Covenant and Christians

[Trivalee]

A covenant is FAR more than a contract. It is a relationship too. The closest thing we have to it in the west is marriage. It supercedes all relationships rather than marriage. Jonathon's covenant with David meant that his relationship with David superceded his relationship with Saul. That is one reason Saul wanted to kill his own son. When people go into covenant, there's much more than just a contract. There's an exchanging of names, enemies, strengths, etc.

Yes, I agree with your summary. A Covenant, even though technically a contract, evokes something far deeper than a contract. Some covenants are sealed in blood, but I'm yet to see a contract in blood.

[randyk]

OK. Thanks for your viewpoint. I think that we are doomed never to agree on a point. WE have such diverging views of scripture. If we now go down that road the thread will be derailed. I will just, as you do, set forth my view in regard to your comments.

• I always produce the scripture we discuss to see what it says first before I even say anything. If I do write first, the scriptures are attached and I expect the reader to check me to see if the scripture I gave do say what I say they say - like the Bereans.
• In any matter I start with a clean slate, then read the scriptures, and then formulate my idea. I take scripture to be literal until it either states that it is Parable or Allegory, or if the logical end of a scripture causes an absurdity.
• Common Christian Theology states that man fell and was headed for "hell". Our Lord Jesus came and died for men, and any man who avails himself of this Substitutionary Sacrifice will be saved from hell and go to heaven when he dies. Then the earth will be burned up. I dare say this pitiful. It means, among other things, that, (1) God is defeated in His original purpose with man, (2) the Devil was able to thwart God's plans, (3) God's Promises to Abraham come to nothing for Israel does not get their Land, (4) The Church never rules the earth, (5) Israel, still born babies and the millions who never heard the gospel are sent o hell by God, and (6) that there is no need for the resurrection. Pitiful!
• Jeremiah 31:31-33 does not speak of Christ's New Covenant. It speaks of YAHWEH's Covenant of "His Laws" made with Israel to replace the First Covenant of Law made at Sinai which has been broken by Israel
• Jeremiah 31:33 does not reveal a "totally new Law". It reveals "My (God's) Law, which, in every mention in the whole Old Testament refers to the Law of Moses. Added to this, this Law of Moses will not pass until heaven and earth pass. There is NO NEW LAW. That given at Horeb STANDS until the White Throne when heaven and earth flee fro the Visage of Jesus.
• There is not a single verse that says The New Covenant is applied to the Church. Our "drinking of this cup" does not bind us to a Covenant. It is first mentioned by our Lord Jesus in John 6. In all the mentions of this CUP, it is the blood for remission of sins that applies to the Church
• Israel CAN NOT "adopt Christianity". They rejected their Messiah and all that goes with FAITH in Jesus. Their aspirations stay where they were before Christ came - a special nation with the Covenants and the Service to God IN THEIR LAND.
• Jeremiah 30: 9 says that after his resurrection, David will be king over ALL Israel. The hierarchy in the Millennium will be, (1) First, Emmanuel - Jesus, King of Israel and King of all kings on earth forever, (2) David, (3) the 12 Apostles, and (4) kings over cities
• The only thing we can agree on is your statement;

Truly, the CUP contains the New Covenant "IN" the BLOOD. The New Covenant, although ratified, is NOT YET INSTITUTED as Israel have not yet joined and been gathered. They still languish under the curses of the First Covenant. Once the New Covenant is INSTITUTED, because it is the same Law, the following must stand; (1) Israel as a nation, (2) ALL Israelites ever born and who were circumcised resurrected, (3) ALL Israelites gathered back to their Land by angels, (4) Our Lord Jesus installed on His Throne in Jerusalem, (5) David installed as co-king, (6) the 12 Apostles installed on their thrones over the the 12 Tribes, (7) Ezekiel's Temple built (for the Temple is an integral part of the Law), and (8) the Levitical Priesthood functioning in and around this Temple with the line of Zadok in the High Priestly function.

I would like to agree with your statement ...
I sadly did not make these statements. However, you are close, so let me say it how I have consistently said it.

"The New Covenant with the combined House of Israel was RATIFIED 'IN' Christ's blood on Golgotha. The New Covenant will be INSTITUTED when ALL Israel WHO EVER LIVED are forgiven their sins, resurrected and gathered to their Land." The Promises to Abraham are with "his seed" - ALL OF THEM *


* Jeremiah 31 defines "that day" of verse 31 as the day when the House of Israel and the House of Judah are together because in verse 33, speaking of the same Covenant, ONLY MENTIONS the House of Israel - the TWO COMBINED. It could not be INSTITUTED at Christ's death because;

• Of the TEN Tribes deported by Assyria, almost NO ONE returned. These TEN Tribes PLUS ALL THEIR OFFSPRING WHO HAVE LIVED AND DIED SINCE 700 BC, AND LIVED AND DIED THESE LAST 2,000 YEARS BELONG TO THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL. The Covenant is NOT ONLY made with Israelites living at the time. Thus, a massive resurrection must take place (Dan.12:2)
• Of the TWO Tribes deported by Babylon, 2½% returned to Judah. The remaining 97½% never returned. These 97½% PLUS ALL THEIR OFFSPRING WHO HAVE LIVED AND DIED SINCE 500 BC, AND LIVED AND DIED THESE LAST 2,000 YEARS BELONG TO THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.
• Of the 2½% who returned to Judah PLUS THEIR OFFSPRING in the interim 400 years are dead but belong to the House of Judah.
• Of the OFFSPRING of the 2½% who returned to Judah, PLUS ALL OFFSPRING WHO LIVED AND DIED IN THE INTERIM 2,000 YEARS, BELONG TO THE HOUSE OF JUDAH.
• THESE ALL MUST BE PRESENT WHEN THE NEW COVENANT IS INSTITUTED. It is NOT ONLY with LIVING Jews that the New Covenant is made, but WHEN EZEKIEL 37 IS FULFILLED. Until then, the millions of Israel languish in graves in and outside of Canaan and those alive languish UNDER THE CURSES OF THE FIRST COVENANT OF LAW.

Yes, we disagree on this major point. The New Covenant was both ratified and instituted at Christ's death. It was ratified and instituted *in his blood.* That it was instituted is indicated by the fact it was immediately applied by the remnant of Israel that became Christians. They showed this immediately by practicing the Communion. They immediately entered into the righteousness of Christ, which was, in fact, the New Covenant.

Your whole argument is that this New Covenant cannot be officially instituted until the prophecy is fulfilled in which all of national Israel gets saved. I certainly do not agree with this, since the New Covenant has been in play these last 2000 years. Jer 31.31-32 is only a *prophecy* of when the New Covenant will take effect for all of national Israel. In other words, it is a prophecy that one day the New Covenant will finally be adopted by all of national Israel.

In the meantime, the New Covenant has been in play, both in a remnant of Jews, accepting Christ, and in the Church overall. That's why Jesus gave the sacrament of Communion to his 12 disciples, to show that the New Covenant was being instituted on behalf of all Israel, even though it would be thousands of years before the nation was prepared, as a whole, to adopt this Covenant.

Clearly, the New Covenant, in being handed over to the 12 apostles, was indicating that it was both for all Israel and for the whole Church. The apostles represented both. The New Covenant is not the Law of Moses, which the author of Hebrews described as being "old." No, the New Covenant is, as Jer 31.31-32 indicates, a brand new covenant.

And I would once again reinforce that the difference in this New Covenant is that the nature of this covenant changes the old covenant, dropping the need for redemption rituals dealing with sin. Israel was to be saved, never again having to be cleansed from sin. Sin would be utterly removed. Consequences for sin would finally be completely removed.

All of this happened at the cross, where *Jesus himself* removed the judgment of sin in his own body. Only *his righteousness* came to matter at that point. It is the *righteousness of Christ* that constitutes the New Covenant, and not a regurgitation of the old body of laws given at Sinai!

[Slug1]

Yes, I agree with your summary. A Covenant, even though technically a contract, evokes something far deeper than a contract. Some covenants are sealed in blood, but I'm yet to see a contract in blood.

Hooah, a contract is by nature, non-relational. A covenant however, is all about relationship.

[Brother Mark]

Yes, I agree with your summary. A Covenant, even though technically a contract, evokes something far deeper than a contract. Some covenants are sealed in blood, but I'm yet to see a contract in blood.

A contract involves an exhange of goods or services. A covenant binds together in relationship. The two are not the same. IMO, a covenant is not technically a contract but our use of the word covenant in English has led to a lot of confusion.

[Brother Mark]

Hooah, a contract is by nature, non-relational. A covenant however, is all about relationship.

Exactly. They are not the same. One is all about relationship and the other is an agreement concerning goods, services, etc.

[Walls]

Yes, we disagree on this major point. The New Covenant was both ratified and instituted at Christ's death. It was ratified and instituted *in his blood.* That it was instituted is indicated by the fact it was immediately applied by the remnant of Israel that became Christians. They showed this immediately by practicing the Communion. They immediately entered into the righteousness of Christ, which was, in fact, the New Covenant.

Your whole argument is that this New Covenant cannot be officially instituted until the prophecy is fulfilled in which all of national Israel gets saved. I certainly do not agree with this, since the New Covenant has been in play these last 2000 years. Jer 31.31-32 is only a *prophecy* of when the New Covenant will take effect for all of national Israel. In other words, it is a prophecy that one day the New Covenant will finally be adopted by all of national Israel.

In the meantime, the New Covenant has been in play, both in a remnant of Jews, accepting Christ, and in the Church overall. That's why Jesus gave the sacrament of Communion to his 12 disciples, to show that the New Covenant was being instituted on behalf of all Israel, even though it would be thousands of years before the nation was prepared, as a whole, to adopt this Covenant.

Clearly, the New Covenant, in being handed over to the 12 apostles, was indicating that it was both for all Israel and for the whole Church. The apostles represented both. The New Covenant is not the Law of Moses, which the author of Hebrews described as being "old." No, the New Covenant is, as Jer 31.31-32 indicates, a brand new covenant.

And I would once again reinforce that the difference in this New Covenant is that the nature of this covenant changes the old covenant, dropping the need for redemption rituals dealing with sin. Israel was to be saved, never again having to be cleansed from sin. Sin would be utterly removed. Consequences for sin would finally be completely removed.

All of this happened at the cross, where *Jesus himself* removed the judgment of sin in his own body. Only *his righteousness* came to matter at that point. It is the *righteousness of Christ* that constitutes the New Covenant, and not a regurgitation of the old body of laws given at Sinai!

Again, I must say that it is a pity that you do not post references. It would be the easiest way in our discussion. All you need to do is post at least two scriptures that directly say;

• The New Covenant is already "initiated" with Israel - for it is with them that it is made in Jeremiah 31
• The New Covenant applies to the Church - your main contention
• What the "Old Covenant" was with the Church that they should get a New Covenant
• The New Covenant is a Covenant of New Laws - whereas "my Law" is exclusively used in the Old Testament to show the Law given to Moses
• What these new laws are
• Why the Church is to enter into an oath when they are forbidden to do this*

I will not repeat my contentions again. In both threads that we have discussed this matter, I have posted them over five times, yet without rebuttal with scripture.

* Although I am the first to say that we cannot develop doctrine based on Types, Allegory and Parables, as these are used to simplify a complicated principle, and are by no means complete, I would point you to the Parable of Matthew 20:1-16. It concerns who partakes of the Kingdom (v.1). In it TWO entities are revealed. (1) Those who entered in Covenant with the "Householder" and (2) those with which no Contract was made. It is obvious that those under Contract had to work harder and longer for the "Kingdom". And it is obvious that those who went to "work" for the Kingdom without Contract trusted the "Householder" on the basis of grace. This is how it turned out without the Householder violating his Contract. I propose that you, and all my opposers, have never sat down with the Bible and asked yourselves why you vehemently propose a Contract of Law (whatever the Law) for the Church when it operates under grace? You have yet to produce a single verse that places the Church under any Contract of Law (whatever you understand by "My Law").

[Walls]

Exactly. They are not the same. One is all about relationship and the other is an agreement concerning goods, services, etc.

God makes a Covenant with Abraham. The part of the Covenant that God must fulfill is that He must bring Abraham and his seed into the Land of Canaan for a possession. That which Abraham has to fulfill is that every male of the seed of Abraham must be circumcised. Some 400 years later, Moses, seed of Abraham, journeys to Egypt for the grand task of liberating God's people for the completion of this Covenant. With him are his sons, also now seed of Abraham. God has invested in Moses more than any man other than Jesus Christ. He is born to Levi, saved from the crocodiles of the Nile, and raised in royal courts in the wisdom and knowledge of Egypt for 40 years. Then he is driven into the wilderness to be dealt with by the God for another 40 years till his disposition was "the meekest of all men on the face of the earth". And his record is that he faithfully served God in extreme conditions for another 40 years with only one mistake. And on the way to Egypt to liberate God's chosen people, GOD SEEKS TO KILL MOSES! Why? Because one of his sons, seed of Abraham, is not circumcised. And the great Moses, object of God's 80-year preparation for one of the grandest tasks in the history of men, is saved by his heathen wife (Exodus 4).

Let every student of scripture KNOW THE NATURE OF COVENANT WITH GOD! It is LIFE AND DEATH! Where, I ask, was the "relationship" you men speak of? This was a Contract that ended in DEATH for God's most chosen man if his wife had not stepped in! Now ... where is your "relationship"?

[Walls]

Hooah, a contract is by nature, non-relational. A covenant however, is all about relationship.

Consider this my esteemed brother.

1. In Deuteronomy 28 God lays forth the blessing of the Covenant of Law (verses 1-13) and the curses (verses 14-68). In verses 53-57 God lays down that which would happen when Israel were besieged. This happened when Nebuchadnezzar's army besieged Jerusalem. Men and women, even the most tender of women who would not step on pesky cockroach, KILLED AND ATE THEIR CHILDREN.
2. In verses 63-66 God set forth curses, that He, as a righteous God, is OBLIGED to fulfill if the Covenant is broken. It regards Israel's dispersion among the nations AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THEM IN THESE NATIONS. It reads;

63 "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
64 And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, even wood and stone.
65 And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind"
66 And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:

Now consider this. The latest "horror" in our lives with the Jews was the so-called holocaust in Germany from 1940 to 1945. Shall we condemn Hitler and his thugs? YES! Shall we condemn the Germans who "took orders". YES! But what every student of scripture must know IS THAT THIS "DESTRUCTION" CAME FROM THE CONDITIONS OF THE COVENANT OF HOREB. A Covenant of God might include a "relationship", BUT IT IS A DEADLY THING FOR MEN. Where then in this is a relationship EXCEPT TO KEEP THE CONDITIONS?

[Brother Mark]

God makes a Covenant with Abraham. The part of the Covenant that God must fulfill is that He must bring Abraham and his seed into the Land of Canaan for a possession. That which Abraham has to fulfill is that every male of the seed of Abraham must be circumcised. Some 400 years later, Moses, seed of Abraham, journeys to Egypt for the grand task of liberating God's people for the completion of this Covenant. With him are his sons, also now seed of Abraham. God has invested in Moses more than any man other than Jesus Christ. He is born to Levi, saved from the crocodiles of the Nile, and raised in royal courts in the wisdom and knowledge of Egypt for 40 years. Then he is driven into the wilderness to be dealt with by the God for another 40 years till his disposition was "the meekest of all men on the face of the earth". And his record is that he faithfully served God in extreme conditions for another 40 years with only one mistake. And on the way to Egypt to liberate God's chosen people, GOD SEEKS TO KILL MOSES! Why? Because one of his sons, seed of Abraham, is not circumcised. And the great Moses, object of God's 80-year preparation for one of the grandest tasks in the history of men, is saved by his heathen wife (Exodus 4).

Let every student of scripture KNOW THE NATURE OF COVENANT WITH GOD! It is LIFE AND DEATH! Where, I ask, was the "relationship" you men speak of? This was a Contract that ended in DEATH for God's most chosen man if his wife had not stepped in! Now ... where is your "relationship"?

God went into covenant with Himself on Abraham's behalf. Abraham did not enter into that covenant. The Father and Jesus walked through the cut animals. Jesus did it for Abraham just as He did it for us because He knows we cannot keep the covenant.

God called it "My covenant" when speaking with Abraham in Gen 17. It was not a covenant between Abraham and God but a covenant between the Godhead on behalf of Abraham.

Gen 17:2 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you,
And I will multiply you exceedingly."

4 "As for Me, behold, My covenant is with you,
And you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you NASB

God didn't say "our" covenant because it wasn't.

However, God does say we are to carry the sign of His covenant. That is how we "keep" his covenant between us and Him.

Gen 17:10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.
NASB

Gen 17:11
11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.
NASB

We cannot move into ministry, as Moses was about to do, without walking in His covenant. The sign of the covenant, and how we can walk in His covenant, so that we get the benefits of walking in His covenant (and how we can enter into His covenant so that it becomes a covenant between us and God with Jesus taking on the curses) is to be circumcised. Just as this was done in the OT to the person (i.e. the baby did not circumcise himself) so we are circumcised by God, and not by ourselves. Moses did not make a little mistake. He was wilfully not walking in God's covenant. That is very dangerous indeed! It would be like Hosea's wife trying to teach how to be a good wife while she was out whoring. That doesn't mean Moses was lost. He was not! But if Moses was going to be the man God used to bring about the fulfillment of the covenant He made with Himself on Abraham's behalf in Gen 15, He was going to require that man have the sign of that covenant before allowing him to walk in that power before Pharaoh and the people.

There's real relationship with God. God going into covenant with Himself, on our behalf, so we can walk in His covenant with the righteousness of Christ. Christ took upon Himself the breaking of the covenant, and the curses that were sure to fall upon Abraham had Abraham took the walk of death instead of Christ.

It is always the job of someone else to do the circumcision. In our case, God does this.

Col 2:9 For in Him all the fulness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority; 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.
NASB

He took on the curses of breaking the covenant and gave us the blessings of keeping the covenant because He kept the covenant fully. There's a reason that God put Abraham to sleep and had Jesus walk through the walk of death with the Father rather than allowing Abraham to do it.

Gen 15:17 And it came about when the sun had set, that it was very dark, and behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a flaming torch which passed between these pieces.
NASB

Abraham did not walk the walk of death. But the Father and the Son did. And in all this, there was no exchange of goods. There was no wages exchanged. It was far more than a contract. God's covenant is about God doing for man what man cannot do for himself. Can we be removed from the covenant? IMO, we can when God divorces us because of the hardness of our hearts.

To call it a contract belittles what God has done for us through grace and the tremendous cost to the Godhead because of the price paid by the Son. It is not a "marriage contract" as we like to say for it is not "business" but relationship and yes, life and death is at stake.

The covenant involves taking on the name of those we go into covenant with, an exchanging of strengths and weaknesses and enemies and weapons and eating a convenant meal together and on and on. That is not a contract but it does come with curses and blessings. It does not come with payments for services rendered nor an offer of goods for money that contracts are all about.