CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, I do maintain that Jeremiah is talking about two covenants. How does replacement theology follow from that? I don't think it does.Well it is you who say Jeremiah was prophesying about two separate covenants.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes, I do maintain that Jeremiah is talking about two covenants. How does replacement theology follow from that? I don't think it does.Well it is you who say Jeremiah was prophesying about two separate covenants.
You are in error;
2 Corinthians 3:6 God has empowered us as the ministers of a a new Covenant, nor physical, but Spiritual.....
What do you mean "usual" way? What if the "usual" way is wrong?
Be specific. Where did I allegorize anything?Taking words at their normal usage. Just like you read a newspaper, book, magazine. You don't allegorize these reading materials, why do you feel the need to allegorize what God said?
Objection 1.
Neither Jesus nor Paul associate the concepts found in Jeremiah 31:33-34 with the New Covenant.
Objection 2.
Jeremiah speaks about two different time periods: a) Behold days are coming . . . and b) after those days.
Be specific. Where did I allegorize anything?
I believe this includes Gentiles.34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Many times the Israelites in the desert were referred to as the 'congregation'. They had many 'aliens', who had joined and who became Israelites by their faith in God. The true people of God were never confined to an ethnic group.When did the church, made up of believers of all nations, break the covenant in the desert.
By twisting the normative use of days are coming and after those days and make them refer to two separate time periods. You have not even defined what days took place for "after those days" to happen! Jeremiah is referring ot all Jews and yet you make it apply to gentiles . That is allegorizing teh word. You take it out of context to make a totally new thought.
By twisting the normative use of days are coming and after those days and make them refer to two separate time periods. You have not even defined what days took place for "after those days" to happen! Jeremiah is referring ot all Jews and yet you make it apply to gentiles . That is allegorizing teh word. You take it out of context to make a totally new thought.
I believe this includes Gentiles.
I'm having a hard time understanding why this is an issue, myself, I've always read it before the way you do, and thought of this all as the same thing. But I've never understood how it was that we are saved in the New Covenant, but not in accord with it's terms, if it's all one "New Covenant".
The New Covenant is prophesied to write God's Laws, His statutes and commandements - the Law and the Prophets, I think if you were to ask the original reader - on His people's hearts, and that this means they will in fact keep every last one of them. And I don't see that today.
People propose that "some" of the Law is written on our hearts, and we go on these endless debates over what parts, and does it really work, and what it means when we aren't keeping the Law, and on and on it goes.
But the days are coming in which I'll receive new learning, new concepts, and new ideas, from Scripture. And after those days, I'll be able to better teach these things I've come to understand.
This to me reads just like, the days are coming when I'll make a new covenant with Israel and Judah, and after those days, I'll write my laws on Israel's heart.
I've got two items here that appear to indicate something that would be a good answer to my question, a difference in timing, (coming days, and after those days) and a difference in address (Israel and Judah, Israel alone).
The days are coming in which God will make a new covenant, through which we can all be saved.
And after those days, God will write His Laws on Israel's hearts, particularly, when Jesus comes, as I compare this to other prophecies.
I'm still considering this, but it makes a lot of sense to me at the moment.
Much love!
You have not even defined . . .
This is a valid objection of my view and I see your point. Many people, including myself, misunderstood Jeremiah to say that vs. 33 and 34 define the New Covenant, filling in some of the details. But a few of us in our group have been studying the OT prophecies in light of New Testament teaching. One of us noticed that the New Testament defines the New Covenant without making any reference to the ideas and concepts found in Jeremiah 31:33-34. Those concepts aren't in the New Testament. More significantly, both Paul and Jesus define the New Covenant, not in terms of a universal enlightenment, or a universal salvation; but in terms of a new more substantial means to find justification in God.
I would suggest that Jeremiah 31:33-34 is the basis for the argument between Paul and the other Pharisees. The other Pharisees object to Paul's gospel because he claims to be a minister of the New Covenant, but seems to have apparently left out an essential aspect, i.e. universal salvation of all those in Israel. "Paul, you claim to be a minister of the New Covenant, so why hasn't Israel experienced the promises of Jeremiah 31:33-34?" Answer: This aspect of Jeremiahs prophecy comes later . . . after those days.
Jeremiah is referring to all Jews . . .
Technically, Jeremiah 31:31 speaks about two houses: the house of Judah and the house of Israel. And here again, after an extensive study of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews, I had to correct myself. I formerly believed, as you do, that Jeremiah was speaking about all Jews, and I formerly defend the idea that the New Covenant was not in effect yet. I think I am in a better position now, to realize that Jeremiah intended to focus on the houses of Judah and Israel, taken as the leadership and kingly line, rather than the individual people. In other words, the covenant is with Jesus himself, the leader of both houses. John 1:49, John 12:13
That is allegorizing the word.
I have a different understanding of "allegorizing", which is to take something symbolically that the author intended as literal. Is that what I did? I don't think so.
He speaks about days that are coming, after the exile, when Israel will be settled back in the land of promise. At that time the Lord will make a new covenant with Israel
(The Hebrew word for "covenant" actually comes from the word "to cut." Refer to Genesis 15 where we see Abraham cut animals in half.) In this case, rather than cutting a covenant with an animal; the Lord cut a covenant with his only begotten son. Thus Jesus says, "this is the covenant in my blood." As I say, Jesus and Paul were the ones who defined the New Covenant as salvation in the blood of Jesus.
Many times the Israelites in the desert were referred to as the 'congregation'. They had many 'aliens', who had joined and who became Israelites by their faith in God. The true people of God were never confined to an ethnic group.
They separated into 2 Houses after Solomon's time. Then they both broke the old Covenant and were exiled for their sins. Judah has returned, but in apostasy and will again be judged and exiled. Jeremiah 12:14
Then the faithful Christian peoples from every tribe, race, nation and language, will go to live in all of the holy Land, where God will cut a New Covenant with us. Hebrews 8:8-13
Church teaching says we Christians are now under the New Covenant, the Old is obsolete: Hebrews 8:10-13. However, it is fairly obvious that this prophecy of how God’s Laws will be set into our hearts has not yet been fulfilled. The great prophecies in Ezekiel chapters 20, 36 and 37 tell us when, how and why this will happen:
Not according to gods Word as He said it and Ezekiel wrote it! that is you rewriting Gods Word to make it say something God never intended! shame on you!Ezekiel 20:39-44 Now, you Israelites, [Scattered among the nations as at present, but now identified as every true Christian person
Wrong- the Jeremiah passage doesn't say christians, that is you reinterpreting the prophecies- to your own destruction quoteth Peter.
Hebrews was written to hebrews not gentiles! And you would think if these writers were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they would know to write the body of Christ/Christians/church. Why do you feel compelled to edit the Holy Spirit?
Not according to gods Word as He said it and Ezekiel wrote it! that is you rewriting Gods Word to make it say something God never intended! shame on you!
Again, let's be fair with each other. You are attempting to charge me with an "absurd" argument without actually taking the time to properly formulate the reducio ad absurdum argument. That is, without showing how my statements actually lead to an absurd conclusion, you simply make one up and assert it as if I said it. Why not address my arguments directly?So you have a new covenant in Jeremiah and a new covenant in the New Testament? 2 new covenants? amazing. I didn't know we church saints had an old covenant that was broken!
We both agree on this one point: Jeremiah invites the reader to ask "what days?" So let's break this down logically.And you reject the normal way of reading to understand after those days. If Jeremiah didn't say "days are coming" then you would have at least a valid point to launch a serious look ini Scripture to find what after those days means.
But when Jeremiah wrote after those days, the natural question is "what days?. God gave Jeremiah the answer in the same thought! Normal people when seeing after those days, would look to see if the writer had mentioned any specific days. And lo and behold Jeremiah did! The days that God makes a new covenant with all Jews!
Of course, I maintain that this event is described in verses 33 and 34. But in verses 31 and 32, God is speaking of two houses, not individual Jews.Jeremiah is speaking of only Jews, and all Jews. But only all the Jews of a specific time period! And there are numerous passages in Scripture that tell us when that time period is and the fact that all living Jews in that time will be saved! God said it, that settles it.
First, I divided the passage between verses 32 and 33 because Jeremiah does, in my view.And you are wrong because you do not know how words are used. You cannot take verse 31 and isolate it for verses 32-36.
I don't see these four issues as being valid critiques of my view. I didn't say or imply that Jesus was a plural. I said that God is making the New Covenant with the Houses, rather than the people as individuals. As the king of Israel, Jesus represents both houses.First, Jesus isn't a plural. Second Ezekiel showed Israel and Judah would be united again,. third you would need to show that Jesus would think of the divided people as two and not one. Fourth and finally, you have Jehovah making a covenant with jehovah!
You raise a good point. Jeremiah actually talks about three covenants in that passage: 1)Mt. Sinai covenant (which they broke) 2)New Covenant (which both Jesus and Paul teach as fulfilled in the cross of Christ) and 3) the covenant to follow.Verses 31_33 show it is for the people of Israel. 31- both houses
32 not in the sam as the old covenant which THEY broke (referring back to the houses of Israel and Judah_ Jesus never broke a covenant) And God was never a husband to Jesus!
Did the ministry of Jesus take place after the return of Babylon? I think so. Matthew 1:17And you have no evidence of thius. You assume a covenant was made, but Scripture and even the apocryphal books show not a scintilla of evidence of a covenant made after Israel returned from Babylon.
Jesus says "this is the new covenant in my blood." Luke 22:20 and Paul repeats this idea in 1 Corinthians 11:25. He also admits to being a minister of the New Covenant. 2 Corinthians 3:6And no the blood of Jesus is not teh covenant. It is the blood that sealed the covenant. Read Hebrews again. Blood was needed for remission of sins according ot the Covenant, but the blood was not and is not the covenant.
As the ancient Israelite nation is no longer here and the modern State of Israel is not a godly people, then the only answer to the question of who are the Israelites of God, is the faithful Christians. From every tribe, race nation and language. WE are the Chosen people of God, John 15:14-19, His true Israelites; Galatians 6:14-16the Jeremiah passage doesn't say christians, that is you reinterpreting the prophecies-