Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

[Aristarkos]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

In Eph 2:11-22 Paul explained that Gentiles are now partakers of the Covenant of Promise.

I showed the contrast between the Old and the New and highlighted how the new is better.

The indwelling Spirit of God in the heart of believers causes a regenerate heart (Titus 3:5).

I showed you in a previous post that the covenant of promise is a completely different thing than the New Covenant, that you do not seem to get and are unwilling to study.

I've showed you what Paul is talking about also in a previous post, which you obvious didn't read and if you've read it do not understand derived from your answers.

Titus 3:5 says this « Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ». This is not equal to this « The indwelling Spirit of God in the heart of believers causes a regenerate heart (Titus 3:5) ». The word regeneration used in this verse is « paliggenesia » in Greek which occurs only in Mat. 19:28 and Titus 3:5, both these texts refer to the regeneration in the aion to come. Regeneration always deals with people in the earthly sphere, never in the heavenly sphere. So what you are so desperately defending here is a place on earth after your resurrection? As if God has not more to give.

But you are free to believe as you please.

Aristarkos

[Aristarkos]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

No, you're just not understanding them. God swore by himself, not Abraham. Jesus (God) fulfilled it. You cannot deny and exclude gentiles, which Abraham was, from the covenant.

You really should do a serious study about the diverse covenants God made and with who, until then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time.

Aristarkos

[Noeb]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

You really should do a serious study about the diverse covenants God made and with who, until then there is no point in continuing this conversation. Thank you for your time.

Aristarkos

I have, silly. That's why I disagree with you.

[Noeb]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I showed you in a previous post that the covenant of promise is a completely different thing than the New Covenant

That's impossible.

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

The Covenant at Sinai and God's assurance to Abraham that through him, Gentiles would be saved are interrelated. Here Paul:

Gal 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

The New Covenant provided a better pathway to justification, ie. a one-off sacrifice and forgiveness of sins, grace, etc.

Is it too much to ask for scriptures that state things plainly?. Jeremiah 31:31-33 states who the New Covenant was to be made with "in that day" - the COMBINED Houses of Israel and Judah. You say it is made with the Church. Give then your verses. Now, you claim the Covenant of Law at Sinai is "interrelated with that if Promise made 430 years before. You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel.

If you had continued with Galatians 3:9 onward you would have come to Galatians 3:14 which states, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH" - NOT COVENANT! And in between verse 9 and verse 14 is a series of verses that put any man under Law UNDER CURSE! BOTH the Covenant of Sinai AND the New Covenant ARE COVENANTS OF LAW! So how then can rebirth, salvation and eternal life come by Covenant??? Thus Galatians 3:9-14 must address somebody else than Israel FOR THE COVENANTS OF LAW APPLY TO ISRAEL. And it does - the Church. So again you have chosen scripture that pertains to "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". Notice the article "the". It is not men who have faith. It is men who have THE faith - a specific body of men who have embraced Christ OUTSIDE OF LAW.

Here are just a few.

Heb 8:6 But now [present tense] 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.

This verse settles nothing in our argument because it is equally valid for my argument. Our Lord Jesus is made Mediator of the New Covenant WHETHER IT IS WITH ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH, AND WHETHER IT IS IN EFFECT OR NOT. It is no proof of you argument.

Heb 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
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;

Notice what v-15 says - the law written in ours is the Spirit of God teaching the faithful through discernment of the things of God.

First, the reader will note that you directly connected Hebrews 8:6 with 10:14. This epitomizes Christianity today in their exposition - connecting disjointed single verses. But let us deal with Hebrews 10:14-16.

I have said this in previous postings and will say it again. The Book of Hebrews is written to men who were Jews under Moses, but who embraced Christ. After persecution and loss of worldly goods, they said in their hearts; "Moses was better. The obedient to Moses where blessed with temporal things." They were in danger of returning to Moses. So the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ in all matters that pertained to Israel. From Chapter 10:1-9 the author of Hebrews shows the INFERIORITY of the sacrifices of the Law of Moses. They could cover sins but could not PERFECT the beneficiary. Verse 9 does NOT speak of the TWO COVENANTS! It speaks of TWO SACRIFICES - those of Moses and that of Christ! The verse 10 says, "By the which will WE are sanctified .... ." The "we" is THOSE WHO HAD EMBRACED CHRIST, and is in opposition to Israel who have the animal sacrifices. So also the "US" of the next verse. The text continues to verse 13 with the inadequacy of the animal sacrifices COMPARED to the one sacrifice of Christ.

The animal sacrifices resulted in Aaron ALONE entering the holy of Holies, BUT COMING OUT AGAIN until the same time next year. But Christ's sacrifice is accepted in such a way that HE REMAINS IN THE Holy of Holies for 2,000 years (until His enemies will be subdued at Armageddon). AND the sacrifice of Christ gives "US" - not Israel and Aaron, the right to ALSO enter the Holy of Holies (v.19). Then, in verse 14 the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice of "US" (as He "sits down" while the Priests of Israel "stood" in verse 11) as it pertains of BOTH the Church AND Israel. In verse 15 it is "US" (those of FAITH) and then in verse 16 it is suddenly "THEM". Who are the "THEM" and why does Christ's death apply to "THEM"?

The reason is that BOTH had need of their sins forgiven. That is why in John 1:29 Christ dies for the "sin" (singular - the Adamic nature of men) OF THE WORLD, and why in 1st John.2:2 Christ dies for the "sins" (plural - the "trespasses" that the sin nature automatically produces) OF THE WHOLE WORLD. The Christian needs his sin and sins forgiven in order to come to the Tree of Life (or have eternal life), and Israel, need to have their offenses forgiven IN SPITE of having rejected Christ. So the author of Hebrews shows that for "US" we needed Christ's sacrifice AND for God to institute the New Covenant with "THEM" (which entails restoring both Houses of Israel), Christ's death is NEEDED. The animal sacrifices could cover Israel's sins but could not REMIT them. Thus, the author shows that for BOTH "US" - the Church, and for "THEM" - Israel, Christ's sacrifices was VITAL. It thus makes Christ's sacrifice SUPERIOR to those of Moses because the sacrifices of Moses would not allow the New Covenant FOR ISRAEL predicted by Jeremiah.

This is the message of Hebrews 10:1-16! The plain language of this Chapter

1. in no way makes the Church Israel. It is "US" and "THEM"
2. in no way intimates that the New Covenant is for the Church

What do mean by "ex-Jew in the church"?

I mean what scripture reveals in plain language:

1. In Ephesians 2:15 the "New Man" is taken OUT OF the "TWAIN" (Israel and the Gentiles). That is, they do not BELONG in the old place anymore
2. In 2nd Corinthians 5:17 the OLD is gone. ALL things are made NEW in the New Man. (God says so, not me)
3. In Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 BOTH say that there is no such thing as a Jew of a Gentile in the Church. Thus, if a man was a Jew before he was (i) taken OUT of his ethnic past, (ii) made new, and (iii) annulled as an ethnic Jew (the old passed away), then there is no word in our language to describe him but "ex-Jew".

If you have a better term, I am open to hear it. Try this for yourself. Colossians 1:21 says; "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" I ask then; "ARE WE STILL ENEMIES"? Or are we NOW "EX-enemies"? But, as I said, if you have a more elegant term for something that WAS but that does not exist any more - please let me know.

I'm getting used to being quoted out of context. I have severally clarified the aspects of the law that are now obsolete, read my posts. Passover is not affected (Matt 24:20).

My brother, you are not being quoted out of context. What is happening is that you are trying to find scripture that says (i) that the new Covenant pertains to the Church, and (ii) that the New Covenant has been instituted already. The verses that you produce you take out of context - just like the above examples. Let us settle this once and for all. The good Bible scholars know one thing. You cannot make doctrine from Types, Shadows, Allegory and Allusions. Doctrine is made in scripture ONLY by plain, direct and unambiguous scripture. Scripture says PLAINLY, DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That sets the doctrine I follow. Scripture NEVER says PLAINLY, DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the New Covenant has anything to do with the Church. From this moment on I will only accept PLAIN, DIRECT and UNAMBIGUOUS scripture. If you can't produce it, I will try to (courteously) ignore it. You have had chance throughout this thread to produce scriptures like I produced Jeremiah 31. But you have made a foundation of innuendo, connecting disjointed scriptures and convoluted arguments that, when examined in their contexts, turn out to say something else.

Let's rest our typing fingers and agree to disagree. Be comforted. Nearly all the other posters support your thesis. But do yourself a favour. Write down - for yourself - the TERMS of the New Covenant with supporting scripture and show how they pertain to the Church. If this New Covenant pertains to the Church, you should be able, like Israel of old, to find hundreds of conditions (for that is what a Covenant is - TWO PARTIES EACH WITH THEIR DUTIES TO FULFILL UNDER PAIN OF RETRIBUTION). Israel can find about 620 things that if they did not fulfill they broke THE WHOLE LAW and would lose their Land. Convince yourself of the Church's conditions and penalties. And then you will have to scratch out FAITH from your Bible because all is achieved by keeping ordinances.

Please excuse typos. I'm off to bed without proof reading all this. Take care brother.

[Noeb]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Is it too much to ask for scriptures that state things plainly?. Jeremiah 31:31-33 states who the New Covenant was to be made with "in that day"

I'm not finding that in verse 31. I asked you before about this quote of yours and you didn't answer.

You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel.

How absurd! Members of those two houses had faith, obviously. Many in Israel believed in Jesus.

If you had continued with Galatians 3:9 onward you would have come to Galatians 3:14 which states, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH" - NOT COVENANT!

Since when is faith not required in covenant with God? The beneficiaries of the covenant referred to here are those that love God - Exo 20:6. You would not benefit simply because you were born an Israeli.

And in between verse 9 and verse 14 is a series of verses that put any man under Law UNDER CURSE! BOTH the Covenant of Sinai AND the New Covenant ARE COVENANTS OF LAW!

The moral/natural law is a condition of all covenants of God, including the New you are claiming has not come and is void of law - 1Cor 6:9-10, 11:25; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5.

So how then can rebirth, salvation and eternal life come by Covenant??? Thus Galatians 3:9-14 must address somebody else than Israel FOR THE COVENANTS OF LAW APPLY TO ISRAEL. And it does - the Church. So again you have chosen scripture that pertains to "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". Notice the article "the". It is not men who have faith. It is men who have THE faith - a specific body of men who have embraced Christ OUTSIDE OF LAW.

Christ outside of law? Huh? The law of Christ is the spirit of the law? Love God and neighbor. Matt 7:12, 22:40

Is it too much to ask for scriptures that state things plainly?. Jeremiah 31:31-33 states who the New Covenant was to be made with "in that day"

I'm not finding that in verse 31. I asked you before about this quote of yours and you didn't answer.

You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel.

How absurd! Members of those two houses had faith, obviously. Many in Israel believed in Jesus.

If you had continued with Galatians 3:9 onward you would have come to Galatians 3:14 which states, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH" - NOT COVENANT!

Since when is faith not required in covenant with God? The beneficiaries of the covenant referred to here are those that love God - Exo 20:6. You would not benefit simply because you were born an Israeli.

And in between verse 9 and verse 14 is a series of verses that put any man under Law UNDER CURSE! BOTH the Covenant of Sinai AND the New Covenant ARE COVENANTS OF LAW!

The moral/natural law is a condition of all covenants of God, including the New you are claiming has not come and is void of law - 1Cor 6:9-10, 11:25; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5.

So how then can rebirth, salvation and eternal life come by Covenant??? Thus Galatians 3:9-14 must address somebody else than Israel FOR THE COVENANTS OF LAW APPLY TO ISRAEL. And it does - the Church. So again you have chosen scripture that pertains to "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". Notice the article "the". It is not men who have faith. It is men who have THE faith - a specific body of men who have embraced Christ OUTSIDE OF LAW.

Christ outside of law? Huh? The law of Christ is the spirit of the law? Love God and neighbor. Matt 7:12, 22:40

[Walls]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I'm not finding that in verse 31. I asked you before about this quote of yours and you didn't answer.

Jeremiah 31:31; "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"

Walls wrote; "You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel."

Noeb writes; How absurd! Members of those two houses had faith, obviously. Many in Israel believed in Jesus.

God writes; Romans 11:25-32; In verse 25 the context is set - "Israel" X 2. Verse 26 - "Israel" as the context is confirmed. Verse 27 - "For this is my covenant unto them ..." (Israel). Verse 28 - "they (Israel) are enemies concerning the gospel". Verse 30 - "Their (Israel's) UNBELIEF". Verse 32 - "For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, ... ."

May the reader judge if we should hearken to Noeb or God.

ISince when is faith not required in covenant with God? The beneficiaries of the covenant referred to here are those that love God - Exo 20:6. You would not benefit simply because you were born an Israeli.

We were discussing Galatians 3:9. True to your style (i) you insert a totally out-of-context statement, and (ii) Exodus 20:6 has NOTHING to do with Covenant.

IThe moral/natural law is a condition of all covenants of God, including the New you are claiming has not come and is void of law - 1Cor 6:9-10, 11:25; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5.

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 does NOT address any Covenant

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 11:25 names the blood as the blood of the New Covenant. All Covenants between man and God must be ratified in blood. The Blood of Christ is then DESIGNATED as such in regard to the New Covenant. It does NOT declare the Church to under the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31 says that it is a Covenant WITH Israel, not the Church. The CUP pertains to the Church as a MEMORIAL, and the BLOOD "... which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt.26:28).

• True to your style, you have ADDED to scripture by intimating that 1st Corinthians 11:25 makes the Chruch under the New Covenant
• Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial
• Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial by a cup of wine
• Show one Covenant that requires a daily memorial of wine as a symbol of blood
• Show one scripture where the Church is placed under the New Covenant
• Show the CONDITIONS of this CONTRACT as they pertain to the Church
• Show then the PENALTIES of this New Covenant as they pertain to the Church

But, as you have shown over the years, you won't. You'll answer with an out-of-context one-liner.

▶︎ Galatians 5:21 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant.

▶︎ Ephesians 5:5 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant

I declare your counter argument to have no substance as we discuss whether the New Covenant of God's Law applies to the Church or not. Only one of your proffered verses addressed the Covenant.

IChrist outside of law? Huh? The law of Christ is the spirit of the law? Love God and neighbor. Matt 7:12, 22:40

Here you show your character. I wrote;

Quote Originally Posted by Walls
So how then can rebirth, salvation and eternal life come by Covenant??? Thus Galatians 3:9-14 must address somebody else than Israel FOR THE COVENANTS OF LAW APPLY TO ISRAEL. And it does - the Church. So again you have chosen scripture that pertains to "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". Notice the article "the". It is not men who have faith. It is men who have THE faith - a specific body of men who have embraced Christ OUTSIDE OF LAW.

You write;

Christ outside of law? Huh?

.

You have, by omitting the full sentence, perverted my meaning. Is this the way we Christians should act?

As a Brother in Christ you deserve all respect. But you show a style of argumentation that I certainly would not like to be associated with. Here's my challenge. Forget your critical one-liners. Forget your disjointed quotes of other men's writings. Just post a couple of verses that say, in plain language, that the New Covenant is made with the Church. And if you think you have verses that are a bit obscure, you can write a few paragraphs to explain them. This will show your understanding of the matter to us all. Then we can dispute with you. But please save us more vain writing and post ONLY verses with the word "Covenant" in them.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I showed you in a previous post that the covenant of promise is a completely different thing than the New Covenant, that you do not seem to get and are unwilling to study.

I've showed you what Paul is talking about also in a previous post, which you obvious didn't read and if you've read it do not understand derived from your answers.

Titus 3:5 says this « Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ». This is not equal to this « The indwelling Spirit of God in the heart of believers causes a regenerate heart (Titus 3:5) ». The word regeneration used in this verse is « paliggenesia » in Greek which occurs only in Mat. 19:28 and Titus 3:5, both these texts refer to the regeneration in the aion to come. Regeneration always deals with people in the earthly sphere, never in the heavenly sphere. So what you are so desperately defending here is a place on earth after your resurrection? As if God has not more to give.

But you are free to believe as you please. Aristarkos

I read your posts which showcased your poor understanding of the scope of the New Covenant.

I am at a loss by your denial of the plain meaning of Titus 3:5. Are you telling me that very use of "regeneration" in scripture refers to post Second Coming? In Titus 3:5 Paul is clearly speaking about God's Spirit and grace on the faithful that assures eternal life in contrast to reliance on 'works of righteousness' as preferred by unbelieving Israel.

If the meaning of this simple text is hidden from you, I can't help you.

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Is it too much to ask for scriptures that state things plainly?. Jeremiah 31:31-33 states who the New Covenant was to be made with "in that day" - the COMBINED Houses of Israel and Judah. You say it is made with the Church. Give then your verses. Now, you claim the Covenant of Law at Sinai is "interrelated with that if Promise made 430 years before. You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel.

If you had continued with Galatians 3:9 onward you would have come to Galatians 3:14 which states, "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit THROUGH FAITH" - NOT COVENANT! And in between verse 9 and verse 14 is a series of verses that put any man under Law UNDER CURSE! BOTH the Covenant of Sinai AND the New Covenant ARE COVENANTS OF LAW! So how then can rebirth, salvation and eternal life come by Covenant??? Thus Galatians 3:9-14 must address somebody else than Israel FOR THE COVENANTS OF LAW APPLY TO ISRAEL. And it does - the Church. So again you have chosen scripture that pertains to "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". Notice the article "the". It is not men who have faith. It is men who have THE faith - a specific body of men who have embraced Christ OUTSIDE OF LAW.

Here are just a few.

I have always used plain scripture to back my position and there's nothing ambiguous in my case either. Until you adopt a more objective approach to the subject rather than your fixation with the narrow that pitches Israel and Judah and no one else in the frame - you will never see the full picture with regards to the New Covenant. What you've persistently rejected which I have brought to your attention is that the NC is associated with atonement and the remission of sins (Heb 10:14-17). This is what animal sacrifices tried to do but failed. Understandably, it is expedient for you to cite Rom 11:32 "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all."

But you conveniently ignored other passages where God also said that ALL - Jew/Gentile are under sin. Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; 10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

v-23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

With reference to your remarks on Gal 3:9-14 with an emphasis on faith, perhaps I should remind you that Israel MUST come to Christ by FAITH to partake of the New Covenant. Or, do you believe it's given willy - nilly? Faith therefore is the unifying factor for the Jew/Gentile partaking from the New Testament.

This verse settles nothing in our argument because it is equally valid for my argument. Our Lord Jesus is made Mediator of the New Covenant WHETHER IT IS WITH ISRAEL OR THE CHURCH, AND WHETHER IT IS IN EFFECT OR NOT. It is no proof of you argument.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think you're being pointedly obtuse here because accepting what's in plain sight causes problems for you. For example, the dispute is not about WHO the mediator is; we know it is Jesus Christ. The reason I brought your attention to the passage is to highlight the timescale when the Jere 31:31-35 was fulfilled. The passage below describes it in the present tense, which contrasts your claim that it will be when Christ returns.

Heb 8:6 But now [present tense] 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. I'm at a loss how this text validates your argument?

First, the reader will note that you directly connected Hebrews 8:6 with 10:14. This epitomizes Christianity today in their exposition - connecting disjointed single verses. But let us deal with Hebrews 10:14-16.

I have said this in previous postings and will say it again. The Book of Hebrews is written to men who were Jews under Moses, but who embraced Christ. After persecution and loss of worldly goods, they said in their hearts; "Moses was better. The obedient to Moses where blessed with temporal things." They were in danger of returning to Moses. So the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ in all matters that pertained to Israel. From Chapter 10:1-9 the author of Hebrews shows the INFERIORITY of the sacrifices of the Law of Moses. They could cover sins but could not PERFECT the beneficiary. Verse 9 does NOT speak of the TWO COVENANTS! It speaks of TWO SACRIFICES - those of Moses and that of Christ! The verse 10 says, "By the which will WE are sanctified .... ." The "we" is THOSE WHO HAD EMBRACED CHRIST, and is in opposition to Israel who have the animal sacrifices. So also the "US" of the next verse. The text continues to verse 13 with the inadequacy of the animal sacrifices COMPARED to the one sacrifice of Christ.

The animal sacrifices resulted in Aaron ALONE entering the holy of Holies, BUT COMING OUT AGAIN until the same time next year. But Christ's sacrifice is accepted in such a way that HE REMAINS IN THE Holy of Holies for 2,000 years (until His enemies will be subdued at Armageddon). AND the sacrifice of Christ gives "US" - not Israel and Aaron, the right to ALSO enter the Holy of Holies (v.19). Then, in verse 14 the author of Hebrews shows the superiority of Christ's sacrifice of "US" (as He "sits down" while the Priests of Israel "stood" in verse 11) as it pertains of BOTH the Church AND Israel. In verse 15 it is "US" (those of FAITH) and then in verse 16 it is suddenly "THEM". Who are the "THEM" and why does Christ's death apply to "THEM"?

The reason is that BOTH had need of their sins forgiven. That is why in John 1:29 Christ dies for the "sin" (singular - the Adamic nature of men) OF THE WORLD, and why in 1st John.2:2 Christ dies for the "sins" (plural - the "trespasses" that the sin nature automatically produces) OF THE WHOLE WORLD. The Christian needs his sin and sins forgiven in order to come to the Tree of Life (or have eternal life), and Israel, need to have their offenses forgiven IN SPITE of having rejected Christ. So the author of Hebrews shows that for "US" we needed Christ's sacrifice AND for God to institute the New Covenant with "THEM" (which entails restoring both Houses of Israel), Christ's death is NEEDED. The animal sacrifices could cover Israel's sins but could not REMIT them. Thus, the author shows that for BOTH "US" - the Church, and for "THEM" - Israel, Christ's sacrifices was VITAL. It thus makes Christ's sacrifice SUPERIOR to those of Moses because the sacrifices of Moses would not allow the New Covenant FOR ISRAEL predicted by Jeremiah.

This is the message of Hebrews 10:1-16! The plain language of this Chapter

1. in no way makes the Church Israel. It is "US" and "THEM"
2. in no way intimates that the New Covenant is for the Church

1. Your assertion that Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second., is not speaking about the 2 covenants is truly a concern and it raises questions of your understanding of the topic? Sacrifices are at the heart of the Old [animal blood] and New Covenants [the blood of Jesus]. If you don't get this, then perhaps you need to go back and start your study from the rudiments and principles of doctrine.

2. What you have not addressed is; what is the essence of the new covenant? When is it most effective; before Christ'return when believers are still in the flesh or at his return (MK) when the faithful have attained immortality?

3. I'm glad you acknowledged that Paul, in Hebrews wrote to Jewish Christians. Therefore, if according to you, the writer showed them the superiority of Christ (the Mediator of the NC) in contrast to the Old Mosaic Covenant - are you by any chance saying that Jewish Christians are different species from the Internationa church? Remember Gal 3:27-28 before you answer?

4. In Heb 10, the phrase "US" denotes Believers/Christians whether Jew or Gentile whereas "Them" refers to unbelieving Israel. The narrative couldn't be any clearer.

I mean what scripture reveals in plain language:

1. In Ephesians 2:15 the "New Man" is taken OUT OF the "TWAIN" (Israel and the Gentiles). That is, they do not BELONG in the old place anymore
2. In 2nd Corinthians 5:17 the OLD is gone. ALL things are made NEW in the New Man. (God says so, not me)
3. In Galatians 3:28 and Colossians 3:11 BOTH say that there is no such thing as a Jew of a Gentile in the Church. Thus, if a man was a Jew before he was (i) taken OUT of his ethnic past, (ii) made new, and (iii) annulled as an ethnic Jew (the old passed away), then there is no word in our language to describe him but "ex-Jew".

If you have a better term, I am open to hear it. Try this for yourself. Colossians 1:21 says; "And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled" I ask then; "ARE WE STILL ENEMIES"? Or are we NOW "EX-enemies"? But, as I said, if you have a more elegant term for something that WAS but that does not exist any more - please let me know.

For the umpteenth time, there's no such thing as "an ex-Jew"!!! Don't use badly interpreted scripture to support a false concept. If there is an ex-Jew, it is one that has renounced his ethnicity and that rarely happens. Perhaps, you should drop Fenris a private message and ask him (despite his disregard for Jewish converts) whether he considers them ex-Jews? Today's Jewish Christians call themselves Messianic Jews; if this is not enough to stop you from this silly line of argument, nothing else will.

None of the passages you cited proves that a believing Jew is now an ex-Jew. They all unequivocally show that being in Christ makes the believer [whether Jew or Gentile] a new creature, i.e. now saved and washed of sin.

My brother, you are not being quoted out of context. What is happening is that you are trying to find scripture that says (i) that the new Covenant pertains to the Church, and (ii) that the New Covenant has been instituted already. The verses that you produce you take out of context - just like the above examples. Let us settle this once and for all. The good Bible scholars know one thing. You cannot make doctrine from Types, Shadows, Allegory and Allusions. Doctrine is made in scripture ONLY by plain, direct and unambiguous scripture. Scripture says PLAINLY, DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the New Covenant is made with Israel. That sets the doctrine I follow. Scripture NEVER says PLAINLY, DIRECTLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the New Covenant has anything to do with the Church. From this moment on I will only accept PLAIN, DIRECT and UNAMBIGUOUS scripture. If you can't produce it, I will try to (courteously) ignore it. You have had chance throughout this thread to produce scriptures like I produced Jeremiah 31. But you have made a foundation of innuendo, connecting disjointed scriptures and convoluted arguments that, when examined in their contexts, turn out to say something else.

Let's rest our typing fingers and agree to disagree. Be comforted. Nearly all the other posters support your thesis. But do yourself a favour. Write down - for yourself - the TERMS of the New Covenant with supporting scripture and show how they pertain to the Church. If this New Covenant pertains to the Church, you should be able, like Israel of old, to find hundreds of conditions (for that is what a Covenant is - TWO PARTIES EACH WITH THEIR DUTIES TO FULFILL UNDER PAIN OF RETRIBUTION). Israel can find about 620 things that if they did not fulfill they broke THE WHOLE LAW and would lose their Land. Convince yourself of the Church's conditions and penalties. And then you will have to scratch out FAITH from your Bible because all is achieved by keeping ordinances.

Please excuse typos. I'm off to bed without proof reading all this. Take care brother.

Indeed, I stand by what I said:

a. The New Covenant pertains to the Church which according to 1 Peter 2:9 is a composition of the believing Jew and Gentile.
b. It is already in place and operative NOW.

The flaw in summation is, what happens when one's interpretation of the plain, direct and unambiguous scripture is woefully misunderstood? The fact you don't realise that as a Christian, you are under the New Covenant is a matter between you and God.

[Noeb]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Jeremiah 31:31; "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"

Where is "in that day"?

Walls wrote; "You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel."

Noeb writes; How absurd! Members of those two houses had faith, obviously. Many in Israel believed in Jesus.

God writes; Romans 11:25-32; In verse 25 the context is set - "Israel" X 2. Verse 26 - "Israel" as the context is confirmed. Verse 27 - "For this is my covenant unto them ..." (Israel). Verse 28 - "they (Israel) are enemies concerning the gospel". Verse 30 - "Their (Israel's) UNBELIEF". Verse 32 - "For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, ... ."

May the reader judge if we should hearken to Noeb or God.

You really think anyone other than you is going to think no members of those two houses had faith and believed Christ? Yes, Walls the reader judges you in serious error.

We were discussing Galatians 3:9. True to your style (i) you insert a totally out-of-context statement, and (ii) Exodus 20:6 has NOTHING to do with Covenant.

You said "COVENANT". How am I out of context? Your implication is the the Spirit is received by Israel because of covenant void of faith. So again, "Since when is faith not required in covenant with God? The beneficiaries of the covenant referred to here are those that love God - Exo 20:6. You would not benefit simply because you were born an Israeli."? And Exo 20:6 has everything to do with covenant. It was conditional and required faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God and only those that pleased God and loved him would benefit from the covenant.

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 does NOT address any Covenant

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 11:25 names the blood as the blood of the New Covenant. All Covenants between man and God must be ratified in blood. The Blood of Christ is then DESIGNATED as such in regard to the New Covenant. It does NOT declare the Church to under the New Covenant.

Paul is talking to the church.

Jeremiah 31:31 says that it is a Covenant WITH Israel, not the Church.

That the Gentiles would be full participates was a mystery Walls. If God has said otherwise through Jeremiah....no mystery.

The CUP pertains to the Church as a MEMORIAL, and the BLOOD "... which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt.26:28).

and you point is? You're not suggesting the church merely remember what God is going to do for Israel are you?

[*]True to your style, you have ADDED to scripture by intimating that 1st Corinthians 11:25 makes the Chruch under the New Covenant

I added nothing. Paul is talking to the church. Ignore it all you want but you completely discredit anything you have or ever will say because of what you have done here.

[*]Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial

Daily? See what I mean?

[*]Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial by a cup of wine

what are you talking about?

[*]Show one Covenant that requires a daily memorial of wine as a symbol of blood

What's with the repetition?

[*]Show one scripture where the Church is placed under the New Covenant

Already have and many others have been offered.

[*]Show the CONDITIONS of this CONTRACT as they pertain to the Church

Condition is the same.

[*]Show then the PENALTIES of this New Covenant as they pertain to the Church

Same.

But, as you have shown over the years, you won't. You'll answer with an out-of-context one-liner.

Out of context? I've been on point. One-liners? Post 66 completely destroyed your position. A book is not required. Fools speak in a multitude of words. It doesn't take much to dispel absurd positions such as yours here. I know that really bothers you, but.....oh well.

▶︎ Galatians 5:21 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant.

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

▶︎ Ephesians 5:5 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

Here you show your character. I wrote;

You write;

You have, by omitting the full sentence, perverted my meaning. Is this the way we Christians should act?

You don't need my help for your meaning to be perverted. The faith is not "outside of law". That's a fact.

As a Brother in Christ you deserve all respect. But you show a style of argumentation that I certainly would not like to be associated with.

Respect is earned. What you have done with the NC and your style of twisted scripture not only does not earn you respect, but rips what respect you had away.

Just post a couple of verses that say, in plain language, that the New Covenant is made with the Church.

Pretending this has not already been done only further discredits you.

This will show your understanding of the matter to us all.

You mean you and one other? LOL

Then we can dispute with you.

No, you can't. All you can do is pretend we haven't said anything. Lame.

But please save us more vain writing and post ONLY verses with the word "Covenant" in them.

Vanity.

Jeremiah 31:31; "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"

Where is "in that day"?

Walls wrote; "You then give Galatians 3:9. But Galatians addresses "THEY WHICH BE OF THE FAITH". But you and I, and every interested reader, knows that, "God hath concluded them ALL (Israel - v.26) in UNBELIEF, that he might have mercy upon all." So forget that scripture brother. It does not address the two Houses of Israel."

Noeb writes; How absurd! Members of those two houses had faith, obviously. Many in Israel believed in Jesus.

God writes; Romans 11:25-32; In verse 25 the context is set - "Israel" X 2. Verse 26 - "Israel" as the context is confirmed. Verse 27 - "For this is my covenant unto them ..." (Israel). Verse 28 - "they (Israel) are enemies concerning the gospel". Verse 30 - "Their (Israel's) UNBELIEF". Verse 32 - "For God hath concluded them ALL in unbelief, ... ."

May the reader judge if we should hearken to Noeb or God.

You really think anyone other than you is going to think no members of those two houses had faith and believed Christ? Yes, Walls the reader judges you in serious error.

We were discussing Galatians 3:9. True to your style (i) you insert a totally out-of-context statement, and (ii) Exodus 20:6 has NOTHING to do with Covenant.

You said "COVENANT". How am I out of context? Your implication is the the Spirit is received by Israel because of covenant void of faith. So again, "Since when is faith not required in covenant with God? The beneficiaries of the covenant referred to here are those that love God - Exo 20:6. You would not benefit simply because you were born an Israeli."? And Exo 20:6 has everything to do with covenant. It was conditional and required faith. Without faith it is impossible to please God and only those that pleased God and loved him would benefit from the covenant.

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 does NOT address any Covenant

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

▶︎ 1st Corinthians 11:25 names the blood as the blood of the New Covenant. All Covenants between man and God must be ratified in blood. The Blood of Christ is then DESIGNATED as such in regard to the New Covenant. It does NOT declare the Church to under the New Covenant.

Paul is talking to the church.

Jeremiah 31:31 says that it is a Covenant WITH Israel, not the Church.

That the Gentiles would be full participates was a mystery Walls. If God has said otherwise through Jeremiah....no mystery.

The CUP pertains to the Church as a MEMORIAL, and the BLOOD "... which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Matt.26:28).

and you point is? You're not suggesting the church merely remember what God is going to do for Israel are you?

[*]True to your style, you have ADDED to scripture by intimating that 1st Corinthians 11:25 makes the Chruch under the New Covenant

I added nothing. Paul is talking to the church. Ignore it all you want but you completely discredit anything you have or ever will say because of what you have done here.

[*]Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial

Daily? See what I mean?

[*]Show one Covenant that has a daily memorial by a cup of wine

what are you talking about?

[*]Show one Covenant that requires a daily memorial of wine as a symbol of blood

What's with the repetition?

[*]Show one scripture where the Church is placed under the New Covenant

Already have and many others have been offered.

[*]Show the CONDITIONS of this CONTRACT as they pertain to the Church

Condition is the same.

[*]Show then the PENALTIES of this New Covenant as they pertain to the Church

Same.

But, as you have shown over the years, you won't. You'll answer with an out-of-context one-liner.

Out of context? I've been on point. One-liners? Post 66 completely destroyed your position. A book is not required. Fools speak in a multitude of words. It doesn't take much to dispel absurd positions such as yours here. I know that really bothers you, but.....oh well.

▶︎ Galatians 5:21 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant.

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

▶︎ Ephesians 5:5 does not mention, allude to or imply any Covenant

Sure it does. Only participates inherit the kingdom of God.

Here you show your character. I wrote;

You write;

You have, by omitting the full sentence, perverted my meaning. Is this the way we Christians should act?

You don't need my help for your meaning to be perverted. The faith is not "outside of law". That's a fact.

As a Brother in Christ you deserve all respect. But you show a style of argumentation that I certainly would not like to be associated with.

Respect is earned. What you have done with the NC and your style of twisted scripture not only does not earn you respect, but rips what respect you had away.

Just post a couple of verses that say, in plain language, that the New Covenant is made with the Church.

Pretending this has not already been done only further discredits you.

This will show your understanding of the matter to us all.

You mean you and one other? LOL

Then we can dispute with you.

No, you can't. All you can do is pretend we haven't said anything. Lame.

But please save us more vain writing and post ONLY verses with the word "Covenant" in them.

Vanity.

[Noeb]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Should be "Only participants inherit the kingdom of God."

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Just curious my question is for Noeb and Trivalle. What bible passages state that the New Covenant is with the Church?


So far I have Jeremiah 31:31-33 & Hebrews 8:8 that specifically say it is with the house of Judah and Israel(no gentiles mentioned).


Just looking for references no commentary or explanations needed. Thanks, brothers!

[Aristarkos]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Just curious my question is for Noeb and Trivalle. What bible passages state that the New Covenant is with the Church?


So far I have Jeremiah 31:31-33 & Hebrews 8:8 that specifically say it is with the house of Judah and Israel(no gentiles mentioned).


Just looking for references no commentary or explanations needed. Thanks, brothers!

Long time no see! Welcome back.

Aristarkos

[Trivalee]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

Just curious my question is for Noeb and Trivalle. What bible passages state that the New Covenant is with the Church?


So far I have Jeremiah 31:31-33 & Hebrews 8:8 that specifically say it is with the house of Judah and Israel(no gentiles mentioned).


Just looking for references no commentary or explanations needed. Thanks, brothers!

Perhaps, you should read my posts at length...

Just curious my question is for Noeb and Trivalle. What bible passages state that the New Covenant is with the Church?


So far I have Jeremiah 31:31-33 & Hebrews 8:8 that specifically say it is with the house of Judah and Israel(no gentiles mentioned).


Just looking for references no commentary or explanations needed. Thanks, brothers!

Perhaps, you should read my posts at length...

[Jesuslovesus]

Re: Has the New Covenant started or is it still in the future?

I read them all I honestly see no biblical passages to support your assertions that the Church is part of the New Covenant. Do you mind just giving the references for the prooftexts that you believe support your belief? Even your opening to this thread states that most of your proof-text is in the book of Hebrews (a book specifically addressed to the Hebrews, not the Church).