New Covenant only for Jews?

  • 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!

Status
Not open for further replies.

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Nice try, but your hypothesis does not stand up to linguistics and basic grammar. You have to force the church in here with no warrant and evidence other than your own opinion.
As I said in my previous post, the idea that God applies the New Covenant to Gentiles is found in the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings. And a review of New Testament teaching on the New Covenant speaks nothing about Jeremiah 31:33-34. The New Covenant, as Jesus and Paul describe is salvation in the blood of Jesus.

Contextually the whole passage is for Israel. The church does not replace Israel or is hidden in this passage only to be revealed by reinterpreting the passage.
Of course, but then I never said that the Church replaces Israel.

A question for you. How do you know that the reinterpreting of this passage as you did to mean what you say, is right? whotold you? what authority do you have to reinterpret this passage that clearly says Israel to mean the church?
I'm not certain what I said that lead you to believe that I was claiming that the church replaces Israel.
 

Cassandra

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2021
2,631
2,995
113
Midwest
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You sound as though you would scold me. ;) Tell me . . . What exactly do I know?

Is it that you are reading, There is neither Greek nor Jew, and are hearing, All the Greeks are Jews?
If there is no Jew or Greek,there is no separation, that means they are in one group. I think you know this. and I DO think you know this.

You still never gave me a verse about the Gentiles being "near".

I think we're done with this subject.
 

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,497
21,644
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If there is no Jew or Greek,there is no separation, that means they are in one group. I think you know this. and I DO think you know this.

You still never gave me a verse about the Gentiles being "near".

I think we're done with this subject.
@Cassandra @marks

In his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul relates how Jesus united both Jews and Gentiles together "in himself." That is, those who are "in him" share a common point of contact with both Jesus our Lord and God the father. During that discussion, Paul relates a bit of history, pointing out that at one time, the Gentiles were not aware of a coming messiah, and they were strangers to the covenants of promise. Not only did a great distance separate those in Ephesus from those in Judea, a great religious/cultural divide existed between them.

To illustrate this, Paul uses distance symbolically to describe the religious/cultural divide between Jews and Gentiles. Those living in Judea, grew up in Jewish religious life, hearing the scriptures being read, and worshiping at the temple and in synagogue. In this respect, the Hebrews were "near" to the promises God made to their fathers. On the other hand, the Gentiles were "far", given that they were unaware or at least unconcerned and not very curious about Jewish religious life, and had no idea about a coming messiah or the promises God made to his people and especially to their fathers. In this respect, they were "far" away: they didn't have God (or at least the one true God); and they had no hope of eternal life.

But God sent Paul, and perhaps others, to announce the good-news to the Gentile peoples, that they also had eternal life in Jesus Christ. And when Gentiles were made aware of these promises and the hope found in Jesus Christ, the Gentiles were "brought near."

Ephesians 2:11-13
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

At the same time, however, whether one started off near or whether one started off far away from the message, circumcision of the heart is the critical aspect of those "in Christ." Whether, as a Gentile, I am "near" or "far" is not as important as whether or not God has circumcised my heart. The central issue in chapter one of Ephesians is the idea that all of the saints are "in Christ", and so one might be "near" Christ but not "in Christ." Only those Jews who have taken Jesus as their Lord and Savior have moved from "near" to "in." And only those Gentiles who take Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior have moved from "far" to "in."

Uncircumcised Heart:
Jews = near
Gentiles = far

Circumcised Heart:
Jews >> near >> in
Gentiles >> far >> in.

All those who are "in Christ" have circumcised hearts and have access to God through his Spirit.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think I'd play it this way. Start with Galatians 3:28-29:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.

Followed up by Philippians 3:3 (and noting that "the circumcision" is a synecdoche for "The Jews"):

For we are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus ...

We believers in Christ have been grafted onto Israel (Romans 11:17-24). We are Abraham's descendants and heirs to the promises made to him. We ARE "The Israel of God" (Galatians 6:16).
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we Gentiles have been grafted onto Abraham rather than Israel? After all, in Paul's epistle to the Galatians he argues that Gentiles are granted eternal life on the basis of a promise made to Abraham; one that existed 430 years earlier than the Mt. Sinai Covenant. In Romans chapter 4, Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles will be granted eternal life because they both have the faith of Abraham. Romans 4:11-12
 
  • Like
Reactions: marks

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,393
9,188
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we Gentiles have been grafted onto Abraham rather than Israel? After all, in Paul's epistle to the Galatians he argues that Gentiles are granted eternal life on the basis of a promise made to Abraham; one that existed 430 years earlier than the Mt. Sinai Covenant. In Romans chapter 4, Paul argues that both Jews and Gentiles will be granted eternal life because they both have the faith of Abraham. Romans 4:11-12
Okay, that's a valid criticism. Romans 11 talks about pieces of Israel being broken off the vine so that we Gentiles could be grafted in, but I think you could make a pretty strong argument that "the Vine" in Paul's metaphor is Abraham, not Israel. Fair enough.

(I'm also not sure I want to make an argument in favor of Replacement Theology. Historically, the fruits of RT have been anti-Semitism, pograms, the Holocaust...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: marks

Lambano

Well-Known Member
Jul 13, 2021
6,393
9,188
113
Island of Misfit Toys
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The New Testament refers to a "New Covenant" being initiated at the Last Supper in the Communion/Eucharist ritual (Luke 22:20, 1 Corinthians 11:25). Is this the same "New Covenant" referred to in Jeremiah 31:27-34? Hebrews makes a direct quotation of Jeremiah in Hebrews 8:6-13. In the author of Hebrews' mind, they are the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marks

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Okay, that's a valid criticism. Romans 11 talks about pieces of Israel being broken off the vine so that we Gentiles could be grafted in, but I think you could make a pretty strong argument that "the Vine" in Paul's metaphor is Abraham, not Israel. Fair enough.

(I'm also not sure I want to make an argument in favor of Replacement Theology. Historically, the fruits of RT have been anti-Semitism, pograms, the Holocaust...)
Agreed. Israel wasn't replaced by the Church.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marks

marks

Well-Known Member
Oct 10, 2018
33,497
21,644
113
SoCal USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
To illustrate this, Paul uses distance symbolically to describe the religious/cultural divide between Jews and Gentiles. Those living in Judea, grew up in Jewish religious life, hearing the scriptures being read, and worshiping at the temple and in synagogue. In this respect, the Hebrews were "near" to the promises God made to their fathers. On the other hand, the Gentiles were "far", given that they were unaware or at least unconcerned and not very curious about Jewish religious life, and had no idea about a coming messiah or the promises God made to his people and especially to their fathers. In this respect, they were "far" away: they didn't have God (or at least the one true God); and they had no hope of eternal life.
First, the Jews alone had a covenant with God, and therefore covenantal access to God. There was a prescribed way by which they could draw near to God. Gentiles, not being a part of that covenant, had no such access, and could only participate by joining Israel.

In Christ, there is no longer this division, and both come to God equally through Jesus.

Much love!
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,689
3,768
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
As I said in my previous post, the idea that God applies the New Covenant to Gentiles is found in the New Testament, especially in Paul's writings. And a review of New Testament teaching on the New Covenant speaks nothing about Jeremiah 31:33-34. The New Covenant, as Jesus and Paul describe is salvation in the blood of Jesus.

So show that Jesus and Paul declare the new covenant is in the blood. The blood is the price required for the new covenant but it is not the new covenant. And according to you we now have two new covenants. The Jer. 31 new covenant and another new covenant.

If you knew your scripture you would have realized that when Jesus said: "This is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant" He was not speaking of the blood being the covenant but that His blood is the price paid to insure the covenant will happen.

As teh Old Covenant blood only covered sins, the new covenant blood was needed to remove sins.

Even the New Testament writer i=of Hebrews shows that teh New Covenant is for Israel. The church receives blessings from the covenant but we are not part of the covenant. We are the wild branches grafted ontothe vine.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
So show that Jesus and Paul declare the new covenant is in the blood. The blood is the price required for the new covenant but it is not the new covenant. And according to you we now have two new covenants. The Jer. 31 new covenant and another new covenant.

If you knew your scripture you would have realized that when Jesus said: "This is the blood of the new and everlasting covenant" He was not speaking of the blood being the covenant but that His blood is the price paid to insure the covenant will happen.

As teh Old Covenant blood only covered sins, the new covenant blood was needed to remove sins.

Even the New Testament writer i=of Hebrews shows that teh New Covenant is for Israel. The church receives blessings from the covenant but we are not part of the covenant. We are the wild branches grafted ontothe vine.

Let's be fair. I'm not claiming to have divine revelation with regard to another covenant. My claim is that Jeremiah speaks of two covenants. And I showed this from the text itself. Now, I could be wrong, and I am willing to be corrected. Show me where my interpretation fails. Do you not see that Jeremiah speaks about two different time periods: 1) at that time and 2) after those days?" Do you not see that Jeremiah speaks about a time when, after those days, when no man will teach his neighbor "know the Lord" because they will ALL know me? When has that ever happened?

The covenant in Jeremiah 31:31 is a different covenant from Jeremiah 31:33. In fact, even though Jeremiah calls it a "covenant" it reads more like a promise than a covenant. In my view, it is very reminiscent of God's unilateral covenant he made with Abraham. (Genesis 15) Paul was a minister of the verse-31 covenant, which was the good-news of eternal life through faith in the blood of Jesus.

Paul never preaches that Jeremiah 31:33 was fulfilled. In fact, he goes to great lengths to explain why it must wait until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Only after that does God bring about Jeremiah 31:33.
 

Keraz

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2018
5,167
930
113
82
Thames, New Zealand
www.logostelos.info
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Even the New Testament writer i=of Hebrews shows that teh New Covenant is for Israel. The church receives blessings from the covenant but we are not part of the covenant. We are the wild branches grafted ontothe vine.
This is quite wrong.
The New Covenant is not made yet and when it is. it will be to His people from every tribe, race, nation and language.

The New Covenant is not made yet. We just have the future Promise of it.
None of the four things listed in Hebrews 8:10-12 have fully happened yet:

1/ I shall set My Laws in their hearts.
2/ I shall be their God and they will be My people.
3/ They will not teach each other, for all will know the Lord.
4/ I shall pardon their sins and remember their wickedness no more.


The New Covenant will be made between the Lord and His corporate Christian peoples, after the Sixth Seal event has cleared and cleansed all of the holy Land, and all the righteous, faithful Christian peoples will migrate to live there: Ezekiel 34:11-16, Isaiah 35:1-10, Romans 9:26

Ezekiel 34:25 I shall make a Covenant with them for their peace and prosperity....

Isaiah 61:8..... I will grant them a sure reward and make an everlasting Covenant with them.

Isaiah 59:20-21 The Lord will come as a Redeemer to Zion and to those descended from Jacob who repent of their rebellion. This is the Covenant I will make with them: My Spirit will abide with them thru all the following generations.

Jeremiah 32:37-40 I shall gather My people from all the lands where they now live......I will make an everlasting Covenant with them, it will be a joy for Me to do them good.

Ezekiel 37:26 [After the Spiritual regeneration and the rejoining of the tribes] I shall make an everlasting Covenant with them, for their peace and prosperity and their numbers will greatly increase. I will put My Sanctuary in their midst, where it will remain for all time.

Isaiah 33:17-24 Those who live righteously and speak the truth, who do not take bribes, rejecting all evil – they will dwell securely with ample food and water. Psalms 85:12
Your eyes will see a King in his glory and view a Land that stretches into the distance. Numbers 24:15-19, Genesis 15:18
You will call to mind what you once feared. Where are they now? Those barbarous people whose speech you could not understand. Psalms 58:10-11, Psalms 37:8-15, Jeremiah 12:14-16
Look upon Zion, Jerusalem, city of sacred festivals. A secure abode, never again to be moved. Amos 9:13-15
There the Lord will be in His majesty, a peaceful place. A place of broad rivers, but no ships will sail there.

The Lord is our judge and lawgiver. He is our King who will save us. Zechariah 8:7-8
Your rigging hangs loose, the mast is not secure and your sails are not set. Luke 12:35-36.
Then all will take a share in the spoils. Zechariah 9:17
No one living in Zion will get sick and the sins of the people will be pardoned.


Micah 7:18 Who is God like You? You take away our guilt and forgive the sins of the faithful remnant of Your people......
 

Keraz

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2018
5,167
930
113
82
Thames, New Zealand
www.logostelos.info
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we Gentiles have been grafted onto Abraham rather than Israel?
No it wouldn't, because the Arabs are also Abrahams sons.
We Christian are the true Israelites of God. We do what Jacob did; Overcome evil for God.
Note; how in each of the seven Church's of Revelation, there are Overcomers, or Victorious people. Those who keep their faith and trust in God. It is those people who ARE the Israelites of God.

Much nonsense has been put about by the 'rapture to heaven' believers, who must have an ethnic Israel on earth while they laze about in heaven. An incredible fable, totally contrary to Bible teaching.
Ethnic Israel, the misnamed; Jewish State of Israel, faces Judgment in the soon to happen Lord's Day of fiery wrath. Only a remnant will survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cassandra

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,689
3,768
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Let's be fair. I'm not claiming to have divine revelation with regard to another covenant. My claim is that Jeremiah speaks of two covenants.

but if you read it as a normal communication you should not come cup with such a crazy idea. I have been a believer 47 years, have read many many books and never have seen such a concept as you are romoting. Do you think God hid it for thousands of years until you made the scene? Your claim is not grammatically, contextually or linguistically possible. You take two euphemisms to describe a future time and spin them to say something they simply do not and come up with two new covenants.

And I showed this from the text itself. Now, I could be wrong, and I am willing to be corrected. Show me where my interpretation fails. Do you not see that Jeremiah speaks about two different time periods: 1) at that time and 2) after those days?" Do you not see that Jeremiah speaks about a time when, after those days, when no man will teach his neighbor "know the Lord" because they will ALL know me? When has that ever happened?

First you did not show it from the text, but from your opinion of what the text says. Quite simply, Scripture verses do not stand alone. There is so much writing in the prophets about "those days" and "after those days". A more simplified understanding is that there is a day coming when God will make a new covenant with Israel. Then keeping this passage in it s context and not mystically applying it to some other thing that is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible we see this:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 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:

32 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:

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.

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.

1. Yes the days are coming when God makes a new covenant with all Jews!
2. this covenant will be different than the one Israel did not keep
3. After those days! Keeping it in its context- we refer back to its nearest point of reference- and that is the days when God starts a new covenant with Israel!
4. After He makes the covenant with Israel- the results or benefits to the Jews is this:
a) god puts His Law in their hearts
b) Israel will once again be His people and He will be their god
c) there will be no need for teaching- for all will know the Lord form the least to the greatest.
d) God will forgive Israels inquity and no longer remember all their sins.
5. those benefits will be realized in the millenial kingdom.

Paul never preaches that Jeremiah 31:33 was fulfilled. In fact, he goes to great lengths to explain why it must wait until the fulness of the Gentiles comes in. Only after that does God bring about Jeremiah 31:33.

Here we do agree concerning the jews. I do not believe teh new covenant is fulfilled or even in effect yet.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,689
3,768
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
This is quite wrong.
The New Covenant is not made yet and when it is. it will be to His people from every tribe, race, nation and language.

The New Covenant is not made yet. We just have the future Promise of it.
None of the four things listed in Hebrews 8:10-12 have fully happened yet:

1/ I shall set My Laws in their hearts.
2/ I shall be their God and they will be My people.
3/ They will not teach each other, for all will know the Lord.
4/ I shall pardon their sins and remember their wickedness no more.

Yes you are quite wrong.

1. I never said that the covenant is in effect. It is made, just not activated. God made it in Jer. 31- Jesus is still mediating.

and no you have no authority to say that the Israel and Judah ain Jeremiah means the church. I reject replacement theology even this partial replacement yo are promoting.

You have to take the Word of God and reinterpret it to make it say things that are not written. Why should I accept your allegories and not say the Watchtrowers allegories about this? They do all teh same things you do to show they reinterpretation of the Word is the correct way to understand it. Why are you more authoritative than they?
 

Keraz

Well-Known Member
Jun 20, 2018
5,167
930
113
82
Thames, New Zealand
www.logostelos.info
Faith
Christian
Country
New Zealand
Yes you are quite wrong.

1. I never said that the covenant is in effect. It is made, just not activated. God made it in Jer. 31- Jesus is still mediating.
We agree in that the New Covenant remains to be cut between Jesus and His faithful people.
Jeremiah prophesied it, that's all.

The rest of your post is unintelligible. Please check your spelling, as it makes for difficult reading.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
No it wouldn't, because the Arabs are also Abrahams sons.
We Christian are the true Israelites of God. We do what Jacob did; Overcome evil for God.
Note; how in each of the seven Church's of Revelation, there are Overcomers, or Victorious people. Those who keep their faith and trust in God. It is those people who ARE the Israelites of God.

Much nonsense has been put about by the 'rapture to heaven' believers, who must have an ethnic Israel on earth while they laze about in heaven. An incredible fable, totally contrary to Bible teaching.
Ethnic Israel, the misnamed; Jewish State of Israel, faces Judgment in the soon to happen Lord's Day of fiery wrath. Only a remnant will survive.
I see no benefit in the appellation "true Israelites" since it confuses the issue. The Bible doesn't teach us that Christians are "Israel" in any sense of the word. In this thread, Keraz, we are discussing whether or not Gentiles participate in the New Covenant. Much of the New Testament argues in the affirmative. Nowhere does it say that Gentiles are excluded unless they become Israelites first.

In the appellation "true Israel" the term "Israel" is just a word without meaning. In the Bible, the term "Israel" refers to a nation, consisting mainly of a people born of Jacob. The people of Israel have a unique culture, customs, a religion, a social order, mores, values, hopes and dreams, which is distinctive from other nations in the world.

In order to understand how Gentiles fit into the mix, one must come to terms with Paul the apostle, the apostle to the Gentiles. He is the one who helped Gentiles understand their place in the household of God. In his epistle to the Galatians, he articulates his view that Gentiles enter into the household of God, not based on a national covenant made with Israel, but on the basis that God made the following promise to Abraham, "In you ALL the nations shall be blessed." Paul asserts that all of those that have the same faith of Abraham, whether Jew or Gentile, are sons of Abraham. Galatians 3:8

In chapter's 9 through 11 of Romans, Paul uses the term "Israel", as I have defined it above, i.e. the ethic people associated with their father Jacob. In that argument, he says things like, "What Israel is seeking, it has not obtained, but those who were chosen obtained it, and the rest were hardened . . .", which only makes sense concerning a particular ethnicity. Paul would never say such a thing about the church. In that context, Paul argues that God's promise to ethic Israel are still in effect, but the qualification for participation in those promises is God's choice. And the quality that marks the chosen is the faith that all the sons of Abraham share.
 

CadyandZoe

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2020
5,702
2,114
113
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
but if you read it as a normal communication you should not come cup with such a crazy idea. I have been a believer 47 years, have read many many books and never have seen such a concept as you are romoting. Do you think God hid it for thousands of years until you made the scene? Your claim is not grammatically, contextually or linguistically possible. You take two euphemisms to describe a future time and spin them to say something they simply do not and come up with two new covenants.

It isn't that interesting to me that you have never heard what I am proposing because I have come to understand that ideas have inertia, especially ideas that have been around a long time. Certain concepts of the Christian faith were hashed out early in church history and once an "official" conclusion is reached, the concept gains a certain amount of weight. And unless someone brings that concept back under examination, it remains unexamined and take as granted. Now, since the opening question seeks to understand the New Covenant, then we are obligated to temporarily put aside our preconceived religious concepts and examine the associated passages afresh.

First you did not show it from the text, but from your opinion of what the text says. Quite simply, Scripture verses do not stand alone. There is so much writing in the prophets about "those days" and "after those days".

Again, I ask you to be fair. We all give our opinions about what the text says. You speak as if you aren't doing that yourself. :)

With regard to the fact that prophets other than Jeremiah speak about "those days" and "after those days" is of little interest, because our concern is what Jeremiah intends to say in Jeremiah 31:31-34. We understand his reference to the "coming days" in the larger context of the entire chapter. The reason why many of the prophets speak in terms of "coming days" is due to the fact that Israel has been taken captive by Assyria and Judah is about to be taken captive into Babylon. Here in chapter 31 of Jeremiah, we hear Rachel crying for her children because, in her view, God has broken his promise to her and her children will be no more. The Lord comforts her, telling her that her children will return to the land; and God will bless her there once again. The Lord punctuates his word to Rachael, and ultimately, his people, with the phrase "Behold days are coming . . ."

For instance, Jeremiah, beginning in verse 27, speaks about the era after the exile, the era after the return. During that time the Lord will cause a population explosion so that Rachael's children will multiply greatly. Rachael mourned because she was convinced that her children were "no more." But God promises her that her children will be greatly multiplied.

In verse 29, the Lord speaks about that same time period, when the people will take responsibility for their own iniquity. (This is important, because it speaks to an essential element of the New Covenant.)

In verse 31, Jeremiah repeats the phrase "Behold days are coming . . .", which he has already established as the time after the exile when the people return from Babylon to the land of Judah. During that time, which is the time when Jesus walked the earth, The Lord made a New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. Both Jesus and Paul understand the New Covenant in terms of individual salvation, based on faith in the blood of Jesus. Although Jeremiah doesn't specify this aspect of the New Covenant, this aspect is the sum and substance of the New Covenant according to all the New Testament authors.

Paul described himself as the minister of the New Covenant, which indicates that the New Covenant was already in effect, a covenant God made during the days after the return from exile. Jesus says that his blood, i.e. his death, burial, resurrection and ascension inaugurated the New Covenant, which is not only made with the houses of Israel and Judah, but as God revealed later, is made with all those who have the faith of Abraham.

More later . . .

A more simplified understanding is that there is a day coming when God will make a new covenant with Israel. Then keeping this passage in it s context and not mystically applying it to some other thing that is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible we see this:

Jeremiah 31:31-34
King James Version

31 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:

32 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:

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.

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.

1. Yes the days are coming when God makes a new covenant with all Jews!
2. this covenant will be different than the one Israel did not keep
3. After those days! Keeping it in its context- we refer back to its nearest point of reference- and that is the days when God starts a new covenant with Israel!
4. After He makes the covenant with Israel- the results or benefits to the Jews is this:
a) god puts His Law in their hearts
b) Israel will once again be His people and He will be their god
c) there will be no need for teaching- for all will know the Lord form the least to the greatest.
d) God will forgive Israel's iniquity and no longer remember all their sins.
5. those benefits will be realized in the millennial kingdom.

Here we do agree concerning the Jews. I do not believe the new covenant is fulfilled or even in effect yet.
We both agree that Jeremiah 31 speaks about the Millennial Kingdom. But I take issue with your "simplified" version. (No insult is intended. I like and very much appreciate your summary.)

In order for our discussion to move forward in productive manner, let me articulate the difference in our views with a focus on verse 33.

“But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

Whereas you include this announcement as part of the New Covenant, I note that Jeremiah speaks of a time "after those days." After what days? Isn't Jeremiah speaking about an era subsequent to the era specified in verse 31? When Jeremiah says, "Behold days are coming . . ." he speaks about the post-exilic era, during which time God made a new Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel in the blood of Jesus. Then Jeremiah speaks of an era subsequent to that when he says, "after THOSE days" indicating the post-exilic period, after the post-exilic period God will make another covenant with Israel. This is where your summary fits in well, I think.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,689
3,768
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
We agree in that the New Covenant remains to be cut between Jesus and His faithful people.
Jeremiah prophesied it, that's all.

The rest of your post is unintelligible. Please check your spelling, as it makes for difficult reading.

The covenant is for the house of Israel and Judah. They have not mystically, allegorically transmorphed into the church as you wish.
 

Ronald Nolette

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2020
12,689
3,768
113
69
South Carolina
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It isn't that interesting to me that you have never heard what I am proposing because I have come to understand that ideas have inertia, especially ideas that have been around a long time. Certain concepts of the Christian faith were hashed out early in church history and once an "official" conclusion is reached, the concept gains a certain amount of weight. And unless someone brings that concept back under examination, it remains unexamined and take as granted. Now, since the opening question seeks to understand the New Covenant, then we are obligated to temporarily put aside our preconceived religious concepts and examine the associated passages afresh.


Well if you have info that this is a historic stance of the church, please post it so we can all see those who held this position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.