The Current War against Iran and Support for Israel is based on Catholic Counter Reformation Theology.

[Davy]

For over 200 years, the Protestant reformers had been proving from scripture and from history that the papal church of Rome was the Antichrist, the man of sin, and the little horn of Daniel 7....

There's that baloney of those few Churches that still try to push the old Protestant Reformation doctrines today, which the old Reformer's belief in their day, that the pope was the Antichrist, was NOT proven, and did not occur, nor has it today either.

And my ancestors from 16th century France came to the American colonies with fleeing Catholic persecution in France, because my ancestors were Huguenots, the first French Protestants.

The reason why I don't side with the type Churches you heed is because I know what my Bible as written actually teaches about the coming "antichrist" at the end of this world, and it ain't about no pope, nor the Catholic Church.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I like to think of it this way: When our New Covenant conditions of faith and obedience are met, then God's New Testament blessings of forgiveness and eternal life are lavished.

That sounds good, but I can't say that I'm sure what that means exactly. I'm thinking now that there isn't actually a separate new covenant and new testament. There's just a new covenant that replaced the old covenant. If there's a new testament, do you believe there is also an old testament? If so, what is that?

As I showed in my previous post, the words "covenant" and "testament" are used interchangeably as synonyms in verses like Hebrews 7:22 and Hebrews 8:6 and within passages like Hebrews 9:15-18. They are translated from the same Greek word, so I'm starting to think it's a mistake to think that there is both a new covenant and a new testament (I'm not talking about the New Testament in terms of what we call the New Testament books of the Bible here, to be clear). That kind of thinking seems to be caused by the English translators inexplicably translating the Greek word (don't have it handy) both as covenant and testament while sometimes translating it as "covenant" and sometimes as "testament" with the exact same context. That just causes confusion.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

@Spiritual Israelite
@covenantee

As I said before, Jesus is the mediator of the covenant of grace, which was made with Adam upon his Fall. Previous to that, Adam was the mediator of the covenant of works, which, upon the Fall, he ~ and all humanity ~ became incapable of meeting. Christ began mediating this covenant of Grace in Adam's time, after the Fall in Genesis 3, and Genesis 3:15 is the first hint of that. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross ~ the true Lamb without blemish ~ stretches over all time from Adam to the present.

This covenant of grace has been administrated in different ways, cumulative ways, actually, since then:

• life (first with Adam and then remade with Noah... "be fruitful and multiply")
• land, a people, and blessing (with Abraham... "as the stars of heaven, the grains of sand on the seashore")
• a law (with Moses, the civil, ceremonial, and moral)
• and a king over Israel (with David)

and finally being made manifest in the Person of Jesus Christ, Who Himself is:

• the one Who is the way, the truth, and the life (John)
• the one in Whom we are all one (Romans 8, Galatians 3), are blessed, of course, and will inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5)
• (since the law never made anything perfect) the better hope through which we draw near to God, so Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant (Hebrews 7)
• Israel's forever King, Who reigns now in heaven, seated at the right hand of the Father

So no, the New Testament (which comes after the Old Testament) and the New Covenant are not equivalent terms.

Yet, as I showed, those terms are used interchangeably as synonyms in scripture. Unsurprisingly, you didn't address what I said about that. I showed the scriptures where the terms are used in the exact same context. Your response to that? Nothing.

Unless... unless... you want to equivocate this new testament with the covenant of grace, which... you can do, and hey, if you were to do that, I'd be right there with ya... <smile>

What is "the covenant of grace"? Show me the scripture where that is referenced. I don't see it anywhere. I would say that the new covenant could be considered the covenant of grace in contrast to the old covenant being considered the covenant of the law. Is that what you're talking about?

What Hebrews 9:15 says, Spiritual Israelite, is "He is..." ~ He is, not "he became," as if He wasn't before; His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant."

Nope. You're not reading the text carefully. It's no wonder that you didn't quote the whole verse, since it doesn't support what you're saying. Here it is...

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

PinSeeker says: He has been the Mediator of the new covenant since Adam.

Scripture says: He became the Mediator of the new covenant by means of His death.

As always, I'm going to side with scripture over your opinions.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the KJV is not "bad." It is not inaccurate. But the language is antiquated and harder for us... 700 years later... to really understand well, just because word usage, among other things, has changed over time... is different than it was seven centuries ago. The word "testament," as we are talking about it here, is... well, we use that word differently than they did seven centuries ago; case in point. The English language, especially here in America is just not... antiquated like it was then. That's not to say it's better now, just different. The NKJV is better than the KJV, but it still can be... not inaccurate, but just harder to understand to our twenty-first century ears, and the word "testament" in the Hebrews passage you are speaking of falls into that... category, I guess... again, case in point; it's not incorrect, but it's widely understood differently now than it was then.

The fact that both English words are translated from the same Greek word should be taken into account. Does the original manuscript really refer to a separate new covenant and new testament or is there just a new covenant (or just a new testament)? I lean toward believing that there is just a new covenant and no new testament (not talking about the series of books/letters we call The New Testament here, just to be clear).

So... <smile> The better English word to use there is in fact 'covenant,' because it better conveys to us what it actually is, an agreement between two parties... a binding commitment between two parties obliging both to deal faithfully with each other.

Better to be used where exactly? Hebrews 9:15? If so, I would agree. But, what about the verses which follow that one?

Hebrews 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

This is from the NKJV. Look at how the words "testament" and "covenant" are used in the same context here in terms of not being in force without death. I'm not so sure that the word should be translated as "testament" here in verses 16 and 17 instead of "covenant" because in verse 15 it says that the new covenant went into effect by way of Christ's death. So, it seems to me that it's safe to say that a covenant is in force after the death of the covenantor and it could have easily been translated that way instead.

This is just me, but I prefer in order, the English Standard Version (ESV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and the New International Version (NIV).

I'm not surprised that a Calvinist would prefer the ESV (hehehe), but I do generally prefer the NASB and NIV over the KJV or NKJV. I normally quote from the KJV and NKJV here because it seems like most here prefer those translations. So, I like to show that what I'm saying is indicated even in the other person's preferrred translation so as not to waste time arguing about translations.

 

[covenantee]

The offer preceded the New testament. God is not a liar

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

A parable for you.

More than once upon a time there was a father who, in his will, bequeathed his son 100 ounces of silver. He told his son of the bequest. Some time later, the father decided to update his will, and without telling his son, changed the bequest from 100 ounces of silver to 100 ounces of gold. Silver was valued at $80/ounce, and gold at $5000/ounce. Eventually, the father passed away, and the time for the reading of the will ensued. The bequest to the son of his 100 ounces of gold was read, whereupon he arose in fury, and accused his father of lying and not keeping his promise. He straightway marched down to the local coin shop and demanded that his gold be exchanged for silver. The shopkeeper eagerly granted his demand.

Enjoy your silver.

 

[marks]

If not for dispensational teaching being so prevalent throughout American culture, and having the ear of the president and advising on foreign policy, would this war be taking shape the way it is?

This war is to subdue an enemy who has attacked us and our ally nearly a half century. What more reason does there need to be?

"You're only defending yourself because of your eschatology"? I don't think that's what is happening.

Much love!

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hebrews 9:15-18 clearly describes more the "New Testament" than the "New Covenant".

The latter is not effectualized "by means of death".

I disagree.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Are you saying you don't think verse 15 is talking about the new covenant? I think it clearly is. And it says Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant by means of His death. And then in Hebrews 9:18 it says that even the first covenant (old covenant) was not put into effect without blood (without death). So, the old and new covenants were both effectualized by means of death.

 

[PinSeeker]

I am not sure how lands with specific boundaries were a shadow of the promise of salvation for all? They were specific.

Sure they were.The land promised to Abraham and his immediate progeny was a sliver of land on the eastern end of what is now the Mediterranean Sea, but the greater reality of that promised land is the whole earth. Yes, specific in both respects/instances, but the ultimate far greater than the immediate. I'm not really sure how you're not understanding that, to be perfectly honest. The specific land promise given to Abraham was a foreshadowing of the specific land promise to come. Let me ask you what is really a rhetorical question: Why would God's promises now, to all of us, be as small and limited as they were in the days of Abraham? This idea of lesser and greater is important. In the lesser sense, yes, the "specific boundaries" in Abraham's day were that land in the Middle East. It was a foreshadowing of the greater reality... promise... that there will be no such specific boundaries, no limits; we, in Christ Jesus, will inherit the earth. And that's specific, for sure...

Also when Jesus returns, a remnant is prophesied to be saved, and then restored to specific lands in a specific way.

I mean, I don't disagree with what you are saying here, dad. See above.

That is not a shadow of the past and Jesus coming the first time.

Um... <scratching head> ...okay... Yeah, not following your line of thought. But okay.

The fact that the meek of all peoples (believers) will inherit the earth does not mean that some of those meek, who are Israel, will not inherit exactly what God says they will.

Hm. Again, no offense, but a head-scratching comment... We, all believers, regardless of ethnicity ~ of every tongue, tribe, and nation (people group), are the meek, who together make up all of the Israel of God, His household. As Paul says in Romans 11:25-26, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."

In other words He will fulfill all of His good promises.

Absolutely.

Even among the Bride/church we see that some will receive greater rewards and different rewards than others. How is it that Jewish believers in the end cannot receive rewards promised for them? How does that take away from anything other believers will receive?

You know, this is (maybe) a greater statement than you might realize, but we are all... those of us who are in Christ... as part of God's Israel, promised the same things, dad. You're right, all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[covenantee]

I disagree.

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood.

Are you saying you don't think verse 15 is talking about the new covenant? I think it clearly is. And it says Jesus is the Mediator of the new covenant by means of His death. And then in Hebrews 9:18 it says that even the first covenant (old covenant) was not put into effect without blood (without death). So, the old and new covenants were both effectualized by means of death.

Hebrews 9 KJV
15 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.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

The KJV is completely correct in this instance, because it is a testament which is effectualized "by means of death", i.e. by "the death of the testator", and which is "of force after men are dead".

Death is obviously not applicable to a covenant.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Hebrews 9 KJV
15 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.
16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

The KJV is completely correct in this instance, because it is a testament which is effectualized "by means of death", i.e. by "the death of the testator", and which is "of force after men are dead".

Death is obviously not applicable to a covenant.

I disagree. Consider that we are not just talking about covenants in general here. Obviously, not all covenants are put into effect by death. But, we're talking about the old and new covenants here. Do you think the following is referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant?

Hebrews 8:6 (KJV): But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

How did Jesus establish the better/second/new covenant?

Hebrews 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. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

If you agree that Hebrews 8:6-7 are referring to the first/old covenant and the second/new covenant, then you should agree that this passage is also referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant. And this passage makes it clear that the second, new covenant was established "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.". So, the new covenant was effectualized by means of death. So, I disagree with you that "Death is obviously not applicable to a covenant". I am coming to the conclusion that there is just the first/old covenant that was replaced by the better second/new covenant and there is no separate new testament distinct from the new covenant and old testament distinct from the old covenant.

 

[PinSeeker]

Yet, as I showed, those terms are used interchangeably as synonyms in scripture. Unsurprisingly, you didn't address what I said about that.

I did; you missed (or possibly ignored) my point concerning that (specifically the word 'testament').

I showed the scriptures where the terms are used in the exact same context.

Sure, and I acknowledged that.

Your response to that? Nothing.

Not so. See above.

What is "the covenant of grace"?

Ahhhh... <smile> It might be better to talk about what the covenant of works is first, and when and with whom it was made:

In the covenant of works, sometimes called the covenant of creation or covenant of life, God forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:15–17). Perfect obedience to this covenant would have confirmed Adam and Eve in life; they would have been reckoned as righteous before the Lord and would have inherited eternal life.

We refer to the covenant with Adam as the covenant of works because human effort was the means by which the blessing was to be secured. The good deeds of obedience in being fruitful, taking dominion of the earth, and abstaining from the forbidden tree would have merited eternal life for Adam and his descendants (Genesis 1:28; 2:15–17).

As I said (and I think you know, SI), Adam and Eve broke the covenant of works, plunging them and all their descendants ~ save one, Jesus ~ into sin. In Adam, we lost our ability to keep the covenant of works (Romans 3:9–20), but that does not mean the covenant was set aside. We are still bound by its terms, but on account of our inability, our only hope is for someone else to keep it in our place (Galatians 3:10–14).

So now, the covenant of grace... Well, very simply, SI, we are all saved ~ and thus inherit eternal life ~ the same way, not by merit, but by God's grace. See Ephesians 2:8, specifically, which doesn't just apply only to God's people who have lived only in New Testament times: "by grace (we) have been saved through faith. And this is not (our) own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." And Hebrews 11, for sure, which goes all the way back to Abraham.

Show me the scripture where that is referenced. I don't see it anywhere.

See above. You might never read Ephesians 2:8 the same way ever again... <smile>

I would say that the new covenant could be considered the covenant of grace in contrast to the old covenant being considered the covenant of the law. Is that what you're talking about?

Yes and no, I guess; I say you're misplacing your divisions. <smile> See above.

Nope. You're not reading the text carefully. It's no wonder that you didn't quote the whole verse, since it doesn't support what you're saying. Here it is...

Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

PinSeeker says: He has been the Mediator of the new covenant since Adam.

Scripture says: He became the Mediator of the new covenant by means of His death.

And I said, Spiritual Israelite, that the effectual-ness of His work on the cross stretches both backward and forward from that point in history... all the way back to Adam, and all the way to the end of this age. My direct quote was, "His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." One key in that quote is "those who are called"... God calling His elect is not something that began only after Jesus came... <smile>

As always, I'm going to side with scripture over your opinions.

<chuckles>

The fact that both English words are translated from the same Greek word should be taken into account.

You're right, but again, that's not the issue here.

I normally quote from the KJV and NKJV here because it seems like most here prefer those translations.

I understand, but I think that just perpetuates the problem sometimes.

So, I like to show that what I'm saying is indicated even in the other person's preferred translation so as not to waste time arguing about translations.

Okay, but the words used are still at least occasionally the issue.

Grace and peace to you, SI.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

I did; you missed (or possibly ignored) my point concerning that (specifically the word 'testament').

Where? Please copy and paste what you said that supposedly addresses what I said about the words "covenant" and "testament" being used interchangeably as synonyms in verses like Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6 and Hebrews 9:15-18.

Ahhhh... <smile> It might be better to talk about what the covenant of works is first, and when and with whom it was made:

What a shocker that you can't just give a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. Ugh.

In the covenant of works, sometimes called the covenant of creation or covenant of life,

Who calls it that? Is it called that anywhere in scripture or is this an extrabiblical concept?

God forbade Adam and Eve from eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:15–17). Perfect obedience to this covenant would have confirmed Adam and Eve in life; they would have been reckoned as righteous before the Lord and would have inherited eternal life.

We refer to the covenant with Adam as the covenant of works

Who are "we"? Calvinists?

because human effort was the means by which the blessing was to be secured. The good deeds of obedience in being fruitful, taking dominion of the earth, and abstaining from the forbidden tree would have merited eternal life for Adam and his descendants (Genesis 1:28; 2:15–17).

As I said (and I think you know, SI), Adam and Eve broke the covenant of works, plunging them and all their descendants ~ save one, Jesus ~ into sin.

I've never heard of a "covenant of works", so you saying "I think you know" is silly. No, I don't know anything about a covenant of works. I know about the old covenant and the new covenant, which is what I thought we were discussing. But, leave it to you to make things as convoluted as possible for no good reason.

In Adam, we lost our ability to keep the covenant of works (Romans 3:9–20), but that does not mean the covenant was set aside. We are still bound by its terms, but on account of our inability, our only hope is for someone else to keep it in our place (Galatians 3:10–14).

Galatians 3:10-14 refers to the works of the law of Moses which was established well after Adam and Eve died, so I'm not sure why you are trying to relate the "covenant of works" to Adam and Eve.

So now, the covenant of grace...

Ah, yes. The covenant of grace. Show me where "the covenant of grace" is mentioned in scripture. I'm not sure why you expect me to take you seriously when you invent terms like this that are nowhere to be found in scripture.

Well, very simply, SI, we are all saved ~ and thus inherit eternal life ~ the same way, not by merit, but by God's grace.

Yes, no kidding. Did I ever say otherwise even during our debates in the past about free will vs. Calvinism? No, I did not.

See Ephesians 2:8, specifically, which doesn't just apply only to God's people who have lived only in New Testament times: "by grace (we) have been saved through faith. And this is not (our) own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

I never said otherwise. Salvation has always been by God's grace through faith. Please talk to me instead of your strawman.

And Hebrews 11, for sure, which goes all the way back to Abraham.

Uh huh...?

See above. You might never read Ephesians 2:8 the same way ever again... <smile>

LOL. I don't think you even know how I read Ephesians 2:8, so that's a silly comment to make. I definitely will never read it the way you do.

Yes and no, I guess; I say you're misplacing your divisions. <smile> See above.

See above? What did you say above that would explain what you mean here? Are you just not interested in being clear and straightforward?

And I said, Spiritual Israelite, that the effectual-ness of His work on the cross stretches both backward and forward from that point in history... all the way back to Adam, and all the way to the end of this age.

I agree, but that's not what we're talking about. We were talking about when Jesus established the new covenant. Hebrews 9:15 and Hebrews 10:10 indicate that He established the new covenant upon His sacrificial death. You have yet to address that.

My direct quote was, "His sacrifice, from that point, stretches backward in time, all the way to Adam, as well as forward to everyone who will be saved ~ "...the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." One key in that quote is "those who are called"... God calling His elect is not something that began only after Jesus came... <smile>

More gibberish. The text itself says that He established the new covenant by way of His death. That is very clear. But, your commentary? Not clear at all. Instead of just sticking with the terms scripture uses (old covenant, new covenant) you talk about the covenant of grace and covenant of works. Why not just use the terms that scripture uses to avoid confusion?

You're right, but again, that's not the issue here.

It relates to the issue here. It's the same Greek word, and it's being assumed, because of what we see in our English translations, that there is both a new covenant and a new testament and an old covenant and old testament. I'm not convinced of that, though, for the reasons I've stated. I think there is just a new covenant which is said to be better than the first, old covenant (Hebrews 8:6-7) and it was established by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ which then made the old covenant obsolete.

 

[covenantee]

I disagree. Consider that we are not just talking about covenants in general here. Obviously, not all covenants are put into effect by death. But, we're talking about the old and new covenants here. Do you think the following is referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant?

Hebrews 8:6 (KJV): But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

How did Jesus establish the better/second/new covenant?

Hebrews 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. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

If you agree that Hebrews 8:6-7 are referring to the first/old covenant and the second/new covenant, then you should agree that this passage is also referring to the first/old covenant and second/new covenant. And this passage makes it clear that the second, new covenant was established "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.". So, the new covenant was effectualized by means of death. So, I disagree with you that "Death is obviously not applicable to a covenant". I am coming to the conclusion that there is just the first/old covenant that was replaced by the better second/new covenant and there is no separate new testament distinct from the new covenant and old testament distinct from the old covenant.

Yes, Hebrews 8:6-10 KJV is correct in referring to a covenant, i.e. an agreement, as opposed to a testament, because there is no mention either explicit or implicit of death.

Neither "covenant" nor "testament" appear in Hebrews 10:9-10 KJV, but there are three references which reveal that the verses are speaking of a testament: two appearances of the word "will", which allude to the New "last will and testament"; and the reference to "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ".

I'm not "KJV only", but it has accurately translated all of what I've cited from Hebrews thus far.

 

[dad]

Hebrews 8
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

Nothing to do with taking away promises already made by God. For example, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee' That was not rubbished and null because of Jesus giving us a new salvation arrangement.

A parable for you.

More than once upon a time there was a father who, in his will, bequeathed his son 100 ounces of silver. He told his son of the bequest. Some time later, the father decided to update his will, and without telling his son, changed the bequest from 100 ounces of silver to 100 ounces of gold. Silver was valued at $80/ounce, and gold at $5000/ounce. Eventually, the father passed away, and the time for the reading of the will ensued. The bequest to the son of his 100 ounces of gold was read, whereupon he arose in fury, and accused his father of lying and not keeping his promise. He straightway marched down to the local coin shop and demanded that his gold be exchanged for silver. The shopkeeper eagerly granted his demand.

Enjoy your silver.

Having the promise of eternal life through Christ does not mean we have to erase all other promises in the bible.

 

[covenantee]

Nothing to do with taking away promises already made by God. For example, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee' That was not rubbished and null because of Jesus giving us a new salvation arrangement.

Having the promise of eternal life through Christ does not mean we have to erase all other promises in the bible.

Gold is 62.5 times more valuable than silver.

 

[dad]

Sure they were.The land promised to Abraham and his immediate progeny was a sliver of land on the eastern end of what is now the Mediterranean Sea, but the greater reality of that promised land is the whole earth.

So God drew specific boundaries for nothing? He really meant the whole world? He later specified He would gather from all the world to those specific boundaries the saved Israel. Once again God was way off and wrong?

Yes, specific in both respects/instances, but the ultimate far greater than the immediate. I'm not really sure how you're not understanding that, to be perfectly honest. The specific land promise given to Abraham was a foreshadowing of the specific land promise to come.

No. It was an exact boundary and territory on earth.

Let me ask you what is really a rhetorical question: Why would God's promises now, to all of us, be as small and limited as they were in the days of Abraham?

The promise of land is not to us. The holy land is something promised to saved Israel. For us, He made a city in heaven. That is our promised home.

This idea of lesser and greater is important. In the lesser sense, yes, the "specific boundaries" in Abraham's day were that land in the Middle East. It was a foreshadowing of the greater reality... promise... that there will be no such specific boundaries, no limits; we, in Christ Jesus, will inherit the earth. And that's specific, for sure...

Says who? You made that up. God never said His precise boundaries were anything but what He said. Jesus and the apostles never said so either.

I mean, I don't disagree with what you are saying here, dad. See above.


Um... <scratching head> ...okay... Yeah, not following your line of thought. But okay.


Hm. Again, no offense, but a head-scratching comment... We, all believers, regardless of ethnicity ~ of every tongue, tribe, and nation (people group), are the meek, who together make up all of the Israel of God, His household.

The children of Abraham, the saved nation of Israel is a specific group. With special promises. Not every nation, every tribe on earth. Them specifically. God is bring them back from all over the planet to that promised land after they are saved. He is not bring me. Not Japanese brethren, etc etc.

As Paul says in Romans 11:25-26, "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved..."

Yes, they learn the hard way. Even the trials and purgings help get it across to them. Whatever it takes.

Absolutely.


You know, this is (maybe) a greater statement than you might realize, but we are all... those of us who are in Christ... as part of God's Israel, promised the same things, dad. You're right, all God's promises have their 'yes' and 'amen' in Christ Jesus.

Grace and peace to you.

Let's review the verses that made you think that Look at this one.

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; ​

​

Notice the Jacob? That is referring to a certain people ​

 

[dad]

Gold is 62.5 times more valuable than silver.

It is not the promises OR salvation. It is the promises AND salvation!

 

[covenantee]

It is not the promises OR salvation. It is the promises AND salvation!

New is better than old. Hebrews 8:13

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Yes, Hebrews 8:6-10 KJV is correct in referring to a covenant, i.e. an agreement, as opposed to a testament, because there is no mention either explicit or implicit of death.

Agree. So, that passage refers to the first (old) covenant and the second (new) covenant. That's why I also quoted Hebrews 10:9-10 because it indicates that the second (new) covenant was established "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.". Do you not understand the references to "the first" and "the second" in Hebrews 10:9 to be the same as the references to the first and second covenants in Hebrews 8:6-7?

Neither "covenant" nor "testament" appear in Hebrews 10:9-10 KJV

Yes, but it mentions Jesus taking away the first to establish the second. I think it's clear that "the first" and "the second" in Hebrews 10:9 refer to the same thing referenced in Hebrews 8:6-7 which is the first (old) and second (new) covenants.

, but there are three references which reveal that the verses are speaking of a testament: two appearances of the word "will", which allude to the New "last will and testament"; and the reference to "the offering of the body of Jesus Christ".

So, are you saying you believe that Hebrews 10:9-10 refers to the first and second testaments and not the first and second covenants like Hebrews 8:6-7 does? If so, I don't see any basis for that.

I'm not "KJV only", but it has accurately translated all of what I've cited from Hebrews thus far.

So you think. I disagree. But, at the same time, I'm not sure how much all of this really matters. Maybe we should just agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Spiritual Israelite]

Let's review the verses that made you think that Look at this one.

Romans 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; ​

​

Notice the Jacob? That is referring to a certain people ​

Look at the verse which follows that one.

Romans 11:27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”

It's important to understand that what Paul wrote in Romans 11:26-27 is not a new prophecy given by Paul, but rather an Old Testament prophecy that he referenced from Isaiah 59:20-21. In order to understand what Paul is talking about, we need to determine what covenant he is referring to there. What covenant is the one God made with people that takes away sins? The new covenant.

Matthew 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

All believers, Jew and Gentile, are saved and have their sins taken away under the new covenant. So, just because the prophecy specifically mentions Jacob, that doesn't mean Gentiles are not included as being under that same covenant to have their sins taken away as well. That Gentile believers would be fellow citizens and fellow heirs with Jewish believers was a mystery in Old Testament times, but not in New Testament times. Paul described an Israel in Romans 9:6-8 which consists of those who are the children of God and of the promise and are the seed of Abraham spiritually and not because of being his physical descendants. All believers, Jew and Gentile, are the children of God and of the promise and are counted as Abraham's spiritual seed (Galatians 3:26-29), so all believers are part of the Israel of which all are and all will be saved.

 

[covenantee]

Yes, but it mentions Jesus taking away the first to establish the second. I think it's clear that "the first" and "the second" in Hebrews 10:9 refer to the same thing referenced in Hebrews 8:6-7 which is the first (old) and second (new) covenants.

He took away the first -- sacrifices and burnt offerings; to establish the second -- the offering of His Body once for all.

Referring to death, and thus "testament".