The New Covenant

[charity]

Replies #166, #167, #168, #169, #171. #173.

Hello @GerhardEbersehn,

I am sorry to have caused you such consternation. There is only one point that I feel it necessary to comment on and that is, reply#173, concerning the absence of the word, 'everlasting' in relation to the covenant made by God, with Israel, at Sinai.

* The covenants which are called, 'everlasting covenants' in the Old Testament were made with :-

- Noah - Genesis 9:9-17
- Abraham - Genesis 17:1-8; Genesis 17:9-14; 1 Chronicles 16:7-18
- Israel - Leviticus 24:5-8
- David - 2 Samuel 23:1-5 - (broken in Isaiah 24:5; Repeated in Isaiah 55:3; Repeated in Isaiah 61:8

- Israel (regathered from Babylon) - Jeremiah 32:40
- Israel (in line with Leviticus 26:42) - Ezekiel 16:60
- houses of Israel and Judah (rejoined) - Ezekiel 37:26

* Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain.

* The Old Covenant made at Sinai, which the New Covenant will replace, was not spoken of as everlasting.

Thank you
Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Our Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[charity]

Well you are the one who opened a can of worms with this thread. So you should really be thanking those who showed you the errors of your Hyper-Dispensational beliefs. Why do people double-down on their errors instead of abandoning them?

Hello @Enoch111

I opened up this subject for debate, not realising I was opening a 'can of worms'. I have thanked everyone for their time and patience already, but as far as the entries I have made that you perceive to be 'errors', I stand by every word.

* I do not know what you mean by your last sentence, I'm afraid.

Thank you.
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

'Now the God of peace,
that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, ... '
(Hebrews 13:20)

'For this is My blood of the new testament, (Covenant)
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'
(Matthew 26:28)

 

[Waiting on him]

'Now the God of peace,
that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, ... '
(Hebrews 13:20)

'For this is My blood of the new testament, (Covenant)
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'
(Matthew 26:28)

Have you partook of this cup?

 

[charity]

Have you partook of this cup?

Forgive me if I do not respond to this question @Waiting on him, for it would simply take the thread in a different direction, and perhaps, open up another, 'can of worms'.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour
Chris

 

[Waiting on him]

Forgive me if I do not respond to this question @Waiting on him, for it would simply take the thread in a different direction, and perhaps, open up another, 'can of worms'.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour
Chris

Okay.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It's really hard for me to understand what your point is through all the rhetoric.

Maybe if you point to the verse . . .

I replied to the verses which you quoted according to YLT above, post #175...
Hebrews 8 (YLT)
6 and now he hath obtained a more excellent service, how much also of a better covenant is he mediator, which on better promises hath been sanctioned,
7 for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second. (first . . . what? First covenant is the context)
8 For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant,
9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking [them] by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt -- because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, --
10 because this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me for a people;
11 and they shall not teach each his neighbour, and each his brother, saying, Know thou the Lord, because they shall all know Me from the small one of them unto the great one of them,
12 because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more;' --
13 in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing.

Youngs undoubtedly is great! Actually I have many times through all my years witnessed to Youngs, especially the Analytical Concordance as a MIRACULOUS AND INSPIRED OUTSTANDING ONE OF A KIND OEUVRE OF TRUE DEDICATION IN THE PURE FAITH OF PROTESTANTISM. But here, in these verses, YLT is wrong. I say it with a clear conscience before God my Lord and Saviour, and stand by my criticism against the rendering of the overall CONTEXTUAL CONCEPT of the "tabernacle built with hands" with 'covenant'.

The KJV visibly has the INVERTED print which backs up the fact its use of the word 'covenant' is UNWARRANTED. Because of the KJV's use the WHOLE WORLD FOLLOWED SUIT in the creation of the DROGMA of 'Dispensationalism'. Youngs SLIPPED UP HERE!

 

[quietthinker]

Hello @quietthinker,

God knows very well those who comprise the members of the twelve tribes of Israel, He does not require DNA testing to know who they are, and where they are located. He will gather them all together ultimately: and His purpose in relation to them will be fulfilled. There are those who are back in the land, but many are still dispersed among the nations. At present they are in a Lo-ammi condition, 'Not My People', but that will not always be the case.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

Well Charity...you've surprised me. Those 'lost' tribes dispersed thousands of years ago and continually mixed with the nations and others that dispersed them; you could hardly say these folk are Israelites. Their DNA is no longer pure as far as belonging to 'Israel" is concerned particularly seeing God strictly forbade intermarrying with the heathen.

Please tell me how you see this as constituting the blood line of Israel?

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

It's really hard for me to understand what your point is through all the rhetoric.

You just cannot help yourself ... <<through all the rhetoric>>.

Think and insult and condemn to your heart's delight, you, just, do not, have a clue, poor soul!

 

[Davy]

Hello @Davy,

With respect to you, If you have anything to say 'about' me, then please say it to me personally, and not 'behind my back', though I can read it along with everyone else. You say that I am a heretic!!

I am not saying that Jesus Christ is not with the Church. That is a flagrant misuse of the New Covenant, as well as being a lie. The New Covenant is to be made with Israel in a yet future time now, because they failed to repent and recognise the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah and King during the period covered by the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. So the New Covenant is in abeyance until the day when they do recognise Him in both capacities, according to the Old Testament prophets.

The Lord Jesus Christ is not 'The New Covenant', but the Mediator of it. It is you who are abusing Scripture by not getting your facts right.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Chris

I didn't go behind your back, I stated what you were saying is heretical, and it is, and within this very post you repeated the heresy...

"So the New Covenant is in abeyance until the day when they do recognise Him in both capacities, according to the Old Testament prophets."

The New Covenant is NOT in abeyance. It has been in effect ALSO for believing Israel since Jesus Christ died on the cross. Those who are in unbelief are 'cut off'. That's huge difference than saying The New Covenant is in abeyance which is heretical.

So if you don't like being called out because of making false statements, then don't make false statements. Otherwise, if the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Replies #166, #167, #168, #169, #171. #173.

Hello @GerhardEbersehn,

I am sorry to have caused you such consternation. There is only one point that I feel it necessary to comment on and that is, reply#173, concerning the absence of the word, 'everlasting' in relation to the covenant made by God, with Israel, at Sinai.

* The covenants which are called, 'everlasting covenants' in the Old Testament were made with :-

- Noah - Genesis 9:9-17
- Abraham - Genesis 17:1-8; Genesis 17:9-14; 1 Chronicles 16:7-18
- Israel - Leviticus 24:5-8
- David - 2 Samuel 23:1-5 - (broken in Isaiah 24:5; Repeated in Isaiah 55:3; Repeated in Isaiah 61:8

- Israel (regathered from Babylon) - Jeremiah 32:40
- Israel (in line with Leviticus 26:42) - Ezekiel 16:60
- houses of Israel and Judah (rejoined) - Ezekiel 37:26

* Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain.

* The Old Covenant made at Sinai, which the New Covenant will replace, was not spoken of as everlasting.

Thank you
Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
Our Lord and Head.
Chris

I am thankful that I can still say on this Board that I apologise for my unjustified <consternation>. Thank you for your charity, Charity.

as concerns your argument(s) herewith,

It is all true what you point out, <<* The covenants which are called, 'everlasting covenants' in the Old Testament ... * Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain>>.

I take by <not in evidence> you mean 'actually not mentioned'. Thus you answer yourself, <<Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain>>... makes it plain that the word 'everlasting' applies and is <in evidence>.

Therefore, regarding your claim / statement <<The Old Covenant made at Sinai, which the New Covenant will replace, was not spoken of as everlasting.>>.... You PRESUME <<The Old Covenant made at Sinai>> and you PRESUPPOSE that God closed it, which are both baseless and wrong assumptions merely assumed by you. As I said before, Israel with THEIR 'old covenant' replaced God's Eternal, NEW Covenant so that God "found fault", not with his Only Eternal New Covenant, but : "with THEM".
So you are dead on right, <<The Old Covenant made at Sinai .. was not spoken of as everlasting.>>

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

'Now the God of peace,
that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of the everlasting covenant, ... '
(Hebrews 13:20)

'For this is My blood of the new testament, (Covenant)
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'
(Matthew 26:28)

AMEN

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi Waiting!
I think we are the "betrothed" of Christ as the wedding hasn't happened yet?

Check it again Chris, it has been unliked as it was done by accident. I noticed when I went back to re read some of the posts...

We are married to Christ the moment God puts His seed in us, and we become pregnant with the new creation being just like Mary when she said,
Luk_1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her,
the wedding feast is there for God to show His Sons bride to the world and heaven.

 

[charity]

Well Charity...you've surprised me. Those 'lost' tribes dispersed thousands of years ago and continually mixed with the nations and others that dispersed them; you could hardly say these folk are Israelites. Their DNA is no longer pure as far as belonging to 'Israel" is concerned particularly seeing God strictly forbade intermarrying with the heathen.

Please tell me how you see this as constituting the blood line of Israel?

'And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you,
That ye which have followed me,
in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory,
ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.'

Paul said:-
And now I stand and am judged
for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
Unto which promise our twelve tribes,
instantly serving God day and night, hope to come.
For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.'
(Act 26:6-7)

'James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. '
(James 1:1)

John said:-
'And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates,
and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon,
which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: ... '
(Revelation 21:12)

Hello @quietthinker,

* The Apostle Paul refers to the twelve tribes as a living reality
* The Lord Jesus Christ refers to the twelve tribes also as a living reality.
* So does James and John.

'Then shall the children of Judah
and the children of Israel
be gathered together,
and appoint themselves one head,
and they shall come up out of the land:
for great shall be the day of Jezreel.'
(Hosea 1:11)

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

I didn't go behind your back, I stated what you were saying is heretical, and it is, and within this very post you repeated the heresy...

The New Covenant is NOT in abeyance. It has been in effect ALSO for believing Israel since Jesus Christ died on the cross. Those who are in unbelief are 'cut off'. That's huge difference than saying The New Covenant is in abeyance which is heretical.

So if you don't like being called out because of making false statements, then don't make false statements. Otherwise, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Hello @Davy,

I accept that you believe differently from myself on this subject, but it should not result in name-calling.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

I am thankful that I can still say on this Board that I apologise for my unjustified <consternation>. Thank you for your charity, Charity.

as concerns your argument(s) herewith,

It is all true what you point out, <<* The covenants which are called, 'everlasting covenants' in the Old Testament ... * Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain>>.

I take by <not in evidence> you mean 'actually not mentioned'. Thus you answer yourself, <<Where the word 'everlasting' is not in evidence, the context makes it plain>>... makes it plain that the word 'everlasting' is <in evidence>.

Therefore, regarding your claim / statement <<* The Old Covenant made at Sinai, which the New Covenant will replace, was not spoken of as everlasting.>>.... You PRESUME <<The Old Covenant made at Sinai>> and you PRESUPPOSE that God closed it, which are both baseless and wrong assumptions merely assumed by you. As I said before, Israel with THEIR 'old covenant' replaced God's Eternal, NEW Covenant so that God "found fault", not with his Only Eternal New Covenant, but : "with THEM".
So you are dead on right, <<The Old Covenant made at Sinai .. was not spoken of as everlasting.>>

'Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand
to bring them out of the land of Egypt;
which My covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them,
saith the LORD:'
(Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Hello @GerhardEbersoehn,

Thank you for your opening remarks, it is so good to know that love reigns. Praise God!

* You say that I have made presumptions regarding what is referred to, in Jeremiah 31:31. as the Old Covenant, in saying :-

1) that it was made at Sinai, and
2) that God closed it.​

I did not say that God 'closed' it Gerhard. I said that the New Covenant will replace it.

* Regarding the covenant to be replaced being the covenant made at Sinai, surely the verses quoted above, from Jeremiah 31, is referring to that covenant with the words, 'the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which My covenant they brake'. For it was that covenant which was made in that day, and it was also the covenant which the children of Israel broke.

* Am I right in thinking that you agree that the covenant, made at Sinai, was not an everlasting covenant?

With love in Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[charity]

AMEN

Hello @GerhardEbersoehn,

I am glad that you gave a resounding 'Amen' to the two verses quoted in reply#192

'Now the God of peace,
that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus,
that great shepherd of the sheep,
through the blood of The Everlasting Covenant, ... '
(Hebrews 13:20)

'For this is My blood of The New Testament, (or Covenant)
which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'
(Matthew 26:28)​

* The blood of The Everlasting Covenant, is the blood of The New Covenant (i,e., testament) shed by the Lord Jesus Christ, it's Mediator:-

'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.
For if that first covenant had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for the second.
For finding fault with them, He saith,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
because they continued not in My covenant,
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.' - [compare:- 'although I was an husband unto them', saith the LORD: (Jeremiah 31:32)]
(Hebrews 8:6-9)

* God exercised the right of a husband with a wife who has broken covenant with him, when Israel 'continued not in My covenant', in that He, 'regarded them not'.

Thank you, Gerhard,
In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[GerhardEbersoehn]

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers

Note it says, "I will make a new covenant .. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers". The difference between, is not between a new and an old covenant; the difference between is between HOW "I will Make" and HOW "that I made" the same Covenant. I other words it's the same Covenant of the same God made in the (then) future and the (then) past.

 

[VictoryinJesus]

Well Charity...you've surprised me. Those 'lost' tribes dispersed thousands of years ago and continually mixed with the nations and others that dispersed them; you could hardly say these folk are Israelites. Their DNA is no longer pure as far as belonging to 'Israel" is concerned particularly seeing God strictly forbade intermarrying with the heathen.

Please tell me how you see this as constituting the blood line of Israel?

A completely valid point. As they were dispersed abroad. Daniel 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Depends on who one says is the “they” shall mingle themselves with the seed of men in the above.

Acts 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; [27] That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: [28] For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 

[charity]

Note it says, "I will make a new covenant .. not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers". The difference between, is not between a new and an old covenant; the difference between is between HOW "I will Make" and HOW "that I made" the same Covenant. I other words it's the same Covenant of the same God made in the (then) future and the (then) past.

Hi @GerhardEbersoehn,

Yes, but none the less the covenant made will be a 'New Covenant'.

In Christ Jesus
Chris