, perhaps best summarized by what Jesus says in Matthew - the stuff about how "loving God and neighbour" is the summary of Torah.

Paul is quite clear at a number of places that the "law" has been written on the heart of the believer. In Romans 10, he writes this:

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-28181c)]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "[B]The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010&version=31#fen-NIV-28182d)] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming:

This is a statement that the "law" (as I have explained it has indeed been written on the heart of the believer). And, of course, this does not "push Jesus out".

And I will re-state stuff from Romans 2 which is even more clear - "the law" gets written on the heart of the believer:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

Are you claiming that this is not true, that the requirements of the law are not wrritten on the heart?

In context the meaning you have given is not the same as what is written.

Rom 10:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) But what saith it? The word is nigh Thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, The word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The message you have explained is not the same as what the apostles preach, it is not the law, the law is not of faith.

Gal 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:04 PM
With so many pages of answers, I wanted to bring the original question forward...



Although I'm not enamored of the term "odd one out" :P, I'd have to say that it is the New Covenant because:

The New Covenant is the covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemptive work of Christ


In this, it is different from all the other covenants, and is the only covenant among those you listed that is not obsolete (here we go!!!! :lol:)

Hebrews addresses the different covenants, and I want to focus for a moment on Hebrews chapters 8-10 which specifically addresses the Mosaic covenant, which may be viewed as the culmination of all the other covenants.

In Hebrews 8:7 it is written: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

and in Hebrews 8:13: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now I understand that in verse 10 it says: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

But yet again we are told that we have been "grafted into the vine" and attained the promises (salvation) given to the house of Israel, so I don't see this as a stumbling block.

So...as the only covenant (outside the "eternal covenant") that is not obsolete is the New Covenant...then the New Covenant must be the "odd one out"...

JMO

Thank you Mcgyver,

I understand what you are saying, but I would also add that the reason why the Abrahamic and the davidic would be obsolete is because Jesus fulfilled them, as Jesus is Gods promise.

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 06:05 PM
In context the meaning you have given is not the same as what is written.

Rom 10:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) But what saith it? The word is nigh Thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, The word of faith, which we preach;
Rom 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Rom 10:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

The message you have explained is not the same as what the apostles preach, it is not the law, the law is not of faith.

Gal 3:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=48&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) And the law is not of faith: but, the man that doeth them shall live in them.

Firstfruits
You are still assuming an exclusivity here - you assume that a confession of Jesus as Lord is exclusive to having the law written on one's heart.

I could fill in the argument but, to keep things short, I will point out that the following from Romans 2 clearly states that something called "the law" is indeed written on the heart of the believer (in this context, the Gentile believer):

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,

You appear to be denying Paul's claim about "the law" being written on the heart. Are you?

Besides you also contradict Paul from Romans 9 when you say that the "law is not of faith". This is complicated, but there clearly is a sense in which Paul believes that there is a "law of faith":

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even (BI (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28186BI))the righteousness which is by faith;

31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works. They stumbled over (BL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28188BL))the stumbling stone

Not to mention this from Romans 3:

Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law

One needs to understand that Paul does not mean the same thing each time he refers to the Torah. If from nowhere else, this is made clear from the Romans 9 text, where Paul discerns two sense of "doing Torah".

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:14 PM
Yes, in general, I think that's right. In regards to the benefits of the Law, I think Paul teaches that the Law's benefits can be categorized in four ways.

1. Terms of a covenant:

What we know as the Mosaic Law became the terms of a covenant, a covenant God made with the sons of Jacob at Mt. Sinai. The essential agreement between God and the Nation of Israel was "I will be your God; and you will be my people."

2. To live as a Holy People:

When God decided to deal overtly with a single human family, Jacob's family, this in itself made them a holy people. The term holy simply means, "to be singled out for a unique purpose." So, in the sense that God had singled out Jacob and his family for this unique purpose, they became a holy people. However, God also gave them a law, which contained his moral vision. And to the extent that his people obey that law, they are living and acting like a holy people. It is one thing to be declared a holy people; it's another thing to live like it. The Law serves to define what holiness looks like.

3. An example to the world:

In Romans 3, Paul asserts that the Jews had an advantage over the Gentiles because they had readily access to the oracles of God. He argues that even though the Jews did not put their trust in the oracles of God, this did not negate the faithfulness of God. In that argument, Paul also asserts that the Jews were "entrusted" with the law, which I take to mean, they were the custodians of it. The implication in many of Paul's arguments is that the Gentile world has an opportunity to learn about God's character from both his law, and how he treats his special people.

4. Lead one to Christ:

Paul argues in Galatians that the true purpose of the Law was not a means to justification or God's favor, but the law was a means to know God's moral vision and to stand in humble honesty before that vision would lead someone to Christ. In Romans he argues by analogy to a widow seeking a new husband because her first husband had died. The analogy associates the act of seeking justification through the law as the first husband, which has died, and associates seeking justification through Christ as the second husband, which she is free to take as a husband now that the old way of seeking justification has died.

Paul says that this was never the intent of the law, but since folks like the Pharisees had taken it on as a means to justification, they had to realize that seeking God's favor through this route was not valid and could never be achieved. Having realized this, they are free to find salvation in what Jesus did on the cross.

As a side note it is worthy to note that some make the Law itself the first husband and suggest that the Law has died. I do not think this is what Paul had in mind. The Law continues to serve the same purposes it always has served, and we must not throw it away as if it is invalid.

Thanks BroRog,

How would you explain the following regarding the the New covenant taking presidence over the first?

Heb 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Firstfruits

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 06:17 PM
I understand what you are saying, but I would also add that the reason why the Abrahamic and the davidic would be obsolete is because Jesus fulfilled them, as Jesus is Gods promise.

Firstfruits

What makes you think bringing something to fullness makes it obsolete? When your marrage comes to fullness, do you throw away your wife? (assuming you don't live in Hollywood of course).

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 06:17 PM
I didn't want to quote your entire post, but have you compared your idea with Isaiah 54? Your last sentance is spot on.
I believe that Isaiah 54 entirely supports and endorses the position that Jesus takes on Israel's destiny. Here is what is said to Israel in Isaiah 54:

In an (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2054;&version=49;#cen-NASB-18732S))outburst of anger
I hid My face from you for a moment,

Clearly true of Jesus on the Cross - what is said of Israel in Isaiah 54 is seen to come true in Jesus. The destiny of Israel has been borne by Jesus.

There is other stuff in Isaiah 54 that adds strength to such a position.

mcgyver
Sep 12th 2008, 06:29 PM
Thank you Mcgyver,

I understand what you are saying, but I would also add that the reason why the Abrahamic and the davidic would be obsolete is because Jesus fulfilled them, as Jesus is Gods promise.

Firstfruits

My point exactly!! :)

All other covenants between God and man have been rendered obsolete, and have been superseded by, the person and (finished) work of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in His blood! :pp

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 06:35 PM
Thanks BroRog,

How would you explain the following regarding the the New covenant taking presidence over the first?

Heb 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Firstfruits

Torah is not a covenant.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 06:37 PM
I believe that Isaiah 54 entirely supports and endorses the position that Jesus takes on Israel's destiny. Here is what is said to Israel in Isaiah 54:

In an (S (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2054;&version=49;#cen-NASB-18732S))outburst of anger
I hid My face from you for a moment,

Clearly true of Jesus on the Cross - what is said of Israel in Isaiah 54 is seen to come true in Jesus. The destiny of Israel has been borne by Jesus.

There is other stuff in Isaiah 54 that adds strength to such a position.


Yes, I agree. Thank God for His grace.

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:38 PM
My point exactly!! :)

All other covenants between God and man have been rendered obsolete, and have been superseded by, the person and (finished) work of Jesus Christ and the New Covenant in His blood! :pp

There are definitely two that still stand, The Edenic and the Noahic, as we are still continuing to multiply and replenish the earth, and the earth has not been destroyed by water, there are still rainbows to that effect.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:43 PM
Torah is not a covenant.

What did God give Israel through Moses, was it not his agreement as to how israel should live before God? In that agreement did God not make promises and tell them how they would benfit by keeping his agreement?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 06:56 PM
Before the Mosaic agreement/covenant there was the Abrahamic the Davidic and the Edenic and Noahic covenants. These cannot be affected by what we do. No matter how sinful we have been they were not taken away. unlike the Mosaic Agreement/covenant, which was taken away because of disobedience.

Firstfruits

BroRog
Sep 12th 2008, 07:09 PM
Thanks BroRog,

How would you explain the following regarding the the New covenant taking presidence over the first?

Heb 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Firstfruits

As we explore the various covenants to ask what is the same about them and what is different, I believe one way to distinguish between them is to categorize them by the parties involved.

With regard to what others call the Adamic Covenant, I think it goes too far to call this a covenant. This is a promise God made to Eve, rather than a bilateral agreement between the two of them. At any rate, God made the Adamic Covenant with Eve. He promised that her seed would step on the head of the serpent, even as he bites his heal. We learn later that her redemption will also be the redemption for others like her who have faith in God as she did.

The Noetic Covenant, the one with the rainbow, was between God and all of mankind. In this, God promised to never bring a worldwide flood and as a confirmatory sign he offers us the rainbow.

The Mt. Sinai Covenant is between God and the nation of Israel. In this, God promises to be their God and they will be his people. Contrary to popular belief, this covenant was not strictly impossible to keep had Israel approached it with an honest and contrite heart as David suggested in Psalm 32. But alas, the people had foreheads of flint and hearts of stone, and refused to approach God with contrition and honesty.

What we refer to today as the "New Covenant" isn't actually the New Covenant. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are being saved based on God's promise to Abraham, not based on a covenant. The Actual New Covenant is not a unilateral covenant like the Noetic Covenant, and neither is a covenant with a single individual like the Adamic Covenent. The parties in the New Covenant are God and the house of Jacob and the house of Israel, having been reunited together as a single people and given the humble and contrite hearts necessary to fulfill the original Mt. Sinai agreement.

Some folks are taught to accept the premise that the fault with the Old Covenant was that it contained too many rules to keep and the moral vision was too hard to acheive. In this view it is taught that God abandoned his requirement to keep 613 commandments at some point, narrowing the parameters of salvation down to a single commandment: "confess Jesus as Lord." This oversimplification has not helped Bible students and followers of Jesus to gain the proper perspective on the law and its proper intent.

The real fault with the Old Covenant was not in the amount of rules to keep or its high moral standard, but the fact that the people were hard hearted and unable to be contrite or honest. In the New Covenant God will make with Israel, he will fix this problem when he pours out his spirit on them, removing their hearts of stone, replacing them with hearts of flesh.

Firstfruits
Sep 12th 2008, 07:38 PM
As we explore the various covenants to ask what is the same about them and what is different, I believe one way to distinguish between them is to categorize them by the parties involved.

With regard to what others call the Adamic Covenant, I think it goes too far to call this a covenant. This is a promise God made to Eve, rather than a bilateral agreement between the two of them. At any rate, God made the Adamic Covenant with Eve. He promised that her seed would step on the head of the serpent, even as he bites his heal. We learn later that her redemption will also be the redemption for others like her who have faith in God as she did.

The Noetic Covenant, the one with the rainbow, was between God and all of mankind. In this, God promised to never bring a worldwide flood and as a confirmatory sign he offers us the rainbow.

The Mt. Sinai Covenant is between God and the nation of Israel. In this, God promises to be their God and they will be his people. Contrary to popular belief, this covenant was not strictly impossible to keep had Israel approached it with an honest and contrite heart as David suggested in Psalm 32. But alas, the people had foreheads of flint and hearts of stone, and refused to approach God with contrition and honesty.

What we refer to today as the "New Covenant" isn't actually the New Covenant. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are being saved based on God's promise to Abraham, not based on a covenant. The Actual New Covenant is not a unilateral covenant like the Noetic Covenant, and neither is a covenant with a single individual like the Adamic Covenent. The parties in the New Covenant are God and the house of Jacob and the house of Israel, having been reunited together as a single people and given the humble and contrite hearts necessary to fulfill the original Mt. Sinai agreement.

Some folks are taught to accept the premise that the fault with the Old Covenant was that it contained too many rules to keep and the moral vision was too hard to acheive. In this view it is taught that God abandoned his requirement to keep 613 commandments at some point, narrowing the parameters of salvation down to a single commandment: "confess Jesus as Lord." This oversimplification has not helped Bible students and followers of Jesus to gain the proper perspective on the law and its proper intent.

The real fault with the Old Covenant was not in the amount of rules to keep or its high moral standard, but the fact that the people were hard hearted and unable to be contrite or honest. In the New Covenant God will make with Israel, he will fix this problem when he pours out his spirit on them, removing their hearts of stone, replacing them with hearts of flesh.

God made the Adamic Covenant with Eve. He promised that her seed would step on the head of the serpent, even as he bites his heal. We learn later that her redemption will also be the redemption for others like her who have faith in God as she did. So Jesus has come and in him we have the victory over Satan, so it is fulfilled.

The Noetic Covenant, the one with the rainbow, was between God and all of mankind. In this, God promised to never bring a worldwide flood and as a confirmatory sign he offers us the rainbow. This covenant stll stands.

The Mt. Sinai Covenant is between God and the nation of Israel. In this, God promises to be their God and they will be his people. Contrary to popular belief, this covenant was not strictly impossible to keep had Israel approached it with an honest and contrite heart as David suggested in Psalm 32. But alas, the people had foreheads of flint and hearts of stone, and refused to approach God with contrition and honesty. Yet because of disobedience God said he would make a new covenant.

What we refer to today as the "New Covenant" isn't actually the New Covenant. Rather, Jews and Gentiles are being saved based on God's promise to Abraham, not based on a covenant. The Actual New Covenant is not a unilateral covenant like the Noetic Covenant, and neither is a covenant with a single individual like the Adamic Covenent. The parties in the New Covenant are God and the house of Jacob and the house of Israel, having been reunited together as a single people and given the humble and contrite hearts necessary to fulfill the original Mt. Sinai agreement. God called it a new covenant; Jer 31:31 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=31) Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

The real fault with the Old Covenant was not in the amount of rules to keep or its high moral standard, but the fact that the people were hard hearted and unable to be contrite or honest. In the New Covenant God will make with Israel, he will fix this problem when he pours out his spirit on them, removing their hearts of stone, replacing them with hearts of flesh. If God has not already fixed the problem then what is the covenant we have in our hearts?

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 12th 2008, 07:51 PM
Some folks are taught to accept the premise that the fault with the Old Covenant was that it contained too many rules to keep and the moral vision was too hard to acheive.
My understanding is that Scripture teaches the Torah is indeed too difficult achieve, in the absence of the giving of the Spirit. With the giving of the Spirit, the moral vision indeed can be achieved. Paul says this in Romans 10:

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28181c)]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28182d)] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming

Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy, a passage about what happens when God renews his covenant with Israel. Perhaps the reader will object to my category of "covenant renewal". Well if so, I will explain and defend. Or you may not like the "vagueness" of a reference to a "single covenant with Israel". In any event, here is what Paul is quoting from:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 [B]No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

I think Paul knows what he is doing. He indeed affirms (as he does elsewhere) that, to use BroRog's terms, the "moral vision" is indeed achievable.

But, and I sense BroRog will not agree with this, the moral vision is only achievable through the renewal of the covenant effected by Jesus' work on the cross and as supplemented by the giving of the Spirit.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 08:40 PM
From what I read, "Old Covenant" is used only once in the entire Scripture, in Hebrew or Greek. Our English Bibles may contain it many times, but if we go back to the language they were written in we'll find it's not accurate. The one time "Old Covenant" is used in the original language is 2 Cor 3:14. And that ONE reference refers to is as something being read. From a misreading of this one reference an enormous fraud has been perpetuated on believers since the days of the early 'church fathers'.

I'll expose the fraud here:

The "Old Covenant" is NOT the "Old Testament"
The "New Covenant is NOT the "New Testament"

Splitting the Bible is two parts is a man-made invention that continues ot obscure the truth of our Almighty God. Neither Jesus, nor His Apostles eveer intended for believers to divide Scripture into a 'relavent' part in the last quarter, nor a 'non-relevant' part in the first 3/4ths. The "old/first" being spoken of in Hebrews chapter 8 and the "new/second" being spoken of is NOT speaking of supposed parts of Sripture.

Erase the bias, just for a moment and consider what can be done with Scripture if left unchecked. Remember ALL Scripture referenced in the following passages was available at the time was from the TeNaKh (incorrectly called the Old Testament) - when it speaks of Scriptures, they are not referring to the Apostoloc Scriptures:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luk 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
Luk 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luk 24:28 And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther.
Luk 24:29 But they urged Him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over." So He went in to stay with them.
Luk 24:30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.
Luk 24:31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.
Luk 24:32 They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

Luk 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Act 17:1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
Act 17:4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Act 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

In the previous passages, Peter equates Pauls epistles with "Scripture". Indeed the are. What is often missed is that Peter is WARNING people about mishandling Scripture - and shows that those who mishandle 'other Scriptures' (that is the TeNaKh) will also mishandle Paul's epistles.

This is a STERN WARNING to all those who think it's OK that a later passage should trump an earlier passage. If a later passage seems to contradict an earlier passage only one thing is possible - you are mishandling the passage.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 08:42 PM
What did God give Israel through Moses, was it not his agreement as to how israel should live before God? In that agreement did God not make promises and tell them how they would benfit by keeping his agreement?

Firstfruits

We probably should be on the same page. Define 'covenant'.

BroRog
Sep 12th 2008, 10:16 PM
If God has not already fixed the problem then what is the covenant we have in our hearts?

Firstfruits




If you want to look at it that way, the covenant WE have is the one God made with Abraham, that he would be the father of many nations.

BroRog
Sep 12th 2008, 10:25 PM
My understanding is that Scripture teaches the Torah is indeed too difficult achieve, in the absence of the giving of the Spirit. With the giving of the Spirit, the moral vision indeed can be achieved. Paul says this in Romans 10:

But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'" (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28181c)]" (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28182d)] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming

Paul is quoting from Deuteronomy, a passage about what happens when God renews his covenant with Israel. Perhaps the reader will object to my category of "covenant renewal". Well if so, I will explain and defend. Or you may not like the "vagueness" of a reference to a "single covenant with Israel". In any event, here is what Paul is quoting from:

Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 [B]No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

I think Paul knows what he is doing. He indeed affirms (as he does elsewhere) that, to use BroRog's terms, the "moral vision" is indeed achievable.

But, and I sense BroRog will not agree with this, the moral vision is only achievable through the renewal of the covenant effected by Jesus' work on the cross and as supplemented by the giving of the Spirit.

I wouldn't put it that way. The child of God will not be morally perfect until his or her glorification. Until then, we remain sinners.

But hope I didn't mislead you because I never meant to say that the moral vision was possible to achieve. I meant to say, if I didn't, that the Old Covenant was possible to keep. Moses wasn't saying, in Deuteronomy, that Israel was to be perfect in their obedience. The covenant didn't demand perfect obedience. It demanded an honest and contrite heart, of which the sacrifices were supposed to be an expression of a person's contriteness.

BHS
Sep 12th 2008, 11:31 PM
It means to finish/complete as in the following; Jn 17:4 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=17&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=4) I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

Do you believe that God sent Jesus to keep the ten commandments?

To establish means to set up as in the following;

Heb 8:6 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=6) But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Heb 10:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

Firstfruits

"Fulfill" also means to make full -- to fill full of meaning.
"Establish" means to "place on a firm footing" or "to uphold".

Is that a leading question? -- Jesus kept all the commandments.

Blessings,
BHS

Enoch365
Sep 12th 2008, 11:54 PM
The covenants that God made with Israel through Moses was the fifth. The Ark contains the two tablets, on which the Ten commandments were inscribed.
God's continuous presence on Earth and among His people was, for the first time assured and physically manifested by manse of this covenant. The Divine power and blessings vested in the Ark were unlimited provided that the people would live up to obligations with were based on their part to worship Him and Him alone.

Regrettably enough and to their detriment, the Hebrews engaged in constant violation of the covenant. When they persisted in their iniquities and stubbornness, they were warned of the consequences that turned out to be he total destruction of Jerusalem, including the Temple and everything within its bounds, followed by the dispersion and captivity of what would remain of the people from the sward of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.

Richard H
Sep 13th 2008, 03:14 AM
I agree with Brorog. And I think the misunderstanding of many Jews who accept Messiah comes about because of the fact that Judaism teaches that the Law God gave the people through Moses on Mount Sinai is God's marriage-contract with Israel.

Yet Jesus said that the only grounds for divorce is adultery, and while the Groom was saying His vows on Mount Sinai, the bride was already committing adultery with a golden calf - and were it not for Moses' intercession on their behalf, they would all have perished there and then - and afterward, the bride contnued to commit adultery over and over again with the gods and the kings of the nations around her.

It's no wonder God said through Jeremiah that a NEW covenant would come which would be unlike this covenant, because Israel had broken that covenant, even though God had been a husband to them.

Thank God, God's promise to Abraham to be God to Abraham and his descendants forever was made 430 years before the Law and the Covenant God gave through Moses, and God's promises to Abraham did not and do not depend on the faithfulness of Abraham's descendants or to their obedience to the Law.

ananias

Here's the Quote:

During the reign of King Josiah, the LORD said to me, "Have you seen what faithless Israel has done? She has gone up on every high hill and under every spreading tree and has committed adultery there. I thought that after she had done all this she would return to me but she did not, and her unfaithful sister Judah saw it. I gave faithless Israel her certificate of divorce and sent her away because of all her adulteries. Yet I saw that her unfaithful sister Judah had no fear; she also went out and committed adultery.
Jer 3:6-8

Firstfruits
Sep 13th 2008, 12:41 PM
We probably should be on the same page. Define 'covenant'.

A covenant is an agreement.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 13th 2008, 12:47 PM
The only temporal covenant is the one which was based equally upon man's faithfulness and obedience - the fifth one.

All the others are eternal - because they are based on GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD, which is eternal.

ananias

Thanks Ananias,

Are the promises and the benefits of the Mosaic covenants also temporal?

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 13th 2008, 01:00 PM
From what I read, "Old Covenant" is used only once in the entire Scripture, in Hebrew or Greek. Our English Bibles may contain it many times, but if we go back to the language they were written in we'll find it's not accurate. The one time "Old Covenant" is used in the original language is 2 Cor 3:14. And that ONE reference refers to is as something being read. From a misreading of this one reference an enormous fraud has been perpetuated on believers since the days of the early 'church fathers'.

I'll expose the fraud here:

The "Old Covenant" is NOT the "Old Testament"
The "New Covenant is NOT the "New Testament"

Splitting the Bible is two parts is a man-made invention that continues ot obscure the truth of our Almighty God. Neither Jesus, nor His Apostles eveer intended for believers to divide Scripture into a 'relavent' part in the last quarter, nor a 'non-relevant' part in the first 3/4ths. The "old/first" being spoken of in Hebrews chapter 8 and the "new/second" being spoken of is NOT speaking of supposed parts of Sripture.

Erase the bias, just for a moment and consider what can be done with Scripture if left unchecked. Remember ALL Scripture referenced in the following passages was available at the time was from the TeNaKh (incorrectly called the Old Testament) - when it speaks of Scriptures, they are not referring to the Apostoloc Scriptures:

Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Mat 5:19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Luk 24:25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!
Luk 24:26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?"
Luk 24:27 Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luk 24:28 And they approached the village where they were going, and He acted as though He were going farther.
Luk 24:29 But they urged Him, saying, "Stay with us, for it is getting toward evening, and the day is now nearly over." So He went in to stay with them.
Luk 24:30 When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them.
Luk 24:31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.
Luk 24:32 They said to one another, "Were not our hearts burning within us while He was speaking to us on the road, while He was explaining the Scriptures to us?"

Luk 24:44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled."
Luk 24:45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
Luk 24:46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day,
Luk 24:47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

Act 17:1 Now when they had traveled through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 17:3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
Act 17:4 And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, along with a large number of the God-fearing Greeks and a number of the leading women.

Act 17:10 The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Act 17:12 Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
Act 17:13 But when the Jews of Thessalonica found out that the word of God had been proclaimed by Paul in Berea also, they came there as well, agitating and stirring up the crowds.

2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,

2Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
2Pe 3:16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness,

In the previous passages, Peter equates Pauls epistles with "Scripture". Indeed the are. What is often missed is that Peter is WARNING people about mishandling Scripture - and shows that those who mishandle 'other Scriptures' (that is the TeNaKh) will also mishandle Paul's epistles.

This is a STERN WARNING to all those who think it's OK that a later passage should trump an earlier passage. If a later passage seems to contradict an earlier passage only one thing is possible - you are mishandling the passage.


This is from my other thread which agrees with what you have said regarding the use of the Old testament and the New testament as two separate books;

Lk 16:16 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=42&CHAP=16&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=16) The law and The prophets were until John: since that time The kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

When God spoke a new covenant replacing the old, he spoke of the covenant made at Mount Sinai, and Jesus.

Heb 8:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued Not in my covenant, and I regarded them Not, saith the Lord.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 10:55 AM
Gods covenant given through Moses

According to the following scripture God has promised that "if" you keep "all" his commandments "then" you will receive the benefits/blessings, However even if you could keep all the commandments given to Israel through Moses, by God, the benefits/blessing are temporal.

Deut 28:1 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=28&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=1) And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:
2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, 3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field.
4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.
5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.
6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.
7 The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.
8 The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
9 The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.
10 And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.
11 And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.
13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:

How does that compare to the promises and benefits of The Abrahamic, Davidic and New covenant?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 12:14 PM
Thanks Ananias,

Are the promises and the benefits of the Mosaic covenants also temporal?

Firstfruits

Not only were (past tense) they temporal, they were never fully realized by the people because they were based equally upon the faithfulness of the people viz. their obedience to the Laws God gave to them through Moses.

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 12:25 PM
With so many pages of answers, I wanted to bring the original question forward...



Although I'm not enamored of the term "odd one out" :P, I'd have to say that it is the New Covenant because:

The New Covenant is the covenant of unconditional blessing based upon the finished redemptive work of Christ

In this, it is different from all the other covenants, and is the only covenant among those you listed that is not obsolete (here we go!!!! :lol:)

Hebrews addresses the different covenants, and I want to focus for a moment on Hebrews chapters 8-10 which specifically addresses the Mosaic covenant, which may be viewed as the culmination of all the other covenants.

In Hebrews 8:7 it is written: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.

and in Hebrews 8:13: In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Now I understand that in verse 10 it says: For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

JMO

mcgyver,

Which one of the covenants listed in the OP of this thread do the following words refer to?

"... not according to the covenant that I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which covenant of Mine they broke, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD;" (Jer.31: 32).

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 12:27 PM
With regards to the promises and benefits of the covenants to which covenant does Jesus refer to in the following?

Mt 6:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mt 6:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Mt 6:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Firstfruits

I guess those words would be referring to the New Covenant.

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 01:17 PM
There are definitely two that still stand, The Edenic and the Noahic, as we are still continuing to multiply and replenish the earth, and the earth has not been destroyed by water, there are still rainbows to that effect.

Firstfruits

Those two covenants (the Edenic and the Noahic) are covenants that God made with all of humanity - unlike the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants which God made with a specific nation - aka "Israel".

The Abrahanmic Covenant promised

(a) that God would be God to Abraham and his descendants forever, and

(b) that God would give Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan (Israel and Judah) as their everlasting inheritance, and

(c) that all the nations of the earth would be blessed through Abraham's seed (who is Christ, the Son of God and the son of David, since Mary was a descendant of David)

The Abrahamic Covenant, LIKE THE NEW COVENANT, is an eternal covenant of grace, the promised belssings of which can only be received through faith in the Word of God.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not annulled by the Mosaic Covenant (Gal.3: 17).

The Abrahamic Covenant WAS NOT SOLICITED by Abraham and his descendants - rather God, in His sovereign will and purpose,

(1) called Abraham out of Babylon (there is a biblical type here of Jesus calling us out of Babylon in the Revelation), and

(2) elected Abraham and his descendants with an eternal election; and

(3) made Abraham and his descendants these eternal promises; and

(4) cut a covenant with Abraham regarding God's fulfillment of these promises - of which the fulfillment was binding on one party alone, namely, God.

The Abrahamic Covenant is the basis of all the other covenants God made with Israel.

The promise of the Davidic Covenant of the eternal nature of king David's throne (Jerusalem), kingdom (Israel) and royal family-line (Messiah, the son of David) is based upon the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant.

Likewise, the promises of the new covenant are based upon the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

If the Abrahamic and the Davidic covenant are temporal, then the New Covenant has disintegrated - for the New Covenant fulfills the eternal promises of the Abrahamic and the Davidic Covenants, which are fulfilled in and by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The only theological question that remains to be resolved at the time of the return of our Savior, is whether or not He will literally reign on the earth over all the nations with a rod of iron for a thousand years with His resurrected saints, from His throne in Jerusalem in His kingdom of Judah, which is HIS INHERITANCE (according to God's promises to Abraham and to king David which are contained in the Abrahamic Covenant and in the Davidic Covenant).

In the spirit of the theory of evolution ;), many Christians adhere to the traditional Roman Catholic Theology which teaches that "The Church" (which is actually the New Testament temple of God), is a spiritual and New Testament Israel which has superceded the nation which came into being through God's calling and eternal election of Abraham and his descendants; and that regarding the kingdom of David and of Christ, "the spiritual" has superceded "the natural".

Yet the only place in the entire Bible which teaches a doctrine of the spiritual superceding the natural, is 1Corinthians 15, which talks about the resurrection of the human body from the dead, and where verse 44 says,

"... it (the human body) is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body." (1Cor.15: 44).

If we take this doctrine out of its context and apply it to Israel and "The Church", then what we are implying is that at the time of the crucifixion of Christ, all Abraham's natural descendants died, and were resurrected as Christians!

Yet this isn't what the Bible teaches - the Bible teaches that at the time of the crucifixion of Christ. the majority of Abraham's physical descendants were broken off from Israel through their unblief, bu a remnant remained (Rom.11: 1-5), and all Gentile believers are grafted into Israel among that remnant.

It is just as Jesus had said,

"And I have other sheep who are not of this fold. I must also lead those, and they shall hear My voice, and there shall be one flock, one Shepherd." (Joh.10: 16).

"One flock, one Shepherd", because in Christ there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Gentile.

So can we now say that there is no such thing as male and female for those who are in Christ, and therefore your wife is not female, and you are not male, and the Jew is no longer a Jew and the Gentile no longer a Gentile?

And can we now say that God's promise that he made to Abraham regarding the land and all God's promises regarding the inheritance of the Messiah has evolved from the natural to the spiritual ,and therefore Jesus will never reign from a literal throne in Jerusalem over the nations
"with a rod of iron" in a literal sense, and that the millennium is therefore not lietral?

Methinks the dispute over the answer to this quesiton will go around in circles until Jesus comes back. :)

ananias. :giveup:

drew
Sep 14th 2008, 01:31 PM
Those two covenants (the Edenic and the Noahic) are covenants that God made with all of humanity - unlike the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Covenants which God made with a specific nation - aka "Israel".
I do not see how the view that the Abrahamic covenant was with a specific nation - Israel - can be maintained in light of what Paul says in Romans.

In reference to Abraham, Paul writes this:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Now there are ways in which the Abrahamic covenant is indeed with the nation of Israel - take the matter of promised deliverance from Egypt.

But, at a deeper, more fundamental level, the Abrahamic covenant is not restricted to the nation of Israel. One of the fundamental covenantal promises to Abraham was that he would be the father of a large family.

Is that family national Israel? Obviously not, according to what Paul writes above. People other than Jews are part of this covenantally promised family.

And there is stuff in Romans 9 that makes a similar case.

Paul clearly sees Abraham's familyt

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 02:04 PM
I do not see how the view that the Abrahamic covenant was with a specific nation - Israel - can be maintained in light of what Paul says in Romans.

In reference to Abraham, Paul writes this:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Now there are ways in which the Abrahamic covenant is indeed with the nation of Israel - take the matter of promised deliverance from Egypt.

But, at a deeper, more fundamental level, the Abrahamic covenant is not restricted to the nation of Israel. One of the fundamental covenantal promises to Abraham was that he would be the father of a large family.

Is that family national Israel? Obviously not, according to what Paul writes above. People other than Jews are part of this covenantally promised family.

And there is stuff in Romans 9 that makes a similar case.

Paul clearly sees Abraham's familyt

Hi, drew.

If the Abrahamic covenant is not made with Abraham and his descendants (aka "Israel"), then into which body are the Gentile believers grafted among the remnant (Rom.11: 1-5, 17)?

ananias

Richard H
Sep 14th 2008, 02:29 PM
And can we now say that God's promise that he made to Abraham regarding the land and all God's promises regarding the inheritance of the Messiah has evolved from the natural to the spiritual ,and therefore Jesus will never reign from a literal throne in Jerusalem over the nations
"with a rod of iron" in a literal sense, and that the millennium is therefore not lietral?



And out of His mouth goes forth a sharp sword, that with it He might smite the nations. And He will shepherd them with an iron rod. And He treads the winepress of the wine of the anger and of the wrath of God Almighty.
And He has on His garment and on His thigh a name having been written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 19:15,16

Will He have an actual sword in his mouth? I don’t think so.
Will he have an actual rod of iron? I don’t think so.
Will He actually come in person? Yes.

And saying these things, as they looked on, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him from their sight.
And as they were intently looking into the heaven, He having gone, even behold, two men in white clothing stood by them,
who also said, Men, Galileans, why do you stand looking up to the heaven? This Jesus, the One being taken from you into the heaven, will come in the way you saw Him going into the heaven.
Acts 1:9-11

Howbeit ?
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them. And judgment was given to them, and the souls of the ones having been beheaded because of the witness of Jesus, and because of the Word of God, and who had not worshiped the beast nor its image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand. And they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is the one having part in the first resurrection. The second death has no authority over these, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and will reign with Him a thousand years.
Rev 20:4-6

If the 1000 years is only figurative, then what's your opinion of the resurrection(s)?

drew
Sep 14th 2008, 02:55 PM
Hi, drew.

If the Abrahamic covenant is not made with Abraham and his descendants (aka "Israel"), then into which body are the Gentile believers grafted among the remnant (Rom.11: 1-5, 17)?

ananias
First of all, you have not dealt with the Romans 4 text I provided. I know that there are some confusing issues of terminology here, but Paul is quite clear in Romans 4 that Abraham's family contains not just Jews, but Gentiles as well. And a large family is one of the covenantal promises made to Abraham.

And it is important to underscore that Paul is clearly arguing that some of the Abrahamic covenantal promise never were for Jews and Jews alone:

13It was not through 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. 14For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16Therefore, 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 are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all.

Paul is quite clear here - the covenantal promise of a large family is not "national Israel specific". It is clear that from the very establishment of the Abrahamic covenant, the promise of membership in the covenant is extended to all, not just Jews.

Anyone who has the faith of Abraham is part of the covenant family.

As for Romans 11, Paul is clear that there are some Jews who are members of this worldwide family that, from it very inception, contains both Jews and Gentiles.

Is your argument that since (as per Romans 11:17) the Gentiles have been "grafted into" the family of God through the work of Christ, then this means that the original promise (made much earlier) had to be for Isreal alone? So we have an Abrahamic covenant for national Israel alone that is then expanded to include Gentiles?

I admit that it is tricky to reconcile this notion of "grafting in the Gentiles" with what Paul says in Romans 4, which seems to suggest that, even from the beginning of the Abrhamic covenant, some of the promises were not specific to Jews.

I will try to explain how I see this all working together. But I think Romans 4 is clear - Paul talks about Abraham's family being constituted by both Jew and Gentile, from its inception.

drew
Sep 14th 2008, 03:13 PM
Romans 9 also makes it clear that Paul believes that the heirs of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are not limited to "genetic" or "national" Israel. Note how he starts by clearly asserting that the original promise has been kept. And then he explains by saying that we should not make the mistake of thinking that the promise was for all of "national Israel" -the genetic descendents of Abraham.

Let's be clear here: Paul clearly distinguishes between the "natural or genetic" descendents of Abraham and a category he calls "Abraham's children". He is saying the same thing here as he did in Romans 4. From the very inception of the Abrahamic covenant, some of the promises were not limted to "genetic" Israel. In the following, he only makes a case that a subset of "national Israel" are members of Abraham's true covenant family. But, as we will see below, he goes to say that Gentiles are also in that family:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Now in this text from later in Romans 9, Paul clearly includes Gentiles as members of the family that God promised to Abraham:

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

I think it is quite clear that Paul considers that God's promise of a large family for Abraham was never a promise about "national Israel", but a promise about a family whose members are drawn from Gentiles as well.

I agree that if one takes the Old Testament texts at "face" value, it seems like the Abrahamic covenant was for Jews and Jews only. But this view simply cannot survive Paul's writings. Paul is quite clear - the family that is the heir of many of the covenant promises includes both Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot adopt the overly simplistic conclusion that since the promise of rescue from Egypt - one of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant - was indeed for "national Israel", that all of the Abrahamic covenant is Israel-specific. Paul does not leave us that option.

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 03:29 PM
Not only were (past tense) they temporal, they were never fully realized by the people because they were based equally upon the faithfulness of the people viz. their obedience to the Laws God gave to them through Moses.

ananias

Thank you Ananias,

God bless you.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 03:30 PM
I guess those words would be referring to the New Covenant.

ananias

In comparison to which covenant?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 03:51 PM
Rev 20:4-6


If the 1000 years is only figurative, then what's your opinion of the resurrection(s)?

:eek: :o by your question - because I didn't say that the 1000 years is figurative, I was referring to the belief that the 1000 years is figurative, which I don't believe! :confused

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 04:12 PM
So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised

Romans 9 also makes it clear that Paul believes that the heirs of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are not limited to "genetic" or "national" Israel. Note how he starts by clearly asserting that the original promise has been kept. And then he explains by saying that we should not make the mistake of thinking that the promise was for all of "national Israel" -the genetic descendents of Abraham.

Let's be clear here: Paul clearly distinguishes between the "natural or genetic" descendents of Abraham and a category he calls "Abraham's children". He is saying the same thing here as he did in Romans 4. From the very inception of the Abrahamic covenant, some of the promises were not limted to "genetic" Israel. In the following, he only makes a case that a subset of "national Israel" are members of Abraham's true covenant family. But, as we will see below, he goes to say that Gentiles are also in that family:

It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." 8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.

Now in this text from later in Romans 9, Paul clearly includes Gentiles as members of the family that God promised to Abraham:

What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
"I will call them 'my people' who are not my people;
and I will call her 'my loved one' who is not my loved one,"[i (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%209;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28166i)] 26and,
"It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
'You are not my people,'
they will be called 'sons of the living God.

I think it is quite clear that Paul considers that God's promise of a large family for Abraham was never a promise about "national Israel", but a promise about a family whose members are drawn from Gentiles as well.

I agree that if one takes the Old Testament texts at "face" value, it seems like the Abrahamic covenant was for Jews and Jews only. But this view simply cannot survive Paul's writings. Paul is quite clear - the family that is the heir of many of the covenant promises includes both Jews and Gentiles.

We cannot adopt the overly simplistic conclusion that since the promise of rescue from Egypt - one of the promises of the Abrahamic covenant - was indeed for "national Israel", that all of the Abrahamic covenant is Israel-specific. Paul does not leave us that option.

Yes, what you say is true - and I'll add to that, that Gentiles were joined to the nation all through the nation's history.

But

(1) whether or not it's Jew and Gentile, it's still a nation which has been SEPARATED unto God from among the nations of the world ever since the time of God's calling and eternal election of Abraham and his descendants.

(2) The sign of circumcision given by God to Abraham and his descendants nevertheless made a distinction between Jew and Gentile:

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Even here, Paul makes this distinction. And if we can understand that, then it is absolutely no problem to reconcile the above verses with what Paul says about Gentiles (the uncircumcised) being grafted in among the remannt of the circumcised, when the majority of the circumcised were broken off - once again, a distinction between the believing circumcised, and the believing uncircumcised.

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by Firstfruits http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1785581#post1785581)
With regards to the promises and benefits of the covenants to which covenant does Jesus refer to in the following?

Mt 6:19 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=19) Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

Mt 6:20 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=20) But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

Mt 6:25 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=40&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=25) Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?
26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?
27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?
28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.
30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?
31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.
34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

Firstfruits


I guess those words would be referring to the New Covenant.

ananias

In comparison to which covenant?

Firstfruits

I don't really know :blush: . I was guessing that if those words apply to any covenant at all, they could only apply to the New Covenant - but I'm not even sure of whether or not they apply to any covenant at all.

You're going to have to help me out here. Either by asking me more questions, or by telling me what your answer is to your question :confused

ananias.

Richard H
Sep 14th 2008, 05:02 PM
:eek: :o by your question - because I didn't say that the 1000 years is figurative, I was referring to the belief that the 1000 years is figurative, which I don't believe! :confused

ananias

I see now. I misunderstood you. '

Sorry, Ananias!

Richard :blush:

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 05:25 PM
I don't really know :blush: . I was guessing that if those words apply to any covenant at all, they could only apply to the New Covenant - but I'm not even sure of whether or not they apply to any covenant at all.

You're going to have to help me out here. Either by asking me more questions, or by telling me what your answer is to your question :confused

ananias.

It would help knowing the promises and the benefits of the covenants and then comparing them with what Jesus said. You have a choice of three.

I will give you a clue it is regarding temporal or eternal.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 06:53 PM
I see now. I misunderstood you. '

Sorry, Ananias!

Richard :blush:

No problem, Richard.:)

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 06:59 PM
It would help knowing the promises and the benefits of the covenants and then comparing them with what Jesus said. You have a choice of three.

I will give you a clue it is regarding temporal or eternal.

Firstfruits

O.K. In comparison to the Mosaic Covenant.

If you say, "the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant", then we're still going to get back to debating whether or not Jesus died and rose again from the dead in order to separate "the spiritual" and "the natural".

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 07:05 PM
O.K. In comparison to the Mosaic Covenant.

If you say, "the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant", then we're still going to get back to debating whether or not Jesus died and rose again from the dead in order to separate "the spiritual" and "the natural".

ananias

It was the AAAAbr No just joking, yes you are right.

No matter how much you keep the Mosaic covenant the benefits are all temporal, and no more.

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 07:12 PM
It was the AAAAbr No just joking, yes you are right.

No matter how much you keep the Mosaic covenant the benefits are all temporal, and no more.

Firstfruits

It's actually very presumptious of any Christian to try and keep the Mosaic Covenant - firstly because that's impossible for fallen man, and secondly, because Jesus, the last Adam, is the only Man who could, and did, keep it. And since we are all IN HIM, when He fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, we fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, and when He died on the cross, we died with Him - the Laws God gave to the people through Moses have been fulfilled ONCE AND FOR ALL - ALL OF THEM! So now we live through faith in Him.

ananias

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 07:13 PM
It was the AAAAbr No just joking, yes you are right.

No matter how much you keep the Mosaic covenant the benefits are all temporal, and no more.

Firstfruits

Thanks for that laugh :)

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 14th 2008, 07:20 PM
It's actually very presumptious of any Christian to try and keep the Mosaic Covenant - firstly because that's impossible for fallen man, and secondly, because Jesus, the last Adam, is the only Man who could, and did, keep it. And since we are all IN HIM, when He fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, we fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, and when He died on the cross, we died with Him - the Laws God gave to the people through Moses have been fulfilled ONCE AND FOR ALL - ALL OF THEM! So now we live through faith in Him.

ananias

Is it like being ignorant of what Christ Christ came to do and has done , as though his death was not really worth anything?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 14th 2008, 09:10 PM
Is it like being ignorant of what Christ Christ came to do and has done , as though his death was not really worth anything?

Firstfruits

Yeah, praise Jesus for His mercy. Praise God for His sacrifice. It is an amazing, amazing thing that Immanuel came to save us. I don't deserve it. Praise God.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 06:45 AM
Heb 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

Heb 10:17 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=10&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=17) And their sins And iniquities will I remember no more.

Rom 11:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

What do he have to do to obtain the benefits of the New covenant?

Firstfruits

Steps
Sep 15th 2008, 06:58 AM
It's actually very presumptious of any Christian to try and keep the Mosaic Covenant - firstly because that's impossible for fallen man, and secondly, because Jesus, the last Adam, is the only Man who could, and did, keep it. And since we are all IN HIM, when He fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, we fulfilled (past tense) the Mosaic Laws, and when He died on the cross, we died with Him - the Laws God gave to the people through Moses have been fulfilled ONCE AND FOR ALL - ALL OF THEM! So now we live through faith in Him.

ananias

WORD!!! Like Music to my heart!!!

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 01:05 PM
WORD!!! Like Music to my heart!!!

Not everyone understands what it means to do the works of God.

Jn 6:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Firstfruits

drew
Sep 15th 2008, 02:32 PM
Yes, what you say is true - and I'll add to that, that Gentiles were joined to the nation all through the nation's history.

But

(1) whether or not it's Jew and Gentile, it's still a nation which has been SEPARATED unto God from among the nations of the world ever since the time of God's calling and eternal election of Abraham and his descendants.

(2) The sign of circumcision given by God to Abraham and his descendants nevertheless made a distinction between Jew and Gentile:
I agree with the above response to what I wrote with the possible 2 exceptions:

1. Re your point number (1): If you are asserting election or pre-destination of specific individuals (Jew or Gentile) to salvation and / or to loss, I would take the view that the Scriptures do not support such a position.

2. Re your point number (2): As a result of the action of Jesus, any "real" distinction between Jews and Gentiles have been dissolved. There are no "outstanding" (yet to be fulfillled) promises for Jews and Jews only.

drew
Sep 15th 2008, 02:47 PM
Not everyone understands what it means to do the works of God.

Jn 6:28 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=28) Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Jn 6:29 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=43&CHAP=6&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Firstfruits
Hmmmmm......

I have a lot of sympathy for part of what you and Steps and ananias are saying here. However, I think that the above statement of what it means to "do the works" of God needs to be qualified.

I will try to explain what I mean by contrasting it with a position that I am convinced is deady wrong. And one hears this position expounded fairly frequently in the church. And that position is that "all you need is to beleive and have faith, good works are not relevant to ultimate salvation". On this view, a person who hops and down and claims to believe and have faith in Jesus, yet lives a life where sin masters him or her, will expect to see heaven.

I think neither Paul nor Jesus would countenance such a position.

I do not want to be characterized as asserting that "good works" save (even this is what Paul and Jesus do say), so I will express this like this: If one claims to have faith, "good works" are the evidence of the reality of that faith. If you claim faith, and yet do not manifest works, you're in big trouble.

On another board, a poster was clearly promoting sinful behaviour. He was repeatedly making false and misleading statements about Barak Obama. And these statements were obviously false and misleading (please, lets not get into the details, and I am no fan of Mr. Obama). When another poster said that such behaviour was sinful because it was essentially "bearing false witness", the response was "well, I have an advocate named Jesus who will speak for me at the time of judgement, so I will keep on doing what I have been doing"

Yeah, right.

But I certainly agree with the "general spirit" of what you are all saying.

Steps
Sep 15th 2008, 03:19 PM
Hmmmmm......

I have a lot of sympathy for part of what you and Steps and ananias are saying here. However, I think that the above statement of what it means to "do the works" of God needs to be qualified.

I will try to explain what I mean by contrasting it with a position that I am convinced is deady wrong. And one hears this position expounded fairly frequently in the church. And that position is that "all you need is to beleive and have faith, good works are not relevant to ultimate salvation". On this view, a person who hops and down and claims to believe and have faith in Jesus, yet lives a life where sin masters him or her, will expect to see heaven.

I think neither Paul nor Jesus would countenance such a position.

I do not want to be characterized as asserting that "good works" save (even this is what Paul and Jesus do say), so I will express this like this: If one claims to have faith, "good works" are the evidence of the reality of that faith. If you claim faith, and yet do not manifest works, you're in big trouble.

On another board, a poster was clearly promoting sinful behaviour. He was repeatedly making false and misleading statements about Barak Obama. And these statements were obviously false and misleading (please, lets not get into the details, and I am no fan of Mr. Obama). When another poster said that such behaviour was sinful because it was essentially "bearing false witness", the response was "well, I have an advocate named Jesus who will speak for me at the time of judgement, so I will keep on doing what I have been doing"

Yeah, right.

But I certainly agree with the "general spirit" of what you are all saying.

Whao! Please tell me you are kidding! Someone is in some serious doo-doo if they don't open their heart to light of the gospel of Christ.....real quick!

Good works, as approved of God, is born of faith, relationship with the Word, and fellowship with The Holy Spirit. When we receive Christ into our heart by faith, make Him Lord over lives, fellowship with the Word and His Spirit, we are changed, daily, into His image and glory. As this happens, our inner man will begin to abhor sin. We also receive power to reject our carnal desires which in enmity with God and make it impossible to please God.(Power to become the sons of God.) Good works (works that please God, that are in accordance to His will) will then become our primary life-style. (2 Cor 3:18, Psa 119:11, Rom 8:2-10)

But if you chose to live loosely and in sin (even after He has said, you who has been made free from sin should not live any longer therein), with the self-deception that you are saved-saved. Sorry, you are gonna need a 'Safe' to save you from His eternal wrath.

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 03:24 PM
Hmmmmm......

I have a lot of sympathy for part of what you and Steps and ananias are saying here. However, I think that the above statement of what it means to "do the works" of God needs to be qualified.

I will try to explain what I mean by contrasting it with a position that I am convinced is deady wrong. And one hears this position expounded fairly frequently in the church. And that position is that "all you need is to beleive and have faith, good works are not relevant to ultimate salvation". On this view, a person who hops and down and claims to believe and have faith in Jesus, yet lives a life where sin masters him or her, will expect to see heaven.

I think neither Paul nor Jesus would countenance such a position.

I do not want to be characterized as asserting that "good works" save (even this is what Paul and Jesus do say), so I will express this like this: If one claims to have faith, "good works" are the evidence of the reality of that faith. If you claim faith, and yet do not manifest works, you're in big trouble.

On another board, a poster was clearly promoting sinful behaviour. He was repeatedly making false and misleading statements about Barak Obama. And these statements were obviously false and misleading (please, lets not get into the details, and I am no fan of Mr. Obama). When another poster said that such behaviour was sinful because it was essentially "bearing false witness", the response was "well, I have an advocate named Jesus who will speak for me at the time of judgement, so I will keep on doing what I have been doing"

Yeah, right.

But I certainly agree with the "general spirit" of what you are all saying.

Thank you Drew,

According to the scriptures there is a difference between works that work, and works that do not. Both are clearly stated, but we do not seem to know which is which.



Firstfruits

drew
Sep 15th 2008, 03:27 PM
Whao! Please tell me you are kidding! Someone is in some serious doo-doo if they don't open their heart to light of the gospel of Christ.....real quick!
I am quite serious. You will occasionally run into this idea that "belief" or "profession of faith" seals the deal and you can live the same life you lived before and be saved.

And I agree with the rest of the stuff you wrote.

ananias
Sep 15th 2008, 04:24 PM
I am quite serious. You will occasionally run into this idea that "belief" or "profession of faith" seals the deal and you can live the same life you lived before and be saved.

And I agree with the rest of the stuff you wrote.

"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (Joh.15: 5).

When I'm convicted of my sin (as I was a week ago when I angrily snapped at and raised my voice at someone who unmannerdly and inconsiderately stepped into my wife's path and making her have to bump into me in order not to knock into him), then it's because the True Vine is convicting me.

And when I do what is right, then it's because the True Vine is in Me is the One doing what is right. It has nothing to with me - but I can't use the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ as a license to do what I please

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be! Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness. But thanks be to our God that you were the slaves of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. Then being made free from sin, you became the slaves of righteousness." (Rom.6: 15-18).

Deliverance from the power of indwelling sin comes only through faith in Jesus, and works of righteousness come only from the indwelling Holy Spirit.

ananias

Firstfruits
Sep 15th 2008, 06:48 PM
"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, the same brings forth much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." (Joh.15: 5).

When I'm convicted of my sin (as I was a week ago when I angrily snapped at and raised my voice at someone who unmannerdly and inconsiderately stepped into my wife's path and making her have to bump into me in order not to knock into him), then it's because the True Vine is convicting me.

And when I do what is right, then it's because the True Vine is in Me is the One doing what is right. It has nothing to with me - but I can't use the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ as a license to do what I please

"For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but under grace? Let it not be! Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness. But thanks be to our God that you were the slaves of sin, but you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. Then being made free from sin, you became the slaves of righteousness." (Rom.6: 15-18).

Deliverance from the power of indwelling sin comes only through faith in Jesus, and works of righteousness come only from the indwelling Holy Spirit.

ananias


Do we who say we are Christs really obey the doctrine which was delivered by the apostles, as they were taught by Jesus, or is Moses more likely to be listened to even though Moses said that we should listen to Jesus?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Deut 18:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Acts 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Can Jesus not stand without Moses?

Firstfruits

ananias
Sep 15th 2008, 09:42 PM
Do we who say we are Christs really obey the doctrine which was delivered by the apostles, as they were taught by Jesus, or is Moses more likely to be listened to even though Moses said that we should listen to Jesus?

Acts 2:42 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=2&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Deut 18:15 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=5&CHAP=18&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=15) The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Acts 3:22 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=3&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=22) For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Acts 7:37 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=44&CHAP=7&SEARCH=jesus%20king%20lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=37) This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

Can Jesus not stand without Moses?

Firstfruits

Moses never entered into the Promised Land - he died in the wilderness. Joshua (Jesus has the same name, i.e Y'hoshua or Yahshua or Yeshua) was the one to lead them into the Promised Land. That should tell us something already.

The Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus which raised Jesus from the dead cannot be compared with the human effort of fallen man at obeying the Laws and Commandments of God. The one is death and the other one is Life eternal.

ananias

Ethnikos
Sep 16th 2008, 01:53 AM
You can argue about a long list of Christian laws but they grow from the one, to love others. So what if Jesus boiled it down to two, Love God, love your Neighbor?
Carnal laws are what are spoken of by Paul, that we are free of. Think about what that word means. Normally Christian pastors will talk about "the flesh" as in our flesh. Another way of looking at it is that it means flesh as in the flesh of animals.
We do not have to keep the old laws concerning killing animals as sacrifice or cutting our own flesh, as in circumcision. Those old laws are part of a system of justification involving sacrifices that did not make us justified in a manner of speaking of the kind of work inside us.
To make a direct comparison between the two systems, on one hand there is a law being broken and the solution is to follow the other law concerning sacrifices: on the other hand you break the law and through Christ who justifies us we are free to go about subjugating that nature inside us that made us break the law. The Spirit that can be in us because we were first justified, can work to bring us into conformity to the law.
Both systems are based on the same Moral Law but one had a carnal law (the law of sin and death), and one has the law of Christ (the law of Spirit and life).

IPet2_9
Sep 16th 2008, 02:08 AM
Unlike the other covenants, if the Mosaic covenant is disobeyed, the promise and benefits will not be upheld by God.

PS And they were not!

That's a really good point. Wasn't keeping the Law the entire point of the Old Covenant??

Ethnikos
Sep 16th 2008, 02:36 AM
Do we who say we are Christs really obey the doctrine which was delivered by the apostles, as they were taught by Jesus, or is Moses more likely to be listened to even though Moses said that we should listen to Jesus?
Can Jesus not stand without Moses?
Firstfruits
Kind of over-simplistic to make this an either/or question, isn't it?
We have the Old Testament in order to show how God works through history to bring about what He wills.
You do not need to make it like one thing is bad because it is replaced by something better.
We had Adam and Eve and their sin. God had a plan and a promise. Who knows how it could have been worked out if it was left to us. The idea that God's plan could have come to a rather quick completion would have ended when Able was killed by Cain. So, right away, we see the plan being moved off into a more distant future. In the mean time, God takes steps to bring about a situation where His plan will work out well.
To toss the main work of creating a nation for God, into the waste-bin of history may be a little shortsighted. It may be a little too much to say that one can not exist without the other because it places a limit on God. But it could be said one had to happen before the other, for God's plan to eventually bear fruit.
Moses sat in the seat of judgment concerning the law as given to him by God. The Pharisees came about and sat in the seat of Moses and were the teachers of the Law. Jesus was a judge of the judges and the teacher of the teachers. Jesus had a higher authority than them because he was the Word. So Jesus had to deal with people who were of an inferior quality to Moses but who had the same sort of opportunity as what Moses had, to face the lawgiver, himself.
Jesus needed Moses and he could be like Moses in a certain way but his mission was to have a short life on earth and not live to be 120. Could Jesus have done what he did without Moses? He would have had to have been Moses and that was not the plan. Because of Moses, Jesus could do the work he intended.

RoadWarrior
Sep 16th 2008, 05:40 AM
[/b]That's a really good point. Wasn't keeping the Law the entire point of the Old Covenant??

I don't think so. I think the entire point of old, new or in-between is that we might know God.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 06:30 AM
Kind of over-simplistic to make this an either/or question, isn't it?
We have the Old Testament in order to show how God works through history to bring about what He wills.
You do not need to make it like one thing is bad because it is replaced by something better.
We had Adam and Eve and their sin. God had a plan and a promise. Who knows how it could have been worked out if it was left to us. The idea that God's plan could have come to a rather quick completion would have ended when Able was killed by Cain. So, right away, we see the plan being moved off into a more distant future. In the mean time, God takes steps to bring about a situation where His plan will work out well.
To toss the main work of creating a nation for God, into the waste-bin of history may be a little shortsighted. It may be a little too much to say that one can not exist without the other because it places a limit on God. But it could be said one had to happen before the other, for God's plan to eventually bear fruit.
Moses sat in the seat of judgment concerning the law as given to him by God. The Pharisees came about and sat in the seat of Moses and were the teachers of the Law. Jesus was a judge of the judges and the teacher of the teachers. Jesus had a higher authority than them because he was the Word. So Jesus had to deal with people who were of an inferior quality to Moses but who had the same sort of opportunity as what Moses had, to face the lawgiver, himself.
Jesus needed Moses and he could be like Moses in a certain way but his mission was to have a short life on earth and not live to be 120. Could Jesus have done what he did without Moses? He would have had to have been Moses and that was not the plan. Because of Moses, Jesus could do the work he intended.

Let me know if what I am saying is wrong, but according to the New covenant if we believe in Jesus as God has commanded us to and obey his commandment to love one another, is that hard to comprehend or as God said, is Jesus is a stumbling block?

Firstfruits

Ethnikos
Sep 16th 2008, 11:36 AM
Let me know if what I am saying is wrong, but according to the New covenant if we believe in Jesus as God has commanded us to and obey his commandment to love one another, is that hard to comprehend or as God said, is Jesus is a stumbling block?

Firstfruits
It is hard to comprehend.(I mean the requirements of the Law) I mentioned Cain and Able and that could be a good example of someone not loving their brother. People became very evil and God caused the flood. Abraham had a standard of living but it included being a good ally to his friends, in war. Moses had to spell it out, as in how to love your neighbor by not coveting his wife. Jesus took it a step further by telling us that just thinking about it is not right. Because of Jesus and his work on our behalf as our Christ, we have available to us the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit lends to us a right understanding of the Law. So, Jesus is only a stumbling block to non-believers. The people who want to be able to fulfill the letter of the Law on their own will resent Jesus because he made the Law even more impossible to keep without a struggle within us and the facility of the works of the Spirit.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 11:48 AM
It is hard to comprehend.(I mean the requirements of the Law) I mentioned Cain and Able and that could be a good example someone not loving their brother. People became very evil and God caused the flood. Abraham had a standard of living but it included being a good ally to his friends, in war. Moses had to spell it out, as in how to love your neighbor by not coveting his wife. Jesus took it a step further by telling us that just thinking about it is not right. Because of Jesus and his work on our behalf as our Christ, we have available to us the ministry of the Holy Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit lends to us a right understanding of the Law. So, Jesus is only a stumbling block to non-believers. The people who want to be able to fulfill the letter of the Law on their own will resent Jesus because he made the Law even more impossible to keep without a struggle within us and the facility of the works of the Spirit.

Thank you Ethnikos,

This is what we are told it means to love one another;

Rom 13:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Can we not apply that to our lives?

Does that help to understand Christs commandment and law?

Firstfruits

Ethnikos
Sep 16th 2008, 12:27 PM
Thank you Ethnikos,
This is what we are told it means to love one another;
Rom 13:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the law.
Can we not apply that to our lives?
Does that help to understand Christs commandment and law?
Firstfruits
Jesus would say something like, "You have read that..." or, "You have heard it said..." when he was trying to explain something. If those things had never been written, he would have had a hard time explaining things.
I think the same principle applies to us, that we start with what is written. I was taught in my church that God speaks to us through his word. So, I believe in things like reading the Bible to better understand God and what He wants from us. Paul did not just say, "Have Love, and have a nice day!". He had to talk to people hour after hour and week after week and then write letters and send preachers, if all that failed. Why would he go to all that trouble if all he really needed to do was say, "Have love and see you later"? Things need to be written down and brought out and read and spoken of and repeated. Paul never said, "Here is this old Law that says thou shalt not covet you neighbor's wife. Well, we do not need that anymore. We have a better law that simplifies things to just have love." Of course not.
Paul was in the midst of all sorts of errors and fought from the middle. On one side he was addressing those who were getting people to go into the old system and on the other side he had people who thought they could do anything they wanted. He had to strike somewhere in the middle to point into the right direction. So he could not sit there and extol the virtues of the old Law and he could not sit there and extol the virtues of total freedom. A compromise position would be to talk about Christian standards of behavior but these are actually based on the old Law, but for the purpose he needed, it was not necessary to point that out.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 12:36 PM
Jesus would say something like, "You have read that..." or, "You have heard it said..." when he was trying to explain something. If those things had never been written, he would have had a hard time explaining things.
I think the same principle applies to us, that we start with what is written. I was taught in my church that God speaks to us through his word. So, I believe in things like reading the Bible to better understand God and what He wants from us. Paul did not just say, "Have Love, and have a nice day!". He had to talk to people hour after hour and week after week and then write letters and send preachers, if all that failed. Why would he go to all that trouble if all he really needed to do was say, "Have love and see you later"? Things need to be written down and brought out and read and spoken of and repeated. Paul never said, "Here is this old Law that says thou shalt not covet you neighbor's wife. Well, we do not need that anymore. We have a better law that simplifies things to just have love." Of course not.
Paul was in the midst of all sorts of errors and fought from the middle. On one side he was addressing those who were getting people to go into the old system and on the other side he had people who thought they could do anything they wanted. He had to strike somewhere in the middle to point into the right direction. So he could not sit there and extol the virtues of the old Law and he could not sit there and extol the virtues of total freedom. A compromise position would be to talk about Christian standards of behavior but these are actually based on the old Law, but for the purpose he needed, it was not necessary to point that out.

So with the understanding that Paul wrote the following, if it is repeated/taught often enough, would it help us to understand?

Rom 13:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Rom 13:9 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Rom 13:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=13&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore Love is the fulfilling of the law.

Firstfruits

BroRog
Sep 16th 2008, 07:06 PM
[/b]That's a really good point. Wasn't keeping the Law the entire point of the Old Covenant??

Keeping the law was not the point of the Old Covenant. The sole point of the Old Covenant was God's wish to separate out a people for himself from among all the other people groups of the world. In this covenant, He would be their God and they would be his people. Keeping of the law became the terms of the covenant, the means to remain holy, and the condition for peace and prosperity in the land.

Firstfruits
Sep 16th 2008, 07:16 PM
Keeping the law was not the point of the Old Covenant. The sole point of the Old Covenant was God's wish to separate out a people for himself from among all the other people groups of the world. In this covenant, He would be their God and they would be his people. Keeping of the law became the terms of the covenant, the means to remain holy, and the condition for peace and prosperity in the land.

According to the benefits of keeping the law, all things temporal.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 18th 2008, 03:18 PM
What are the benifits of the Mosaic covenant?

What are the benefits of the New covenant?

Thanks

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 08:28 AM
King James Version Deuteronomy 28

1 And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:

2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.

3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, andblessed shalt thou be in the field.

4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store.

6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out.

7 The LORD shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways.

8 The LORD shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

9 The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and walk in his ways.

10 And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the LORD; and they shall be afraid of thee.

11 And the LORD shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground, in the land which the LORD sware unto thy fathers to give thee.

12 The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow.

13 And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them:

14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 08:38 AM
Jer 31:33 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=33) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=31&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=34) 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 33:8 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=24&CHAP=33&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=8) And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities, whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have transgressed against me.

Heb 8:10 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=10) For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=11) And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=12) For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=58&CHAP=8&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=13) In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

Rom 11:27 (http://bibledatabase.org/cgi-bin/bib_search/bible.cgi?BIBLE=48&BOOK=45&CHAP=11&SEARCH=jesus king lord&Read=Read&FIRST=OK&HV=27) For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

Firstfruits

Firstfruits
Sep 19th 2008, 08:42 AM
How do we obtain the benefits of the covenants according to Gods promises?

Firstfruits