QUOTE (savedbygrace57 @ Mar 10 2009, 09:53 AM)
index.php?act=findpost&pid=70492
Yes I am serious, they were only seperatedly addressed because of geogrpahics..not entity..I have showed you a zillion times that the new covenant used them interchangeably here is is again heb 8: 8For 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: 9Not 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. 10For
this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: The same fathers
belong to the house of Israel and Judah or
the House of Israel, do you deny this ? yes or no ?
The Lord is merely addressing BOTH the nations to show that the New Covenant will be applied to both, otherwise He would not have mentioned both. That's because initially the house of Israel would accept the gospel first as hinted in this same passage when only that house was later mentioned, but there are those who say that the Jews did not accept the gospel and therefore the promises to them no longer apply. This passage assures us that the Jews will come on board later.Each house had their own promises, the primary ones being Judah had the promise of the scepter, so anyone of the children of Israel that reigns has go to be from that tribe. A person, from say the tribe of Benjamin is not the rightful ruler, or say, the tribe of Asher. Although these are all Israelites, those other tribes have no right to the scepter.In like manner the tribe of Joseph has the birthright---- this would be the leading tribe in which multitudes of people and nations would descend from. Again, those promises do not belong to the Jew, or someone from the tribe of Simeon, or perhaps the tribe of Gad.It must be noted that careful genealogical distinctions and inheritances must be made and maintained. It is not right to lump all the Israelites and Jews into one category as if what happened to the one applies to the other which is clearly not the case. (That's like saying the history of the Yankees and Rebels are the same because they were all Americans). But in the case of the Lord's New Covenant, He wanted to make sure that the promise went to all the 12 tribes. This was a promise of a New Covenant relationship with Christ, and is not to be confused solely with the Abrahamic or Davidic (or the likes) of covenants. The latter covenants are neither "old" nor "new" and stand as firm today as back when they were made. The only one "nailed to the cross" was the Mosaic covenant of the Law, and even at that, it's the curse of the Law that has been nailed (the penalties or rewards). The moralistic standards still apply.
Thanks for setting things straight like only you can .... Ive missed your input
