Page 2 of 83 FirstFirst 1234567891011121352 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 1234

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

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by mailmandan View Post
    Are you saying that Israel is in between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant? The Old Covenant has been made obsolete, but the New Covenant has not yet been instituted? Where does that leave the Church?
    Another question, will Jesus die a second time before the New Covenant becomes operative?

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Aristarkos View Post
    Outside of the covenants of course, they were never made with the Gentiles. The Gentiles just appropriated them and this is repeated for so long, now everybody beliefs this is the truth. There is however not a single Scripture that says this. The only letter Paul talks about the new covenant is Hebrews, i.e. Jews.

    Just see what he says of covenant without new in his other letters:

    Rom. 11:27 For this is my covenant unto them (Israel see v. 26), when I shall take away their (Israel) sins . Israel is not done away with at all, God has until today never took their sins away.

    Gal. 3:17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect

    And then 12 times in Hebrews. Paul is the apostle of the Gentiles, and he says it is for Israel, not for the Church of God, which BTW doesn't exist in this dispensation, now it is only grace. That's why God allows people to believe as they please. Some believe they are somewhere in the Revelation, some are not, others are under the New Covenant, others took the place of Israel, others believe Christ has after the Cross accepted all power (which is not true to Heb. 2:8 But now we see not yet all things put under him etc.

    Aristarkos
    Please read Ephesians 2 in full to understand Paul's exegesis that the believing Jew and Gentile are now one in spirit and together partake of the "covenant of promise" made to Israel.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Bakersfield
    Posts
    4,435

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Brother Walls: I responded to your post but there's a wrap over it. I've tried to remove it but couldn't...
    I had to delete your post to Walls to fix the issue. Please repost you response to Walls if you can.
    "He's wild, you know. Not like a tame lion."
    C.S. Lewis, "The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe."

    "Oh, but sometimes the sun stays hidden for years"
    "Sometimes the sky rains night after night, When will it clear?"

    "But our Hope endures the worst of conditions"
    "It's more than our optimism, Let the earth quake"
    "Our Hope is unchanged"
    "Our Hope Endures" Natalie Grant

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    In my posting #4 I wrote;
    In the second paragraph point #3:

    "The curses of the Law are recorded mostly in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Israel is still under these curses today - a sure sign that the Old Covenant is still in force. Israel is largely still in dispersion and does not have a seed of David on its throne. It is dictated to by Gentile forces and Jerusalem is still trampled under Gentile feet. Israel are still breaking the Law today, so the New Covenant could not be in force yet"

    In the second to last paragraph, last point:

    The PLAIN LANGUAGE of Hebrews 8:13 says that, "... the old (Covenant) ... which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" IN THE PRESENT CONTINUOUS TENSE. This is some 37 years after Golgotha.

    These should answer your first question. The Covenant of Sinai is still in force. Remember, a Covenant or Contract has two sides. (i) Rewards if the Contract is kept, and (ii) penalties if the Contract is broken. If we see before our eyes that the penalties of Sinai are still in full force, it is obvious that the Contract is still being upheld.

    The Church is altogether out of the picture. The Church was never under the Covenant of Sinai, was never under Law, was not revealed to Jeremiah, and is not included in the New Covenant. The only Covenants that the Church is part of is that to Noah in Genesis 9, for it is made with "all flesh" (v.17), and that of Abraham because we are IN Christ and He is Seed of Abraham (Gal.3:29).
    1. The Old Covenant epitomized by animal sacrifice was ineffective and was replaced by ONE sacrifice made with Jesus Christ' sinless body.
    2. With his death, the Old became obsolete and the New came into force.
    3. It is ambiguous to claim that the Covenant at Sinai is still in force because while the moral commandments remain, the ordinances enshrined in animal sacrifice are now proscribed.
    4. The church might not have been mentioned by Jeremiah, nonetheless, the Gentile church by faith in Christ are now partakers of the New Covenant of promise. Eph 2:12-14

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    The answer to your question hangs on THREE things;
    1. In WHAT "DAY" will God make a New Covenant with Israel and Judah?
    2. When will the House of Israel and the House of Judah be in a position to receive the New Covenant?
    3. Is the Old Covenant of Law still in force?
    The problem is that you refuse to take a broad view of the New Covenant given your preference for the narrow where only Israel and Judah are in the picture. Perhaps, you need to read the Hebrews from start to finish to grasp the full meaning of the NC? To address your questions above:

    a. The NC was established when Jesus Christ died on the cross Heb 15:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

    b. The NC is now operative and available to every believer including the Houses of Israel and Judah. To claim that the covenant is exclusive to these two and no one else, is a denial of the full application of Jesus Christ' sacrifice.

    c. Is the Old Covenant of Law still in force? An interesting question indeed. The moral law and commandments of God remain constant and enduring (Matt 5:17). However, the ordinances of the law enshrined in sacrifices for the atonement of sin is now obsolete since it was replaced by the sacrifice on the cross.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    1. The "DAY" in which the Covenant is made is the "DAY" when both Houses are UNITED. In Jeremiah 31 the northern Tribes, called the House of Israel, which were carried off by Assyria, and the southern Tribes, which were carried off by Babylon, are given the New Covenant. But verse 33 establishes them as ONE HOUSE of Israel in regard to the New Covenant. That is, the "DAY" is the day when Israel is resurrected and gathered from the diaspora back to their Land to be ONE NATION again. See also Ezekiel 37:11 and 39:25 where it is "the WHOLE House of Israel".
    2. The TWO Houses will only be able to receive the new Covenant when (i) the Temple is built - for it is an integral part of God's Law, and (ii) they are ALL back in their Land - for going down to Jerusalem thrice a year to feast is an integral part of God's Law
    3. The curses of the Law are recorded mostly in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. Israel is still under these curses today - a sure sign that the Old Covenant is still in force. Israel is largely still in dispersion and does not have a seed of David on its throne. It is dictated to by Gentile forces and Jerusalem is still trampled under Gentile feet. Israel are still breaking the Law today, so the New Covenant could not be in force yet
    1. The DAY the new covenant was established was the day that Jesus was nailed on the cross, see Heb 9:16-22 Therefore, your claim that it will be introduced on the day that Israel and Judah are regathered in their homeland is spurious and scripturally indefensible.

    2. There is nothing in Jeremiah's prophecy of the covenant that ties it to the rebuilding of the temple. The primary essence of the NC is for the forgiveness of sins Heb 8:12; 10:17.

    3. So long as Israel remains in unbelief and rely on the Law for righteousness rather than faith in Christ, the curses inherent in disobeying the law continues to apply. On the contrary, those who believe (starting with the Apostles) are now enjoying the benefits of the new covenant by faith in Christ. Jesus is the promised seed that will sit on the throne of David and that will be fulfilled when he returns. Sadly, your supporting argument that the New Covenant is not yet in force is invalid.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    It is more than apparent that the introduction of the New Covenant must wait at least until the Lord returns and sends His angels to gather all Israel from the "four winds" (Matt.24:31 - only Israel was scattered to the four winds, not the Church).

    ▶︎ That our Lord has already ratified the Covenant with His blood does not mean that it is in force. Moses ratified the Old Covenant at Sinai, but some Laws were for the king of Israel, which only came some 500 years later. In one of the Laws, Deuteronomy 18:18, Moses commanded that he was to be discarded when Jesus came and Israel was only "to hear" Jesus. That came 1,500 years later.

    ▶︎ That our Lord is Mediator of the New Covenant does not mean that it is in force. It only means that when it is negotiated, He will mediate the Contract. The Holy Spirit in us Christians is the guarantee that we will be resurrected (Eph.1:14). This does not mean that we have been resurrected. 1st Corinthians 15:45, in context of resurrection, says that our Lord Jesus is "become the life-giving Spirit". But we are yet to be resurrected.[LIST]
    1. Unless you can prove that Jesus will die again when he returns, then your assertion that the NC has to wait UNTIL Jesus returns again is erroneous and ludicrous.
    2. You cannot ratify an agreement/covenant without it being in force. You are simply interjecting your personal thoughts in the text which has no relationship to what the Bible says.
    3. Jesus is called the Mediator of the New Covenant [now and always], there's no basis to deny he is not mediating for us now.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    7,303
    Blog Entries
    13

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Walls View Post
    • The RATIFICATION of the new Covenant was completed on Golgotha. From then on Christ's blood, among other things, is called "the blood of the new Covenant" to declare hope to Israel in her chastisement.
    • The INSTITUTION of the New Covenant is when the TWO houses of Israel and Judah are united and in their Land
    • The PLAIN LANGUAGE of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 says that this New Covenant is a Covenant ONLY with Israel
    • The PLAIN LANGUAGE of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 says that this New Covenant is a Covenant OF LAW
    • The PLAIN LANGUAGE of Ephesians 3:5 and 9 says that the Church was not revealed to Jeremiah (which Hebrews quotes)
    • The CHURCH was never under the Old Covenant
    • The Church was never under LAW. If it sets itself under Law "Christ has become of none effect to them" (Gal.5:4)
    • The Church does not have Israel's FATHERS who came out of Egypt. It has God as its Father (Jn.1:12-13)
    • The PLAIN LANGUAGE of Hebrews 8:13 says that, "... the old (Covenant) ... which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" IN THE PRESENT CONTINUOUS TENSE. This is some 37 years after Golgotha.

    There is not a SINGLE PROOF that the new Covenant has been instituted as we discuss.
    The ratification of the NC on the cross made the old covenant obsolete and brought into effect, the new. And it is for the sanctification and redemption of not only Israel but, ALL that believe God by faith.

    Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

    * In plain language , the scriptures confirm that the new covenant is now operative and that it is for ALL the faithful in Christ - whether Jew or Gentile. The New Covenant is about the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
    * In plain language Eph 2:8-15 says that by dying, Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and Gentile thus making us one in the spirit (v-14). Hence being one, Gentile believers can now partake and benefit from the "covenants of promise" made to Israel when Gentiles were still alienated from the commonwealth of Israel v-12).
    * In the plain language , you have not proved the case that the New Covenant is not in operation now.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,070
    Blog Entries
    4

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Please read Ephesians 2 in full to understand Paul's exegesis that the believing Jew and Gentile are now one in spirit and together partake of the "covenant of promise" made to Israel.
    We've been their before and then you said I didn't know what I was talking about or words to that effect. So let's look seriously at Ephesians 2, what is Paul saying there? Epesians 2 can be divided in two parts 1 — 10 and 11 — 22.

    In the first part, Paul draws us the spiritual condition: formerly walked in sins and crimes, children of disobedience. But made alive by God, raised up with Christ and set in the over-heavenly. These are all spiritual conditions. — In the second part more the difference in position with respect to Israel emerges: former Gentiles in the flesh, without Christ, alienated from Israel's citizenship, strangers from the covenants of promise, without hope and without God. But now came close, no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God.

    In this chapter we find time past twice. In time past walked to the aion of this world, v. 2, in time past Gentiles in the flesh, v. 11. At that time they were also without Christ and alienated from Israel's citizenship, v. 12. That is, not having a part in it as opposing strangers. About what time do you believe this is? Acts?

    The only mention of a covenant is in v. 12 the covenant of promise . What is the covenant of promise? This is not the new covenant, but the covenant that Paul discusses in Gal. 3:15 — 29. So again Paul is walking back to his previous ministry in his first 7 letters. Therefore it has nothing to do with the new covenant, but with the promises made to Abraham.

    Aristarkos

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    Another question, will Jesus die a second time before the New Covenant becomes operative?
    Good question for these confused brothers. Jesus said, "this is my blood of the new covenant". Pretty plain, if you ask me.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,672

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    1. The Old Covenant epitomized by animal sacrifice was ineffective and was replaced by ONE sacrifice made with Jesus Christ' sinless body.
    2. With his death, the Old became obsolete and the New came into force.
    3. It is ambiguous to claim that the Covenant at Sinai is still in force because while the moral commandments remain, the ordinances enshrined in animal sacrifice are now proscribed.
    4. The church might not have been mentioned by Jeremiah, nonetheless, the Gentile church by faith in Christ are now partakers of the New Covenant of promise. Eph 2:12-14
    1. For the Church yes. For Israel NO! Israel rejected and still rejects Christ's efficacy. They remain under the First Covenant. Christ's efficacy is by FAITH and Israel, "are concluded, by God, to be in UNBELIEF ... until the fullness of the Gentiles is complete" (Rom.11:26, 32)
    2. Only for Jews who converted to Christianity. For Israel all remains the same. There is no clause in the Covenant of Sinai that relieves them of it.
    3. I wish you would post verses for such statements. It would make discussion much easier. Or maybe there is no verse to back this up ....
    4. By design, or accident - I may not judge, but you have just replaced the Covenant of PROMISE with that of LAW, which was given 430 years later. Secondly, Ephesians is addressed to BELIEVERS - not Israel who are in unbelief. We discuss Israel my brother. The "ye" and "us" of Ephesians 2:12-14 addresses Christians.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,672

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The problem is that you refuse to take a broad view of the New Covenant given your preference for the narrow where only Israel and Judah are in the picture. Perhaps, you need to read the Hebrews from start to finish to grasp the full meaning of the NC? To address your questions above:

    a. The NC was established when Jesus Christ died on the cross Heb 15:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

    b. The NC is now operative and available to every believer including the Houses of Israel and Judah. To claim that the covenant is exclusive to these two and no one else, is a denial of the full application of Jesus Christ' sacrifice.

    c. Is the Old Covenant of Law still in force? An interesting question indeed. The moral law and commandments of God remain constant and enduring (Matt 5:17). However, the ordinances of the law enshrined in sacrifices for the atonement of sin is now obsolete since it was replaced by the sacrifice on the cross.
    a. Hebrews 15:26 is a typo. You probably meant 9:26. Hebrews is written to EX-Jews who have converted to Christians (Heb.3:1). Christ's efficacy does not extend to Israel yet. They refused it and are Lo-Ammi - "you are NOT my people".

    b. I am astounded that you can make such a statement without a single verse. And I am even more astounded that you can watch Israel presently bearing the full brunt of the curses of the First Covenant and say they have the new Covenant. Where is the House of Israel today? They were carried to Assyria and have never returned. Where is the House of Judah today? They were carried off to Babylon and only 2.5% returned, only to be thoroughly hammered, defeated and deported in 70 AD. Is the Holocaust of 1940-1945 a result of the Israel keeping the New Covenant? Is the dispersion of more than half of presently known Israelites among the nations proof of the new Covenant in force? Let me read what God said would happen to Israel if they broke the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:33-37 says;

    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.

    ....

    36 "If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.
    37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off ALL the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD."


    Consider this my brother. If the New Covenant is in force, and Israel break the "ordinances" of it, God will wipe out Israel forever. So, with half of Israel not going down to Jerusalem thrice a year with their tithes, and with half of Israel refusing to live in the Good Land, and with ALL of Israel not killing the morning and evening oblation in the Temple - I mean BIG transgressions of the "ordinances", how then does Israel still exist. But if the INSTITUTION of the New Covenant is yet future, then Israel is yet under the First and its chastisement - exactly what we see with our eyes today.

    c. Here, you have contradicted yourself. In one breath you say that Matthew 5:17-19 is valid. That is, "... one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." And verse 19 speaks of the "LEAST of the commandments" being valid. And then you throw out two thirds of this Law which is made up of the dietary, clothing, sexual and agricultural "ordinances" with the Temple service PLUS the Covenants that are contained in them like that of the Priesthood and the Passover. C'mon brother. None greater than our Lord Jesus has emphatically stated (with a threat) that not one jot or tittle will pass UNTIL heaven and earth pass. This is only AFTER the Millennium!

    Let me make one comment. If I said that Christ's efficacy applies to all men and that all men, whether they believe in Christ or not, are saved, I would get kicked of this Forum. Yet, you say that Christ's efficacy applies to Israel while they are in unbelief! Is this not an overthrow of the foundation of our doctrine? Are you not close to universalism? Christ's work has various facets. He has, by His life, death and resurrection fulfilled all the Law and the Sacrifices - BUT ONLY FOR A MAN WHO BELIEVES IN HIM! The infidel has NO PROFIT from them AND ISRAEL ARE IN UNBELIEF TILL THE AGE CLOSES! Beware! You walk on a knife edge!

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,672

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    1. Unless you can prove that Jesus will die again when he returns, then your assertion that the NC has to wait UNTIL Jesus returns again is erroneous and ludicrous.
    2. You cannot ratify an agreement/covenant without it being in force. You are simply interjecting your personal thoughts in the text which has no relationship to what the Bible says.
    3. Jesus is called the Mediator of the New Covenant [now and always], there's no basis to deny he is not mediating for us now.
    Then, by your logic, the New Covenant was instituted on Golgotha in 30 AD. So I ask you to show;
    1. The House of Israel on that day. Remember, a huge resurrection would have to have taken place that day all over the world and a massive rapture from foreign lands to Israel, for ten-twelfths of Jacob's seed make up this House
    2. The House of Judah on that day. Remember, another huge resurrection and rapture must have taken place worldwide to gather all of Judah and Benjamin's seed over the centuries, for they also belong to this House
    3. The change from Laws written on tables to written on the Israelite's heart and mind. Remember, the Jews got the soldiers to LIE about Jesus' body three days after Golgotha. Is this how the Law written on the hearts works?
    4. The Israelites, from that day forth, keeping the "ordinances". But for this they need a Temple and God allowed it to be taken away within 40 years.
    5. The Israelites never ever breaking a commandment again, otherwise, as shown above in the rest of Jeremiah 31, they would have ceased to exist. But what do we see today, over 1,900 years later?

    In the friendliest terms possible I think we should reserve the word "ludicrous" for something else.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,672

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The ratification of the NC on the cross made the old covenant obsolete and brought into effect, the new. And it is for the sanctification and redemption of not only Israel but, ALL that believe God by faith.

    Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
    By accident or design, I may not judge, you again swap the Covenant of PROMISE made with Abraham with the Covenant of LAW made at Sinai. Jeremiah 31 says that the Covenant made with "the fathers of Israel who came out of Egypt" will be replaced by a New Covenant. The "fathers of Israel who came out of Egypt" did so 430 years later than God made a Covenant NOT OF LAW BUT OF PROMISE with Abraham. Take your time to consider this brother, for you have now twice twisted scripture.

    For the record let us one-for-all put this matter to rest. Galatians 3:17 says:

    "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect"

    The New Covenant REPLACES that of SINAI, not that with Abraham!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    * In plain language , the scriptures confirm that the new covenant is now operative and that it is for ALL the faithful in Christ - whether Jew or Gentile. The New Covenant is about the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).
    Show us the plain language for this. Jeremiah, in the plainest of language, says the New Covenant is with BOTH HOUSES OF ISRAEL! Show me your scriptures that say it is made with "ALL the faithful in Christ"! I dare you! Galatians 6:1-2 addresses a BELIEVER - not Israel as Jeremiah does. And there is NO MENTION of a New Covenant in these verses! Where is your "plain language"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    * In plain language Eph 2:8-15 says that by dying, Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and Gentile thus making us one in the spirit (v-14). Hence being one, Gentile believers can now partake and benefit from the "covenants of promise" made to Israel when Gentiles were still alienated from the commonwealth of Israel v-12).
    In dying, our Lord Jesus broke down the middle wall of partition for ex-Jew IN THE CHURCH - NOT ISRAEL. And again you insert the Covenant of PROMISE made 430 years earlier than that of Sinai - WHICH THE NEW COVENANT REPLACES!

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    * In the plain language , you have not proved the case that the New Covenant is not in operation now.
    Then answer
    1. with proof that "THAT DAY" of Jeremiah 31:31 has passed and BOTH Houses of Israel were resurrected and assembled to receive the Covenant
    2. the points in my previous posting and I will be satisfied.

    But here now is a question for you. In Luke 22:7-18 (which I leave below for reference) the Passover, a Covenant of the Law, "must be killed". Our Lord Jesus then eats of this animal sacrifice and then says that He will NOT "kill and eat" of that Passover till He returns and sets up the Kingdom of God. He further states that ONLY THEN, in the Millennial Kingdom of God, it will be fulfilled. And then He institutes a New Ritual with bread and a cup which must be celebrated "till He comes" (1st Cor.11:26). So please explain ...
    1. Why our Lord will not eat of the Passover for 2,000 years but then eat of it again?
    2. Why our Lord Jesus, who you have repeatedly said is the fulfillment of the Passover, says that it will only be fulfilled in the Millennium?
    3. Why our Lord, Who said not one jot or tittle of the Law will pass until after the Millennium, refuses the Passover for 2,000 years?
    4. On what basis do you say the Law is "obsolete" when the Passover, one of the Covenants of the Law, and an integral part of it, will be feasted by no less than Emanuel when He returns?
    5. Why our Lord institutes bread and wine as a memorial and promptly decides not to partake of the vine again for 2,000 years?

    I understand if you refuse this little exercise, but then you must stop saying that the Law is "abolished" and/0r "obsolete". It is ONLY SO FOR THE CHURCH AND NOT ISRAEL!

    7 "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed.
    8 And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.
    9 And they said unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare?
    10 And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house where he entereth in.
    11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
    12 And he shall shew you a large upper room furnished: there make ready.
    13 And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.
    14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.
    15 And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:
    16 For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.
    17 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
    18 For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come."

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    212

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Trivalee View Post
    The way to write makes it difficult to respond.
    If 'transgression' in your book denotes the breaking of God's law - that according to the Bible is SIN. And that is my position also.

    I'm not sure of what you're disagreeing about regarding the ineffectiveness of the sacrifice of animals for the atonement of sin? The scriptures you quoted show that because of its deficiency, the New Covenant in the blood of Christ had to replace it.

    It is a gross error to pin the new covenant to Israel being gathered to dwell in the land. Rather it is for the forgiveness of sin (Heb 10:14-17).
    Was the purpose and/or institution of the law a means of salvation?

    Verse list:
    Gal 3:19-21 KJV Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    Hopefully you answered no to my question. And if you did, then:

    *[[Heb 8:7]] KJV* For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second...
    *[[Heb 8:13]] KJV* 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.

    And if the new is replacing the old, why are you replacing a non-salvational covenant with one that does offer salvation? And if salvation WAS NOT offered under the old covenant, everyone who lived under it had no hope of salvation. Unless you are inclined to think that there was a means of salvation prior to Calvary, in which case the New Covenant was instituted as a means of salvation that replaced a prior means of salvation that was defective. [Sarcasm...] Oh right, Israel could be dabbled under the OC, but not Gentiles. Faith has always been the means salvation, and never by the works of the law. Which brings us back to the New covenant is only with the houses of Israel and Judah, and not Gentiles. So now we are back to having to say that [the houses of Israel and Judah] means everybody. I can see why you are stuck in your beliefs.

    As far as the issue of transgression goes, if dalvation is not an afforded option under the old covenant, of what value is it to redeem transgressions that were made under the first covenant? Those people under the OC were dead and gone and nothing can change that.

    *[[Heb 9:15]] KJV* And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

    This is tantamount to saying that those who died Unger the first covenant are going to be saved, without Christ. We know that is not true. Going back to the purpose for instituting the first covenant:

    Verse list:
    Gal 3:19-21 KJV Wherefore then serveth the law? It was ADDED BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

    It is by the (giving of and being under) the law that defines transgression. Let me say it again. SIN is the transgression of God's laws. You don't have to have or be "under the law" to be guilty of sin. It encompass all of us, except Christ. So when Paul said that the law was added because of transgressions, it was not added as a means of salvation, by manifesting righteousness, it manifested what constitutes sin, by being under the law. And this is what Christ presents when he presents himself before the father as our high priest... unblemished, unblameable holiness. And this is why the NC replaces the OC. ALL who inherits the kingdom of God will do so in perfect holiness, having the conscience purged from sin, and not just having our flesh purified:

    *[[Heb 9:14]] KJV* How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

    The work of Christ and his atoning blood, is in no way nullified by the new covenant. It enables man to be able to keep it. No man can keep the laws of God without the completed work of redemption and regeneration of Christ that is foundational to entering into the new covenant.

    Blessings
    The PuP

    *[[1Th 3:13]] KJV* To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 609
    Last Post: Jan 27th 2019, 08:01 PM
  2. Discussion has it started
    By kj2188 in forum End Times Chat
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: Apr 6th 2014, 04:14 PM
  3. Replies: 28
    Last Post: Jan 8th 2013, 05:51 PM
  4. Replies: 116
    Last Post: Mar 20th 2012, 06:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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