New Covenant only for Jews?

[Ronald Nolette]

It doesn't say that, you're inferring that, but the epistle that you are quoting was written to the 1st century Jewish believers, not to a gentile church and has to be understood in that context or it will seem to contradict the doctrine of election.

It does say just that!

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

8 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:

house= people here. Bayit in the OT and Oikios in teh new mean house, dwelling or group of people as descendnats. So the writer is saying in more American English style that god is going to make a NEW Covenant with the people of Iswrael and the people of Judah as a family and descendants.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

It's called the New Testament.

Paul the apostle argues the case in the book of Hebrews.

Yes the word testament means covenant and that covenant is spelled out in Jer. 31:31-36

Well we don't know if it is Paul who wrote Hebrews but the writer is arguing with jews, not Gentiles, hence the title "Epistle to the HEBREWS".

Where is the old covenant God made with the church??????

 

[CadyandZoe]

Don't need to grammar and language are enough to destroy you rhypothesis. It is simply not what is written ain the way it was written.

I need more information from you in order to see your point. I'm having a hard time understand why "after those days" doesn't refer to a time after the New Covenant is established. In order for Jeremiah to make the point you want to make, one expect Jeremiah to say "during those days", but he says "after those days."

I also can't understand why you don't consider the ministry of Jesus to reside in the post-exilic period.

It is the price paid for the covenant to be able to go into effect.

I need more on this. In what way or what clues does the New Testament give that necessitates your position that the cross paid for the New Covenant but the covenant remains to be made?

So you have teh New Covenant in verse 31, and then you have God making another Covenant in verse 33--after those days.

Yes, the way I read it, that is what it plainly says. I am only attempting to take into account that both Jesus and Paul describe the New Covenant as the means by which believers find justification in God by faith.

I can't argue with your "normal" reading of a text because, I suspect that when people talk about the "normal reading" they actually mean the "familiar reading." It's like those optical illusions where some people see a women, while others see a duck. In order to see it both ways, one must suspend his or her view long enough to allow the eyes and the mind to form the other picture.

Let me point out a couple of things for both of us to consider as we move forward.

Verse 33 begins like this: "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days . . ." This raises an exegetical question. What is the predicate for the relative pronoun "this" in the sentence above? Does the relative pronoun "this" point forward or backward? Just like the optical illusion, where some people see the woman while other people see the duck, in this passage some hear Jeremiah refer to the antecedent verses, while others hear Jeremiah refer to the subsequent verses.

Do you hear Jeremiah refer to the antecedent verses or the subsequent verses?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes the word testament means covenant and that covenant is spelled out in Jer. 31:31-36

Well we don't know if it is Paul who wrote Hebrews but the writer is arguing with jews, not Gentiles, hence the title "Epistle to the HEBREWS".

Where is the old covenant God made with the church??????

Paul doesn't argue that the God made a New Covenant with the church or Gentiles for that matter. In his epistle to the Galatians, he argues that Gentiles enter the household of God based on God's promise to Abraham. Those who share the faith of Abraham are counted as "sons" with regard to the promises. He briefly makes the same case in his letter to the Romans in chapter 4.

I don't think we are far away from each other on this point and our disagreement might be simply a matter of semantics. I don't know. Keep coming back at me with your thoughts. Any ideas why Paul declares himself to be the minister of the New Covenant?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I need more information from you in order to see your point. I'm having a hard time understand why "after those days" doesn't refer to a time after the New Covenant is established. In order for Jeremiah to make the point you want to make, one expect Jeremiah to say "during those days", but he says "after those days."

It is after teh new covenant is established. But the

New covenant as written has not been established yet.

Men has made the church part of the New Covenant- we are not! It is a covenant to theose who god siad it was to , the Jewish people.

I also can't understand why you don't consider the ministry of Jesus to reside in the post-exilic period.

Well a normal reading of post-exilic is understood as right after they returned! NOt 2500 years and counting. But in the larger context that you present, Yes Jesus is post exilic, the church is post exilic and the new Covenant will also be post exilic.

Yes, the way I read it, that is what it plainly says. I am only attempting to take into account that both Jesus and Paul describe the New Covenant as the means by which believers find justification in God by faith.

but neither of them said we are saved by the New Covenant. we are saved by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus! This is not the New Covenant, but a benefit of the covenant which is happening. This is how all people get saved! But it is not the New Covenant. the Jewish people who survive the tribulation will receive the New Covenant once they get saved by faith in Christ!

Once again the New Covenant is spelled out in its entirety in Jer. 31:31-34.

I can't argue with your "normal" reading of a text because, I suspect that when people talk about the "normal reading" they actually mean the "familiar reading." It's like those optical illusions where some people see a women, while others see a duck. In order to see it both ways, one must suspend his or her view long enough to allow the eyes and the mind to form the other picture.

Well those illusions are designed to "trick" people. God did not write His Word with "optical illusions". He wrote it to communicate plainly to us!

The familiar reading is the normal reading. Saying blood is red is the normal and familiar reading. blood is red because of hemoglobin. God is not trying to send secret messages or use optical illusions for us to see things multiple ways.

God said what He meant and meant what He said.

Verse 33 begins like this: "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days . . ." This raises an exegetical question. What is the predicate for the relative pronoun "this" in the sentence above? Does the relative pronoun "this" point forward or backward? Just like the optical illusion, where some people see the woman while other people see the duck, in this passage some hear Jeremiah refer to the antecedent verses, while others hear Jeremiah refer to the subsequent verses.

Do you hear Jeremiah refer to the antecedent verses or the subsequent verses?

Well in a queer sense He is doing both!

1. Antecedant verses because He is referring to the New covenant already announced.
2. Subsequent because He now is delineating the terms of the already announced covenant.
3. the rest of verse 33 and verse 34 now spell out the covenant (the this of verse 33)
4. "This" is looking forward in the statement to explain what the covenant will entail.

Just like the "days are coming" refers to when God will make the covenant with Israel and Judah. And then "after those days" which must refer back to the nearest antecedent (which is the days that are coming), shows that god will cause the covenant to go into effect. Cause and Effect.

Days coming is the cause (God makes a covenant) after those days the effect (what will happen to the Israelites because the covenant was made).

Just like how we would read this everywhere else outside of the bible. This follows all the rules of grammar all people are taught in school.

The sad thing is that too many people have introduced this thought that the Bible should not follwo normal rules of grammar and then craft all these concepts that sound good, but wqhen put under critical exam- fall apart.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Paul doesn't argue that the God made a New Covenant with the church or Gentiles for that matter. In his epistle to the Galatians, he argues that Gentiles enter the household of God based on God's promise to Abraham. Those who share the faith of Abraham are counted as "sons" with regard to the promises. He briefly makes the same case in his letter to the Romans in chapter 4.

I don't think we are far away from each other on this point and our disagreement might be simply a matter of semantics. I don't know. Keep coming back at me with your thoughts. Any ideas why Paul declares himself to be the minister of the New Covenant?

Yes we are people blessed by Abraham. but being heirs of Abraham does not make us of the house of Israel or Jdah.

And the context of Galatians is Paul arguing against the Judaizers trying to convert gentile believers to Judaism in religious practice. Not that somehow we become a "spiritual Israel".

 

[Keraz]

Not that somehow we become a "spiritual Israel".

The 'somehow', that you have missed; is Jesus: He gave us the Way to transition from lost sheep to His people;
Literal Israel and Spiritual Israel:
Throughout the New Testament, as well as in some prophecies of the Old Testament, the Bible makes a transition from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. Hosea 2:23, Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:29; Romans 9-11

In Revelation 12:1-17, we find this transition from literal to spiritual Israel in the prophetic language of symbols. In verse 2, the symbolic woman is pregnant. Her child is Jesus who was born a Jew in the land of Judah. In verse 4 the dragon/Satan seeks to destroy the child Jesus when He is born. This was fulfilled by Herod: Matthew 2:13-16. In verse 5 the child is caught up to God in heaven, representing the resurrection of Christ.

As the prophecy progresses in verse 6, the woman no longer represents ethnic Israel but has now transitioned to spiritual Christian Israel: fleeing from persecution during the prophesied 42 months of the Great Tribulation.
Verses 7-12 describes the victory gained over Satan by Jesus’ death on the Cross and how Satan and his angels are finally thrown down to the earth, for 1260 days, three and a half years, the 42 month period before Jesus physically Returns.

Then, in verse 13 the woman is again brought to view, being persecuted by Satan. In verse 14 she is given wings of an eagle so as she can escape. Verses 6 and 14 present a major prophetic transition to God’s people. Both the woman and her place have changed from ethnic Israel in the Middle East to spiritual Israel and the place God has prepared for her. Note that some Christians remain: verse 17 and Satan persecutes them. They are the ‘many’ that agreed to the 7 year treaty of peace with the Anti-Christ, Daniel 11:32a and do not go into exile: Zephaniah 14:2


It is important to understand three truths outlined in the prophecy and confirmed both in the New Testament and in the history of the church:
After the death of Christ, the Israel of God, transitioned from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. From an ethnic people to all peoples. 1 Peter 2:9-10

1. God’s faithful people: the woman, are moved from the holy Land to a place of safety on earth, given to her by God, to avoid the Great Tribulation.
2. The new Israel of God: all true Christians, are the focal point of the New Testament and the inheritors of God’s promises to ancient Israel.

Thinking that God still has a plan to redeem ethnic Israel; the Jewish people, conflicts with many prophesies that say how Judah will be judged and only a remnant will survive. It is Christians, from every race, nation and language who are God’s true, righteous people. Galatians 6:16; the Overcomers [Israelites] of God.

The ‘woman’ in the latter part of this prophecy represents spiritual Israel: all the faithful believers in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28; Romans 2:28-29

Revelation 12 presents us with a prophetic outline of God’s Christian people in the symbolic form of a woman. In the first part of Revelation 12, the woman is the literal House of Judah located in Palestine, The latter part of the same prophecy makes use of the same symbols that took literal Israel on their journey to Canaan; to now describe the journey of the woman, the Christian Israelites of God, to a safe place on earth where they can worship Him in safety, until the 1260 days of the Great Tribulation have passed.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Israel was given Land.

Israel was told if they obey God they could live in that land in peace

Israel was told if they disobey God he would punish them 7 times. The last time being total destruction of the land and cities, total destruction of their high places and temple. And they would be scattered all over the earth.

Israel was told if they confess their sin and the sin of their fathers, God would remember the land, he would remember the promises he made with Abraham Isaac and jacob and his 12 sons. (all of this can be found in the genesis passages I mentioned and lev 26)

The church was never given any such promise

So the church CANNOT fullfill the prophecy of being returned.

So the saints aren't the church? Scripture very plainly says at least twice that the saints will return with Christ. Since Jesus very plainly spoke of His 2nd coming and of His disciples ALWAYS being with Him, your statement suggests that the true and faithful witness lied.
I pray that the Father of our Lord deliver you from confusion and establish you in sound doctrine. Believe the scriptures.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So the saints aren't the church?

Where did I say this?

Scripture very plainly says at least twice that the saints will return with Christ. Since Jesus very plainly spoke of His 2nd coming and of His disciples ALWAYS being with Him, your statement suggests that the true and faithful witness lied.
I pray that the Father of our Lord deliver you from confusion and establish you in sound doctrine. Believe the scriptures.

Wow. I never said anything about this. Or even hinted at this. Can you explain where you got this thinking I did?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Where did I say this?


Wow. I never said anything about this. Or even hinted at this. Can you explain where you got this thinking I did?

The scriptures say plainly that the Lord will return with ten thousands of His saints. Are those saints the church?

 

[CadyandZoe]

Yes we are people blessed by Abraham. but being heirs of Abraham does not make us of the house of Israel or Jdah.

And the context of Galatians is Paul arguing against the Judaizers trying to convert gentile believers to Judaism in religious practice. Not that somehow we become a "spiritual Israel".

Right, we agree on this point.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The scriptures say plainly that the Lord will return with ten thousands of His saints. Are those saints the church?

1. Did I say the saints will not come back?
2. Are we discussing the return off the lord?

Last I read, we were discussing the promise made to Israel. So I have absolutely no idea where you are trying to go with this. Considering I HAVE NEVER DENIED WHAT YOU ARE SAYING

 

[Davy]

Yes we are people blessed by Abraham. but being heirs of Abraham does not make us of the house of Israel or Jdah.

And the context of Galatians is Paul arguing against the Judaizers trying to convert gentile believers to Judaism in religious practice. Not that somehow we become a "spiritual Israel".

Then you haven't read the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath...

"Most Holy Father, we know and from the chronicles and books of the ancients we find
that among other famous nations our own, the Scots, has been graced with widespread
renown. It journeyed from Greater Scythia by way of the Tyrrhenian Sea and the
Pillars of Hercules, and dwelt for a long course of time in Spain among the most savage
peoples, but nowhere could it be subdued by any people, however barbarous. Thence
it came, twelve hundred years after the people of Israel crossed the Red Sea, to its
home in the west where it still lives today. The Britons it first drove out, the Picts it
utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes
and the English, it took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts;
and, as the histories of old time bear witness, they have held it free of all servitude
ever since. In their kingdom there have reigned one hundred and thirteen kings of
their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.

The high qualities and merits of these people, were they not otherwise manifest, shine
forth clearly enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus
Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the
uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy faith. Nor did He wish
them to be confirmed in that faith by merely anyone but by the first of His Apostles -
by calling, though second or third in rank - the most gentle Saint Andrew, the Blessed
Peter’s brother, and desired him to keep them under his protection as their patron for
ever."
(from The Declaration of Arbroath | National Records of Scotland)

 

[amigo de christo]

Again i say , the only covenant that matters , IS THE NEW COVENANT
and whether jew or gentile if one believes not , confesses not Christ , THEY AINT IN that new covenant .
JESUS WONT BE DENIED . NOT by me , not by a gentile , not by a jew . NO JESUS , means only one thing , PREPARE
to burn in the lake of fierce fire at your end . AND , AND if our JESUS aint the JESUS of the BIBLE , prepare to burn there as well .
Thus . OPEN BIBLE . LOVE BIBLE . OBEY JESUS .

 

[CadyandZoe]

It is after teh new covenant is established. But the

New covenant as written has not been established yet.

I need help with the distinction you are making between The New Covenant as "established" and the New Covenant as "made." In other words, Jeremiah writes that God will make a New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. And my question is focused on the word "make". Jesus tells us that his blood is the blood of the New Covenant. And if I understand you correctly, you affirm that the cross will be the basis of the New Covenant but that the New Covenant hasn't been "established" yet.

Men has made the church part of the New Covenant- we are not! It is a covenant to theose who god siad it was to , the Jewish people.

I would like to ask you something about that. Consider Jeremiah 31:34, where we read, "[F]or I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Help me understand how this verse fits into your picture, given that the New Testament teaches us that the blood of Christ is the basis on which God forgives our sins. How does this piece fit into the puzzle?

Well a normal reading of post-exilic is understood as right after they returned! NOt 2500 years and counting. But in the larger context that you present, Yes Jesus is post exilic, the church is post exilic and the new Covenant will also be post exilic.

Okay, that is my fault. I see that I have miscommunicated. Let me explain it differently so you can see the point I attempted to make.
An important exegetical technique attempts to take into account the relevance of the prophecy to Jeremiah's intended audience. The establishment of a Christian church was of very little, if any, interest to the Jewish people living in Judea during the time of Jeremiah. His focus was on the exile and the large, looming, question this news raised in the minds of his contemporaries. Namely, "has the word of God failed?" Has God rejected his people? Will he fail to keep his promise to the Patriarchs?

Here in Jeremiah 31, the Lord is giving his people a word of encouragement. They will not remain in Babylon; they will not remain scattered; they will return to the land and once again serve their God and he will bless them.

I was attempting to argue that the phrase "Behold, days are coming . . ." should be understood from the standpoint of the exiles, living Babylon. The "coming" days, from their perspective, are the days after they are allowed to return.

. . . but neither of them said we are saved by the New Covenant. we are saved by faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus! This is not the New Covenant, but a benefit of the covenant which is happening. This is how all people get saved! But it is not the New Covenant. the Jewish people who survive the tribulation will receive the New Covenant once they get saved by faith in Christ! Once again the New Covenant is spelled out in its entirety in Jer. 31:31-34.

Okay, the point I made above was strictly for clarification and not intended as a rebuttal. I want to return to your point of view and discuss that if you are willing.

The familiar reading is the normal reading. Saying blood is red is the normal and familiar reading. blood is red because of hemoglobin. God is not trying to send secret messages or use optical illusions for us to see things multiple ways.

Again, I seem to have miscommunicated. I seem to doing that a lot lately. Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that the text has more than one intended meaning. But those who practice exegesis have discovered the flexibility of language. Words, sentences and even a few verses have more than one connotation.

For instance, consider the following sentence.
"Help me, my report is due tomorrow!"

In this instance, the speaker is asking for assistance with his or her homework. Next consider the following sentence.
"Help me, I'm drowning!"

In this instance, the speaker requires rescue. The person is drowning and asking for help, but unlike the previous sentence, the speaker is NOT asking for assistance in the task at hand. The phrase "help me" followed by a verbal idea can connote one of two opposite ideas. The point is this. You and I know what message is intended in the second sentence, but NOT based on the words alone. We know the intended meaning because we have experiences and examples that inform our understanding. But this is not the case with regard to passages from the Bible.

Well in a queer sense He is doing both!

1. Antecedant verses because He is referring to the New covenant already announced.
2. Subsequent because He now is delineating the terms of the already announced covenant.
3. the rest of verse 33 and verse 34 now spell out the covenant (the this of verse 33)
4. "This" is looking forward in the statement to explain what the covenant will entail.

Okay, I get that.

Just like the "days are coming" refers to when God will make the covenant with Israel and Judah. And then "after those days" which must refer back to the nearest antecedent (which is the days that are coming), shows that god will cause the covenant to go into effect. Cause and Effect.

Can you tease this out a little more because I am hearing Jeremiah speak about two times not just one, given that he seems to speaking about another event following the one mentioned in 31:31.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I need help with the distinction you are making between The New Covenant as "established" and the New Covenant as "made." In other words, Jeremiah writes that God will make a New Covenant with the house of Judah and the house of Israel. And my question is focused on the word "make". Jesus tells us that his blood is the blood of the New Covenant. And if I understand you correctly, you affirm that the cross will be the basis of the New Covenant but that the New Covenant hasn't been "established" yet.

Established is th esame as made and both words refer to Jeremiah 31:31-36. this Biblical new covenant has not gone into effect yet!

Can you tease this out a little more because I am hearing Jeremiah speak about two times not just one, given that he seems to speaking about another event following the one mentioned in 31:31.

He is speaking of two times.

1. Time 1 "days are coming" these are the days when God makes the actual covenant with Israel.
2. Time 2 "after those days" the days after God makes the covenant with the Jewish people and shows what happens as a result of the covenant going into effect.

I would like to ask you something about that. Consider Jeremiah 31:34, where we read, "[F]or I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” Help me understand how this verse fits into your picture, given that the New Testament teaches us that the blood of Christ is the basis on which God forgives our sins. How does this piece fit into the puzzle?

Yes Jesus does this for Jew and Gentile who become part of the one new man (church/body of Christ), but the church was a mystery in the OT and revealed in the NT and this is not part of the New Covenant. We gentiles, in this age where God is calling out of the gentiles a people for His name, are receiving benefits God gave to Israel. We are the wild olive branches grafted onto the vine (Rom. 11) We are the people who had no hope and were without god in teh world (Eph. 2)

Again, I seem to have miscommunicated. I seem to doing that a lot lately. Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that the text has more than one intended meaning. But those who practice exegesis have discovered the flexibility of language. Words, sentences and even a few verses have more than one connotation.

Exegesis is not flexible- Eisegesis is!

For instance, consider the following sentence.
"Help me, my report is due tomorrow!"

In this instance, the speaker is asking for assistance with his or her homework. Next consider the following sentence.
"Help me, I'm drowning!"

In this instance, the speaker requires rescue. The person is drowning and asking for help, but unlike the previous sentence, the speaker is NOT asking for assistance in the task at hand. The phrase "help me" followed by a verbal idea can connote one of two opposite ideas. The point is this. You and I know what message is intended in the second sentence, but NOT based on the words alone. We know the intended meaning because we have experiences and examples that inform our understanding. But this is not the case with regard to passages from the Bible.

But it is with passages from the bible We have linguistic tools that teach us what ancient words mean in modern languages. I would not know any one experiencing "drowning" unless I was taught the meaning of drowning. I would know they are drowning- but not know it is called drowning.

Both examples you give are people demanding immediate help. The first for something required ion the future, the second calls for immediate help.

Jer. 31 both "days" are future! The second "days" are defined as to the first "days". Teh "after those days" are defined in the passage as occuring after "the days are coming". IOW First the covenant is made , then the results of covenant happen. Days are coming are the cause, after those days are the effect.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

As the prophecy progresses in verse 6, the woman no longer represents ethnic Israel but has now transitioned to spiritual Christian Israel: fleeing from persecution during the prophesied 42 months of the Great Tribulation.
Verses 7-12 describes the victory gained over Satan by Jesus’ death on the Cross and how Satan and his angels are finally thrown down to the earth, for 1260 days, three and a half years, the 42 month period before Jesus physically Returns.

This is not a biblical exegetics but your eisegetic on the verse without biblical defense. YOu just make allegorical opinions without defending your allegories. If you do not take Gods word literally as written (for rev. 12 only refers to one woman- not a transition talking about 2) why should we take your words literally.

Then, in verse 13 the woman is again brought to view, being persecuted by Satan. In verse 14 she is given wings of an eagle so as she can escape. Verses 6 and 14 present a major prophetic transition to God’s people. Both the woman and her place have changed from ethnic Israel in the Middle East to spiritual Israel and the place God has prepared for her. Note that some Christians remain: verse 17 and Satan persecutes them. They are the ‘many’ that agreed to the 7 year treaty of peace with the Anti-Christ, Daniel 11:32a and do not go into exile: Zephaniah 14:2

So you are now saying that the antichrist makes a 7 year treaty with christians? That is what you are literally saying here. and where is god gathering from teh globe all Christians?

what about teh Matt. 24 passage which mirros this?

It is important to understand three truths outlined in the prophecy and confirmed both in the New Testament and in the history of the church:
After the death of Christ, the Israel of God, transitioned from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. From an ethnic people to all peoples. 1 Peter 2:9-10

1. God’s faithful people: the woman, are moved from the holy Land to a place of safety on earth, given to her by God, to avoid the Great Tribulation.
2. The new Israel of God: all true Christians, are the focal point of the New Testament and the inheritors of God’s promises to ancient Israel.

I want a verse that says Israel in almost all the New TEstament now refers to the church.

While you cast off Israel as done as a natrion Paul in Romans 11 clearly tells us that God is not through with the nation.

The 'somehow', that you have missed; is Jesus: He gave us the Way to transition from lost sheep to His people;
Literal Israel and Spiritual Israel:
Throughout the New Testament, as well as in some prophecies of the Old Testament, the Bible makes a transition from literal Israel to spiritual Israel. Hosea 2:23, Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:29; Romans 9-11

Yes this is the standard definition that replacement theology followers buy into, but this is all conjecture that God has cast out Israel for a new Israel. Taken as written and in light of the rest of SCripture-

Hosea speaks of the church . It is the calling out of the Gentiles a people for His name. It is not replacing Israel with a spiritual the mystery of the old revealed in the new. the church as Paul alludes is a parentheses in Gods dealing with His eternal covenanted people- natural Israel! Romans 11 makes that clear.

Romans 2? Maybe you should read Romans three and keep the passage in context instead of using eisegesis instead of exegesis.

Gal. 3? really??? Being Abrahams heir does not make one Israeli by faith. It makes one part of all the nations that will be blessed in him.

Romans 9:11?? YOu really think this is referring to the church or christians? this is the apex of Paul defending Gods past. present and future dealing with the nation of Israel! Unless of course one has their Bosco secret decoder ring ands can eisegete which time Israel means Israel and which time Israel doesn't mean Israel but the church.

Yes you make a verbose defense of you rposition, but it is all opinion based and retranslating the words of Scripture as normally understood. If you will not accept God's Word as He inspired it, why should we accept your words as you write them?

But I will ask you to parse on e passage for me.

Please defend why you are convinced Romans 2:28-29 means the church, and keep it in the context of Romans 2&3 where Paul constantly goes back and forth between jew and Gentile

 

[Keraz]

Please defend why you are convinced Romans 2:28-29 means the church,

Christians are circumcized of the heart, as Romans 4:9-12 makes clear.

Romans 9:11?? YOu really think this is referring to the church or christians? this is the apex of Paul defending Gods past. present and future dealing with the nation of Israel!

Jesus is the true Israel of God. We, His followers are also overcomers for God, literally Israelites.
As against those people living in the Jewish State of Israel; who call themselves; Israelis.

So you are now saying that the antichrist makes a 7 year treaty with christians? That is what you are literally saying here. and where is god gathering from teh globe all Christians?

Yes. The AC cannot make that 7 year peace treaty with the Jews, as they will be gone. Zephaniah 1:1-18
Many prophesies tell of the great gathering of the Christian peoples into all of the holy Land. Read Psalms 107 for starters. John 11:51-52

 

[CadyandZoe]

Established is th esame as made and both words refer to Jeremiah 31:31-36. this Biblical new covenant has not gone into effect yet!

I'm looking for the right word, and I'm not just saying that. (I'm having a bit of senior moment, unable to remember words that I used to know.) You were saying, a few posts back #145, that we are living with the "benefits" of the New Covenant. I agree with that. It seems to me, however, that in order for the church to have the benefit of the New Covenant, it had to be put into effect in some way. And that's the word I am missing. I need a word that says "in effect" or "beneficial" without also implying "Made" or "Established."

He is speaking of two times.

1. Time 1 "days are coming" these are the days when God makes the actual covenant with Israel.
2. Time 2 "after those days" the days after God makes the covenant with the Jewish people and shows what happens as a result of the covenant going into effect.

I agree with your outline. Can you help me see why the Cross wasn't the Time 1 event?

Yes Jesus does this for Jew and Gentile who become part of the one new man (church/body of Christ), but the church was a mystery in the OT and revealed in the NT and this is not part of the New Covenant. We gentiles, in this age where God is calling out of the gentiles a people for His name, are receiving benefits God gave to Israel. We are the wild olive branches grafted onto the vine (Rom. 11) We are the people who had no hope and were without god in teh world (Eph. 2)

If the cross is the basis on which the New Covenant will be Established, but it isn't actually the New Covenant realized, then why does the New Testament speak about the forgiveness of sins in the present tense?

Jer. 31 both "days" are future! The second "days" are defined as to the first "days". Teh "after those days" are defined in the passage as occuring after "the days are coming". IOW First the covenant is made , then the results of covenant happen. Days are coming are the cause, after those days are the effect.

I agree with that. Remember, though, both "days" are future from the standpoint of an individual living in Babylon under exile.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I'm looking for the right word, and I'm not just saying that. (I'm having a bit of senior moment, unable to remember words that I used to know.) You were saying, a few posts back #145, that we are living with the "benefits" of the New Covenant. I agree with that. It seems to me, however, that in order for the church to have the benefit of the New Covenant, it had to be put into effect in some way. And that's the word I am missing. I need a word that says "in effect" or "beneficial" without also implying "Made" or "Established."

Well when you look at the provisions of the covenant, it can't be gone into effect "someway". It is for Israel and Judah and concers all the Jews alive "after those days" which arefer directly back to "the days that are coming" which is when god makes the covenant with Israle and Judah. Once again after those days refer to the days when gods makes or cuts the new covenant with all of Israel and Judah. the question in unsureness with yo is when does God cut that new covenant with Israel? Well we know the results of the covenant as is described in 32-36 and we know the results happen "after those days" which are the "days that are coming" when God actually makes the covenant with Israel and Judah.

Let me give a weak human example. A covenant is like a contract made between two parties.

A city signs a contract with the firefighters to put out fires and insure the operational readiness of the hydrants. the people of the city are not part of that contract but receive benefits from that contract (if a fire happens the firefighters will come and put it out).

Though it fall sshort it shows why we benefit.

Teh covenant is made between god and Israel (the city and the firefighters) as a result of that contract we gentiles get blessed (our houses will be hosed down in a fire to minimize damage.) This is explained in Romans 11.

Teh blessing is for god and Israel (the city and the firefighters) but we have been included by being grafted in! It is not our covenant but God grafted us in to make the Jews jealous! I HOPE this didn't muddy thinks up worse.

I agree with your outline. Can you help me see why the Cross wasn't the Time 1 event?

Simply blood is necessary to ratify a COVENANT. in GENESIS WHEN GOD MADE A COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM,

Genesis 15:9-21
King James Version

9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

10 And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.

11 And when the fowls came down upon the carcases, Abram drove them away.

12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and, lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;

14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.

17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.

18 In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,

21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites

Only god Himself walked between the parts after teh blood was shed.

Blood shed is the prioce of a covenant to affirm it.

Jesus blood is the proice that affirms teh new covenant to Israel, Just like the lambs blood was the price of the old.

So Yes the cross is part of the covenant- teh price paid and thee blood poured to frgive the sins, but it is not teh covenant.

I agree with that. Remember, though, both "days" are future from the standpoint of an individual living in Babylon under exile.

Absollutely true!

so we have to look when "the days are coming" when god makes a new covenant (not just the blood of teh covenant, remember Jesus did not say His blood is the New covenent but the blood of the New Covenant- or the price) and as teh effects of teh covenant have not gone into effect, we know th ecovenant has not been enacted.

So the "days are coming" are still coming For we have no agreement betwen god and all Israel, so "after thosed ays" the results of the covenant going into effect, have not happened yet either.