The gospel of God is progressive and can have similar components.....it has always been about faith.
I WAS WRONG ABOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT
- Thread starter Doug
- Start date
-
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!
101G
Well-Known Member
This is what the Lord require, "search the scriptures". good job, well done. correct Jesus the Christ, GOD himself who is "KING" will sit on the throne, and it is his "HOUSE" that will be for all people, Isaiah 56:7 "Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Isaiah 56:8 "The Lord GOD which gathereth the outcasts of Israel saith, Yet will I gather others to him, beside those that are gathered unto him. BINGO, Mungo you're on POINT. I like it when people do their homework, the truth comes out. also you have given me some more leads to follow.. thanks.
PICJAG.
That may be so, but you are still imagining that "New Covenant" and "New Testament" are two different things. The KJV translators used those two words INTERCHANGEABLY for Kaine Diatheke.
NEW COVENANT
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new [chadash] covenant [beriyth] with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: (Jer 31:31)
For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant* [diakthe] with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Heb 8:8)
In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. (Heb 8:13) [Note: covenant is in italics (and brackets) since it was inserted to complete the thought]
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant* [diatheke], and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
NEW TESTAMENT
For this is my blood of the new testament* [diatheke], which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Mt 26:28)
And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament [diatheke], which is shed for many. (Mk 14:24)
Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament [diatheke] in my blood, which is shed for you. (Lk 22:20)
After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament [diatheke] in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. (1 Cor 11:25)
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [diatheke]; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Cor 3:6)
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament [diatheke], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament [diatheke], they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. (Heb 9:15)
So it should be crystal clear that "covenant" means "testament" and "testament" means "covenant" as far as the word diatheke is concerned. But because Jesus is the Mediator of the New Covenant, and it is through His death and the shedding of His blood that the New Covenant has come into existence, therefore it is rightly called "New Testament", established by the death of the Testator.
Therefore (1) the New Covenant applied to the Church as soon as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ were accomplished, and (2) it will also apply to redeemed and restored Israel after the Second Coming of Christ.
As a matter of fact both the Old and the New Covenants were ratified with blood. So yes, the New Covenant required the death of the Testator: For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. (Heb 9:16)
HEBREWS 9
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this cause He is the Mediator of the New Testament [diatheke], that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first Testament [Covenant = diatheke], 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.
19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people,
20 Saying, This is the blood of the Testament (Covenant = diatheke] which God hath enjoined [commanded] unto you.
21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
22 And almost all things are by the Law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
A covenant could be, not always, ratified by a sacrifice (Psalm 50:5) that was passed between the halves, that is not the same as the death of the testator. Marriage is a covenant (Malachi 2:14), for example, that does not require death to put the covenant in force, in fact death frees the other from it. A testator does not make a covenant but a will, a testament, that is only in force upon the death of the testator.
Hebrews 9 is talking correctly of a testament, not a covenant.
Last edited:
I think you are misled by the peculiar use of testament by the KJV
As I showed in post #15 both Jews and Gentiles can be in the New Covenant because the New Covenant is Jesus Christ. We come into the New Covenant by baptism.
As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptised into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit. (1Cor 12:12-13).
For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendant, heirs according to the promise. (Gal 3:26-27).
The purpose of a covenant is to bring the two parties into a relationship. In the New Covenant we come into a relationship with God.
You are right that making a covenant does not require someone to die. But generally in ANE covenants there was the shedding of blood.
In the first part of Heb 9 (1-14) the KJV correctly uses the word covenant.. It is comparing the first (old) covenant to the second (new) covenant and how the shedding of Christ's blood in the new covenant was superior to the shedding of blood of bulls and calves in the old covenant.
Then it suddenly switches in vs 15 to testament:
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.
I see no justification for this for two reasons:
1. The KJV describes Jesus as the mediator of the covenant in Heb 8:6 & 12:24
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.(Heb 8:6)
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. (Heb 12:24)
2. At the beginning of the chapter it refers to the first covenant. So why switch to first testament now?
You can see more of this inconsistency in Heb 9:19-20
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
Yet in Ex 24:7-8 which this passage refers to it uses the word covenant not testament.
And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.
Heb 9 refers to the death of Jesus. But the purpose of his death was not to ratify the covenant. It was to provide atonement for our sins, for our redemption and sanctification. That was a benefit of the covenant not part of it's making.
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 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. (Heb 9:14-15)
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins……. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb 10 :4&10)
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
that example seems to contradict your statement, as Jeremiah says that he is sending them to their deaths?
he said, with complete confidence?
imo i wouldnt write that in stone just yet
seems you might be on the right track here doug
if I may add:
as you've pointed out the old covenant is to the Jews correct in the sense of what was promised Abraham Isaac and Jacob and written out in the law by the hand of Moses. but all men today and before Christ are under the covenant that was made between Noah and the Lord God. like unto Noah all his children are able to find grace in God's sight.
one of the many reasons why the old covenant to Israel was done was to bring Christ into the world to restore what was lost in the garden involving Adam and Eve. that was and still is the service contract (agreement covenant) that Israel agreed to at Mt. Sini. they were to serve the Lord God in the capacity given in the law that really wasn't for them to fulfill (hence many laws pertaining to offering for infractions of the law, forgiveness), but to look to the fulfillment of the law because only Christ Jesus could fulfill it in the Son of man (flesh) to God's satisfaction.
hence Jesus fulfills the law to His Father's satisfaction and the proof is the resurrect of Christ, that Jesus did so. so now the the old is fulfilled and the new applies. which is really not new seeing it was God's plain since:
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
and the bible as a whole new and old testament is a documentation of the testimony of that very fulfillment.
Similar threads
